Case in Point...

[Lestat]

If the punishment hasn't been carried out yet, it will be soon. A 19 year old woman will be lashed 200 times and spend 6 months in jail. That is, if her brother doesn't kill her first. Her crime? She was gang raped by seven men. Apparently she was in the company of a man at the time who was not her husband. She has dishonored her family and her religion (which is why her brother wants to kill her).

I'm not even sure what I'm more outraged about. That such an insanely barbaric caveman mentality can still exist in this day and age, or that the rational thinking world is not taking a stronger stance and coming to the rescue of this young girl who has become a double victim. A victim of a heinous rape crime, and then a victim of her own religion and government.

If this is not reason enough to mock, ridicule, and lambast foolish religious beliefs, I don't know what is. Some of you who were calling for ridicule only in outrageous circumstances might want to consider this incident. It stems from something far less sinister. The basic religious tenet of how women should act and be treated according to Islamic law. It is not that great a leap from the seemingly harmless beliefs to the situation that devoloped here. In all of Islam, women are regarded in this way to some degree. Therefore, the severity of the dellusion is unimportant. The degree to which it is practiced is unimportant. What's important is that the dellusion exists at all. What I find deplorable is that we feel a need to avoid offending the sensibilities of those who hold such beliefs no matter how apparently harmless.

The entire rational thinking world should be ridiculing Islam with everything they've got right now over this incident!!

[kurto]

Not as horrific but still stupid.

[ QUOTE ]
KHARTOUM - Hundreds of Sudanese Muslims, waving green Islamic flags, took to the streets of Khartoum on Friday demanding death for the British teacher convicted of insulting Islam after her class named a teddy bear Mohammad.

"No one lives who insults the Prophet," the protesters chanted, a day after school teacher Gillian Gibbons, 54, was sentenced to 15 days in jail and deportation from Sudan.



[/ QUOTE ]

[PLOlover]

honestly I don't care.

I mean here in US thousands of people are raped every day in prison and nobody cares. hell, most people think it's great.

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
honestly I don't care.

I mean here in US thousands of people are raped every day in prison and nobody cares. hell, most people think it's great.

[/ QUOTE ]

Serious?

[chezlaw]

I don't see treating women badly as a religous issue but totally agree with the sentiment of your post. They're extremely uncivilised but its very tough to impose civilisation on other countries.

Hadn't heard this story but there's been plenty of mockery of the TeddyBearists offended by the naming of their sacred bear. its of limited value, useful mockery comes from within cultures not from external sources

chez

[FortunaMaximus]

Brutal and irrational indeed.

The story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7098480.stm

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
honestly I don't care.

I mean here in US thousands of people are raped every day in prison and nobody cares. hell, most people think it's great.



Serious?

[/ QUOTE ]

yep. most people think they're criminals and deserve it.

my point is we americans/westerners should clean our own house before looking to impose our supposed civilized values on others.

[thylacine]

One problem is that a lot of oil is in majority muslim countries, hence a blind eye is turned to such attrocities.

Another problem (and religious extremists and political correctophiles are two peas in a pod with this) is the view that anything is justified if it is done in the name of religion.

[chezlaw]

maybe of interest is the end of a letter in the Times from Dr Yaqub Zaki, Deputy director, The Mulim Institute, London.

'Regimes like the Sudanese and the Taleban have made a laughing stock of Islam as well as themselves, so the middle east is no longer Arabistan but Absurdistan'

chez

[Lestat]

But this (I thought) is Saudi Arabia. For some reason I thought they were more reformed than most. Maybe that's just because of their relation with the US.

I love the quote! I wish more moderate Muslims would speak out about matter like this. I'd feel a little easier if they did.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
honestly I don't care.

I mean here in US thousands of people are raped every day in prison and nobody cares. hell, most people think it's great.



Serious?

[/ QUOTE ]

yep. most people think they're criminals and deserve it.

my point is we americans/westerners should clean our own house before looking to impose our supposed civilized values on others.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is saying prisoners deserved to be raped. But if it's possible to be less deserving of such a fate then this girl is. Also...

The rape that occurs in our prisons is done at the hands of a few rogue degenerates and not condoned by our government or it's citizens. A HUGE difference. So your anaolgy is terrible!

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
But this (I thought) is Saudi Arabia. For some reason I thought they were more reformed than most. Maybe that's just because of their relation with the US.

I love the quote! I wish more moderate Muslims would speak out about matter like this. I'd feel a little easier if they did.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hear Saudi Arabia is pretty bad.

Moderate muslims in the UK speak out a lot. I think the west is making a terrible mistake when it allows (even encourages) the belief that the extremist nutters and Islam are synomamous.

chez

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the west is making a terrible mistake when it allows (even encourages) the belief that the extremist nutters and Islam are synomamous.


[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. Let's not act like these actions are representative of the majority of Islam.

I'm also fairly sure that mocking Saudi Arabians isn't going to change their mind on this issue. All that would seem to do is create outrage and anger toward us. However, I guess it's also possible that nothing will change minds.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the west is making a terrible mistake when it allows (even encourages) the belief that the extremist nutters and Islam are synomamous.


[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. Let's not act like these actions are representative of the majority of Islam.

I'm also fairly sure that mocking Saudi Arabians isn't going to change their mind on this issue. All that would seem to do is create outrage and anger toward us. However, I guess it's also possible that nothing will change minds.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if THATS true then mocking them and getting them to show their true colors seems like a reasonable way to garner support from places it might actually exist. I have never wanted to name a bunch of sex toys Mohammed more in my entire life.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
The rape that occurs in our prisons is done at the hands of a few rogue degenerates and not condoned by our government or it's citizens. A HUGE difference. So your anaolgy is terrible!

[/ QUOTE ]

simply not true. the prison staff and warden and the mental health guys all know it goes on and they look the other way and let it go on and in extreme cases they actively enable it.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

And if THATS true then mocking them and getting them to show their true colors seems like a reasonable way to garner support from places it might actually exist. I have never wanted to name a bunch of sex toys Mohammed more in my entire life.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if you mock and ridicule them and simply refer to them as "Muslims" you are alienating everyone who doesn't believe those things but considers themselves Muslim. It seems like you are assuming that you can't change minds.

Actually, even if minds won't be changed and these people are going to continue to be ridiculous, mocking them could easily make our relations with them worse than it already is. I just don't see the positives and I see big negatives.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And if THATS true then mocking them and getting them to show their true colors seems like a reasonable way to garner support from places it might actually exist. I have never wanted to name a bunch of sex toys Mohammed more in my entire life.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if you mock and ridicule them and simply refer to them as "Muslims" you are alienating everyone who doesn't believe those things but considers themselves Muslim. It seems like you are assuming that you can't change minds.

Actually, even if minds won't be changed and these people are going to continue to be ridiculous, mocking them could easily make our relations with them worse than it already is. I just don't see the positives and I see big negatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

You hit on a great point, actually, and its something I'm intellectually aware of but constantly forget because I give everyone too much credit. Let me try and give an example. If I made a statement like "God I hate all these stupid SMP posters who think they know everything and dont even listen to what I have to say" would you take offense? Why? I'm clearly not talking about you, I'm only talking about "that kind" of SMP poster. But most people WOULD take offense because...well I dont know why. When I rant on and on about the Christians that bother me, if you arent that kind of Christian why must you take offense? You arent all on the same team. You are all individuals. When people make fun of Minnesotans, I certainly dont take offense, unless they are talking about something that relates to me.

So, when we mock the actions and beliefs of CERTAIN Muslims, there is no reason whatsoever for the rest of the Muslims, the "good" Muslims that you are talking about here, to get offended at all. In fact the opposite should be true, they should be even more embarrassed by the "bad" Muslims and join in.

But that isnt what happens and I should know better.

[Lestat]

One of us doesn't get it. Maybe it's me.

The degree of nuttiness is irrevelant. It's the core axioms that are off. It's from these beginning axioms that major nuttiness occurs.

And we're doing this story injustice by using terms like nutty. It's much graver than that. It's nothing short of abominable how they treat women. And don't tell me it's a govermental problem. Its seeds are rooted in religion.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

You hit on a great point, actually, and its something I'm intellectually aware of but constantly forget because I give everyone too much credit. Let me try and give an example. If I made a statement like "God I hate all these stupid SMP posters who think they know everything and dont even listen to what I have to say" would you take offense? Why? I'm clearly not talking about you, I'm only talking about "that kind" of SMP poster. But most people WOULD take offense because...well I dont know why. When I rant on and on about the Christians that bother me, if you arent that kind of Christian why must you take offense? You arent all on the same team. You are all individuals. When people make fun of Minnesotans, I certainly dont take offense, unless they are talking about something that relates to me.

So, when we mock the actions and beliefs of CERTAIN Muslims, there is no reason whatsoever for the rest of the Muslims, the "good" Muslims that you are talking about here, to get offended at all. In fact the opposite should be true, they should be even more embarrassed by the "bad" Muslims and join in.

But that isnt what happens and I should know better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's basically what I'm getting at. Because of your position as an outsider and because of a lot of past history, bad relations, mistrust, etc, even if you specify that you are talking about "bad Muslims" many people on both sides will simply hear "Muslims". I mean, honestly how many people in the U.S. know the difference between the different Middle Eastern nations and the different forms of Islam? It's such a sensitive topic I just think it's worth it to be a little more careful.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">But if you mock and ridicule them and simply refer to them as "Muslims" you are alienating everyone who doesn't believe those things but considers themselves Muslim. </font>

But they DO believe those things! Even if they wouldn't be willing to flog and sentence a woman after being gang raped, they believe in oppressing women. Why is the degree of that oppression so important to you, instead of the oppression itself?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
One of us doesn't get it. Maybe it's me.

The degree of nuttiness is irrevelant. It's the core axioms that are off. It's from these beginning axioms that major nuttiness occurs.

And we're doing this story injustice by using terms like nutty. It's much graver than that. It's nothing short of abominable how they treat women. And don't tell me it's a govermental problem. Its seeds are rooted in religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I would say that I just think you are mistaken. I'm not going to claim that Islam is a great thing and that there aren't any objectionable tenets or practices. However, there are millions upon millions of Muslims who think these practices are abhorrent.

Actually, I will take it one step further just for arguments sake. Even if what you say is true and these practices are rooted in some interpretation of the religion. If a majority of the practitioners of this religion don't advocate these things, I would argue that it is a mistake to say that it is the core religion that is at fault. Pragmatically speaking, as I said earlier, decrying the entire religion simply alienates all those who would otherwise agree with your overall point.

There is a large disagreement about the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. For example, some people think the 2nd amendment gives everyone the right to own a gun, some people think it applies only to militia. But I would never say that America is to blame or that being American is ridiculous because you open yourself up to these problems.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">I mean, honestly how many people in the U.S. know the difference between the different Middle Eastern nations and the different forms of Islam? It's such a sensitive topic I just think it's worth it to be a little more careful. </font>

If this is true, then why aren't they some of the more vocal opponents of Islamic fanaticism?

If certain members of my family were also KKK members, and my family started getting a reputation for affiliation with the KKK, I'd be among the first to be ostracizing these rogue family members from the top of my lungs.

Chez says this is happening in the UK. We certainly don't see or hear of it happening here. Am I to believe this the result of a biased Western media?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> However, there are millions upon millions of Muslims who think these practices are abhorrent. </font>

Let's stop there. I'm seriously trying to have a fruitful discussion.

Millions upon millions of Muslims find WHAT practices abhorant? The flogging of a 19 year old girl who's been raped? Fine. But that's NOT the only point here. It's WHY she's being flogged in the first place!!!!!!!

They are still perfectly in sync with their brethren about the crime she supposedly committed. So the way I take what you're saying is, you are ok about the oppression of women, just not the punishment. I can't believe that's your position, so please clarify what you're saying for me.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">the prison staff and warden and the mental health guys all know it goes on and they look the other way and let it go on and in extreme cases they actively enable it. </font>

I knew you'd say this and I was waiting for it. Prison guards and wardens STILL only makeup a handful of people! What we're talking about here is an entire country!

[RJT]

There are a few issues here.

1) The religious law itself – she was in an unrelated man’s car.
2) The punishment for said crime – lashing.
3) Whether or not anyone should care.


1) I don’t have an opinion on this. If one wants to believe in this (if that is what a correct interpretation of Islam says) then, oh well.

2) I am against capital and corporal punishment.

3) Here is a good example of my response to Sklansky’s thread regarding CNN news and CNN giving so much time to stories like OJ. In that thread I suggested that it really doesn’t matter much what is on the news unless the viewer is going to be affected by it personally or if the viewer is going to act in some manner upon what is learned.

I think most of us find this story disturbing. And most of us will do nothing.

I agree with the sentiments that the most effective avenue for change should probably come from within the Islam hierarchy itself; especially given the quote from Dr Zaki which seems to suggest that this probably is a bad interpretation of Islam.

[willie24]

i agree that the powers that be should be attempting to aid this woman and to punish those who commit crime against her.

punish them not for their beliefs, but for their actions. you can believe whatever you want - but you can't force someone else to follow your beliefs.

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
i agree that the powers that be should be attempting to aid this woman and to punish those who commit crime against her.

punish them not for their beliefs, but for their actions. you can believe whatever you want - but you can't force someone else to follow your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

the powers that be as in the saudi government? aren't they just enforcing their theocratic law?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> 1) I don’t have an opinion on this. If one wants to believe in this (if that is what a correct interpretation of Islam says) then, oh well. </font>

I can't believe what I've been reading here from several posters, not just this, so no offense. I feel like I'm in a twilight zone. With all due respect...

What do you MEAN you don't have an opinion on this?!! You don't have an opinion on whether or not women should be oppressed by men?!?!?!?! Do you honestly think that it's ok for men to OWN the women in their families?!?!?!?!! That a woman is the property of her family or husband?

[willie24]

i was purposely ambiguous with "powers that be"- i did not mean to limit it to those in saudi arabia, but i did not mean for it to exclude saudi arabians either.

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
One of us doesn't get it. Maybe it's me.

The degree of nuttiness is irrevelant. It's the core axioms that are off. It's from these beginning axioms that major nuttiness occurs.

And we're doing this story injustice by using terms like nutty. It's much graver than that. It's nothing short of abominable how they treat women. And don't tell me it's a govermental problem. Its seeds are rooted in religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

the messed-up beliefs, in general, are not the problem. the problem is the one particular belief that "I am right, and therefore everyone else must be wrong, and therefore i have the right to impose my beliefs on everyone else, and this is a fact that cannot be debated."

this is one "belief" that CAN be easily proven to be dead wrong through the use of simple logic - yet it has existed forever. it's perhaps the single most devestating belief in the history of mankind.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> 1) I don’t have an opinion on this. If one wants to believe in this (if that is what a correct interpretation of Islam says) then, oh well. </font>

I can't believe what I've been reading here from several posters, not just this, so no offense. I feel like I'm in a twilight zone. With all due respect...

What do you MEAN you don't have an opinion on this?!! You don't have an opinion on whether or not women should be oppressed by men?!?!?!?! Do you honestly think that it's ok for men to OWN the women in their families?!?!?!?!! That a woman is the property of her family or husband?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I have an opinion sure. I mean, I am nor going to express that opinion here because it is moot. We posters aren’t going to do anything about this. At least I am not. So, I am not going to give my opinion because I am too lazy to do anything about it – e.g. write a letter to some Muslim cleric asking for clarification if this is what Islam says or is it a governmental thing. Or organize some protest in front of the Saudi Embassy in D. C.

Also, to have an opinion on how another Religion should interpret its text is beyond my knowledge. So, really I’d rather not give an opinion on Islam tradition/laws.

I see a fine line too even for our government. Ok for George to try to free this woman, but not to free all the people in Iraq? (Btw, I was against the war from the git go – so don’t get me wrong.)

[borisp]

Has anyone here actually read the Koran? I hereby offer the "Koran challenge": try to open it five times in a row, each time to a random page, without finding a passage that encourages murdering infidels, or opressing women, etc.

I think you will be astonished at the results.

The most relevant point towards the OP's argument, I think, is that the foundational text upon which the religion of Islam is based is completely and thoroughly flawed. It is a text that is ideal for gathering a mob to wage war against their neighbor, and nothing more.

If one is aiming to attack modern religions for their irrationality, then one needs to appeal to their foundational texts. No more and no less will point out their absurdity.

[DougShrapnel]

If she had followed the law she would not have been raped, except by her owner.

To quote a muslim cleric
"“If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it…whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat,” the sheik told the congregation.
“The uncovered meat is the problem.

“If she was in her room, in her home, no problem would have occurred.”

[NasEscobar]

[ QUOTE ]
If she had followed the law she would not have been raped,

[/ QUOTE ]
Does that make the rape and punishment justified?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">We posters aren’t going to do anything about this. </font>

I feel I'm doing something (albeit all to little), by merely trying to bring attention to this atrocity and be outspoken about it. I am also a contributor to the support of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has a fatwa out on her for the outrageous crime of trying to gain her individual freedom from Islam. I urge others to do the same.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If she had followed the law she would not have been raped,

[/ QUOTE ]
Does that make the rape and punishment justified?

[/ QUOTE ] According to a muslim cleric, yes, she is to blame. We must be respectful of religious beliefs.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">We posters aren’t going to do anything about this. </font>

I feel I'm doing something (albeit all to little), by merely trying to bring attention to this atrocity and be outspoken about it. I am also a contributor to the support of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has a fatwa out on her for the outrageous crime of trying to gain her individual freedom from Islam. I urge others to do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool, Stat. Dang, I already wrote in Borodog's thread I want to be chez when I grow up. You are giving him a run for the money in my book with this. Good job.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
There are a few issues here.

1) The religious law itself – she was in an unrelated man’s car.
2) The punishment for said crime – lashing.
3) Whether or not anyone should care.


1) I don’t have an opinion on this. If one wants to believe in this (if that is what a correct interpretation of Islam says) then, oh well.

2) I am against capital and corporal punishment.

3) Here is a good example of my response to Sklansky’s thread regarding CNN news and CNN giving so much time to stories like OJ. In that thread I suggested that it really doesn’t matter much what is on the news unless the viewer is going to be affected by it personally or if the viewer is going to act in some manner upon what is learned.

I think most of us find this story disturbing. And most of us will do nothing.

I agree with the sentiments that the most effective avenue for change should probably come from within the Islam hierarchy itself; especially given the quote from Dr Zaki which seems to suggest that this probably is a bad interpretation of Islam.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear. The quote is in response to the teddy bear news not the raped women.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are a few issues here.

1) The religious law itself – she was in an unrelated man’s car.
2) The punishment for said crime – lashing.
3) Whether or not anyone should care.


1) I don’t have an opinion on this. If one wants to believe in this (if that is what a correct interpretation of Islam says) then, oh well.

2) I am against capital and corporal punishment.

3) Here is a good example of my response to Sklansky’s thread regarding CNN news and CNN giving so much time to stories like OJ. In that thread I suggested that it really doesn’t matter much what is on the news unless the viewer is going to be affected by it personally or if the viewer is going to act in some manner upon what is learned.

I think most of us find this story disturbing. And most of us will do nothing.

I agree with the sentiments that the most effective avenue for change should probably come from within the Islam hierarchy itself; especially given the quote from Dr Zaki which seems to suggest that this probably is a bad interpretation of Islam.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear. The quote is in response to the teddy bear news not the raped women.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, so he supports the Teddybear, but not the woman. Just kidding. Thanks for the clarification.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, to have an opinion on how another Religion should interpret its text is beyond my knowledge. So, really I’d rather not give an opinion on Islam tradition/laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the Glass House dilemma that moderates are caught in. It's one of the targets of some of the neo-atheists.

People who claim their moral are derived from private messages or coded ancient texts can't very well deny the other guy the right to do the same. So they can't enter into the "is this a moral action" discussion because the answer is "what does his book say". If it says it ok it's ok, same argument they'd use for a action based on their book or private sourced info.

People like me don't give a [censored] what book some cult is claiming moral authority from. There are actions taken against people that are immoral by any meaning of humanity worth wanting. Moderates ARE one of the worlds problems precisely because of this running cover for the extremists that their approach to morality provides.

luckyme

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, to have an opinion on how another Religion should interpret its text is beyond my knowledge. So, really I’d rather not give an opinion on Islam tradition/laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the Glass House dilemma that moderates are caught in. It's one of the targets of some of the neo-atheists.

People who claim their moral are derived from private messages or coded ancient texts can't very well deny the other guy the right to do the same. So they can't enter into the "is this a moral action" discussion because the answer is "what does his book say". If it says it ok it's ok, same argument they'd use for a action based on their book or private sourced info.

People like me don't give a [censored] what book some cult is claiming moral authority from. There are actions taken against people that are immoral by any meaning of humanity worth wanting. Moderates ARE one of the worlds problems precisely because of this running cover for the extremists that their approach to morality provides.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s why I like the rules of my religion – love your neighbor. We can’t “own women”. What are the rules of atheism?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, to have an opinion on how another Religion should interpret its text is beyond my knowledge. So, really I’d rather not give an opinion on Islam tradition/laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the Glass House dilemma that moderates are caught in. It's one of the targets of some of the neo-atheists.

People who claim their moral are derived from private messages or coded ancient texts can't very well deny the other guy the right to do the same. So they can't enter into the "is this a moral action" discussion because the answer is "what does his book say". If it says it ok it's ok, same argument they'd use for a action based on their book or private sourced info.

People like me don't give a [censored] what book some cult is claiming moral authority from. There are actions taken against people that are immoral by any meaning of humanity worth wanting. Moderates ARE one of the worlds problems precisely because of this running cover for the extremists that their approach to morality provides.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s why I like the rules of my religion – love your neighbor. We can’t “own women”. What are the rules of atheism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure muslims of various stripes like theirs, perhaps even more for some of them since they seem more willing to die for them.

My point is you can't say to him "hey, that's wrong you azzhole" since you must honor his claim to knowing it's right since the premise is the same as yours. "It's in da book."

luckyme

[RJT]

Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if it is ... then it's moral, right?
And who is the judge of what the correct one is? It's no different than any interpreted work, there is virtually no position that can't be supported.

luckyme

[RJT]

Hence the word "opinion".

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, to have an opinion on how another Religion should interpret its text is beyond my knowledge. So, really I’d rather not give an opinion on Islam tradition/laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the Glass House dilemma that moderates are caught in. It's one of the targets of some of the neo-atheists.

People who claim their moral are derived from private messages or coded ancient texts can't very well deny the other guy the right to do the same. So they can't enter into the "is this a moral action" discussion because the answer is "what does his book say". If it says it ok it's ok, same argument they'd use for a action based on their book or private sourced info.

People like me don't give a [censored] what book some cult is claiming moral authority from. There are actions taken against people that are immoral by any meaning of humanity worth wanting. Moderates ARE one of the worlds problems precisely because of this running cover for the extremists that their approach to morality provides.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

A+

First chezlaw. Now you. What is the world coming to?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Hence the word "opinion".

[/ QUOTE ]

So we agree. A moderate follower of any cult can't judge the morals of someone from another cult when the claim for the morality for each of them come from revealed truths and/or sacred texts. The Glass House dilemma.

There is no "atheist code". Atheists are free to argue from first principles. Think about how the American underlying documents were hammered out. "is this the kind of world we want to live in".... "or this..." or. With our innate humanity as a rough guide and our millenia of experience as a fine tuner.

luckyme

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter. When a book actually says, "if she refuses to have sex with you, stone her to death," it's irrelevant that most worshippers think it really means this or that.

The clearest, most direct interpretation says you must commit atrocities. That's enough to indict the text and any religion it's based on.

If the meaning is actually compassionate, then torture and brutality shouldn't be used to couch that meaning. The idea of a God planting these words, knowing that some people will take them at face value, torturing, killing, and raping their neighbors, is sick. It's absurd, but it's also twisted and evil.

As long as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are based on these texts, they will be sick, pathological religions regardless of the specific actions of their followers. An instruction manual on doing horrible things is an instruction manual on doing horrible things, even if people like to interpret it nonliterally.

Those publishing the message "commit atrocities" shouldn't be let off the hook just because they intend that message to be taken with a heavy dose of special nuance. Certainly the readers can't be relied upon to apply such nuanced readings, and extremism is only intellectual honesty among those who don't understand the various technicalities that make this rule or that rule inapplicable. As long as you say that the command is God's word, it stands to reason some people will obey it at face value. The seed of the violence and hate is the text itself, even if it's a stupid interpretation of the text that results in such behavior.

One thing that skeptics (if not all atheists) do believe is that everything - everything should be taken with a grain of salt. Nothing is absolute, nothing is the ultimate reference or the ultimate authority, and therefore a single misinterpretation can't result in awful behavior.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hence the word "opinion".

[/ QUOTE ]

So we agree. A moderate follower of any cult can't judge the morals of someone from another cult when the claim for the morality for each of them come from revealed truths and/or sacred texts. The Glass House dilemma.

There is no "atheist code". Atheists are free to argue from first principles. Think about how the American underlying documents were hammered out. "is this the kind of world we want to live in".... "or this..." or. With our innate humanity as a rough guide and our millenia of experience as a fine tuner.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course we agree on that point. One can only give a moral opinion and such opinion would be relative to a metric or one’s own metric.

I was being facetious about the rules of atheism.

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter. When a book actually says, "if she refuses to have sex with you, stone her to death," it's irrelevant that most worshippers think it really means this or that.

The clearest, most direct interpretation says you must commit atrocities. That's enough to indict the text and any religion it's based on.


[/ QUOTE ]

where does the koran say this? i'm not familiar w/it at all and i assumed that it was being interpreted loosely in order to justify atrocities.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
If she had followed the law she would not have been raped, except by her owner.

To quote a muslim cleric
"“If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it…whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat,” the sheik told the congregation.
“The uncovered meat is the problem.

“If she was in her room, in her home, no problem would have occurred.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Cats have moral agency?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter. When a book actually says, "if she refuses to have sex with you, stone her to death," it's irrelevant that most worshippers think it really means this or that.

The clearest, most direct interpretation says you must commit atrocities. That's enough to indict the text and any religion it's based on.

If the meaning is actually compassionate, then torture and brutality shouldn't be used to couch that meaning. The idea of a God planting these words, knowing that some people will take them at face value, torturing, killing, and raping their neighbors, is sick. It's absurd, but it's also twisted and evil.

As long as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are based on these texts, they will be sick, pathological religions regardless of the specific actions of their followers. An instruction manual on doing horrible things is an instruction manual on doing horrible things, even if people like to interpret it nonliterally.

Those publishing the message "commit atrocities" shouldn't be let off the hook just because they intend that message to be taken with a heavy dose of special nuance. Certainly the readers can't be relied upon to apply such nuanced readings, and extremism is only intellectual honesty among those who don't understand the various technicalities that make this rule or that rule inapplicable. As long as you say that the command is God's word, it stands to reason some people will obey it at face value. The seed of the violence and hate is the text itself, even if it's a stupid interpretation of the text that results in such behavior.

One thing that skeptics (if not all atheists) do believe is that everything - everything should be taken with a grain of salt. Nothing is absolute, nothing is the ultimate reference or the ultimate authority, and therefore a single misinterpretation can't result in awful behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you’ve been reading Farenheit 451.

[Lestat]

Wait a sec... I thought you disagreed! Didn't you say in another thread (in response to chezlaw in fact), that ridicule should only match the severity of the dellusion?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> We can’t “own women”. What are the rules of atheism? </font>

No, but you can stone her to death on her doorstep upon learning she's not a virgin before you marry her.

Are you sure about this? Don't you follow the God of Abraham? I thought giving away one's daughter was pretty routine in the biblical days.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran. </font>

Ahh. So you use your own morality to form an opinion on what is moral from the "good book", then... Er, isn't the good book supposed to be the source of our morals again?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran. </font>

Ahh. So you use your own morality to form an opinion on what is moral from the "good book", then... Er, isn't the good book supposed to be the source of our morals again?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anoint me King, Stat, and I will gladly judge and rule over my people.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter. When a book actually says, "if she refuses to have sex with you, stone her to death," it's irrelevant that most worshippers think it really means this or that.

The clearest, most direct interpretation says you must commit atrocities. That's enough to indict the text and any religion it's based on.


[/ QUOTE ]

where does the koran say this? i'm not familiar w/it at all and i assumed that it was being interpreted loosely in order to justify atrocities.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's Leviticus, dude. This discussion shouldn't be limited to Islam, which has historically been relatively peaceful. I know that there are some verses in the Koran that, taken literally, are pretty damning. But I don't want to discuss them, as I've never read the Koran and am ill-equipped to deal with arguments of context/etc.

[Lestat]

But I'm being serious. Surely you've seen the posts by theists wanting to know where we atheists derive our morality from. They claim it's impossible without the bible. Why don't we just rape, pillage, and plunder? How can we live without the bible to guide us in morality?

Now you come along and claim to get your morality from the bible, yet you are using your own morality to judge the very book you claim to be getting your morality from!

Doesn't this strike you as circular, if not inconsistent?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> We can’t “own women”. What are the rules of atheism? </font>

No, but you can stone her to death on her doorstep upon learning she's not a virgin before you marry her.

Are you sure about this? Don't you follow the God of Abraham? I thought giving away one's daughter was pretty routine in the biblical days.

[/ QUOTE ]

The good ol’ days. Now we have political correctness.

Anyway, my wife owns me and no one is coming to my rescue.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If she had followed the law she would not have been raped, except by her owner.

To quote a muslim cleric
"“If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it…whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat,” the sheik told the congregation.
“The uncovered meat is the problem.

“If she was in her room, in her home, no problem would have occurred.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Cats have moral agency?

[/ QUOTE ]The real victim here is the family of the young girl, and her husband/ future husband. That she was defiled makes her unfit for marriage, and if anyone has a right to moral outrage it is her family. She has disgraced her family and Muhamed, blessed be his name, and peace to those who hear it. These young men who have been tempted by her, have also be caused harm. For they have been swayed away from their true calling by Allah, blessed be his name, and lead them straight into the arms of the dessert demons.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure about this? Don't you follow the God of Abraham? I thought giving away one's daughter was pretty routine in the biblical days.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible's rife with this stuff. Ownership of women goes without saying. And when the Isrealites were done genociding, they took the leftover girls and made sex slaves out of them. Even Jesus is pretty clear that women are supposed to obey men. In general Jesus was pretty much against slavery, but his words could easily be interpreted to support it. Hell, it's easier to interpret Jesus as supporting slavery than it is to support Jesus as the compassionate messenger of a loving God.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> We can’t “own women”. What are the rules of atheism? </font>

No, but you can stone her to death on her doorstep upon learning she's not a virgin before you marry her.

Are you sure about this? Don't you follow the God of Abraham? I thought giving away one's daughter was pretty routine in the biblical days.

[/ QUOTE ]

The good ol’ days. Now we have political correctness.

Anyway, my wife owns me and no one is coming to my rescue.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL!! But seriously... How do you reconcile your current beliefs with such a passage? How do you think, "Well, that's BS, but this part is not,"?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like you&amp;#8217;ve been reading Farenheit 451.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, censorship is cool. That's what I'm always saying.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
For they have been swayed away from their true calling by Allah, blessed be his name, and lead them straight into the arms of the dessert demons.

[/ QUOTE ]

My favorite kind of demons. Uh, not that I traffic with them. All that whipped cream in my fridge is for, um, unrelated purposes.

Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar...

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL!! But seriously... How do you reconcile your current beliefs with such a passage? How do you think, "Well, that's BS, but this part is not,"?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the New Covenant. See, it used to be that murder and rape and stuff were cool. But God changed his mind. And if those morons are dumb enough to take God at his word? Well, gee. They should know that God changed his mind. Hope they enjoy the eternal barbecue. Along with us hedonistic devils with the good looks, right?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
But I'm being serious. Surely you've seen the posts by theists wanting to know where we atheists derive our morality from. They claim it's impossible without the bible. Why don't we just rape, pillage, and plunder? How can we live without the bible to guide us in morality?

Now you come along and claim to get your morality from the bible, yet you are using your own morality to judge the very book you claim to be getting your morality from!

Doesn't this strike you as circular, if not inconsistent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Morality is not impossible without the Bible. Absolute morality is impossible without an Absolute Standard. Followers of religions such as Christianity and Islam use the Bible and the Koran as their reference to try to figure out that standard.

Does that answer your question?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For they have been swayed away from their true calling by Allah, blessed be his name, and lead them straight into the arms of the dessert demons.

[/ QUOTE ]

My favorite kind of demons. Uh, not that I traffic with them. All that whipped cream in my fridge is for, um, unrelated purposes.

Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar...

[/ QUOTE ]

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance):... "
The Book of Women 4.34
Translated by A. Yusufali

"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments.... "
The Book of Light 24:31
A. Yusufali

"As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation)."
The Book of Women 4:15
M.M. Pickthall

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure about this? Don't you follow the God of Abraham? I thought giving away one's daughter was pretty routine in the biblical days.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible's rife with this stuff. Ownership of women goes without saying. And when the Isrealites were done genociding, they took the leftover girls and made sex slaves out of them. Even Jesus is pretty clear that women are supposed to obey men. In general Jesus was pretty much against slavery, but his words could easily be interpreted to support it. Hell, it's easier to interpret Jesus as supporting slavery than it is to support Jesus as the compassionate messenger of a loving God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet, he feels inadequate to opine on the Koran?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I'm being serious. Surely you've seen the posts by theists wanting to know where we atheists derive our morality from. They claim it's impossible without the bible. Why don't we just rape, pillage, and plunder? How can we live without the bible to guide us in morality?

Now you come along and claim to get your morality from the bible, yet you are using your own morality to judge the very book you claim to be getting your morality from!

Doesn't this strike you as circular, if not inconsistent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Morality is not impossible without the Bible. Absolute morality is impossible without an Absolute Standard. Followers of religions such as Christianity and Islam use the Bible and the Koran as their reference to try to figure out that standard.

Does that answer your question?

[/ QUOTE ]

And when they get stuck they compare this version of an absolute standard to their own morality? No it doesnt answer the question, we're right back at the start.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure about this? Don't you follow the God of Abraham? I thought giving away one's daughter was pretty routine in the biblical days.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible's rife with this stuff. Ownership of women goes without saying. And when the Isrealites were done genociding, they took the leftover girls and made sex slaves out of them. Even Jesus is pretty clear that women are supposed to obey men. In general Jesus was pretty much against slavery, but his words could easily be interpreted to support it. Hell, it's easier to interpret Jesus as supporting slavery than it is to support Jesus as the compassionate messenger of a loving God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet, he feels inadequate to opine on the Koran?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you implying he is not up to the task of opining on the Bible? What specifically do you take issue with?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet, he feels inadequate to opine on the Koran?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not having read the Koran implies not having read the Bible now? The Christians are in trouble - then again, they never pay much attention anyhow. "Midianites? I've never heard of those." "Have you read the Bible?" "A bunch of times! It guides my life."

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure about this? Don't you follow the God of Abraham? I thought giving away one's daughter was pretty routine in the biblical days.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible's rife with this stuff. Ownership of women goes without saying. And when the Isrealites were done genociding, they took the leftover girls and made sex slaves out of them. Even Jesus is pretty clear that women are supposed to obey men. In general Jesus was pretty much against slavery, but his words could easily be interpreted to support it. Hell, it's easier to interpret Jesus as supporting slavery than it is to support Jesus as the compassionate messenger of a loving God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet, he feels inadequate to opine on the Koran?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you implying he is not up to the task of opining on the Bible? What specifically do you take issue with?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Jesus part. (He obviously is well versed in the Bible, though.)

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I'm being serious. Surely you've seen the posts by theists wanting to know where we atheists derive our morality from. They claim it's impossible without the bible. Why don't we just rape, pillage, and plunder? How can we live without the bible to guide us in morality?

Now you come along and claim to get your morality from the bible, yet you are using your own morality to judge the very book you claim to be getting your morality from!

Doesn't this strike you as circular, if not inconsistent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Morality is not impossible without the Bible. Absolute morality is impossible without an Absolute Standard. Followers of religions such as Christianity and Islam use the Bible and the Koran as their reference to try to figure out that standard.

Does that answer your question?

[/ QUOTE ]

And when they get stuck they compare this version of an absolute standard to their own morality? No it doesnt answer the question, we're right back at the start.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I don’t understand the question. Is someone giving me authority to decide what is moral?

I can read some reference material and interpret it. I then have an opinion on what it means. That becomes my opinion.

If that reference material is indeed a reference for Absolute Morality, then how I interpret it does not change AM.

I can be right or wrong in my interpretation. To say that my morality is right or wrong is not really accurate. I don’t “have” morality.

[Subfallen]

Lestat -

I agree with you. The error is qualitative: objectifying women as sexual commodities that, once used, become worthless. This point of departure is the problem; some take it closer to its logical conclusions than others, but all share the same fundamental error.

Also, as Peter666 would point out, it makes perfect sense for a theocracy to take extreme punitive measures against sexual impropriety. Because their religion teaches that God thinks fornication is basis for eternal torture; aren't they really doing women a favor by veiling them from head to toe and locking them safely away?

[ZeeJustin]

I've only skimmed this thread, but I agree with everything Lestat has said.

This stuff is ridiculous, and I can't believe how few the people are that realize even a faction of the extent to which religion causes problems like these.

Freedom of religion is one thing when books are read and prayers are said, but when it comes to having the right to stone women over what some 1500 year old book said is just ridiculous.

[borisp]

Anyone take my "Koran challenge" yet? Trip report?

Open this book up and read what it says. Seriously.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I've only skimmed this thread, but I agree with everything Lestat has said.

This stuff is ridiculous, and I can't believe how few the people are that realize even a faction of the extent to which religion causes problems like these.

Freedom of religion is one thing when books are read and prayers are said, but when it comes to having the right to stone women over what some 1500 year old book said is just ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree as well I think but maybe there's some different use of the word ridiculous. The belief here is nowhere near as silly as say believing that dinasours were on some ark. Much more serious because of the consequences of the belief but not particularly silly.

Also I'm suprised people think that the roots of this belief/practice are particularly religous.

chez

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Also I'm suprised people think that the roots of this belief/practice are particularly religous.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a chicken/egg problem. The roots of the belief go back thousands of years, and "religion" meant something different back then. It's impossible to cleanly separate everything. To some extent, the scriptures themselves were civil, rather than spiritual, documents.

If people wanted to follow the Code of Hammurabi today, I'd criticize them too. But they don't - because nobody thinks it's divine.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone take my "Koran challenge" yet? Trip report?

Open this book up and read what it says. Seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Recommend a good online translation?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also I'm suprised people think that the roots of this belief/practice are particularly religous.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a chicken/egg problem. The roots of the belief go back thousands of years, and "religion" meant something different back then. It's impossible to cleanly separate everything. To some extent, the scriptures themselves were civil, rather than spiritual, documents.

If people wanted to follow the Code of Hammurabi today, I'd criticize them too. But they don't - because nobody thinks it's divine.

[/ QUOTE ]
but its not the case that this type of attitude is only found within the religous. The root cause is largly economic and 'She deserved all she got' is a common refrain even in our 'civilised' advanced world. Put those sentiments in a brutal primative society and the results aren't suprising.

Even if you think that the reason these societies are still brutal and primative is because of religon its not the case that root cause of this barbarism are religous.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Also I'm suprised people think that the roots of this belief/practice are particularly religous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Likely the root cause has something to do with which sex had to guard the eggs in the tidal waters while the other dodges sharks out in the kelp beds. Just as there are root causes of inner city violence derived from juvenile male sexual selection pressures on the savanna and prior to that in Kelp City.
The perpetuating cause is religion in these cases and just as jobs and education help the inner city cases yet don't address the root cause ( castration may ), so does modernizing a religion or secularizing a society lessen the impact of our Siwashian heritage.

luckyme

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
yep. most people think they're criminals and deserve it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is about as far from the truth as it can get. I want you to show me reported cases of rape in prison that go uninvestigated and prosecuted if found credible. You believe what you see in the movies. Not a good place for the truth.

pokervintage

[Lestat]

You're right that the roots of women being oppressed by men is probably not religious. Religion is just what scares people into keeping this custom alive and make it still seem justifiable in the year 2007.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
honestly I don't care.

I mean here in US thousands of people are raped every day in prison and nobody cares. hell, most people think it's great.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You're right that the roots of women being oppressed by men is probably not religious. Religion is just what scares people into keeping this custom alive and make it still seem justifiable in the year 2007.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe. I can't convince myself that the first bit is true. Many seem perfectly happy to keep this custom alive.

I think nasty people behave this way because it kinda makes sense, our main objection stems from our niceness. Its obscene far more than ridiculous.

chez

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're right that the roots of women being oppressed by men is probably not religious. Religion is just what scares people into keeping this custom alive and make it still seem justifiable in the year 2007.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe. I can't convince myself that the first bit is true. Many seem perfectly happy to keep this custom alive.

I think nasty people behave this way because it kinda makes sense, our main objection stems from our niceness. Its obscene far more than ridiculous.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I must really be missing something in these last couple of threads. Are you saying that women LIKE being oppressed? Granted, many of them know of no other life. But I can't believe that if they had a choice, they wouldn't want to be treated as someone else's property.

I really can't believe what I'm hearing in these threads. Of course, it's religious! Men use the bible or Koran to sexually mutilate little girls and keep them in line. It's sick! This isn't happening because everyone "thought" about it and decided it should be that way.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
I must really be missing something in these last couple of threads. Are you saying that women LIKE being oppressed? Granted, many of them know of no other life. But I can't believe that if they had a choice, they wouldn't want to be treated as someone else's property.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard a few testimonials from westerners that lived in Saudi Arabia (or some comparably religious Muslim society) who, on the subject of Islamic treatment of women, insist that the vast majority of these women are living how they want to live -- i.e, they're just as religious and conservative as the men, and think the strict laws pertaining to women are just. I'm open to evidence to the contrary but, assuming that's true, it would be wrong to call these women "oppressed."

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're right that the roots of women being oppressed by men is probably not religious. Religion is just what scares people into keeping this custom alive and make it still seem justifiable in the year 2007.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe. I can't convince myself that the first bit is true. Many seem perfectly happy to keep this custom alive.

I think nasty people behave this way because it kinda makes sense, our main objection stems from our niceness. Its obscene far more than ridiculous.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I must really be missing something in these last couple of threads. Are you saying that women LIKE being oppressed? Granted, many of them know of no other life. But I can't believe that if they had a choice, they wouldn't want to be treated as someone else's property.



[/ QUOTE ]
No of course not, I'm not suggesting the oppressed like it. Consider slavery, slavery isn't ridiculous its obscene. The societies slaves lives within don't require religon to justify or support their existence. The reason to oppose slavery is that its obscene.

Sure people who benefit from slavery will use religous arguments if it helps them but religon is not the cause of slavery.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard a few testimonials from westerners that lived in Saudi Arabia (or some comparably religious Muslim society) who, on the subject of Islamic treatment of women, insist that the vast majority of these women are living how they want to live -- i.e, they're just as religious and conservative as the men, and think the strict laws pertaining to women are just. I'm open to evidence to the contrary but, assuming that's true, it would be wrong to call these women "oppressed."

[/ QUOTE ]

Or to call abused wives in america that return to their husband abused because they obviously like it. Or children that want their abusive parents back. Or hostages that find 'good' in their abducters, etc.

It's like the brainwashing of children situation. you can't respect somebodies choice/opinion until they've been able to appreciate the options, then if they make a free choice, go fer it.

There's a nagging at the back of my mind that there were a fair amount of slaves who thought they were 'supposed to be' slaves. I wonder about caste systems .. do the untouchables not think they are supposed to be in that caste? Or serfs in feudal days? were/are they right?

What about women from other countries that marry in or work and live in one of these cultures. Do they generally say, " yep, this is much better for us women".?

If it's true that that's what women want, by all means do it, but until they have a free run at making the choice their opinion is Stockholmed.

luckyme

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've heard a few testimonials from westerners that lived in Saudi Arabia (or some comparably religious Muslim society) who, on the subject of Islamic treatment of women, insist that the vast majority of these women are living how they want to live -- i.e, they're just as religious and conservative as the men, and think the strict laws pertaining to women are just. I'm open to evidence to the contrary but, assuming that's true, it would be wrong to call these women "oppressed."

[/ QUOTE ]

Or to call abused wives in america that return to their husband abused because they obviously like it. Or children that want their abusive parents back. Or hostages that find 'good' in their abducters, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, you know those aren't apt analogies. The abused wife doesn't think it's good that she and other wives are beaten, even if she does stick around in spite of it, and she certainly doesn't think that wife-beating should be institutionalized.

[ QUOTE ]
It's like the brainwashing of children situation. you can't respect somebodies choice/opinion until they've been able to appreciate the options, then if they make a free choice, go fer it. . .

. . . If it's true that that's what women want, by all means do it, but until they have a free run at making the choice their opinion is Stockholmed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sympathetic to this problem, but how do you determine what constitutes "brainwashing," and how do you differentiate it from mere culturally shared beliefs? These women presumably watch TV at home and have an idea about what their life would be like in western countries. How much can you discount their rejection of a western lifestyle based on the fact that almost every one else around them shares the same belief? And to what extent are you willing to apply the same standards to your own culture?

Example: I've heard that a common Muslim rebuttal to the "how can you treat your women that way?" complaint is "how can you treat your elderly that way?" That is, how can you send them off to die in nursing homes instead of doing whatever it takes to take care of them yourselves, as a family.

If you can say that Islamic women who prefer to live under strict Sharia law are brainwashed, could not a Muslim say the same about American elders who agree to spend their last years in a hospital ward surrounded by strangers?

[ QUOTE ]
What about women from other countries that marry in or work and live in one of these cultures. Do they generally say, " yep, this is much better for us women".?

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it, but that works both ways.

[VarlosZ]

Addendum: Finally, even if you make a good faith effort to apply the same standards to your culture and you conclude that it is nobler in this regard than the other culture, how can you have any confidence in that conclusion given that you are a member of your preferred culture and therefore naturally biased in favor of it? Many (most?) of your core values come from growing up in the West, so of course you should be expected to conclude that its norms are morally preferable to another's.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard a few testimonials from westerners that lived in Saudi Arabia (or some comparably religious Muslim society) who, on the subject of Islamic treatment of women, insist that the vast majority of these women are living how they want to live -- i.e, they're just as religious and conservative as the men, and think the strict laws pertaining to women are just. I'm open to evidence to the contrary but, assuming that's true, it would be wrong to call these women "oppressed."

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the women choose to live under those conditions. Fine and dandy. But the women who choose not to are killed for it. That's oppression. Also, anecdotal opinion is suspect in an area where dissent is a punishable offense.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the women choose to live under those conditions. Fine and dandy. But the women who choose not to are killed for it. That's oppression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed; it's a brutal oppression of a minority. I just think we tend to overestimate the extent to which Muslim women are forced to into a lifestyle they hate.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, anecdotal opinion is suspect in an area where dissent is a punishable offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking about the anecdotal accounts of Westerners who are free to say whatever they want.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I just think we tend to overestimate the extent to which Muslim women are forced to into a lifestyle they hate. </font>

They have no choice! You do understand that, right? To speak out means punishment or death! If it weren't for religion, do you honestly think a woman would choose to have her own clitoris cut off?

Again, I can't believe what I'm reading in these threads.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Come on, you know those aren't apt analogies. </font>

The anologies are very apt, because they both entail people who fear for their lives if they rebell. They both also entail a false sense of security. The abusive husband has a knack of making the woman feel secure and happy as long as she does what she's told and doesn't get out of line.

Luckyme hit the nail on the head. Until these women actually have a choice, it is wrong to assume this is what they would opt for. Anyone rational person who has faith in in humanity should be vehemently against the oppression of anyone.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
They have no choice! You do understand that, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but I'm saying they (probably, mostly) prefer not to have the choice. Are you oppressed because you're not allowed to choose whether or not to commit fraud? (Note: I'm not equating anything with fraud here; I'm just using it to illustrate the point.)

[ QUOTE ]
To speak out means punishment or death! If it weren't for religion, do you honestly think a woman would choose to have her own clitoris cut off?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those things seem as awful to me as they do to you, but it's not immaterial that, on balance, they seem a lot less awful to the supposed victims. I'm not saying that's the end of the discussion, but it's at least a relevant, ameliorating factor.

[ QUOTE ]
The anologies are very apt, because they both entail people who fear for their lives if they rebell. They both also entail a false sense of security.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are undeniable similarities, but the analogies were not apt because they did not speak to the point I was making. I said that these women tended to approve of their restrictions and to support their enforcement. The analogies compared this situation to ones in which the opposite was true.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Come on, you know those aren't apt analogies. The abused wife doesn't think it's good that she and other wives are beaten, even if she does stick around in spite of it, and she certainly doesn't think that wife-beating should be institutionalized.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm of the school that no analogies are apt, we can only do some serious pointing with them, they aren't and can't be congruent.

You've very wrong about abused wives ( and children) that return. They really do think they 'deserve' it or at least it's their fault and if they'd just not cause it...yadda yadda.

You're see to be thinking more of the "live with me or I'll kill ya" type. Reconsider in the vein I'm suggesting.

luckyme

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
You're see to be thinking more of the "live with me or I'll kill ya" type.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. I'm thinking more along the lines of the "he beats on me but I love him anyway" type.

[ QUOTE ]
You've very wrong about abused wives ( and children) that return. They really do think they 'deserve' it or at least it's their fault and if they'd just not cause it...yadda yadda.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's that simple. Nor is it as simple as I implied. I don't have much experience with this sort of thing, but there's got to be a continuum, no?

Even if you're completely right about abused wives in America, how much can that really tell us about Muslim women in Saudi Arabia? With what degree of certainty can you judge the psychology of an entire society which is almost totally alien to you? How certain do you have to be to permit you write off the stated preferences of the victims because you know better?

I honestly don't know the answers to these questions, but I think there's a degree to which we should err on the side of non-judgmentalism. Why? Because that's what we'd want from other cultures who may be judging us harshly for our differences.

[Lestat]

I guess I'll just wrap up by saying I don't see how you can assume they "tend" to approve of their restrictions. Again, they don't have a choice. As luckyme suggested when they DO have a choice and opt for the same restrictions I'll buy what you're saying. Until then, I think it's best to assume they are oppressed. Kinda like innocent until proven guilty. Last thing...

If I'm wrong and they're ok with these restriction (and mutilations, and beatings, and death for enjoying the freedom every human being should have a right to enjoy), then the worst that can happen is things remain the same. However, if YOU'RE wrong... It's a complete and utter tragedy to allow human beings to become the property of another and to endure what they do.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I'll just wrap up by saying I don't see how you can assume they "tend" to approve of their restrictions. Again, they don't have a choice. As luckyme suggested when they DO have a choice and opt for the same restrictions I'll buy what you're saying. Until then, I think it's best to assume they are oppressed. Kinda like innocent until proven guilty. Last thing...

If I'm wrong and they're ok with these restriction (and mutilations, and beatings, and death for enjoying the freedom every human being should have a right to enjoy), then the worst that can happen is things remain the same. However, if YOU'RE wrong... It's a complete and utter tragedy to allow human beings to become the property of another and to endure what they do.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the slavery analogy works here too. Some people defended slavery by arguing the slaves were better off as slaves or preferred being slaves or some such nonsense but they don't. Given any viable choice between freedom or slavery they chose freedom.

chez