The Ultimate Betrayal

Rahul/Temporal #239: “murder, rape, robbery etc. are recognised in most civil societies and states as crimes against its citizens and prosecutable thus...the sanction of religion in this is an after-thought”

This is correct. The question here isn’t whether religion is making the world better or worse. Maybe it is making it worst, maybe it is making it better. The question is to define which criteria should be used as a basis of ethics – specifically in the case of sex, consent and incest.

The examples you have given above, have one clear factor that is common: They are not done by consent. A rape victim does not consent to rape. A robbery victim does not consent to robbery. A murder victim does not consent to be killed. Hence they are easy to legislate, both inside and outside religion.

But what about issues, where both parties are consenting? And both are adults. And both are doing something in their bedrooms, and doing it quietly, so that the peace of the neighbors is not disturbed?

How does one legislate on that? Why criteria should be used? In a religious system, one interprets religion and adjudicates. What about in a secular system? In a secular system, one specifically sets aside religion, by definition. And one adjudicates on the basis of the rights of the individual taking precedent over the religious or social views of the society; even if the later is an overwhelming majority.

What if a father and daughter are both consenting adults and want to have sex? It may seem sickening to 99% of the public, but are their rights being violated, if they are not allowed to do so? What about two first cousins who get married in Pakistan. Their sexual relations are legal there, but the moment they migrate to some of the states in the USA, their relationship becomes incestual.

What about our good friend Patrick Masih (who hasn’t appeared on this site for a while). He has openly declared his love for young teenaged boys, and I believe has even had physical relations with one or two. He sees absolutely nothing wrong with it, since it is consentual and, according to his logic, fourteen fifteen year olds are old enough to decide consent. I believe he mentioned that is the age used in Holland (or somewhere??)…..

There are no clear cut answers to ethics. They are rooted in all kinds of different beliefs. They are only clear-cut when there is a clear violation of someone’s consent is involved. Other than that, it is extremely difficult to even decide a standard age for minors. Every eighteen year old isn’t equally mature or immature.

My grandmother, living in a village, got married to her first cousin, when she was thirteen. She had three kids before she was twenty. Had my grandparents been in America or various other countries, they would be criminals. Yet their next generations have turned out fine. Having said that, I would never, under any circumstance let my daughter or grand-daughter or great grand-daughter etc. get married at the age of thirteen. And would discourage them from marrying first cousins………….Two individuals in the same family tree, following the same religion, looking at things so differently……….

I think the Western societies are at an interesting point, at the moment. The definition of marriage and the challenge to the State’s involvement in it, based on a violation of secularism, is going to change the basic fabric of these societies, as well as the basic definition of right and wrong, when it comes to incest, sex, consent etc……….

romair,

..... since you don`t have any children and also think in the typical linear fauji fashion, you are incapable of making any sense on this subject (in addition to many others )..........

................ this has nothing to do with secularism or religion - the evil of child molestation, pederasty and incest are intuitively obvious to most people with common sense who know anything about children ............ and to most straight folks with average iq`s, secularism simply means that civil affairs, education and the law of the land should not be based on religious considerations but it does not prevent people from making fools out of themselves at home or at church ..................god and other hobgoblins can run wild as long as they don`t interfere with the running of the state on a day to day basis ...........a secular state provides ``freedom from religion`` along with ``freedom of religion``

........... as ana and others have pointed out , the concept of ``consent`` does not apply to children even if god himself says it is okay ...........really, it is quite simple and only mullahs and child predators need to refer to a book to find this out - the rest of us just ``know`` it .......

romair,

..... since you don`t have any children and also think in the typical linear fauji fashion, you are incapable of making any sense on this subject (in addition to many others )..........

................ this has nothing to do with secularism or religion - the evil of child molestation, pederasty and incest are intuitively obvious to most people with common sense who know anything about children ............ and to most straight folks with average iq`s, secularism simply means that civil affairs, education and the law of the land should not be based on religious considerations but it does not prevent people from making fools out of themselves at home or at church ..................god and other hobgoblins can run wild as long as they don`t interfere with the running of the state on a day to day basis ...........a secular state provides ``freedom from religion`` along with ``freedom of religion``

........... as ana and others have pointed out , the concept of ``consent`` does not apply to children even if god himself says it is okay ...........really, it is quite simple and only mullahs and child predators need to refer to a book to find this out - the rest of us just ``know`` it .......

CORRECTION:

``A lot of them are seculars and DO NOT pay much attention to religion.``

``Rest of the elements are also important but secondary...``

HP #209: [``I was talking with a girl on the internet a couple a nights ago. She says that she had sex with her dad since she was 5....intercourse since 8. She sent me some pics of her.....a real cutey pie. She says that HE instigated it but that she really liked it and would tease him into doing stuff on a regular basis....from the time she was 6.]

Out go the pain, pregnancy, and suffering of any kind.

Now, rationalize this and prove that it’s wrong.

She doesn’t suffer from any trauma, physical or emotional. She didn’t get knocked up, so no question of genetic corruption either. They did nothing to have immediate negative effects on the society either.

Can a jury or judge punish her and her father in a secular court? Based on what? Can’t they (father and daughter) claim that the court is taking the fun away from their lives - the basic freedom - when they haven’t harmed any one, including each other?

It is a proof that children can be trained to enjoy such deviant behavior. Age of Consent, which varies from culture to culture, becomes irrelevant when the child says ``no harm done...I enjoy it just as much``. Still if the secular court puts an end to it, then what does that person do? He/she has already violated religious codes, and now has been punished by the secular court for harmless fun. Who/what does one believe in then?

One can argue that they`ll it learn over time. Or, that it`s what the society wants and it`s for the greater good.

But that`s exactly what Allah says: it`s for the greater good and it`s not necessary that you understand everything at once.

Then what`s the difference between religion and secularism?

We were trained, and now we train our children to abstain from sex with respect to age, status, partners, etc, as we have learned to be beneficial for us. As soon as we see they are ready for it, we start teaching them to keep their genitals covered and not to look at other’s from very early on, even siblings. We befriend them and encourage them to let us know if someone touches them inappropriately.

But can I really claim that I learned to teach my children these values on my own, based on scientific data?

Can anyone?

What if we didn’t have the scientific data?

One doesn’t need to be a philosopher to trace the origins of these values. It’s a matter of common sense and courage to face the truth. Even the pagans had some sort of deity and spiritual leaders to prescribe their code of conduct.

Statistics posted by HP (as per ``Voices from the Silent Zone`` in #188) indicate that ``nearly three-quarters of upper and middle class Indian women are abused by a family member - more than often an uncle, a cousin or an elder brother.`` Same can probably be true for Pakistan.

Now tell me, which segments of the Indo-Pak societies have more seculars? ;-)~~

Note:
One should not interpret the above observation as a claim that all seculars are immoral, because the religious people perpetrate these crimes too. The important thing to note is that where is it more prevalent. But then again, where did the moral seculars and atheists get their values from if not religions, even if it was several generations back.

The point is: no matter which way we cut it, at the end of the day religion plays a big role in our lives - much bigger than we care to acknowledge. Whether we recognize / acknowledge it or not is a different matter. But as long as we continue to deny it, we`ll be hard pressed to convince each other on what is right and what is wrong. Meanwhile, the societies continue to spiral downwards due to lack of a clear standard, as is being witnessed in the rapidly secularizing world.

We basically fool ourselves to believe that we can have values without the religion. The simple reason for such confusion is that `religion` and `secularism` are like oil and water that cannot mix. One will always be on top of the other. Neither religion can be used properly nor secularism as long as the situation persists. Meanwhile the life for masses continues to suffocate. The statistics provided by HP prove this fact.

As has always been the case, the scientific data only proves what prophets and messengers of Allah told us millenniums ago. But that would only be apparent to people who have studied a religion or two.

Education, economy, laws are all essential elements to remove or minimize this illness from our society. But which one of them is the horse and which is the cart?

Realistically, as per the ground realities of endemic corruption and lawlessness, can we erect the proper infrastructure of education, economy etc simultaneously?

Looking at the macro picture, the NGOs and secular state agencies (generally both tend to remove God and religion from the equation) have not been as successful as one would expect in spite of substantial resources. Otherwise, this problem would not be as big as it is in the ``secularly advanced`` societies as the USA or UK. These orgs would have made at least some headway in SA as well. But the stats do not support that. The reasons, as pointed out here, can be many: politics, resources, manpower, reluctance of victims to come forward for various reasons, etc.

On the other hand, Mother Teresa in India and mulla Edhi in Pakistan - just a couple of religious folks - have done tremendous work to help the victims of all kinds, especially women and children to prevent and overcome their experiences. These individuals and their God-fearing religion driven teams are not looking for rewards and recognition in this life from public or private sectors. As per their beliefs, their rewards lie in the hereafter, so whether they have political clout, resources, manpower or not, they continue undeterred. Thus achieve better results than their non-religious counterparts.

In both worlds, advanced and developing, incest and childhood sex has been on the rise since the separation of church and state. Religion has been diminishing from general populations, because Faith has become synonymous with a bunch of rituals. By and large the populations have become hypocritical in the sense that they invoke religion and secularism in different circumstances as per their benefits, and mostly when the problem appears in their backyards or bedrooms.

How, or how much, can we expect children and uneducated masses to understand the importance of statistics and scientific journals?

What about the girls and women being abused in upper and middle classes of the Indo-Pak societies, what’s the excuse there? A lot of them are seculars and pay much attention to religion. They have education and are economically better off.

If you think rationally, the only thing that jumps out in this sordid situation is the lack of spirituality – religion: at personal, political, and governmental levels.

IMO, the most effective solution is prevention through spirituality. Rest of the important but secondary, because it is pretty darn difficult for ANY law to prosecute such cases for technical reasons.

Counseling after the fact may be helpful but it`s after the fact. Some victims do manage to move on with their lives, but the nagging pain affects them forever.

On the other hand, the fear of Allah and Day of Judgment deters most culprits when they know the law of land cannot prosecute them.

The faith in Allah provides the weak with the strength and courage to refuse to become a victim.

When the numbers favor the weak, then the lawmakers can be forced to make stringent laws so the next person thinks twice before victimizing anyone.

It is inexpensive, and does not provoke the political parties or anyone else.

It’s the only way the weak has defeated the evil and inherited the world, and formed civil societies throughout the history. And it’s the only solution for the future.

It is plain and simple hypocrisy to right a wrong with values acquired from religions by labeling them as secularly evolved, especially when the wrong is not a product of religion but the lack of it. Thus, sidelining the religion to correct this issue will be more than likely a dud.

:-)~~

Re: # 214 by miriamk

No, my dear sister, I hope you`ll not abandon a good fight.

Life - it`s pretty serious business when one becomes a parent. One too many chill pills can cost the children dearly, as this board has demonstrated.

GPA - my children`s GPA is more neck-breaking for me than my own used to be. So I can relate to your father better than your predicament. Just kidding.

May Allah reward your efforts.

:-)~~

HP #242: “Religion, in secular society remains a factor in an individual’s life.”

I think you are contradicting yourself.

I am actually stating what you have stated, i.e. in secularism, religion is supposed to be a personal matter. It should have nothing to do with the State. However, in all Western societies, marriage – a religious concept - does have something to do with the State. The State is defining who can and cannot get married. This is a violation of secularism, under which who can and cannot get married to should be a personal matter. Not one legislated by the State………..

Marriage – a personal religious belief – is being legislated in the public domains of the State, thereby violating the concept of secularism.

“In pretty much all societies, marriages are bound by two types of contract: religious and the civil law.”

This is correct. And is once again a violation of secularism. And a violation of the Western legal system itself, which is based on the protection of individual rights. Not based on the protection of social and religious customs. There is nothing wrong with registering marriage with the State. But there is something wrong, at least under secular Western law, with the State defining who can and cannot get married. That violates the personal rights of gays etc.

“But religions were not born with these ideas, they developed over a period of time and religions adopted them.”

This is correct as well. However, it does not matter how the ideas evolved. The fact is they have become social custom. And Western law is specifically designed to favour the rights of individuals over social customs. Otherwise, Blacks would still be riding in the back of the bus. The only criteria to be used is consenting adults doing something which is not harming the society in general…………i.e. what you do in your bedroom, and whom you do it with (as long as they are consenting adults) is your own business……….

“it would be a folly to extol religions for saving societies from the ultimate moral decay that would have set in if incest was not declared a taboo by religions.”

I am not stating that religions are saving humanity from decay. I am only stating that the current concepts and boundaries of marriage/incest (other than age limits) etc. are defined by social customs, which have a strong basis in religion. The propagates all the way to the State, which so far is not secular, when it comes to marriage.

It is quite possible that societies may be better off, if brothers and sisters and fathers and daughters are allowed to marry. Who knows? Maybe the religious boundaries on incest are actually harming society. But the fact has to be accepted (and I think you have accepted it) that the current boundaries have a strong root in religion. And that the State, even in secular societies, uses these religious definitions. And, if and when the State eventually decides to take religion completely out of public life, these boundaries on incest will come down. And any consenting adult will be allowed to marry any other consenting adult………..

“The opposition to gay marriage is not wholly religious, there are other factors involved, and many people that are not really hot on religion still oppose gay marriage.”

It doesn’t matter who opposes gay marriage. As I mentioned earlier, Western secular law is designed specifically to rule in favour of the rights of the individual, over social customs and religious customs and majority customs. Even if 99% of the society and its religion opposes something that is suppressing the rights of 1% of the individuals, under this law the 1% individual wins out.

This is why, even if 99% of Americans say you should be kicked out of the USA, because you are a Muslim, the courts will still rule in your favour. And even if 99% of Americans oppose gay marriage, the courts will (should) rule in favour of the gay couple trying to get married, as long as they are consenting adults…………

Re: # 223

urstruly,

.......... i think you should leave the projects and move to a better neighborhood unless you are trying to make it with the neighbor dude`s sister/mother or the neighbor dude himself .......... but i still don`t understand why you keep on hanging around dar-ul-harb instead of moving to medina - after all the prophet did leave mecca to get away from the ``dhee chods`` and ``man ka yaars`` .........

........... since most of us did not go to school at mansoora or akora khattak, i am thinking of compiling a dictionary to help explain the gutter language you and echoboom have introduced to the chowk .............. you are way ahead of fab five ........

vagabond,

thanks. i know what the ``legal`` definition of an adult is. . . here in the US, i believe that engaging in sex for ``minors``, even if with consent is considered statutory rape, and the age varies from state to state.

i think i understand what you are saying about not looking at existing laws. and the essence of personal freedom, individual liberty and sovereignty, but i am still concentrating on the ages represented by the children in this story, and for most of us here, be it legal definition, or extra-legal, i do not see how we are applying ``consenting adults`` or ``consenting adolescents`` to children between the ages of heck, one to eleven even in our rapidly changing world.

when i was going to school in lahore, there was a girl in my class who was betrothed or perhaps even married off to someone when her age was still in the single digits, but she still lived with her family, and i do not believe that their marriage was consummated while she was still in school with us. it was quite fascinating to some of us, as adolescents who were waking up to our developing bodies and feelings. i know of classmates who were getting married once they matriculated from secondary school which for many of us is the age of 16. and then i know of parents, mine own included, who felt that we as girls and boys were not quite equipped to deal with marriage at that age. then again there are ``adults`` who are far from equipped to deal with it as well.

that digression aside, i do not want to sound repetitious, and say the same thing over and over again, but someone here has spoken of incest, or a parent engaging with sexual relations with their child as a celebration of each other`s bodies, and if we are to use this story as a representation of what parents engage in with their children, ``uncles and aunties`` with their nieces and nephews, an authority figure with a child, i question this being a celebration of a child`s body, and it being ``love``. that may sound as much as a judgment as this being referred to as a white people`s story, but i am thankfully not alone in this. i don`t feel that we`ve exhausted conversation on this, but we certainly have had to repeat ourselves to those who are making this an east vs. west issue rather than acknowledging universal ramifications. and that is where some choose to stay rather than acknowledgment and where do we go from here. which is why some of us keep coming back to the story, while others emphasize looking at this outside the framework of religion.

and no, i don`t need anyone to tell me about the west, especially since i`m right in the thick of it, but sometimes even i have to wonder about how fortunate i am to live in the ``immoral`` west rather than a place where rape, and sex abuse are condoned by acquitting the perpetrators of any wrongdoing.

cheers.

Ana,

Adult by definition, at least in India, is above 18. So question of consent from anyone below 18 does not arise. There`s a school of thought though that while voting rights and things like driving license can wait till the person is 18, minors can still be accorded some rights over themselves-adolescent rights. Things like what a 16yr old wants to study next yr. Like, his parents should not force him towards engg if he really wants to purse arts. Sex is the other dimension. A 14 yr old girl ( 15-16 in case of guys) is quite ready for sex but existing laws forbid it. Adolescents` rights are to address these situations. General agreement is that two consenting adolescents should be allowed to seek sexual pleasure while fobidding them to have sex with adults because of diff in the levels of maturity.

Point is, we shouldnt look at existing laws in deciding what we want to do. That`s the essence of personal freedom, individual liberty and sovereignity. Secular democracies always change their laws to reflect the ground realities. What`s forbidden and immoral today is legal and acceptable tomorrow. For eg. people are talking of adolescent laws only after they see that existing laws are being violated. There`s no need of gay rights if there are no gays. In theory at least, there`s a ``phase difference`` between law and the people in any democractic society, with law trying to catch up. Funny isnt it? West is ``immoral`` by their own definition, you dont need NTsyed to tell you that.

Cheers

#227 and other posts

Romair,
“In a purely 100% secular society, any consenting adult should be allowed to marry any other consenting adult, or any gender, as many times as he/she wants. Since, religious restrictions would not be a factor.”

I don’t know what is a purely 100% secular society but a secular society does not mean that religion has disappeared from peoples lives. I think you have had this discussion on several occasion with several other posters but you are stuck with the Mullah definition of secularism. Please snap out of it! :) Religion, in secular society remains a factor in an individual’s life.

In pretty much all societies, marriages are bound by two types of contract: religious and the civil law. In fact, in Pakistan the Nikah Naama has to be registered with whosoever so it is a religious as well as a civil contract. (You knew that!)

One more anomaly; I think Russian and Chinese example does not apply here. First most of the Russians are orthodox Christians and despite an atheist rule(or religion suppression) for about 70 years, the basic tenets of religions stayed intact but like many other western societies marriage -religious or civil- was still part of the social acceptance process. Similarly, I think China despite being an atheist state, still has overwhelming influence of Confucianism on the society. But this is really a digression.

In your other posts, you are recycling what Urstruly has also advocated some 200 posts ago. I agreed with him then and I still agree with his argument that pretty much all customs currently in effect about marriage, incest and definition of incestuous relations emanate from different religions. But religions were not born with these ideas, they developed over a period of time and religions adopted them. It means that some ancient/early societies also reached consent that sex between some relations would be harmful/negative for the society. Before the current organized or revealed religions, some cultures such as Hinduism in India also came down hard on incest and defined some relations where marriage or sexual relations is not permissible. (I believe in Hinduism this is not written anywhere but it is just part of the customs.)

There may be other cultures outside of the three major religions or Hinduism that defined incestuous relation. Today, we may credit religion(s) for defining the incestuous relations but we also know that religions are not the source of this definition and religions either just borrowed that from the existing customs or expanded on it.

It seems to me that whole incest thing evolved over a period of time and it would be a folly to extol religions for saving societies from the ultimate moral decay that would have set in if incest was not declared a taboo by religions.

The opposition to gay marriage is not wholly religious, there are other factors involved, and many people that are not really hot on religion still oppose gay marriage. Mostly, in the US it is a political more than an ethical or a religious issue.

hell, 241 interacts, the topic has not deviated much from the central them. Then along comes the spider, and all the flies are running for cover. Welcome Romair to the thread!

But tell the truth, after 241 interacts, what is the outcome of the discussion?

i`m just curious.

what is the definition of a child as opposed to an adult? why are there laws in most societies regarding the protection of children that don`t necessarily exist for adults?

is the age of six or seven, considered for the most part the correct age for consent for sexual relations? (a child`s consent, not the adult`s)?

is this story about ``open sex`` relations in western societies, and where has it been said that pakistan is worse? the whole diversion about this being a white people`s story, and pakistan in danger of aping the west has been at best (or worst) a smokescreen.

is there any doubt that sara and maryam are children, and pre-pubescent ones at the time of shakeel`s actions? does one get a clear picture that sara ``understands`` until the ``end`` what is happening to her?

i know of children whose parents, or an authority figure such as a priest, forced themselves on these children. and now in adulthood, the returning memory has affected their lives in terms of having loving and nourishing relationships. forgive me, if i should challenge the notion that children are able to consent. and really, i am trying very hard to understand the rationale (for those who believe that rational thinking is anathema) as to why we are playing a cat and mouse game in regards to this in our own communities and lambasting ``the west.`` and while i`ve been trying to acknowledge that everyone has differing viewpoints, lambasting ``the west`` appears to be the refuge of ignoramuses.

and since there has been enough fudging going on, i really don`t expect soul-searching answers from some people. like i said, cultural relativism will be brought up here and it has been, but cultural relativism is just as problematic as religion is on the other side of the spectrum.

rahul:

why apologize to me? i guess you need to hammer the nail a little harder because quite frankly the picture keeps falling. :)

rahul# 237:

It may be implicit for a believer but for an atheist it is important that the notion of bad and good can exist on its own,without religion.

who is arguing with it here? ( no don`t tell me;))

murder, rape, robbery etc. are recognised in most civil societies and states as crimes against its citizens and prosecutable thus...the sanction of religion in this is an after-thought

miriam #234

go back to your studies;)

t

romair #236:

if anything this article is not about consenting adults

in most articles threads assume a life of their own...meaning they veer off the articles main thrust...this one here is more of an exception where by and large most interactors have struck faithfully to the central theme...with minor course corrections...for that my public admiration for all those interactors

To add to what miriam #234 has said(with apologies to ana, I know this is being done to death,and then some)
According to Bertrand Russel,any theistic framework presupposes(believes)
1- There is a God.
2.God is good(intentioned).So whatever he says has to be followed / believed.
3. God is perfect. So whatever he says has to be always believed.
#2 is a value decision,which implies an ethical framework which conceptually precedes religion. Believing in religion is an ethical decision. Its after this that one assumes the ethical framework of religion. It may be implicit for a believer but for an atheist it is important that the notion of bad and good can exist on its own,without religion.