This is more a subject concerning secular ethics than religion but as it seeks to impose secular will upon religious ideology, I thought it prudent to insert the thread here. Its a topic that I've always been passionate about and since I have nothing better to do with during my recovery than to inflame my passsions...here we go...a good, heated debate...bear in mind, though, that I'm not making light of any issue here simply for the sake of entertaining myself with debate...these are issues that I feel strongly about.

This whole thread was called to mind by a recent heated exchange concerning the Raelian movement and pedophilia...as well as recent events unfolding in the US based 'Church of Mormon'. Does the secular world have a right and duty to illegalize (note this is not the same as 'criminalize') ideaologies, whether in whole or part, which, whether whole or in part, sexually vicitimze children. A distinction must be made between 'minor' and 'child'and I'd say that the line must be drawn at 13 years old for the simple reason of pubescence. I believe, witout reservation, that the secular does have a duty and right to illegalize doctrines, practices, etc sponsored by religions, cults or cultures which sexually victimize pre-pubescent children (at the least)...this includes, but is not limited to, a common practice enjoyed by most people in the US...circumcision of male newborns...as well as overt groups like MBLA (man-boy-love-association)...to cults like Raelians..to religious doctrines of the Mormons, Christians, Muslims, etc

If there is evidence, and that is the last I will say.

Kirin, I have been out of it for awhile now...so please don't respond as if this is the continuation of some argument which I was fortunate enough to participate in...I said the exchange called this question to mind...so, please indulge me, what do you mean 'if there is evidence'?

This post has been edited by iwant2believe2: Jul 12 2008, 07:42 AM

I believe that in some respects this should be taken a step further, and I agree this is very shaky ground. In my mind it calls into question the influence a cult or religion has over its members, that will allow these practices, or even allow in principle those kind of practices to take place. No reasonable thinking person would ever justify this kind of treatment of kids, yet, so often, as can be seen here, the cults have many reasonable intelligent people within them. This seems to be a contradiction in common sense, which to me indicates that the cults do need to be controlled or at least monitored. But the tricky part is defining a set of boundaries that cannot be crossed, and deciding who enforces them. Clearly what is acceptable in some countries who have a heavy emphasis on religious belief, will not be acceptable in say the US or Australia. This is obvious by as was stated earlier, the acceptance of 13 year old girls into marriage and the raising of families by them. I think any individual, group or religion that in any way condones this kind of treatment of our kids should be made accountable and punishment and intervention be applicable. But then we hit the great protect all cards of political correctness and religion.
It seems common sense to me, but how do we get all to agree?

well either Kirin does not have the time or does not desire to explain his statement. Folks, I've been in alot of discussions here and I'd say that fewer than 10% were entirely original...most have already been discussed...some time and time again...and others are natural side-line topics..as in one thing leads to another. I'm only remotely aware of the Raelian topic to which Kirin is explicitly referring but did not wish this topic to be a continuation of that topic...simply having read it, it called to mind the question of ethics of imposing secular will upon religious or cultural ideologies. I chose the subject of child victimization because it is one subject which, I'd hoped, that the majority of participants would agree is 'wrong'...the question will not go far when the participants in the discussion can not even agree if the act in question, upon which secular will would be imposed, is wrong or not. In other words, I had hoped that the discussion would not be stalled by a debate as to whether or not it is ok to expose pre-pubescent children to adult sexuality...for the purpose of adult sexuality...for really, a child comes into sexuality naturally during the sexual pubescent years...so, there is no other reason for this 'pre-pubescent' exposure, is there? But if that is the only course that this discussion can take...if we can't discuss ethics...then count me out too...

Thanks, Dundee...this is the kind of reply I'm looking for. I'm wondering why these acts or treatment are not tolerated secularly but are treated as 'hands off' or with kid gloves when religion is in place?

As a society, I feel we allow religion to have too much influence. This allows for too much tolerance in areas where there shouldn't be tolerance, such as child molestations. If it involves a religion, people tend to turn a blind eye to it and we have to put up a fight for justice, we shouldn't have to.

Exactly, we see it all the time here in OZ, some rotten priest is convicted of child molesting. Then we find out it has been going on for 25 years, and how has the church addressed the issue, not by reporting him to the police, but to move him to other churches in other towns, repeadedly in response to complaint, so he can start all over again there. It is always the vitims that must endure embarrassment and humiliation to get anything done, even when the church was aware of it. I don't understand how this is legal. How can the Church respond this way, and not be made accountable?

If religious ideologies promote illegal activities within a society, then it is the responsibility of that society to make them answerable to the law. Their freedom of religious practice is revoked when they use it to violate the freedom and rights of others.

I don't understand why when such activities are done under the guise of religion officials are afraid to act against them.

the other day, some guy got caught trying to kidnap a child, he was sentanced to 4 years probation, no jail time.

what a joke...

if no one will pay for mental rehabilitation for these scumbags, i say castrate them all...

Originally I was not going to reply to this thread at all, but since I've been pressed, here it goes.



No. The world? No. Countries? Absolutely, according to the laws of those countries. I definitely do not agree with theocracies. However, I don't really think it's our place to go to some place like Iran and tell them they CAN'T make the government they want to have. If I go to Iran, I'd better follow Sharia Law. I'll get back to this.

In secular countries, it is absolutely essential that the the PEOPLE retain, maintain and EXERCISE their right and duty to illegalize (and I will go one further, since I'm not sure of the distinction) criminalize ideologies, whether in whole or part, which sexually victimize children, and I will go one further and include minors, and in fact ANYONE. NO ONE should be sexually victimized in a secular country.

That means that if adults were coerced into sexually activity by their religion, that religion should be made illegal and banned. Those members involved in the coercion should be punished according to the law. The other members should be banned from gathering.

However, I added this caveat: If there is proof. If there is proof of criminal activity, the criminals should be punished to the furthest extent of the law. If there is proof that the victimization of ANYONE, sexual or nonsexual, adult or minor, is an institutionalized part of the religion, that religion should be illegal because the foundations of that religion conflict with the laws of the country.

Here I add a second caveat: If the religion will agree to follow the secular laws FIRST, remove and publicly denounce those laws in conflict with the laws of the government, then that religion can stay. For example, in order to be accepted into the Union, the Mormons agreed to give up polygamy and stated in the laws of their church that where there is a discrepancy between what is allowed by the church and what is allowed by the laws of the country, the laws of the country should take precedence and be obeyed.

When Mormon splinter groups fail to follow this amendment, they are excommunicated from the church. Those splinter groups which violate the law should be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law, and again, if they have institutionalized ideologies and/or practices in violation of secular law, that group should be illegal.


I understand, but it is not a concession I'm willing to make. Something most of you don't know: I'm a teacher. I know 13 year olds. I believe in sex education, but within limits of decency. Sex education should be to help us prevent ignorance from causing these children to make mistakes that will affect the rest of their lives. I know thirteen year olds who still believe in Santa Claus and play with dolls. Granted, this is Japan, and children are a bit less worldly here, but even teenaged minors NEED protection. If a religion institutionalizes the arranged marriages of minors, even 17 year old minors, I vote to disband and illegalize that religion: provided it can be proved. I believe strongly in that.




Absolutely. AT THE LEAST.

I'm against the circumcision of newborns. I am also vehemently against these Muslims that come to secular countries and want to continue the barbarity of home-done female circumcisions. I am also of the belief that secular countries must STOP giving leniency to murderers who commit murder in the name of religion. Some northern European countries go easy on honor-killings so as not to offend religious minority. BS. Either have a secular government or surrender to the Shariah. I fully support secularism in government. If a person commits an honor-killing, it shows premeditation, and I say throw the whole legal library at them and punish them to the very furthest reaches of the law. That kind of thing does NOT belong in, pardon me for being me: civilized countries.

Anyone belonging to MAMBLA, I know I'm going to p' off ACLU, even if they don't practice it: people belonging to MAMBLA and doing things to encourage pederasty and/or pedophilia should be locked up. And that's me being nice. I think those MAMBLA Fs should be burned. Just me opinion, though, mates.

As for Raelians: sorry, that's why I didn't want to get involved: I didn't find any evidence, other than a couple of isolated cases, of wrongdoing. That was an extremely stressful topic and, quite frankly, due to health, I cannot have stress of any kind. I'm kind of on my last legs, and I'd like to sort of cruise to the end, so to speak.

But, that said: Raelian, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, Mormon, and whatever ... the United States of America has a secular government for a reason, and the reason is that religions can be unreasonable. We have a duty to support the law, and support the welfare of society and its people above the doctrines of ANY religion. Many people make the statement that the founding fathers who wrote about the separation of church and state were CHRISTIAN. However, many of them were also MASONS, and coming from a family with more than a few MASONS, I can tell you that the founding fathers meant the separation of church and state to belong to ALL religions.

I don't believe in a state religion, nor do I believe in banning religions that cause no harm. However, if a religion is found to be harmful, we should not hesitate to cut it from our society any more than a doctor would hesitate to destroy a cancer that is causing harm to the body, and we as citizens of secular countries have a moral duty to support and assist in that.

I'm sorry for responding in relation to the previous argument. I got the impression that you were familiar with it and that this was a tangent.

I hope this reply is better.

I agree with many of the things that you have said Kirin. Firstly, I would like to say that I did not know of your poor health, and I hope for the best for you. Also, I hope nothing that I have said has caused you any undue stress.

Secondly, I find it interesting in the first part of your post that you mention that cultural relativism should be applied to other countries when it comes to their religious practices, and that we have no right to impose secular views upon them.

Later, however, you state that "we have a duty to support the laws, and support the welfare of society and its people above the doctrines of ANY religion".

I must ask, then, if you have some limit to what should be acceptable in terms of what religions of other countries preach. Or would you have us turn a blind eye to everything they do? even when the religious practices of another country could cause harm to its neighbours? Religion has great power in its capability to bestow its followers with beliefs both harmful and beneficial, but its effects are not confined to any artificial political boundaries.

Don't worry, Acolyte. You don't cause me stress. Arguing over important topics doesn't cause me stress. But arguments can cause rifts between people, and THAT causes me stress.

You make an important point, here. No, I don't think we can turn a blind eye. I don't want to tell people what they can and can't do, but that's idealism. Years before 9/11 I was saying we should go into Afghanistan and wipe out the Taliban. Why? Because these 'religious' freaks were harming their people. They'd grab people randomly off the street, drug them, take them to an abandoned stadium in front of blood-thirsty crowds, and hack off hands and feet after lying to the crowds that they had committed some crime. They justified this by saying that what was important was the REMINDER to be vigilant against 'sin', and that the offenders were often people who were committing some misdemeaner anyway, such as drinking, or for women, walking without a burka.

These Taliban destroyed the Aghan seed bank. They ransacked the national archaeological museum. The destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas, which, if you read WHY they did it, it makes a point, but they can't be replaced! However, THESE are nothing. It's the crimes against the people.

An 'army officer' saw a young woman he wanted. Her father was dead so he talked to her mother. he told the mother he wanted to marry the girl. The mother was liberal. She ASKED the girl if she wanted to marry the guy (who looked a bit like Bluto from Popeye). The girl said 'no'. The 'army officer' and his men grabbed the girl off the street the next day and kept her for three or four days before dropping her in front of her house and driving away laughing. The girl wouldn't speak at all for weeks and when she did finally speak it was tell her mother 'please kill me.'

The Taliban should be lined up against a wall to the very last one and killed in my opinion. These aren't isolated cases. Before 9/11 there were reporters talking to thousands and thousands of refugees fleeing Afghanistan for Pakistan, and they all told stories like this.

So no. We cannot and should not turn a blind eye. When a country begins hurting its own people, or the citizens of its neighbors, the time to talk is finished.

But ... be careful where that kind of talk can take you because it can take us to countries we might not at first think about.

This post has been edited by kirin-rex: Jul 12 2008, 06:55 PM

The reply was much better, Kirin thanks

ok I opened this but haven't the strength to continue it at the moment...hope you'll all understand...sorry

religion is so f**king stupid it makes me mad but it is up to the individual to escape the mind control.

Wow, very nice. This is a great topic.

Religions have no right to victimize anyone. There are no special rules they can hide behind. The same laws that dictate the secular world can and must apply to religions. Just as long as you are not trying to stop their religious beliefs when imposing laws.

Sex as a subject of perversion is a trouble everywhere you go. Religions are made up of people that are recruited from the same ranks as the secular world. And so they get their share of sex offenders.

It is my opinion that sex has no part in religion nor is it capable of spiritual enlightenment in any way. By definition a soul is without a body and it is the body that has sexual organs, not the soul. Sex exists purely for biological procreation.

So why it is that a religion would have rules or morals on sex is purely as a form of wisdom for the benefit of it's congregations.

13 as an age for a minor to come of age sounds good to me but I suppose the exact age a person reaches the level of responsibility on which he will make the right choices is the real issue under question. If it is 18, then that must be the age a person can stand on his own two feet. Is 13 too soon? If we abandon children to the harsh reality of the world at 13, will they be able to stand on their own or will they be crushed by the demands of life? I think that is the question that needs to asked in determining adulthood form the status of "minor".

"circumcision of male newborns" is a old traditional that has lost it's need but not it fashionable flare. Popularity and a few archaic beliefs is all that keeps this alive. By the very notion of spiritual awareness details like this have no spiritual value of any kind and thus have no religious foundation. Not that everyone else is going to share my view but that is how I see it.

"MBLA (man-boy-love-association)" sounds like some sex offenders grouped together and managed to form a group...

"to religious doctrines of the Mormons, Christians, Muslims, etc".

I think basic rules can be laid down that apply to all people (religions included) where ever man fails to show good judgment. But rules can be more then guidelines. They can forcibly be made to shutout anyone you simply don't like. Circumcision for example need not be stopped even if it is a bit barbaric. If people want to practice it, it's harm is minimal but passable. While you and I can see it is of no benefit, at what point are we over stepping the rights of others? The male child is quite able to live on with a full life after it has been done. So no legislation is needed. The resolve of this is not to force them to stop, but to promote an awareness that this serves no value. Let them stop when they see it too. This change is already happening.

So at what point are you trying to tell others how to live and over stepping the powers of law? This civilization is not perfect, as has been done many many times before, you can not beat or force someone into doing what is right. If that worked, this would be a perfect civilization. But religious tolerance and a respect for other beliefs is what brought about the world peace we have, not guns, laws and punishment.

So the laws are a last resort, not a first. Laws can be made were man has fallen far short of rational judgment. Where laws dictate your every move, you have no life, you are a slave of your own creation.

Where even a religion fails to live up to a moral standard that harms andor weakens the safety of a civilization, a law can be set to prevent harm that the religion can abide by. Similarly no law should be made just to force another to "stop that" just because you don't like it or think it is wrong. It must do real harm as collateral damage before the law can step in and take away the right to live freely. For there is no freedom in a police state, only adding to the fact that you can not force another into doing what is personally right.

This post has been edited by ScottMan: Jul 13 2008, 02:24 AM

Because the real conspiracy that is right in front of us. And that is the subtle yet very powerful hold that the church has on government and society. You can argue all you like about it, but the truth is, very few people in any position of significance will cross the church. Sure from time to time some priest somewhere gets hung out to dry, made an example of. But never is the church itself taken to task. I have commented time and time again about accountability within the church, or rather lack of it. But so long as religion has a strangle hold over our minds and principles, we will never see anything close to transperancy here. THe church will do what it always has, hide the evidence of wrongdoing wherever possible.

It is true that some religions have slithered themselves into a position where they claim an immunity for divine reasons. There can be no question that this was done for the sole purpose of getting away with crimes. But try to remember that not everyone in a religion is a criminal. Not everyone uses this manufactured loophole to escape justice.

Where a religion pulls these evil deads and hides behind God or public manipulation to escape justice I say have no mercy. They have no right, they are suppose to be leading in terms of moral values ( I know you don't share that view but that is how I see it) yet this moral stance is also a covenant way to get others to stand by as they commit crimes and alter the morals to fit their agendas. Such is the power of religion being abused at great cost to all of us.