A Very Special Update: Raped Women Who Dressed Immodestly Deserve It, Woman Stoned

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Today is a very special update that includes two parts. What can you say about this that can't be said by the articles themselves.

Muslim cleric: women incite men's lust with 'satanic dress'
By Miranda Devine
April 24, 2005
The Sun-Herald

A Muslim sheik told followers at a public meeting in Bankstown that women who were raped had incited men's lust by dressing immodestly and only had themselves to blame.

Sydney-born Sheik Faiz Mohamad, 34, a former boxer who teaches at the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool, made the comments during a lecture for more than 1000 people at Bankstown Town Hall.

The Sun-Herald has a recording of the March 18 speech in which Sheik Faiz said: "A victim of rape every minute somewhere in the world. Why? No one to blame but herself. She displayed her beauty to the entire world . . .

"Strapless, backless, sleeveless, nothing but satanic skirts, slit skirts, translucent blouses, miniskirts, tight jeans: all this to tease man and appeal to his carnal nature."

He compared a woman dressed in such a way to a sheep. "Would you put this sheep that you adore in the middle of hungry wolves? No . . . It would be devoured. It's the same situation here. You're putting this precious girl in front of lustful, satanic eyes of hungry wolves. What is the consequence? Catastrophic devastation, sexual harassment, perversion, promiscuity."

The invitation to the $15-a-head lecture stipulated modest dress and "strict male and female segregation". It was promoted as a lecture about "death" in flyers and on the website of the ICRA Youth Centre in Lidcombe, an Islamic community group which sponsored the evening.

The ICRA and Faiz's Global Islamic Youth Centre have broken away from the Lakemba Mosque, the main place of worship for Sydney's Lebanese Muslims, because, a former associate says, Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali, 64, is too moderate.

Sheik Faiz also exhorted Muslim women to wear the hijab head covering as "a liberation from male scrutiny".

"It's sad to see today how young girls are being brought up," he said. "The way they dress, their hairstyles . . . layers of make-up, which they just shovel on in order to remove afterwards, tanning out in the sun, bronzed, shiny so she can shine the lustful eyes of men; extreme dieting, working out. Why? So she can get the best figure, but not for her husband."

He also condemned the soap opera Days Of Our Lives, which he said made wives negative towards their husbands, and said "premarital sex is fashionable, that manipulation, deceit, cheating, lying falsehood are all essential ways to get the man or lady of your dreams".

Sheik Faiz declined to be interviewed.
Link (http://$$$$$$$$$$$$/bb3gn)

Wow, that was charming, but leave to me! I can top it!


Muslim adulterer stoned to death
From correspondents in Faizabad, Afghanistan
April 24, 2005
From: Reuters

AN Afghan woman has been stoned to death for adultery, police said today, the first such incident in Afghanistan since the Taliban's ouster from power.
Amina, a 29 year-old married woman, was publicly stoned to death on the basis of a district court's decision on Thursday in Argo district to the west of Faizabad, the provincial capital of Badakhshan, they said.

"She has been stoned to death," provincial police chief, General Shah Jahan Noori, confirmed to Reuters, adding a team has been sent to the area to investigate the incident further.

Adultery is forbidden in the Muslim country and under Islamic sharia law the penalty can range from flogging to stoning to death.
Advertisement:

Several women and men were given such punishments in Badakhshan, a remote north-eastern province, during the government of the Mujahideen (holy warriors) in the 1990s.

The practice became common during the rule of hardline Taliban who controlled most of Afghanistan till late 2001 when they were ousted from power by US-led forces.

A witness, Mujibur Rahman, told Reuters that Amina was dragged out of her parent's house by local officials and her husband who stoned her to death while the man was flogged, whipped 100 times and then freed.

Amina's stoning was the first one in Afghanistan since President Hamid Karzai was installed to power after the US-led forces overthrew the Taliban's government, Noori said.
Link (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15071935-23109,00.html)

Ah yes, another wonderful tale of tolerence and forgiveness. I'm sorry I've been so hard on Islam. It's clear that it is worthy of praise, emulation and equality. Please forgive me for being so wrong in being critical of this faith.

[CoffeeEdge]

Edit:
Forget it. You're entitled to your own opinions...

[zionoverfire]

I can say the first link requires we sing in.

[dtcarson]

Boy oh boy, I can tell you no end of atrocities committed, and for a long, long time, supported by the Christian church, but I think it would fall deaf on your bigoted and prejudiced ears. All I have to do is look at your avatar and it's pretty obvious that nothing I can say will get through to you.

Possibly true, but irrelevant. [And I love the classic 'argument' of 'Well, you won't listen anyway, so I won't even try'.]

Does that mean these examples are 'okay,', that the Christian church [and which one, Catholic, Protestant, AME, Episcopalean, etc?] has done 'bad things' as well? I know of a cop that has killed a suspect, so that must mean all killing is okay, since one 'good guy' did it.
And the fact that the Church no longer does these things means something as well; at least, I haven't heard of a priest stoning a woman recently.

As a male, I'm feeling harassed and offended by Sheik Faiz Mohamad's comments, he is saying all men are 'lustful, satanic'.

If you'd care to discuss the original post, I'll continue, but your irrelevant red herring and symbolic 'throwing up of hands' implies to me you don't care about 'discussing' things. I'll be the first one to admit that some 'good' organizations/groups have members who do bad things, or that some of their decisions/positions are not good, but I also state that doesn't excuse other bad things happening by other groups.

PaD: nice avatar, I usually have them turned off, but CoffeeEdge's comment made me go look at yours. Long live the Reagan Revolution.

[jaykrue]

Counterpoint: Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, The Great Schism, the bastardizing and absorption of non-catholic holy days into its own (Feast of the Saturnalia aka celebration of the winter Solstice = Xmas, the Spring Equinox aka the celebration of the Phrygian fertility goddess's (Cybele) lover Attis = Easter, etc. etc.), covering up child-molestation by higher authority Catholics, etc. etc.

Speaking as a Catholic, I'm not disillusioned by Catholicism's crimes. They are no worse than any other religions. Speaking as a child of a former Islamic father/Catholic mother, I can easily assure you that Islam is not the problem - religion is.

[usickenme]

Digging through the internet to find "bad examples" of a religion PAD seems to hate (or dislkike at least) isn't doing anything to created a discussion about bad consequences of some groups.

It is bigotry plain and simple.

p.s. Reagan sucked. He gets too much credit and no blame.

[Drocket]

For the first article: the idea that women who get raped 'deserve' it is in no way a Muslim-only idea. Its an idea that STILL comes up with ridiculous frequency in the US. Up until just a couple decades ago, rapists were very rarely prosecuted - rape was barely considered a crime. The situation has improved (mostly because of massive amounts of campaigning by women's lib organizations), but even today there's a ridiculous number of rapists who barely get a slap on the wrist because the judge feels that the woman was 'asking for it.'

As for stoning adulterers... I don't really see the problem. As long as male adulterers get stoned too, it seems like a fair system. Maybe I'm just bitter, though :D

[dtcarson]

That struck me about the adultery thing as well--adultery is a twoway street, if only one person has the choice, then it's rape. Otherwise, both people should be punished [if it's deemed worthy of punishment].
Sure, 'she deserved it' comes up. But generally not from public figures heading organizations/religions, and if it is, they usually get pretty much slammed for saying such.

jaykrue: I disagree slightly, I don't think religion is inherently the problem, I think it's people who want power/control, using that religion. Religion, all religions, have been and can be a force for good, either small scale in people's lives, or large scale, via missions, charities, etc. But as with any position of power, there will always be those who abuse it.
And I do agree, like I said in my first post, there have been plenty of non-Muslim religions that have done 'bad things'. No argument there.
I don't know if I agree that the 'absorption of other holy days' is necessarily a bad thing; if those holy days had enough believers, wouldn't they have stayed with the other religion?

CoffeeEdge: Why not just delete your post, if you're going to say that?

usickenme: That's exactly what I think about Clinton. All the credit for this big tech 'bubble', none of the blame for blowing it up beyond what it could stand, hence, the explosion and stock market crash. Oh, but that happened under Bush, so it's Bush's fault.

[Kayden]

For the first article: the idea that women who get raped 'deserve' it is in no way a Muslim-only idea. Its an idea that STILL comes up with ridiculous frequency in the US. Up until just a couple decades ago, rapists were very rarely prosecuted - rape was barely considered a crime. The situation has improved (mostly because of massive amounts of campaigning by women's lib organizations), but even today there's a ridiculous number of rapists who barely get a slap on the wrist because the judge feels that the woman was 'asking for it.'

As for stoning adulterers... I don't really see the problem. As long as male adulterers get stoned too, it seems like a fair system. Maybe I'm just bitter, though :D

You can't really blame the judge all the time. Granted, too many 'important' people get off way too easily. On the other hand, I have known quite a few girls that gave it up to some guy easily, but then after the fact they felt bad/ashamed and cried rape after the fact.

[jaykrue]

jaykrue: I disagree slightly, I don't think religion is inherently the problem, I think it's people who want power/control, using that religion. Religion, all religions, have been and can be a force for good, either small scale in people's lives, or large scale, via missions, charities, etc. But as with any position of power, there will always be those who abuse it.
And I do agree, like I said in my first post, there have been plenty of non-Muslim religions that have done 'bad things'. No argument there.
I don't know if I agree that the 'absorption of other holy days' is necessarily a bad thing; if those holy days had enough believers, wouldn't they have stayed with the other religion?

I think religion is a problem when the ppl in power use it to force their belief system on others. I was born a Catholic but m parents made it so that I could choose my own path and I've gained greater insight because of it. Sadly, my father's brothers/sisters don't feel the same and force their children into following old and archiac traditions that have no redeeming value. I talk to my cousins about that and they say they're doing it just to humor their parents. I think it's considerate of them to take into account of their parents' feelings but the parents don't seem to reciprocate that notion. Granted, religion has also done good but it's hard to ignore the atrocities committed in God's (or any benevolent deity for that matter) name. As for the holy days, it's not so much about retaining believers as it is about preserving the culture. As far as I know, only a few of my wiccan friends celebrate the Saturnalia and even then, they only do so automatically - because it's part of the tradition but when I ask them why do they do it, they know less than I do about its significance. They just do it since they were raised that way so, in a sense, they're just like my Catholic cousins; they only do so to observe tradition instead of doing it with the knowledge of why they do it.

[usickenme]

usickenme: That's exactly what I think about Clinton. All the credit for this big tech 'bubble', none of the blame for blowing it up beyond what it could stand, hence, the explosion and stock market crash. Oh, but that happened under Bush, so it's Bush's fault.

wtf? I don't have Clinton in my avatar either

[alonzomourning23]

Possibly true, but irrelevant. [And I love the classic 'argument' of 'Well, you won't listen anyway, so I won't even try'.]

Does that mean these examples are 'okay,', that the Christian church [and which one, Catholic, Protestant, AME, Episcopalean, etc?] has done 'bad things' as well? I know of a cop that has killed a suspect, so that must mean all killing is okay, since one 'good guy' did it.
And the fact that the Church no longer does these things means something as well; at least, I haven't heard of a priest stoning a woman recently.

As a male, I'm feeling harassed and offended by Sheik Faiz Mohamad's comments, he is saying all men are 'lustful, satanic'.

If you'd care to discuss the original post, I'll continue, but your irrelevant red herring and symbolic 'throwing up of hands' implies to me you don't care about 'discussing' things. I'll be the first one to admit that some 'good' organizations/groups have members who do bad things, or that some of their decisions/positions are not good, but I also state that doesn't excuse other bad things happening by other groups.

PaD: nice avatar, I usually have them turned off, but CoffeeEdge's comment made me go look at yours. Long live the Reagan Revolution.

The point here is that these arguments have all been made, anything that we say to PAD has been said to him before, it's just a matter of changing around the words. Eventually, there's no point in repeating the same argument over and over.

Also, considering PAD is not distinguishing between which type of islam, there's no reason anyone should have to distinguish between particular types of christianity.

[uzumaki_star]

That 's "insert bad word here" up. I would rate be baptist, pregant and the pastor's daugther.

[tauruskatt]

Here's how my little story goes:

So, let's say you're taking a walk. You're dressed profesionally, nice suit, watch, clean shoes, hair well-groomed, department store or better cologne brand on. You're not bothering anyone else, when suddenly a man whom you used to assosiate with comes up to you and demands you give him all your money. You comply, because, well, wtf, he's bigger then you, and looks like he has a weapon too.

You call the police, the robber is tracked down and questioned by police. Even though you've identified the man who robbed you, you're asked to complete a series of embarassing physical and pshyciatric exams. and then you go to court. But instead of the robber, you are asked to take the stand to tell your side of the situation. The prosecuter then asks you questions:

You knew this man once before, hadn't you ever given him gifts or loaned him money before, why should we believe that he robbed you? You say you "resisted" him? Or, did you really want to give him your money and then later felt bad and changed your mind about how it happened? Aren't you really just after my client's money/out to destroy his reputation? What were you doing in a shady neighborhood dressed like you were? Weren't you practically begging to be robbed, advertising that you had some money on you like that??

Here's some facts, rape victims are selected because they are seen as alone and vurnerable, it doesn't even have anything to do with clothing or appearance. one-third of all women are sexually assulted at least once during their lifetime, and 90% of the time it is by someone they know.

if 90% of rapists know their victims, I don't buy this sentance, since the men first "put the sheep to pasture" then turn into "hungry wolves":
"Would you put this sheep that you adore in the middle of hungry wolves? No . . . It would be devoured. It's the same situation here. You're putting this precious girl in front of lustful, satanic eyes of hungry wolves. What is the consequence? Catastrophic devastation, sexual harassment, perversion, promiscuity."

blaming rape on the woman's appearance/social standing/sexual background is just another way of saying, "I'm a selfish asshole who wants to shift the blame from myself to society so that I can feel like a hungry wolf getting whatever I want without the guilt problem."

I wouldn't want to step on anyone's feet here and come off like some butch pshyco-drama-girl, but I wouldn't mind a rewording of the title, currently it's worded as a statement: "A very special update: raped women who dressed immodestly deserve it, woman stoned". Let's try to find a way to reword that as "News story: rape victim stoned, blamed on clothing..etc" or something, mkay? :roll:

[sblymnlcrymnl]

Here's how my little story goes:

So, let's say you're taking a walk. You're dressed profesionally, nice suit, watch, clean shoes, hair well-groomed, department store or better cologne brand on. You're not bothering anyone else, when suddenly a man whom you used to assosiate with comes up to you and demands you give him all your money. You comply, because, well, wtf, he's bigger then you, and looks like he has a weapon too.

You call the police, the robber is tracked down and questioned by police. Even though you've identified the man who robbed you, you're asked to complete a series of embarassing physical and pshyciatric exams. and then you go to court. But instead of the robber, you are asked to take the stand to tell your side of the situation. The prosecuter then asks you questions:

You knew this man once before, hadn't you ever given him gifts or loaned him money before, why should we believe that he robbed you? You say you "resisted" him? Or, did you really want to give him your money and then later felt bad and changed your mind about how it happened? Aren't you really just after my client's money/out to destroy his reputation? What were you doing in a shady neighborhood dressed like you were? Weren't you practically begging to be robbed, advertising that you had some money on you like that??

Here's some facts, rape victims are selected because they are seen as alone and vurnerable, it doesn't even have anything to do with clothing or appearance. one-third of all women are sexually assulted at least once during their lifetime, and 90% of the time it is by someone they know.

if 90% of rapists know their victims, I don't buy this sentance, since the men first "put the sheep to pasture" then turn into "hungry wolves":
"Would you put this sheep that you adore in the middle of hungry wolves? No . . . It would be devoured. It's the same situation here. You're putting this precious girl in front of lustful, satanic eyes of hungry wolves. What is the consequence? Catastrophic devastation, sexual harassment, perversion, promiscuity."

blaming rape on the woman's appearance/social standing/sexual background is just another way of saying, "I'm a selfish asshole who wants to shift the blame from myself to society so that I can feel like a hungry wolf getting whatever I want without the guilt problem."

I wouldn't want to step on anyone's feet here and come off like some butch pshyco-drama-girl, but I wouldn't mind a rewording of the title, currently it's worded as a statement: "A very special update: raped women who dressed immodestly deserve it, woman stoned". Let's try to find a way to reword that as "News story: rape victim stoned, blamed on clothing..etc" or something, mkay? :roll:

:applause: Nicely said. And don't mind PAD's thread titles, he's waging a personal war on islam.

[KingSpike]

tauruskatt wins the thread.

And hey, it's always good to make sweeping generalizations of a gigantic group of people, because clearly that statement will be true and add to your argument in a beneficial way. I heard all gamers have the IQ of a rock. Oh snaps.

[cag1000]

i pick em if they r purty and gots a sweet mouf. Dem dress gonna git tattered anyway so i likes 2 pick the dresses that taunt me with der colors, der colors of a harlot.

[KingSpike]

i pick em if they r purty and gots a sweet mouf. Dem dress gonna git tattered anyway so i likes 2 pick the dresses that taunt me with der colors, der colors of a harlot.

Personally I just wait alongside a river until some northerners come rafting down. Then I do things to 'em. Fun things. With banjo music in the background.

Squeel like a pig.

[tauruskatt]

Squeel like a pig.

:rofl:

oh god it's awful but it's funny....


I guess I won. huzzah ~ for common sense and well worded argument wins the day again! Do I get to pick which stuffed animal I win?

[KingSpike]

:rofl:
Do I get to pick which stuffed animal I win?

Yes you do. You can choose one of the small ones. Trade two in for a medium, three of those in for a large. Or you can play our Whaaaaaaaaaacky Raffle for a chance to win a large right off the bat!

[tauruskatt]

Yes you do. You can choose one of the small ones. Trade two in for a medium, three of those in for a large. Or you can play our Whaaaaaaaaaacky Raffle for a chance to win a large right off the bat!

:bouncy: ....I bid....one dollar!...

oh wait, it's not that show?...sorry! IQ of a rock over here :wave: ;)

[KingSpike]

If I was on the Price is Right and someone bid $1 higher than me I'd probably say mean things to them during the commercial break.

When I was in Vegas with some friends we were watching PIR the last day we were there before we went to the airport. A friend was so mad at this woman that kept on winning because she was so dumb. He'd yell at the TV screen for her to lose and then when she'd win he'd claim that God was out to get him. His best quote was "My plane is going to crash. Twice!"

[tauruskatt]

If I was on the Price is Right and someone bid $1 higher than me I'd probably say mean things to them during the commercial break.

When I was in Vegas with some friends we were watching PIR the last day we were there before we went to the airport. A friend was so mad at this woman that kept on winning because she was so dumb. He'd yell at the TV screen for her to lose and then when she'd win he'd claim that God was out to get him. His best quote was "My plane is going to crash. Twice!"

lol...he's lucky he didn't get tackled by security...8-)

[KingSpike]

lol...he's lucky he didn't get tackled by security...8-)

Haha, true, but this was in the hotel and it was about a month before 9/11.

I do remember a guy getting taken down by security post 9/11 because he had one of those suitcase carts at the gate. In order to do this he would have had to have gotten past security without being cleared by it. He said something like "I don't have to put up with you. I'm going to get on my flight now and you're going to leave me alone." He started to walk off and they took him down.

[jaykrue]

Personally I just wait alongside a river until some northerners come rafting down. Then I do things to 'em. Fun things. With banjo music in the background.

Squeel like a pig.

+1 Deliverance reference

[camoor]

And the fact that the Church no longer does these things means something as well; at least, I haven't heard of a priest stoning a woman recently.


Some muslims stone women wearing provocative clothing, some christians bomb abortion clinics killing several women and doctors at once.

So, yes, I haven't heard of a christian killing a woman with a stone for a while. Radical fundamentalist christians use bombs.

[MrBadExample]

Tauruskatt, very nicely said. A woman should be able to walk down the street completely naked if she wants and not be molested. Men should be able to control themselves and the ones that can't should be locked away.

[alonzomourning23]

If I was on the Price is Right and someone bid $1 higher than me I'd probably say mean things to them during the commercial break.

When I was in Vegas with some friends we were watching PIR the last day we were there before we went to the airport. A friend was so mad at this woman that kept on winning because she was so dumb. He'd yell at the TV screen for her to lose and then when she'd win he'd claim that God was out to get him. His best quote was "My plane is going to crash. Twice!"

I remember walking down logan airport (in boston) with an Indian friend (everyone assumes he's muslim). The place is huge and I was getting tired of walking, so I made a suggestion that didn't even make sense "I'm sick of walking, I wish someone would bomb this airport". About 5 people looked at us funny, but no security ever came or anything. Considering this was about a year after 9/11, I guess I should be lucky.

It's sad though, he and his family (this time it was a 15 year old girl we were dropping off at the airport to fly by herself) gets searched for no reason, but when my father actually sets the alarm off, they do everything possible not to search him (one time they even took a lighter out of his luggage and told him he had to carry it on with him, which made no sense to me whatsoever). When we started watching his cousin getting searched, the guy told us we couldn't watch and had to go away, but everytime he looked at my friend he looked down, wouldn't even look into his eye (someone my friend pointed out).

[javeryh]

All religion everywhere needs to go away. It is the cause of the most suffering, hatred and intolerance in the world while masking itself as something good. It makes me sick.

[tauruskatt]

Some muslims stone women wearing provocative clothing, some christians bomb abortion clinics killing several women and doctors at once.

So, yes, I haven't heard of a christian killing a woman with a stone for a while. Radical fundamentalist christians use bombs.

It doesn't make either right. However, it's hardly fair to compare the two at all, people who bomb abortion clinics for fundemendalist reasons (we'll leave out the religion part) are prosecuted and punished by the law. In this case it was the arm of the law doing the stoning, and the surrounding society being okay with it, which is much more tragic if you ask me.


It's sad though, he and his family (this time it was a 15 year old girl we were dropping off at the airport to fly by herself) gets searched for no reason, but when my father actually sets the alarm off, they do everything possible not to search him (one time they even took a lighter out of his luggage and told him he had to carry it on with him, which made no sense to me whatsoever). When we started watching his cousin getting searched, the guy told us we couldn't watch and had to go away, but everytime he looked at my friend he looked down, wouldn't even look into his eye (someone my friend pointed out).

I once accidentally left tent spikes in my carry-on bag and nothing happened. :lol:

~

[Drocket]

It doesn't make either right. However, it's hardly fair to compare the two at all, people who bomb abortion clinics for fundemendalist reasons (we'll leave out the religion part) are prosecuted and punished by the law. In this case it was the arm of the law doing the stoning, and the surrounding society being okay with it, which is much more tragic if you ask me.
I'm not entirely certain what's so tragic about it. I'm certain the woman was aware of the laws and the punishments for breaking them, and yet chose to break the law anyway. When the woman chose to get married, she agreed to the laws governing marriage (now, if she was forced into marriage, that's a different topic.) We may think that the punishment is harsher than the crime deserves, but a lot of people think its wrong to execute people, too. And again, everyone involved agreed to those laws when they got married - I rather doubt it was a surprise. All the woman had to do to avoid her fate was keep her pants on...

[javeryh]

I'm not entirely certain what's so tragic about it. I'm certain the woman was aware of the laws and the punishments for breaking them, and yet chose to break the law anyway. When the woman chose to get married, she agreed to the laws governing marriage (now, if she was forced into marriage, that's a different topic.) We may think that the punishment is harsher than the crime deserves, but a lot of people think its wrong to execute people, too. And again, everyone involved agreed to those laws when they got married - I rather doubt it was a surprise. All the woman had to do to avoid her fate was keep her pants on...

Just because it's the law doesn't make it "right"

[Kayden]

I'm not entirely certain what's so tragic about it. I'm certain the woman was aware of the laws and the punishments for breaking them, and yet chose to break the law anyway. When the woman chose to get married, she agreed to the laws governing marriage (now, if she was forced into marriage, that's a different topic.) We may think that the punishment is harsher than the crime deserves, but a lot of people think its wrong to execute people, too. And again, everyone involved agreed to those laws when they got married - I rather doubt it was a surprise. All the woman had to do to avoid her fate was keep her pants on...

I didn't think they were allowed to wear pants...

Anyways... Katt, thats why we have separation of church and state. The religious fanatics run the country over there. (It could be said they're in charge here too, but we have a lot more checks to stop them from abusing it to the same extent).
I'm pretty sure if the Catholic church/any Christian sect ran to government they'd fully sanction bombing abortion clinics... of course, under their rule, we wouldn't have been allowed to build them. We probably wouldn't be allowed to have hospitals either because if we're sick its because we're foul little sinners and God is punishing us. :roll:

[KingSpike]

All religion everywhere needs to go away. It is the cause of the most suffering, hatred and intolerance in the world while masking itself as something good. It makes me sick.

Hey, much like politics! That should go away too.

Religion can produce good things. It HAS produced good things. Have Christian churches done things that people don't like? Yes. Have they done things that are hateful and caused suffering? Yes.

But if you were able to remove all religion then something else would pop up in its place to do the same thing.

Maybe instead of wishing it would disappear, you can take an active part in changing it for the better.

[KingSpike]

Sorry if I end up double posting.

I'm pretty sure if the Catholic church/any Christian sect ran to government they'd fully sanction bombing abortion clinics

Uh...what? If the Catholic Church itself ran the government here, meaning Ratzinger was essentially the president, I would say that abortion clinics would most likely be outlawed and closed down. But sanction bombings? So I guess you think they're not only pure evil, but stupid as well. If closing down the clinics works fine, why bother bombing them and killing people? It doesn't matter if you care if you're killing someone or not, but politically it would be very stupid because you'd end up pissing a lot of people off because you killed their friend/loved one/relative. So then you'd have to work even harder to make sure people don't flip out not only because you closed down abortion clinics but because you did it in a very brutal way.

Furthermore, not every Christian denomination is as conservative as the Catholic Church. Some have allowed women pastors, others have allowed homosexual priests. Making a sweeping statement like "any Christian sect...[would] fully sanction bombing abortion clinics" is pretty ignorant and closedminded.

We probably wouldn't be allowed to have hospitals either because if we're sick its because we're foul little sinners and God is punishing us. :roll:

Well now you're just being ridiculous.

[Kayden]

Sorry if I end up double posting.



Uh...what? If the Catholic Church itself ran the government here, meaning Ratzinger was essentially the president, I would say that abortion clinics would most likely be outlawed and closed down. But sanction bombings? So I guess you think they're not only pure evil, but stupid as well. If closing down the clinics works fine, why bother bombing them and killing people? It doesn't matter if you care if you're killing someone or not, but politically it would be very stupid because you'd end up pissing a lot of people off because you killed their friend/loved one/relative. So then you'd have to work even harder to make sure people don't flip out not only because you closed down abortion clinics but because you did it in a very brutal way.

Furthermore, not every Christian denomination is as conservative as the Catholic Church. Some have allowed women pastors, others have allowed homosexual priests. Making a sweeping statement like "any Christian sect...[would] fully sanction bombing abortion clinics" is pretty ignorant and closedminded.



Well now you're just being ridiculous.

First, I'm almost always being rediculous. Secondly... If the church was in charge- FULLY in charge like it used to be- do you really think they'd give a flying shit what people thought? The church only changed its image after people started leaving it.

[javeryh]

Hey, much like politics! That should go away too.

Religion can produce good things. It HAS produced good things. Have Christian churches done things that people don't like? Yes. Have they done things that are hateful and caused suffering? Yes.

But if you were able to remove all religion then something else would pop up in its place to do the same thing.

Maybe instead of wishing it would disappear, you can take an active part in changing it for the better.

You may be right that If I were able to remove all religion then something else would pop up in its place - FREE THOUGHT.

I have no interest in making religion "better" because the entire concept is inherently flawed.

[Drocket]

Just because it's the law doesn't make it "right"

Right according to who? The people getting married in areas where this sort of thing is the law have agreed to these conditions. If they didn't like the conditions attached to getting married, they don't have to. Is it 'right' for us to interfer in a contract that 2 competent adults have agreed to between themselves simply because we don't like it?

[MrBadExample]

Right according to who? The people getting married in areas where this sort of thing is the law have agreed to these conditions. If they didn't like the conditions attached to getting married, they don't have to. Is it 'right' for us to interfer in a contract that 2 competent adults have agreed to between themselves simply because we don't like it?

You don't have to agree with every law just because you live in that country, especially in less democratic countries where the people have little voice in changing laws.

[jaykrue]

You don't have to agree with every law just because you live in that country, especially in less democratic countries where the people have little voice in changing laws.

Don't forget the inability to flee said countries in the case they might not agree with the laws.

[Drocket]

But by getting married, they agreed to the laws governming marriage. If they didn't like those laws, they didn't have to get married. And again, if anyone was forced into marriage, that's a different topic, in which case we should be talking about people being forced into marriage. Without any evidence of that, though, we can assume that the marriage was entered into willingly, in which case both members willingly agreed to the terms of marriage - which includes being stoned to death if you're dumb/horny enough to have an affair.

[MrBadExample]

But by getting married, they agreed to the laws governming marriage. If they didn't like those laws, they didn't have to get married. And again, if anyone was forced into marriage, that's a different topic, in which case we should be talking about people being forced into marriage. Without any evidence of that, though, we can assume that the marriage was entered into willingly, in which case both members willingly agreed to the terms of marriage - which includes being stoned to death if you're dumb/horny enough to have an affair.

So by your logic the punishment doesn't have to fit the crime. If we want to make jaywalking a capital offense, we can as long as people know ahead of time that if they jaywalk, they will get the chair? Very rational... :roll:

[javeryh]

Right according to who? The people getting married in areas where this sort of thing is the law have agreed to these conditions. If they didn't like the conditions attached to getting married, they don't have to. Is it 'right' for us to interfer in a contract that 2 competent adults have agreed to between themselves simply because we don't like it?

1. Don't give examples when you don't know what you are talking about. There are tons of reasons to interfere with a contract between 2 competent adults.

2. No one has "agreed" to anything by simply living somewhere. You might be subject to certain laws but that doesn't mean you affirmatively agreed to them. Also, laws can still be "wrong" - they get repealed all the time.

3. You should try questioning authority sometime instead of blindly doing what you are told. It's much more rewarding to think for yourself (to me anyways).

[KingSpike]

You may be right that If I were able to remove all religion then something else would pop up in its place - FREE THOUGHT.

I have no interest in making religion "better" because the entire concept is inherently flawed.

You can easily argue that everything is inherently flawed because all humans are flawed and selfish, so nothing will ever work fully.

I guess it's pointless to try to make the government better, because it too is flawed. I guess it's pointless to try to make myself better, because I am flawed as well.

[jaykrue]

Also, laws can still be "wrong" - they get repealed all the time.

Except the law of thermodynamics.

*ba* *dum* *bum*

[javeryh]

You can easily argue that everything is inherently flawed because all humans are flawed and selfish, so nothing will ever work fully.

I guess it's pointless to try to make the government better, because it too is flawed. I guess it's pointless to try to make myself better, because I am flawed as well.

Holy crap. ALL HUMANS ARE NOT INHERENTLY FLAWED AND SELFISH. Jeez, I know they teach that shit in church or catholic school or wherever you find gullible people looking for an explanation of life and the universe but the fact that people buy into that concept just boggles my mind. Have you ever held a newborn in your arms? Original sin my ass.

Also, it's not pointless to try and make the government or yourself better because these are not inherently flawed things. Religion is - its very core is founded on the concept of faith. It might as well be based on magic and pixie dust.

[Drocket]

So by your logic the punishment doesn't have to fit the crime. If we want to make jaywalking a capital offense, we can as long as people know ahead of time that if they jaywalk, they will get the chair? Very rational... :roll:
Yes, we can. A society is permitted to make any rules of conduct that it wishes, and design any punishment for those crimes that it wishes. As long as those rules and punishments are applied fairly and justly, I don't really see why anyone else should be permitted to interfer.

I'm not arguing that stoning people to death for committing adultery is the BEST method of punishing that particular crime: simply that everyone involved knew ahead of time what the crime was and the punishment that it carried, and not only chose to get married anyway (thereby explicitly agreed to those terms), but chose to commit the crime knowing what the punishment was.

Your position is the irrational one (and, unfortunately, the far more common one in America): you want to be able to agree to any contract that catches your fancy, then you want to be able to cancel the contract unilaterally whenever it suits your passing whim without having to worry about any sort of consequences. Things don't work like that. When you sign a contract (as this woman did by getting married), you live by the terms that you agreed to. If you don't like the terms, you don't sign the contract. Simple, isn't it?

[Drocket]

1. Don't give examples when you don't know what you are talking about. There are tons of reasons to interfere with a contract between 2 competent adults.
As long as they're not doing anything to hurt anyone else, there shouldn't be. Ever. Period. If you want to sign away your life, it should be entirely within your rights to do so.

2. No one has "agreed" to anything by simply living somewhere. You might be subject to certain laws but that doesn't mean you affirmatively agreed to them. Also, laws can still be "wrong" - they get repealed all the time.
They agreed to those terms by getting married. That's a far stronger sign that they agreed to those laws that simply 'living' somewhere. If they didn't like the laws governing marriage, they shouldn't have gotten married.

3. You should try questioning authority sometime instead of blindly doing what you are told. It's much more rewarding to think for yourself (to me anyways).
I do think for myself. That's why I don't agree with the current American attitude of being permitted to do whatever you want, whenever you want, without consequences. People think they can enter into a contract and unilaterally cancel it whenever it suits them - things don't work that way. When you make a commitment, you follow through on it.

Marriage in America is worth less than a used Kleenex. People seem to think "until death do us part" means roughly the same as "until I get bored with you and someone hotter comes along."

[javeryh]

Yes, we can. A society is permitted to make any rules of conduct that it wishes, and design any punishment for those crimes that it wishes. As long as those rules and punishments are applied fairly and justly, I don't really see why anyone else should be permitted to interfer.

I'm not arguing that stoning people to death for committing adultery is the BEST method of punishing that particular crime: simply that everyone involved knew ahead of time what the crime was and the punishment that it carried, and not only chose to get married anyway (thereby explicitly agreed to those terms), but chose to commit the crime knowing what the punishment was.

Your position is the irrational one (and, unfortunately, the far more common one in America): you want to be able to agree to any contract that catches your fancy, then you want to be able to cancel the contract unilaterally whenever it suits your passing whim without having to worry about any sort of consequences. Things don't work like that. When you sign a contract (as this woman did by getting married), you live by the terms that you agreed to. If you don't like the terms, you don't sign the contract. Simple, isn't it?

OMG. What is with all of the ridiculous contract examples? Just because you make a contract with someone does not make it enforcable. You don't seem to have any idea how contract law operates and you are making insane comparisons to a woman getting stoned to death because she cheated on her husband. Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

[Quillion]

Yaayyy!

Now we're cooking with gas!

Keep the discussion going!

[Drocket]

OMG. What is with all of the ridiculous contract examples? Just because you make a contract with someone does not make it enforcable. You don't seem to have any idea how contract law operates and you are making insane comparisons to a woman getting stoned to death because she cheated on her husband. Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
Marriage IS a contract. It SHOULD be a private contract between 2 people, but for whatever reason, society seems to think that it needs to keep butting its head in every 15 seconds.

I'm well aware that not all clauses in contracts are enforcable. I simply disagree that that should be the case. A contract is an agreement between 2 competent adults. What they agree to is their own damn business and nobody else's. As long as they're not hurting anyone else, I think 2 competent adults should be permitted to agree to anything they want, and agree to whatever consequences for violating those agreements that they want.

What we have here is a grown woman who, presumably is competent and of her own free will, agreed to marry a man and not cheat on him. She was well aware that cheating on him could carry the consequence of being stoned to death, and she willingly chose to enter into the contract of marriage anyway, then willingly chose to voilate the terms of that contract.

What gives you the right to interfer with a contract between 2 competent adults? You may not LIKE the terms of that contract, but you know what? Its none of your business. They're not hurting you, or anyone else.

[KingSpike]

Holy crap. ALL HUMANS ARE NOT INHERENTLY FLAWED AND SELFISH. Jeez, I know they teach that shit in church or catholic school or wherever you find gullible people looking for an explanation of life and the universe but the fact that people buy into that concept just boggles my mind. Have you ever held a newborn in your arms? Original sin my ass.

I don't recall saying anything about original sin. But humans are flawed. I'm not even speaking in religious terms. And yes, we are selfish. A child's perception focuses entirely on his/her self. Over time one hopes that they can gain some empathy and see that the world does not evolve around them, but that isn't always the case.

Religion is - its very core is founded on the concept of faith. It might as well be based on magic and pixie dust.

So having faith in something is a flaw?

You made another comment about free thought. If I think deeply about what I believe in and see that I agree with Catholicism, I have used my free thought to choose Catholicism. To you would this still mean I am not capable of thinking freely? That would be a pretty arrogant judgment to make.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that your problem with religion is simply because of the faith issue. Rather, it seems like it's when people who have faith in something (in this case, God) use it to harm/hate others. Or they are hypocritical in that they claim people should love each other and then send out so much hate. One humorous example I saw on the Daily Show: they had that rally in a "mega-church" about how democrats are persecuting "those who have faith." One guy said that all humans should be tolerant and kept on stressing how important tolerance was...and then IMMEDIATELY bashed on homosexuals and how male-male marriages should not be allowed. So...spreading tolerance...but only to people like us? I'm Christian and even I think that guy was stupid.

But that isn't religion (as a general term) that is causing that. Or faith. It is someone using faith/religion as a means to further their hateful views. It is most unfortunate that people do that (understatement of the century) but religion isn't the only vessel that people use to spread their negative views.

Some people (like myself) have gained a lot from religion/faith. If you (anyone) haven't, then fine. I'm not going to say that you're going to hell, or you're wrong, or stupid, or inferior, because that's not my place and I don't know if any of those are true (if I believe that God is the only one that knows something like that then me saying "you're going to hell" is pretty dumb). I wish that more people that were Christians (or anyone, really) were more loving and tolerant. But, in my opinion, if I want to set myself apart from people who are hateful and closed minded, then saying "All Christians are sheep" or "all atheists are self righteous idiots" does nothing but make me pretty much the same thing, just using different words.

[ElwoodCuse]

thanks for the sweeping generalization PAD this message board just can't get enough of them

[javeryh]

Marriage IS a contract. It SHOULD be a private contract between 2 people, but for whatever reason, society seems to think that it needs to keep butting its head in every 15 seconds.

I'm well aware that not all clauses in contracts are enforcable. I simply disagree that that should be the case. A contract is an agreement between 2 competent adults. What they agree to is their own damn business and nobody else's. As long as they're not hurting anyone else, I think 2 competent adults should be permitted to agree to anything they want, and agree to whatever consequences for violating those agreements that they want.

What we have here is a grown woman who, presumably is competent and of her own free will, agreed to marry a man and not cheat on him. She was well aware that cheating on him could carry the consequence of being stoned to death, and she willingly chose to enter into the contract of marriage anyway, then willingly chose to voilate the terms of that contract.

What gives you the right to interfer with a contract between 2 competent adults? You may not LIKE the terms of that contract, but you know what? Its none of your business. They're not hurting you, or anyone else.

OK, it is obvious to me that you live in fantasy land - probably in a gumdrop house on lollipop lane. How old are you? 15? 16? So you would rather spend your entire life with someone you despised because you wrote your name on a piece of paper when you were 23 years old? :rofl:

Also, please stop with the contract analogy. You have no idea what you are talking about. Anyone can break any contract at any time. No one is ever forced to carry out the terms of any contract if they do not want to. Contracts are based on equity principles. There's a thing called "breach" and a thing called "remedy" - it's about making someone whole. Stoning a woman to death for violating the terms of a "contract" solves NOTHING.

[Drocket]

OK, it is obvious to me that you live in fantasy land - probably in a gumdrop house on lollipop lane. How old are you? 15? 16? So you would rather spend your entire life with someone you despised because you wrote your name on a piece of paper when you were 23 years old? :rofl:
29, actually. And no, I wouldn't. Fortunately, I'm intelligent enough to not marry the first person who comes along that I'm sorta attracted to, unlike far too many people.

Actually, I'm not really against divorce, per se - I think there are legitimate reasons to get divorced. Sometimes. The problem is that far, far, FAR too many people consider marriage to be a temporary proposition. You kinda like someone, so hey, lets get married! If it doesn't work out, we can just get divorced and marry someone else! I don't think this that attitude is a good thing. Divorces should be permitted, but they should be rather hard to get - you don't divorce someone just because its not 'fun' anymore (and you don't get married just do you can have a big party. Marriages should be hard to get, too.)

Of course, divorce is a whole different thing from banging someone on the side. Divorce, though unfortunate, at least has some modicum of honor in it. Adultery is betrayal, plain and simple, of someone who loves and trusts you. And it should carry a penalty, and a stiff one at that.

Also, please stop with the contract analogy. You have no idea what you are talking about. Anyone can break any contract at any time. No one is ever forced to carry out the terms of any contract if they do not want to.
I know perfectly well what I'm talking about - I'm talking about what contracts are supposed to be in theory. I'm perfectly aware that, in reality, contracts are barely worth more than toilet paper. Less, really, because toilet paper is actually useful. Contracts are worthless when either side can break them at any time just because they feel like it. When you enter into a contract, you take on obligations, and an honorable person fulfills those obligations even if they're 'not fun'. Honor is considered a quaint notion is the US, though.

I know very well that you're laughing at me right now for even using the term. "Honor? Isn't that what Worf went on and on about on Start Trek: the Next Generation? God, I hated Worf - he was always so whiney." Honor is an important value, though, and is the glue that holds the fabric of society together. And one wonders why American society is falling apart at the seams...

[elprincipe]

Except the law of thermodynamics.

*ba* *dum* *bum*

I could easily hijack this thread with a comment about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the Theory of Evolution, but I'm trying to resist. :)

[tauruskatt]

Yes, we can. A society is permitted to make any rules of conduct that it wishes, and design any punishment for those crimes that it wishes. As long as those rules and punishments are applied fairly and justly, I don't really see why anyone else should be permitted to interfer.

So, if a society says, okay, we'll make it okay to put all Jewish people in concentration camps, since it's their fault we are a floundering mess of a place, then we'll just kill them, because that's their punishment. And the rest of the would shouldn't interfere? I know what you're thinking "As long as those rules and punishments are applied fairly and justly", right? Well, what do you do if a society really thinks those rules are being applied fairly and justly? Do we not even get to interfere in matters of human dignity anymore??

I'm well aware that not all clauses in contracts are enforcable. I simply disagree that that should be the case. A contract is an agreement between 2 competent adults. What they agree to is their own damn business and nobody else's. As long as they're not hurting anyone else, I think 2 competent adults should be permitted to agree to anything they want, and agree to whatever consequences for violating those agreements that they want.

What we have here is a grown woman who, presumably is competent and of her own free will, agreed to marry a man and not cheat on him. She was well aware that cheating on him could carry the consequence of being stoned to death, and she willingly chose to enter into the contract of marriage anyway, then willingly chose to voilate the terms of that contract.

What gives you the right to interfer with a contract between 2 competent adults? You may not LIKE the terms of that contract, but you know what? Its none of your business. They're not hurting you, or anyone else.

Here's the two problems with what you're saying that I have~ Firstly these are all "Presumabilities"...you don't live there, and you don't know this woman or her husband or her situation, so you are unable to really say that they are all compentent and willing. What bothers me in your definition of marriage is that you seem to be okay with anything as long as the two people agree on it, guy beats his wife? throws her downt he stairs? performs unliscenced surgical experiments on her? guess it's okay as long as she doesn't complain???? I'm not a big fan of divorce myself, but I'm not taking that avenue away from anybody else who wants it, hell no. I'm not going to say that having kids grow up in a "broken" home where the parents are divorced is going to lead us down to the depths of economic and societal hell, because I think children are better off raised by one or more competent parents who are happy with their lives then by two angry bitter people sucking it up and hating each other because they want out for one reason or another.

Secondly, this is a human being, being crushed to death by large rocks. Even if you are someone who is pro-death pentalty, this is a woman who was not hurting anything or anyone, perhaps with the exception of her own future (because of the society she lives in) even if she had willingly committed this adultery (which by the way, consensual sex requires two consenting partners, so why was the guy only flogged? so much for fairness.) She didn't kill or injure or molest or rape or rob anyone, and she was crushed to death with a pile of large rocks. Does the punishment fit the crime? Don't tell me it's a societal decision~ society knew for ages that the world was flat, didn't they? Thinking it doesn't make the world flat, having goverment rulers decide that stoning a woman to death is acceptable doesn't make it right.

It doesn't have anything to do with contracts or religion, people!! geez, I hate to get on a soapbox here, but it has to do with unchecked fundementalism and gender inequality! :headache:

[sblymnlcrymnl]

I could easily hijack this thread with a comment about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the Theory of Evolution, but I'm trying to resist. :)

Hey, the people who try to use to 2nd law to refute evolution deserve to be laughed at, as they show just how wide ranged their ignorance can be. :lol:

[camoor]

It doesn't make either right. However, it's hardly fair to compare the two at all, people who bomb abortion clinics for fundemendalist reasons (we'll leave out the religion part) are prosecuted and punished by the law. In this case it was the arm of the law doing the stoning, and the surrounding society being okay with it, which is much more tragic if you ask me.


No, what's really tragic is being in the country with the most liberty in the world, and having radical fundamentalist christians bombing clinics and cheering on the bombers, all while claiming that the government of USA is based on the old testament and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Americans have free will, and the clinic bombers have used this to perform acts that result in blatant suffering. If there is such a tangible force that can be labeled evil, then these fundamentalists are surely in it's black grip.

[Drocket]

So, if a society says, okay, we'll make it okay to put all Jewish people in concentration camps, since it's their fault we are a floundering mess of a place, then we'll just kill them, because that's their punishment. And the rest of the would shouldn't interfere? I know what you're thinking "As long as those rules and punishments are applied fairly and justly", right?
Except that in this example, the "fairly and justly" is inherently violated because you're punishing people for what they are, instead of what they've done. Its inherently wrong to punish people for who they are because they have no alternatives to be anything else. Its entirely fair to punish people for what they do, though, because everyone can choose to perform different actions. What actions should be punished and to what degree are what a society are allowed to decide.

Here's the two problems with what you're saying that I have~ Firstly these are all "Presumabilities"...you don't live there, and you don't know this woman or her husband or her situation, so you are unable to really say that they are all compentent and willing.
You're quite right, I don't know this for a fact. Either party COULD be either forced into the situation or not competent enough to make their own decisions. In either of those cases, an entirely different set of principles applies. If you have any proof that either of these apply in this case, please feel free to provide them. It still won't change my opinion that, IN GENERAL, competent adults should be permitted to do what they want, even if its not in their own best interest.

What bothers me in your definition of marriage is that you seem to be okay with anything as long as the two people agree on it, guy beats his wife? throws her downt he stairs? performs unliscenced surgical experiments on her? guess it's okay as long as she doesn't complain????
I'm not a fan of men who abuse their wives, but if she's happy enough with the situation, what exactly gives me/you/anyone the right to step in and 'save' her against her will?

I'm not a big fan of divorce myself, but I'm not taking that avenue away from anybody else who wants it, hell no. I'm not going to say that having kids grow up in a "broken" home where the parents are divorced is going to lead us down to the depths of economic and societal hell, because I think children are better off raised by one or more competent parents who are happy with their lives then by two angry bitter people sucking it up and hating each other because they want out for one reason or another.
I didn't propose removing divorce as an option.

Secondly, this is a human being, being crushed to death by large rocks. Even if you are someone who is pro-death pentalty, this is a woman who was not hurting anything or anyone,
Other than the husband, whom she betrayed.

(which by the way, consensual sex requires two consenting partners, so why was the guy only flogged? so much for fairness.)
Was he committing adultery? He may not have been married. If he was, though, then yes, I would say he should be stoned to death, too. Its only fair.

Does the punishment fit the crime? Don't tell me it's a societal decision~ society knew for ages that the world was flat, didn't they?
Are you proposing that we can scientifically determine the perfect punishment for every crime? What exactly IS the correct punishment for breaking your word to remain faithful, betraying someone who loves you, and causing massive emotional distress to your children (assuming you have any) so that you can get a little booty on the side?

[Kayden]

On one hand, I like Drokets willingness to let people die... on the other hand... javeryh is a lawyer...

I just don't know who to back...

But Droket does have a point. They knew what they were getting into. More severe punishments for smaller crimes would be a good thing. Either people won't do the crime, or they'll be killed. Both roads lead to the same destination: less crime. Whether its from people become good, or bad people just being killed, I'm all for it.

Also, waaaayyy too many people think they can just do whatever without consequences. Making the consquences more severe would probably sever to drive the point home.

[Kayden]

So, if a society says, okay, we'll make it okay to put all Jewish people in concentration camps, since it's their fault we are a floundering mess of a place, then we'll just kill them, because that's their punishment. And the rest of the would shouldn't interfere? I know what you're thinking "As long as those rules and punishments are applied fairly and justly", right? Well, what do you do if a society really thinks those rules are being applied fairly and justly? Do we not even get to interfere in matters of human dignity anymore??

You guys really need to stop putting things in his mouth and taking him WAY out of context.

The law there isn't stone them because they're women. They aren't being persecuted for who they are, but what they did. I'm sorry, but forcing Jews into this just makes you look dumb. Why is it that when ever anyone wants to 'win' an arguement or prove a point they bring in either the Jews or the Nazis? Making being born Jewish a crime in no war correlates to stoning a woman for adultery. A person can't control/change their ancestory. However, the woman could very well have avoided having sex with another man. Whether you or I or ANYONE agrees with the punishment or not is totally irrelavent. She most likely knew the punishment before she got married and also before she had an afair. Would you like it if they tried to step in over here an put a veil over your face? I very much doubt it. The same applies the other way. You may not like it, but its not your way of life so you should tollerate it. FURTHERMORE, not once did he say anything remotely close to disallowing marriage. All he said was don't fuck some other guy while married to another. Granted, its near impossible to get a divorce over there... but again, not really our place to judge or interfere.

[MrBadExample]

Are you proposing that we can scientifically determine the perfect punishment for every crime? What exactly IS the correct punishment for breaking your word to remain faithful, betraying someone who loves you, and causing massive emotional distress to your children (assuming you have any) so that you can get a little booty on the side?

Lots of marriages survive an affair. People deserve a chance to redeem themselves for non-violent crimes and capital punishment doesn't offer that. And please don't talk about the emotional distress the affair would cause to the children. I'm sure they would prefer a live and adulterous mother to one who was crushed under very big rocks.

I haven't seen anyone argue that she shouldn't have been punished at all, but stoning her to death for a non-lethal offense is barbaric, misogynistic and simple-minded no matter what religion is doing it.

[javeryh]

However, the woman could very well have avoided having sex with another man.

Not if that other man was me BIOTCH!

Also, to answer Mr. Bad Example, I don't think that there should be any punishment for adultry or wanting a divorce or whatever. People change and circumstances change. If someone can't recognize that then they've probably never been in a relationship that ended through no real fault of their own. Everyone should have their heart ripped out at least once - it really puts things in perspective and makes you more prepared for the next relationship you get into. It also helps you to find out who you are and sort out what you want out of life...

I also fail to see the difference between dating someone long-term and getting married other than forming a ridiculous contract with the state. Chain yourself to someone for the rest of your life? It's just insane.

... oh wait, I forgot about God. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha......

[javeryh]

I'm not a fan of men who abuse their wives, but if she's happy enough with the situation, what exactly gives me/you/anyone the right to step in and 'save' her against her will?

OK, I'm done. I suppose it is much more comfortable to be mad and not know it than to be sane and have one's doubts.

[Drocket]

Lots of marriages survive an affair. People deserve a chance to redeem themselves for non-violent crimes and capital punishment doesn't offer that.
Actually, stoning isn't an automatic punishment. It only happens if the husband 'presses charges', so to speak. So presumably, the marriage was pretty much doomed, considering you have a husband willing to kill his wife...

And please don't talk about the emotional distress the affair would cause to the children. I'm sure they would prefer a live and adulterous mother to one who was crushed under very big rocks.
That's a cultural judgement. In a lot of cultures, a dead relative is considered far better than a living dishonorable relative.

I haven't seen anyone argue that she shouldn't have been punished at all, but stoning her to death for a non-lethal offense is barbaric, misogynistic and simple-minded no matter what religion is doing it.
Scroll down. I would agree that stoning is a far stronger punishment than what is deserved for adultery. However, I believe that other cultures have the right to make decisions for themselves without outsiders stepping in to force them to do the 'right' thing. Also, note that its only misogynistic if the punishment is only applied to women.

[Drocket]

OK, I'm done. I suppose it is much more comfortable to be mad and not know it than to be sane and have one's doubts.
So what exactly are you planning to do with women who choose to stay with abusive husbands? Kidnap them against their will and lock them in a room because you know best?

The reality is that all you can do for them is let them know that you'll be there for them if/when they ever decide to leave their husband, and hope that its before permanent damage is done.

[MrBadExample]

Actually, stoning isn't an automatic punishment. It only happens if the husband 'presses charges', so to speak. So presumably, the marriage was pretty much doomed, considering you have a husband willing to kill his wife...

In this same way Scott Peterson's and OJ Simspon's marriages were doomed as well.

Scroll down. I would agree that stoning is a far stronger punishment than what is deserved for adultery. However, I believe that other cultures have the right to make decisions for themselves without outsiders stepping in to force them to do the 'right' thing. Also, note that its only misogynistic if the punishment is only applied to women.

This is from Amnesty International and sums up my feelings:

According to eyewitnesses, the 29-year old, named only as Amina, was dragged out of her parent's house in Urgu District, Badakhan province by her husband and local officials before being publicly stoned to death. The man accused of committing adultery with her is alleged to have been whipped a hundred times and freed.

According to reports, Amina was condemned to death by local court and then killed within approximately 48 hours.

"The case of Amina demonstrates the failure of the Afghan government to protect, ensure and dispense justice, particularly for women," said Amnesty International.

"Religious and customary practices cannot be used as an excuse for violating the fundamental human rights of women."

So the man is whipped and the woman is killed... sounds misogynistic to me. I haven't seen any mention of evidence or admission of guilt so this could be based solely on the husband's accusation.

[Drocket]

I already mentioned this, but we don't know if the man was married. If not, he himself was not committing the same crime - he was simply helping someone else commit a crime. Accessory to a crime usually carries a lesser punishment than actually committing a crime, so the fact that the man wasn't stoned to death, without knowing his maritial status, isn't proof of sexual discrimination. If the man was married and the woman not, its quite possible the punishments would have been reversed.

[MrBadExample]

I already mentioned this, but we don't know if the man was married. If not, he himself was not committing the same crime - he was simply helping someone else commit a crime. Accessory to a crime usually carries a lesser punishment than actually committing a crime, so the fact that the man wasn't stoned to death, without knowing his maritial status, isn't proof of sexual discrimination. If the man was married and the woman not, its quite possible the punishments would have been reversed.

Yes, because we so often hear about all the men being stoned to death over there. :roll:

[Drocket]

This is the first woman stoned to death since the Taliban left power. That's means there's been exactly one stoning in 3 years - its obviously not that common of punishment anyway.

[MrBadExample]

This is the first woman stoned to death since the Taliban left power. That's means there's been exactly one stoning in 3 years - its obviously not that common of punishment anyway.

So the fact that it doesn't make international headlines all the time means it's okay?

[Drocket]

Its not that it hasn't made headlines - its that it hasn't happened in 3 years

AN Afghan woman has been stoned to death for adultery, police said today, the first such incident in Afghanistan since the Taliban's ouster from power.

This incident only made headlines because its so unusual. So, there's 2 main possibilities:

1) This is the first instance of adultery in Afghanistan in 3 years. If stoning a few people to death can keep that sort of behavior suppressed that much, it may not be entirely bad...

2) Other people have committed adultery, but this woman only got a harsher sentence because of the circumstances. For instance, perhaps she was sleeping with every Tom, Dick and Harry in the village, she had no remorse for her crime, she has been caught before but refused to change her ways, etc, etc. In this case, its not an arbitrary punishment assigned to anyone who commits the crime, but only for the worst offenders.

[MrBadExample]

Its not that it hasn't made headlines - its that it hasn't happened in 3 years



This incident only made headlines because its so unusual. So, there's 2 main possibilities:

1) This is the first instance of adultery in Afghanistan in 3 years. If stoning a few people to death can keep that sort of behavior suppressed that much, it may not be entirely bad...

2) Other people have committed adultery, but this woman only got a harsher sentence because of the circumstances. For instance, perhaps she was sleeping with every Tom, Dick and Harry in the village, she had no remorse for her crime, she has been caught before but refused to change her ways, etc, etc. In this case, its not an arbitrary punishment assigned to anyone who commits the crime, but only for the worst offenders.

The Taliban-Lite government in Afghanistan can really use a good spin doctor like you.

[camoor]

...But Droket does have a point. They knew what they were getting into. More severe punishments for smaller crimes would be a good thing. Either people won't do the crime, or they'll be killed. Both roads lead to the same destination: less crime. Whether its from people become good, or bad people just being killed, I'm all for it.

Also, waaaayyy too many people think they can just do whatever without consequences. Making the consquences more severe would probably sever to drive the point home.

Ironically, Draconian punishments for small crimes like petty shoplifting and marijuana possession only lead to bigger crime. If the crime is the death penalty for both shoplifting a twinkie and stealing a car, then why not steal a car since it's the same risk. The beginning of the movie "Heat" has an excellent real-world example of this concept.

Vincent Hanna (Al Pacino the cop): Once it escalated into a murder one beef for all of 'em after they killed the first two guards, they didn't hesitate. Popped guard number three because... what difference does it make? Why leave a living witness?

IE there's a murder rap waiting for all of them whether they kill two guards or three, so there's no reason to stop at two.

[Kayden]

Ironically, Draconian punishments for small crimes like petty shoplifting and marijuana possession only lead to bigger crime. If the crime is the death penalty for both shoplifting a twinkie and stealing a car, then why not steal a car since it's the same risk. The beginning of the movie "Heat" has an excellent real-world example of this concept.

Vincent Hanna (Al Pacino the cop): Once it escalated into a murder one beef for all of 'em after they killed the first two guards, they didn't hesitate. Popped guard number three because... what difference does it make? Why leave a living witness?

IE there's a murder rap waiting for all of them whether they kill two guards or three, so there's no reason to stop at two.

Then we institute pre-death torture :twisted: The more bad you were, the longer and more painful it is... Child abuse would be ripping out your nails with pliers. Rape would be slowly pulling on the penis until it came off. Murder would be making out with Richard Simons.

[tauruskatt]

many that live deserve death, some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them...? Do not be to too eager to deal out death and judgement" ~Gandalf, lotr:f

;)

[Kayden]

Any how many 'people' did he kill through out LotR?

[jaykrue]

Any how many 'people' did he kill through out LotR?

Orcs don't count. They're not human. They don't have a soul. :lol:

[elprincipe]

many that live deserve death, some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them...? Do not be to too eager to deal out death and judgement" ~Gandalf, lotr:f

;)

That's one of my favorite lines in the book. Too bad the movies are an abomination.

[tauruskatt]

Any how many 'people' did he kill through out LotR?

hey, at least everyone killed was killed in self defence ('cept for the good guys killed...) and fighting over an evil world destroyng power, not just some sex :lol:

[Kayden]

hey, at least everyone killed was killed in self defence ('cept for the good guys killed...) and fighting over an evil world destroyng power, not just some sex :lol:

But I thought all was fair in love and war... although, in this case, it's hard to see the distinction between the two. Not killing orc... I doubt Frodo had any emotional attachment to the orcsieses, the wife that got stoned... err... hit with rocks.

What the hell am I rambling about?
:lol:

[Kayden]

That's one of my favorite lines in the book. Too bad the movies are an abomination.

Oh shut up, fanboy. =P

You would have thought they were just the most amazing thing in the world if they weren't books before hand. The movies got a double bad wrap from the books. Normal people thought they'd just be for nerds and nerds didn't think they'd be nerdy enough.

You can't cram a 500 page book into a 2 hour movie and leave in everything. I've read the books and I own the movies. Which is better? They're both great.
The books may have more details, but they take a week to read. The movies can be watched in one sitting.

[elprincipe]

Oh shut up, fanboy. =P

You would have thought they were just the most amazing thing in the world if they weren't books before hand. The movies got a double bad wrap from the books. Normal people thought they'd just be for nerds and nerds didn't think they'd be nerdy enough.

You can't cram a 500 page book into a 2 hour movie and leave in everything. I've read the books and I own the movies. Which is better? They're both great.
The books may have more details, but they take a week to read. The movies can be watched in one sitting.

Haha, I will willingly admit to being a LotR fanboy since I've read the book literally scores of times. Anyway, I'm not really upset that they left things out because I knew that would have to be the case. Tolkien's world is way, way too rich to be represented fully in a movie, or even three movies, unless it was one of those marathon documentaries like they did on Baseball or something. What did piss me off was the things they changed. They ruined the following characters for a start:

Faramir
Frodo
Gollum
Sam
Pippin
Boromir
Denethor
Eowyn
Arwen

And more than that. That's not counting characters left out or replaced, like Glorfindel, in the name of idiotic political correctness, one of the last things I wanted to see in anything associated with LotR.

But anyway, this is off topic and getting close to a long rant, so I'll stop now.

[Kayden]

Haha, I will willingly admit to being a LotR fanboy since I've read the book literally scores of times. Anyway, I'm not really upset that they left things out because I knew that would have to be the case. Tolkien's world is way, way too rich to be represented fully in a movie, or even three movies, unless it was one of those marathon documentaries like they did on Baseball or something. What did piss me off was the things they changed. They ruined the following characters for a start:

Faramir
Frodo
Gollum
Sam
Pippin
Boromir
Denethor
Eowyn
Arwen

And more than that. That's not counting characters left out or replaced, like Glorfindel, in the name of idiotic political correctness, one of the last things I wanted to see in anything associated with LotR.

But anyway, this is off topic and getting close to a long rant, so I'll stop now.

Changed to be PC? Its been a long time since I read the books. I have no idea what you're talking about.

[elprincipe]

Changed to be PC? Its been a long time since I read the books. I have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm talking about Arwen filling Glorfindel's role. No reason to do that except they wanted more women in leading roles. Disgusting (although the actress who plays Arwen is truly beautiful).

[Kayden]

I'm talking about Arwen filling Glorfindel's role. No reason to do that except they wanted more women in leading roles. Disgusting (although the actress who plays Arwen is truly beautiful).

Or maybe they thought it would be too confusing with the already long list of characters.

[tauruskatt]

tom bombadill I don't miss because he didn't *truely* efect the plot irreplacably. I get really mad about the eowyn thing though, because she goes from swooning over aragorn to smiling at his coronation and they leave out her romance with faramir pretty much completely and it just makes her look flakey :evil:

umm...right. /rant :)

[Quackzilla]

Wow, PAD, you still got your hate on, don't you.

I thought after a year or so all these racist anti-Arab and anti-Muslim posts that try to label them all as extremists would have gotten old.

Do you still have your KKK hood?

[uzumaki_star]

quackzilla, you cut deep. That statement made me feel bad, if I had feelings.