[Choscura]

Thought experiment? Literal construction? My thoughts aren't well formed enough to be called anything but experimental most of the time, and I lol'd at the idea of reality being considered the literal construction when compared to fairytales- even bearing in mind the herpes metaphor. I guess religions don't itch unless you get a really bad case and end up in saffron or black wool, so that counts in your favor, and I don't think there's a cream that treats faith either- at least not that you can get out of a tube without sucking.

My knee-jerk anti religious sentiments are well-thought-out, in advance, and are a large enough set of data that it's more worthwhile to resort to knee-jerks than it is to re-hash the same conversations over and over. I've arrived at this position from the starting point of being an evangelical Christian missionary, or at least one of the half-assed ones who handed out pamphlets the way 99% of all missionaries do as what they describe as 'God's work'. I got to this point through the use of better-than-average bible study tools, such as the program Bibleworks, which allows you to actually see what was written in that book in it's various languages. You can use it to examine verses commonly touted as proof that the Bible is true, for example- off the top of my head, I think Isaiah 40:22 is the one that is used to demonstrate that the earth was known to be round by divine inspiration; but the actual text, while more beautiful and meaningful than the English translation, actually refers to the earth in a way that could be described as 'the aggregate of all real estate properties added together', and its shape as 'wrinkled and folded like a blanket', and the stars are described in terms that are also used to describe gauze or wedding veils. It's a beautifully written passage, actually, and makes compelling analogies about the inhabitants of Israel, the cities and societies they formed, and the familial ties between them, and it's not hard to see both the authors familiarity with and love for those people; but the hacked-together mess of describing the earth as a tent (for the Israelites at the time, wide, flat and triangular affairs, reminiscent of Bedouin tents), and further juxtapositioning this description as being a description of the earth as round, is just another example of why the verse in Jeremiah 8:8 is so apparently the case in any canonical religion.

[modi123_1]

Since it seem we are going down this path (damn near almost hit a year before this reared it's head (heh.. reared)) I will say I don't see the United Atheist Alliance or the Unified Atheist League either ringing bells for the red kettles, let alone the donations and shelters put up for the poor and battered women's sector of the population. Rant and rave all you want but rarely do I see the help to the poor and disenfranchised being extend by anyone *BUT* religious folk.

[Choscura]

Shazam.

[Atli]

Perhaps the religious folks just make the biggest fuss about it, and are therefore the most visible?

You may also want to take government programs into consideration. The government represents and is paid for by all the people, regardless of their individual believes.

[j4v3d]

It just doesn't make any sense. What if they refuse to be tagged? Will they get killed?

[BenignDesign]

They're not being tagged. Did you even read the story?

Women have to "sign out" of the country on what's called a "yellow sheet" which must then be signed by a man (presumably her owner, for lack of a better term)... the government then sends a TEXT MESSAGE to said owner letting him know that the woman is out of the country.

I would assume it is meant to prevent people forging documents to sneak these women out.

But they're not wearing ankle bracelets or embedded with microchips. The title is "Saudi Arabia implements..." not "Saudi Arabia implants..."

[Atli]

BenignDesign, on 25 November 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

The title is "Saudi Arabia implements..." not "Saudi Arabia implants..."

... yet

[ishkabible]

Quote

It just doesn't make any sense. What if they refuse to be tagged? Will they get killed?

ya, they have a special room for it and everything.

Quote

It just doesn't make any sense. What if they refuse to be tagged? Will they get killed?

I *think* it's more like a legal guardian. It's seems like their treated more like kids in terms of the law. Just speculation and I'm not saying that the whole "kid" thing applies to the culture, just that the same way that kids can't do things without consent form their parents women can't do things without the consent of their guardian.

This post has been edited by ishkabible: 25 November 2012 - 12:42 PM

[Munawwar]

Here are some things to note:
* Saudi doesn't always represent Islam. Arab countries !== Islam, however most of them follow some parts of Islam. My point is that there are other Arab countries and I don't see them forcing things on women.
* "Let there be no compulsion in religion." (Quran 2:256). Then why do Saudi force things on women? I don't know.
* On B9's quote on milk kinship: That's totally retarded. Breast feeding is and has always been only for babies. However it is true that in Islam, two children breast fed by a woman are not allowed to marry each other.
* strawhat89: My place in South India (which is mostly a muslim population) now there are more female muslim medical students than their male counterpart. However there are lot of men who expect their spouse to be a full-time housewife and take care of their kids (but that too is changing now).
For those of you who see muslims depriving women of their rights, I'd ask you to first look around...many problem are regional/cultural. There are some who say they are doing things "in the name of the religion", but in truth they are doing things that aren't part of the religion.

My thoughts:
* I don't know whether I should trust the sources of that article.
* On B9's comment on Burqa being a symbol of oppression: Islam just says women to cover all parts of their body (except their hands) and hair (and optionally to cover the face...however this is more of a cultural thing, as 98% of muslim women don't cover their face). If you have noted, this is how many christian nuns dress too. It doesn't have to be a black burqa. It could be achieved with a top and a long skirt (google them..it looks really neat).
Another thing to note: Men are also expected to cover themselves from shoulder to ankle (so are men being oppressed now?).

I have question for you (and everyone): Lets say two identical-looking beautiful twin sisters walking down the streets, with one of them wearing islamic clothing and the other wearing revealing clothes. Lets say a hooligan at the corner, waiting to pick on a girl, sees the twin sisters. Which of the two girls do you think he will choose to pick on and why?

[jon.kiparsky]

Munawwar, on 25 November 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

Another thing to note: Men are also expected to cover themselves from shoulder to ankle (so are men being oppressed now?).

If you find a man who is beaten for wearing revealing clothing, then yes, you've found a man who is being oppressed. If this "expectation" is simply a line in your book that nobody really knows about or follows, then no, I don't see any men being oppressed by this.

Quote

I have question for you (and everyone): Lets say two identical-looking beautiful twin sisters walking down the streets, with one of them wearing islamic clothing and the other wearing revealing clothes. Lets say a hooligan at the corner, waiting to pick on a girl, sees the twin sisters. Which of the two girls do you think he will choose to pick on and why?

I don't care, honestly. If he "picks on" either of them, he should have his balls ripped off and stuffed down his throat. One less rapist = one slightly better world.
I don't think your question makes much sense, frankly. Are you suggesting that this "hooligan" is somehow driven into a frenzy of lust by the sight of an exposed ankle or shoulder, and therefore cannot help committing some crime upon this woman? Or what is the theory that you're working with here?

I guess it doesn't matter much, really. I don't want to get into bashing Islam, but from what I read in the papers, the law in many Islamic countries is strikingly lenient on crimes like assault on women (rape, beatings, murder) and strikingly harsh on seemingly trivial "offenses" committed by women (adultery, driving while female, leaving the country without the permission of your owner husband or oldest male relative, that sort of thing).

Until muslims in these countries, particularly male muslims, get rid of these horrifying injustices, this will reflect poorly on Islam generally. It might not be fair, these things might not reflect Islam, but life's not always fair. If you don't like hearing about "Islam is a religion of violence against women" then work to end violence against women committed by Muslims and in the name of Islam and in countries which claim to be ruled by the Koran.

[BenignDesign]

I love you, jon.kiparsky. Have my babies?

[jon.kiparsky]

You won't get rid of them that easily.

[Choscura]

Munawwar, on 25 November 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

Here are some things to note:
* Saudi doesn't always represent Islam. Arab countries !== Islam, however most of them follow some parts of Islam. My point is that there are other Arab countries and I don't see them forcing things on women.
* "Let there be no compulsion in religion." (Quran 2:256). Then why do Saudi force things on women? I don't know.
* On B9's quote on milk kinship: That's totally retarded. Breast feeding is and has always been only for babies. However it is true that in Islam, two children breast fed by a woman are not allowed to marry each other.
* strawhat89: My place in South India (which is mostly a muslim population) now there are more female muslim medical students than their male counterpart. However there are lot of men who expect their spouse to be a full-time housewife and take care of their kids (but that too is changing now).
For those of you who see muslims depriving women of their rights, I'd ask you to first look around...many problem are regional/cultural. There are some who say they are doing things "in the name of the religion", but in truth they are doing things that aren't part of the religion.

My thoughts:
* I don't know whether I should trust the sources of that article.
* On B9's comment on Burqa being a symbol of oppression: Islam just says women to cover all parts of their body (except their hands) and hair (and optionally to cover the face...however this is more of a cultural thing, as 98% of muslim women don't cover their face). If you have noted, this is how many christian nuns dress too. It doesn't have to be a black burqa. It could be achieved with a top and a long skirt (google them..it looks really neat).
Another thing to note: Men are also expected to cover themselves from shoulder to ankle (so are men being oppressed now?).

I have question for you (and everyone): Lets say two identical-looking beautiful twin sisters walking down the streets, with one of them wearing islamic clothing and the other wearing revealing clothes. Lets say a hooligan at the corner, waiting to pick on a girl, sees the twin sisters. Which of the two girls do you think he will choose to pick on and why?

This is a terrible response, for two reasons. First, the explicit rule in Islam is that any commandment or edict that replaces an earlier one fully supercedes it- and this is the case with the fatwa you have quoted about religion not being compulsory. Either this is accidental, in which case you should not be defending Islam because you don't know enough about it, or it is intentional, and you are lying to prove your point, and have done a brilliant job of proving mine.

The second thing, at least that I will take issue with in this response, is that rape is the fault of the rapist, not the victim, no matter what the circumstances are.

[strawhat89]

Munawwar, on 25 November 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

* strawhat89: My place in South India (which is mostly a muslim population) now there are more female muslim medical students than their male counterpart. However there are lot of men who expect their spouse to be a full-time housewife and take care of their kids (but that too is changing now).
For those of you who see muslims depriving women of their rights, I'd ask you to first look around...many problem are regional/cultural. There are some who say they are doing things "in the name of the religion", but in truth they are doing things that aren't part of the religion.

I have question for you (and everyone): Lets say two identical-looking beautiful twin sisters walking down the streets, with one of them wearing islamic clothing and the other wearing revealing clothes. Lets say a hooligan at the corner, waiting to pick on a girl, sees the twin sisters. Which of the two girls do you think he will choose to pick on and why?

Hey, I wasn't talking about Islam there, I was talking about in religion in general and if you'd check back, most of the incidents I mentioned were Hinduism relate, which is the religion I was born to.

Also, that question about the girls, not cool dude. Its like saying: "Consider 2 birds; one in a cage and one outside. If a cat comes along, which bird would it eat?" Its like saying its the free bird's fault for not staying in a cage!

[Xupicor]

B9 said:

deeply ingrained fear of burning in Hell for all eternity

And these horrible ideas are being taught to little children that don't take scripture as metaphorically as most theologians do.

No, jon.kiparsky, I think she wants to make new ones.


B9, looks like I had less respect to my mother, or she was just way more moderate believer than yours. Well, surely she was, I remember I was quite astounded that in other houses people really prayed everyday at the same time, and had some family prayers before dinner, or before going to bed. No such thing in my house.
She was a believer, yes, but she never really forced me into religion like people in other parts of the world often do, and I'll be always grateful for that. Good woman she was, maybe not the most intellectual sort like the lot of you folk here, but gentle and honest. She would never say anything along the lines of "You're not my son anymore, because you have no God in your heart!", she would on the other hand admit that she didn't have arguments to say I'm in the wrong, and she did admit that her beliefs are mostly there because she was raised so. Even though she admitted that, she wouldn't give up on them.

So I was surprised to hear that even though you voice your opinion elsewhere, you don't do it in front of your parent(s). Well, while it can be a catharsis of sort, there's a range of possibilities that can become reality, and some of these aren't nice, so I get to understand your position, somewhat. I decided to show my mother who I was, and I actually did fear of her reaction. In the end at least she got to know me for who I was, and I got to see that she wasn't as much of a nutcase I have thought for some time she just might be. After the bomb was dropped and discussion temperature cooled down, we got to talk and see ourselves in a much different light than before. Looks like I didn't really know my mother beforehand.



Just don't get me wrong B9 - I'm not pushing you into anything. Your whole dimsy-whimsy life story just made me talk like I know anything about life. You're free to stomp on me next time I try to do it again.