Muslim cut his daughter's throat for taking a Christian boyfriend

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/30/nyones30.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/09/30/ixportal.html

A Kurdish Muslim murdered his 16-year-old daughter because he disapproved of her western way of life and Christian boyfriend, the Old Bailey heard yesterday.

Abdalla Yones, 48, cut his daughter Heshu's throat and left her to bleed to death. He had subjected her to months of beatings before killing her in a frenzied knife attack.

Yones, who until last week denied murdering Heshu, asked the court to impose the death sentence but was told that was not possible under English law. He was jailed for life.

Sentencing him, Judge Neil Denison, said the killing was "a tragic story arising out of irreconcilable cultural differences between traditional Kurdish values and those of western society."


Abdalla Yones: asked for the death sentence




<SNIP>

[rjbcar27]

1. Totally unacceptable

I'm all for understanding different cultures, but this is completely abhorrent.

In the UK, we don't have the death penalty but it's no more than he deserves. Bastard.

[Ernesto]

3. But, one simple question

Am I going to be eternally sorry for not believing in some horse shit mythology while this idiot is sitting @ the throne of god in almighty heaven?... PLEASE! Say it isn't so!... Oh tell me wise holy man what should a sinner such as I do?.... Yeah, RIGHT!.... The assholes that corrupted this idiot's brain have his daughter's blood on their hands!

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LivingInTheBubble]

12. This isnt really part of the culture is it?

he was just a nutter plain and simple.
Feel very sad for her after seeing the picture, she seemed full of life :(

[DuctapeFatwa]

14. It is a part of pre-Abrahamic culture, Christians, other faiths do it too

In those parts of the world where customs are practiced that pre-date today's popular religions.

The notion of women as standalone human beings is a relatively recent phenomenon, even in the West.

Women as property has been the rule rather than the exception from time immemorial for the simple reason that such populations are easier to control.

Literate women teach their children to read, and economically empowered women are more likely to spend their money on things that will enable their children to progress as opposed to weapons that will advance the cause of the regime, king, or chief.

[Character Assassin]

16. Please supply information

On incidents (and not out of the ancient past) where Christianity still practises this 'custom'.

[Paco]

21. Ever hear of Blood Atonement?

"There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.
"I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them....
"And further more, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.
"It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit.... There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, or a calf, or of turtle dove, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man." (Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 53-54); also published in the Mormon Church's Deseret News, 1856, page 235)

The doctrine of blood atonement is alive and well in America of the 21st Century. For more information, do a Google search on the Mormon doctrine.


O8)

[The Magistrate]

22. Is It Then Your Contention, Sir

That the Mormon Church in the present day encourages or requires the commission of murder in any circumstance by its membership?

That there are certain modern-day fringe-cults proclaiming themelves "True Mormons" is true enough, but even in Utah they hardly define the social tone, outside perhaps a few unfortunate rural counties.

[barbaraann]

29. Regarding violence and Mormonism

Here is a review of the book "Under the Banner of Heaven" from amazon

Amazon.com
In 1984, Ron and Dan Lafferty murdered the wife and infant daughter of their younger brother Allen. The crimes were noteworthy not merely for their brutality but for the brothers' claim that they were acting on direct orders from God. In Under the Banner of Heaven, Jon Krakauer tells the story of the killers and their crime but also explores the shadowy world of Mormon fundamentalism from which the two emerged. The Mormon Church was founded, in part, on the idea that true believers could speak directly with God. But while the mainstream church attempted to be more palatable to the general public by rejecting the controversial tenet of polygamy, fundamentalist splinter groups saw this as apostasy and took to the hills to live what they believed to be a righteous life. When their beliefs are challenged or their patriarchal, cult-like order defied, these still-active groups, according to Krakauer, are capable of fighting back with tremendous violence. While Krakauer's research into the history of the church is admirably extensive, the real power of the book comes from present-day information, notably jailhouse interviews with Dan Lafferty. Far from being the brooding maniac one might expect, Lafferty is chillingly coherent, still insisting that his motive was merely to obey God's command. Krakauer's accounts of the actual murders are graphic and disturbing, but such detail makes the brothers' claim of divine instruction all the more horrifying. In an age where Westerners have trouble comprehending what drives Islamic fundamentalists to kill, Jon Krakauer advises us to look within America's own borders. --John Moe

[The Magistrate]

30. It Is Not My Purpose, Ma'am

To defend that charming home-grown blend of Freemasonic ritual and Christian cultus dissolved in fevered imagination, but the murderers you refer to are hardly typical of that established Church. We are not discussing abberant acts, but those widely approved of in a society, and it is an unfortunate fact that the sort of killing which ignited this discussion is a fairly routine thing in large parts of the world.

[The Stranger]

106. Unsubstantiated, unsupportable statements

We are not discussing abberant acts, but those widely approved of in a society, and it is an unfortunate fact that the sort of killing which ignited this discussion is a fairly routine thing in large parts of the world.

Additionally, speaking interms of other societies and other parts of the world begins to smack of ethnocentrism, to put it mildly. The fact that there are religious fanatics in all socieities and in all parts of the world seems to have missed your incredible penchant for hurling generalizations.

[The Magistrate]

108. Oh, Do Give It A Rest, Dear

Or display some knowledge of life and social routines in such venues as Jordan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and the like, in the present day.

You fail even at your self-appointed task of providing entertainment.

[Character Assassin]

24. That is not an answer

Please supply information indicating where such practises have been carried out by Christians.

[DuctapeFatwa]

25. Talk to Chaldean, Syrian Jordanian, Coptic Christians

They can give you plenty of modern-day examples.

Have you ever noticed that in Jersusalem, and other places in the region, you can see women with head-coverings who are Christian, Jewish, and Muslim?

Talk to people in rural areas of Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe, even Spain and Italy.

[The Magistrate]

26. We Are Talking, Sir, About Societies

Generally considered to be the modern democratic West: "First World" countries, if you will. We are also talking about things generally accepted in those societies as normative behavior, not abberations of isolated rustics and disordered persons.

[DuctapeFatwa]

28. I don't think that the notion of "western superiority" is relevant to this

I understand that like white supremacy, it is an ideal cherished by a dwindling but ardent segment of people, but I don't think it has anything to do with patriarchial practices, which are the tradition in the west as everywhere else, as I said in my original post.

The subjugation of women is not confined to one religious, ethnic, or regional group, and arguments that the west considers them property in a superior way may not find overwhelming enthusiasm.

[The Magistrate]

35. You Know Perfectly Well, Mr. Fatwa

That the social and economic and political position of women in the modern West is immeasurably superior to their position in other portions of the globe. By any measures of literacy, property ownership, legal rights and priviliges, that statement is incontrovertibly true. It is not an argument; it is a fact.

It is long past time persons of progressive and left sentiments left off the notion that the civilization and values of the West are the principal locus of wrong in this world. The foolishness of replying to someone pointing out the outrageous treatment meted out to women in traditional societies by recourse to, say, a differential in average pay, is one of the reasons progressive principles do not make even further advances here. People look at that response, and conclude that the persons who make it have no real attachment to such principles, but only view them as a handy club to belabor their own society, as clearly, they do not wish to these things extended to all peoples. If they did, they would denounce these outrages as what they are.

[DuctapeFatwa]

43. I do not know any such thing. I will be glad to discuss this with you when

A young woman paying her way through school in the west can earn more as a research assistant than as a nude dancer.

The percentage of girls in the west who are sexually abused before the age of 18 falls to under 2%

The percentage of rapes that are reported by the victims gets above 90%

The boardrooms and legislative halls contain a % of women that reflects the % in the population

A woman doing the same job earns 100% of what a man doing that job does instead of 76%

Fathers are REALLY required to contribute to the financial costs associated with their children regardless of the mothe's ability to pay for an attorney, and regardless of whether the father has moved out of state and/or sends "token" checks or any of the various workarounds and zog zog zog.

Then we will discuss this matter.

At this time, although you can make the argument that in the east a woman is valued most as a producer of sons, in the west she is valued most as an object of sexual desire.

Nowhere is she valued most as a human being with her own unique contributions to make to the world into which she was born.

Only when that changes can either east or west claim any home runs in this game.

[The Magistrate]

45. Good Luck, Mr. Fatwa

You know little of the economics of the adult entertainment industry: strippers earn very little. People in such trades tend to embellish, and report the best night as routine.

You have no idea the incidence of child abuse and rape in other areas of the world, as there are no reliable statistics. Certainly the percentage of rapes un-reported in many countries is far in excess of that in the West; here reporting is something of an embarrassing ordeal, certainly, but it does not run the risk of prosecution for fornication, as is often the case in some Islamic countries. You are going to have to back up that 90% figure, it sounds rather tricked up.

The percentages of women in executive positions here is so far above that in the regions you seem to be defending that there is no need to belabor the point. Similarly, you will hardly be able to point to a closer correlation of pay in those regions; indeed, you will be hard put to find women being paid wages. My point is not that there is no disparity here, only that it is far, far less than elsewhere, and your wish list does not alter that: in all other places, reality falls far further short of it than here.

Perhaps when a woman in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan can initiate divorce freely, and gain custody of her children, we may discuss the finer points of child support procedures.

My daughter, Sir, is valued as the unique and extraordinary person she is. In your pensees on this matter, you ignore the value women set upon themselves. You ought to investigate this.

[DuctapeFatwa]

51. I cannot blame you for a weak defense of the indefensible

While I cannot claim intimate first-hand knowledge of the "adult entertainment industry," it is a fact of several millennia's standing that guns, intoxicants, and human flesh are the three most profitable businesses in the world.

It is also a fact that research assistant stipends are not generally luxurious, as many a happy Ramen noodle executive has chortled to himself.

I do not doubt that in Saudi Occupied Arabia there are men who value their daughters as you value yours, and who have brought them up to value themselves, as you have done yours, but that does not change the policies of the House of Saud, and you do not make the economic realities of the western world, unless your relationship with Raytheon, et al is a bit closer than anyone suspects.

Both east and west would do well to avoid a contest of who is most oppressive of women, as it would only end in a draw.

The best you can say is that each uses different methods to achieve the same end.

[The Magistrate]

57. Your Assault, Sir, Is Dissipating Like Spit On A Griddle

Profitabilty for the controllers of such a trade is not good remuneration for the raw material of it. You know that, of course, but are determined on a foolish course. Whores do not make good money, as a rule.

The West emerges as a cheerful winner in any contest with the East today concerning where women enjoy greater personal freedom; it will soon be necessary to conclude you are simply ignorant of the world you live in, if you persist.

One of my most charming books is titled "Cannibals All: or, Slaves Without Masters" by a fellow named FitzHugh. The most impudent of the Southron apologists for slavery, his argument boils down to contrasting the reality of a New England mill with the ideal of Carolinas plantation: as might be expected, reality comes off rather the worse. Your style of argument in this matter, Mr. Fatwa, is not so new as you may suppose.

[DuctapeFatwa]

63. The "It's OK if WE do it" argument may not be your best bet either

I think I'll stick with my original statement.

I will gladly discuss this issue with you or anyone else when the conditions in my earlier post on the subject are met.

While your zeal and enthusiasm for touting your notion of the superiority of everything western, even its sins, is noted, I would be less than honest if I did not confess that I am not disposed to engage in the time-honored "Our side is better cuz it's OUR side, dammit!" school of discourse, no value judgment intended, merely a statement of personal preference.

Good day.

[The Magistrate]

64. No, Dear

My argument is the difference between a slap and a bullet through the head: each is certainly a blow; one does far more damage, and is immeasurable more likely to be lethal.

That is the approximate relation between the status of women in the West, and in the societies you defend.

That you do not wish to defend this, past statinmg an ideal none attains is understandable: it is always wise to cut losses and abandon an indefensible position.

[Selwynn]

67. As an aside...

Magistrate you have an incredibly patronizing and obnoxious way of titling your posts -- is it deliberate?

We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.

[DuctapeFatwa]

80. Should you reserve endearments for those whose age and gender you know?

It is not my intention, as I said, to make value judgments, and you are certainly the best determiner of how you wish to be perceived.

I have stated the conditions under which I will discuss this matter, and while I respect your zeal, it is not my preferred method of communication, as previously stated.

[Character Assassin]

50. Aim for the rhetorical stars, shoot the rhetorical feet

A young woman paying her way through school in the west can earn more as a research assistant than as a nude dancer.

That is a non-sequitur to the topic at hand.

The percentage of girls in the west who are sexually abused before the age of 18 falls to under 2%

Impossible to quantify in either culture, and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The percentage of rapes that are reported by the victims gets above 90%

Ditto.

The boardrooms and legislative halls contain a % of women that reflects the % in the population

Meaningless social engineering and equally irrelevant.

A woman doing the same job earns 100% of what a man doing that job does instead of 76%

Please cite the data that led to that conclusion.

Fathers are REALLY required to contribute to the financial costs associated with their children regardless of the mothe's ability to pay for an attorney, and regardless of whether the father has moved out of state and/or sends "token" checks or any of the various workarounds and zog zog zog.

Irrelevant.

Then we will discuss this matter.

How about when you can stay even remotely topical?

At this time, although you can make the argument that in the east a woman is valued most as a producer of sons, in the west she is valued most as an object of sexual desire.

That is opinion, not fact, and flies in the face of available data.

Nowhere is she valued most as a human being with her own unique contributions to make to the world into which she was born.

Impossible to quantify and therefore meaningless.

Only when that changes can either east or west claim any home runs in this game.

If you think that the West has not advanced women's rights by magnitudes moreso than Middle Eastern culture has done you are sorely mistaken.

[DuctapeFatwa]

53. A more compelling argument would be to chant "USA is #1"

preferably while sporting a mullet discretely concealed under a battered ZZTop hat.

[Selwynn]

68. LOL - best post I've read in this chain

[Character Assassin]

73. New to critical thinking and reading comprehension, I see.

A more compelling argument would be to refrain from posting when you clearly have missed the point.

[The Magistrate]

74. Mr. Fatwa, My Friend, Has Mistaken The Scriptural Injunction

We are not to point to the mote in our brother's eye while ignoring the beam in our own. There is no direction to ignore the beam in our brother's eye while pointing to the mote in our own.

[DuctapeFatwa]

81. I prefer to leave literal interpretations of Scripture to those who

relish the notion of various unpleasant procedures involving eyes, teeth, and selling one's daughter into slavery, perhaps because she fails to wear purple.

I cannot in good conscience condemn Crusader attacks against unarmed civilians and then turn around and commit the homologous rhetorical atrocity that is so temptingly laid at my feet.

[Selwynn]

71. Aim for a solid critique, shoot for glib incorrect dismissals

"If you think that the West has not advanced women's rights by magnitudes moreso than Middle Eastern culture has done you are sorely mistaken."

I'm pretty sure that was not the argument being made. You pulled a staw man and changed the argument from:

"The West is not a perfect champion of rights, and we should remember that. Neither East nor West has done enough."

To:

"The west has not avdanced women's rights more than the east" when was not her (her?) argument in the first place.

The rest of your critique of the points are basically smug sounding dismissals, many of which state "irrelevant to the topic at hand." Wrong - they are irrelevant to the topic as you RE-DEFINED it, they are very relivant to the original point, which was that neither east nor west has enough enough, and before we go patting our western selves on the back for how great we are to women, maybe we should acknowledge some of our own problems.

How about at least articulating her argument accurately first, before trying to critique it with your glib remarks.

[Character Assassin]

75. Aim for relevance, but simply shoot off your mouth instead.

"If you think that the West has not advanced women's rights by magnitudes moreso than Middle Eastern culture has done you are sorely mistaken."

I'm pretty sure that was not the argument being made. You pulled a staw man and changed the argument from:

"The West is not a perfect champion of rights, and we should remember that. Neither East nor West has done enough."

To:

"The west has not avdanced women's rights more than the east" when was not her (her?) argument in the first place.

Yes, it's clear you're pretty sure, but not absolutely sure, because you failed to actually keep track of what was actually being said. The poster was responding to this statement: "You know perfectly well that the social and economic and political position of women in the modern West is immeasurably superior to their position in other portions of the globe. By any measures of literacy, property ownership, legal rights and priviliges, that statement is incontrovertibly true. It is not an argument; it is a fact.

To which the poster responded that she knew 'no such thing', and followed with a collection of trite irrelevancies better suited to a Freshman PolySci 101 debate.

The rest of your critique of the points are basically smug sounding dismissals, many of which state "irrelevant to the topic at hand." Wrong - they are irrelevant to the topic as you RE-DEFINED it, they are very relivant to the original point, which was that neither east nor west has enough enough, and before we go patting our western selves on the back for how great we are to women, maybe we should acknowledge some of our own problems.

I understand that you failed to follow the flow of discourse and who was saying what, so I can see how you might completely misaddress concerns to me.

How about at least articulating her argument accurately first, before trying to critique it with your glib remarks.

If you cannot actually see why the points she brought up were irrelevant to the topic at hand, even after the that same topic had been slightly shifted, that's not my problem. Some things are simply so sophomoric or puerile that they don't deserve serious critique, as doing so would lend at least a whiff of credibility to their relevance.

Now then, what were you saying?

[DuctapeFatwa]

84. This post makes my point much more eloquently than I ever could

Thank you.

Making the gender assumption was subtle, but masterful, and a valuable object lesson to all readers.

My compliments.

[Selwynn]

95. Oh I kept up...

with your factual selectivity...

Anything else?

[Character Assassin]

103. Obviously not

Or you wouldn't have made the unwarranted assumptions that you did.

Or perhaps you would have anyway.

Whatever the case, please detail precisely this 'factual selectivity' that you mention.

No, I'll wait.

[Selwynn]

104. This is fun

Should we go tit for tat some more or you ready to let it go now. :)

[Selwynn]

107. Ok let's do this then

Ok let’s do this then:

The subjugation of women is not confined to one religious, ethnic, or regional group, and arguments that the west considers them property in a superior way may not find overwhelming enthusiasm

This is the heart of the argument being made by DF. In response to this, Magistrate contends:

That the social and economic and political position of women in the modern West is immeasurably superior to their position in other portions of the globe.

We are now on a sub-point of the primary argument. DF engages the sub-point, all the while tying it back to his main point, and responds making this point:

At this time, although you can make the argument that in the east a woman is valued most as a producer of sons, in the west she is valued most as an object of sexual desire.

Nowhere is she valued most as a human being with her own unique contributions to make to the world into which she was born.

I will paraphrase this point, and allow DF to correct me if I am misinterpreting. I believe this to mean that, even if on one level you can point to certain materialistic advances for women in the “West” it is by no means far enough – and worse still, it is a trade of for one kind of oppression over another. The oppression of women-as-subservient son-bearers in the East is exchanged for women-as-exploited-objects for consumption in the West.

That is the argument as I understand it. DF proceeds then to give several examples WHICH ARE ALL RELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT AT HAND, which you dismissed as not relevant to the argument YOU wanted to hear. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with the argument - you dismissed everything DF had to say as not relevant. You didn't say "I don't agree with you." Unfortunagely, most all of DF's points are directly relveant to HIS ARGUMENT, which I quoted above. Just because you don't like the argument, or the examples given in support of that argument, doesn't mean they are not relevant. Yours was a fairly unsophsticated and cheap ploy to subtley shift the tennants of the issue.

A young woman paying her way through school in the west can earn more as a research assistant than as a nude dancer.

Relevant to DF’s argument that westernly progress towards female equality has a) not gone far enough and b) exchanged one set of problems for another. Doesn't matter whether you agree or not - its relevant.

The percentage of girls in the west who are sexually abused before the age of 18 falls to under 2%

Relevant to DF’s argument that women-as-objects is a prevalent western problem given the fact that statistical rates of sexual abuse above this 2% mark (and it is well above that mark I believe) are considered (rightfully) to be unacceptable by DF and indicative of the fact that we should perhaps not get caught up in western-flag waving when it comes to our track record toward women. Doesn't matter wheter you argee or not, it's relevant.

The percentage of rapes that are reported by the victims gets above 90%

Same as above

The boardrooms and legislative halls contain a % of women that reflects the % in the population

Arguably related to the claim of one kind of oppression being exchange for another, but probably the weakest point.

Fathers are REALLY required to contribute to the financial costs associated with their children regardless of the mother’s ability to pay for an attorney, and regardless of whether the father has moved out of state and/or sends "token" checks or any of the various workarounds and zog zog zog.

Again, relevant to the argument at hand (which is to be differentiated from your straw-man redefinition of the argument) because it is indicative of a different kind of oppressive attitude, the attitude of exploitative object, sex object or otherwise, a commodity to be consumed and then discarded, with no accountability, responsibility, or relationship.

I don’t care if you disagree with DF and all of these points. I don’t care if you desire to suggest a different point of view. I don’t even, honestly, mind if you come of arrogant, glib and smug, as long as you are factually correct when you do so. However, in this case, your smug dismissive answers were dead wrong, centered on a logical fallacy, and leave you coming off with shallow sense of self superiority that is thoroughly unwarranted.

The only victory you won is getting me to stupidly waste my time point this out, rather than just letting your fallacies go. You want to disagree with DF? Great! Start by engaging his argument, not falsely re-interpreting his argument and then arguing against a position that you manufactured and labeled as his.

The only thing I found remotely interesting and accurate in your response was this: to DF's statement that "Nowhere is she valued most as a human being with her own unique contributions to make to the world into which she was born" you responded that it was "impossible to quantify and therefore meaningless." I question both that it is impossible to quantify and that something which is impossible to quantify is therefore meaningless. I'd happily discuss that philosophically with you, if you like. As to the rest of it, how about you dial down your sense of smug elitism and engage posts like those from DF with a healthy does of openess and dialogue. In trun, I'll get off your back.

[The Magistrate]

110. Fair Enough, Ma'am

It seems to me that if one states an ideal, and contrasts different things to it, the one which falls farthest short of that ideal can be recognized, and properly described as being farther from it. To state that something approaches more nearly to an ideal is not to state it achieves it. Of course, by definition, an ideal can never be achieved: here in this mundane sphere all attempts at it must fall short.

Some people view it as more important that a gap exists between Western practice, and an ideal state of equality proposed by Western philosphies. Some people view it as more important that the West approaches this ideal equality more closely by far than any number of other societies. Some people, too, view it as important that the Western philosophy encourages a self-criticism that opens the possibility to self-correction, by the very gap between its practice and its ideals.

Beside the self-evident fact that women in the West enjoy far better status in the gross measures of legal rights, literacy, and control of wealth and property, one thing seems to me beyond argument in this matter. The condition of women in the West has rather improved over the last two centuries, and more rapidly so in the last several decades. This is not true of other societies in the world, save where these have come under destabilizing influence from the West. What improvement in their status has occured elsewhere is owing to the foreign influence. There are, in some other cultures, possible routes to achieve such improvement, but they have not been capitalized on absent Western impact.

Further, it seems to me the gross degree to which women are held powerless in many societies is a key element in the conditions of endemic poverty and corruption that afflict them. As Mao said, "Women hold up half the sky!" and it seems self-evident that if half the population is prevented forcibly from fullest development of its talents, the society so afflicted must suffer, even by compare to one where this is less the case.

[Selwynn]

112. For the sake of argument:

Define "improved."

You have defined it, you've said that women's lot has rather improved in terms of legal rights, literacy, and wealth. But of course that is not the argument DF was making. The argument DF was making is (I think, still haven't been corrected by DF if I am wrong that a) its not good enough and b)one set of problems has been exchanged for another (more or less) - so simply coming back and re-hashing the same argument of "look how far the west as come" is really like carrying on parallel coversations. If you want to debate DF then you're going to need to start by saying, "I disagree with your claim that a) the west does not go far enough and b) we have exchanged one set of problems for another. Simply restating that "we've come along way" isn't really the argument.

[The Magistrate]

115. Not Really, Ma'am

Mr. Fatwa, an old sparring mate from down in the Israel v. Palestine dungeon, is offering an argument you correctly describe, but adducing it to defend from criticism a thing which has made far less progress toward the proposed ideal than the one he is assailing. This carries no weight with me whatever. To say something has "gone far enough" is to state that no improvement is possible, and that is not my contention. It is, rather, my contention that something needs to be done to see to it women everywhere have at least the legal status, literacy, and economic resources they have in the West today, rather than the lack of legal rights, illiteracy, and enforced dependence that is their lot in so much of the world, and further, that this is a proper sphere for progressive and leftist organization and political and economic action, at least. It seems to me that this is only consistent, and will even render more effective efforts towards continued improvement in this matter here, since as matters stand, it is rather easy to charge hypocrisy when left and progressive people argue as Mr. Fatwa does. Most people see the gross and quantifiable things as more important than the subtle, and feel people who do not concentrate first on the former are not really serious.

Indeed, that is my own view of the "merely exchanged for another form of oppression" argument. It is a mere form of words, lacking substance. The one form of oppresion is lethal: women in Afghanistan, in India, for example, have a shorter average life-span than do men, and among adults, are outnumbered by men. Women in the West have an increasingly longer average life-span than men, and among the older adults, outnumber men. That is perhaps the coldest measure of what a form of oppression is worth.

[Selwynn]

114. Magistrate:

You know you really ought to stop with the "M'ams" "Sirs" and "Dears" until you can figure out what the hell gender the people you are addressing actually ARE!

Or better yet, why not just drop the gender titles all together. And while your at it, maybe you might give some thought to the fact that there is a substantial difference between being capable of intenseness verbage and making the language powerfully express your ideas. Your post inevitably sound like a person trying desperately hard to "sound" smart.

I am sure you are smart so please, could you stop calling people "M'an" who are men, "Sirs" who are woman, and "Dears" who deserve far more respect, and could you stop trying to "sound" smart and simply be the smart intellectually sophisticated person we know you are. Words should serve the message, not the other way around. When I have to parse through your verbosity to strain a point, something is misaligned. It doesn't sound smart, or sophisticated, or professional, or courteous. It sounds like someone who is insecure trying to SOUND smart and sophisticated and professional and courteous. Say what you think and say it clearly, using the most direct and precise words as essential to conveying your point, that would be my suggestion.

Oh sure, you are very welcome to criticize me for what some may consider a personal attack. But there it is anyway.

Thank you.

[The Magistrate]

116. That Was Remiss Of Me, Sir

Not to check your profile: my machine often breaks connection when moving about the site, so unnecessary shifts are avoided. No insult or disparragement was intended, and my guesses are not always correct.

[number6]

128. right on !!

:yourock:

[Character Assassin]

113. Most certainly, then....

First off, let's include the entire quote.

I don't think that the notion of "western superiority" is relevant to this. I understand that like white supremacy, it is an ideal cherished by a dwindling but ardent segment of people, but I don't think it has anything to do with patriarchial practices, which are the tradition in the west as everywhere else, as I said in my original post.

The subjugation of women is not confined to one religious, ethnic, or regional group, and arguments that the west considers them property in a superior way may not find overwhelming enthusiasm.

This is the heart of the argument being made by DF. In response to this, Magistrate contends:

That the social and economic and political position of women in the modern West is immeasurably superior to their position in other portions of the globe.

We are now on a sub-point of the primary argument. DF engages the sub-point, all the while tying it back to his main point, and responds making this point:

At this time, although you can make the argument that in the east a woman is valued most as a producer of sons, in the west she is valued most as an object of sexual desire.

Nowhere is she valued most as a human being with her own unique contributions to make to the world into which she was born.

I will paraphrase this point, and allow DF to correct me if I am misinterpreting. I believe this to mean that, even if on one level you can point to certain materialistic advances for women in the “West” it is by no means far enough – and worse still, it is a trade of for one kind of oppression over another. The oppression of women-as-subservient son-bearers in the East is exchanged for women-as-exploited-objects for consumption in the West.

That is the argument as I understand it. DF proceeds then to give several examples WHICH ARE ALL RELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT AT HAND, which you dismissed as not relevant to the argument YOU wanted to hear. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with the argument - you dismissed everything DF had to say as not relevant. You didn't say "I don't agree with you." Unfortunagely, most all of DF's points are directly relveant to HIS ARGUMENT, which I quoted above. Just because you don't like the argument, or the examples given in support of that argument, doesn't mean they are not relevant. Yours was a fairly unsophsticated and cheap ploy to subtley shift the tennants of the issue.

The problem is I reject the proposition The subjugation of women is not confined to one religious, ethnic, or regional group, and arguments that the west considers them property in a superior way may not find overwhelming enthusiasm and consider that itself to be a cheap ploy to shift attention away from the topic at hand. Admittedly, I didn't vocalize (or write) this, but I felt it unnecessary to anyone interested in following the orginal argument through, rather than trying to superimpose some some macro-paradigm over it, which was not only unjustified, but innacurate as well, as I shall shortly address.

A young woman paying her way through school in the west can earn more as a research assistant than as a nude dancer.

Relevant to DF’s argument that westernly progress towards female equality has a) not gone far enough and b) exchanged one set of problems for another. Doesn't matter whether you agree or not - its relevant.

Alright, I'll address matters on their own level, divorced from whether or not they are pertinent to the original subject.

The statement, and almost all of the others, is sheer hyperbole, and a distraction from what the poster's point actually is. The same holds true for a male student who would wish to offer his services as a nude dancer while attending school. So what?

The percentage of girls in the west who are sexually abused before the age of 18 falls to under 2%

Relevant to DF’s argument that women-as-objects is a prevalent western problem given the fact that statistical rates of sexual abuse above this 2% mark (and it is well above that mark I believe) are considered (rightfully) to be unacceptable by DF and indicative of the fact that we should perhaps not get caught up in western-flag waving when it comes to our track record toward women. Doesn't matter wheter you argee or not, it's relevant.

You really want to argue this point? I consider it irrelevant because the rate of sexual abuse, whatever it is and however it might be calculated, doesn't necessarily correlate with the contention that women are seen as objects, which itself isn't a quanitfiable property. Could the argument be made? Sure, I suppose, but it hasn't been.

The percentage of rapes that are reported by the victims gets above 90%

Same as above

Likewise for me.

The boardrooms and legislative halls contain a % of women that reflects the % in the population

Arguably related to the claim of one kind of oppression being exchange for another, but probably the weakest point.

Possibly. I still do not accept its relevancy.

Fathers are REALLY required to contribute to the financial costs associated with their children regardless of the mother’s ability to pay for an attorney, and regardless of whether the father has moved out of state and/or sends "token" checks or any of the various workarounds and zog zog zog.

Again, relevant to the argument at hand (which is to be differentiated from your straw-man redefinition of the argument) because it is indicative of a different kind of oppressive attitude, the attitude of exploitative object, sex object or otherwise, a commodity to be consumed and then discarded, with no accountability, responsibility, or relationship.

Now that, I might agree, has validity, but I would have to see stats on the percentage of cases where this occurs after divorces and where it does not.

I don’t care if you disagree with DF and all of these points. I don’t care if you desire to suggest a different point of view. I don’t even, honestly, mind if you come of arrogant, glib and smug, as long as you are factually correct when you do so. However, in this case, your smug dismissive answers were dead wrong, centered on a logical fallacy, and leave you coming off with shallow sense of self superiority that is thoroughly unwarranted.

I don't care if you think I come across in any particular manner, and I stand by my contention that, in fact, my points are factually correct.

The only victory you won is getting me to stupidly waste my time point this out, rather than just letting your fallacies go.

You have yet to support that my points were fallacies.

You want to disagree with DF? Great! Start by engaging his argument, not falsely re-interpreting his argument and then arguing against a position that you manufactured and labeled as his.

I didn't 'reinterpret' his argument. I clearly stated I considered it besides the point and factually inaccurate.

The only thing I found remotely interesting and accurate in your response was this: to DF's statement that "Nowhere is she valued most as a human being with her own unique contributions to make to the world into which she was born" you responded that it was "impossible to quantify and therefore meaningless."

You find it 'remotely interesting'? Excellent.

I question both that it is impossible to quantify and that something which is impossible to quantify is therefore meaningless.

This doesn't suprise me. How then does one quantify personal feelings? How does one assign numerical value to an asserion based on emotion?

I'd happily discuss that philosophically with you, if you like. As to the rest of it, how about you dial down your sense of smug elitism and engage posts like those from DF with a healthy does of openess and dialogue. In trun, I'll get off your back.

That is a quality that you assign to my my posts, and one that I, as should be obvious, dispute.

[Selwynn]

122. There are only two statements I care about

This one:

Admittedly, I didn't vocalize (or write) this

Which is where you should have stopped writing. And this one:

You really want to argue this point?

No, I don't want to argue this point. I'll let DF argue this point if that's what he wants to do. I am not particularly passionate about this subject. What I am passionate about, is cracking down on glib dimsissive oversimplications of arguments, or deliberate re-definition of arguments for the sake of putting down the quality of someone else's point of view while building yourself up.

Considering my work here now done, I shall retire from this particular thread, leaving you to struggle pointlessly for some pithy last word. Good day. :)

[The Magistrate]

125. You Will Be Back, Fellow

People who mean to leave it go simply do so. People who announce their intention to depart cannot resist the urge to return and see if they were obeyed by a cessation of the dispute, or what consternation they may have caused, or what compliments they may have received.

The position you have spent such energy supporting here boils down to asserting a woman is more gravely injured by being asked if she is a prostitute than she is by being clubbed on the head, robbed of her paycheck, and told by a judge her identification of the attacker is no proof he did the deed. This is like a man stepping into the street with his shoes on his head and his hat on his feet. Such perversity does not come naturally to even a human being, but must be cultivated by a careful course of study, and maintained by an energetic auto-hypnosis. Most people are unwilling to expend such effort in such an arcane direction, and will cling to the self-evident view that to be clubbed and robbed is the graver injury. Persons who urge on them that no condemnation can be made of robbery with violence until solicitation for prostitution is stamped out entirely will rouse at best amusement, and at worst contemptuous outrage. This is a natural and healthy reaction, flowing from empathy for an injured felllow creature. For reasons that have never been too clear to me, some people think such exercises in BlackWhite indicate their superiority to the common run of humanity, and this seems the leading purpose behind such expression.

[joshcryer]

46. Only for the past 50 years or so it has been a relative 'fact.'

And even then, there still exist levels of oppression upon women.

The point of the above posters comment wasn't that western civilization was superior, but that western civilization, like all societies, isn't immune from nutcases.

3rd world countries are more prone to these sorts of behaviors due to economic and social conditions.

[The Magistrate]

49. In Many Cases, Sir

Those economic and social conditions are directly traceable to religiousity.

Nor is a perceptible differential only traceable to the last half-century or so. You can find fellows from seventeenth century England stating only the Turk knows how to avoid rule by women....

[joshcryer]

65. That's a dubious comment, at best.

The west achieved its wealth due to untapped resources, not because it somehow magically had the 'correct' set of religious ideals. You cannot compare the achievements of the west to other countries (in a religious context) when clearly the situations were different from a social (non-religious) standpoint.

And certainly the feminist movement, has only made true headway in the past 50 years or so. Birth control being the single most important factor. A solution impossible in 3rd world countries without technology or grasp of higher level sciences.

[The Magistrate]

72. The Point Had Nothing To Do With Religion In The West, Sir

The advancement of the West came in proportion to the secularization of society, in other words, as it began to abandon religion.

If you examine the condition of women in the West at point from the Enlightenment onwards, and compare it to contemporary practices in the Islamic, Hindu, and Chinese cultures, you will find the contrast more favorable to the West. Not nearly so much as today, but perceptibly.

[joshcryer]

76. That secularization was due more in part to the vast resources...

...than anything else. There was enough to be had for all, and there was no one preventing those who wanted to from going out and attaining anything. Obviously there is a difference (and I don't deny this, I could see the East working on quite a few things here), but the US has had time to both refine its culture, and gain more and more wealth (making the cultural refinement much much easier).

In the third world, however, this is obviously not the case. Wealth or opportunity do not exist for most (I won't even mention the lack of education and other hygenic things).

You blame a whole religion for a problem that cannot be attributed to just the religion. Nothing is as black and white as you laughably make it.

I have major problems with what this guy did, but I don't blame his religion as a whole. I blame a whole set of factors, starting with basic fundamentalism and literal interpretation of text.

The US isn't immune, and visions of grandure don't change that.

[The Magistrate]

78. Not True, Sir

There were no vast, untapped resources in Europe.

The root of the secularization was the collapse of religious order amid the Black Death and the divided Papacy of the Avignon period. This broke the hold of a unitary orthodoxy over the minds of the people. The breakdown eroded the hold of nobility as a sacred order, and opened the way for the merchant as the chief holder of property and hence capital.

In the empires of the Ottoman and Ching and Mogul, and associated polities, antient patterns in which land formed the sole secure capital, remained in force, with their accompanying inefficiencies of taxation. In all, these were reinforced by religious and traditional orthodoxies (Confucianism does not quite count as a religion in this sense) which worked to hold the societies to this elder pattern. It was not a lack of resources, but a social organization that either exploited them inefficiently, or had achieved a sort of steady state in muscle-power exploitation that offered no openings for innovation.

Once the West reached its point of expansion, these things placed those societies at an appalling disadvantage in the ensuing conflict. The Chinese fared best, the Islamic fared the worst.

[joshcryer]

83. Europe quite benefitted a lot from western expansion.

And, it can be quite effectively argued that the black death created vast untapped resources, given the decline in populations and increased ablity to support society.

No doubt the empires you cited used religious and other orthodoxies, but you can't say on the whole the society was 'wealthy,' either. They were controlled by the elites. Much like these dictatorial countries are which just so happen to have a Muslim religion; it's obviously in the elites best interest to interpret these texts brutally.

[The Magistrate]

85. The Demonstration Ought Not To Be Necessary, Mr. Cryer

That Europe benefited by colonization only demonstrates there were plenty of resources to be efficiently exploited in the colonies, which upsets the idea it was lack of resource that retarded such societies.

Surely you do not imagine there were not tremendous disparities of wealth in Enlightenment and Industrial Age Europe? The very Left itself grew out of revolutionists' attempts to address those colossal disparities.

[joshcryer]

87. Your whole first paragraph was nonsensical.

Could you perhaps restate it?

[The Magistrate]

89. Slowly, Then, Sir, As If Speaking To A Policeman

You began by asserting Europe derived its advantage over what is now the less developed world owing to an abundance resources in the one, and a lack of same in the other.

You end by saying Europe benefited greatly by its expansion and control of the resources of those same other areas of the world.

Therefore, clearly there were resources to exploit in those areas, or the Europeans would not have gained such benefit by control and exploitation of them.

One point you have stumbled onto is valid: the elites in these societies did maintain the traditional ways there, and largely for the furtherance of their own power. It was this which both hampered the development of available resources in those societies, and left them vulnerable to European conquest. It is therefore of little use to view the colonial period as a thing owing solely to European expansion: this could not have been achieved against societies of different character.

There is a Balkan proverb apt to the case: "It is not just the fault of the axe, but of the tree as well."

[joshcryer]

92. I'm still confused by your assertion that.

Europe benefitting from colonization "upsets the idea it was lack of resource that retarded such societies."

The point was that once you've formed this culture of fairly distributed wealth, you don't have to worry about it, and it will foster real democrasy and so on. It's getting the culture, first, that is difficult. Obviously all these third world countries have corrupt cultures (or at least, undesirable cultures), but this is by no means the fault of religion; merely the overreaching power structures that institute different policies (including, but obviously not limited to, religion) in order to maintain those power structures.

[The Magistrate]

93. Your Confusion, Sir, Is Your Own Argument

In your No. 65 above, initiating this exchange, you state "The West achieved its wealth due to un-tapped resources..." Beginning your No. 76, you state "That secularization was due more in part to the vast resources than anything else." Clearly, you began with the contention that the resource base in Europe was superior to elsewhere, else why such stress upon it? Remember, you offered this as the basis for secularization in the West, not an outcome of secularization, which did not occur elsewhere. In your No. 83 you state "it can be quite effectively argued that the black death created vast untapped resources," yet the Great Mortality affected other places comparably, and without the same result. In China, for example, at roughly the same point in the 14th century, the population declined roughly a third, owing to plague and disorder of a generation of revolution against the Mongol Yuan dynasty. No analog of secularization resulted, but rather the contrary: a sort of Confucian restoration embodied in the Ming dynasty appeared. The dying in the collapse of the Ming and establishment of the Manchu Ching in the early 17th century was as great, but again nothing comparable to secularization emerged.

If you offer vast resources as the basis of secularization, which you clearly have done, you explain its absence as owing to lack of resources. Yet the Europeans realized great profits from the resources of these very regions, and so these must have been ample.

The statement that wealth was fairly distributed in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries is untrue, as is the assertion that anyone could go out and do whatever he wanted. There was nothing automatic about the establishment of liberty and some better sharing out of wealth in the West; it was won by a mix of violence and the threat of violence by the less well off.

Religion was the principle prop of social inequality, and the things you refer to as "corrupt cultures" throughout human history. It remains so today. Where religion has little practical power, the lives of ordinary people, and the quality of the societies in which they live, tends to be better. The West took this step; others did not. The result is the world you see before you.

[Character Assassin]

82. Religion + tribalism = Stagnation. Or hadn't you noticed?

That secularization was due more in part to the vast resources than anything else. There was enough to be had for all, and there was no one preventing those who wanted to from going out and attaining anything. Obviously there is a difference (and I don't deny this, I could see the East working on quite a few things here), but the US has had time to both refine its culture, and gain more and more wealth (making the cultural refinement much much easier).

That is a vast, almost cinematic oversimplification.

In the third world, however, this is obviously not the case. Wealth or opportunity do not exist for most (I won't even mention the lack of education and other hygenic things).

Which is due in great part to tribalism and yes, the religion native to the area in question.

You blame a whole religion for a problem that cannot be attributed to just the religion. Nothing is as black and white as you laughably make it.

Islam is not the only culture and/or religion to have failed to have capitalized on previous knowledge and advance as did the West. In the 1300-1400s, China had exploring ships that got to the east coast of Africa. When the Imperial Court had a change of heart, the ships were never sent out after their return. China turned inward, convinced there was nothing good outside China.

Intellectual advancement has tended to go hand-in-hand with intellectual freedom and prosperity. The Caliphate years of a millennium past had these attributes in places like Eygpt and Bagdad. Later on, a similar golden age happened in Muslim Spain where the intellectual fevor was increased by the synbiosis of the Muslim, Christian and Jewish cultures.

When religion starts to trump intellectual freedom, as happened in both Islam and Renaissance Catholicism, the fertile ground becomes barren. Once the Holy Office of the Inquisition got started in the Roman Catholic countries, it was the Protestant societies that assumed the intellectual lead.

The Islamic countries, for whatever reason, never re-developed a societal culture that encourages intellectual freedom. The defeat of the Islamic conquest in France and Austria let Europe develop on its own. When King Adolphus of Sweden defeated the anti-Protestant Catholic League, the North Europe countries started their trans-world explorations and exploitations which has made the underpinning of our modern world.

Islam and China and many other countries / societies have had their opportunities and there may be some other one that will shape the future, but until then, it is the West of Europe & the Americas and the intellectually free democracies that lead in promulgation of individual rights, science and technology, financial deregulation and flexibility and general societal health overall.

[joshcryer]

86. Granted.

Which is due in great part to tribalism and yes, the religion native to the area in question.

Don't forget the elites who control the resources, though.

I agree with your whole post, and I don't think I've missed anything. Unlike you and Mister Capitalize Every Other Word in His Topics, I don't think this is an 'us vs them' situation, nor should it be. This is an 'us vs leaders of corrupt ideologies,' situation in my mind.

[Karenina]

91. It happens in Orthodox Jewish communities too.

Sons killing their mothers for trying to get a "Get." It's about patriarchal FUNDAMENTALISM, not about which "religion" is into it. Same shit, different silverware patterns.

[DeathvadeR]

27. nuts come in all shapes and sizes and religions. n/t

[KharmaTrain]

2. An Appeal Letter From Rev. Robertson To Follow...

Get ready for a 2 week special report on the 700 Club...the persecution of Christians and this will be the showcase. Of course, the good Rev. will not utter word one of the many Iraqi Moslems who have met their Valhalla at the business end of American ordinance who just happened to be wearing the wrong skin-color or atop too much oil.

I haven't seen, maybe that's a good thing, much discussion on the book by Rush Limbaugh's even lamer brother (not sure if by the same egg and sperm donors)that claims Christians in America are being persecuted.

Sure, this incident will be used by Islamic fundamentalists who see Christians as "poluting" their culture...and any student of history over the past 100 years is hard-pressed to dispute their claims, but it'll also be another wood for the cross for the religious wingnuts in this country...and thus another money-making opportunity for BushCo.

[Selwynn]

33. (edit)

[JNelson6563]

4. a few years ago

I caught a story on TV about a similar thing but with a twist. Seems there was this guy that the US Government was investigating for some illegal business dealings. They bugged his house.

Apparently the teen-aged daughter of this fellow liked America and wanted to live like an American teenager. She took a job a Wendy's. Apparently the father thought this was dishonoring the family.

She came home from work one night and he killed her. The next morning when they checked the survellience audio tape there it was. The screaming of the girl and the father crooning "Yes, die my daughter, die" once the chaos died down. Needless to say it was an easy conviction in court. I believe the mother got time too for standing there and watching.

It haunted me for a long time.

Julie

[ikojo]

18. Julie the story you reference happened in

St Louis, Missouri. It was sometime in the 1990s. The Palestinian immigrant was upset that his daughter was assimilating more than he had desired. I think she was also seeing a non Muslim. I tried to locate a story via google but could not.

[smirkymonkey]

6. This is sickening...

I simply cannot understand how a parent could kill his own child. Murdering a child, or anyone for that matter, is morally abhorrent - cultural differences be damned!

[kodi]

7. his personal god must be so proud of him

.

[ithacan]

8. and the purpose for starting this thread is

what?

[maxanne]

9. aspects of this need to be discussed

I choose not to ignore the simple fact that women are beaten, murdered, and raped every single day because they are regarded as "less than" in their culture. (I do not mean just Muslims, either - it happens right here in the USofA.) Honor killings, and FGM must be stopped - and they could be, if anyone really cared enough about what happens to women in the world. Sadly - we do not.

I heard Howard Dean speak in May - and one thing he said that really affected me, was this: In countries where women have full equality, there is no terrorism.

[Tansy_Gold]

10. Thank you, maxanne

I would ask this question --

How often do we read/hear of fathers who have slit the throats of their sons who have taken girlfriends outside the faith? Why is it okay for boys to do as they please -- love, whore, fornicate, marry, breed -- with infidels, but if a girl does it, she deserves only death?

[JNelson6563]

11. If you become familiar

with some of the "holy books" you will see a well established tradition of women being viewed and treated as inferior. These traditions are merely continued throughout the ages.

Seems to me we are stuck in a rut on the Evolution Express.

Julie

[bemildred]

15. It's characteristic of patriarchal cultures,

the issue is ensuring that ones offspring are ones own,
so that the familial line of inheritance is protected.

In matriarchal cultures nobody gives a shit because there is
never any question who the mother might be.

I reckon a 100% inheritance tax would stomp it out fast enough.

[ozone_man]

99. I think you've identified the problem here.

This is what turns many feminist women off from religion (my wife for one). There was never much hope for me, I'm probably an atheist. But the biggest compaint I always heard from her was how paternalistic the Bible was, and she really hated Paul (a woman hater?).

I always liked the matriarchal cultures like the Native Americans and their animist type religion. Makes more sense to me with their profound respect for animal life and the environment. I bet they treat women with much more respect also.

[bleedingheart]

19. I agree 100 percent

one thing we need less of is violence towards women and children.

[Character Assassin]

13. The purpose for you questioning its validity is

What?

[ikojo]

17. A similar thing happened in St Louis in the 1990s

A Palestinian immigrant disapproved of his teenage daughter adopting more western ways. There was an argument and he killed her. I believe he is now serving a life sentence.

[MetaTrope]

20. Thankfully we don't have Christians killing their own children in the U.S.

:eyes:

[Mari333]

23. Yes, Andrea Yates was a..um.....never mind.

!

[bemildred]

31. Yup, no child abuse here, that's for sure.

:eyes:

[playahata1]

36. And Susan Smith....

And that 300-pound Jehovah's Witness in Chicago and his 5 kids.

[joshcryer]

48. Yeah, thank goodness the US's "western ideals" make us immune!

I mean! My goodness! What would things be like if there existed people who killed others because they're instable?

[nocreativename]

70. no instead they

They teach them to hate other people and the environment.

Look what the Catholics did to the Native Americans. Look at how US Christians treat the people of Iraq.

I'm not saying this is ok, I'm saying no religion can point a finger.

And if that was sarcasm sorry. I spent a little time in Turkey and the Muslims there seem very friendly. I think this was just a nut case.

[LeftHander]

32. Christian Father to rape daughter since she was 3

Or how about an old Onion favorite...

Man who enjoys sex with other men saves child from burning building.


No one seems to notice the blantant effect that "selective shock value journalism" has. This story though sad is picked out to keep people against the muslim world.

[maxanne]

37. you may be right

but the fact is that this sort of gender specific violence happens around the world every day. To poo poo it as just a Muslim smear campaign is a fine way of minimizing the global crimes against women.

I guess the answer is not to discuss it - and by all means do nothing about it. :eyes:

[The Magistrate]

39. We Must Not Impose Our Standards, Ma'am

We cannot privilige one view or cultural arrangement over another, and only the flaws in one's own may be addressed.

Once an English officer, having heard out a delegation of noteables protesting his banning of suttee as an intolerable interference with local custom, replied: "In my country, too, gentlemen, we have a custom: when men burn women we hang them, and confiscate their property. I shall therefore direct my carpenter to erect gibbets from which to hang all concerned once the widow is consumed. Tomorrow, gentlemen, let us both act in accordance with native custom."

[Selwynn]

55. Yes we must.

Protecting culture diversity, right up to the point of crimes against humanity/human rights voliations. I refuse to allow genocide because its a "cultural thing" for example. There are times where the line is crossed, where culture rights infringe on human rights and that is when we must intervene.

[maxanne]

56. horse shit,

Magistrate.

I suggest to you that if a culture advocated cutting off little boys penises, we'd be fighting wars about it. Your attitude of dismissal is all too common among persons of the male gender. If it were men who were affected, you would not be serving up these platitudes to me.

[The Magistrate]

59. My Apologies To You Both

It seemed to me my sarcasm was self-evident: clearly that was an error.

[LevChernyi]

90. What is it you want to do about it?

I'm not down for fighting any wars over castration male or female and other than that I don't know how you are going to make people behave according to your morals.

[maxanne]

101. My Morals?

Do your morals include FGM, stonings, and honor killings?

Do you think we should sit idly by while human rights violations occur and just say, "ho-hum - deplorable stuff - but that's their culture?"

What I want to do about it is talk about it. What I want is for the world to take it seriously. What I want is a world where women matter.

Why do you even need to ask?

[LevChernyi]

102. That's fine..

those are my morals as well. I'm not as confident in them as you are after witnessing the War in Afghanistan butressed by arguments that a set of clothing was a causus beli. This makes me extremely leary of getting close to such topics.

I think it's interesting in these things that asking people to be objective about other cultures even if they do things distastful to our standards is "moral relativism" but the same usual suspects never fail to defend historical figures from their own culture who lived in different times as needing to be defined by those times.

I'll also stress that the same conservative forces existed here regarding women and no one from other countries needed to "rescue" Western women to try and advance change. I posit that these are things where your condemnation (especially since it seems to bring down air assaults and conquest) is actually counterproductive.

[maxanne]

111. ah, so by all means

let us just ignore these issues. The heck with them, they're only women - and women are the disposible gender.

I suggest your acceptance of a global climate of violence against women is reprehensible.

[LevChernyi]

118. there were liberal idiots..

Who supported the British Empire's various wars out of concerns for women or an even more concrete evil slavery. History doesn't look kindly on them. I would hope that when people look back at me they see an anti-imperialist and not some tool that followed various "moral" justifications for expansionism.

[maxanne]

120. nice dance

The bottom line is, though, that you are willing to continue to allow human rights violations to continue on against half the world's population. Heaven help we should interfere in matters pertaining to "culture" - at least not where women are concerned.

[LevChernyi]

121. bottom line is..

You not only have no idea how to remake the world in your image (except perhaps at muzzlepoint), you project onto women in developing countries your own priorities. These are people who largely struggle to feed and clothe their families and who would find your fixation on chauvanistic elements of their culture perplexing if not insulting given the real life and death situations they deal with every day.

[maxanne]

123. I see

wanting to keep them alive is a chauvinistic thing on my part. :eyes:

I am concerned with the life and death situations they deal with every day. I am concerned that men are stoning women to death, and killing them because of real or imagined insults. I am concerned that women are subjected to genital mutilation every single day.

What I cannot fathom are people like you who smugly sit back and find ways to excuse and justify - thereby enabling it's perpetutation. I cannot fathom the total lack of concern on your part. That you condemn me for caring is even more reprehensible.

[LevChernyi]

124. I don't "condemn" you

I just wonder what the point of it all is. I followed RAWA way before anyone else really cared. What became of it all? The issue got used as propaganda, no one gave a damn when RAWA themselves said they didn't want peoples help in the form of ariel bombardment. No one seemed to care that people were starving, you had journalists asking these women who were eating grass about burquas.

Care all you want, I feel like I got burned on it and it's become just some a new tool in the bag of the "Clash of Civilations" crowd.

[The Magistrate]

117. Perhaps Not, Sir

"Violence is the final test of sincerity in human affairs."

[LevChernyi]

119. Is there any way to make a violent statement regarding..

"Mind your own business", I think it may be one of my more militant concepts but I can't think of much way to prove it given those standards.

[The Magistrate]

126. This Is A Public Forum, Sir

There is no need for the Irishman to ask if it is a private fight, or may anyone join in.

You may have noted in yourself a certain twinge of anger, and it just might have crossed your mind to wish a smack might be really dealt. If so, you may be taken as sincere in your objection to the thing. If not, your objection to this is of no more worth than your pious utterances in the matter you are attempting to debate above.

[LevChernyi]

127. of course not..

I'm sorry I worded that poorly. I wasn't trying to tell you to shut up. I was wondering aloud how one could display a militant non-cultural interventionist stance.

[The Magistrate]

129. By Resisting Attempts To Intervene In Other's Affairs, Sir

Do not mistake the full purport of Mr. Shaw's observation: to be willing to endure violence as well as, or instead of, being willing to inflict it is contained in the meaning.

However, if one does feel there is an outrageous quality to some other culture's practice, yet is not willing in the final analysis to see something done to end it, the sincerity of that opposition can well be called into question.

When person's of progressive views make exculpatory noises for practices elsewhere that anyone can see are gross violations of every standard progressive seek to hold their own culture to it, it rather weakens the force of the arguments advanced for further improvement of their own culture. Most people do see this as indicating a lack of seriousness in their views.

[LevChernyi]

130. it all starts coming apart though

I can well imagine some group of Mullah's clucking their heads over AIDS, drugs, child abuse, etc.. and deciding it would be cowardly not to try and do something about it. Like bomb us a few times and tell us to quit.

[The Magistrate]

131. Funny Thing, Life, Is It Not, Sir?

The mullahs concerns will be more with polytheist blasphemy, the loose behavior of women, and the foundation of economic matters on usury, along with the support of Zionist usurpation, than with those things you have mentioned. Nor will you ever find me doubting the sincerity of their beliefs. All systems, political or religious or cultural, extend themselves to the limit of their ability to do so. Sometimes, discovery of those limits can be very painful. It was ever thus, and will ever be thus.

[Selwynn]

34. This is how it seems to start around here....

Has anyone heard of the comedian Eddie Izzard?

He is a British transvestite comedian who is incredibly funny, intelligent and just a little bit crazy. Most of his routines have some kind of basis in world history, but at the beginning of his show "Dressed to Kill" he has a bit about himself being a transvestite. He tries to explain that its not drag queen - "no, no gay men have that block covered, and most transvestites fancy girls, so its much more of a male lesbian bit, that's where the sexuality lies."

He goes on to say something like this, and I am paraphrasing:

"It's a much wider community than you would think. A lot of people tend to look down on transvestites as these sort of crazy people - like the other day there was this story about this crazy man in New York who was living in a cave, like you do, and when they went in they found all kinds of woman's clothing in there. And they said, "well that explains his weird behavior, he was a transvestite. And yeah, if he was then he was a ****ink WEIRDO transvestite! I'm much more an "executive transvestite. We travel the world, we do!"

I thought maybe a little humor would be disarming. But my point is this. Seems like every other day there is an article posted by a DUer about a horrible act committed in the name of religion. And I agree 100% of the time that these are indeed despicable and awful acts. But very quickly in the thread there starts to be a shift to a general attitude of "this is why all religion and all religious people are wrong/bad/a problem/ruining the world, etc." Now that's not explicitly stated usually, but that's the general impression I'm left with - that the actions of a crazy religious fanatic thereby cast condemnation on the millions of religious devotees around the world who would never dream of this kind of behavior, an in fact like me, actually shed a tear upon reading the account.

So to those of you who say, "well that explains his weird behavior, he was religious," I say to you "well if he was he was a ****ing WEIRDO religious person... I'm much more an "executive" religious person. We travel the world we do!" In other words, this is a tragedy and this mans warped and deranged religious interpretation contributed to the crime. And certainly he got those ideas ingrained into him by other wraps and demented fanatics, there is no denying that. But please, please, please do not make the leap to sweeping generalizations about religion in general. It's extremely not fair. I accept your right to explore the mysteries and possibilities of your life in whatever way you feel is best, but you have to understand -- I am a religious person because I believe that this is the best way for me personally to explore the mysteries of my own life, my relationship to others and to the world. My personal faith has made my life better, and give me a great deal of joy and peace.

...I get tired of being made to feel like I'm wrong for feeling that joy and peace, just because a crazy man took the same tools I might use for beautiful good and used them for horrible evil. Why can't we just condemn the men and women who use the tools in horrible ways, while still welcoming and embracing any who choose to use the tools for good into our midst - even if we personally choose not to use the tools ourselves in any way?

I weep over what this man did, and I feel anger over the men/community who indoctrinated such beliefs. But I refuse to take a hateful or bitterly cynical attitude about faith in general, because there are far, far to many beautiful wonderful men and woman of many faiths that I respect far, far too much to ridicules their own spiritual experiences.

Can't we all condemn the horrible acts of this man without extrapolating it out to condemnation or criticism of anyone who holds religious conviction?

[bemildred]

38. Yup, I know Eddie.

He's pretty funny, my kid likes him.

[The Magistrate]

40. The 'Action Transvestite' Is Quite A Funny Fellow

[The Magistrate]

42. That Extropolation, Sir

Does not much bother me, where persons are unable to view their faith as a matter for themselves alone, and insist on the more bloody-minded visions in the texts.

[bemildred]

44. I've been considering this matter this morning,

and I think the thing that annoys me is the inclusion of the
word "Muslim". This seems a cultural thing, not a religious
one. If it read "A Kurdish immigrant murdered his 16-year-old
daughter because he disapproved of her western way of life and
English boyfriend" or something like that, I would be fine with it
(the story anyway). The problem is that she is seen as property,
not that he is a Muslim or the boyfriend a Christian.

[The Magistrate]

47. In Many Cases, My Friend

It is the justification given by the killers themselves. It is only courteous, in my view, to take them at their word.

It can also be, in traditional societies, rather difficult to seperate culture from religion. Some lack that element, of course: the subjugation of women in China, for example, is carried out straight, with no tincture of religion worth mentioning, and always has been.

[Selwynn]

52. There is no universal take on any religious history

That's the problem - yes some people in some groups in some contexts interpret some elements of some religion in some certian way, and some times some of those interpreations are pretty awful.

But other people in other groups in other contexts interpret other elements of the same religion in another way, and some of those interpretations are very beautiful, at least to them individually.

It's not that I have a problem saying that this person's individual interpretation of his religious beliefs played a large role in this tragedy. It's not that I have a problem saying that the people who helped to indoctrinate this person in such a way contributed to the tragedy. It's when people start taking it out further than that when I have a problem. It's when you start attacking my practicing muslim neighbor, a wonderful guy who I really like, for his faith simply because other people using the same tools of faith interpret things differently and come to destructive conclusions. I actually admire my muslim friend for his faith, I believe it makes him happy, and he certainly seems to share that happiness with others. I myself come from Christian background, and my own beliefs make me very happy. That doens't mean I condone the horrible actions of others done in the name of my tradition of faith. But I'm also not ashamed of my own faith due to the actions of others.

[Tansy_Gold]

77. Now, I may be completely out in the bleachers here, but. . . . .

. .. . For many centuries in the Western/Christian/European world, there was little difference between the religious culture, the political culture, and the social culture. Little tolerance was shown toward subcultures -- think Albigensians, Huguenots, Dissenters, Witches, Jews, etc. -- within the general society.

Somewhere along the line, I think it was called the Enlightenment, people got this notion that maybe there ought to be a division between religious and secular life and that in certain circumstances, secular authority -- which now commonly goes in the guise of "human rights" -- ought to trump religious authority.

According to David Fromkin's "A Peace to End All Peace," whic was written in the late 1980s and therefore uninfluenced by either GW1 or GW2, one of the reasons for the turbulence in the general area known as the Middle East was the failure of the 1918 victors to recognize how thorough religion -- Islam -- permeated secular life in the Ottoman Empire. So the British sectioned off the old Ottoman Empire into all these artificially constructed "nations," installed what they thought were appropriately Western-favorable rulers, and ignored all the cultural trauma this inflicted on the collective Islamic psyche.

So when we get into a discussion of a Kurdish man murdering his daughter over her choice of Western boyfriend, we're ignoring the element of religion in his act. Had the girl had a Westernized but Islamic boyfriend, would the same thing have happened? or was the killing primarily, or even solely, motivated by religion? If -- and I'm saying "if" -- the matter of religion was the motivation, we do everyone a great wrong by ignoring it. That's saying, "Oh, he had no reason to do it, he must have just been crazy." That solves nothing, and it leaves the motivation completely in place, untouched, unquestioned.

I don't think that questioning the Islamic element in this case -- or in the case in St. Louis or the 14 schoolgirls left to burn alive in a school fire in Saudi Arabia because they weren't properly covered -- serves to grant any kind of respect to religious people. On the contrary -- it allows them, IMHO, to do whatever they wish under the cover of religious immunity.

The virtual selling of young women in parts of Utah and Arizona to much older polygamous husbands is hardly different from honor killings. Muslims have no monopoly on misogyny or even femicide. Whether the people who commit these crimes -- and they are almost always committed against women and girls -- are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Wiccans, or whatever, if they use their religion to justify the crime, then we owe it to ourselves, both those of us who are religious and those who are not, to address the problem head on, not ignore it.

I personally believe that it is virtually impossible for a woman in a monotheistic religion to believe she is the equal to a man in that same religion. If the godhead is masculine and is projected as superior to the non-masculine, no woman can be seen to be equal. As long as the godhead is referred to in the masculine, woman is inferior and can never be equal. THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION, and I do not intend to attempt to impose it on anyone.

But when we look at the record -- women who kill men receive ON AVERAGE longer and harsher sentences than men who kill women. A woman's life is simply not as valuable as a man's in our American quasi-christian culture. As I said before, when I didn't have my sarcasm light on and should have, there are damn few honor killings of sons who stray outside the religion. It's okay for the boys to love, whore, fornicate, or even marry (there's always the hope they'll divorce the infidel and marry a good _____________ girl) outside the family faith, but a girl who does it is not only soiled, ruined, shamed in and of herself, but her ruination is visited upon the family and only her death can expunge it.

The willingness to ignore the importance of religion on culture is, i think, self-destructive.

But what do I know?

/sarcasm off, where appropriate; otherwise, still on/

Tansy Gold, MA in Women's Studies

[The Magistrate]

79. Mr. Fromkin's Work Is An Excellent One, Ma'am

It is my habit to recommend it to people curious about the region today.

[Selwynn]

97. I don't believe I, at any point..

**Edit - my eyes were crossed and I could't follow the thread - I realized I wasn't being responded to, but still some interesting stuff here so I'll leave it for what its worth**

asked us to ingore the element of this individual man's individual religious beliefs should absolutely and without question directly contributed to his act, nor even asked us to ingore those who share responsibility in his indoctrination into ways of religious thinking that would promote such an act.

I simply pointed out that such a point of view is not a universal one. See where I get a little uncomfortable is with the goal posts shifts around here - away from "this guy's action was horrific, and the kind of religious dogmatism that dictates such action is horribly wrong" and towards, "look at what this guy did, and he was religious no less! Just another shining example of how universally horrible religion is!" That, my dear friend, is where I get a little flustered.

And you know full well that implicit and sometimes explicit statements gets made around here on many occaisions. I have no problem with the first statement -- yes, the guy latched on to religion and twisted something that is a beauiful and positive tool in many peopls lives, including mine, into something wicked and dispicable. I do however have a problem with the second statement, its one thing to acknowledge how this man's individual interpreation of religion led to atrocity. It is another to say this man's interpretation of religion whihc led to atrocity is therefore evidence that I ought to be ashamed of myself for being religious, not to put too fine a point on it.

I am not ashamed of my faith, and yet I am not embarassed or condescending of your choice or other people's choice to seek out meaning and fufillment apart from faith. I believe that's probably the best definition of tolerance. What I don't like is feeling like some people have an anti-faith agenda, and post things with the attitude of "see! see! just another example of why faith sucks! and people who are religious are evil pigs like this guy! this is what religion is all about (implict "in all cases" added at the end of the statement).

That's what I have a problem with.

By the way, I loved your analysis and agree - we should not ignore the implications of religion in society, either from a historical point of view, or a moderion sociological one. I just don't feel anything in my previous post should have led one to feel I was saying anything different.

Selwynn
BA Philosophical Theology and Religious Studies

[Selwynn]

98. Also a question:

"I personally believe that it is virtually impossible for a woman in a monotheistic religion to believe she is the equal to a man in that same religion. If the godhead is masculine and is projected as superior to the non-masculine, no woman can be seen to be equal."

Have you read a book by Rita Nakashima Brock called "Journeys By Heart: A Christology of Erotic Power?" Or have you read a book called "She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse?

Please don't mistake my question with a hidden agenda. Because there is so much proselytizing in conservative evangelical protestant churches, I also feel very quick to clarify a question like this. I pick these, only becuase I personally found them so fascinating in my religious study.

I am asking if you have read them, not for some spiritual impact, but for intellectual study. You said you felt it was virtually impossible for a woman in a monothesitic religion to believe she is equal to a man, and here are two examples of some woman I have personally found to have a very fascinating (and kind of beautiful) message in the form of a feminist christian theology. It's not that they wouldn't vitually agree with you; its just that they havent given up hope yet. If nothing else, it is a fasninating read about woman refusing to be alienated FROM their faith, or marginalized IN their faith, and I admire that greatly.

(As an aside, I also deeply appreciate the rich themes of so much feminist theology - I am usually speaking of christian theology when I speak, as that is my traditional brackground. To me process, feminist and liberation theolog(ies) are very much challenging the traditional strangle hold on grace held by white, rich men.

Sel

[bemildred]

94. It is a matter one may easily dispute from either side.

I direct you to Aidoneus post #60 for more detail on the event.

The line between "culture" and "religion" is at best arbitrary and
a matter of opinion, and at worst fictitious. One may consider it
as a recent political invention. My objection to the use of the
religious labels is twofold:

1.) It is incorrect to infer that because one adheres to either of
the religions in question, that one may be expected to exhibit the
boneheaded paternalistic violence in question here, or even that
one may be expected to exhibit anything less than normal enlightened
western attitudes.

2.) Approximately similar boneheaded paternalistic violence may be
seen in persons nominally adhering to other religions elsewhere
in the world, as well as both of those in question.

Thus, religion is not the determining factor. I tend to favor the
idea that the determining factor is patrilineal descent, which makes
the issue of paternity of progeny economically important, which makes
sons more valuable than daughters, etc. etc.

I think that the main reason this sort of thing has faded away in
"advanced" western cultures is that we now allow inheritance through
either parent, a fine system, and inheritance of "illegitimate"
offspring is better protected. It is noticeable that religion has
lost some of its punch in our societies too, although not without
a fight.

This is not to say that religion does not matter, it may. Religions
that institutionalize gender bias may be considered to be prone to
this sort of thing, it is just that it may not be taken as an
instrumental cause by itself.

This fellow may well allege religious justifications for his actions,
and I would normally be biased to give credence to his opinion, but
in this case he has clearly added something to Islam from his own
cultural roots, as would be the case with similarly behaving twits
claiming biblical justification for, say, witholding medical care
from their offspring, or beating the crap out of them to correct
their "willfulness". One does not extrapolate from David Koresh to
"Christians". I am well aware that there are problems with this sort
of violence in various Middle Eastern cultures, I just don't think
the critical factor is religion.

Regards.

[The Magistrate]

96. True Enough, Mr. Mildred

As you know, none of these belief systems makes any appeal to me; all those of Near Eastern origin are, in fact, the same thing viewed from differing angles, and at different stages of social and cultural development. As the momento morti intones to the dancers: "As you are now, so once I was: as I am now, so shall you be."

What does seem to me at least a determinative factor is the degree to which religious or other traditional beliefs have been effectively questioned in a society, and a concept of individual conscience taken root. Many steel themselves to things in the thought they must do a thing because it is holy and right, that they might not bring themselves to wreak otherwise. As Shaw said: "When a stupid man is about to do something he knows might be wrong, he always says it is his duty."

[bemildred]

100. I have no use for them either.

One may well argue that the loosening of the grip of all
of this sort of superstitious crap would be a benefit for
all of us.

[joshcryer]

69. Good post.

[Chovexani]

88. Thank you.

This is the best post I've read on DU in a while.

--C.

P.S.: I love Eddie. :)

[DeposeTheBoyKing]

41. This is not Islamic

The Koran says Muslims can marry "People of the Book" (meaning Christians and Jews, religions who have revealed texts). Islam frowns upon marrying Hindus only because of Hindus' polytheism, but I know Muslims who have married Hindus. This gentleman (and I use the term loosely) has a very twisted concept of Islam.

[nocreativename]

54. This looks like some thing out of the national Enquirer

Designed to make Christians fear Muslims

[maxanne]

58. did you read any of the

responses to this thread? Discussion of that subject is ongoing.

[Copperred]

61. You want to do the right thing....opt out.

IF only the world would unite and destroy the Abrahamic tradition. Period...then the three would get along..

Fools...all of them.

[Selwynn]

62. Thanks...

{edit)

[nocreativename]

66. i have read them

and it scares me.

[Aidoneus]

60. the event happened

I don't usually rely on the Telegraph to get the facts straight, but it's a safe assumption that this did, in fact, occur. There's a couple non-sensationalistic pieces in the Kurdish press, particularly:--
http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=4312
http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=4315
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_news/england/london/3150142.stm

As it says in the 2nd Kurdish Media piece, the Kurdish Women Action against Honour Killing were involved in the trial, and while satisfied at the verdict are trouble by the press (such as this, perhaps).

Some facts are in conflict. The family was originally refugees from south Kurdistan, having fled the warzone when the daughter was three. Heshu is said to be 16, her Lebanese boyfried Nizam 20; it was not that he was (or was not) a Christian as the Torygraph piece suggests, but rather that the father felt (or "discovered" by another account, though I'm slightly curious as to his methods of discovery) she was not a virgin. In the months previous he had been an abusive father, she was just about to run away (with Nizam, assumably); this strikes me more as an obsessively controlling father taking "child" abuse a bit far (I say that in quotes for one of her age is not exactly a child but such is the description I mean to say anyway, and 'bit' as an understatement of course) with self-comforting delusions on his part tacked on to rationalize himself to himself.

Brownie points to the bastard on the side for blaming al-Qai'dah at first, however. :eyes:

[LivingInTheBubble]

105. Thankyou.

For supplying some additional interesting information.

[Selwynn]

109. Thank you very much

For the additional info -- helps put things in some perspective I feel.