It's all about Iraq, isn't it?
Yep, it's all about Iraq and...
India and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and England and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Turkey and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Germany and Australia and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and Tajikistan and the Netherlands and Scotland and Chad and Canada and China and Nepal and the Maldives and Argentina and Angola and...
...and pretty much wherever Muslims
believe their religion tells them to:
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, ... nor follow
the religion of truth... until they pay the tax in acknowledg-ment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
Qur'an, Sura 9:29
SHUT THE FUCK UP. :mad:
They were showing the people jumping from the towers on the CBC and the BBC. They just weren't showing it on american television-I can understand why, to some degree, to protect small children from seeing such things. They also showed the celebrating palestineans on the BBC.
I am a liberal who is suspicious of Islam-I have no problem with individual muslims I may meet in my daily life, but I am a feminist and I have difficulty with the way women are treated in Islamic nations and cultures. I also recognize that 400-500 years ago, women were oppressed in christian nations, and the world's largest and oldest christian denomination still chooses to deny women the priesthood-but they don't call for the killing of women who disagree with them, either. Western culture has produced societies in which it is better to be a woman than in most of the Middle East (except Israel, that is).
Stoning rape victims as adulterers-yes, the Old Testament calls for this, too, but we don't do it, and no christian or jew has done so in centuries. But this does happen in muslim nations. The genocide in Darfur is being committed by muslim soldiers against native christians and tribal peoples. This genocide includes rape of women and girls in unbelievable numbers. The Taliban forced women to wear burkas and submit to either their husbands, fathers or brothers by law. The only muslim nations in which women are allowed to vote are those that we are currently occupying.
Yet I see recent immigrants from Iraq in my city as neighbors-I see them working to adjust their ways to our culture-the swimming pool is an interesting place to see this play out.
I agree with everything that you've said except for one point, which is that the Old Testament calls for stoning rape victims as adulterers. The Old Testament forbade excessive punishments. The whole "eye for an eye" concept was meant to make punishments proportional and to eliminate blood debts between tribes. Thus, if a member of one tribe acted against a member of another tribe, the vengeance was limited to the actual damages incurred. The assumption that a rape victim has committed adultery in Sharia law is based on the idea that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's, therefore an accusation of rape by a woman must be independently corroborated, for her word cannot equal his alone. Thus, a rape victim who admits to being raped but cannot prove it is admitting to adultery, but cannot prove the allegation of force, so she is incriminating herself but not the perpetrator.[/QUOTE]
I get what you are saying about the distinctions, but still, this passage of the Old Testament implies that women are the property of their fathers and husbands/fiancees, and should be killed either for being victimized or for fornication/adultry. And, as I said, no judeo-christian society has the death penalty as the legal punishment for fornication or adultry anymore.
I agree wholeheartedly that no Judeo-Christian state imposes the death penalty for fornication/adultery today, as well as the implications of ownership of women by fathers and husbands. The idea of a woman being the property of her male relations is a constant in polygamous tribal societies, which perfectly describes the Israelites of the Old Testament and the Moslems now, and Deuteronomy certainly reflects that, but I think that you're reading Deut. too narrowly regarding its assumptions about the guilt of a rape victim. The argument of Deut. 23-24 is that within the walls of a city, a woman being attacked would be heard crying out, and that the act was therefore consensual if she did not. Obviously, this is a primitive take on the whole concept of consent and fails to address a whole range of possible coercions or restraints which might have kept a victim silent, but it was a primitive time and most of the onus of protecting oneself from a situation in which a rape could occur fell on women. OTOH, Deut. 27 creates a presumption of innocence in the victim outside of a city by stating that she could not be heard if she did cry out. That was actually a huge advance, as prior to the Mosaic law, tribal and clan honor would have presumed the victim's guilt and the result would have been stoning.22: If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
23: If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24: Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
25: But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
26: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
28: If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29: Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|