the point im making is that there is an issue here that goes beyond morality, and that issue is respect for individual rights
and yeah rights are determined by the state, that is why its important to separate church and state and that is why the philosophy of individual rights must be pushed
i didnt say it doesnt happen here, i said it does happen here
what about south africa? is it legal to marry an 8 year old girl in south africa? if not what's your point?
what about india? islam is big there isnt it? does india have a culture of respecting individual rights?
the people that kill babies with their penises or do other things to children go to jail because its against the law, in yemen it isnt against the law, im not sure why you cant see the difference
and like i said it isnt just a moral issue, its a legal issue, its an issue of individual rights, it isnt enough to say its wrong, its also important to establish the principle that the girl's individual rights supersede religious and tribal customs
over 80% of the population of india are hindu. but you say Islam is big there.... and that's my point. Youre see through enough that I really don't need to say this- but you could cause less about any of these topics. You're obsessed with Islam. You're obsessed with the middle east. You only speak about rights to promote western imperialism.
You equate a valid legal system and 'rights' with someone being put in jail for 5 years for raping someone or molesting a kid. I believe that kids and women deserve to not be raped in the first place.
Whats the point of a law if it does nothing for prevention?.. People with your agendas and stupid biased missions- are the reason why things like this are prevalent n the modern world and in more advanced nations.
In South American, Africa, Asia, ocieana... child marriage happens non stop and regardless of varying laws- .... Right here in the US there are forced marriages and underage rapes that are justified and not prosecuted.
Your talking individual rights, but your thread was about Islam. The responses to the thread were about islam... and 0 threads on babies getting raped right in our home states.
see through as fukk.
I guess you can only have a right if some Western nation says......... "ok u have this right, but not this right" "You have the right to kill babies late term, but not smoke a plant" "You have the right to vote for corp funded politicians, but not the right to carry a weapon in some areas" "black people have random rights... but only when the gov says so""
Are you crazy or trolling? If we lean on the government for rights we would never have any. What's right and wrong and what's considered 'rights' have nothing to do with what the gov of any nation says. IF thats the case- why are there madd women and men in Yemen protesting to get their laws changed so that in remote villages shyt like this doesn't happen? Society punishes people there before the gov does... and will do it even if the gov never puts the laws in place. I have the right to free speech and free thought whether or not a nation says so. Using ur logic it was wrong for Rosa parks to sit at the front of the bus. People are born with human rights, not given human rights at the discretion of world leaders. Also, we can see from America - the US is the best example of a nation that provides laws that don't protect or matter.
So we feed private prisons for a few years ---- what does that matter when a kid is molested for years and will be affected the rest of her life?
Group rights are rights held by a group qua group rather than by its members severally;[1] in contrast, individual rights are rights held by individual people; even if they are group-differentiated, what most rights are, they remain individual rights if the right-holders are the individuals themselves.[2] Group rights have historically been used both to infringe upon and to facilitate individual rights, and the concept remains controversial.
In Western discourse, individual rights are often associated with political and economic freedom, whereas group rights are associated with social control. This is because in the West the establishment of individual rights is associated with equality before the law and protection from the state.[citation needed] Examples of this are the Magna Carta, in which the English King accepted that his will could be bound by the law and certain rights of the King's subjects were explicitly protected.
By contrast, much of the recent political discourse on individual rights in the People's Republic of China, particularly with respect to due process rights and rule of law, has focused on how protection of individual rights actually makes social control by the government more effective. (u naive boy) For example, it has been argued that the people are less likely to violate the law if they believe that the legal system is likely to punish them if they actually violated the law and not punish them if they did not violate the law. By contrast, if the legal system is arbitrary then an individual has no incentive to actually follow the law.