Case in Point...

ZeeJustin · #1 12-01-2007, 06:37 AM

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 · #2 12-01-2007, 07:30 AM

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

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

madnak · #3 12-01-2007, 11:53 AM

[ 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 · #4 12-01-2007, 11:21 AM

[ 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 · #5 12-01-2007, 11:51 AM

[ 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.

chezlaw · #6 12-01-2007, 12:14 PM

[ 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 · #7 12-01-2007, 12:30 PM

[ 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

Lestat · #8 12-01-2007, 12:42 PM

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.

chezlaw · #9 12-01-2007, 07:31 PM

[ 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 · #10 12-01-2007, 07:56 PM

[ 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.