Muslims suffer insanity, low IQ, recessive disorders from inbreeding

That's the exact same link and DOESN'T support that claim.

You do know canon law has changed constantly over the centuries, right?

 

Hate Mongers are always able to find or create the Justifications for their HATE
...I would suggest that our "ChemEngineer" - Google - "Jewish Inbreeding"
.....and read or peruse some of the hundreds of thousands of disgusting articles
...................................................................or images meant to depict the problem

Point is: - The bald & disgusting attempt at Smear, using the word INBREAD,
... and all the degeneracy that that implies, is a two edged sword that only exposes
........................................................ the filth on the hands of the person who uses it

 

Socialism, like capitalism, works just fine if used properly. Either form of economics when left unfettered will produce the same results, the rich getting richer, and the poor dying.

BTW, Republicans lying all the time to get the country into a war is also evil, and sick. And mass murderers like Randy Weaver cannot be ignored:

http://www.markhumphrys.com/left.right.violence.html

 

Sorry. I forgot that some people do not do their own research, and need others to do it for them. Scroll down to page 97:

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4045&context=californialawreview

 

How does that counter anything I've posted?

 

This is very interesting. I am not sure how much is fact, and how much is conjecture. But I think it would be interesting to compare the level of inbreeding in Muslim countries, with the level of violence. Indonesia is a very large Muslim country, and has little violence. I wonder how common inbreeding is there?

 

How about the fact that a significant portion of Muslims want to kill us infidels, and the "good Muslims" allow the crazies to hide in their midst?

 

For all intents and purposes it has been in place in the Church for most of its existence. There are a number of exceptions including allowing royalty to marry within for political reasons --- which often turned out bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#Judaism_and_Christianity
At the dawn of Christianity in Roman times, marriages between first cousins were allowed. For example, Emperor Constantine, the first Christian Roman Emperor, married his children to the children of his half-brother. First and second cousin marriages were then banned at the Council of Agde in AD 506, though dispensations sometimes continued to be granted. By the 11th century, with the adoption of the so-called canon-law method of computing consanguinity, these proscriptions had been extended even to sixth cousins, including by marriage. But due to the many resulting difficulties in reckoning who was related to whom, they were relaxed back to third cousins at the Fourth Lateran Council in AD 1215. Pope Benedict XV reduced this to second cousins in 1917,[23] and finally, the current law was enacted in 1983.[167] In Catholicism, close relatives who have married unwittingly without a dispensation can receive an annulment.

 

Not buying it.

 

Most often the "Good Muslims" are being held captive. Then too, I suppose you have never heard the term "human shields".

 

That 'two edged sword' has a sharp blade - Does it NOT, FOS ChemE?

 

Well the link also says it was adapted from Roman law, so I think that predates the Council of Trent.

But I'm curious why it's so important to you that you need to believe that first cousin marriage was A OK in Europe in the middle ages? I've backed up my position and you've yet to back up yours. So the real argument is why do you disregard very easily obtainable facts to stand by irrational beliefs?

 

I guess I take after the President.

 

If homosexuals are inordinately violent, why are female homosexuals getting a pass here? Or are they not homosexuals? Or is their rate of violence/murder, etc. so low as to be statistically nonexistent?

In the case of the US Vietnam War, if FDR had lived through his last term, the US would never have backed France in its attempt to reestablish the French Empire in Indochina, nor likely anywhere else. It was the wrong war, for the wrong reasons, in the wrong place, under impossible circumstances & limitations. One of Pres. FDR's bones of contention with UK PM W. Churchill was that the US was not committing troops & material & weapons in WWII to fight for anyone's empire, including the British & French, nor that of any other Ally.

In the case of Pres. W's WOT, I think he had to act in the case of Afghanistan. It might have been possible to arrive @ some political settlement, but public opinion nor Congress would wait. In Iraq, I think it was the wrong war & entirely avoidable - & that avoiding the war would have been if not the best, @ least one of the better possible outcomes.

 

Marriage between cousins was a common practice among arranged marriages between monarchs during the middle ages, but I don't know how common it was among the general populuas. Also, contrary to what the link claims, there are no passages in the bible that prohibit marriages among first cousins. The bible prohibits relations with one's own grandparents, parents, nephew/niece, children, sibling, or parent in-law.. but there are no such restrictions on marrying one's own cousin

In the old testament, Abraham's son Isaac marries his first cousin, and two of Isaac's sons also marry their first cousins. So relations between cousins is discussed, but nowhere is it prohibited.

 

British Pakistanis are thirteen times more likely to produce disabled children.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/591577/British-Pakistanis-13-times-more-disabled-children

It gets worse, much, much worse, not that any Leftists care for facts. This from WikiIslam.net:

In Pakistan, where there has been cousin marriage for generations, and according to professor Anne-Marie Nybo Andersen from South Danish University, the current rate is 70%,[5] one study estimated infant mortality at 12.7 percent for married double first cousins, 7.9 percent for first cousins, 9.2 percent for first cousins once removed/double second cousins, 6.9 percent for second cousins, and 5.1 percent among non-consanguineous progeny. Among double first cousin progeny, 41.2 percent of pre-reproductive deaths were associated with the expression of detrimental recessive genes, with equivalent values of 26.0, 14.9, and 8.1 percent for first cousins, first cousins once removed/double second cousins, and second cousins respectively.

 

Is this garbage thread still alive?

It's as disgusting as the anti-Semitic one that Lee S. closed today

 

OK...but we're not talking about either the Bible or biblical time, it was Europe in the Middle Ages. So...how again are biblical characters marrying first cousins relevant to the topic?

 

Give it to 'em, Mike. Your brilliant response reminds me of an interchange like this I had with the local librarian. She hissed very condescendingly, "You CONSERVATIVES just want to KILL EVERYONE and let GOD sort it out!" [Lie #1]

Ah, touche. We had begun. She would soon rue her Leftist Talking Point.

"Can you name one prominent conservative who ever said such a thing as "Kill everyone and let God sort it out"? Just one."

Librarian: "I didn't say 'kill'." [Lie #2]

Me: "Oh but you did. I heard you clearly."

Librarian: "Well what about the Crusades." [Lie #3]

Me: "The Crusades took place in the twelfth century, before there was an America, much less conservatives. Can't you get a little more current than that?"

Librarian: "I have to get that." As she picked up her telephone, which had not rung one single ding. [Lie #4]

This is an educated woman, keeper of the repository of knowledge. Hers was the general direction any conversation with a Leftist takes. Lying to support previous lies, all of them indefensible.

 

I'm not sure if you're being serious with your question about how the bible is relevant to the topic. The topic of the thread is literally about religious doctrine and incestuous marriages, hence the title of the thread, and the part of the OP which reads "This practice, which has been prohibited in the Judeo-Christian tradition since the days of Moses" which again is completely untrue, no such restrictions exist anywhere in Jewish or Christian tradition.

Frankly I am a bit amazed that someone out there wouldn't understand why I would bring up the fact that the bible makes no such restrictions.. but whatever, I was addressing two parts of the topic, one being the thread topic/OP, and the other being the little sub discussion regarding Europe in the middle ages. Perhaps you thought the topic in this thread had nothing to do with the content of the OP, and was exclusively about Europe in the middle ages.. but that seems unlikely.

In regards to Europeans marrying their cousins in the middle ages, it was actually a quite common thing among royal families and aristocrats for several centuries, going back to the middle ages and clear up until the 20th century (the current Queen of the UK is married to her 2nd cousin), and contrary to the OP of this thread, there was nothing in their religion restricting such practice. You can read about it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_intermarriage here http://www.medicalbag.com/grey-matt...yals-house-of-kissing-cousins/article/472430/ and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_relationships_between_British_monarchs_and_consorts It's also addressed in Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man" in which he criticizes the aristocracies across Europe.

 

European Royals inbreeding, that's not possible

I stand corrected.

 

This is the pompous twit who pronounced his support for conservation to arrest that nasty "global warming" stuff.
He told all you little people that you're going to have to "tighten your belts" and then he got into his limousine and was transported to his OTHER castle. Oh yes, and he took a very expensive (at the cost of you little people) train tour for "environmental" pontificating too. These filthy rich, at government expense, really mouthe off without thinking. And divorcing Diana to marry that horse... ugh.

 

His *other* castle, where I believe he claims residence now, is Vlad Dracula's castle whom he brags about being descendent of I **** YOU NOT.

If it was fiction it would be so cliche that no one would buy it.

 

Neither is the JewishEncyclopedia, talking of Biblical nor Medieval times

But you fine people find it convenient to simply avoid that simple FACT, and charge ahead
with your puerile attempts to Smear & Dehumanize a people, while Ignoring the FACT,
that the said - inconvenient - FACT - of INBREEDING, is shown to also apply to you, and
so damages your cause, & destroys the whole premise that your argument is based on,
--------------------------------- as it flies back and hits you in your face, making your case look
------------------------------------------------------------------------- - CHEAP, Bogus & Ill Conceived


This is here exposed as bald ‘Willful Ignorance’ on your part - A faux-pas commonly committed
..... by Hate Mongers, and is easily perceived by fair minded people – yet it blows right over top
........................................................................................................of the Fools who are guilty of it


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From - Margot2’s post:
Consanguinity Among Jews
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4611-consanguinity-among-jews

"Owing to their dispersion among populations professing creed different from their own,
Jews have married ear relatives more frequently than the rest of the world"

&

Science Reveals: Jews Fantastically Inbred.
http://jewlicious.com/2006/01/science-reveals-jews-fantastically-inbred/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tell me Ill Mike & ChemE - How's that 'Cognitive Dissonance' feel when you look
................................................................................. into the mirror of Self Reflection ?


So maybe it 's time to go back to Hasbara school -
Or just Maybe it's time to have done with Zionist inspired Tribal Hatreds & Paranoia, and so to join the Human Race

.

 

The Catholic Church prohibition through Canonical law during the middle ages is the exact issue I've been addressing. Recall, the OP thesis is that the Muslim world suffers from disorders related to inbreeding because in many Muslim countries, kinship is the dominate form of political organization, so cousin marriage isn't just allowed, it's encouraged.

The automatic response of, "what about the Christiannnssss?" was what I was addressing. Apparently many people, with no evidence, seem to believe that cousin marriage was perfectly fine with the Church and quite common, and apparently it's such a persistent myth that a lot of posters here will just ignore any evidence that contradicts their myth based worldview. You make two points:

First, that the Bible has no problem with cousin marriage. I acknowledge that, but that's not the point. For most of Christian history, the dominate source of authority was the Catholic Church, not the Bible. They set the rules. Obviously until Gutenberg, most Europeans were illiterate. Once people started to actually read the Bible, a lot of things changed, starting with the reformation, but that has nothing to do with practices and rules that had governed Christians for a millennia. In fact, so strong are those prohibitions that plenty of secular, I'm-too-smart-for-religion types (see this thread) openly mock cousin marriages (except of course for Muslim ones because...you know...). European society would would have evolved in a radically different direction if there had been a free for all on cousins during the middle ages.

Secondly, Royal marriages. So what? Royals have always done things the commoners are not allowed to do. That's kind of their thing. They represented such a tiny proportion of the population that they're statistically irrelevant. They loom large to you because history is mostly about them, not the regular folks.