A Young Woman Stoned for Adultery

[ChrisL]

It's due to differences in religious beliefs and because some think that certain acts are "sins" in the eyes of their "gods."

No actually it's due to primitive patriarchy.
As I keep saying, it's way older than any religion. I don't know what's so hard to grasp about that concept.

Think of something that happened fifteen minutes ago.
Now think of something that happened last fall.

..... And now think of something that happened in the year 358. "Way older" .

I disagree with you.

 

[Pogo]

It's due to differences in religious beliefs and because some think that certain acts are "sins" in the eyes of their "gods."

No actually it's due to primitive patriarchy.
As I keep saying, it's way older than any religion. I don't know what's so hard to grasp about that concept.

Think of something that happened fifteen minutes ago.
Now think of something that happened last fall.

..... And now think of something that happened in the year 358. "Way older" .

I disagree with you.

It's already established history.

 

[Weatherman2020]

This stuff is disgusting and due to religious beliefs. Good thing we keep a check on them here in the States.

Because we all know Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot etc always treated everyone with dignity.

You have to go to college to learn to be that stupid.

 

[ChrisL]

This stuff is disgusting and due to religious beliefs. Good thing we keep a check on them here in the States.

Because we all know Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot etc always treated everyone with dignity.

You have to go to college to learn to be that stupid.

Most of the strife I see in the world today is due to religious beliefs.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The picture could have been taken 2,000 years ago and it would look the same. This type thing is in the bible as well.

Some people just can't adjust to change and modern times. The Amish simply don't own televisions or radios, other people are far more insecure and by killing other people it legitimizes their own ridiculous beliefs. It is a type of substantiation that you are right and everyone that believes otherwise is wrong.

And it should be opposed on all fronts.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It's due to differences in religious beliefs and because some think that certain acts are "sins" in the eyes of their "gods."

No actually it's due to primitive patriarchy.
As I keep saying, it's way older than any religion. I don't know what's so hard to grasp about that concept.

Think of something that happened fifteen minutes ago.
Now think of something that happened last fall.

..... And now think of something that happened in the year 358. "Way older" .

This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.

This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​

The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.

What would Jesus do?

It is written:

....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
John 8:7-11

Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story. Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground. Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death? Perhaps they had slept with her!

The Scriptures do not tell us. What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. Not one of those men cast that first stone. Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free. In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.

What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God. This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.

My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first". I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help. I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.

I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first". Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.

As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.

God alone is the judge of men. Our assistance is not required. What is required of us?

He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
Micah 6:8

The best prayer?
Begins with...... God fix me first.


____________
Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'

Islam does things like this. They oppose free thought, stone apostates, critics AND western freethinkers to death. And some of you had issues with Western Christianity , they are wimps compared to ISALM.

Yep.

I must say, however, that if it is free thinkers who are opposed, these lock-step leftists who feel obligated to defend Islam like they do are certainly off the hook.

They are so absolutely terrified of expressing a thought that does not conform with the latest politically correct fashion as to be every bit as rigid and conformist as the Islamists they defend.

 

[Pogo]

This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.

Bingo. It absolutely is. It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, that was the pre-existing culture. The culture precedes the religion, always, by definition. Culture is the first structural system of community; it has to be. Religion follows.

When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper; the practice continues in spite of the religion. That's the whole POINT here.

But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy. How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is male?


From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:

In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes." He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? This is how society thinks. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<

(case history 2):

>> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".

Their abuse was not dictated by religion since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<

--- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​

This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.

The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior. Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously. The topic here is logic and anthropological fact. So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied. Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism". Correlation does not equal causation. As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.

Bingo. It absolutely is. It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, that was the pre-existing culture. The culture precedes the religion, always, by definition. Culture is the first structural system of community; it has to be. Religion follows.

When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper; the practice continues in spite of the religion. That's the whole POINT here.

But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy. How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is male?


From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:

In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes." He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? This is how society thinks. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<

(case history 2):

>> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".

Their abuse was not dictated by religion since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<

--- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​

This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.

The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior. Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously. The topic here is logic and anthropological fact. So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied. Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism". Correlation does not equal causation. As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.

I have indulged in no appeal to emotion, son.

You were too busy indulging in your false equivalencies and looking up other people's opinions to notice, however.

I realize that you are ignorant as to the structural and doctrinal differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, here, and I realize you are motivated by a desire to sound exactly like all your little peeps but just because you are ignorant, that does not mean they are all the same.

The scope, prevalence and severity of the misogyny inherent and practiced in the three religions is so different that a person would have to be monumentally ignorant to defend Islam as being little different from the other two.

.....and yes, it IS about Islam here, oh politically correct child.

 

[Pogo]

This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.

Bingo. It absolutely is. It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, that was the pre-existing culture. The culture precedes the religion, always, by definition. Culture is the first structural system of community; it has to be. Religion follows.

When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper; the practice continues in spite of the religion. That's the whole POINT here.

But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy. How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is male?


From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:

In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes." He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? This is how society thinks. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<

(case history 2):

>> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".

Their abuse was not dictated by religion since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<

--- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​

This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.

The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior. Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously. The topic here is logic and anthropological fact. So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied. Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism". Correlation does not equal causation. As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.

I have indulged in no appeal to emotion, son.

You were too busy indulging in your false equivalencies and looking up other people's opinions to notice, however.

I realize that you are ignorant as to the structural and doctrinal differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, here, and I realize you are motivated by a desire to sound exactly like all your little peeps but just because you are ignorant, that does not mean they are all the same.

The scope, prevalence and severity of the misogyny inherent and practiced in the three religions is so different that a person would have to be monumentally ignorant to defend Islam as being little different from the other two.

.....and yes, it IS about Islam here, oh politically correct child.

Nope. It isn't. Read the title --- it's about HBV. "Islam" was brought in as an irrelevant red herring. Were we to choose a different red herring according to the Two Minutes Hate of a different day, we could invoke Hinduism or Sikhism. It would still be the same fallacy as describing a Klan lynching as a "Christian" practice.

This is about simple logic.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.

Bingo. It absolutely is. It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, that was the pre-existing culture. The culture precedes the religion, always, by definition. Culture is the first structural system of community; it has to be. Religion follows.

When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper; the practice continues in spite of the religion. That's the whole POINT here.

But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy. How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is male?


From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:

In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes." He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? This is how society thinks. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<

(case history 2):

>> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".

Their abuse was not dictated by religion since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<

--- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​

This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.

The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior. Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously. The topic here is logic and anthropological fact. So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied. Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism". Correlation does not equal causation. As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.

I have indulged in no appeal to emotion, son.

You were too busy indulging in your false equivalencies and looking up other people's opinions to notice, however.

I realize that you are ignorant as to the structural and doctrinal differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, here, and I realize you are motivated by a desire to sound exactly like all your little peeps but just because you are ignorant, that does not mean they are all the same.

The scope, prevalence and severity of the misogyny inherent and practiced in the three religions is so different that a person would have to be monumentally ignorant to defend Islam as being little different from the other two.

.....and yes, it IS about Islam here, oh politically correct child.

Nope. It isn't. Read the title --- it's about HBV. "Islam" was brought in as an irrelevant red herring. Were we to choose a different red herring according to the Two Minutes Hate of a different day, we could invoke Hinduism or Sikhism. It would still be the same fallacy as describing a Klan lynching as a "Christian" practice.

This is about simple logic.

Lying does not win an argument, son, no matter how simple your views.

This happened as an application of Islamic justice. Now, I realize you are extremely conformist and trying to protect Islam because of your fear of saying anything not pre-approved by your little peeps but to claim this isn't about Islam is downright stupid.

 

[Pogo]

This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.

Bingo. It absolutely is. It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, that was the pre-existing culture. The culture precedes the religion, always, by definition. Culture is the first structural system of community; it has to be. Religion follows.

When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper; the practice continues in spite of the religion. That's the whole POINT here.

But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy. How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is male?


From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:

In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes." He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? This is how society thinks. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<

(case history 2):

>> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".

Their abuse was not dictated by religion since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<

--- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​

This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.

The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior. Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously. The topic here is logic and anthropological fact. So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied. Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism". Correlation does not equal causation. As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.

I have indulged in no appeal to emotion, son.

You were too busy indulging in your false equivalencies and looking up other people's opinions to notice, however.

I realize that you are ignorant as to the structural and doctrinal differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, here, and I realize you are motivated by a desire to sound exactly like all your little peeps but just because you are ignorant, that does not mean they are all the same.

The scope, prevalence and severity of the misogyny inherent and practiced in the three religions is so different that a person would have to be monumentally ignorant to defend Islam as being little different from the other two.

.....and yes, it IS about Islam here, oh politically correct child.

Nope. It isn't. Read the title --- it's about HBV. "Islam" was brought in as an irrelevant red herring. Were we to choose a different red herring according to the Two Minutes Hate of a different day, we could invoke Hinduism or Sikhism. It would still be the same fallacy as describing a Klan lynching as a "Christian" practice.

This is about simple logic.

Lying does not win an argument, son, no matter how simple your views.

Indeed it doesn't. That's why you're losing.

This happened as an application of Islamic justice. Now, I realize you are extremely conformist and trying to protect Islam because of your fear of saying anything not pre-approved by your little peeps but to claim this isn't about Islam is downright stupid.

Did it now/Am I now.

If this is "Islamic justice", pray what the fuck is it when it takes place in India? Or ancient Rome? Or medieval England?

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. " -- Deutoronomy 21

"Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." -- Leviticus 24

"And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep." --- Acts 7

"While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses." --- Numbers 15

“A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” --- Leviticus 20

"You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." -- Deuteronomy 20​

---- Old Testes. Centuries before Mohammed ever existed. A millennium at least.

Linear time, Dumbass. Cultural practice, QED.

I love the way Moses specifies "they shall stone him with stones". In case anybody was thinking of stoning him with, say, ice cream sammiches.

 

[ChrisL]

This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.

Bingo. It absolutely is. It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, that was the pre-existing culture. The culture precedes the religion, always, by definition. Culture is the first structural system of community; it has to be. Religion follows.

When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper; the practice continues in spite of the religion. That's the whole POINT here.

But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy. How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is male?


From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:

In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes." He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? This is how society thinks. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<

(case history 2):

>> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".

Their abuse was not dictated by religion since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<

--- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​

This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.

The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior. Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously. The topic here is logic and anthropological fact. So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied. Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism". Correlation does not equal causation. As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.

I have indulged in no appeal to emotion, son.

You were too busy indulging in your false equivalencies and looking up other people's opinions to notice, however.

I realize that you are ignorant as to the structural and doctrinal differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, here, and I realize you are motivated by a desire to sound exactly like all your little peeps but just because you are ignorant, that does not mean they are all the same.

The scope, prevalence and severity of the misogyny inherent and practiced in the three religions is so different that a person would have to be monumentally ignorant to defend Islam as being little different from the other two.

.....and yes, it IS about Islam here, oh politically correct child.

Nope. It isn't. Read the title --- it's about HBV. "Islam" was brought in as an irrelevant red herring. Were we to choose a different red herring according to the Two Minutes Hate of a different day, we could invoke Hinduism or Sikhism. It would still be the same fallacy as describing a Klan lynching as a "Christian" practice.

This is about simple logic.

Lying does not win an argument, son, no matter how simple your views.

Indeed it doesn't. That's why you're losing.

This happened as an application of Islamic justice. Now, I realize you are extremely conformist and trying to protect Islam because of your fear of saying anything not pre-approved by your little peeps but to claim this isn't about Islam is downright stupid.

Did it now/Am I now.

If this is "Islamic justice", pray what the fuck is it when it takes place in India? Or ancient Rome? Or medieval England?

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. " -- Deutoronomy 21

"Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." -- Leviticus 24

"And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep." --- Acts 7

"While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses." --- Numbers 15

“A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” --- Leviticus 20

"You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." -- Deuteronomy 20​

---- Old Testes. Centuries before Mohammed ever existed. A millennium at least.

Linear time, Dumbass. Cultural practice, QED.

I love the way Moses specifies "they shall stone him with stones". In case anybody was thinking of stoning him with, say, ice cream sammiches.

So, you are quoting the Old Testament, yet saying that these practices are not based on religious beliefs? Lol.

 

[ChrisL]

This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.

Bingo. It absolutely is. It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, that was the pre-existing culture. The culture precedes the religion, always, by definition. Culture is the first structural system of community; it has to be. Religion follows.

When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper; the practice continues in spite of the religion. That's the whole POINT here.

But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy. How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is male?


From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:

In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes." He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? This is how society thinks. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<

(case history 2):

>> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".

Their abuse was not dictated by religion since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<

--- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​

This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.

The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior. Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously. The topic here is logic and anthropological fact. So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied. Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism". Correlation does not equal causation. As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.

I have indulged in no appeal to emotion, son.

You were too busy indulging in your false equivalencies and looking up other people's opinions to notice, however.

I realize that you are ignorant as to the structural and doctrinal differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, here, and I realize you are motivated by a desire to sound exactly like all your little peeps but just because you are ignorant, that does not mean they are all the same.

The scope, prevalence and severity of the misogyny inherent and practiced in the three religions is so different that a person would have to be monumentally ignorant to defend Islam as being little different from the other two.

.....and yes, it IS about Islam here, oh politically correct child.

Nope. It isn't. Read the title --- it's about HBV. "Islam" was brought in as an irrelevant red herring. Were we to choose a different red herring according to the Two Minutes Hate of a different day, we could invoke Hinduism or Sikhism. It would still be the same fallacy as describing a Klan lynching as a "Christian" practice.

This is about simple logic.

Lying does not win an argument, son, no matter how simple your views.

Indeed it doesn't. That's why you're losing.

This happened as an application of Islamic justice. Now, I realize you are extremely conformist and trying to protect Islam because of your fear of saying anything not pre-approved by your little peeps but to claim this isn't about Islam is downright stupid.

Did it now/Am I now.

If this is "Islamic justice", pray what the fuck is it when it takes place in India? Or ancient Rome? Or medieval England?

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. " -- Deutoronomy 21

"Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." -- Leviticus 24

"And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep." --- Acts 7

"While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses." --- Numbers 15

“A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” --- Leviticus 20

"You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." -- Deuteronomy 20​

---- Old Testes. Centuries before Mohammed ever existed. A millennium at least.

Linear time, Dumbass. Cultural practice, QED.

I love the way Moses specifies "they shall stone him with stones". In case anybody was thinking of stoning him with, say, ice cream sammiches.

There have been many (and still are) where religious practices were not a part of life and women were not "second class" citizens.

6 Modern Societies Where Women Literally Rule

 

[Dogmaphobe]

This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.

Bingo. It absolutely is. It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, that was the pre-existing culture. The culture precedes the religion, always, by definition. Culture is the first structural system of community; it has to be. Religion follows.

When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper; the practice continues in spite of the religion. That's the whole POINT here.

But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy. How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is male?


From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:

In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes." He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? This is how society thinks. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<

(case history 2):

>> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".

Their abuse was not dictated by religion since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<

--- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​

This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.

The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior. Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously. The topic here is logic and anthropological fact. So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied. Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism". Correlation does not equal causation. As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.

I have indulged in no appeal to emotion, son.

You were too busy indulging in your false equivalencies and looking up other people's opinions to notice, however.

I realize that you are ignorant as to the structural and doctrinal differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, here, and I realize you are motivated by a desire to sound exactly like all your little peeps but just because you are ignorant, that does not mean they are all the same.

The scope, prevalence and severity of the misogyny inherent and practiced in the three religions is so different that a person would have to be monumentally ignorant to defend Islam as being little different from the other two.

.....and yes, it IS about Islam here, oh politically correct child.

Nope. It isn't. Read the title --- it's about HBV. "Islam" was brought in as an irrelevant red herring. Were we to choose a different red herring according to the Two Minutes Hate of a different day, we could invoke Hinduism or Sikhism. It would still be the same fallacy as describing a Klan lynching as a "Christian" practice.

This is about simple logic.

Lying does not win an argument, son, no matter how simple your views.

Indeed it doesn't. That's why you're losing.

This happened as an application of Islamic justice. Now, I realize you are extremely conformist and trying to protect Islam because of your fear of saying anything not pre-approved by your little peeps but to claim this isn't about Islam is downright stupid.

Did it now/Am I now.

If this is "Islamic justice", pray what the fuck is it when it takes place in India? Or ancient Rome? Or medieval England?

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. " -- Deutoronomy 21

"Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." -- Leviticus 24

"And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep." --- Acts 7

"While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses." --- Numbers 15

“A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” --- Leviticus 20

"You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." -- Deuteronomy 20​

---- Old Testes. Centuries before Mohammed ever existed. A millennium at least.

Linear time, Dumbass. Cultural practice, QED.

I love the way Moses specifies "they shall stone him with stones". In case anybody was thinking of stoning him with, say, ice cream sammiches.

Well, you know, Pogo -- we will just have to agree to disagree.

I support the liberal notion that women are the complete equal of men. You obviously do not, otherwise you would not defend a religio-political ideology where they are second-class citizens by very structure of law. I believe in the liberal notion that gay people should be able to live their lives as they choose free from harassment. You obviously do not, otherwise you would not defend the religio-political ideology that persecutes them relentlessly. I support the liberal notion that religion and politics should be separate. You obviously do not, otherwise you would not defend this totalitarian belief system that does not distinguish between the two. I support the liberal notions of freedom of speech, freedom of though, and freedom of association. You obviously do not, otherwise you would not defend a totalitarian ideology that allows for none.

Now, once again, I realize you only say things because you represent the far left hive mind and the little peeps in your classes give you props for defending Islam, but believe me -- you are not representing a liberal point of view here by conforming with such lock-step determination.

You are only looking like a fundamentalist just as unquestioning as the worst Islamist variety.

 

[ChrisL]

In countries today where women are tortured and killed by methods such as "stoning," it can be directly traced to patriarchal religious beliefs that women are to "obey" and "serve" men, so when these women try to live their lives the way they want instead of how their "religious culture" dictates, they are put to death using methods according to the religious beliefs of that culture.

Do you think Christianity would be any different if it was allowed? Because most Christians live in a secular society or culture, they must also abide by man (or woman) made laws. They have been "moderated." Also, there is the New Testament which helps to moderate. If there was no New Testament, these crazy religious folks would be still living by the laws of the OT.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

In countries today where women are tortured and killed by methods such as "stoning," it can be directly traced to patriarchal religious beliefs that women are to "obey" and "serve" men, so when these women try to live their lives the way they want instead of how their "religious culture" dictates, they are put to death using methods according to the religious beliefs of that culture.

Do you think Christianity would be any different if it was allowed? Because most Christians live in a secular society or culture, they must also abide by man (or woman) made laws. They have been "moderated." Also, there is the New Testament which helps to moderate. If there was no New Testament, these crazy religious folks would be still living by the laws of the OT.

We both know that all these defenses of Islam are not based upon reason.

They are just the ravings of those with cases of arrested development forever stuck in that acting-out stage of their life where they identify with anything that seeks to destroy.

It's like one giant oppositional defiant disorder in action.

 

[Coyote]

Bingo. It absolutely is. It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, that was the pre-existing culture. The culture precedes the religion, always, by definition. Culture is the first structural system of community; it has to be. Religion follows.

When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper; the practice continues in spite of the religion. That's the whole POINT here.

But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy. How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is male?


From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:

In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes." He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? This is how society thinks. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<

(case history 2):

>> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".

Their abuse was not dictated by religion since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<

--- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​

The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior. Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously. The topic here is logic and anthropological fact. So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied. Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism". Correlation does not equal causation. As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.

I have indulged in no appeal to emotion, son.

You were too busy indulging in your false equivalencies and looking up other people's opinions to notice, however.

I realize that you are ignorant as to the structural and doctrinal differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, here, and I realize you are motivated by a desire to sound exactly like all your little peeps but just because you are ignorant, that does not mean they are all the same.

The scope, prevalence and severity of the misogyny inherent and practiced in the three religions is so different that a person would have to be monumentally ignorant to defend Islam as being little different from the other two.

.....and yes, it IS about Islam here, oh politically correct child.

Nope. It isn't. Read the title --- it's about HBV. "Islam" was brought in as an irrelevant red herring. Were we to choose a different red herring according to the Two Minutes Hate of a different day, we could invoke Hinduism or Sikhism. It would still be the same fallacy as describing a Klan lynching as a "Christian" practice.

This is about simple logic.

Lying does not win an argument, son, no matter how simple your views.

Indeed it doesn't. That's why you're losing.

This happened as an application of Islamic justice. Now, I realize you are extremely conformist and trying to protect Islam because of your fear of saying anything not pre-approved by your little peeps but to claim this isn't about Islam is downright stupid.

Did it now/Am I now.

If this is "Islamic justice", pray what the fuck is it when it takes place in India? Or ancient Rome? Or medieval England?

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. " -- Deutoronomy 21

"Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." -- Leviticus 24

"And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep." --- Acts 7

"While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses." --- Numbers 15

“A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” --- Leviticus 20

"You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." -- Deuteronomy 20​

---- Old Testes. Centuries before Mohammed ever existed. A millennium at least.

Linear time, Dumbass. Cultural practice, QED.

I love the way Moses specifies "they shall stone him with stones". In case anybody was thinking of stoning him with, say, ice cream sammiches.

Well, you know, Pogo -- we will just have to agree to disagree.

I support the liberal notion that women are the complete equal of men. You obviously do not, otherwise you would not defend a religio-political ideology where they are second-class citizens by very structure of law. I believe in the liberal notion that gay people should be able to live their lives as they choose free from harassment. You obviously do not, otherwise you would not defend the religio-political ideology that persecutes them relentlessly. I support the liberal notion that religion and politics should be separate. You obviously do not, otherwise you would not defend this totalitarian belief system that does not distinguish between the two. I support the liberal notions of freedom of speech, freedom of though, and freedom of association. You obviously do not, otherwise you would not defend a totalitarian ideology that allows for none.

Now, once again, I realize you only say things because you represent the far left hive mind and the little peeps in your classes give you props for defending Islam, but believe me -- you are not representing a liberal point of view here by conforming with such lock-step determination.

You are only looking like a fundamentalist just as unquestioning as the worst Islamist variety.

You obviously know nothing about Pogo.

 

[ChrisL]

In countries today where women are tortured and killed by methods such as "stoning," it can be directly traced to patriarchal religious beliefs that women are to "obey" and "serve" men, so when these women try to live their lives the way they want instead of how their "religious culture" dictates, they are put to death using methods according to the religious beliefs of that culture.

Do you think Christianity would be any different if it was allowed? Because most Christians live in a secular society or culture, they must also abide by man (or woman) made laws. They have been "moderated." Also, there is the New Testament which helps to moderate. If there was no New Testament, these crazy religious folks would be still living by the laws of the OT.

We both know that all these defenses of Islam are not based upon reason.

They are just the ravings of those with cases of arrested development forever stuck in that acting-out stage of their life where they identify with anything that seeks to destroy.

It's like one giant oppositional defiant disorder in action.

I pretty much feel the same about all religious beliefs (or at least the main Abrahamic religions that I know something about).

 

[Pogo]

Bingo. It absolutely is. It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, that was the pre-existing culture. The culture precedes the religion, always, by definition. Culture is the first structural system of community; it has to be. Religion follows.

When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper; the practice continues in spite of the religion. That's the whole POINT here.

But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy. How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is male?


From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:

In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes." He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? This is how society thinks. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<

(case history 2):

>> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".

Their abuse was not dictated by religion since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<

--- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​

The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior. Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously. The topic here is logic and anthropological fact. So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied. Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism". Correlation does not equal causation. As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.

I have indulged in no appeal to emotion, son.

You were too busy indulging in your false equivalencies and looking up other people's opinions to notice, however.

I realize that you are ignorant as to the structural and doctrinal differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, here, and I realize you are motivated by a desire to sound exactly like all your little peeps but just because you are ignorant, that does not mean they are all the same.

The scope, prevalence and severity of the misogyny inherent and practiced in the three religions is so different that a person would have to be monumentally ignorant to defend Islam as being little different from the other two.

.....and yes, it IS about Islam here, oh politically correct child.

Nope. It isn't. Read the title --- it's about HBV. "Islam" was brought in as an irrelevant red herring. Were we to choose a different red herring according to the Two Minutes Hate of a different day, we could invoke Hinduism or Sikhism. It would still be the same fallacy as describing a Klan lynching as a "Christian" practice.

This is about simple logic.

Lying does not win an argument, son, no matter how simple your views.

Indeed it doesn't. That's why you're losing.

This happened as an application of Islamic justice. Now, I realize you are extremely conformist and trying to protect Islam because of your fear of saying anything not pre-approved by your little peeps but to claim this isn't about Islam is downright stupid.

Did it now/Am I now.

If this is "Islamic justice", pray what the fuck is it when it takes place in India? Or ancient Rome? Or medieval England?

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. " -- Deutoronomy 21

"Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." -- Leviticus 24

"And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep." --- Acts 7

"While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses." --- Numbers 15

“A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” --- Leviticus 20

"You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." -- Deuteronomy 20​

---- Old Testes. Centuries before Mohammed ever existed. A millennium at least.

Linear time, Dumbass. Cultural practice, QED.

I love the way Moses specifies "they shall stone him with stones". In case anybody was thinking of stoning him with, say, ice cream sammiches.

So, you are quoting the Old Testament, yet saying that these practices are not based on religious beliefs? Lol.

It's a time marker. If you're aware of when the OT was written, it predates Mohammed by a good thousand years. And the accounts tell us the practice was already in use then. Therefore it's impossible for Mohammed to have just made it up. There's also a reference in the NT where it's going on. None of these introduce the idea of social control execution as a new thing -- it's already a practice.

And specifically the case here (cause) is an HBV execution, which is not only prohibited by the Quran, it's far far FAR older. And I'm repeating the same thing now for the umpteenth time.