5 of 6
5
Pause a moment, reflect back.
Posted: 24 October 2008 05:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-04-05
Bongobongo Smith - 23 October 2008 06:37 PM
bigredfutbol - 20 October 2008 06:52 PM

You don’t know what her understanding of her religion is, what teachings she subscribes to, what her understanding of Muhammad’s true nature was, how she interprets the beliefs she does subscribe to,

Now that’s pretty simple:

The quran:
The COW 2:85
“… Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part thereof ? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be consigned to the most grievous doom. For Allah is not unaware of what ye do…”

There simply is no room for how she interprets the beliefs she does subscribe to,.

Let me throw you just a few of those ‘beliefs’:
A few quotes from the quran might open your eyes:

“..For those who disbelieve, theirs will be a boiling drink and painful doom because they disbelieved…
10:4
“..Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment…”
4:56
“…Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush…”
9:5
“..Think not that the disbelievers can escape in the land. Fire will be their home - a hapless journey’s end!..”
24:57
“..We drowned those who denied Our revelations…”
10:73

All of the above is directed at the members
of this forum who happens to be atheists.
That would be the majority I’d say.
Why would we be ‘tolerant’ of those who
worships and live be these rules?
If one members wife adheres to these rules,
shouldn’t be be allowed to point fingers
and ridicule this person?
A mindset that makes you think that
every one of us should be subject to torment
and horrible death is abhorrent
and should be scorned.

I don’t think you understand Sam Harris at all.  Admittedly, I didn’t express myself very well, but since you’re determined to be as smugly literal-minded and reductionist as the most devout fundamentalist, it’s most likely not worth my time to make my objections to arildno’s passive-aggresive bigotry clear.

 Signature 

“It isn’t paranoia- it’s a heightened awareness of reality.” —our resident conspiracy theorist takes a stand!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2008 05:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-04-05
arildno - 23 October 2008 06:11 PM
bigredfutbol - 20 October 2008 06:52 PM
arildno - 20 October 2008 05:20 PM

For example, we are fully justified as condemning as a vile person a racist who thinks Jews are a parasitic race which ought to be removed from the Earth, even though we know nothing else about that person.

And yet, all you know about her is that she is a self-described Muslim.  You don’t know what her understanding of her religion is, what teachings she subscribes to.

Well, I do not care what teachings she subscribes to in order to feel good about herself worshipping a childfucker and mass murderer.
Those teachings happen to be morally irrelevant, and hence not necessary to know about.

“I don’t need to know what she thinks or what her values are, I only know her self-professed identity and therefore I can extrapolate her moral and intellectual character without hearing a word from her.”

One of the main dangers of religion is that it justifies self-righteous, unquestioned certainties about our fellow man.  A ‘true believer’ can feel justifiably superior—morally, and otherwise—to any non-believer without bothering to learn anything about the non-believer other than “His or her beliefs are wrong”. 

Congratulations—you’ve managed to rid yourself of all the empty cant, useless ceremonies, irrational theologies, and pre-modern moral codes while still holding fast to the unfortunately deeply-rooted human need to hate and fear anyone who doesn’t belong to your tribe.

 Signature 

“It isn’t paranoia- it’s a heightened awareness of reality.” —our resident conspiracy theorist takes a stand!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2008 08:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02
burt - 24 October 2008 12:05 AM
Beam_Me_Up - 23 October 2008 06:34 PM
telner - 18 October 2008 11:33 PM

I was born into a non-observant Jewish family and arrived at atheism…

So I’m a member of a moderately traditional Sufi order.

So, you were born Jewish and now you are Muslim?

What order is that?

I do not know anything about Sufism other than what I read in Wikipedia. I understand that Wiki is not a reliable source. Perhaps there is more than one type of Sufism. I do not know. That is why I am asking a question and not making an assertion. I am simply trying to understand. According to wiki:

However, mainstream Sufis vehemently reject the notion of Sufism without Islam.

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2008 08:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1243
Joined  2006-12-26
bigredfutbol - 24 October 2008 09:44 AM
arildno - 23 October 2008 06:11 PM
bigredfutbol - 20 October 2008 06:52 PM
arildno - 20 October 2008 05:20 PM

For example, we are fully justified as condemning as a vile person a racist who thinks Jews are a parasitic race which ought to be removed from the Earth, even though we know nothing else about that person.

And yet, all you know about her is that she is a self-described Muslim.  You don’t know what her understanding of her religion is, what teachings she subscribes to.

Well, I do not care what teachings she subscribes to in order to feel good about herself worshipping a childfucker and mass murderer.
Those teachings happen to be morally irrelevant, and hence not necessary to know about.

“I don’t need to know what she thinks or what her values are, I only know her self-professed identity and therefore I can extrapolate her moral and intellectual character without hearing a word from her.”

One of the main dangers of religion is that it justifies self-righteous, unquestioned certainties about our fellow man.  A ‘true believer’ can feel justifiably superior—morally, and otherwise—to any non-believer without bothering to learn anything about the non-believer other than “His or her beliefs are wrong”. 

Congratulations—you’ve managed to rid yourself of all the empty cant, useless ceremonies, irrational theologies, and pre-modern moral codes while still holding fast to the unfortunately deeply-rooted human need to hate and fear anyone who doesn’t belong to your tribe.

Hmm..and what the heck has this to do with the idolization of a childfucker and mass murderer, which is the core element of Islam?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2008 09:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02

“Sufi.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008.
Merriam-Webster Online. 24 October 2008
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Sufi>
Su•fi
Pronunciation: \?sü-(?)f?\
Function: noun
Etymology: Arabic s??f?, perhaps from s??f wool
Date: 1653
: a Muslim mystic
— Sufi adjective
— Su•fic \-fik\ adjective
— Su•fism \-?fi-z?m\ noun

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2008 10:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1243
Joined  2006-12-26

Congratulations—you’ve managed to rid yourself of all the empty cant, useless ceremonies, irrational theologies, and pre-modern moral codes while still holding fast to the unfortunately deeply-rooted human need to hate and fear anyone who doesn’t belong to your tribe.

Silly boy.
To idolize a mass murderer is not some tribal trait among people who can’t help themselves, rather, it is a personal choice.
Thus, your comparison is totally false.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2008 03:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17
Beam_Me_Up - 24 October 2008 12:42 PM
burt - 24 October 2008 12:05 AM
Beam_Me_Up - 23 October 2008 06:34 PM
telner - 18 October 2008 11:33 PM

I was born into a non-observant Jewish family and arrived at atheism…

So I’m a member of a moderately traditional Sufi order.

So, you were born Jewish and now you are Muslim?

What order is that?

I do not know anything about Sufism other than what I read in Wikipedia. I understand that Wiki is not a reliable source. Perhaps there is more than one type of Sufism. I do not know. That is why I am asking a question and not making an assertion. I am simply trying to understand. According to wiki:

However, mainstream Sufis vehemently reject the notion of Sufism without Islam.

Mainstream sufism does claim that it has to be practiced within Islam.  The Sufi Order in the West is pretty soft on that, I’ve never encountered insistence of Islam there.  The interesting contrast is the two Shah brothers, Idries and Omar Ali.  The younger one (Idries) has given an exposition of sufism that focuses on understanding ourselves as human beings, without any insistence on Islam—in fact, he claims that sufism (in essence) existed before Islam and exists today in many non-Islamic places.  His brother Omar Ali, on the other hand, is a traditional sufi of the Naqushbandi order.  Traditional sufis like Sayed Hossain Nasr treat Idries as a bad boy.  grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2008 07:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  322
Joined  2008-04-17
bigredfutbol - 24 October 2008 09:37 AM
Bongobongo Smith - 23 October 2008 06:37 PM
bigredfutbol - 20 October 2008 06:52 PM

You don’t know what her understanding of her religion is, what teachings she subscribes to, what her understanding of Muhammad’s true nature was, how she interprets the beliefs she does subscribe to,

Now that’s pretty simple:

The quran:
The COW 2:85
“… Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part thereof ? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be consigned to the most grievous doom. For Allah is not unaware of what ye do…”

There simply is no room for how she interprets the beliefs she does subscribe to,.

Let me throw you just a few of those ‘beliefs’:
A few quotes from the quran might open your eyes:

“..For those who disbelieve, theirs will be a boiling drink and painful doom because they disbelieved…
10:4
“..Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment…”
4:56
“…Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush…”
9:5
“..Think not that the disbelievers can escape in the land. Fire will be their home - a hapless journey’s end!..”
24:57
“..We drowned those who denied Our revelations…”
10:73

All of the above is directed at the members
of this forum who happens to be atheists.
That would be the majority I’d say.
Why would we be ‘tolerant’ of those who
worships and live be these rules?
If one members wife adheres to these rules,
shouldn’t be be allowed to point fingers
and ridicule this person?
A mindset that makes you think that
every one of us should be subject to torment
and horrible death is abhorrent
and should be scorned.

I don’t think you understand Sam Harris at all.

??? What has this got to do with Sam Harris???
...and what is it I do not understand?

Admittedly, I didn’t express myself very well, but since you’re determined to be as smugly literal-minded and reductionist..

Would you mind explaining what in my post
makes me
literal-minded”  and “reductionist

Thanks.

 Signature 

Christian psychopaty:

Bruce Burleson
“.Tell me why it is wrong to rape, steal and kill….
…If I am a slaveholder in Alabama in 1860, why shouldn’t I enslave the niggers, fuck their women, and whip their children when they disobey me????
I’ll tell you why, and it is the ONLY reason why
..”

..he fears gods punishment.

Christians per definition has no moral.
They are governed by fear and fear only.

..and they don’t mind using the N-word.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 October 2008 11:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-04-05
Bongobongo Smith - 25 October 2008 11:14 AM

??? What has this got to do with Sam Harris???
...and what is it I do not understand?

Would you mind explaining what in my post
makes me
literal-minded”  and “reductionist

Thanks.

OK, first off I should make it clear that, if I’m coming across as an apologist for Islam, that is most certainly not the case.  While I oppose ALL religions, I do believe that Islam is the worst of them all, because it is such an explicitly fundamentalist religion, because its “holy book” is so unremittingly violent and ignorant and hateful, and because so many of its literal teachings are misogynist and intolerant, and so forth.  I could go on and on, but I’d most certainly be preaching to the choir.

Also, while I registered with this forum some time ago, it’s only been in the past two or three weeks that I’ve been participating regularly, so it would be unfair of me to expect you or anyone else to know where I’m coming from; I apologize for my knee-jerk response.  You weren’t telling me anything I don’t already know, but that’s not your fault.

Anyhoo, let me put my snark aside and explain myself—we’re really on the same page, I think.

You list some typical Quran verses, and ask why any of us should tolerate someone who believes such hateful nonsense, especially considering that nonbelievers are targeted.  The answer to that question is that, of course, we shouldn’t.  Absolutely not.

Here’s where I didn’t make myself clear enough—one factor about human nature we can’t ignore is our ability to hold logically inconsistent ideas simultaneously.  Sam Harris rightly notes that the problem with religious moderates is that they legitimize extremists and fundamentalists even though they may be—and often are—tolerant, decent people themselves. 

This ability to hold different beliefs which are in conflict is really the only way to explain religious moderates and liberals.  People like my parents, who insist that they are devout Christians yet strongly oppose condemning or judging people of other faiths.  My parents believe that Christ died for our sins and that we are redeemed through him—yet they cannot bring themselves to believe that Jews or Muslims or Hindus are going to hell simply because they, for the most part, have been raised in a different culture.  From this, I can deduce two things:

1)  My parents are fundamentally decent people who are capable of empathy and tolerance; and
2)  Their “faith” is contradictory, since they refuse to align some of their personal beliefs with the theology they claim to adhere to.

I could find many other examples of this, but hopefully you get my point.  It’s one thing when a person identifies themself as a Chrisian, or a Muslim; but we all know people who manage to convince themselves that their chosen faith is
‘good’ and so therefore the passages in their holy books which are troubling or repulsive therefore simply cannot mean what they say.  Or they don’t read their holy book, or at least they only read the parts their clergy assigns them or reads to them.  Or they only read their holy books in controlled settings, where particular passages are selected and others ignored.  Or they go through any sorts of mental/moral/ethical gymnastics to somehow come to terms with the inconsistancies and worse they do somehow become aware of.

Most people on this planet are self-described “believers” but I really think that most of them really haven’t thought through what it is they “believe.”  I think that when a person describes him or herself as a “Muslim” or a “Christian” or whatever, we have a starting point for discerning what it is that person believes, but nothing more. 

I’m not defending the practice of holding mutually incompatible beliefs or arguing that we shouldn’t challenge beleivers to try (and, of course, fail) to reconcile their professed belief system and its teachings with their actual, personal mores, moral practices, ethical decisions, and so forth.

I’m pretty confident that telner’s wife is like my parents; a decent person who for whatever reason came to believe that one “should” have religion in her life, and that religion is the best, if not only, basis for a moral and ethical way of living.  That comes from culture, tradition, society, family, etc.  I don’t agree with my parents any more than I agree with telner’s wife, but it does mean that what she MEANS by being “a Muslim” might very well not fit the rational, theologically correct meaning we know and detest, just as my parents’ self-identity as “Christians” is a far, far cry from someone like Pat Robertson or James Dobson who would be far more comfortable with a literal and accurate reading of the Bible than my well-meaning Mother and Father.

Does that make sense?  I’m sincerely trying to reach out to you, since I believe we’re actually on the same page.

 Signature 

“It isn’t paranoia- it’s a heightened awareness of reality.” —our resident conspiracy theorist takes a stand!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 October 2008 12:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1243
Joined  2006-12-26

Here’s where I didn’t make myself clear enough—one factor about human nature we can’t ignore is our ability to hold logically inconsistent ideas simultaneously.

Sure enough, but is only a minor saving grace.
It’s not a virtue being inconsistent, rather, it’s a vice.

People are not intellectually entitled to holding inconsistent beliefs, and are to be challenged, or “forced” to become consistent.

Before they do that, they are to be judged by the worst elements of their held ideology (as everyone else should be), and if they don’t like to be condemned in that manner, they’ll better discard those reprehensible notions.

Of course, if they become “provoked” or “offended” by such condemnation, and as a result consistify themselves through reinforcing their allegiance to those notions rather than distancing themselves from them, such persons self-criminalize, and should face the consequences of that choice they made.

[ Edited: 27 October 2008 01:22 PM by arildno]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 October 2008 02:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  322
Joined  2008-04-17
bigredfutbol - 27 October 2008 03:10 PM
Bongobongo Smith - 25 October 2008 11:14 AM

??? What has this got to do with Sam Harris???
...and what is it I do not understand?

Would you mind explaining what in my post
makes me
literal-minded”  and “reductionist

Thanks.

OK, first off I should make it clear that, if I’m coming across as an apologist for Islam, that is most certainly not the case.  While I oppose ALL religions, I do believe that Islam is the worst of them all, because it is such an explicitly fundamentalist religion, because its “holy book” is so unremittingly violent and ignorant and hateful, and because so many of its literal teachings are misogynist and intolerant, and so forth.  I could go on and on, but I’d most certainly be preaching to the choir.

Also, while I registered with this forum some time ago, it’s only been in the past two or three weeks that I’ve been participating regularly, so it would be unfair of me to expect you or anyone else to know where I’m coming from; I apologize for my knee-jerk response.  You weren’t telling me anything I don’t already know, but that’s not your fault.

Anyhoo, let me put my snark aside and explain myself—we’re really on the same page, I think.

You list some typical Quran verses, and ask why any of us should tolerate someone who believes such hateful nonsense, especially considering that nonbelievers are targeted.  The answer to that question is that, of course, we shouldn’t.  Absolutely not.

Here’s where I didn’t make myself clear enough—one factor about human nature we can’t ignore is our ability to hold logically inconsistent ideas simultaneously.  Sam Harris rightly notes that the problem with religious moderates is that they legitimize extremists and fundamentalists even though they may be—and often are—tolerant, decent people themselves. 

This ability to hold different beliefs which are in conflict is really the only way to explain religious moderates and liberals.  People like my parents, who insist that they are devout Christians yet strongly oppose condemning or judging people of other faiths.  My parents believe that Christ died for our sins and that we are redeemed through him—yet they cannot bring themselves to believe that Jews or Muslims or Hindus are going to hell simply because they, for the most part, have been raised in a different culture.  From this, I can deduce two things:

1)  My parents are fundamentally decent people who are capable of empathy and tolerance; and
2)  Their “faith” is contradictory, since they refuse to align some of their personal beliefs with the theology they claim to adhere to.

I could find many other examples of this, but hopefully you get my point.  It’s one thing when a person identifies themself as a Chrisian, or a Muslim; but we all know people who manage to convince themselves that their chosen faith is
‘good’ and so therefore the passages in their holy books which are troubling or repulsive therefore simply cannot mean what they say.  Or they don’t read their holy book, or at least they only read the parts their clergy assigns them or reads to them.  Or they only read their holy books in controlled settings, where particular passages are selected and others ignored.  Or they go through any sorts of mental/moral/ethical gymnastics to somehow come to terms with the inconsistancies and worse they do somehow become aware of.

Most people on this planet are self-described “believers” but I really think that most of them really haven’t thought through what it is they “believe.”  I think that when a person describes him or herself as a “Muslim” or a “Christian” or whatever, we have a starting point for discerning what it is that person believes, but nothing more. 

I’m not defending the practice of holding mutually incompatible beliefs or arguing that we shouldn’t challenge beleivers to try (and, of course, fail) to reconcile their professed belief system and its teachings with their actual, personal mores, moral practices, ethical decisions, and so forth.

I’m pretty confident that telner’s wife is like my parents; a decent person who for whatever reason came to believe that one “should” have religion in her life, and that religion is the best, if not only, basis for a moral and ethical way of living.  That comes from culture, tradition, society, family, etc.  I don’t agree with my parents any more than I agree with telner’s wife, but it does mean that what she MEANS by being “a Muslim” might very well not fit the rational, theologically correct meaning we know and detest, just as my parents’ self-identity as “Christians” is a far, far cry from someone like Pat Robertson or James Dobson who would be far more comfortable with a literal and accurate reading of the Bible than my well-meaning Mother and Father.

Does that make sense?  I’m sincerely trying to reach out to you, since I believe we’re actually on the same page.

Thanks BiG Red Fotball (?)
I appreciate you detailed explanation.
Frankly I too tired right now to digest it
(it’s night here right now), but I get back to you.
Specifically I don’t quite get
what in my post makes me
literal-minded”  and “reductionist”.

Maybe tomorrow when my head is clear again.

Again; thanks.

 Signature 

Christian psychopaty:

Bruce Burleson
“.Tell me why it is wrong to rape, steal and kill….
…If I am a slaveholder in Alabama in 1860, why shouldn’t I enslave the niggers, fuck their women, and whip their children when they disobey me????
I’ll tell you why, and it is the ONLY reason why
..”

..he fears gods punishment.

Christians per definition has no moral.
They are governed by fear and fear only.

..and they don’t mind using the N-word.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2008 07:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-04-05
Bongobongo Smith - 27 October 2008 06:17 PM


Thanks BiG Red Fotball (?)
I appreciate you detailed explanation.
Frankly I too tired right now to digest it
(it’s night here right now), but I get back to you.
Specifically I don’t quite get
what in my post makes me
literal-minded”  and “reductionist”.

Maybe tomorrow when my head is clear again.

Again; thanks.

I wish I could take my dig about “literal-minded” and “reductionist” back.  I meant something along the lines of “reducing a person’s identity to a literal definition of whatever identity they profess” or something like that.  Posting at work has its hazards; if I were in the privacy of my own not being interrupted, I would hope to be more clear and precise.

 Signature 

“It isn’t paranoia- it’s a heightened awareness of reality.” —our resident conspiracy theorist takes a stand!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2008 08:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  322
Joined  2008-04-17
bigredfutbol - 28 October 2008 11:12 AM
Bongobongo Smith - 27 October 2008 06:17 PM


Thanks BiG Red Fotball (?)
I appreciate you detailed explanation.
Frankly I too tired right now to digest it
(it’s night here right now), but I get back to you.
Specifically I don’t quite get
what in my post makes me
literal-minded”  and “reductionist”.

Maybe tomorrow when my head is clear again.

Again; thanks.

I wish I could take my dig about “literal-minded” and “reductionist” back.  I meant something along the lines of “reducing a person’s identity to a literal definition of whatever identity they profess” or something like that.

OK, it’s all cool. I understand what you’re saying.

...hell; maybe your right

.-)


.

 Signature 

Christian psychopaty:

Bruce Burleson
“.Tell me why it is wrong to rape, steal and kill….
…If I am a slaveholder in Alabama in 1860, why shouldn’t I enslave the niggers, fuck their women, and whip their children when they disobey me????
I’ll tell you why, and it is the ONLY reason why
..”

..he fears gods punishment.

Christians per definition has no moral.
They are governed by fear and fear only.

..and they don’t mind using the N-word.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2008 11:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  497
Joined  2006-06-15
telner - 13 October 2008 11:51 PM

mesomorph, is your avatar Gurdjieff?

If so, were you able to actually read “Beelzebub’s Tales”?

I’m not ignoring you, Telner, it’s just that the automatic notification service isn’t working too well my end. I must complain.

Re my avatar, well spotted, and Burt too, though no surprise there!

I have read Beelzebub’s tales, yes, more than once. I do it as a mental exercise every ten years or so! raspberry Not that I subscribe to the old geezer’s cosmology of course - I think one is required to ‘sift the wheat from the chaff’ - but some of his comments about the effects of human population and activity on the earth’s biosphere are thought-provoking.

Almost nothing in the book is verifiable (except in the religious sense of personal experience), which places an enormous strain on his followers, since they are told not to believe anything they can’t verify! The scientific in pursuit of the religulous? G’s only saving grace there is that he excoriates religious notions as mercilessly as he does everything else.

[ Edited: 29 October 2008 11:19 AM by mesomorph]
 Signature 

Affiliation creates division. Friendship is better than membership.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2008 12:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  497
Joined  2006-06-15
Jeanie - 17 October 2008 11:05 PM

You’ve got to be shitting me.  Really.  Where in that article did you pick up that Muslim women “prefer to keep their faces covered…”?  You know, if my husband or father was 100% within his rights to beat me to a pulp if I wasn’t wearing a full veil, I’d prefer it too.  And let’s not forget that an unveiled woman is tempting men to rape her, so she’ll be put to death if she brings that upon herself. 

As for the genital mutilation, a man wouldn’t be the one to do it based on their rules/laws about interaction between genders.  If you didn’t know anything else, and it was required of every girl, I can’t see how they could deviate without bringing a death sentence on themselves.  I’d imagine, too, that the women are brainwashed to believe that sexual pleasure is not allowed for women, thereby making genital mutilation necessary.  I hate the term “circumcision” because it TOTALLY minimizes what is done.  They don’t just have the clitorous snipped off by a doctor.  From my understanding, they have it ground off with a sharp rock, and in some cultures the labia are stitched together with only the vagina open for the man.  *shudders*

Don’t get your panties in a bunch - if I’m sounding off at anyone, it’s Muhammed.

Again, apologies for late response.

The article I linked to doesn’t mention the pressures placed on women to keep their faces covered, I agree, but it does say several times in different contexts that women are allowed under Islamic law to remove their facial covering if they wish. So the pressures are not Islamic ones. The Qur’anic injunction is that women should keep their bodies and arms covered in public, not their faces. I guess this is because Mo himself couldn’t keep his sexual desires under control. What to do?? keep the source of the problem draped? Maybe that’ll work!! No, Mo, it won’t. Your unrestrainable urges will still be there.

On an interesting point of fact here: men have ten times the amount of testosterone in their bodies that women do, therefore for a woman to walk about uncovered is not an invitation to rape, whereas for a man it probably is. So responsibility for any rape is on a 10 to 1 likelihood the man’s.

What I was asking for was evidence that Muslim women are any less fundamentalist than Muslim men. Female genital mutilation is not prescribed by Islamic doctrine, so I gave the example of genetic mutilation on young girls by older women as evidence that they are at least excessively traditionalistic. Or you can blame the culture if you like. ‘Hey, which of you fine ladies will volunteer to train for the job of cutting off a young girl’s genitalia and sewing up her vulva? We don’t want this time-hallowed practice dying out, do we?’ What could allow a woman’s natural compassion to be overridden in favour of such a horror I can’t begin to imagine. Maybe we should ask a Nubian.

 Signature 

Affiliation creates division. Friendship is better than membership.

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 6
5
 
‹‹ Run, Mickey, run!      The Problem of Islam ››
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed