An interesting article in The Guardian recently, with the blurb:

   His work looks ever more extraordinary and radical, while his
   domestic life seems increasingly disturbing. On the opening of a
   new exhibition of early 20th-century British sculpture, Fiona
   MacCarthy asks what to do with Eric Gill

   His great carving in Leeds of a raging Christ ejecting the
   moneylenders from the temple has a wonderful contemporary resonance.

[I'll have to go see this sometime; it's one of my favourite passages
from the Bible.]

   But the more we understand of the prevalence of child abuse, the
   more reprehensible Gill's personal morality becomes. Just what do
   we do with Eric Gill? Should we, as has sometimes been suggested,
   tear down his Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral?
   Remove Prospero and Ariel from over the doorway of the BBC?
   Demolish the dozens of beautiful village war memorials that
   commemorate the fallen of the first world war? Or – better – should
   we look and look again at the work of an artist who has so much to
   tell us of the mysteries of human experience?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/oct/17/eric-gill-exhibition-fiona-maccarthy


-- 
The earth belongs in usufruct to the living.
                          [Thomas Jefferson]

Adam Funk wrote:
> 
> An interesting article in The Guardian recently, with the blurb:
> 
>    His work looks ever more extraordinary and radical, while his
>    domestic life seems increasingly disturbing. On the opening of a
>    new exhibition of early 20th-century British sculpture, Fiona
>    MacCarthy asks what to do with Eric Gill
> 
>    His great carving in Leeds of a raging Christ ejecting the
>    moneylenders from the temple has a wonderful contemporary resonance.
> 
> [I'll have to go see this sometime; it's one of my favourite passages
> from the Bible.]
> 
>    But the more we understand of the prevalence of child abuse, the
>    more reprehensible Gill's personal morality becomes. Just what do
>    we do with Eric Gill? Should we, as has sometimes been suggested,
>    tear down his Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral?
>    Remove Prospero and Ariel from over the doorway of the BBC?
>    Demolish the dozens of beautiful village war memorials that
>    commemorate the fallen of the first world war? Or – better – should
>    we look and look again at the work of an artist who has so much to
>    tell us of the mysteries of human experience?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/oct/17/eric-gill-exhibition-fiona-maccarthy

Two points:

(i) One can admire the works of Gill without worrying about his private
life.

(ii) Is a sexual relation with a child always abusive?

-- 
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.

Adam Funk wrote:
 >
>    Should we, as has sometimes been suggested,
>    tear down his Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral?
>    Remove Prospero and Ariel from over the doorway of the BBC?
>    Demolish the dozens of beautiful village war memorials that
>    commemorate the fallen of the first world war?

That is the philistine reaction. Naturally, Fiona MacCarthy's question 
is rhetorical.

>    Or – better – should
>    we look and look again at the work of an artist who has so much to
>    tell us of the mysteries of human experience?

I think it is a fundamental truth of aesthetics that the value of a work of art has nothing to do with the character of whoever created it, 
though it is also true that art is created by fallible human beings, not impersonal forces. It is very often the case that great art has a high 
human cost, and we now know something about the cost of Gill's. His 
strong erotic drive was a fundamental motivator for his work and was no 
doubt profoundly intertwined with his religious sense. Had he had 
hormone injections to quell his libido, like those Alan Turing had to 
endure, it is perhaps inevitable that Gill's artistic output would have 
been greatly impoverished or even cut off entirely.

Look at it another way: Suppose Gill had been caught and given the long 
sentence her deserved for his crimes, justice would  have been done, but posterity would have been much the poorer.


Alwyn

Alwyn

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:02:41 +0000, Adam Funk 
wrote:

>An interesting article in The Guardian recently, with the blurb:
>
>   His work looks ever more extraordinary and radical, while his
>   domestic life seems increasingly disturbing. On the opening of a
>   new exhibition of early 20th-century British sculpture, Fiona
>   MacCarthy asks what to do with Eric Gill
>
>   His great carving in Leeds of a raging Christ ejecting the
>   moneylenders from the temple has a wonderful contemporary resonance.
>
>[I'll have to go see this sometime; it's one of my favourite passages
>from the Bible.]
>
>   But the more we understand of the prevalence of child abuse, the
>   more reprehensible Gill's personal morality becomes. Just what do
>   we do with Eric Gill? Should we, as has sometimes been suggested,
>   tear down his Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral?
>   Remove Prospero and Ariel from over the doorway of the BBC?
>   Demolish the dozens of beautiful village war memorials that
>   commemorate the fallen of the first world war? Or – better – should
>   we look and look again at the work of an artist who has so much to
>   tell us of the mysteries of human experience?
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/oct/17/eric-gill-exhibition-fiona-maccarthy

His stations of the cross were for many years in one of our local
churches and were excellent. However some years ago after the truth
about him emerged they were taken down, which I regretted since I
belie that we are supposed to love the sinner and not the sin.
-- 

Richard Emblem
"God loves each of us as if there were only one of us" St Augustine.

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:02:41 +0000, Adam Funk 
wrote:

>An interesting article in The Guardian recently, with the blurb:
>
>   His work looks ever more extraordinary and radical, while his
>   domestic life seems increasingly disturbing. On the opening of a
>   new exhibition of early 20th-century British sculpture, Fiona
>   MacCarthy asks what to do with Eric Gill
>
>   His great carving in Leeds of a raging Christ ejecting the
>   moneylenders from the temple has a wonderful contemporary resonance.
>
>[I'll have to go see this sometime; it's one of my favourite passages
>from the Bible.]
>
>   But the more we understand of the prevalence of child abuse, the
>   more reprehensible Gill's personal morality becomes. Just what do
>   we do with Eric Gill? Should we, as has sometimes been suggested,
>   tear down his Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral?
>   Remove Prospero and Ariel from over the doorway of the BBC?
>   Demolish the dozens of beautiful village war memorials that
>   commemorate the fallen of the first world war? Or – better – should
>   we look and look again at the work of an artist who has so much to
>   tell us of the mysteries of human experience?
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/oct/17/eric-gill-exhibition-fiona-maccarthy

Aren't we supposed to love the sinner and hate the sin?
A local church here removed his beautiful Stations of the cross some
years ago.

-- 

Richard Emblem
"God loves each of us as if there were only one of us" St Augustine.

On 31 Oct, 14:24, Frederick Williams 
wrote:
> Adam Funk wrote:
>
> > An interesting article in The Guardian recently, with the blurb:
>
> >    His work looks ever more extraordinary and radical, while his
> >    domestic life seems increasingly disturbing. On the opening of a
> >    new exhibition of early 20th-century British sculpture, Fiona
> >    MacCarthy asks what to do with Eric Gill
>
> >    His great carving in Leeds of a raging Christ ejecting the
> >    moneylenders from the temple has a wonderful contemporary resonance.
>
> > [I'll have to go see this sometime; it's one of my favourite passages
> > from the Bible.]
>
> >    But the more we understand of the prevalence of child abuse, the
> >    more reprehensible Gill's personal morality becomes. Just what do
> >    we do with Eric Gill? Should we, as has sometimes been suggested> >    tear down his Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral?
> >    Remove Prospero and Ariel from over the doorway of the BBC?
> >    Demolish the dozens of beautiful village war memorials that
> >    commemorate the fallen of the first world war? Or – better – should
> >    we look and look again at the work of an artist who has so much to
> >    tell us of the mysteries of human experience?
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/oct/17/eric-gill-exhibition-fion...
>
> Two points:
>
> (i) One can admire the works of Gill without worrying about his private
> life.
>
Agreed

> (ii) Is a sexual relation with a child always abusive?

I would say always abusive but not always harmful.

Impact of Child Sexual Abuse

  It is estimated that there are 60 million survivors of childhood
sexual abuse in America today.
Source: Forward, 1993.

  Approximately 31% of women in prison state that they had been abused
as children.
Source: United States Department of Justice, 1991.

  Approximately 95% of teenage prostitutes have been sexually abused.
Source: CCPCA, 1992.

  It is estimated that children with disabilities are 4 to 10 times
more vulnerable to sexual abuse than their non-disabled peers.
Source: National Resource Center on Child Sexual Abuse, 1992.

  Long term effects of child abuse include fear, anxiety, depression,
anger, hostility, inappropriate sexual behavior, poor self esteem,
tendency toward substance abuse and difficulty with close
relationships.
Source: Browne & Finkelhor, 1986.

  Clinical findings of adult victims of sexual abuse include problems
in interpersonal relationships associated with an underlying mistrust.
Generally, adult victims of incest have a severely strained
relationship with their parents that is marked by feelings of
mistrust, fear, ambivalence, hatred, and betrayal. These feelings may
extend to all family members.
Source: Tsai and Wagner, 1978.

  Guilt is universally experienced by almost all victims. Courtois and
Watts described the "sexual guilt" as "guilt derived from sexual
pleasure"
Source: Tsai and Wagner, l978.

  Sexuality is regarded not simply as a part of the self limited to
genitals, discrete behaviors, or biological aspects of reproduction,
but is more properly understood as one component of the total
personality that affects one's concept of personal identity and self-
esteem.
Source: Whitlock & Gillman, 1989.

  Sexual victimization may profoundly interfere with and alter the
development of attitudes toward self, sexuality, and trusting
relationships during the critical early years of development.
Source: Tsai & Wagner, 1984.

  If the child victim does not resolve the trauma, sexuality may
become an area of adult conflict.
Source: Courtois & Watts, 1982; Tsai & Wagner, 1984.

  There is the clinical assumption that children who feel compelled to
keep sexual abuse a secret suffer greater psychic distress than
victims who disclose the secret and receive assistance and support.
Source: Finkelhor & Browne, 1986.

  Early identification of sexual abuse victims appears to be crucial
to the reduction of suffering of abused youth and to the establishment
of support systems for assistance in pursuing appropriate
psychological development and healthier adult functioning . As long as
disclosure continues to be a problem for young victims, then fear,
suffering, and psychological distress will, like the secret, remain
with the victim.
Sources: Bagley, 1992; Bagley, 1991; Finkelhor et al. 1990; Whitlock &
Gillman, 1989.

  Adolescents with a history of sexual abuse are significantly more
likely than their counterparts to engage in sexual behavior that puts
them at risk for HIV infection, according to Dr. Larry K. Brown and
associates, from Rhode Island Hospital, in Providence.
See Medscape

  Adolescents with a history of sexual abuse are significantly more
likely than their counterparts to engage in sexual behavior that puts
them at risk for HIV infection, according to Dr. Larry K. Brown and
associates, from Rhode Island Hospital, in Providence. Inconsistent
condom use was three times more likely among youths who had been
sexually abused than among the 55 who had not. A history of sexual
abuse was also significantly associated with less impulse control and
higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases. According to Dr. Brown,
"These results suggest two things. Abused kids need adequate
counseling around abuse issues. A lot of these kids keep re-
experiencing the anxiety and trauma for years." The second issue, he
said, is that "most therapy does not address current sexual behavior"
and the anxieties that sexually abused adolescents experience.
Source: Larry K. Brown, M.D., et al, American Journal of Psychiatry
2000;157:1413-1415.

  Young girls who are forced to have sex are three times more likely
to develop psychiatric disorders or abuse alcohol and drugs in
adulthood, than girls who are not sexually abused. Sexual abuse was
also more strongly linked with substance abuse than with psychiatric
disorders. It was also suggested that sexual abuse may lead some girls
to become sexually active at an earlier age and seek out older
boyfriends who might, in turn, introduce them to drugs. Psychiatric
disorders were from 2.6 to 3.3 times more common among women whose CSA
included intercourse, and the risk of substance abuse was increased
more than fourfold, according to the results. Family factors --
parental education, parenting behavior, family financial status,
church attendance -- had little impact on the prevalence of
psychiatric or substance abuse disorders among these women, the
investigators observe. Similarly, parental psychopathology did not
predict the association between CSA and later psychopathology.
Source: Kenneth S. Kendler, M.D., et al, Medical College of Virginia
Commonwealth University, Archives of General Psychiatry
2000;57:953-959.
Also see review at Medscape

  Among both adolescent girls and boys, a history of sexual or
physical abuse appears to increase the risk of disordered eating
behaviors, such as self-induced vomiting or use of laxatives to avoid
gaining weight. Among those at increased risk for disordered eating
were respondents who had experienced sexual or physical abuse and
those who gave low ratings to family communication, parental caring
and parental expectations. In light of these findings, the researchers
conclude that "strong familial relationships may decrease the risk for
disordered eating among youth reporting abuse experiences."
Source: Dr. Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, et al, University of Minneapolis,
International Journal of Eating Disorders 2000;28:249-258.

  Young girls who are sexually abused are more likely to develop
eating disorders as adolescents. The findings also add to a growing
body of research suggesting that trauma in childhood increases the
risk of developing an eating disorder. Abused girls were more
dissatisfied with their weight and more likely to diet and purge their
food by vomiting or using laxatives and diuretics. Abused girls were
also more likely to restrict their eating when they were bored or
emotionally upset. Wonderlich suggests that abused girls might
experience higher levels of emotional distress, possibly linked to
their abuse, and have trouble coping. Food restriction and perhaps
other eating disorder behaviors may (reflect) efforts to cope with
such experiences. The report also indicates that while girls who were
abused were less likely to exhibit perfectionist tendencies (such as
making extreme efforts to avoid disappointing others and a need to be
'the best'), they tended to want thinner bodies than girls who had not
been abused.
Source: Stephen A. Wonderlich, M.D., et al, University of North Dakota
School of Medicine and Health Sciences in Fargo, Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2000;391277-1283.
>
http://www.preventabuse-now.com/stats.htm

Celia

celia wrote:
> 
> On 31 Oct, 14:24, Frederick Williams 
> wrote:
> > Adam Funk wrote:
> >
> > > An interesting article in The Guardian recently, with the blurb:
> >
> > >    His work looks ever more extraordinary and radical, while his
> > >    domestic life seems increasingly disturbing. On the opening of a
> > >    new exhibition of early 20th-century British sculpture, Fiona
> > >    MacCarthy asks what to do with Eric Gill
> >
> > >    His great carving in Leeds of a raging Christ ejecting the
> > >    moneylenders from the temple has a wonderful contemporary resonance.
> >
> > > [I'll have to go see this sometime; it's one of my favourite passages
> > > from the Bible.]
> >
> > >    But the more we understand of the prevalence of child abuse, the
> > >    more reprehensible Gill's personal morality becomes. Just what do
> > >    we do with Eric Gill? Should we, as has sometimes been suggested> > >    tear down his Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral?
> > >    Remove Prospero and Ariel from over the doorway of the BBC?
> > >    Demolish the dozens of beautiful village war memorials that
> > >    commemorate the fallen of the first world war? Or – better – should
> > >    we look and look again at the work of an artist who has so much to
> > >    tell us of the mysteries of human experience?
> >
> > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/oct/17/eric-gill-exhibition-fion...
> >
> > Two points:
> >
> > (i) One can admire the works of Gill without worrying about his private
> > life.
> >
> Agreed
> 
> > (ii) Is a sexual relation with a child always abusive?
> 
> I would say always abusive but not always harmful.
> 
> Impact of Child Sexual Abuse
> 
>   It is estimated that there are 60 million survivors of childhood
> sexual abuse in America today.
> Source: Forward, 1993.
> 
>   Approximately 31% of women in prison state that they had been abused
> as children.
> Source: United States Department of Justice, 1991.
> 
>   Approximately 95% of teenage prostitutes have been sexually abused.
> Source: CCPCA, 1992.
> 
>   It is estimated that children with disabilities are 4 to 10 times
> more vulnerable to sexual abuse than their non-disabled peers.
> Source: National Resource Center on Child Sexual Abuse, 1992.
> 
>   Long term effects of child abuse include fear, anxiety, depression,
> anger, hostility, inappropriate sexual behavior, poor self esteem,

Inappropriate according to whose criteria?

> tendency toward substance abuse and difficulty with close
> relationships.
> Source: Browne & Finkelhor, 1986.
> 
>   Clinical findings of adult victims of sexual abuse include problems

The use of the word 'victims' is prejudging the matter.

> in interpersonal relationships associated with an underlying mistrust.
> Generally, adult victims of incest have a severely strained
> relationship with their parents that is marked by feelings of
> mistrust, fear, ambivalence, hatred, and betrayal. These feelings may
> extend to all family members.
> Source: Tsai and Wagner, 1978.
> 
>   Guilt is universally experienced by almost all victims. Courtois and

The use of the word 'victims' is prejudging the matter.

> Watts described the "sexual guilt" as "guilt derived from sexual
> pleasure"
> Source: Tsai and Wagner, l978.

Of course guilt is associated with sex.  But have you asked yourself
why?
> 
>   Sexuality is regarded not simply as a part of the self limited to
> genitals, discrete behaviors, or biological aspects of reproduction,
> but is more properly understood as one component of the total
> personality that affects one's concept of personal identity and self-
> esteem.
> Source: Whitlock & Gillman, 1989.

More properly says who?
> 
>   Sexual victimization may profoundly interfere with and alter the

The use of the word 'victimization' is prejudging the matter.

> development of attitudes toward self, sexuality, and trusting
> relationships during the critical early years of development.
> Source: Tsai & Wagner, 1984.
> 
>   If the child victim 

Blah, blah, blah.  I grew tired of the self-serving nature of your
quotes.

> >
> http://www.preventabuse-now.com/stats.htm
> 
> Celia


-- 
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.

Richard Emblem wrote:
>
> Aren't we supposed to love the sinner and hate the sin?

But that says nothing about the sinner's work!

> A local church here removed his beautiful Stations of the cross some
> years ago.

Surely a central theme of Christianity is that we are all sinners and in 
need of forgiveness. Think of the parable of the Pharisee and the publican.

I can only think of one justification for removing the devotional work 
of art, and that is that after the news came out, people would be 
impelled to think of the incest and voluptuous sex that Gill is reputed 
to have indulged in instead of what they were meant to be thinking of 
while regarding the Stations.


Alwyn

On 1 Nov, 13:24, Frederick Williams 
wrote:
>
> Blah, blah, blah.  I grew tired of the self-serving nature of your
> quotes.
>
I merely looked up the first statistics that google spewed out.
I did this to avoid losing my cool as I have no time for those who
have sex with children as time and again I come across damaged and
suicidal people who have been pressured into sexual relations before
they are emotionally or physically ready. Such activities are rarely
healthy.
  Almost always those who have sex with children justify their actions
to themselves and others. I am not saying that the child is always
harmed but I am saying that there is always potential harm and that it
is the adult who is responsible for not abusing his/her position.
 My attitude is only self-serving in that I see so many hurting people
that this has happened to and would wish to spare others this pain.

I trust that you are not so blind to the needs of others that the
nature of your reply is self serving.

Celia

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009, Frederick Williams wrote:

> celia wrote:
>> 
>>   Sexual victimization may profoundly interfere with and alter the
> 
> The use of the word 'victimization' is prejudging the matter.
> 
>> development of attitudes toward self, sexuality, and trusting
>> relationships during the critical early years of development.
>> Source: Tsai & Wagner, 1984.
>> 
>>   If the child victim 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah.  I grew tired of the self-serving nature of your
> quotes.
> 
>> >
>> http://www.preventabuse-now.com/stats.htm
>> 

If you don't like the word victim use another 'groomee' or something and
address the statistics and argument rather the language used.

Or stop trolling

Robert
-- 
I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean.
-- G.K. Chesterton

celia wrote:
> 
> ...
>  My attitude is only self-serving in that [...]

Sorry, I didn't mean that you were self-serving, rather that all the
many people you quoted were.

My point was this: if you wish to demonstrate that X suffers from Y you
should not begin by saying 

  For the victim X there were such-and-such 
  undesirable consequences of Y.

Because the use of the word 'victim' indicates that you have already
come to the conclusion you are pretending to prove.  'You' here is not
you Celia its the many and various people whom you quoted, most of
whom--possibly all?--can be described as having an axe to grind.

-- 
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.

"Frederick Williams"  a écrit dans le message 
de news: 4AED8C0F.4D9203B3@tesco.net...
celia wrote:
>
> On 31 Oct, 14:24, Frederick Williams 
> wrote:

> The use of the word 'victims' is prejudging the matter.

> Of course guilt is associated with sex.  But have you asked yourself
why?
>
>> Sexuality is regarded not simply as a part of the self limited to
>>genitals, discrete behaviors, or biological aspects of reproduction,
>>but is more properly understood as one component of the total
>>personality that affects one's concept of personal identity and self-
>>esteem.
>>Source: Whitlock & Gillman, 1989.
>
> More properly says who?
>
>> Sexual victimization may profoundly interfere with and alter the

>The use of the word 'victimization' is prejudging the matter.

Etc etc.

Please forgive me if memory deceives, but I'm sure I've seen similar 
reactions from you before on this topic, although I'm not sure if it was 
here or on soc.culture.thai where you also post, as a regular visitor to 
Thailand.

So is it your view that sex with children is acceptable, and if so, under 
what circumstances?

pg

Robert Marshall wrote:

> 
> If you don't like the word victim use another 'groomee' or something and
> address the statistics and argument rather the language used.

My point was this--and surely it's obvious?--if you wish to demonstrate
that X suffers from Y you should not begin by saying  

  For the victim X there were such-and-such 
  undesirable consequences of Y.

Because the use of the word 'victim' indicates that you have already
come to the conclusion you are pretending to prove.

> Or stop trolling

And be reduced to silence?  Surely the right to troll is part of the
right to free speech (supposing that there is such a right).

-- 
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.

PG wrote:
 
> So is it your view that sex with children is acceptable, and if so, under
> what circumstances?

I wasn't expressing a view on the matter--I have none.  My point was
this: if you wish to demonstrate that X suffers from Y you should not
begin by saying  

  For the victim X there were such-and-such 
  undesirable consequences of Y.

Because the use of the word 'victim' indicates that you have already
come to the conclusion you are pretending to prove.

The 'you' here is the various people that Celia quoted, not you PG.

-- 
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.

Alwyn  was inspired to say
>Richard Emblem wrote:
>>
>> Aren't we supposed to love the sinner and hate the sin?
>
>But that says nothing about the sinner's work!
>
>> A local church here removed his beautiful Stations of the cross some
>> years ago.
>
>Surely a central theme of Christianity is that we are all sinners and 
>in need of forgiveness. Think of the parable of the Pharisee and the 
>publican.
>
>I can only think of one justification for removing the devotional work 
>of art, and that is that after the news came out, people would be 
>impelled to think of the incest and voluptuous sex that Gill is reputed 
>to have indulged in instead of what they were meant to be thinking of 
>while regarding the Stations.

Well said!

Mike
-- 
Michael J Davis

<>{
Free advice is often worth
less than you paid for it.
<>{

"Frederick Williams"  a écrit dans le message 
de news: 4AEEAA72.6195E80E@tesco.net...
> PG wrote:
>
>> So is it your view that sex with children is acceptable, and if so, under
>> what circumstances?
>
> I wasn't expressing a view on the matter--I have none.  My point was
> this: if you wish to demonstrate that X suffers from Y you should not
> begin by saying

snip stuff about debating tactics....

So you have no view on whether sex with children is acceptable. I imagine 
you would be in a very small minority of people who think along those lines. 
Obviously I would hardly expect those who think sex with children is 
acceptable to admit as much on a public forum, but thank you for confirming 
your views anyway.

pg

On 1 Nov, 15:50, Alwyn  wrote:
> I can only think of one justification for removing the devotional work
> of art, and that is that after the news came out, people would be
> impelled to think of the incest and voluptuous sex that Gill is reputed
> to have indulged in instead of what they were meant to be thinking of
> while regarding the Stations.
>
>
It might be thought that most in the congregation would know little
about Eric Gill but while living in the next village to his Golden
Cockerel Press
I regularly had snippets of decades old scandal recounted while
passing by its site.

Celia

PG wrote:
 
> So you have no view on whether sex with children is acceptable. I imagine
> you would be in a very small minority of people who think along those lines.

Some of us don't get our opinions as a job lot or a package deal.  Not
only do we prefer to think for ourselves but we feel at liberty not to
think at all about some things.  So, for example, just because the
public intellectuals (as one might call them) spend their days hating
the BNP or drug dealers or paedophiles doesn't mean I am obliged to. 
(Just as I'm not obliged to like a piece of music just because it's
number one in the hit parade.)

-- 
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.

Frederick Williams wrote:
> PG wrote:
>  
>> So you have no view on whether sex with children is acceptable. I imagine
>> you would be in a very small minority of people who think along those lines.
> 
> Some of us don't get our opinions as a job lot or a package deal.  Not
> only do we prefer to think for ourselves but we feel at liberty not to
> think at all about some things.  So, for example, just because the
> public intellectuals (as one might call them) spend their days hating
> the BNP or drug dealers or paedophiles doesn't mean I am obliged to. 
> (Just as I'm not obliged to like a piece of music just because it's
> number one in the hit parade.)
> 

"the hit parade" - now there's a term I haven't heard for at least forty 
years! :-) Why, I'll bet you even know what I mean by "Tin Pan Alley"!

However, just out of interest, can you envisage any circumstances in 
which sex with children is acceptable? For this purpose I define 
"children"  as pre-pubertal boys and girls.

-- 

Revd. Eric Potts

"Faith, hope and love abide, these three;
and the greatest of these is love."

"Frederick Williams"  a écrit dans le message 
de news: 4AEEEB21.CAF1E8F2@tesco.net...
> PG wrote:
>
>> So you have no view on whether sex with children is acceptable. I imagine
>> you would be in a very small minority of people who think along those 
>> lines.
>
> Some of us don't get our opinions as a job lot or a package deal.  Not
> only do we prefer to think for ourselves but we feel at liberty not to
> think at all about some things.  So, for example, just because the
> public intellectuals (as one might call them) spend their days hating
> the BNP or drug dealers or paedophiles doesn't mean I am obliged to.
> (Just as I'm not obliged to like a piece of music just because it's
> number one in the hit parade.)

Well as I haven't suggested that you hate paedophiles, most of the above 
paragraph is a red herring. I find it very odd that you have "no view" on 
the matter of whether sex with children is acceptable. Feel free to 
illustrate with examples of circumstances that might lead to sex with 
children being acceptable or otherwise, of course. I'm not suggesting you 
indulge in stereotypes, just to give your informed (or otherwise) opinion.

pg

PG wrote:
> I find it very odd that you have "no view" on 
> the matter of whether sex with children is acceptable.

In a world of knee-jerk reactions and instant opinions gleaned from the 
red-top press, I am inclined to find it refreshing when people say they 
don't have an opinion on a 'hot' subject.

It seems to me that from a moral rather than a legal point of view, the 
question is extremely complex, and deferring judgment may well be a 
rational approach.

> Feel free to 
> illustrate with examples of circumstances that might lead to sex with 
> children being acceptable or otherwise, of course.

The most immediate question is perhaps how you define 'child'. It is not 
so long ago that you could be married at 13 in this country, but now the 
marriageable age is 16, and there are calls to increase it. Further, 
after the Sexual Offences Act of 1967, it was an offence for a male to 
have sex with another male under the age of 21, for fear of corrupting 
young men to a life of homosexuality.

I think it's bad form to force one's sexual attentions on anyone of 
whatever age. On the whole, children are unlikely to want to have sexual 
contact with adults, and there is also the possibility that the child 
may come to some harm from the encounter, either physically or 
psychologically, though some of the psychological harm may result from 
social constructs (i.e. taboos).

On the other hand, consider the situation where the younger person sets 
out to seduce the older one. Are we to say that the older partner bears 
the burden of any culpability simply by result of having lived longer?


Alwyn

"Alwyn"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
xrFHm.1026$Ym4.591@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> PG wrote:
>> I find it very odd that you have "no view" on the matter of whether sex 
>> with children is acceptable.
>
> In a world of knee-jerk reactions and instant opinions gleaned from the 
> red-top press, I am inclined to find it refreshing when people say they 
> don't have an opinion on a 'hot' subject.
>
Well I wouldn't believe them, personally, particularly on 'hot topics'. Can 
one really hold 'no view' on Harold Shipman's actions, or closer to home, 
Fritzl's behaviour over so many years?

> It seems to me that from a moral rather than a legal point of view, the 
> question is extremely complex, and deferring judgment may well be a 
> rational approach.
>
Deferring judgment is not the same thing as having no view.

>> Feel free to illustrate with examples of circumstances that might lead to 
>> sex with children being acceptable or otherwise, of course.
>
> The most immediate question is perhaps how you define 'child'. It is not 
> so long ago that you could be married at 13 in this country, but now the 
> marriageable age is 16, and there are calls to increase it. Further, after 
> the Sexual Offences Act of 1967, it was an offence for a male to have sex 
> with another male under the age of 21, for fear of corrupting young men to 
> a life of homosexuality.
>
> I think it's bad form to force one's sexual attentions on anyone of 
> whatever age. On the whole, children are unlikely to want to have sexual 
> contact with adults, and there is also the possibility that the child may 
> come to some harm from the encounter, either physically or 
> psychologically, though some of the psychological harm may result from 
> social constructs (i.e. taboos).
>
> On the other hand, consider the situation where the younger person sets 
> out to seduce the older one. Are we to say that the older partner bears 
> the burden of any culpability simply by result of having lived longer?

Quite agree, there are a small number of potentially mitigating 
circumstances. Which of course, expressed in the above manner, constitute 
part of a 'view'.

However if one were to be asked, as Eric suggested, to give an opinion 
specifically on the acceptability of sex with pre-pubertal children, then I 
would still find holding 'no view' to be very odd indeed.

pg

"loiner2003"  a écrit dans le message 
de news: 7l8c9kF3cohdbU1@mid.individual.net...
> Frederick Williams wrote:
>> PG wrote:
>
> However, just out of interest, can you envisage any circumstances in which 
> sex with children is acceptable? For this purpose I define "children"  as 
> pre-pubertal boys and girls.

Here's one point of view on the subject (that I don't necessarily share)

http://tinyurl.com/paedos

PG wrote:
> "Alwyn"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
> xrFHm.1026$Ym4.591@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> In a world of knee-jerk reactions and instant opinions gleaned from the 
>> red-top press, I am inclined to find it refreshing when people say they 
>> don't have an opinion on a 'hot' subject.
>>
> Well I wouldn't believe them, personally, particularly on 'hot topics'. Can 
> one really hold 'no view' on Harold Shipman's actions, or closer to home, 
> Fritzl's behaviour over so many years?

You are taking 'hot topics' to mean specific cases. I agree, it is hard 
to be neutral about Shipman or Fritzl. But you did not ask Fred to 
comment on specific cases.

>> It seems to me that from a moral rather than a legal point of view, the 
>> question is extremely complex, and deferring judgment may well be a 
>> rational approach.
>>
> Deferring judgment is not the same thing as having no view.

Maybe, but I would be shy about expressing a view until I had come to 
some sort of judgment.

<snip>

> Quite agree, there are a small number of potentially mitigating 
> circumstances. Which of course, expressed in the above manner, constitute 
> part of a 'view'.

Yes

> However if one were to be asked, as Eric suggested, to give an opinion > specifically on the acceptability of sex with pre-pubertal children, then I 
> would still find holding 'no view' to be very odd indeed.

Puberty is a biological milestone. Unless you couch your sexual morality in terms of reproduction, I'm not sure what significance it has.


Alwyn

loiner2003 wrote:
 
> However, just out of interest, can you envisage any circumstances in
> which sex with children is acceptable? For this purpose I define
> "children"  as pre-pubertal boys and girls.

Gosh no, not if by acceptable you mean acceptable to decent people like
you.  (After all, it may be acceptable to those who do it.)

-- 
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.

PG wrote:
> 
> ... I find it very odd that you have "no view" on
> the matter of whether sex with children is acceptable. Feel free to
> illustrate with examples of circumstances that might lead to sex with
> children being acceptable or otherwise, of course. 

Thank you.  May I also feel free not to so?  (I hope so because I intend
to.) 

> I'm not suggesting you
> indulge in stereotypes, just to give your informed (or otherwise) opinion.

I have no opinion, like I have no view.

-- 
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.

Frederick Williams wrote:
 
> Thank you.  May I also feel free not to so?  

I presumably meant 'not to do so'.

-- 
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.

"Alwyn"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
vrGHm.1058$Ym4.570@text.news.virginmedia.com...
PG wrote:
> "Alwyn"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
> xrFHm.1026$Ym4.591@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>In a world of knee-jerk reactions and instant opinions gleaned from the 
>>>red-top press, I am inclined to find it refreshing when people say they 
>>>don't have an opinion on a 'hot' subject.
>>
>>Well I wouldn't believe them, personally, particularly on 'hot topics'. 
>>Can one really hold 'no view' on Harold Shipman's actions, or closer to 
>>home, Fritzl's behaviour over so many years?
>
>You are taking 'hot topics' to mean specific cases. I agree, it is hard to 
>be neutral about Shipman or Fritzl. But you did not ask Fred to comment on 
>specific cases.

Didn't ask him not to either.

>>>It seems to me that from a moral rather than a legal point of view, the 
>>>question is extremely complex, and deferring judgment may well be a 
>>>rational approach.
>>>
>>Deferring judgment is not the same thing as having no view.
>
>Maybe, but I would be shy about expressing a view until I had come to some 
>sort of judgment.
>
Therefore if you were being honest you might state that you have a view, but 
are reluctant to express it, as opposed to holding no view, which would be 
untrue.

><snip>

>>Quite agree, there are a small number of potentially mitigating 
>>circumstances. Which of course, expressed in the above manner, constitute 
>>part of a 'view'.
>
>Yes
>
>>However if one were to be asked, as Eric suggested, to give an opinion 
>>specifically on the acceptability of sex with pre-pubertal children, then 
>>I would still find holding 'no view' to be very odd indeed.
>
>Puberty is a biological milestone. Unless you couch your sexual morality in 
>terms of reproduction, I'm not sure what significance it has.

I think one can reasonably safely generalise and say that a child 
pre-puberty is a) sexually immature, b) psychologically vulnerable and 
easily manipulated by adults s/he would naturally defer to, and c) liable to 
suffer long-term emotional scars and behavioural problems as a result of 
age-inappropriate sexualisation.

PG wrote:
> 
> I think one can reasonably safely generalise and say that a child 
> pre-puberty is a) sexually immature,

That is by definition, so certainly.

> b) psychologically vulnerable and 
> easily manipulated by adults s/he would naturally defer to,

I'm not sure one necessarily becomes less vulnerable with puberty. Some 
children are very 'knowing' at a young age, while some teenagers are 
hopelessly naive. So this is a rule of thumb at best.

> and c) liable to 
> suffer long-term emotional scars and behavioural problems as a result of 
> age-inappropriate sexualisation. 

But this can happen to teenagers too, though one hopes one gets less 
vulnerable as one gets older. I think it very much depends on the person 
and his or her circumstances.

However, I think the law is right to protect young people from sexual 
exploitation, even though the 'age of consent' is somewhat arbitrary.


Alwyn

Frederick Williams wrote:
> PG wrote:
>
>> So is it your view that sex with children is acceptable, and if so,
>> under what circumstances?
>
> I wasn't expressing a view on the matter--I have none.  My point was
> this: if you wish to demonstrate that X suffers from Y you should not
> begin by saying
>
>  For the victim X there were such-and-such
>  undesirable consequences of Y.
>
> Because the use of the word 'victim' indicates that you have already
> come to the conclusion you are pretending to prove.

It indicates an assumption or hypothesis on the part of the person 
presenting the statistics; but does that really affect whether or not the 
statistics support the assumption or not? It might incline one to check to 
see if the numbers are valid or not; but either the evidence supports a 
position or it does not.
>
> The 'you' here is the various people that Celia quoted, not you PG.

loiner2003 wrote:
> 
> "the hit parade" - now there's a term I haven't heard for at least forty 
> years! :-) Why, I'll bet you even know what I mean by "Tin Pan Alley"!

According to Wikipedia, 'hit parade' is not as dated as all that:

'The term is still used, as in the title of the popular magazine, Hit 
Parader and the Canadian record label Hit Parade Records. The British 
indie band The Hit Parade has taken its name from the US TV show.'
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_parade>

> However, just out of interest, can you envisage any circumstances in 
> which sex with children is acceptable? For this purpose I define 
> "children"  as pre-pubertal boys and girls.

I'm sure you're aware that Islamic tradition has it that Muhammad 
married his favourite wife Ayisha when whe was six and consummated the 
marriage three years later. This does not seem to be much of an 
embarrassment to modern Muslims, so I presume it fits within their moral 
code, though the law of the land may prevent them emulating the Prophet 
in this respect.


Alwyn

"Alwyn"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
DeIHm.1102$Ym4.707@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> PG wrote:
>>
>> I think one can reasonably safely generalise and say that a child 
>> pre-puberty is a) sexually immature,
>
> That is by definition, so certainly.
>
>> b) psychologically vulnerable and easily manipulated by adults s/he would 
>> naturally defer to,
>
> I'm not sure one necessarily becomes less vulnerable with puberty. Some 
> children are very 'knowing' at a young age, while some teenagers are 
> hopelessly naive. So this is a rule of thumb at best.
>
Sure, I wasn't trying to draw some kind of arbitrary line, just drawing 
attention to a particularly vulnerable group where the point is more easily 
made. And there is a major difference between knowledge of, and experience. 
Especially the kind of experience that involves an adult as opposed to a 
child of similar age.

>> and c) liable to suffer long-term emotional scars and behavioural 
>> problems as a result of age-inappropriate sexualisation.
>
> But this can happen to teenagers too, though one hopes one gets less 
> vulnerable as one gets older. I think it very much depends on the person 
> and his or her circumstances.
>
Again I was only using the younger group to illustrate the point more 
easily. Of course there's no magic 'switched on' age, and the situation 
varies from individual to individual.

> However, I think the law is right to protect young people from sexual 
> exploitation, even though the 'age of consent' is somewhat arbitrary.

Indeed, and it has to be arbitrary, there is no other option.

Going back to the original issue of having "no view" on a subject, I think 
we have established a few of our own above. I repeat, I find it extremely 
odd that someone should claim to have no take on topics such as this. Of 
course I can understand why someone might claim as much, were their views to 
be controversial.

pg

Alwyn wrote:
> 
> Puberty is a biological milestone. Unless you couch your sexual morality 
> in terms of reproduction, I'm not sure what significance it has.
> 

If we are going to talk about the subject at all, I think we need some 
definitions, while recognising that definitions may be artificial and 
that there may be situations where a particular definition can be 
inappropriate. I chose puberty because this is the time when a human 
body is physically ready for (maybe even crying out for) sexual 
activity. I would think that prior to this point (and sometimes after) 
informed consent by the child is normally impossible.

Of course, one could then argue that we don't then need a law about 
paedophilia as such because we already have the offence of rape.


-- 

Revd. Eric Potts

"Faith, hope and love abide, these three;
and the greatest of these is love."

Alwyn wrote:
> loiner2003 wrote:
> According to Wikipedia, 'hit parade' is not as dated as all that:
> 
> 'The term is still used, as in the title of the popular magazine, Hit 
> Parader and the Canadian record label Hit Parade Records. The British 
> indie band The Hit Parade has taken its name from the US TV show.'
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_parade>
> 

There, you see, I'm so old that I'm too young to be up to date! :-)


> I'm sure you're aware that Islamic tradition has it that Muhammad 
> married his favourite wife Ayisha when whe was six and consummated the 
> marriage three years later. This does not seem to be much of an 
> embarrassment to modern Muslims, so I presume it fits within their moral 
> code, though the law of the land may prevent them emulating the Prophet 
> in this respect.
> 

I think that the details of the tradition vary, as to Ayisha's age in 
particular, and as to when the marriage was actually consummated. I 
cannot say how far modern Muslims would believe it right for themselves 
to follow suit.


-- 

Revd. Eric Potts

"Faith, hope and love abide, these three;
and the greatest of these is love."

loiner2003 wrote:
> 
> I think that the details of the tradition vary, as to Ayisha's age in 
> particular, and as to when the marriage was actually consummated.

This is what Wikipedia asys:

'Child marriages such as this were relatively common in Bedouin 
societies at the time, and remain common in some modern societies 
worldwide.[21] American scholar Colin Turner suggests that such 
marriages were not seen as improper in historical context, and that 
individuals in such societies matured at an earlier age than in the 
modern West.[21] In modern times, however, the issue of Muhammad 
marrying and having sexual relations with a girl so young has been used 
to criticize him, particularly in the West, where there is heightened 
concern about child sexual abuse and related issues.[21] In response 
some modern Muslim apologists have argued that adding up other dates 
given in the traditional sources may indicate that Aisha was older. Such 
a tactic was employed by the Indian Ahmadiyya figure Maulana Muhammad 
Ali.[22] However, scholars such as Watt accept the traditional account.[1]'
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Age_at_marriage>


Alwyn

Alwyn wrote:
> This is what Wikipedia asys:
> ......In response 
> some modern Muslim apologists have argued that adding up other dates 
> given in the traditional sources may indicate that Aisha was older. Such 
> a tactic was employed by the Indian Ahmadiyya figure Maulana Muhammad 
> Ali.[22] However, scholars such as Watt accept the traditional account.[1]'


In other words, the question is moot, which is what I said!

Just to be clear, I have no vested interest in establishing any 
particular age. I do however want to avoid argument which may be based 
on such vested interest, whether Islamic or anti-Islam. I value 
Wikipedia, and often use it myself, but you always have to be wary of 
possible bias in articles.

The general consensus seems to be that the marriage was consummated when 
Aisha was about nine. Some accounts have her as having reached puberty 
then, though this sounds like special pleading. One thing is clear: it 
was exceptional for Muhammad to marry someone so young; he had many 
wives and none of the others were children. he can hardly be described 
therefore as a paedophile, as if this was normal (and pathological) 
behaviour for him. This suggests that the alliance may have been 
tactical or political. Who knows whether or not the marriage was 
consummated so early? Many hadith assume it was, but these may well be 
theological rather than historical in intent. It was not uncommon in the 
Middle Ages for royals and nobles to be betrothed at a very early age, 
but a consummated marriage would normally be delayed until puberty could 
be assumed.

As happens so often with Christianity, the polemics tend to be based on 
a literalistic reading of what are probably and primarily theological texts.


-- 

Revd. Eric Potts

"Faith, hope and love abide, these three;
and the greatest of these is love."

PG wrote:
> 
> [...] I find it extremely
> odd that someone should claim to have no take on topics such as this. 

If you can't imagine someone's thought processes being different from
your own that's a limitation of yours not theirs.

I repeat: I feel no obligation to get overexcited by the kind of thing
that gets the readers of the red tops so enraged.

-- 
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.

zayton wrote:
> 
> Frederick Williams wrote:
> > PG wrote:
> >
> >> So is it your view that sex with children is acceptable, and if so,
> >> under what circumstances?
> >
> > I wasn't expressing a view on the matter--I have none.  My point was
> > this: if you wish to demonstrate that X suffers from Y you should not
> > begin by saying
> >
> >  For the victim X there were such-and-such
> >  undesirable consequences of Y.
> >
> > Because the use of the word 'victim' indicates that you have already
> > come to the conclusion you are pretending to prove.
> 
> It indicates an assumption or hypothesis on the part of the person
> presenting the statistics; but does that really affect whether or not the
> statistics support the assumption or not? It might incline one to check to
> see if the numbers are valid or not; but either the evidence supports a
> position or it does not.

It might cause the following problem.  Someone wishes to hear firsthand
accounts of childhood sexual encounters so they put a notice in the
small ads: 'If you were a victim of childhood sexual abuse and wish to
talk about it please contact ...'.  Someone may think well, I was
deflowered by my father when I was eleven, but I didn't and don't think
of it as abuse and I didn't and don't think of myself as a victim, so I
have nothing to say.

-- 
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.

"Frederick Williams"  a écrit dans le message 
de news: 4AF014C7.BAE94846@tesco.net...
> PG wrote:
>>
>> [...] I find it extremely
>> odd that someone should claim to have no take on topics such as this.
>
> If you can't imagine someone's thought processes being different from
> your own that's a limitation of yours not theirs.
>
Oh indeed I can, which is why I queried your alleged lack of views on the 
subject.

> I repeat: I feel no obligation to get overexcited by the kind of thing
> that gets the readers of the red tops so enraged.

Nonetheless it is interesting that you are quite happy to give your opinion 
on numerous other subjects, as evidenced by your contributions to this 
newsgroup.

pg

Frederick Williams wrote:
> I repeat: I feel no obligation to get overexcited by the kind of thing
> that gets the readers of the red tops so enraged.

In that I agree with you. No way would I defend or condone the actions 
which have been reported in the media - assuming the reports are 
accurate. But I do believe that the red tops, and some of the supposedly 
more responsible media, have whipped up a state of almost panic that 
creates far more problems than it solves.

Too often legislation is hastily and badly put together. And then people 
in authority, terrified of being accused of neglect or worse, interpret 
the rule so restrictively as to make normal, decent human behaviour a 
thing to be feared. The new standards authority sounds almost like a 
star chamber. The problem is also that a backlash against this excessive 
protection can lead to people ignoring what are in truth sensible rules 
of behaviour also.

But not all are running scared. My wife was until recently an occasional 
teacher in a local primary school. She asked for advice on physical 
contact and the Head Teacher said, "If a child needs a hug, give them a 
hug." I wish there were more like that.


-- 

Revd. Eric Potts

"Faith, hope and love abide, these three;
and the greatest of these is love."

PG wrote:
> 
> "Frederick Williams"  a écrit dans le message
> de news: 4AF014C7.BAE94846@tesco.net...
> > PG wrote:
> >>
> >> [...] I find it extremely
> >> odd that someone should claim to have no take on topics such as this> > If you can't imagine someone's thought processes being different from
> > your own that's a limitation of yours not theirs.
> >
> Oh indeed I can, which is why I queried your alleged lack of views on the
> subject.
> 
> > I repeat: I feel no obligation to get overexcited by the kind of thing
> > that gets the readers of the red tops so enraged.
> 
> Nonetheless it is interesting that you are quite happy to give your opinion
> on numerous other subjects, as evidenced by your contributions to this
> newsgroup.

If you think I'm lying why don't you come out and say so?  Don't worry I
won't be offended, indeed I'll be pleased to know where I stand.

-- 
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.

"Frederick Williams"  a écrit dans le message 
de news: 4AF02A58.80E25EB@tesco.net...
PG wrote:
>
> "Frederick Williams"  a écrit dans le 
> message
> de news: 4AF014C7.BAE94846@tesco.net...
> > PG wrote:
> >>
>>>> [...] I find it extremely
>>>> odd that someone should claim to have no take on topics such as this
>>>
>>> If you can't imagine someone's thought processes being different from
>>> your own that's a limitation of yours not theirs.
>>>
>>Oh indeed I can, which is why I queried your alleged lack of views on the
>>subject.
>>
>>> I repeat: I feel no obligation to get overexcited by the kind of thing
>>> that gets the readers of the red tops so enraged.
>>
>>Nonetheless it is interesting that you are quite happy to give your 
>>opinion
>>on numerous other subjects, as evidenced by your contributions to this
>>newsgroup.
>
>If you think I'm lying why don't you come out and say so?  Don't worry I
>won't be offended, indeed I'll be pleased to know where I stand.

Of course I cannot say whether you are lying, or not. It is a possibility.

In message <4aeea367$0$926$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>
          "PG"  wrote:

> Please forgive me if memory deceives, but I'm sure I've seen similar
> reactions from you before on this topic, although I'm not sure if it was
> here or on soc.culture.thai where you also post, as a regular visitor to
> Thailand.

Interesting - and why does he travel to Thailand so frequently?

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

In message 
          Frederick Williams  wrote:

> Some of us don't get our opinions as a job lot or a package deal.  Not
> only do we prefer to think for ourselves but we feel at liberty not to
> think at all about some things.  So, for example, just because the
> public intellectuals (as one might call them) spend their days hating
> the BNP or drug dealers or paedophiles doesn't mean I am obliged to.
> (Just as I'm not obliged to like a piece of music just because it's
> number one in the hit parade.)

Very true - but it is odd that whenever the subject comes up, you 
manage to think about it enough to post, and what you post 
consistently argues in favour of sex with children. If you truly had 
no opinion in the matter and were simply trolling in response to the 
posts of others I would expect that your posts would be fairly 
randomly even, for and against sex with children.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

"Kendall K Down"  a écrit dans le message de 
news: 9d2e4ab450.diggings@diggingsonline.com...
> In message <4aeea367$0$926$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>
>          "PG"  wrote:
>
>> Please forgive me if memory deceives, but I'm sure I've seen similar
>> reactions from you before on this topic, although I'm not sure if it was
>> here or on soc.culture.thai where you also post, as a regular visitor to
>> Thailand.
>
> Interesting - and why does he travel to Thailand so frequently?

As a pretty regular visitor myself, I can think of a whole variety of 
reasons for escaping from Europe :-) They do not necessarily include the 
same incentives that apparently attracted Gary Glitter to the Land Of 
Smiles, of course.

pg

PG wrote:
 
> Of course I cannot say whether you are lying, or not. It is a possibility.

Indeed so, I have no opinion about slide trombones v. valve trombones. 
It is possible that I'm lying when I wrote that but for some reason (I'm
willing to bet) you won't harass me over that.

Anyhow, may I draw your attention to a typo?  When you wrote 'I cannot
say whether you are lying, or not', I think you meant 'I don't have the
guts to accuse you of lying'.

-- 
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.

Kendall K Down wrote:
> 
> In message 
>           Frederick Williams  wrote:
> 
> > Some of us don't get our opinions as a job lot or a package deal.  Not
> > only do we prefer to think for ourselves but we feel at liberty not to
> > think at all about some things.  So, for example, just because the
> > public intellectuals (as one might call them) spend their days hating
> > the BNP or drug dealers or paedophiles doesn't mean I am obliged to.
> > (Just as I'm not obliged to like a piece of music just because it's
> > number one in the hit parade.)
> 
> Very true - but it is odd that whenever the subject comes up, you
> manage to think about it enough to post, and what you post
> consistently argues in favour of sex with children. 

When have I done that?  Message ids, please.

> If you truly had
> no opinion in the matter and were simply trolling in response to the
> posts of others I would expect that your posts would be fairly
> randomly even, for and against sex with children.

I don't agree with that.  If I were trolling, I'd be more likely to
propose the more outrageous one of the two.  (If I didn't know which
that was, I'd read the posts of other people and make an informed
guess.)

-- 
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.

Kendall K Down wrote:
> 
> In message <4aeea367$0$926$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>
>           "PG"  wrote:
> 
> > Please forgive me if memory deceives, but I'm sure I've seen similar
> > reactions from you before on this topic, although I'm not sure if it was
> > here or on soc.culture.thai where you also post, as a regular visitor to
> > Thailand.
> 
> Interesting - and why does he travel to Thailand so frequently?

You could ask him, I suppose.  You're not a doctor (of medicine) are
you?

-- 
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.

loiner2003 wrote:
> 
> Frederick Williams wrote:
> > I repeat: I feel no obligation to get overexcited by the kind of thing
> > that gets the readers of the red tops so enraged.
> 
> In that I agree with you. No way would I defend or condone the actions
> which have been reported in the media - assuming the reports are
> accurate. But I do believe that the red tops, and some of the supposedly
> more responsible media, have whipped up a state of almost panic that
> creates far more problems than it solves.
> 
> Too often legislation is hastily and badly put together. And then people
> in authority, terrified of being accused of neglect or worse, interpret
> the rule so restrictively as to make normal, decent human behaviour a
> thing to be feared. The new standards authority sounds almost like a
> star chamber. The problem is also that a backlash against this excessive
> protection can lead to people ignoring what are in truth sensible rules
> of behaviour also.
> 
> But not all are running scared. My wife was until recently an occasional
> teacher in a local primary school. She asked for advice on physical
> contact and the Head Teacher said, "If a child needs a hug, give them a
> hug." I wish there were more like that.

Are you the only person writing sense in this thread?  Quickly checks. 
No, someone else is, but to name names would be invidious.  Giggle.

-- 
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.

loiner2003 wrote:
> 
> Who knows whether or not the marriage was 
> consummated so early? Many hadith assume it was, but these may well be 
> theological rather than historical in intent.

But what theological intent could a story about the age of the Prophet's 
wife possibly have?

> It was not uncommon in the 
> Middle Ages for royals and nobles to be betrothed at a very early age, 
> but a consummated marriage would normally be delayed until puberty could 
> be assumed.

Oh indeed, dynastic marriage was often like this.

> As happens so often with Christianity, the polemics tend to be based on 
> a literalistic reading of what are probably and primarily theological 
> texts.

But it seems to me that Islam is the most literal-minded of religions, 
and also perhaps the most accomodating of male sexuality.


Alwyn

Alwyn wrote:
> loiner2003 wrote:
>>
>> Who knows whether or not the marriage was consummated so early? Many 
>> hadith assume it was, but these may well be theological rather than 
>> historical in intent.
> 
> But what theological intent could a story about the age of the Prophet's 
> wife possibly have?

I'd have to be a Muslim scholar to answer that, and I'm not! :-)
You might ask what theological intent could there be in Matthew's 
references to magi from the east. That's not a difficult one for a 
biblical scholar (reference to OT prophecy and likening Jesus to 
Solomon), but a non-scholar might well ask in the way you have.


> 
>> As happens so often with Christianity, the polemics tend to be based 
>> on a literalistic reading of what are probably and primarily 
>> theological texts.
> 
> But it seems to me that Islam is the most literal-minded of religions, 
> and also perhaps the most accommodating of male sexuality.
> 

Yes, to both. But not all Muslims are literalist. And it would not be 
the first time that a parable came to be read literally by later 
students. It happens all the time with us: eg the clearly fictional 
stories of Jonah, and Esther.

-- 

Revd. Eric Potts

"Faith, hope and love abide, these three;
and the greatest of these is love."

"Frederick Williams"  a écrit dans le message 
de news: 4AF047BD.1483168E@tesco.net...
> PG wrote:
>
>> Of course I cannot say whether you are lying, or not. It is a 
>> possibility.
>
> Indeed so, I have no opinion about slide trombones v. valve trombones.
> It is possible that I'm lying when I wrote that but for some reason (I'm
> willing to bet) you won't harass me over that.
>
I'm sure that those with some knowledge of the issue will have comments to 
make in favour or against, or indeed they may remain neutral. All imply a 
view of sorts. For me, a trombone isn't a trombone without the glissando. 
What do you think?

> Anyhow, may I draw your attention to a typo?  When you wrote 'I cannot
> say whether you are lying, or not', I think you meant 'I don't have the
> guts to accuse you of lying'.

This isn't the place for speculative mud-slinging. I wrote precisely what I 
meant - it is a possibility that you are being somewhat reticent with the 
truth, just as it is a possibility that you are genuinely completely unmoved 
by all aspects of paedophilia* and have absolutely "no view" on anything 
related to this subject.

* where an adult has and/or acts on a sexual preference for prepubescent 
children.

loiner2003 wrote:
> Alwyn wrote:
>> But what theological intent could a story about the age of the 
>> Prophet's wife possibly have?
> 
> I'd have to be a Muslim scholar to answer that, and I'm not! :-)
> You might ask what theological intent could there be in Matthew's 
> references to magi from the east. That's not a difficult one for a 
> biblical scholar (reference to OT prophecy and likening Jesus to 
> Solomon), but a non-scholar might well ask in the way you have.

Oh, but there is more from the Ahadith:

'When I [Jabir bin 'Abdullah] got married, Allah's Apostle [Mohammad] 
said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have 
married a matron' He said, "Why, don't you have a liking for young 
virgins and fondling them?" Jabir also said: Allah's Apostle said, "Why 
didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she 
with you?"'

Try as one might, one can hardly discern elevated theological content in 
that kind of thing!

Some more scandalous stuff about Muhammad's love life can be found here:
<http://www.mombu.com/culture/pakistan/t--proof-from-hadith-muhammad-the-pedophile--3074712.html>


Alwyn

On 2009-11-03, loiner2003 wrote:

> Alwyn wrote:
>> loiner2003 wrote:
>> According to Wikipedia, 'hit parade' is not as dated as all that:
>> 
>> 'The term is still used, as in the title of the popular magazine, Hit 
>> Parader and the Canadian record label Hit Parade Records. The British 
>> indie band The Hit Parade has taken its name from the US TV show.'
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_parade>
>> 
>
> There, you see, I'm so old that I'm too young to be up to date! :-)

"Too Old to Rock 'n' Roll, Too Young to Die"


-- 
Some say the world will end in fire; some say in segfaults.
                                                 [XKCD 312]

"PG"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
4af06d25$0$967$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> "Frederick Williams"  a écrit dans le 
> message de news: 4AF047BD.1483168E@tesco.net...
>> PG wrote:
>>
>>> Of course I cannot say whether you are lying, or not. It is a 
>>> possibility.
>>
>> Indeed so, I have no opinion about slide trombones v. valve trombones.
>> It is possible that I'm lying when I wrote that but for some reason (I'm
>> willing to bet) you won't harass me over that.
>>
> I'm sure that those with some knowledge of the issue will have comments to 
> make in favour or against, or indeed they may remain neutral. All imply a 
> view of sorts. For me, a trombone isn't a trombone without the glissando. 
> What do you think?

I thought you might have trouble responding to that one. Well, I least I won 
the bet. What was it for? An honest reply?

>> Anyhow, may I draw your attention to a typo?  When you wrote 'I cannot
>> say whether you are lying, or not', I think you meant 'I don't have the
>> guts to accuse you of lying'.
>
> This isn't the place for speculative mud-slinging. I wrote precisely what 
> I meant - it is a possibility that you are being somewhat reticent with 
> the truth, just as it is a possibility that you are genuinely completely 
> unmoved by all aspects of paedophilia* and have absolutely "no view" on 
> anything related to this subject.
>
> * where an adult has and/or acts on a sexual preference for prepubescent 
> children.

Alwyn wrote:
> Oh, but there is more from the Ahadith:
> 
> 'When I [Jabir bin 'Abdullah] got married, Allah's Apostle [Mohammad] 
> said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have 
> married a matron' He said, "Why, don't you have a liking for young 
> virgins and fondling them?" Jabir also said: Allah's Apostle said, "Why 
> didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she 
> with you?"'
> 
> Try as one might, one can hardly discern elevated theological content in 
> that kind of thing!

Most of these stories come from Bukhari, which is in truth recognised by 
Sunni Muslims as a major source of hadith. However Bukhari's collection 
dates from at least two centuries after the prophet's life.

One of the problems, at least as a Christian scholar might see it, is 
that there is so far very little in the way of the kind of scholarly 
critical studies that have been so powerful in biblical study in the 
last century and a half. In the second half of the twentieth century, 
for example, the great Jewish scholar Rabbi Jacob Neusner did an 
encyclopaedic study of the Talmud, especially the Mishnah, and in the 
process showed how much of what is written there is later 
reconstruction, even where it purports to be evidence of practice and 
teaching in an earlier period. We really need someone to do the same for 
the Hadith, and indeed for the Quran itself.

Thus I want to ask - but cannot answer - how far is the stuff in Bukhari 
actually a fair representation of the ideas of the prophet and hgos 
contemporaries, and how far is it the product of subsequent reflection 
and development, in a differing cultural climate (eg one of Muslim 
dominance, in contrast to the situation in the prophet's day).


> Some more scandalous stuff about Muhammad's love life can be found here:
> <http://www.mombu.com/culture/pakistan/t--proof-from-hadith-muhammad-the-pedophile--3074712.html> 

The provenance and intention of this site is not clear.


I am not saying that the "scandalous" interpretation may not be true. It 
could be. But it is as risky to assume that on the basis of hadith as it 
is to assume that the Pharisees in Jesus' day acted as the Talmud claims 
they acted; or that Jesus actually walked on water because later gospel 
tradition says he did.


-- 

Revd. Eric Potts

"Faith, hope and love abide, these three;
and the greatest of these is love."

loiner2003 wrote:
> 
> I am not saying that the "scandalous" interpretation may not be true. It 
> could be. But it is as risky to assume that on the basis of hadith as it 
> is to assume that the Pharisees in Jesus' day acted as the Talmud claims 
> they acted; or that Jesus actually walked on water because later gospel 
> tradition says he did.

Personally, I am far more interested in how the average Muslim perceives 
his faith than in speculations on what the historical Muhammad might 
have been like. If I were such a Muslim, I would say that what was good 
enough for the Prophet (pbuh) is good enough for me.


Alwyn

In message 
          loiner2003  wrote:

> Who knows whether or not the marriage was consummated so early?

Referring again to the Yemeni case to which I alluded in an earlier 
post, one of those involved declared that a pre-puberty girl would be 
used "as a boy" until she had reached puberty, after which she would 
be used in the "normal" way.

Somehow I doubt that makes the whole business any more acceptable.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

In message <KfQHm.1188$Ym4.73@text.news.virginmedia.com>
          Alwyn  wrote:

> I'm sure you're aware that Islamic tradition has it that Muhammad
> married his favourite wife Ayisha when whe was six and consummated the
> marriage three years later. This does not seem to be much of an
> embarrassment to modern Muslims, so I presume it fits within their moral
> code, though the law of the land may prevent them emulating the Prophet
> in this respect.

Well, my sister (adopted) was under 12 when she was married to a man 
in his 60s, so Muslims clearly don't have any problem with young 
marriage. (There was also the case of those British girls carted off 
to the Yemen by their father and married off; if I remember rightly, 
one of them was only about nine or ten.)

We bought my sister out of the marriage (that was when we adopted her) 
and I believe that such marriage is far too young, but it goes on all 
the time, so perhaps I don't view it with the horror that other 
British people might.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

In message 
          Frederick Williams  wrote:

> Are you the only person writing sense in this thread?  Quickly checks.
> No, someone else is, but to name names would be invidious.  Giggle.

There appears to be an outbreak of sense recently. Did anyone notice 
the film clip of a BBC journalist flooring a yob who was pestering 
him? Almost immediately afterwards a police van arrived and - note 
this - arrested the yob instead of the journalist.

I suspect the policeman of being drunk or something. It is not normal 
police behaviour to arrest the criminal when there's a perfectly 
inoffensive victim they can arrest instead.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================