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

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
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

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

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.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
[quote name='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[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']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?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']



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.[/QUOTE]

wtf? I don't have Clinton in my avatar either
 
[quote name='dtcarson']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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:
 
[quote name='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:[/QUOTE]

:applause: Nicely said. And don't mind PAD's thread titles, he's waging a personal war on islam.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='KingSpike']
Squeel like a pig.[/QUOTE]

: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?
 
[quote name='tauruskatt']:rofl:
Do I get to pick which stuffed animal I win?[/QUOTE]

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!
 
[quote name='KingSpike']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![/QUOTE]

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

oh wait, it's not that show?...sorry! IQ of a rock over here :wave: ;)
 
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!"
 
[quote name='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!"[/QUOTE]

lol...he's lucky he didn't get tackled by security...:cool:
 
[quote name='tauruskatt']lol...he's lucky he didn't get tackled by security...:cool:[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='KingSpike']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.[/QUOTE]

+1 Deliverance reference
 
[quote name='dtcarson']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.
[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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!"[/QUOTE]

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).
 
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.
 
[quote name='camoor']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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
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).[/QUOTE]

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

~
 
[quote name='tauruskatt']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. [/QUOTE]
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...
 
[quote name='Drocket']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...[/QUOTE]

Just because it's the law doesn't make it "right"
 
[quote name='Drocket']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...[/QUOTE]

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:
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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:
Click to expand...

Well now you're just being ridiculous.
 
[quote name='KingSpike']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='KingSpike']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Just because it's the law doesn't make it "right"[/QUOTE]

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?
 
[quote name='Drocket']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?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']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.[/QUOTE]

Don't forget the inability to flee said countries in the case they might not agree with the laws.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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:
 
[quote name='Drocket']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?[/QUOTE]

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).
 
[quote name='javeryh']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Also, laws can still be "wrong" - they get repealed all the time.[/QUOTE]

Except the law of thermodynamics.

*ba* *dum* *bum*
 
[quote name='KingSpike']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']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:[/QUOTE]
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?
 
[quote name='javeryh']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.[/quote]
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.
Click to expand...
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).
Click to expand...
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."
 
[quote name='Drocket']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?[/QUOTE]

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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top