NationStates Jolt Archive

It was a special on CNN doing an in-depth study of fundementalist Islam, Judaism, and Christianity and its affects on modern social and political society. I watched parted of 'God's Jewish Warriors' and all of 'God's Christian Warriors'. Who else watched it? And what did you think of it?

5 minute part of 'Gods Christian Warriors' (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ULnAmRtxQmM). It is the part about the 'New Culture War'

It was a special on CNN doing an in-depth study of fundementalist Islam, Judaism, and Christianity and its affects on modern social and political society. I watched parted of 'God's Jewish Warriors' and all of 'God's Christian Warriors'. Who else watched it? And what did you think of it?

I watched all of all three. I give it a big "meh". It wasn't exactly ground breaking nor did it tell me anything I didn't already know.

Yeah, it was an interesting watch for me. I particuarly enjoyed God's Christian Warriors. I like watching fundementalist Christian's talk because it is so damn entertaining. They make me laugh out loud...literally...

Too bad they are all full of it though...

I happen to agree with a lot of what they had to say, personally.

I watched all of all three. I give it a big "meh". It wasn't exactly ground breaking nor did it tell me anything I didn't already know.

Yeah, it was an interesting watch for me. I particuarly enjoyed God's Christian Warriors. I like watching fundementalist Christian's talk because it is so damn entertaining. They make me laugh out loud...literally...

Too bad they are all full of it though...

I happen to agree with a lot of what they had to say, personally.

Which parts exactly?

Which parts exactly?

The fact that society is basically being shot to hell and no seems to care. It is know not uncommon for 11 and 12 year old children to do drugs and have sex. To me its just a big WTF.

The fact that society is basically being shot to hell and no seems to care. It is know not uncommon for 11 and 12 year old children to do drugs and have sex. To me its just a big WTF.

True enough. But this is not from lack of religious values. Saying that the only reason 11 and 12 years olds do drugs and have sex is all because they don't go to church is bullshit. You do not need religion to be moral or be a good person. All you need is a structured well rounded up bringing. And I would wager that most of these 11 and 12 years you speak of lived below the poverty line. You have got to fix the underlying problem of poverty and noneducation before you can expect society to fix itself. You cannot expect religious fundementalism to fix everything for you, if anything it makes it worse.

The fact that society is basically being shot to hell and no seems to care. It is know not uncommon for 11 and 12 year old children to do drugs and have sex. To me its just a big WTF.

And you expect religion to fix this? I've seen plenty of teenage 'Christians' have sex and do drugs before.

He who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword.

SNIP

And you expect religion to fix this problem? I have seen my fair share of supposed 'Christian' teens have sex and do drugs before. And they all claimed to be extremely devout.

And you expect religion to fix this problem? I have seen my fair share of supposed 'Christian' teens have sex and do drugs before. And they all claimed to be extremely devout.

I don't expect religion alone(especially Christianity) to fix anything. I'm just saying I agree society needs a bit of a revamping. But you are right about many Christian teens. Thats one of the major flaws of christianity is that it is simply a faith and not a complete way of life in the way Islam is.

I don't expect religion alone(especially Christianity) to fix anything. I'm just saying I agree society needs a bit of a revamping. But you are right about many Christian teens. Thats one of the major flaws of christianity is that it is simply a faith and not a complete way of life in the way Islam is.

That's the result of liberal democracy I am afraid, the idea that the personal and political can be separated is a false notion, religion/ideology is both practice and thought; action in which a doctrine is immanent.

I don't expect religion alone(especially Christianity) to fix anything. I'm just saying I agree society needs a bit of a revamping. But you are right about many Christian teens. Thats one of the major flaws of christianity is that it is simply a faith and not a complete way of life in the way Islam is.

Very true, the only beef I have with Islam is the part of Male dominense (yeah I misspelled that) over Women. That is wrong, but that is one fault compared to Christianity's many faults. Social 'revamping' has to start in the home not in the church.

That's the result of liberal democracy I am afraid, the idea that the personal and political can be separated is a false notion, religion/ideology is both practice and thought; action in which a doctrine is immanent.

If that is true then religion is obselete and needs to be scrapped. Moral authority should come from what 'you' as a person believes is right and not what your preacher believes is right. Government should be totally secular, Religion has no place there.

If that is true then religion is obselete and needs to be scrapped. Moral authority should come from what 'you' as a person believes is right and not what your preacher believes is right. Government should be totally secular, Religion has no place there.
Not entirely, I think that there is no religious or ideological belief which is not fundamentally a concept of life; philosophy or intuition, a system of ideas which develops logically or is gathered up into a vision or into a faith, but which is always, at least virtually, an organic conception of the world. I believe that any societarian conception, in religion or otherwise, should therefore be totalitarian (I mean the literal meaning of that word) in it's extent over that society.

For example Islam allows no limitation over the implementation of it's doctrine in the Muslim nation, Islam or even communism does not allow for minor implementation within the framework of liberal democracy, it must be all or nothing. It's the ultimate societarian contradiction that we must be selfless in our religious/family lives, yet greedy and selfish in our economic lives.

Not entirely, I think that there is no religious or ideological belief which is not fundamentally a concept of life; philosophy or intuition, a system of ideas which develops logically or is gathered up into a vision or into a faith, but which is always, at least virtually, an organic conception of the world. I believe that any societarian conception, in religion or otherwise, should therefore be totalitarian (I mean the literal meaning of that word) in it's extent over that society.

For example Islam allows no limitation over the implementation of it's doctrine in the Muslim nation, Islam or even communism does not allow for minor implementation within the framework of liberal democracy, it must be all or nothing. It's the ultimate societarian contradiction that we must be selfless in our religious/family lives, yet greedy and selfish in our economic lives.

I agree with what you say. But I got slightly confused when you, at least this is how I interpreted it, called political religious doctrine 'Totalitarian'. Am I right, or extremely off center? If I am right, please explain what you meant.

That's a relief. For a second I thought it was going to be about Marguerite Perrin.

:D

But seriously, I don't get cable so I couldn't watch it.

:(

That's a relief. For a second I thought it was going to be about Marguerite Perrin.

:D

But seriously, I don't get cable so I couldn't watch it.

:(

Not even satilite?

Thats one of the major flaws of christianity is that it is simply a faith and not a complete way of life in the way Islam is.

I don't know why but I am ever amazed at the arrogance of the "faithful."

Very true, the only beef I have with Islam is the part of Male dominense (yeah I misspelled that) over Women. That is wrong, but that is one fault compared to Christianity's many faults. Social 'revamping' has to start in the home not in the church.

The notion that men are oppressive to women in Islam is completely false. Simply because the man's role is to be the head of the household, which I guess some westerners find weird, people want to scream OMGz oppression. When this just isn't the case.

I don't expect religion alone(especially Christianity) to fix anything. I'm just saying I agree society needs a bit of a revamping. But you are right about many Christian teens. Thats one of the major flaws of christianity is that it is simply a faith and not a complete way of life in the way Islam is.

Tell that to the 'it's not a religion it's a life style of devotion to Jesus' crew.

The notion that men are oppressive to women in Islam is completely false. Simply because the man's role is to be the head of the household, which I guess some westerners find weird, people want to scream OMGz oppression. When this just isn't the case.

Nah we Godless Westerners have the CRAZY idea that women can actually be equal and another CRAZY idea that women can actually do jobs that men do.

I guess some Muslims find this weird and want to scream OMGz the Westerns actually think women deserve to be equal.

Tell that to the 'it's not a religion it's a life style of devotion to Jesus' crew.

I suspect he thinks Christianity was a beta test and Islam is the final product.

The notion that men are oppressive to women in Islam is completely false. Simply because the man's role is to be the head of the household, which I guess some westerners find weird, people want to scream OMGz oppression. When this just isn't the case.
Yeah, it's not "oppressive" to inform 50% of the population that they have to be submissive to the other 50%...

If you're going to be a cowardly sexist prick, at least have the decency to be honest about it so that women can get a running start.

I don't know why but I am ever amazed at the arrogance of the "faithful."

So you disagree with what he says? He has a point. The same mostly goes for Judaism as well as Islam. Christianity is treated as just a faith; the only people that hold it as a way of life turn into nutso cults.

Tell that to the 'it's not a religion it's a life style of devotion to Jesus' crew.
You mean the fundamentalists?
It's not even a way of life to them. They practice Christianity but they don't life it. They just assert that they do and attack everyone else based upon their religions.


The only people that have Christianity as a life style are the cloistered orders of Catholicism.

Nah we Godless Westerners have the CRAZY idea that women can actually be equal and another CRAZY idea that women can actually do jobs that men do.

I guess some Muslims find this weird and want to scream OMGz the Westerns actually think women deserve to be equal.
Separate does not equal tiered. I guess all religions can be referenced by the worst common denominators of said religion and no other in a debate. When we talk about Christians we shall only refer to the cults and evangelists and when we talk about Judaism we will speak only of the Zionists and their beliefs.

True enough. But this is not from lack of religious values. Saying that the only reason 11 and 12 years olds do drugs and have sex is all because they don't go to church is bullshit. You do not need religion to be moral or be a good person. All you need is a structured well rounded up bringing. And I would wager that most of these 11 and 12 years you speak of lived below the poverty line. You have got to fix the underlying problem of poverty and noneducation before you can expect society to fix itself. You cannot expect religious fundementalism to fix everything for you, if anything it makes it worse.

Hilarity ensues when you realize that in Jesus' time, girls were often married off at around the age of about 12-15.

Zing.

I don't expect religion alone(especially Christianity) to fix anything. I'm just saying I agree society needs a bit of a revamping. But you are right about many Christian teens. Thats one of the major flaws of christianity is that it is simply a faith and not a complete way of life in the way Islam is.

I would dispute this assertion.

Thats one of the major flaws of christianity is that it is simply a faith and not a complete way of life in the way Islam is.

Oh the Christians tried thier very hardest to make it a way of life and not simply a faith. During the crusades, it was be Christian and do Christian or die. If Christian leadership today could get away with breaking into peoples houses and arrest people for breaking Moral codes BELIEVE me they would do it in an instant. Western people simply dont have the tolerence for that sort of nonsence.

Oh the Christians tried thier very hardest to make it a way of life and not simply a faith. During the crusades, it was be Christian and do Christian or die. If Christian leadership today could get away with breaking into peoples houses and arrest people for breaking Moral codes BELIEVE me they would do it in an instant. Western people simply dont have the tolerence for that sort of nonsence.

You know, it is possible to have a way of life without forcing it on others, despite what you might see overseas.

Christianity IS a way of life. Does everybody who calls himself a Christian life it as a way of life? No. But that's their error, not the system.

Don't believe me? I'll introduce you to a few examples.

Christianity IS a way of life. Does everybody who calls himself a Christian life it as a way of life? No. But that's their error, not the system.

What if the system has shown a willingness to jam thier beliefs down your throat, at the point of a sword if nessesary?

What if the system has shown a willingness to jam thier beliefs down your throat, at the point of a sword if nessesary?

Had that happened to you recently, have you?

Well if you want to see how a religion handles the power its given, the only logical thing you can do is to look what they did with it when they had that power last. Theres a very good reason we didnt give power back to the Christiansn the last three or four hundred years. It turns out they get just as barbaric and bloodthirsty as any other human beings given power and they simply cant be trusted to behave themselves and act responsibly with it.

I hate to try and throw a wrench in the works, but... *throws wrench*

Who says that Christianity is not liveable? It is a faith, but it is a lifestyle, not some monastic Catholic order or some Crusaders hell-bent *pun* on killing non-Christians. That, especially the whole Crusader idea, is not "Christian." To define "Christian" i would have to say it is literally one who follows in Christ's walk and teaching, and believes Him to be who He said He is... The Son of God. Someone who says they are a Christian and does not follow or believe in Christ is, plain and simple, not a Christian. That would be a definition by the Christian book, the Bible. One wouldn't be a a moslem if one did not do what the Quran says. So it follows logically. Anyway.

*takes wrench and walks out*

I watched all of all three. I give it a big "meh". It wasn't exactly ground breaking nor did it tell me anything I didn't already know.

I happen to agree with a lot of what they had to say, personally.

The fact that society is basically being shot to hell and no seems to care. It is know not uncommon for 11 and 12 year old children to do drugs and have sex. To me its just a big WTF.

So, you are one of God's Warriors, then?

I was wondering how that series would be viewed by the zealots it was about, and thanks to you, I have my answer: You viewed the content with a biased, unquestioning and uncritical eye, firmly entrenched in your own viewpoint, listened only to the parts that were about what your faction thinks and nodded to yourself, saying, "Yes, yes, it's all so true."

It never occurred to you to try and look at it from the viewpoint of anyone else, did it? Did you give even one thought to the opposition viewpoints from within the religions that the series presented?

Well if you want to see how a religion handles the power its given, the only logical thing you can do is to look what they did with it when they had that power last. Theres a very good reason we didnt give power back to the Christiansn the last three or four hundred years. It turns out they get just as barbaric and bloodthirsty as any other human beings given power and they simply cant be trusted to behave themselves and act responsibly with it.

Even if I were willing to concede that the Crusades were nothing but an exercise in bloodthirsty territorialism, which I'm not, I'd still feel the need to point out that the last Crusade took place something like 700 years ago. If you have to reach back that far to find an example to support your point, I'd say your point is pretty flimsy.

Well if you want to see how a religion handles the power its given, the only logical thing you can do is to look what they did with it when they had that power last. Theres a very good reason we didnt give power back to the Christiansn the last three or four hundred years. It turns out they get just as barbaric and bloodthirsty as any other human beings given power and they simply cant be trusted to behave themselves and act responsibly with it.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is precisely why the founders of the US divided government power up into so many levels of checks and balances, from the office of the President down to any private citizen. It is also why they mandated separation of church and state -- because the authority, and thus the power, claimed by any church is always "absolute." From this we can conclude that the founders of the US were very smart people -- certainly smarter than anyone in charge of it now.

If you have to reach back that far to find an example to support your point, I'd say your point is pretty flimsy.

Neo i assure you, if we gave Christain leaders today the identical powers that the Imans have in Islam, i would be willing to bet everything i own that moral Christian police would have people in jail charged with moral violations within hours of getting that power.

Neo i assure you, if we gave Christain leaders today the identical powers that the Imans have in Islam, i would be willing to bet everything i own that moral Christian police would have people in jail charged with moral violations within hours of getting that power.

Based upon what?

The founders of this country were all Christians (could of Deists, couple of Jews) who specifically created a secular Government that protected people's rights. Catholicism has been the official religion in, I believe, all South American nations until recently, and in a couple cases it still is. Until recently, Christianity was the official religion of several European countries. In some cases, including England, it still is.

Oh yes, the power has been there, and yet we still have freedom. I ask you to re-examine that assertion.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is precisely why the founders of the US divided government power up into so many levels of checks and balances, from the office of the President down to any private citizen. It is also why they mandated separation of church and state -- because the authority, and thus the power, claimed by any church is always "absolute." From this we can conclude that the founders of the US were very smart people -- certainly smarter than anyone in charge of it now.

Amen to that last statement.

The notion that men are oppressive to women in Islam is completely false. Simply because the man's role is to be the head of the household, which I guess some westerners find weird, people want to scream OMGz oppression. When this just isn't the case.

Look, I am on record as frequently arguing against those who try to blame Islam the religion for the behavior of Muslims.

But I'm not going to put up with your self-serving nonsense, either.

A) You do not get to cite the inequality of women in Islam as proof that there is no oppression of women within the Muslim world.

B) You do not get to point to your holy book which tells men not to be bastards to women and claim that is the way things are done, in direct contradiction of abundant evidence that, in fact, Muslim men routinely are bastards towards women, are taught to be bastards towards women, and claim Islam as their permission to be bastards towards women. If you want to make that argument, you must reconcile it with reality.

(EDIT: I am anticipating that you will cite the book in support of your assertions. I realize you haven't done it yet.)

C) You also do not get to perpetuate this vague geo-cultural divide of Islam versus "westerners" if Islam is going to continue to claim to be a global religion. There are plenty of Muslims in the west, my friend. Stop drawing imaginary lines around yourself that have no purpose but to promote "us versus them" propaganda.

Based upon what?

The founders of this country were all Christians (could of Deists, couple of Jews) who specifically created a secular Government that protected people's rights. Catholicism has been the official religion in, I believe, all South American nations until recently, and in a couple cases it still is. Until recently, Christianity was the official religion of several European countries. In some cases, including England, it still is.

Oh yes, the power has been there, and yet we still have freedom. I ask you to re-examine that assertion.

Your not comparing apples to apples Neo. Being an official religion isnt the same as having the political power. Do the Christian churches in the countrys where Christanity is the official religion have the power of arrest and the power to charge people with moral violations? This would be a far more accurate comparison to say Islam, where moral police have the power of law to enforce your moral behavior.

Give that power to the Christians and as sure as the sun rising they would use it in a second.

Based upon what?
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2007/08/22/saggy_0823.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act
http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/TeachingwithCurrentEvents/ConstitutionNewswire/17910.shtml
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/edwa_v_agui.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law#Bergen_County.2C_New_Jersey
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/timePortals/milestones/116mile.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

I could go on.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2007/08/22/saggy_0823.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act
http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/TeachingwithCurrentEvents/ConstitutionNewswire/17910.shtml
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/edwa_v_agui.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law#Bergen_County.2C_New_Jersey
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/timePortals/milestones/116mile.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

I could go on.

Go on with what? A longer list of articles that fail to prove anything? Oh yes, I looked at each link and what I saw were a bunch of bad examples.

Your not comparing apples to apples Neo. Being an official religion isnt the same as having the political power. Do the Christian churches in the countrys where Christanity is the official religion have the power of arrest and the power to charge people with moral violations? This would be a far more accurate comparison to say Islam, where moral police have the power of law to enforce your moral behavior.

Give that power to the Christians and as sure as the sun rising they would use it in a second.

I understand what you're saying. I do. But I don't think mine is a bad comparison. You pointed out that in some Islamic nations there is enforcement of religious morality. I'm glad you did because my purpose is to demonstrate that in Christian founded countries you don't have this problem. In fact, the vast majority of countries that were founded either as officially Christian or as secular but founded by Christians, they are secular to this day. Christians DO understand the difference. Some are better at it than others I'll grant you, but this idea that Christianity is just wating for a chance to oppress people is inaccurate and unfair.

Go on with what? A longer list of articles that fail to prove anything? Oh yes, I looked at each link and what I saw were a bunch of bad examples.
A bunch of bad examples? I thought the point was to show that a empowered Christian leadership would throw around moral laws and lock people up for them. Each one of those proves that. Especially Lawrence v Texas, which leads into the We The People Act which would prevent cases like Lawrence v. Texas from even happening.

I don't expect religion alone(especially Christianity) to fix anything. I'm just saying I agree society needs a bit of a revamping. But you are right about many Christian teens. Thats one of the major flaws of christianity is that it is simply a faith and not a complete way of life in the way Islam is.

Couldn't see that coming. :rolleyes:

To sum it up nicely, Christianity = faith, primarily because failure to follow the Catholic rules wont end you up in jail so people dont tend to stick to it as rigerously. Islam = way of life because even in thier own private homes, if what you say or do violates Islamic code, into Prison you go.

*munches on tacos and watches the deific dick wrestling the thread has devolved into*

A bunch of bad examples? I thought the point was to show that a empowered Christian leadership would throw around moral laws and lock people up for them. Each one of those proves that. Especially Lawrence v Texas, which leads into the We The People Act which would prevent cases like Lawrence v. Texas from even happening.

They prove no such thing. If you think they do, pick a couple and let's discuss them.

To sum it up nicely, Christianity = faith, primarily because failure to follow the Catholic rules wont end you up in jail so people dont tend to stick to it as rigerously. Islam = way of life because even in thier own private homes, if what you say or do violates Islamic code, into Prison you go.

I think the problem is maybe we're using different terms. If when you say "way of life" you mean for society in general, then you and I would agree. When I say "way of life" I mean for the individual.

Maybe we don't disagree on that part after all.

They prove no such thing. If you think they do, pick a couple and let's discuss them.
That proves you didn't read a damn thing and continue to not do so.
What part of "Especially Lawrence v. Texas, which leads into the We The People Act which would prevent Lawrence v. Texas from even happening." did you miss?

*munches on tacos and watches the deific dick wrestling the thread has devolved into*

Got any more tacos? :)

I understand what you're saying. I do. But I don't think mine is a bad comparison. You pointed out that in some Islamic nations there is enforcement of religious morality. I'm glad you did because my purpose is to demonstrate that in Christian founded countries you don't have this problem.

Presumably that's why Alan Turing, possibly the man who did more to win WW2 than any other man, was driven to suicide by the Christian-based laws against homosexuality.

Presumably that's why the Church of England has had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, when equal rights for women, slaves or homosexuals came up.

Presumably that's why Christian groups tried to 'opt-out' of anti-discrimination laws and tried to ban 'blasphemous' plays and forms of entertainment.

That's three examples off the top of my head and that's just England; imagine how bad Poland is.

Got any more tacos? :)

Always. :cool:

*hands out tacos*

On a side note, ive decided tomorrow to go get a doctors note that says im allergic to invisible men in the sky that insist on telling me how to live and im to be excused from participating.

On a side note, ive decided tomorrow to go get a doctors note that says im allergic to invisible men in the sky that insist on telling me how to live and im to be excused from participating.

The problem is that the invisible men in the sky don't tell you how to live your life. Their fan clubs do. :p

The problem is that the invisible men in the sky don't tell you how to live your life. Their fan clubs do. :p

Fuckin fanboys :p

The notion that men are oppressive to women in Islam is completely false. Simply because the man's role is to be the head of the household, which I guess some westerners find weird, people want to scream OMGz oppression. When this just isn't the case.

You mean it isn't oppression to have a group of men stone you to death for showing a hint of ankle as you walk to the market in your personal tent? This must be some new definition of "oppression" which which I am unfamiliar.

Please explain to me how a religion of intelligence, peace, discipline and all that can seriously believe that it's women's fault that men can't control their lust to the point where women can't even show their faces?

Always. :cool:

*hands out tacos*

I've made enchiladas -- this is going to be a long show. *dishes out shredded chicken enchiladas in yummy red sauce*

The problem is that the invisible men in the sky don't tell you how to live your life. Their fan clubs do. :p

That is the most elegant glib summary of religion I've yet read.

I don't know much about exactly how Shariya relates to the Qur'an, but I do know that Shariya is mostly cultural law handed down not from Allah, but from Imams and Caliphs and the like. Seems to me that Shariya is just like any authority you give to the average person -- it gets magnified and distorted over time and with the continuance of hegemony/oligarchy.

Fundamental religion is just fucking scary. Is it a wonder why there are people who refuse to go to church, possess a lack of faith and even a lack of belief in a superior being (ie: a deity)? Fundamentalists, whether Christian, Jew or Muslim are just plain scary. There is nothing wrong with religion (well, if you ignore some of the less desirable characteristics and focus on the positive like the emphasis on doing good) until it becomes literal.

That literal religion is what scares most people, and perpetuates the view that religion is oppressive against certain groups of people and often used as the justification as such.

Fundamentalism is bloody scary because it looks upon individual thought as though it will single handedly destroy society. It acts as though doing something for fun will send society to hell in a handbasket; that not following every word of antiquated (and likely mistranslated/badly) doctrine* will mean that they wind up in hell.

Fundies give their moderate counterparts a bad name. They make waves and ignore the wisdom of Proverbs 11:29, "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.", rallying the masses against an enemy on false grounds and misinformation.

Moderates and non-believers/non-religious people seem to get along better. Live and let live; something that doesn't seem to work for fundamentalists...

* this applies strictly to Christianity, as Judaic and Islamic scripture have remained in their original language over the years despite some characters in Islamic scripture falling out of common usage.

<snip>
Originally Posted by Lunatic Goofballs
The problem is that the invisible men in the sky don't tell you how to live your life. Their fan clubs do.
That is the most elegant glib summary of religion I've yet read.

I don't know much about exactly how Shariya relates to the Qur'an, but I do know that Shariya is mostly cultural law handed down not from Allah, but from Imams and Caliphs and the like. Seems to me that Shariya is just like any authority you give to the average person -- it gets magnified and distorted over time and with the continuance of hegemony/oligarchy.
I agree. My opinion about it is that people like power. Some people like it more than others. Some crave it. Some become addicted to it and can never get enough.

Any social system can become a medium for delivering power into the hands of a few people. Any social system that is exclusionary -- by which I mean any system that accords greater status to members than to non-members in any context that extends beyond the boundaries of the system itself (i.e. that says members of Church X are better human beings than non-members) -- is an automatic power delivery system, because its entire structure is dependent upon the ability of members to demonstrate (at least for themselves) their superiority over others and this requires members to have power over others. An exclusionary system doesn't even have to be corrupted or twisted in order to become a virtual meth-lab for power addicts.

Any system in which the authorization for claiming power is not subject to challenge and disproof -- such as the claimed imprimatur of God -- has no way to defend itself from being taken over by power addicts and turned into a tool for satisfying their jones. Of all social systems, organized religion is the most susceptible to this abuse.

Historically, both Christianity and Islam have shown themselves to be particularly vulnerable. Perhaps this is because they both have monolithic concentrations of authority (in their books and in their leaders who interpret those books; though of course, the two religions do not have the same structure) and both make claims to temporal authority as well as spiritual authority. Other religions tend to go in and out of abusive power cycles faster, it seems, possibly because their application is limited to smaller groups so that abuses manifest faster and become less entrenched (such as Judaism); or because they are less heirarchical in their structure so if someone tries to concentrate power too much, the structure shatters (as in animist religions and some Protestant sects such as the Congregationalists); or possibly because their theology is not so all-encompassing in its focus so that if someone tries to use it to claim power over all aspects of life, their claims will seem nonsensical (as in Buddhism, for instance, which emphasizes the spiritual over the temporal).

But make no mistake. ALL religions are vulnerable to abuses of power. This is because the lust for power is a human failing. People bring it to their religions. EDIT: It makes no difference what the religion actually says. Once the power addicts get a foothold, then if the religion does not say what they want it to, they will simply tack new content onto it that does, such as Shariya. The authority structure of the religion lets them get away with that.

EDIT #2: I realize I said that Christianity is vulnerable to this and then cited a Christian Protestant sect as an example of a religion that is less vulnerable to it. This goes to show that that even Christianity is not the unbreakable monolith that many see it as. The same is true for Islam, as there are many minority sects within Islam that deserve a lot more media attention than they get, imo.

Please explain to me how a religion of intelligence, peace, discipline and all that can seriously believe that it's women's fault that men can't control their lust to the point where women can't even show their faces?
The burka is not part of Islam. Try again.

The burka is not part of Islam. Try again.

Yet they use Islamic beliefs to justify it...

Yet they use Islamic beliefs to justify it...

It is easier to use scripture than culture to get adherents to follow.

The passages relating to 'modesty' are twisted for this very purpose. This doesn't mean that the burqa and other veils are actually required. The scripture is simply twisted by imans and clerics to make it appear as those Allah mandates it, as oppose to the veil being a voluntary thing.

That proves you didn't read a damn thing and continue to not do so.
What part of "Especially Lawrence v. Texas, which leads into the We The People Act which would prevent Lawrence v. Texas from even happening." did you miss?

Failing to agree with you doesn't contitute proof that I didn't read the article.

So this article is the strongest proof you've got? What I see is an article about an unfair law being overturned. It also lists several other related cases of unfair laws invading provacy being overturned, including a law against contraception in 1965. What I see is the system working. The system, mind you, built by the Christian Founding Fathers.

Or are you suggesting that the old puritannical laws being struck down in the first place are the ones that prove your point? Because if you see all of CHristianity through the filter of puritainism, then it's no wonder your point of view on it is so skewered.

The burka is not part of Islam. Try again.

It is part of Islam insofar as Islam is used as the justification for its use in Islamic cultures. I have already made the point that Shariya is not cut from whole Qur'anic cloth, which is the only way your post could be seriously entertained.

So you disagree with what he says? He has a point. The same mostly goes for Judaism as well as Islam. Christianity is treated as just a faith; the only people that hold it as a way of life turn into nutso cults.


If you think I am defending Christianity or Judaism, you are mistaken.

Zealots exist in all religions. There are Christians who think Leviticus is still in force.....

Yet they use Islamic beliefs to justify it...

Point invalid. It isn't required by any part of Islam as part of the written rules.

Point invalid. It isn't required by any part of Islam as part of the written rules.

So those that enforce it are not really Muslims? :confused:

So this article is the strongest proof you've got? What I see is an article about an unfair law being overturned.
Then you proposed a rhetorical question where the only answer acceptable is the one you like. Lawrence v. Texas deals with Texas sodomy laws saying it is illegal to engage in sodomy. There are laws here that it is illegal to sell sex toys as sex toys.

What I see is the system working. The system, mind you, built by the Christian Founding Fathers.
Irrelevant. The situation was hypothetical - empowered Christians took over the nation. Look up the We the People Act - that would make it illegal to bring to court cases dealing with sexual orientation, sexual acts, religious expression, or homosexual marriage thereby making "the system" impotent. The Christians work daily to destroy the system because they don't like "activists courts." Also, I would like to remind you that these laws are still on the books and many states and without this case, they would be enforceable and were enforceable before this case. You have to take into account the fact that court cases don't change time itself; they only correct a problem, The law existed and was enforced. Making a proof for the hypothetical situation.

Or are you suggesting that the old puritannical laws being struck down in the first place are the ones that prove your point? Because if you see all of CHristianity through the filter of puritainism, then it's no wonder your point of view on it is so skewered.
Irrelevant. They are close to taking over the US with a single slip up. They are Christian. It is completely valid to use that as a basis for the argument.

Point invalid. It isn't required by any part of Islam as part of the written rules.

Ah, my apologies to Sovietstan. He wasn't the first to point to the rule book. You are.

As I said to him in my earlier post (see bolded and underlined parts):

Look, I am on record as frequently arguing against those who try to blame Islam the religion for the behavior of Muslims.

But I'm not going to put up with your self-serving nonsense, either.

A) You do not get to cite the inequality of women in Islam as proof that there is no oppression of women within the Muslim world.

B) You do not get to point to your holy book which tells men not to be bastards to women and claim that is the way things are done, in direct contradiction of abundant evidence that, in fact, Muslim men routinely are bastards towards women, are taught to be bastards towards women, and claim Islam as their permission to be bastards towards women. If you want to make that argument, you must reconcile it with reality.

(EDIT: I am anticipating that you will cite the book in support of your assertions. I realize you haven't done it yet.)

<snip>

The problem as far as I see it, is in the behavior of people who identify as a particular religious group and the degree to which (a) their behavior is at odds with the official teachings of that religion, and (b) the religious organization lets them get away with it. To the extent that they are allowed to get away with it, and on the grounds that actions speak louder than words, I suggest that the written rules become irrelevant. What Muslim/Christian/Jewish zealots or fundamentalists or extremists (whatever you like) do is what matters here. Not what their religion says they should be doing.

As I said to him in my earlier post (see bolded and underlined parts):
As I said in an earlier post...

Separate does not equal tiered. I guess all religions can be referenced by the worst common denominators of said religion and no other in a debate. When we talk about Christians we shall only refer to the cults and evangelists and when we talk about Judaism we will speak only of the Zionists and their beliefs.

As entertaining as yellow journalism is, there are other views. The fundamentalist Muslims arn't the only ones as the Zionists arn't the only Jews and Puritan fundies arn't the only Christians.

Watched the whole series. I thought she did a very good job (she usually does). Of course, I kept getting pissed off at what a lot of them were saying. I for one do not want this country to become a Christian Theocracy (nor any other kind). Theocracy, by its very nature, attracts those who wish for a means of control over others. They seek glory for themselves, not for God. A fundamentalist America would not be a land of happiness and Christian fellowship. It would be a nightmare to put the Taliban to shame. I would have thought that would be obvious.

Very true, the only beef I have with Islam is the part of Male dominense (yeah I misspelled that) over Women. That is wrong, but that is one fault compared to Christianity's many faults. Social 'revamping' has to start in the home not in the church.

Well, unless we believe that it's the race (which it obviously isn't), Islam's "track-record" just isn't as good as Christianity. Now I personally don't care for either religion (I'm a Jew), and I know Christians have done some pretty terrible things, and still do. But, if we look at America ('scuse me, the U.S.), we see a pretty Christian nation. It contains many flaws because of it. It's court system contains many Christian elements. But it's still superior to...

The Muslim countries: okay, who would want to live in the Middle-East? I sure wouldn't. Any person who advocates switching a nation to Islam over Christianity just isn't thinking straight. I'm not saying all Muslims are bad, I'm saying the core teachings of Jesus are a lot nicer then those of Mohammad.

If there is a problem someone can find with Christians (it's not hard), it's because they don't stick to their founders teachings. With Islam, it's the nuts that stick too much to their founder''s teachings. Jesus said "turn the other cheek", and he never advocated trying to get some one to turn Christian if they didn't feel like it. Islam on the other hand, is the reverse.

So those that enforce it are not really Muslims? :confused:

They would still be Muslims, just misguided ones.

That is the most elegant glib summary of religion I've yet read.

I don't know much about exactly how Shariya relates to the Qur'an, but I do know that Shariya is mostly cultural law handed down not from Allah, but from Imams and Caliphs and the like. Seems to me that Shariya is just like any authority you give to the average person -- it gets magnified and distorted over time and with the continuance of hegemony/oligarchy.

:cool:

Well, unless we believe that it's the race (which it obviously isn't), Islam's "track-record" just isn't as good as Christianity. Now I personally don't care for either religion (I'm a Jew), and I know Christians have done some pretty terrible things, and still do. But, if we look at America ('scuse me, the U.S.), we see a pretty Christian nation. It contains many flaws because of it. It's court system contains many Christian elements. But it's still superior to...

The Muslim countries: okay, who would want to live in the Middle-East? I sure wouldn't. Any person who advocates switching a nation to Islam over Christianity just isn't thinking straight. I'm not saying all Muslims are bad, I'm saying the core teachings of Jesus are a lot nicer then those of Mohammad.

If there is a problem someone can find with Christians (it's not hard), it's because they don't stick to their founders teachings. With Islam, it's the nuts that stick too much to their founder''s teachings. Jesus said "turn the other cheek", and he never advocated trying to get some one to turn Christian if they didn't feel like it. Islam on the other hand, is the reverse.

If you look at history, which apparently you know little about, Islam has a far better track record then Christianity.
Proof?
Proof?

It is part of Islam insofar as Islam is used as the justification for its use in Islamic cultures. I have already made the point that Shariya is not cut from whole Qur'anic cloth, which is the only way your post could be seriously entertained.

It is not required by the Quran, therefore wearing a burkha is not a part of Islam.

It is not required by the Quran, therefore wearing a burkha is not a part of Islam.

Many long-lived religions outgrow their source material and acquire traditions that become part of the religion. The celebration of Christmas and the symbol of the crucifix are not in the Bible, but are still part of Christianity.

Many long-lived religions outgrow their source material and acquire traditions that become part of the religion. The celebration of Christmas and the symbol of the crucifix are not in the Bible, but are still part of Christianity.

But they are parts that can be thrown out, like the burkha.

If you look at history, which apparently you know little about, Islam has a far better track record then Christianity.
Proof?
Proof?

Actually history is my major. :p No, I'm sorry, you're right: historically speaking, the Muslims were more enlightened then the Christians. The Renaissance begin when people stopped listening to the Christian Church. What I mean to say was that today Christian countries, as unpleasant as they seem, are superior to Muslim ones. Today, not Historically.

Of course, the best countries are ones that aren't run by Religions....

Actually history is my major. :p No, I'm sorry, you're right: historically speaking, the Muslims were more enlightened then the Christians. The Renaissance begin when people stopped listening to the Christian Church. What I mean to say was that today Christian countries, as unpleasant as they seem, are superior to Muslim ones. Today, not Historically.

Of course, the best countries are ones that aren't run by Religions....

They are certainly consuming a lot more and leading to our ultimate demise much faster. There are however, two things I absolutely hate about so many Muslim countries nowadays. One, I hate having mullahs that know little about governing controlling everyones lives and telling people what to do. If someone wants to live there way, then so be it, but a way of life shouldn't be forced upon anyone. Second, I hate the opinion that (some) people have on education. The mullahs will say, read the Quran, read the Quran, read the Quran. Not a bad thing, but there are certainly other things to be read, and they discourage the reading of other things. Knowledge is something that is invaluable, and over the centuries, as it is being valued less, and these people are corrupting the spirit of Islam. When it comes to knowledge, one has to be a sponge, you have to absorb it all. I believe it is this opinion against knowledge that weakened Muslim nations and eventually caused them to become colonies of European powers. And this, along with control by the mullahs (who shouldn't really have control of anything in my opinion), is why Muslim countries are the way they are today. That and general corruption and greed, but those two things are very difficult to prevent.

Also, it's rather difficult to claim that one country is superior to another, unless you are comparing in specific categories.

Point invalid. It isn't required by any part of Islam as part of the written rules.

Point MORE than valid if Islam around the world accepts the need for covering all or most of a woman's skin and subjects them to punishment and claims Qur'anic or Islamic authority to do so. This issue just isn't as simple as you're trying to make it. No, the chador and burkha and the like aren't, strictly speaking, "of Islam", but do you honestly believe that matters to those enforcing those codes? I'll answer for you -- hell no, it doesn't matter, and you'd be a class-A infidel to suggest otherwise.

They would still be Muslims, just misguided ones.

Right, and nothing has ever prevented misguided religious folks from usurping any religion anywhere. Again, you're trying to use logic where it does not fit. Thing is, I think you know that, and you're being deliberately contrary for the sake of being contrary.

It is not required by the Quran, therefore wearing a burkha is not a part of Islam.

Remember, when sticking your fingers in your ears and yammering, stop your fingers when you meet resistance.

Many long-lived religions outgrow their source material and acquire traditions that become part of the religion. The celebration of Christmas and the symbol of the crucifix are not in the Bible, but are still part of Christianity.

Spot on.

Many Catholic rites aren't in the Bible, either (which, along with Christmas and the like, is why the Jehova's Witnesses came about -- if it ain't in the Bible, they don't dig it, and that includes celebrating birthdays and paying homage to flags or other "graven images").

But they are parts that can be thrown out, like the burkha.

*smacks forehead with hand*

Okay, until you say something passably intelligent, this'll be my last reply. I suggest you stroll on in to Mecca or Medina and just announce -- get it translated reliably into Arabic first -- that all the Imams around the world should "throw out" all the non-Qur'anic Shariya laws. See how you like being a stone target or losing an appendage.

Religious laws that have been around for centuries aren't likely to just go away unless the highest-ups decide to accede to whatever forces would make them want to change or eliminate those laws. To sit there and glibly say that they can be thrown out is to ignore both history and reality...

...hmmm...ignoring reality...say...y'know the Attorney General position in the Bush Administration just opened up...you should think about applying. The man's not picky about relevant experience (Michael Brown at FEMA ring a bell?)...and ignoring reality and history seem to be plusses. You'd be a cinch.

Nah we Godless Westerners have the CRAZY idea that women can actually be equal and another CRAZY idea that women can actually do jobs that men do.

I guess some Muslims find this weird and want to scream OMGz the Westerns actually think women deserve to be equal.

Yeah, it's not "oppressive" to inform 50% of the population that they have to be submissive to the other 50%...

If you're going to be a cowardly sexist prick, at least have the decency to be honest about it so that women can get a running start.

Look, I am on record as frequently arguing against those who try to blame Islam the religion for the behavior of Muslims.

But I'm not going to put up with your self-serving nonsense, either.

A) You do not get to cite the inequality of women in Islam as proof that there is no oppression of women within the Muslim world.

B) You do not get to point to your holy book which tells men not to be bastards to women and claim that is the way things are done, in direct contradiction of abundant evidence that, in fact, Muslim men routinely are bastards towards women, are taught to be bastards towards women, and claim Islam as their permission to be bastards towards women. If you want to make that argument, you must reconcile it with reality.

(EDIT: I am anticipating that you will cite the book in support of your assertions. I realize you haven't done it yet.)

C) You also do not get to perpetuate this vague geo-cultural divide of Islam versus "westerners" if Islam is going to continue to claim to be a global religion. There are plenty of Muslims in the west, my friend. Stop drawing imaginary lines around yourself that have no purpose but to promote "us versus them" propaganda.

To all of you I would say, simply because men and women may not completely equal does NOT women are oppressed.

To all of you I would say, simply because men and women may not completely equal does NOT women are oppressed.

I'd say there's a world of difference between "not completely equal" and "little more than property" in many Islamic nations. What level of gender inequallity are you willing to accept?

Point MORE than valid if Islam around the world accepts the need for covering all or most of a woman's skin and subjects them to punishment and claims Qur'anic or Islamic authority to do so. This issue just isn't as simple as you're trying to make it. No, the chador and burkha and the like aren't, strictly speaking, "of Islam", but do you honestly believe that matters to those enforcing those codes? I'll answer for you -- hell no, it doesn't matter, and you'd be a class-A infidel to suggest otherwise.



Right, and nothing has ever prevented misguided religious folks from usurping any religion anywhere. Again, you're trying to use logic where it does not fit. Thing is, I think you know that, and you're being deliberately contrary for the sake of being contrary.



Remember, when sticking your fingers in your ears and yammering, stop your fingers when you meet resistance.



Spot on.

Many Catholic rites aren't in the Bible, either (which, along with Christmas and the like, is why the Jehova's Witnesses came about -- if it ain't in the Bible, they don't dig it, and that includes celebrating birthdays and paying homage to flags or other "graven images").



*smacks forehead with hand*

Okay, until you say something passably intelligent, this'll be my last reply. I suggest you stroll on in to Mecca or Medina and just announce -- get it translated reliably into Arabic first -- that all the Imams around the world should "throw out" all the non-Qur'anic Shariya laws. See how you like being a stone target or losing an appendage.

Religious laws that have been around for centuries aren't likely to just go away unless the highest-ups decide to accede to whatever forces would make them want to change or eliminate those laws. To sit there and glibly say that they can be thrown out is to ignore both history and reality...

...hmmm...ignoring reality...say...y'know the Attorney General position in the Bush Administration just opened up...you should think about applying. The man's not picky about relevant experience (Michael Brown at FEMA ring a bell?)...and ignoring reality and history seem to be plusses. You'd be a cinch.

I'm not saying that the mullahs would be happy about such changes, but I am saying you could argue for them Islamically and that they would be good.

Sorry about the triple posting, total accident.

I'd say there's a world of difference between "not completely equal" and "little more than property" in many Islamic nations. What level of gender inequallity are you willing to accept?

In my family, females and males are equal.

I'm not saying that the mullahs would be happy about such changes, but I am saying you could argue for them Islamically and that they would be good.

You could, and the changes themselves might be good, but when the ones you need to convince are the ones who'd have to either admit they were wrong or worse yet, relinquish power, you're not going to get very far. Therefore, the covering of women can be fairly said to be "a part of Islam".

In my family, females and males are equal.

Good for your family. Unless you're claiming that your family is ALL families of Islam, I can't see how that is relevant.

You could, and the changes themselves might be good, but when the ones you need to convince are the ones who'd have to either admit they were wrong or worse yet, relinquish power, you're not going to get very far. Therefore, the covering of women can be fairly said to be "a part of Islam".



Good for your family. Unless you're claiming that your family is ALL families of Islam, I can't see how that is relevant.

Again, it's a part of some Islamic cultures, not all Islamic cultures, and certainly not Islam. The burkha is not as common as you would think either. Veils and other such garments are used of course, but the burkha is rather rare. No one in my family wears a burkha, and they only wear veils during prayer and such.

And generally, how is women covering themselves bad? They should have a choice, but I don't see why people that argue for women's rights don't see the value of it. It rejects the status quo here in west of women being sex objects.

Also, the way you guys were saying it, you made it seem as if all Muslim families oppress women, which is certainly not true. And unless you have a means of interviewing over a billion people, how can you even say that the majority of Muslim families oppress women?

First off lad, where you from? Or your family just so I can get a feel from the country/culture.....



And generally, how is women covering themselves bad? They should have a choice, but I don't see why people that argue for women's rights don't see the value of it. It rejects the status quo here in west of women being sex objects.

Choice? Well that depends on the raising. If a girl has been taught it's the right thing to do her whole life; it's not really a choice.

Mind you it's rather anecdotal but I really don't see them having much of a choice from conversations and comments of Muslims I know.

My coworker is liberal in his views. He claimed to be but in the 7 years I have worked with him I have yet to meet his wife. Recently on a trip we were in Oregon and he kept complaining about the lack of clothing of women were wearing (joggettes) and the fact some kids were necking. I asked him why does that bother him (mainly about the joggettes) and his comment was that they were driving him crazy. He made other references about women short skirts and wearing a camisole.

The driving men crazy comment I have heard from others as well(note: I have heard hard core Christians make the some comments but lets not digress).

If a girl is surrounded in an environment were their bodies are immoral since they drive men crazy then are they really making the choice?

Now women as sex objects? Why is that a bad thing? Men think of them that way as it has been shown they have a sexual thought every well I forget the time but it was seconds. It also appears from the "driving me crazy" comments, Muslim men thing the same. And guess what? Women do the same thing.

We are sexual creatures. We are creatures who breed and want our children to have characteristics we find attractive. Be it eyes, hair, whatever.

It's a matter of respect. You can find a woman attractive and respect her mind. Respect her work ethic. Respect her being.....


Also, the way you guys were saying it, you made it seem as if all Muslim families oppress women, which is certainly not true. And unless you have a means of interviewing over a billion people, how can you even say that the majority of Muslim families oppress women?

Nobody here has said all families oppress women. But you have to admit many do. What of the "morality police" in Saudi Arabia? A coworker was born there and told the story how a guy and his daughter left a compound (stupid on their part) went walking and at one point held hands. A cop came up and started beating her.

What about Pakistan? I recently read of an "honor" killing where a man killed his 4 daughters because the oldest was seen walking with a boy....

What about Afghanistan? Well Talibian is extreme so we don't need to bring them up.

There are liberal counties such as Jordan but to suggest women are equal in the Islamic world? I am not so sure.

If you look at history, which apparently you know little about, Islam has a far better track record then Christianity.
Proof?
Proof?

Ok let's hear it.

To all of you I would say, simply because men and women may not completely equal does NOT women are oppressed.
Actually...

If you deny equality on the basis of gender, then yes, you are oppressing folks. If you decide that being female means a human does not have equal rights, you are sexist.

If you can't handle bearing the names for what you do, then maybe you should do something different.

The notion that men are oppressive to women in Islam is completely false. Simply because the man's role is to be the head of the household, which I guess some westerners find weird, people want to scream OMGz oppression. When this just isn't the case.

Does the phrase "honor killings" mean anything to you?

And even besides that, a husband has no more right to be "head" of the household than the wife does. If he's the head, what does that make her? The ass?

No, a marriage should be an equal partnership or not at all. In my opinion.

And even besides that, a husband has no more right to be "head" of the household than the wife does. If he's the head, what does that make her? The ass?
I just think it's cute when a boy thinks that he gets to be leader because he's got a penis.

It's like he's openly admitting that he has absolutely no qualifications that make him a good leader, because the only reason he can give is "I've got a dick!"

Look, I am on record as frequently arguing against those who try to blame Islam the religion for the behavior of Muslims.

But I'm not going to put up with your self-serving nonsense, either.

A) You do not get to cite the inequality of women in Islam as proof that there is no oppression of women within the Muslim world.

B) You do not get to point to your holy book which tells men not to be bastards to women and claim that is the way things are done, in direct contradiction of abundant evidence that, in fact, Muslim men routinely are bastards towards women, are taught to be bastards towards women, and claim Islam as their permission to be bastards towards women. If you want to make that argument, you must reconcile it with reality.

(EDIT: I am anticipating that you will cite the book in support of your assertions. I realize you haven't done it yet.)

C) You also do not get to perpetuate this vague geo-cultural divide of Islam versus "westerners" if Islam is going to continue to claim to be a global religion. There are plenty of Muslims in the west, my friend. Stop drawing imaginary lines around yourself that have no purpose but to promote "us versus them" propaganda.


...it's like a black hole made of win.

And generally, how is women covering themselves bad? They should have a choice, but I don't see why people that argue for women's rights don't see the value of it. It rejects the status quo here in west of women being sex objects.

Actually, the practice of having women cover themselves to avoid being sex objects doesn't remotely reject the status quo here.

Seriously, think about it.

You're admitting that women don't get to make a real free choice. Either they can cover themselves to protect themselves from being regarded as sex objects, or they can not cover themselves and be regarded as sex objects. In either case, they will be forced to take responsibility for male behavior.

If they don't cover up, they're asking for it, right? So if they don't want to be treated that way, they've got to cover up.

Funny how they aren't given the option to be treated like humans no matter how they're dressed.

Face it, your system isn't a rebellion. It's just another way of participating in the same old sexism.

To all of you I would say, simply because men and women may not completely equal does NOT women are oppressed.

Men and women are equal in everything until they prove otherwise in either a show of physical or intellectual skill. Even then, they are equal humans; one more qualified than the other based on the demonstration of a specific skill.

Gender oppression occurs when there is no equal opportunity for success or failure for either gender. It assumes that simply because that person is of a specific gender they may be more or less qualified because of what's in the pants, which is ludicrous.

It rejects the status quo here in west of women being sex objects.


The fact that women's faces can be considered "indecent". because they're too sexual, only reinforces the idea of them being "sex objects".

True enough. But this is not from lack of religious values. Saying that the only reason 11 and 12 years olds do drugs and have sex is all because they don't go to church is bullshit. You do not need religion to be moral or be a good person. All you need is a structured well rounded up bringing. And I would wager that most of these 11 and 12 years you speak of lived below the poverty line. You have got to fix the underlying problem of poverty and noneducation before you can expect society to fix itself. You cannot expect religious fundementalism to fix everything for you, if anything it makes it worse.

Whilst fundamentalism won't fix the problem, I don't think chucking more money at it will fix it. In New Zealand, for the past 12 years, the welfare net has increased - low income families get money for instance. All evidence so far has shown it has a negiable impact on the matrix's used for rating societial development.

Money isn't the issue; its lack of personal responsibility by parents to teach morals and values to their children. You don't have to be rich to know the difference between right and wrong. Heck, my fathers side was a typical working class Catholic family with 6 kids - they were relatively low income and yet his parents firstly new the value of education and secondly always said that being poor was not an excuse for lacking values and morals.

What people need is an anchor in their life, something that pulls them down a few notches and makes them realise that they're not invinciable, the pursuit of pleasure is not the sole purpose in life, and *shock* *horror* the world doesn't just revolve around them.

All I see today are people working and persuing material satisfaction whilst ignoring the children they have, ignoring their role as parents, ignoring the fact that having more money and more goods doesn't make an individual a better person.

What's funny is woman covering themselves isn't even a requirement in Islam. If it is where in the Koran does it say that?

Does the phrase "honor killings" mean anything to you?


That has nothing to do with Islam, just a bunch of stupid people

edit: I have seen some videos of devout Muslum Africans that don't cover themselves up, and I was even in a class with a Muslum girl who didn't cover up, from what I know it's something some theologins just came up with :rolleyes:

What's funny is woman covering themselves isn't even a requirement in Islam. If it is where in the Koran does it say that?



That has nothing to do with Islam, just a bunch of stupid people

Qu'ran 24:11 (Light)

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness.

This passage refers to the modesty that is part of Islam. It asks that women not dress immodestly. It says nothing about a head veil (the hijab, chador or any other form of Islamic female head dress).

Yeah, I wasn't focussing solely on the burkha -- I used it as one example. The chador and hijab are other examples.

I love how women have to be somehow responsible for men's lack of self-control in such a "civilized" and "intelligent" society.

Qu'ran 24:11 (Light)

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness.

This passage refers to the modesty that is part of Islam. It asks that women not dress immodestly. It says nothing about a head veil (the hijab, chador or any other form of Islamic female head dress).

The modest dressing also goes for both men and women.

As for the veil, its an import off the Christians in Abyssinia - never orginated in Islam.

Some can't be taken literally; for example, tying up a camel before praying; obviously one would have to interprete that in a modern sense of being sensible about praying.

The modest dressing also goes for both men and women.

As for the veil, its an import off the Christians in Abyssinia - never orginated in Islam.

Some can't be taken literally; for example, tying up a camel before praying; obviously one would have to interprete that in a modern sense of being sensible about praying.

I know it extends to both sexes, as a Muslim friend of mine has told me many times. :) The rabble here on NSG were talking more specifically about women, and it just so happens that that particular passage was relevant.

True that on the veil also. It was just adapted as an option for the followers of the faith.

There are many similar oddities in the Bible that shouldn't be taken literally, and yet many zealots tend to. There's one in every family. ;)

If Christian leadership today could get away with breaking into peoples houses and arrest people for breaking Moral codes BELIEVE me they would do it in an instant. Western people simply dont have the tolerence for that sort of nonsence.

I'm not sure if you know of this, but Islamic leadership does have religious police in many places. And their official function is pretty much breaking and entering people's homes and telling them how to live and beating up those who don't listen.

Even if I were willing to concede that the Crusades were nothing but an exercise in bloodthirsty territorialism, which I'm not, I'd still feel the need to point out that the last Crusade took place something like 700 years ago. If you have to reach back that far to find an example to support your point, I'd say your point is pretty flimsy.

Something a little more recent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I_of_England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition

Long story short. Any faith system in the hands of those who wield power is a big bonfire of totalitarianism waiting for a spark.

Not that it's really any better when it's just a state system alone either...

The problem isn't faith, or state. It's people.

but this idea that Christianity is just wating for a chance to oppress people is inaccurate and unfair.

Christianity alone can't do squat. It's a faith system. It's the people who want to abuse the faith system that would be oppressing people. Imagine if the likes of Ann Coulter or Fred Phelps were given the power to persecute and arrest in the name of the church.

*munches on tacos and watches the deific dick wrestling the thread has devolved into*

*stuffs a taco with soap flakes*

I know about some Christians, even talked to some on the internet, that want race mixers to die (they believe only white descend people from Adam)

They actually would become very militant if they have the chance and the most well known of them are called the Klu Klux Klan, and they are growing not shrinking in members

edit: If you want to learn about these people they are called Identity Christians

I know about some Christians, even talked to some on the internet, that want race mixers to die (they believe only white descend people from Adam)

They actually would become very militant if they have the chance and the most well known of them are called the Klu Klux Klan, and they are growing not shrinking in members

edit: If you want to learn about these people they are called Identity Christians

Most Americans want to pretend that there's no such thing as Christian Identity, much less there's any significant numbers of Identity Christians around while at the same time they love to believe every single Muslim in the world man, woman and child are all Al Qaeda jihadis waiting to happen.

I'm not sure if you know of this, but Islamic leadership does have religious police in many places. And their official function is pretty much breaking and entering people's homes and telling them how to live and beating up those who don't listen.

Discussed on Page 4

This is some insight into the mind of Identity; it's made by Identity themselves

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BDQIOIk2Ilc

edit: this will disgust you

This is some insight into the mind of Identity; it's made by Identity themselves

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BDQIOIk2Ilc

edit: this will disgust you

Actually it's pretty lame and you should be happy they are not that talented.

I watched some of Goebbels productions for a paper and man that guy knew what he was doing. I found myself actually being disgusted by a few things.

This video made me go "whatever"

Most Americans want to pretend that there's no such thing as Christian Identity, much less there's any significant numbers of Identity Christians around while at the same time they love to believe every single Muslim in the world man, woman and child are all Al Qaeda jihadis waiting to happen.

Eh? Are you saying most Christians think Muslims are suicide bombers?

Eh? Are you saying most Christians think Muslims are suicide bombers?

I'm saying most Americans like to either pretend there's no such thing as a modern and violent-leaning Christian extremist movement like Christian Identity, or they'll continue to defensively emphasize how few there are or how little they've done or how all that was in the past in comparison to the "countless" acts of Muslim-associated violence in the world currently. And since the "if they don't openly condemn it they privately condone it" label can be applied by them to all Muslims equally, it's just as reasonable to surmise that since most of them do little to emphasize that the extremists are separate from the rest of the billion or so Muslims in the world then they believe all of them are either potential terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.

Judeo-Christian Values? Kids Agree,God Likes a Good Genocide
(I love the way the guy in the video puts it)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=703ZJSzyyOA

I have seen similar attitudes from this video among Christians in my personal life

Also look at Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, both atheist both friggin evil so lack of religion isn't the ansewer either,

so basically everyone sucks except Bushmen and aborigines IMO

Judeo-Christian Values? Kids Agree,God Likes a Good Genocide
(I love the way the guy in the video puts it)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=703ZJSzyyOA

I have seen similar attitudes from this video among Christians in my personal life

Also look at Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, both atheist both friggin evil so lack of religion isn't the ansewer either,

so basically everyone sucks except Bushmen and aborigines IMO

Of course most posters on NSG will immediately try to counter with statements to the effect that these Identity Christian types are a miniscule fraction of Christians as a whole with no real power and are the exceptions rather than the rule, while at the same time violent insurgents and jihadis are actually the Islamic Mainstream.