CDZ Domestic Violence? A Religious Right?

[Papageorgio]

I'm going to pull down two comments from another thread and post it here. The comments WILL be complete and comment numbers and link to thread given.

"there is a difference between domestic violence that is cultural and domestic violence that is individual".

Okay now that's comment 164.

"it may not be done "in the name of allah"... but the Koran is clear... "if your wife shall disobey you, beat her for she is subservient." (then it tells them to stop beating her if she "obeys")"

That's comment number 165
This thread. Muslims are not staying silent in the wake of the Paris attacks | Page 17 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Okay now I see a couple of issues here.
1, Is domestic violence okay if done under a religious doctrine?
2, If our laws are equal is ANY domestic violence by ANY group okay?
3, Why should we accept/tolerate anything that is illegal by OUR laws?
4, Should not the guest accept the hosts laws?


If WE are expected to re-visit laws concerning the rights of women NOT to be beat then have we failed as a nation AND a people? How do you women feel about being beat until you obey? If that is not a GIANT step backwards for women's rights then I don't know what is.

Anybody care to sort this out?

The Abrahamic religions are founded on religiously commanded domestic violence. God told Abraham to kill his son, Isaac, as a sacrifice to Him. Abraham went ahead with the plan and was stopped at the last minute by a God who had either changed his mind or was only kidding. MORAL OF THE STORY: if God tells you to kill your kid, it's OK to do it; in fact, it's obligatory.

But not if your society doesn't have an established Church. When the fringe right tells us that the USA was founded as "a Christian nation" it means its OK to bump off family members if you've got the high sign from The Big Guy (or think you do). Got it?

Twist and turn the words to fit your stupidity..

Domestic violence is condemned in the Bible. The Golden Rule is the rule that Jesus told all to live by and the law he brought supersedes the Hebrew Laws. Don't let your hate and bigotry get in the way of the facts.

Matthew 5:17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one dot or one mark will pass from the law until all be fulfilled.

Thanks for pointing out my hate and bigotry. Do you really think your can go up against me with your born-again Sunday school hermeneutics?

It is better to hear the rebuke from a wise man than a man listen to the song of fools.
For like the crackling sound of thorns under a pot, so is the mocking laughter of fools. And this is also vanity. Eccl 7: 5-7

Not born again, so you lied there.

Jesus fulfilled the law, nice, you proved me right the two laws Jesus ask us to follow was serve God with your whole heart, mind and soul. The second is to love your neighbor as yourself. Have a great day.

Sorry to hear you are still stuck in the birth canal. The thing you are referring to is called the Sh'ma Yisrael. It is not a law, even in Israel;. and Jesus didn't make it up. It is a daily prayer said by pious Jews everywhere and appears in Deuternonomy 6:4 centuries before Jesus was born. The notion that Jesus brought the Sh'ma Yisrael to the Jews is demonstrably false; that he brought some law other than Torah is without evidence and flatly contradicted by Matthew 5:17. Who taught you Bible studies?

So Jesus never said that? Interesting.

 

[Fishlore]

The Abrahamic religions are founded on religiously commanded domestic violence. God told Abraham to kill his son, Isaac, as a sacrifice to Him. Abraham went ahead with the plan and was stopped at the last minute by a God who had either changed his mind or was only kidding. MORAL OF THE STORY: if God tells you to kill your kid, it's OK to do it; in fact, it's obligatory.

But not if your society doesn't have an established Church. When the fringe right tells us that the USA was founded as "a Christian nation" it means its OK to bump off family members if you've got the high sign from The Big Guy (or think you do). Got it?

Twist and turn the words to fit your stupidity..

Domestic violence is condemned in the Bible. The Golden Rule is the rule that Jesus told all to live by and the law he brought supersedes the Hebrew Laws. Don't let your hate and bigotry get in the way of the facts.

Matthew 5:17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one dot or one mark will pass from the law until all be fulfilled.

Thanks for pointing out my hate and bigotry. Do you really think your can go up against me with your born-again Sunday school hermeneutics?

It is better to hear the rebuke from a wise man than a man listen to the song of fools.
For like the crackling sound of thorns under a pot, so is the mocking laughter of fools. And this is also vanity. Eccl 7: 5-7

Not born again, so you lied there.

Jesus fulfilled the law, nice, you proved me right the two laws Jesus ask us to follow was serve God with your whole heart, mind and soul. The second is to love your neighbor as yourself. Have a great day.

Sorry to hear you are still stuck in the birth canal. The thing you are referring to is called the Sh'ma Yisrael. It is not a law, even in Israel;. and Jesus didn't make it up. It is a daily prayer said by pious Jews everywhere and appears in Deuternonomy 6:4 centuries before Jesus was born. The notion that Jesus brought the Sh'ma Yisrael to the Jews is demonstrably false; that he brought some law other than Torah is without evidence and flatly contradicted by Matthew 5:17. Who taught you Bible studies?

So Jesus never said that? Interesting.

I can't believe you seriously misunderstood what I wrote. What I wrote was: "Jesus didn't make it up. It is a daily prayer said by pious Jews everywhere (certainly including rabbi Jesus) and appears in Deuternonomy 6:4 centuries before Jesus was born. To say that Jesus didn't create the Sh'ma Yisrael isn't the same as saying he never said it.

I'm going to try and dumb this down a bit for the folks who have never studied the Bible in an academic setting: Suppose I claimed that the prayer we call The Our Father was written by Billy Graham to replace all the old forms of Christianity with a new teaching. How would you explain my error?

And what would you say if I responded by saying "so Billy Graham never said The Our Father, is that what you're saying?"

 

[320 Years of History]

...

Okay now I see a couple of issues here.
1, Is domestic violence okay if done under a religious doctrine?
2, If our laws are equal is ANY domestic violence by ANY group okay?
3, Why should we accept/tolerate anything that is illegal by OUR laws?
4, Should not the guest accept the hosts laws?

If WE are expected to re-visit laws concerning the rights of women NOT to be beat then have we failed as a nation AND a people? How do you women feel about being beat until you obey? If that is not a GIANT step backwards for women's rights then I don't know what is.

Anybody care to sort this out?

1. In U.S., the secular law supersedes religious laws, and what constitutes domestic violence is defined in secular law. Therefore, domestic violence isn't, in U.S. "okay" under any auspices.
   
   In other nations, there may be no distinction between religious law and secular law. Such is the case in states governed by Islam, which happens to be a spiritual belief system as well as a system/philosophy of laws, jurisprudence, and guidelines concerning interpersonal conduct. Indeed, under Islamic rule, there is no separation of church and state in the way we think of that concept in the U.S.; the state, its institutions, and citizens all exist to serve God. Period.
2. I don't think I understand the question. If "our" laws are equal to whose laws? Who is "our" and to whose laws are they to be considered equal? Also, in what context does that equality apply?
3. Yes, to the extent our laws have jurisdictional application. For example, U.S. law need not be accepted in Mexico and Mexican laws need not be accepted in the U.S. It would incredibly, in some cases criminally, arrogant of me were I to go to the U.K. and observe only U.S. law.
4. Guest should observe the laws of the host or they can return from whence they came.

Red:
No, not at all. It is a very normal thing to revisit damn near anything. Few subjective things like laws and value systems are so perfectly conceived and implemented that they never need revisiting.

Blue:
It's called "growth" and "learning from one's mistakes." It might also be called having overly high expectations regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of one's initial designs, no matter how well intentioned or thought out they were.

 

[DarkFury]

...

Okay now I see a couple of issues here.
1, Is domestic violence okay if done under a religious doctrine?
2, If our laws are equal is ANY domestic violence by ANY group okay?
3, Why should we accept/tolerate anything that is illegal by OUR laws?
4, Should not the guest accept the hosts laws?

If WE are expected to re-visit laws concerning the rights of women NOT to be beat then have we failed as a nation AND a people? How do you women feel about being beat until you obey? If that is not a GIANT step backwards for women's rights then I don't know what is.

Anybody care to sort this out?

1. In U.S., the secular law supersedes religious laws, and what constitutes domestic violence is defined in secular law. Therefore, domestic violence isn't, in U.S. "okay" under any auspices.
   
   In other nations, there may be no distinction between religious law and secular law. Such is the case in states governed by Islam, which happens to be a spiritual belief system as well as a system/philosophy of laws, jurisprudence, and guidelines concerning interpersonal conduct. Indeed, under Islamic rule, there is no separation of church and state in the way we think of that concept in the U.S.; the state, its institutions, and citizens all exist to serve God. Period.
2. I don't think I understand the question. If "our" laws are equal to whose laws? Who is "our" and to whose laws are they to be considered equal? Also, in what context does that equality apply?
3. Yes, to the extent our laws have jurisdictional application. For example, U.S. law need not be accepted in Mexico and Mexican laws need not be accepted in the U.S. It would incredibly, in some cases criminally, arrogant of me were I to go to the U.K. and observe only U.S. law.
4. Guest should observe the laws of the host or they can return from whence they came.

Red:
No, not at all. It is a very normal thing to revisit damn near anything. Few subjective things like laws and value systems are so perfectly conceived and implemented that they never need revisiting.

Blue:
It's called "growth" and "learning from one's mistakes." It might also be called having overly high expectations regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of one's initial designs, no matter how well intentioned or thought out they were.

You may notice in the OP I said I pulled down some comments from another thread {link given and comment numbers listed} where another member suggested to be GOOD hosts to our in coming islamic's that we should/need to tolerate their laws on the beating of women.

I disagree to that entirely. I simply do not see religion of ANY kind a reason for spousal abuse.

 

[320 Years of History]

You may notice in the OP I said I pulled down some comments from another thread {link given and comment numbers listed} where another member suggested to be GOOD hosts to our in coming islamic's that we should/need to tolerate their laws on the beating of women.

I disagree to that entirely. I simply do not see religion of ANY kind a reason for spousal abuse.

Truly, I didn't notice what was written in the other threads because I didn't read them.

I believe the limit of tolerance we can or should show as hosts to immigrating Muslims is tolerating that they would want to behave that way toward women in the country(s) from which they came and tolerating that that is how things work in their former countries.

Most Muslims in America recognize the superiority of the secular law over religious law. It will be in the interest of newly admitted Muslims to do the same. If they choose not to, they will sooner or later be accorded years behind bars to ponder whether they should have or will/can in the future.

 

[oldsoul]

Man, Fishlore, you must be an angry person.

 

[Papageorgio]

Twist and turn the words to fit your stupidity..

Domestic violence is condemned in the Bible. The Golden Rule is the rule that Jesus told all to live by and the law he brought supersedes the Hebrew Laws. Don't let your hate and bigotry get in the way of the facts.

Matthew 5:17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one dot or one mark will pass from the law until all be fulfilled.

Thanks for pointing out my hate and bigotry. Do you really think your can go up against me with your born-again Sunday school hermeneutics?

It is better to hear the rebuke from a wise man than a man listen to the song of fools.
For like the crackling sound of thorns under a pot, so is the mocking laughter of fools. And this is also vanity. Eccl 7: 5-7

Not born again, so you lied there.

Jesus fulfilled the law, nice, you proved me right the two laws Jesus ask us to follow was serve God with your whole heart, mind and soul. The second is to love your neighbor as yourself. Have a great day.

Sorry to hear you are still stuck in the birth canal. The thing you are referring to is called the Sh'ma Yisrael. It is not a law, even in Israel;. and Jesus didn't make it up. It is a daily prayer said by pious Jews everywhere and appears in Deuternonomy 6:4 centuries before Jesus was born. The notion that Jesus brought the Sh'ma Yisrael to the Jews is demonstrably false; that he brought some law other than Torah is without evidence and flatly contradicted by Matthew 5:17. Who taught you Bible studies?

So Jesus never said that? Interesting.

I can't believe you seriously misunderstood what I wrote. What I wrote was: "Jesus didn't make it up. It is a daily prayer said by pious Jews everywhere (certainly including rabbi Jesus) and appears in Deuternonomy 6:4 centuries before Jesus was born. To say that Jesus didn't create the Sh'ma Yisrael isn't the same as saying he never said it.

I'm going to try and dumb this down a bit for the folks who have never studied the Bible in an academic setting: Suppose I claimed that the prayer we call The Our Father was written by Billy Graham to replace all the old forms of Christianity with a new teaching. How would you explain my error?

And what would you say if I responded by saying "so Billy Graham never said The Our Father, is that what you're saying?"

Gee, I never said Jesus made it up, not sure of your point. You don't seem to be able to comprehend simple English. You keep going to places and read into things that aren't there.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fishlore, you do know you have a civic duty to report any spousal abuse regardles whether said abuse is rooted in religious or secular "cause."

 

[Fishlore]

Matthew 5:17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one dot or one mark will pass from the law until all be fulfilled.

Thanks for pointing out my hate and bigotry. Do you really think your can go up against me with your born-again Sunday school hermeneutics?

It is better to hear the rebuke from a wise man than a man listen to the song of fools.
For like the crackling sound of thorns under a pot, so is the mocking laughter of fools. And this is also vanity. Eccl 7: 5-7

Not born again, so you lied there.

Jesus fulfilled the law, nice, you proved me right the two laws Jesus ask us to follow was serve God with your whole heart, mind and soul. The second is to love your neighbor as yourself. Have a great day.

Sorry to hear you are still stuck in the birth canal. The thing you are referring to is called the Sh'ma Yisrael. It is not a law, even in Israel;. and Jesus didn't make it up. It is a daily prayer said by pious Jews everywhere and appears in Deuternonomy 6:4 centuries before Jesus was born. The notion that Jesus brought the Sh'ma Yisrael to the Jews is demonstrably false; that he brought some law other than Torah is without evidence and flatly contradicted by Matthew 5:17. Who taught you Bible studies?

So Jesus never said that? Interesting.

I can't believe you seriously misunderstood what I wrote. What I wrote was: "Jesus didn't make it up. It is a daily prayer said by pious Jews everywhere (certainly including rabbi Jesus) and appears in Deuternonomy 6:4 centuries before Jesus was born. To say that Jesus didn't create the Sh'ma Yisrael isn't the same as saying he never said it.

I'm going to try and dumb this down a bit for the folks who have never studied the Bible in an academic setting: Suppose I claimed that the prayer we call The Our Father was written by Billy Graham to replace all the old forms of Christianity with a new teaching. How would you explain my error?

And what would you say if I responded by saying "so Billy Graham never said The Our Father, is that what you're saying?"

Gee, I never said Jesus made it up, not sure of your point. You don't seem to be able to comprehend simple English. You keep going to places and read into things that aren't there.

I refer you to your post #41 dated Wednesday at 8:20 PM in which you said, and I quote the post in its entirety, "So Jesus never said that? Interesting."

This was a follow-up to your earlier post in which you said, "Jesus fulfilled the law, nice, you proved me right the two laws Jesus ask us to follow was serve God with your whole heart, mind and soul. The second is to love your neighbor as yourself."

This is where you committed the rookie blunder of failure to recognize the Sh'ma Yisrael as a traditional Jewish prayer and presented as some sort of "law" ordained by Jesus as a commandment to his followers.

I understand your needing to weasel out of your foolish post. Your combination of insulting apologetics and boorish arrogance are not worth putting up with because you have demonstrated complete ignorance of even the most basic notions of Christology. In fact, I'm pretty sure you are going to have to Google the term to find out what it means. I don't see any evidence of education in Biblical history or Christian theology in your trolling rants.. Your posts are typical of the illiterate fundamentalist who conflates his own snake-handling primitivism with "Bible study" and attacks anyone who fails to confirm his childish view of Christian history. Good bye.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well at least fishlore, when beaten, did not send for these

 

[Papageorgio]

Not born again, so you lied there.

Jesus fulfilled the law, nice, you proved me right the two laws Jesus ask us to follow was serve God with your whole heart, mind and soul. The second is to love your neighbor as yourself. Have a great day.

Sorry to hear you are still stuck in the birth canal. The thing you are referring to is called the Sh'ma Yisrael. It is not a law, even in Israel;. and Jesus didn't make it up. It is a daily prayer said by pious Jews everywhere and appears in Deuternonomy 6:4 centuries before Jesus was born. The notion that Jesus brought the Sh'ma Yisrael to the Jews is demonstrably false; that he brought some law other than Torah is without evidence and flatly contradicted by Matthew 5:17. Who taught you Bible studies?

So Jesus never said that? Interesting.

I can't believe you seriously misunderstood what I wrote. What I wrote was: "Jesus didn't make it up. It is a daily prayer said by pious Jews everywhere (certainly including rabbi Jesus) and appears in Deuternonomy 6:4 centuries before Jesus was born. To say that Jesus didn't create the Sh'ma Yisrael isn't the same as saying he never said it.

I'm going to try and dumb this down a bit for the folks who have never studied the Bible in an academic setting: Suppose I claimed that the prayer we call The Our Father was written by Billy Graham to replace all the old forms of Christianity with a new teaching. How would you explain my error?

And what would you say if I responded by saying "so Billy Graham never said The Our Father, is that what you're saying?"

Gee, I never said Jesus made it up, not sure of your point. You don't seem to be able to comprehend simple English. You keep going to places and read into things that aren't there.

I refer you to your post #41 dated Wednesday at 8:20 PM in which you said, and I quote the post in its entirety, "So Jesus never said that? Interesting."

This was a follow-up to your earlier post in which you said, "Jesus fulfilled the law, nice, you proved me right the two laws Jesus ask us to follow was serve God with your whole heart, mind and soul. The second is to love your neighbor as yourself."

This is where you committed the rookie blunder of failure to recognize the Sh'ma Yisrael as a traditional Jewish prayer and presented as some sort of "law" ordained by Jesus as a commandment to his followers.

I understand your needing to weasel out of your foolish post. Your combination of insulting apologetics and boorish arrogance are not worth putting up with because you have demonstrated complete ignorance of even the most basic notions of Christology. In fact, I'm pretty sure you are going to have to Google the term to find out what it means. I don't see any evidence of education in Biblical history or Christian theology in your trolling rants.. Your posts are typical of the illiterate fundamentalist who conflates his own snake-handling primitivism with "Bible study" and attacks anyone who fails to confirm his childish view of Christian history. Good bye.

Lol! Can't cop to your mistake, then blather more nothing.

 

[Fishlore]

Sorry to hear you are still stuck in the birth canal. The thing you are referring to is called the Sh'ma Yisrael. It is not a law, even in Israel;. and Jesus didn't make it up. It is a daily prayer said by pious Jews everywhere and appears in Deuternonomy 6:4 centuries before Jesus was born. The notion that Jesus brought the Sh'ma Yisrael to the Jews is demonstrably false; that he brought some law other than Torah is without evidence and flatly contradicted by Matthew 5:17. Who taught you Bible studies?

So Jesus never said that? Interesting.

I can't believe you seriously misunderstood what I wrote. What I wrote was: "Jesus didn't make it up. It is a daily prayer said by pious Jews everywhere (certainly including rabbi Jesus) and appears in Deuternonomy 6:4 centuries before Jesus was born. To say that Jesus didn't create the Sh'ma Yisrael isn't the same as saying he never said it.

I'm going to try and dumb this down a bit for the folks who have never studied the Bible in an academic setting: Suppose I claimed that the prayer we call The Our Father was written by Billy Graham to replace all the old forms of Christianity with a new teaching. How would you explain my error?

And what would you say if I responded by saying "so Billy Graham never said The Our Father, is that what you're saying?"

Gee, I never said Jesus made it up, not sure of your point. You don't seem to be able to comprehend simple English. You keep going to places and read into things that aren't there.

I refer you to your post #41 dated Wednesday at 8:20 PM in which you said, and I quote the post in its entirety, "So Jesus never said that? Interesting."

This was a follow-up to your earlier post in which you said, "Jesus fulfilled the law, nice, you proved me right the two laws Jesus ask us to follow was serve God with your whole heart, mind and soul. The second is to love your neighbor as yourself."

This is where you committed the rookie blunder of failure to recognize the Sh'ma Yisrael as a traditional Jewish prayer and presented as some sort of "law" ordained by Jesus as a commandment to his followers.

I understand your needing to weasel out of your foolish post. Your combination of insulting apologetics and boorish arrogance are not worth putting up with because you have demonstrated complete ignorance of even the most basic notions of Christology. In fact, I'm pretty sure you are going to have to Google the term to find out what it means. I don't see any evidence of education in Biblical history or Christian theology in your trolling rants.. Your posts are typical of the illiterate fundamentalist who conflates his own snake-handling primitivism with "Bible study" and attacks anyone who fails to confirm his childish view of Christian history. Good bye.

Lol! Can't cop to your mistake, then blather more nothing.

You believe Jesus invented the slogan love the Lord your God and to serve him with all your heart and all your soul, and handed it to his followers as the the foundation of a new religion. That is pretty silly even for a fundamentalist born-again. You have a personal relationship with Jesus, why not ask him if he wrote the thing? You may be mighty surprised at the answer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fishlore, you sound desperate.

 

[Coyote]

I'm going to pull down two comments from another thread and post it here. The comments WILL be complete and comment numbers and link to thread given.

"there is a difference between domestic violence that is cultural and domestic violence that is individual".

Okay now that's comment 164.

"it may not be done "in the name of allah"... but the Koran is clear... "if your wife shall disobey you, beat her for she is subservient." (then it tells them to stop beating her if she "obeys")"

That's comment number 165
This thread. Muslims are not staying silent in the wake of the Paris attacks | Page 17 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Okay now I see a couple of issues here.
1, Is domestic violence okay if done under a religious doctrine?
2, If our laws are equal is ANY domestic violence by ANY group okay?
3, Why should we accept/tolerate anything that is illegal by OUR laws?
4, Should not the guest accept the hosts laws?


If WE are expected to re-visit laws concerning the rights of women NOT to be beat then have we failed as a nation AND a people? How do you women feel about being beat until you obey? If that is not a GIANT step backwards for women's rights then I don't know what is.

Anybody care to sort this out?

1. Domestic violence is NEVER ok.
2. Domestic violence is NEVER ok.
3. We should not.
4. Anyone living in a country as guest or citizen must adhere to the laws of that country.

Where do you get the idea that we are "expected to revisit laws concerning the rights of women..."?

 

[DarkFury]

I'm going to pull down two comments from another thread and post it here. The comments WILL be complete and comment numbers and link to thread given.

"there is a difference between domestic violence that is cultural and domestic violence that is individual".

Okay now that's comment 164.

"it may not be done "in the name of allah"... but the Koran is clear... "if your wife shall disobey you, beat her for she is subservient." (then it tells them to stop beating her if she "obeys")"

That's comment number 165
This thread. Muslims are not staying silent in the wake of the Paris attacks | Page 17 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Okay now I see a couple of issues here.
1, Is domestic violence okay if done under a religious doctrine?
2, If our laws are equal is ANY domestic violence by ANY group okay?
3, Why should we accept/tolerate anything that is illegal by OUR laws?
4, Should not the guest accept the hosts laws?


If WE are expected to re-visit laws concerning the rights of women NOT to be beat then have we failed as a nation AND a people? How do you women feel about being beat until you obey? If that is not a GIANT step backwards for women's rights then I don't know what is.

Anybody care to sort this out?

1. Domestic violence is NEVER ok.
2. Domestic violence is NEVER ok.
3. We should not.
4. Anyone living in a country as guest or citizen must adhere to the laws of that country.

Where do you get the idea that we are "expected to revisit laws concerning the rights of women..."?

From the comments quoted in the OP where the person said civilian domestic violence was different from religious domestic violence.

 

[Coyote]

I'm going to pull down two comments from another thread and post it here. The comments WILL be complete and comment numbers and link to thread given.

"there is a difference between domestic violence that is cultural and domestic violence that is individual".

Okay now that's comment 164.

"it may not be done "in the name of allah"... but the Koran is clear... "if your wife shall disobey you, beat her for she is subservient." (then it tells them to stop beating her if she "obeys")"

That's comment number 165
This thread. Muslims are not staying silent in the wake of the Paris attacks | Page 17 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Okay now I see a couple of issues here.
1, Is domestic violence okay if done under a religious doctrine?
2, If our laws are equal is ANY domestic violence by ANY group okay?
3, Why should we accept/tolerate anything that is illegal by OUR laws?
4, Should not the guest accept the hosts laws?


If WE are expected to re-visit laws concerning the rights of women NOT to be beat then have we failed as a nation AND a people? How do you women feel about being beat until you obey? If that is not a GIANT step backwards for women's rights then I don't know what is.

Anybody care to sort this out?

1. Domestic violence is NEVER ok.
2. Domestic violence is NEVER ok.
3. We should not.
4. Anyone living in a country as guest or citizen must adhere to the laws of that country.

Where do you get the idea that we are "expected to revisit laws concerning the rights of women..."?

From the comments quoted in the OP where the person said civilian domestic violence was different from religious domestic violence.

hmm...it's all the same to me.

 

[DarkFury]

I'm going to pull down two comments from another thread and post it here. The comments WILL be complete and comment numbers and link to thread given.

"there is a difference between domestic violence that is cultural and domestic violence that is individual".

Okay now that's comment 164.

"it may not be done "in the name of allah"... but the Koran is clear... "if your wife shall disobey you, beat her for she is subservient." (then it tells them to stop beating her if she "obeys")"

That's comment number 165
This thread. Muslims are not staying silent in the wake of the Paris attacks | Page 17 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Okay now I see a couple of issues here.
1, Is domestic violence okay if done under a religious doctrine?
2, If our laws are equal is ANY domestic violence by ANY group okay?
3, Why should we accept/tolerate anything that is illegal by OUR laws?
4, Should not the guest accept the hosts laws?


If WE are expected to re-visit laws concerning the rights of women NOT to be beat then have we failed as a nation AND a people? How do you women feel about being beat until you obey? If that is not a GIANT step backwards for women's rights then I don't know what is.

Anybody care to sort this out?

1. Domestic violence is NEVER ok.
2. Domestic violence is NEVER ok.
3. We should not.
4. Anyone living in a country as guest or citizen must adhere to the laws of that country.

Where do you get the idea that we are "expected to revisit laws concerning the rights of women..."?

From the comments quoted in the OP where the person said civilian domestic violence was different from religious domestic violence.

hmm...it's all the same to me.

Its all the same to me as well. But as you can tell none of the supporters of that faith have stepped forward to say different. But the practice is different.

 

[Coyote]

I'm going to pull down two comments from another thread and post it here. The comments WILL be complete and comment numbers and link to thread given.

"there is a difference between domestic violence that is cultural and domestic violence that is individual".

Okay now that's comment 164.

"it may not be done "in the name of allah"... but the Koran is clear... "if your wife shall disobey you, beat her for she is subservient." (then it tells them to stop beating her if she "obeys")"

That's comment number 165
This thread. Muslims are not staying silent in the wake of the Paris attacks | Page 17 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Okay now I see a couple of issues here.
1, Is domestic violence okay if done under a religious doctrine?
2, If our laws are equal is ANY domestic violence by ANY group okay?
3, Why should we accept/tolerate anything that is illegal by OUR laws?
4, Should not the guest accept the hosts laws?


If WE are expected to re-visit laws concerning the rights of women NOT to be beat then have we failed as a nation AND a people? How do you women feel about being beat until you obey? If that is not a GIANT step backwards for women's rights then I don't know what is.

Anybody care to sort this out?

1. Domestic violence is NEVER ok.
2. Domestic violence is NEVER ok.
3. We should not.
4. Anyone living in a country as guest or citizen must adhere to the laws of that country.

Where do you get the idea that we are "expected to revisit laws concerning the rights of women..."?

From the comments quoted in the OP where the person said civilian domestic violence was different from religious domestic violence.

hmm...it's all the same to me.

Its all the same to me as well. But as you can tell none of the supporters of that faith have stepped forward to say different. But the practice is different.

The practice is different because of cultural differences around the world and domestic violence is not limited to one religion. In the western world, domestic violence is abhored. It exists, but it isn't as acceptable and we have a better system of laws to deal with it. In many other countries that is not the case, and it is irregardless of religion.