On January 25 2012 19:43 bdair2002 wrote: I honestly see all the people here are arguing with no knowledge, and so much hate against religion in general, religions were found to help humanity not the opposite, you can look at US for Example, take the Gay marriage, I ask you a simple question, have you ever seen a dog having sex with another dog (male to male dog)? it is even against the nature, God created this world and provided us with the rules (religion), Have you ever go to school and you had the right to do what ever you want without punishment? isn't schools have rules and you have to understand and commit to these rules? well Life is more or less like school, you don't have complete freedom to do what ever you want (I bet everyone will agree if I say complete freedom is bad)
Actually homosexuality does happen in nature... I have heard many examples of it. Doubtless many other posters will derail your entire argument with counter examples.
Nice try anyway. *Pats on back*
But It is against the nature right? can you give me a logical reason for it? have you seen it yourself? is it something normal where you go to Africa, and meh, lion having sex with other lion, don't you see that is strange thing? can you convince me it is that same as if you see Lion having with lioness?
Counter example does not mean it is normal thing, even in Islam, there is a rule for this if you see Animals doing this action.
Bottom line, counter example does not mean it is natural, stealing is not natural thing and rejected by all people by their nature, BUT you find some people doing it, and even some animals doing it (at least I saw a monkey stealing food from other animals /humans).
It is natural as it occurs naturally without human interference. Of course heterosexual sex is different than homosexual, what is your point ? There are evolutionary hypothesis why it occurs. But frankly even if it was the most unnatural thing ever, do you understand the concept of victimless crime ? Your comparison to stealing is nonsensical. Theft causes harm, can you tell me what harm is caused by gays having sex ?
And just to point out stealing is also natural. Natural does not mean moral and unnatural does not mean immoral.
God knows better than all of us, he created us, told us homosexual is forbidden, and we have to obey, as simple as that, I ma not going to do the research for you on how homosexual affects the society , creates a lot of diseases, you can do the search your self if you are willing to change to better.
User was temp banned for this post.
Oh final point before i stop bothering i wanted to counterpoint that pdf he linked. Though it should be plain and obvious why alot of points are outright wrong (and stupid), if anyone would like to read some counter arguments, i got some right here.
On January 25 2012 20:59 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Someone has some account on female circumcision? Why is it done in muslim countries?
Wikipedia has the following:
FGM is considered by its practitioners to be an essential part of raising a girl properly—girls are regarded as having been cleansed by the removal of "male" body parts. It ensures pre-marital virginity and inhibits extra-marital sex, because it reduces women's libido. Women fear the pain of re-opening the vagina, and are afraid of being discovered if it is opened illicitly.
You will find a host of different religious reasons or cultural reasons why people do it. But the truth is that it's always done for the same practical reason.
The big two religions hate the human sex drive. There is nothing more depraved then the act of sex. If it could they would eradicate it entirely.
What luck for them that they can eradicate the need for sex in the female. All it takes is a rusty razor.
On January 25 2012 18:11 bdair2002 wrote: I am a Muslim and I can assure you woman's has all the rights and there is nothing against woman in Islam, Westerns is trying to fight Islam in every way "and it is clear for everyone" so they are raising such topics.
Islam, as every other religion has rules, and you have to execute and commit to these rules, some of these rules concerning woman's and the relation between Man and Woman, for example: 1. Nude "we call it Awrah" where is defines the areas in the body for both Men and Woman which is not allowed for other people to see "man to man, man to woman, woman to man, woman to woman"
a. For man, the Nude "Awrah" is between the stomach to knees, the area between stomach to knees must be hide by cloth, you cannot go out in the street showing your knees or above, or your stomach and under, in your home, you are free to do whatever you want, but in front of people you are not. b. For woman, her Nude "Awrah" includes her entire body but the faces and hands, a woman cannot show her parts to foreign people (foreign are the men which she can marry).
To me that seems a bad example. Women have to be covered head to toe with only their faces and hands out (which would be entirely impractical if they couldn't, and culturally lots of them have their faces hidden and only their eyes out). I don't see how it is fair because men have to wear underpants. Or shorts or whatever.
And comparing it to nuns, in my opinion, is wrong. People choose to become nuns, and are a very small minority of Christians. Not that I agree with Christianity.
I am unsure how much of the sexism is technically "Islam" and how much of it is cultural. Some of the Sharia law I've seen is pretty appalling.
Not saying Islam is a bad religion but to have people rally against the UN because they aren't allowed to beat women anymore is simply horrible. Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but the way I see it, no culture, religion or anything whatsoever should defend the right to beat a woman (or a man for that matter). There are other, more civil, ways of dealing with extra marital affairs. Any religion or culture condoning these atrocities should really begin taking a cold, hard look at themselves. And the UN should be much more proactive about preventing this sort of stuff from happening.
So, if America was to world police this kind of thing, aside from making a huge amount of enemies with islamic sects, would the rest of the western world be in uproar? Seems to me this is the kind of thing we ought to get our selves involved in.
On January 25 2012 18:11 bdair2002 wrote: I am a Muslim and I can assure you woman's has all the rights and there is nothing against woman in Islam, Westerns is trying to fight Islam in every way "and it is clear for everyone" so they are raising such topics.
Islam, as every other religion has rules, and you have to execute and commit to these rules, some of these rules concerning woman's and the relation between Man and Woman, for example: 1. Nude "we call it Awrah" where is defines the areas in the body for both Men and Woman which is not allowed for other people to see "man to man, man to woman, woman to man, woman to woman"
a. For man, the Nude "Awrah" is between the stomach to knees, the area between stomach to knees must be hide by cloth, you cannot go out in the street showing your knees or above, or your stomach and under, in your home, you are free to do whatever you want, but in front of people you are not. b. For woman, her Nude "Awrah" includes her entire body but the faces and hands, a woman cannot show her parts to foreign people (foreign are the men which she can marry).
To me that seems a bad example. Women have to be covered head to toe with only their faces and hands out (which would be entirely impractical if they couldn't, and culturally lots of them have their faces hidden and only their eyes out). I don't see how it is fair because men have to wear underpants. Or shorts or whatever.
And comparing it to nuns, in my opinion, is wrong. People choose to become nuns, and are a very small minority of Christians. Not that I agree with Christianity.
I am unsure how much of the sexism is technically "Islam" and how much of it is cultural. Some of the Sharia law I've seen is pretty appalling.
Someone else stated that it's culture re-writing scripture. To a degree that is fair.
The islamic golden age is a good example of when women rights were actually very advanced for the time. In fact, back then, women had more rights then in some parts of the middle-east today. A lot of people, however, make the mistake of thinking that because islam was once the paragon of women rights, that it is still like that today.
Women have more rights in the west then they ever did in history and most certainly more then in the middle-east.
Islam and christianity are both horrible books when it comes to the treatment of women. Both confirm what people back then would have believed, women are inferior to men in every regard.
Having said that, religion can alway be read differently.
Only an extreme minority take the bible seriously. The majority doesn't adhere to anything in it, but still call themselves christians.
Muslims need to get to the same point. Call themselves muslims, disregard nearly everything in the quran, pretend that they are still muslims whilst in reality being secular.
The simple fact is that thousand year old books have literally nothing to tell about how to run a modern society. But people consider religion to be priority #1. The only solution to that conflict of interest is for the religious to become hypocrites. Pride themselves on being religious whilst working to eradicate all religious influences from their society.
On January 25 2012 21:28 ScaryGhost wrote: So, if America was to world police this kind of thing, aside from making a huge amount of enemies with islamic sects, would the rest of the western world be in uproar? Seems to me this is the kind of thing we ought to get our selves involved in.
The problem is that this stuff is most prevalent in the middle-of-nowhere regions of the world.
Worse yet, it's ingrained in the minds of these people as normal. Nothing is harder to end than something that people perceive as normal, because society reinforces the idea on it's fellow members of the society.
Meanwhile, the governments that control these countries are almost impossible to motivate. No dictator is going to bother sending troops to some backwater town and help women rights.
There is no reason for them to do it (they don't care about women) and every reason not to do it (makes the deeply religious people angry).
The problem with solving this issue is that you can't motivate the government and it's impossible to step in because it happens in the middle-of-nowhere regions.
On January 25 2012 20:59 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Someone has some account on female circumcision? Why is it done in muslim countries?
It is not done exclusively in Muslim countries as has been stated earlier. It is a cultural practice and a disgusting one at that.
Yeah, sorry I didnt mean that it was a practice exclusive to muslims. But Im just curious since the original article states to imam's pushing for it. If it not done for religious purposes though, then my confusion is settled.
Meanwhile, the governments that control these countries are almost impossible to motivate. No dictator is going to bother sending troops to some backwater town and help women rights.
There is no reason for them to do it (they don't care about women) and every reason not to do it (makes the deeply religious people angry).
The problem with solving this issue is that you can't motivate the government and it's impossible to step in because it happens in the middle-of-nowhere regions.
Currying favor with the west seems like a decent reason, although I agree, it would be incredibly hard to control, as dictators are more concerned with maintaining their control and it might seem like a sign of weakness in places where this happens. A general paradigm shift in these regions are truly what is required for things like this to stop entirely.
If you read the laws that were originally brought in, there isn't a single country in the world that follows them properly.
If you asked the people today why they are doing it, they would say - "because of Islam". These people aren't wrong, that IS their religion; so the blame can be placed on religion. Christianity has looked very different throughout its history as well, during which time period was 'true' Christianity practiced?
On January 25 2012 20:59 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Someone has some account on female circumcision? Why is it done in muslim countries?
It is not done exclusively in Muslim countries as has been stated earlier. It is a cultural practice and a disgusting one at that.
Yeah, sorry I didnt mean that it was a practice exclusive to muslims. But Im just curious since the original article states to imam's pushing for it. If it not done for religious purposes though, then my confusion is settled.
It's a bit of both. Culture and religion can easily get mixed.
Take for example the burqa, the piece of clothing where you can only see the eyes, sometimes not even that.
It's both religious and cultural. It's very prevalent in Pakistan and Afghanistan but you won't find it in Iran.
Afghanistan culture demands women to be completly covered. They read the scripture in such a way to justify it. This makes it both religious and cultural in nature.
In Iran you will find the hijaab, wich does not cover the face. Their religious leaders have declared that that is what the quran demands. But why not the burqa? Because it's a cultural part of Afghanistan/Pakistan rather then purely scriptural.
Both Afghanistan and Iran believe their reading is entirely correct. The truth is probably that their culture forces them to read a certain way. People look for confirmation on what they already believe.
Sorry, my GF just walked out of the house, and her enormous robe blew around, allowing a man (who was wearing a tea-cloth around his waist btw so that's fine), to see the back of her leg. Must go and beat her... Gonna tell me I shouldn't? ARE YOU GOING TO OPPRESS ME AND MY ***BELIEFS***?? Heresy, burn the West.
This sort of response is seriously not useful at all for any real discussion.
Although the hijab is a tool of oppression of women, I don't feel that is the first thing that needs to be fixed. even in western society it's ok for a guy to walk around with his shirt off but not a woman. This is a pretty big difference but still similar in its general tone. The large problem is that Muslim society(not all mind you) believes woman are inferior, which is what leads to atrocities such as vaginal mutilation.
Meanwhile, the governments that control these countries are almost impossible to motivate. No dictator is going to bother sending troops to some backwater town and help women rights.
There is no reason for them to do it (they don't care about women) and every reason not to do it (makes the deeply religious people angry).
The problem with solving this issue is that you can't motivate the government and it's impossible to step in because it happens in the middle-of-nowhere regions.
Currying favor with the west seems like a decent reason, although I agree, it would be incredibly hard to control, as dictators are more concerned with maintaining their control and it might seem like a sign of weakness in places where this happens. A general paradigm shift in these regions are truly what is required for things like this to stop entirely.
Power structure in many of these countries (most of them are in Africa) isn't like here in the west. The concept is very hard to grasp because it seems almost alien from us.
There isn't any part in the USA where you would say that the USA government does not have authority. It is acknowledged as controlling the entire region of the USA.
Western countries have police forces, large armies and (most importantly) infrastructure which makes large countries very small.
These African dictatorships don't work in a similar fashion. Poor infrastructure makes it impossible to project force all over the country. The further you get from the capital, the weaker the governments grasp grows. With towns that never even see a soldier or a police officer, it isn't strange that these people often don't even acknowledge the dictator as the leader.
The dictators control the capital. This is their seat of power. They can't project force much further and, often, they don't even want to.
Sending troops to these far away villages has three negative effects:
1) The people don't recognize the dictator, when he invades their lives they get angry. They don't acknowledge his leadership.
2) They are often deeply religious. Any step against them will create a religious backlash. Religion is one of the few things that can unify the people against the government.
3) Troops are removed from the capital, the seat of power, to go to a region the dictator hardly controls and doesn't even want to control.
Things get even more complex when you begin to wonder, what soldiers should be send? Part of the army is loyal to the dictator, yet another is loyal to members of his governement, yet another is loyal to the army general.
Do you send the loyalists? The general's men? Neither will want to send his forces because it weakens his position.
These governments would love to win points with the West but they won't do it at the cost of being knocked out of office by their general just because they send their personal guard to help women's rights.
FGM is considered by its practitioners to be an essential part of raising a girl properly—girls are regarded as having been cleansed by the removal of "male" body parts. It ensures pre-marital virginity and inhibits extra-marital sex, because it reduces women's libido. Women fear the pain of re-opening the vagina, and are afraid of being discovered if it is opened illicitly.
You will find a host of different religious reasons or cultural reasons why people do it. But the truth is that it's always done for the same practical reason.
The big two religions hate the human sex drive. There is nothing more depraved then the act of sex. If it could they would eradicate it entirely.
What luck for them that they can eradicate the need for sex in the female. All it takes is a rusty razor.
The big religions don't hate the sex drive. They fear the sex drive. And for good reason:
the optimal mating strategy for a male is to provide resources to his legitimate offspring, and to cuckold as many men as possible. This will give him as many offspring as possible and good provisioning for them too, maximise his chances of having living descendents now.
the optimal mating strategy for the average female is to obtain resources from one man, while obtaining higher quality genes from a variety of different males, since this arrangement will maximise the probability of her children surviving and reproducing.
If you think that allowing the human sex drive free reign is compatible with civilisaton . . . I have some pyramids to sell you.
On January 25 2012 16:30 vetinari wrote: The women are punished more readily, because the point of punishing extra marital affairs is to ensure that women stay faithful to their husbands, so that the men can have greater certainty that the children they must provide for are actually their own blood.
That is possible to check now a days. Force a DNA test on each child born by law. If the woman sleeps around and uses protection it won't matter. Might take a while to change the thinking to be that way.
DNA tests aren't exactly cheap, I recommend you read something about them before you toss out ideas like this.
[QUOTE]On January 25 2012 21:56 zalz wrote: [Quote] Meanwhile, the governments that control these countries are almost impossible to motivate. No dictator is going to bother sending troops to some backwater town and help women rights.
There is no reason for them to do it (they don't care about women) and every reason not to do it (makes the deeply religious people angry).
The problem with solving this issue is that you can't motivate the government and it's impossible to step in because it happens in the middle-of-nowhere regions.
Currying favor with the west seems like a decent reason, although I agree, it would be incredibly hard to control, as dictators are more concerned with maintaining their control and it might seem like a sign of weakness in places where this happens. A general paradigm shift in these regions are truly what is required for things like this to stop entirely. [/QUOTE]
Power structure in many of these countries (most of them are in Africa) isn't like here in the west. The concept is very hard to grasp because it seems almost alien from us.
There isn't any part in the USA where you would say that the USA government does not have authority. It is acknowledged as controlling the entire region of the USA.
Western countries have police forces, large armies and (most importantly) infrastructure which makes large countries very small.
These African dictatorships don't work in a similar fashion. Poor infrastructure makes it impossible to project force all over the country. The further you get from the capital, the weaker the governments grasp grows. With towns that never even see a soldier or a police officer, it isn't strange that these people often don't even acknowledge the dictator as the leader.
The dictators control the capital. This is their seat of power. They can't project force much further and, often, they don't even want to.
Sending troops to these far away villages has three negative effects:
1) The people don't recognize the dictator, when he invades their lives they get angry. They don't acknowledge his leadership.
2) They are often deeply religious. Any step against them will create a religious backlash. Religion is one of the few things that can unify the people against the government.
3) Troops are removed from the capital, the seat of power, to go to a region the dictator hardly controls and doesn't even want to control.
Things get even more complex when you begin to wonder, what soldiers should be send? Part of the army is loyal to the dictator, yet another is loyal to members of his governement, yet another is loyal to the army general.
Do you send the loyalists? The general's men? Neither will want to send his forces because it weakens his position.
These governments would love to win points with the West but they won't do it at the cost of being knocked out of office by their general just because they send their personal guard to help women's rights.
Yeah, that's why I think a paradigm shift is the only way to stop this sort of thing. In fact a religious figure would actually probably be one of the best influences that you could ask for to help alleviate this problem. It would be incredibly hard to spread a religious figure's voice to places like this however, it would take something similar to missionaries, and I doubt that would go over well in small villages that this sort of thing happens in. It's definitely a difficult problem to solve.
On January 25 2012 20:59 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Someone has some account on female circumcision? Why is it done in muslim countries?
Wikipedia has the following:
FGM is considered by its practitioners to be an essential part of raising a girl properly—girls are regarded as having been cleansed by the removal of "male" body parts. It ensures pre-marital virginity and inhibits extra-marital sex, because it reduces women's libido. Women fear the pain of re-opening the vagina, and are afraid of being discovered if it is opened illicitly.
You will find a host of different religious reasons or cultural reasons why people do it. But the truth is that it's always done for the same practical reason.
The big two religions hate the human sex drive. There is nothing more depraved then the act of sex. If it could they would eradicate it entirely.
What luck for them that they can eradicate the need for sex in the female. All it takes is a rusty razor.
The big religions don't hate the sex drive. They fear the sex drive. And for good reason:
the optimal mating strategy for a male is to provide resources to his legitimate offspring, and to cuckold as many men as possible. This will give him as many offspring as possible and good provisioning for them too, maximise his chances of having living descendents now.
the optimal mating strategy for the average female is to obtain resources from one man, while obtaining higher quality genes from a variety of different males, since this arrangement will maximise the probability of her children surviving and reproducing.
If you think that allowing the human sex drive free reign is compatible with civilisaton . . . I have some pyramids to sell you.
EPT
