16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab . . .

General discussion on the subject of religion, losing religion, and having no religion to lose...
User avatar
Jeff D
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:24 pm

16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab . . .

Postby Jeff D » Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:38 am

I guess I could have added this to the "flogging girls in Afghanistan" thread.

The news story is here. A 16-year old girl, who did not want to wear the hijab, is lured back to her home so that she could pick up her clothes, and less than 20 minutes later, she is strangled to death by her brother, and her father "takes the fall" and tells police that he did the killing.

In a suburb of Toronto.

In the weeks leading up to the killing Aqsa had clashed with her family — originally from Pakistan — over her desire to wear western clothing and not the hijab.

She had been living with a friend but was lured to the family's Mississauga, Ont., home, just west of Toronto, that day by her brother, who told her she could pick up her clothes, Crown attorney Mara Basso said.

Waqas Parvez choked Aqsa to death in her bedroom less than 20 minutes after they arrived and then fled, according to an agreed statement of facts read in court. It's apparent from the DNA found under her fingernails she tried to fight back.

Muhammad Parvez waited 15 minutes and then called 911, saying he had killed his daughter. Aqsa's older brothers and sisters told police Waqas Parvez was at work — he was a tow truck driver on the night shift — at the time of the murder.

Waqas Parvez told a colleague two or three days before the murder that he was going to kill his sister because she was causing the family embarrassment, the statement said.

He said only he and his father were involved, but the family knew what was going on.

"Aqsa Parvez's murder was a gender-based crime motivated by patriarchal concepts of honour and shame," Basso said.

However, such a motive for murder should not be ascribed to any particular faith, she added.


Oh no, the motive should not be "ascribed to any particular faith." But I'm going to monitor "this developing story," as the TV news readers would say, and I'm going to wait for the father or brother (or perhaps even the girl's mother, who implied that she brought this on herself) to cite a religious justification for what was done here, or a religious justification for the "requirement" that females wear the hijab. I don't think I'll have to wait long, and I don't think that the religious justification, when it comes, will be a vague, ecumenical, or universal justification.
Jeff D

User avatar
Jeff D
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:24 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby Jeff D » Sat Jun 19, 2010 8:45 am

In the interests of "equal time," here is a BBC story from earlier this week, about a teenage boy and girl in a lower-income "colony" on the outskirts of Delhi, India. The boy was from a "lower caste" than the girl; the girls' parents and uncles apparently opposed their relationship and their plans to marry; and the girl's father and uncle (with the assistance of an unknown number of other family members, tied up, tortured, and killed both the boy and the girl. At least the police have arrested the girl's father and uncle and are continuing to investigate.

The killings have stunned Delhi. Cases of "honour killings" are regularly reported from the neighbouring states of Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh, but in the capital they are uncommon.

Assistant commissioner of police Pankaj Kumar Singh, who is posted at Swaroop Nagar, says that although the area is part of the capital, the mindset of its people is the same as in the villages.

"A majority of the people here are migrants from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar states. People here are deeply rooted in their traditional beliefs," Mr Singh says. "Caste considerations hold much sway."

In traditional Indian societies, women are often regarded as family property. Marriages are carefully arranged by parents and elders and relationships outside of caste are frowned upon.

But proximity to the city and access to education often bring in modern influences, sometimes creating a conflict between traditional beliefs and modern aspirations in the minds of the young.

And these sometimes have fatal consequences, as in the case of Asha and Yogesh. Although her family is no better off than his, it is from a higher caste.

There are no statistics on the number of "honour killings" in India, but Mr Singh says for every case that gets recorded, several others go unreported.



Girl's uncle, unrepentant:
"I'm not sorry," a defiant Omprakash Saini told reporters after his arrest. "I would punish them again if given a chance."

A neighbor of the murdered boy:
"He was a very good boy," one of them, Meera Devi, says. "We are very angry. We want justice. If they wanted to kill their daughter, that's okay. But they shouldn't have killed our boy."

A cousin of the murdered girl:
"What will any parent do if they see their daughter in a compromising position with a man? What would you do if you were in the same situation?" he asks me angrily. "That's why my uncles killed them."


"What will any parent do?" . . . Marvelous. Almost makes me want to break out into song . . . maybe Kander & Ebb's "Tradition" (or whatever the song is actually called) from Fiddler on the Roof.
Jeff D

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6029
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA
Contact:

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby Martin Brock » Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:51 am

The newspaper attributes the murder to a girl's refusal to wear the hijab while the BBC story quotes a cousin's reference to "a compromising position with a man". Neither explanation satisfies readers here, but one seems to appeal more to atheist prosecutors while the other might appeal more to feminist prosecutors. Is faith or patriarchy the ultimate villain? That's clearly the important question here. The dead girl is another statistic that both prosecutorial schools would add to their respective ledgers.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

Brian Ganek
Regular Poster
Posts: 765
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:19 pm
Custom Title: Climate realist
Location: Germany

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby Brian Ganek » Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:56 pm

This is making all the headlines as a hate crime, right? I've heard of these honor killings, fathers or uncles killing daughters, this seems to be a pattern.

I mean, isn't this a classic hate crime of patriarchy?
Things are seldom as they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream.
W.S. Gilbert

User avatar
Jeff D
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:24 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby Jeff D » Sat Jun 19, 2010 9:36 pm

Both of the examples cited on this thread seem to me to be cruelty and burning stupidity of the "patriarchal" / "tribalistic" kind. I suspect that the actual connections to religion are rather tenuous and fuzzy.

Yes, one probably can find some justifications or sanctions in the Quran and/or Hadith for requiring women to cover at least their heads, and maybe there is even something in the Hindu "scriptures" that says that caste distinctions are sacred or that it's fine to kill a daughter or niece to save a family's "honor." But I'd bet that these are just special-pleading, post hoc techniques to encourage or scare in-group members into continuing to obey long-standing traditions whose actual origins no one clearly remembers.

My guess is that in similar communities in India and in expatriate Pakistani communities in Ontario and elsewhere, traditional Hindu religion (on the one hand) and traditional Islamic principles (on the other) are not going to be the first, the best, or the most effective tools in getting rid of such cruel, horrific traditions.
Jeff D

Brian Ganek
Regular Poster
Posts: 765
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:19 pm
Custom Title: Climate realist
Location: Germany

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby Brian Ganek » Sat Jun 19, 2010 9:51 pm

When tribes learn to read, the Koran is more than a tenuous thing. Read it, that's how most converts come to Islam, other than by the sword.

My reading of the book, it's about class and political struggle and divine justice by submitting to Allah's will from his one true prophet, Mohammed.
Things are seldom as they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream.
W.S. Gilbert

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11159
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sat Jun 19, 2010 9:58 pm

Brian Ganek wrote:This is making all the headlines as a hate crime, right? I've heard of these honor killings, fathers or uncles killing daughters, this seems to be a pattern.

I mean, isn't this a classic hate crime of patriarchy?

Yeah. The religion aspect is peripheral in that the religions are intensely patriarchal. The murders are about loss of face by men who could not 'control their women'. None of the perps are playing the religion card.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
lcp1138
Poster
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 7:20 am
Location: Colorado, Prometheus' Country

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby lcp1138 » Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:03 am

Martin Brock wrote:The newspaper attributes the murder to a girl's refusal to wear the hijab while the BBC story quotes a cousin's reference to "a compromising position with a man". Neither explanation satisfies readers here, but one seems to appeal more to atheist prosecutors while the other might appeal more to feminist prosecutors. Is faith or patriarchy the ultimate villain? That's clearly the important question here. The dead girl is another statistic that both prosecutorial schools would add to their respective ledgers.


No it is from the outmoded and unyielding traditions which are as useful as the religions which they oftentimes sprung from...

Of course I can blame religion for helping to keep a veil (wow punny) covering enlightened thinking, scientific research, and the idiocy that is religion itself.

-Chad
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Epicurus Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

User avatar
rrichar911
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4852
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:03 pm
Location: Texas, God's country USA

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby rrichar911 » Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:43 am

I think we need to bring Sharia law to the US. Like the guy who wants to build a mosque and ground zero advocates. Then it would be legal to kill women here to, that get out of line. Got to keep them in their place you know. Men rule.

Actually I'm wondering why people who worship PC have tunnel vision.

It should also be noted that our President went to Kenya to campaign for Odinga who promised to bring Sharia law to Kenya if elected. If you support Sharia law, well the above is the law. Open minded only goes so far, and then it falls into the ditch.
What really intrest me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the universe ~ Albert Einstein

User avatar
rrichar911
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4852
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:03 pm
Location: Texas, God's country USA

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby rrichar911 » Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:47 am

Of course I can blame religion for helping to keep a veil (wow punny) covering enlightened thinking, scientific research, and the idiocy that is religion itself.


How is it possible to hold that opinion and simultaneously know anything at all about Isaac Newton?
What really intrest me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the universe ~ Albert Einstein

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6029
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA
Contact:

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby Martin Brock » Sun Jun 20, 2010 2:39 pm

lcp1138 wrote:No it is from the outmoded and unyielding traditions which are as useful as the religions which they oftentimes sprung from...

Or do the religions spring from the traditions? Is there any meaningful distinction between a "tradition" and a "religion"?

A right to free speech is also traditional. Traditions can be terrible or terrific.

Of course I can blame religion for helping to keep a veil (wow punny) covering enlightened thinking, scientific research, and the idiocy that is religion itself.

Anti-theists often label terrible traditions "religious" and while labeling traditions they like "not religious". If some ancient text advocates care for orphans, a terrific standard just happens to be attached to the tradition, but if the text advocates stoning a child for disobeying his parents, adopted or otherwise, that's "religion". When Paul writes, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters", that's religion. When he writes, "there is neither slave nor free", that's a bit of secular enlightenment slipping through the religious crack. If Stalin sends anarchists to Siberia or H. G. Wells advocates sterilizing various ethnic groups, these self-professed atheists are religionists in disguise.

This whole theory of "religion" is thoroughly unfalsifiable. It's more like a conspiracy theory than a rational view of history.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Jeff D
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:24 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby Jeff D » Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:38 pm

Martin wrote,
A right to free speech is also traditional. Traditions can be terrible or terrific.


Yes. One key element of a "tradition" is that a habit, custom or practice acquires some extra "value" in the minds of its practitioners because it's been practiced for a long period of time, usually over multiple generations. "We do it because we've always done it that way."

Because there is not a consistent postive correlation between how long a tradition has been around / been practiced and the long-term benefit that the tradition produces for human welfare and flourishing, I say that it's never enough to look at how old a tradition is, or how sacred its practitioners say it is, in order to determine whether that tradition is "terrible" or "terrific." We look at other measures, other evidence.

Quite a few traditions (Major League Baseball's long-standing aversion to using instant replay as a check on umpires' calls; Jewish and Muslim proscriptions against eating pork; Christian Scientists choosing not to seek medical treatment) no longer have much to recommend them other than "We do this [or we refrain from doing this] because we've always behaved in this way." The continuing traditions allow the practitioners to differentiate the members of their in-group from the rest of humanity, and to regard themselves as "special." But in terms of consistency with our improved understanding of human nature and with what promotes the peaceful survival of human civilization, many of these traditions are destructive or counter-productive.

Is there any meaningful distinction between a "tradition" and a "religion"?


Some traditions (a subset of "traditions" in general) are "religious" because --

(1) These traditions originated from the idea that some supernatural being(s), power(s), or principles instructed or compelled human beings to perform the rituals or other actions that constitute the tradition,

OR

(2) These traditions arose out of tribal or clan practices that promoted social cohesion but which originally didn't have any significant supernatural or superstitious element, but later they were given a religious gloss and attributed to a divine command, etc.

During the Muslim hadj, I believe there is a traditional ritual in which the pilgrims throw stones at a large stone tower, which represents the "devil" or Satan. Most experts believe that this ritual is a very old tribal / pagan tradition, many centuries older than Arab monotheism. Does the fact that the ritual involves a belief in a "devil" or evil supernatural being and (in performing magic ritual actions against this "devil") make this tradition a "religious" tradition, or just a regular tradition? Hard to say.

The tradition that requires Jewish males to be circumcised also is very, very old, and probably predates Jewish monotheism or henotheism of the Mosaic kind. Does the fact that the Torah requires circumcision and attributes it to a divine command and "covenant" make this tradition "religious," despite its older origin? Probably.
Jeff D

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby nmblum88 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:28 am

I believe that the moral of this terrible story is not how superior Christianity is to Islam when it comes to crushing the natural instinct to above all, protect one's child d from harm, but rather that religious laws are a curse upon secular society and should be struggled against at all costs...
And that is so whether an Imam is exhorting a population from a minaret, OR when the President of the United States is exhorting a secular population to pray for what only human beings can do for themselves (with appropriate leadership, of course).
Letting religion cloud our minds, and invade our social processes, and our secular law is the beginning of the end of not only democracy but any pretense of reason in human affairs.

But lo!! One set of traditions, one's own ... lead all the rest where peace and beauty are the rule.
Islam is awful...of that there is little doubt, although it seems a great deal worse when one doesn't stop to look into the wood pile of other religions...
First, one should try to keep in mind that there are a billion Muslims in the world, and there are three anecdotes a month about some demented patriarchal family where such heinous crimes have occurred.. not of course, that there should be any.
But crimes are committed all the times, one human against another, using religion as an excuse for power-lust gone mad.

Hardly a statistic that can suggest, much less prove, that any other religion provides ALL of its adherents with a bent for conciliatory behavior.
The Hatfields were hostile and even murderous when one of their own consorted with a McCoy.
And the Jukes, poor creatures, didn't look kindly on any member of their clans married , or even "fooled around" with a Kallikak.
All were Christians...
And while Orthodox Jews do not murder those of their children who marry outside the faith (the bible by the way DOES suggest murdering those who f ail certain commandments) or who don't dress appropriately, there is a lot of gnashing of teeth, cutting of cloth, and exiling of the offender from the community as if actually dead.
I'm not ready to make war to defend ANY of it.... and I don't care what what the wellspring for either idiocy or insanity might be.
I thin we are and not very subtly , being directed to think that we are responsible for cleaning u p the world and setting it straight..so that it can be recreated it our image (in itself a religious message, Genesis 1:27 and speculative at best).

Which would be questionable even if we actually had a great record for being able to take care of our own messes that are the result of dissimulation and twisted messages,

NMB
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

User avatar
Jeff D
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:24 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby Jeff D » Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:12 am

A-number wrote,
Jeff D wrote:
Both of the examples cited on this thread seem to me to be cruelty and burning stupidity of the "patriarchal" / "tribalistic" kind. I suspect that the actual connections to religion are rather tenuous and fuzzy.

No they are not. Read the coran if you dare and in arabic not in some other language. If you really are interested in truth, and not in covering it up.


An interesting exhortation, from someone who chooses the unusual spelling "coran" . Why not ask me to read the "Koran" or the Quran in Arabic?

I'm guessing that you don't read Arabic. I don't either. Neither do most of the Muslims on this planet. A minority read modern (not Classical) Arabic, but most are "forced" to read the Koran in translation into their native languages. From what I have read, to read the Koran in Arabic and to understand it is a difficult undertaking even for experts in the Arabic language; there are abrupt shifts in tense, person, and subject matter from verse to verse, and many of the suras presuppose that the reader possesses knowledge of folk traditions and myths that became lost even to the first few generations of post-hijira Muslims.

I have read a large book titled What the Koran Really Says (Language, Text and Translations), edited by Ibn Warraq, which deals specifically with the history of the Koran, pre-7th century influences on it, the difficulties of translation, and the general messiness of the actual history -- so far as we can discern it -- of how the Koran of today came to take its current form, and how long it took. Another book written by Ibn Warraq, Why I Am Not a Muslim, is an easier, quicker and rewarding read.

Consider that "Koran" -- no matter how one spells it in English -- is traceable to a Syriac word source, and that various scholars have counted anywhere from 107 to 275 "foreign" (non-Arabic) words in the Koran, borrowed from Greek, Persian, Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac, and Ethiopian.

Consider that the earliest extant material written about Muhammad (who died in 632 C.E.) was written in 750 C.E., and that writer's (Ibn Ishaq) work is only now available in parts quoted by Ibn Hisham (who died in 832).

Consider that most many scholars of Islamic history (not just those who adhere to the party line in Saudi Arabia, in Egypt, or in Iran) have concluded that the Koran we now have did not settle into something close to its current form until sometime between the mid-8th century and the late 10th century. Some of these scholars (I sometimes wonder how many of them are under a death sentence from traditionalist mullahs or imams) have concluded that the traditional, "received" history of the Koran (supposedly ordered to be compiled into an authoritative version by the second and/or third caliphs between 650 and 670 C.E.) is a complete fabrication.

Consider that of all the collections or compilations of the Hadith (sayings and acts attributed to Muhammad, and therefore supposedly authoritative traditions of what was done by or said him or in his presence, and either commanded or praised or not forbidden by him), there are half a dozen "authentic" collections of the Hadith, and all six of them were compiled by writers who died not earlier than 870 C.E.

Consider that there are various pre-Islamic sources, dating as far back as Tertullian (around 200 C.E.) that describe women in Arabia and Persia wearing garments that covered their faces and entire bodies. . . . This, more than 400 years before Muhammad supposedly first received his "dictation" around 610 C.E. Whatever their reasons for covering themselves (or being coerced to cover themselves) in this fashion, it wasn't because of Islam.

Finally, consider that although the Koran is mostly a deeply misogynist book, and although Islam pretty clearly advocates treating women as inferior beings with inferior rights (and fewer) rights and treats female sexuality as either non-existent or unholy or fearsome, there are only two passages inn the Koran that I have seen that seem to come close to requiring that women cover their heads (or their faces or bodies). The first is Sura 33:59 and applies when women leave their homes:

O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round when they go abroad. That will be better, so that they may be recognized and not annoyed.


Note that this injunction or command is directed first to Muhammad's wives and daughters, and secondarily to "women of the believers." This sura doesn't say that women must cover their heads, or even their faces. The Arabic word used in 33:59 is jalabib, the plural of the Arabic word for "dress." So a body covering, not necessarily a head covering, is referred to. The Arabic word used most often in the Koran to refer to a headscarf or veil is khimar (not hijab, which has the more general meaning "curtain" or "cover").

And it's slightly ironic that this command in 33:59 was given so that particular women "may be recognized." If all Muslim women are required to wear the burqa or niqab -- a face covering or a whole-body covering, something that these suras don't mention -- then none of them will be recognizable or distinguishable from the others.

The second is Sura 24:31, which is more vague in enjoining women to "conceal their beauty" from men other than their husbands, fathers, sons, and a list of other male relatives and womenfolk. It tells women to arrange their head coverings so that they cover their chests or bosoms, but does not say that women must cover their faces.

In Bukhari's collection of the Hadith, Vol. 1, book 8:395, there is a clearer command for wearing a hijab (scarf covering the head, not necessarily the face), but I've already said what I think of the reliability and bona fides of the Hadith, and numerous learned exegetes have interpreted this command as referring only to the wives of Muhammad.

Can you cite me a passage from the Quran that requires women who don't "properly" clothe themselves to be put to death?

My point was that cultural practices (in this case, a whole set of practices that treat women as second-class citizens, as chattels, as inferior beings, as dangerous temptresses) can arise and probably have arisen for a variety of reasons, not all of them necessarily religious or superstitious, and then later, these practices are given a religious pedigree or imprimatur, as a kind of ultimate "argument from authority."

* * * *

Some drink at the fountain of knowledge, and others merely gargle.
-- Lawrence Kusche
Jeff D

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby nmblum88 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:59 am

A-number wrote:
Jeff D wrote:Both of the examples cited on this thread seem to me to be cruelty and burning stupidity of the "patriarchal" / "tribalistic" kind. I suspect that the actual connections to religion are rather tenuous and fuzzy.

No they are not. Read the coran if you dare and in arabic not in some other language. If you really are interested in truth, and not in covering it up.


I love to greet the morn with a laugh...
What language , one wonders, has A-number accessed in his/her study of the coran (sic)?
(But who knows? Perhaps A-number was thinking of the Uto-Aztecan language, Cora.... )
That gem aside, Jeff is correct in his assessment... .
The creation of a culture is not only long term, but complicated; religion didn't necessarily create the traditions by which people are required to live in a particular society... but religion certainly enforces/reinforces certain societal traditions.
And often well past the point where the traditions served the particular society's survival needs, because religion is, by its very nature, conservative with an emphasis on conformity to the rules and regulations that constitute its dogma.
And while violence in defense of tradition, religious or not, may remain dormant in non-threatening times, it almost always erupts dramatically when a society is stressed and/or under attack from without or within.

NMB
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

Brian Ganek
Regular Poster
Posts: 765
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:19 pm
Custom Title: Climate realist
Location: Germany

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby Brian Ganek » Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:34 pm

I vow never to wear the hijab until every Muslim girl is free to decide for herself how to dress.
Things are seldom as they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream.
W.S. Gilbert

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby nmblum88 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:46 pm

It took many years, a lot of marching, sign making, and certainly resultant conflict in families before the slightest intimation of sexual equality existed in Western countries....
Women didn't get the vote in ANY industrialized Western society (including our own) simply by asking for it...and moreover we were reminded constantly (and still are) that our own bibles says the man shall lead (have a dominant role) and the woman shall follow, even to the point of accepting without question that her political rights are as limited as her economic rights...
And who can forget that in addition to being in need of patriarchal directives for the leading of a decent, god fearing life, the woman, in Abrahamic biblical tradition is portrayed as intrinsically duplicitous, perhaps even evil, but certainly manipulative... and thus dangerous.
Even before Eve's little misadventure with that apple, there was Lilith, an unreconstructed demon, providing a good excuse for NOT allowing the female control over her own destiny and by extension the destiny of society.
Is Islam excessively backwards in that regard?
Yes... it is, and the countries that are dominated by the religion are for the most part steeped in other inequalities as well, with whatever wealth exists either in the billions as with the oil rich, inequitably distributed to an extreme..
Keeping people, men AND women, in their traditional places has been institutionalized for centuries, tradition abetted BY religion.
The motto of religion... ALL religions... is "if god didn't want it to be that way, it wouldn't be that way..."
Overcoming that impediment to freedom and democracy will take as long to eradicate as it took to make their absence a fact of life for the millions of who live with such restrictions.
BUT to the degree that the status quo is threatened, the more incidents of extreme punishments and even murders will occur.

Injustice does not cede its place easily... as our own history often illustrates...We have had our bloody race riots, and the civil rights movement of the Sixties was hardly pacific, particularly on the part of the entrenched power structure.

Think of what it took in terms of violence, terror, and interfamilial strife and blood letting, simply to limit the power of the Vatican over the nations of Europe.
And time... the Reformist wars were perpetrated, really, for centuries.
Islam will change...most probably when there are no longer a thousand beggars for every gainfully employed adherent.

NMB
NMB
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

User avatar
Herk
Poster
Posts: 367
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:39 am
Location: S.E. Idaho

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby Herk » Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:35 am

N M Blum wrote:Even before Eve's little misadventure with that apple, there was Lilith, an unreconstructed demon, providing a good excuse for NOT allowing the female control over her own destiny and by extension the destiny of society.


The name Lilith was obviously apropos for my own personal demon. She'll be a year old next month and when she goes into hell-on-wheels mode you have to just get out of the way. She even has a crook'd tail, which seems somehow in character. I do, in fact, seem to control much of her destiny, though I allow her as much freedom as possible.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool."
- Richard P. Feynman

Herkblog!

User avatar
Jeff D
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:24 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby Jeff D » Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:21 am

To return to the story from Ontario at the top of this thread . . . .

As the caricatures of news anchor-people are made to say, "And now this":

An article on June 22 in the Canadian National Post criticizes the Toronto Star for assigning an enthusiastic, pro-hijab, hijab-wearing reporter to cover the criminal case against the father and brother of Aqsa Parvez.

As a Muslim father of two daughters and an uncle to at least a dozen nieces, I am aware of the enormous pressures that Muslim girls face as they are forced to become the flag bearers of Islam. All this while their brothers -- de facto guardians of their sisters' honour -- are set free to enjoy the pleasures of youth.

One way these daughters and sisters are kept in check is to force them to don the Arab headdress, the hijab; not the Pakistani duppata, nor the colourful Sudanese headscarf, or the Bangladeshi pallu, but the Muslim-Brotherhood-prescribed hijab. Aqsa Parvez, like millions of Muslim girls around the world, said no to the hijab. For refusing to wrap her head with a piece of cloth, the Mississauga, Ont. teenager paid with her life, at her family's own hands, on Dec. 20, 2007.

One would have expected the media to have some sensitivity towards the murdered Aqsa Parvez; show some respect for the wishes of the dead child. This is why many Muslim Canadians were enraged when they discovered that the Toronto Star had sent a reporter who has for years advocated and celebrated the hijab and niqab, to cover the guilty pleas of the father-son team that killed Aqsa.


Whatever each of us may think about the scriptural (Quranic) basis for "encouraging" (i.e., commanding and requiring) Muslim women to wear the hijab, the fact remains that for many centuries, doctrinaire Muslim scholars have argued that true Islam imposes this requirement on women.

Here is the ridiculous (and, to me, repellent) gloss that the pro-hijab reporter put on the court session in which father and brother pleaded guilty (homicide charges against at least the brother, I assume):

"At the time of Aqsa's murder in 2007, it was believed that she had been killed for simply refusing to wear a hijab, as her friends told the media following her death," Ms. Javed wrote. "However, the statement of facts read in court shows the situation inside the Parvez household was much more complex. It was never about imposing religious doctrine on Aqsa, it was simply about controlling every aspect of her life."


Never mind that the pro-hijab reporter did her best to downplay the obvious "honor killing" element of the case. Does she not see that especially in the case of Islam, "imposing religious doctrine" on believers or adherents and "controlling every aspect of [their lives]" are two sides of the same coin, part of the same enterprise?
Jeff D

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby nmblum88 » Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:24 pm

I distrust the media coverage of ALL matters having to do with either defense of religion in general (which is common) or reportage of specific events that impact on matters of public policy.
And I am wary of the coverage of anything having to do with Muslims, perhaps because in today's environment, they are the underdogs subjected to the talent (or lack of it ) of newspapers and their reporters looking for a hot (incendiary) topic.
Similar responses in France have led to no real good or resolution of what to do about an increasingly unpopular minority.
The jihab is certainly repellent to me.
Truth to tell I don't even like the underwear that my mother (and my caste and class) insisted upon for the modesty that indicated virtue.
So I think I understand rebellion against the wishes of the parent, as well as rebellion against the prevailing society.
There are Muslim women who abjure the jihab, the burkah, et al because they wish to assert their independence from outmoded religiously dictated mien, and there are Muslim girls who wear the religious dress because they are aware that the societies in which they live (by choice or not) think of it as repellent as I do..
Is the dress worth turning into an overriding issue?
What then about the various symbols with with both adults and teen-agers bedeck themselves?
Does the omnipresent crucifix go next?
The Star (or Shield) of David?
How about the hat, or yarmulke, that Jewish men are required by their religion to wear indoors, including in public building .... when in the larger society a male is required, for the sake of politeness, AND respect to remove his head covering?

I don't know... but I do think that some consideration has to be given to the idea that many if not all teen-agers get their backs up at the number of "DON'T" with which they are confronted..
And so do adults.
One does wonder at the number of swastikas that are turning up on American bodies.... and making their way into popular magazines.
Are all of the tattooed actually bona fide Nazis?
Probably not... a mindless, rebellious gesture that COULD turn into a genuine fulcrum if called to attention, as in "if you do it, expect to may a price.."
Because the response to the implication of "NO!!" starts in infancy and some of us never get over it....
And some things are worth making an issue of, and some are decidedly not, even when merely symbolic....
Don't forget what happened in the course of Western religious history, when Henry Tudor was told by his Pope that divorcing Catherine of Aragon to pursue a new marriage with a younger, more attractive woman was out of the question.
He went beserk.
And the results of that response to imposed authority is with us - for better or worse, but a great deal of spilled blood - to this very day.
And on the subject of inevitable change.. when I was a kid, Nuns in full regalia were everywhere to be seen: and I don't have any contemporaries who don't have their stories of the dire warnings that accompanied the sighting of a pair of "Sisters" on a city street or on public transportation...
"Close your eyes and wish their devils away..." was not my particular favorite.
I liked "Quick!! Spit over your shoulder... three times...so they won't capture your soul for Jesus.."
Well, the Nuns are of late hardly to be seen (they are allowed to wear mufti in public) and in my new neighborhood centered around "Christ the King" church and school, most of the teachers are not only laic but some of them aren't even Catholic.... a peaceful change that took place out of necessity rather than public protest...
The spice went out of the fear and trembling and that particular prejudice passed into history.
What's wrong with "give peace a chance...?"

NMB
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6029
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA
Contact:

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby Martin Brock » Wed Jun 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Jeff D wrote:Some traditions (a subset of "traditions" in general) are "religious" because --

(1) These traditions originated from the idea that some supernatural being(s), power(s), or principles instructed or compelled human beings to perform the rituals or other actions that constitute the tradition,

OR

(2) These traditions arose out of tribal or clan practices that promoted social cohesion but which originally didn't have any significant supernatural or superstitious element, but later they were given a religious gloss and attributed to a divine command, etc.

Practically all "religious" traditions belong in the second category, I suppose; other than traditional observance of particular faith assertions, like Passover or Easter. Most of what we imagine as "religious" law presumably is older than particular religious texts codifying it. I doubt that prohibitions of murder originated with religious prophets, and I also doubt that monogamy and homophobia began this way.

Does the fact that the ritual involves a belief in a "devil" or evil supernatural being and (in performing magic ritual actions against this "devil") make this tradition a "religious" tradition, or just a regular tradition? Hard to say.

Practically every ancient tradition is intertwined with faith assertions this way, so I'm not sure the distinction is meaningful. There just aren't any "secular" ancient traditions.

Does the fact that the Torah requires circumcision and attributes it to a divine command and "covenant" make this tradition "religious," despite its older origin? Probably.

It's "religious" because the Torah requires it. I'll buy that. I don't think we can conclude much else about it from the fact that an ancient religion requires it. That it's a religious prescription itself tells us nothing very important.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

Chachacha
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:07 am
Custom Title: Irrational Skeptic

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby Chachacha » Wed Jun 23, 2010 6:45 pm

JeffD wrote: Does the fact that the ritual involves a belief in a "devil" or evil supernatural being and (in performing magic ritual actions against this "devil") make this tradition a "religious" tradition, or just a regular tradition? Hard to say.

Martin Brock wrote:Practically every ancient tradition is intertwined with faith assertions this way, so I'm not sure the distinction is meaningful. There just aren't any "secular" ancient traditions.


If the distinction is not meaningful, why do you make the distinction with statements like this, "Anti-theists often label terrible traditions "religious" and while labeling traditions they like "not religious". If the distinction is not meaningful, anti-theists, theists, the other various and sundry Godists, and everyone else, are correct to use either "tradition" or "religion" - whichever they prefer.

Martin Brock wrote:It's "religious" because the Torah requires it. I'll buy that. I don't think we can conclude much else about it from the fact that an ancient religion requires it. That it's a religious prescription itself tells us nothing very important.


Perhaps it tells you nothing very important, but it indicates to me followers of the religion which relies on the Torah will act in accordance with the prescriptions in the Torah, and if one of those prescriptions were to kill one's daughter for disobedience, it is necessary to address the cause of the followers actions: his/her religion. They don't do it because it's written in the Torah, they do it because their religion requires that they do what is written in the Torah.

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby nmblum88 » Wed Jun 23, 2010 10:07 pm

A-number wrote:
Jeff D wrote:A-number wrote,
Jeff D wrote:
Both of the examples cited on this thread seem to me to be cruelty and burning stupidity of the "patriarchal" / "tribalistic" kind. I suspect that the actual connections to religion are rather tenuous and fuzzy.

No they are not. Read the coran if you dare and in arabic not in some other language. If you really are interested in truth, and not in covering it up.


An interesting exhortation, from someone who chooses the unusual spelling "coran" . Why not ask me to read the "Koran" or the Quran in Arabic?

I'm guessing that you don't read Arabic.


I read the coran from end to end, and in arabic, as result, I know what's inside. And based on the garbage that's in, do you think I am going to be concerned about how it wants me to spell it? As if it gives {!#%@} about who or how I am to be treated as human being who happens to be A woman, and as result, that's going to entice me to reciprocate? Not. How those criminal thugs treat those poor females, is mainly if not solely based on what's in their vile book. Sorry no offense meant to you in person.



LOL... or maybe not.
After all, who, for example, doesn't respond negatively to those Christians who join the Phelps menagerie as they parade their pious banners at the funerals of gay servicemen?
(And who really cares HOW they spell their signs?)
The patina of civilization is tenuous whether one is a fanatic Muslim or a fanatic Christian/Jew/Shintoist/Whatever with delusions of (linguistic/etymological) grandeur.
And certainly some level of instability contributes to being attracted by religious fanaticism as well as encouraging it.
But I'm going to vote for hilarious: funny IS funny: whatever makes you laugh and deflects the shock and anger that might occur when faced with serious bigotry and ignorance.
Whether it is a monkey throwing its own feces at a watching crowd of zoo visitors, a man taking a pratfall on a banana skin, or a baboon holding a bible ( or coran) and pretending to read.


NMB (who has written a little poem for Western children to recite starting in nursery school : "I never saw a coran, I never hope to see one, but I can tell you here and now, I'd rather not have to decide between one or another religious lunacy." )
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby nmblum88 » Wed Jun 23, 2010 11:43 pm

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/28/100628fa_fact_levy

Not entirely apropos, but not entirely unrelated: this is an article from next week's (June 28, 2010) "New Yorker," on Governor Huckabee, including some interesting (albeit loony) details of a recent tour of Israel, that he personally led for Evenagelical Christians.

Huckabeee, who among other lapses from reason, and based on no particular education in the sciences, does not accept Evolution as either an explanation or point of departure for exploring who we are and where we came from on our planet and in our universe, is -remarkably - a front runner among possible Republican candidates for President of these United States.
I have no doubt... in fact I do actually believe that Governor Huckabee is a really decent man, and that he is personally incapable of setting fire to a synagogue or mosque or temple, or that he would ever be considered as a possible candidate for employment as a guard or crematoria worker in an extermination camp.
But, but.... well, read it...
What to make of one's own country that seriously considers a President that believes, even welcomes the end of days?
And who inserts himself (negatively OR f rom his point of view, positively) into the political affairs of another nation on the basis of god not only having the land known as Israel to the Jews in perpetuity, but ultimately that they must keep it for the sole purpose of providing the biblically ordained departure point for Jesus and the "saved" who will rise with him on the last day of the End of Days..
Leaving behind, of course, to roast in hellfire, those Jews (and anyone else) swho have not converted so that they may be saved by acknowledging Christ as their Savior.
And we're supposed to think that the "coran" with its similar implications for those who follow Allah, is uniquely vile?
Or crazy?
Responsible for the world's woes?
C'mon... it's all the same stuff under other names... the details and the names of the worshipped might be different but the implications are the same.
And the tipping point for where real uncontrollable violence breaks out on behalf of one religion over another (think what followed the Partition of Pakistan, for instance) depends on dire economics, land and water rights, food shortages, political unrest or potential revolution.
What WOULD it take to really stir up people who are committed to an idea as truly irrational as End of Days theology?

NMB
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

User avatar
Jeff D
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:24 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby Jeff D » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:15 pm

I'm going to disagree slightly with Norma on one of her last points.

Yes, the Koran / Quran / coran is, for the most part, "all of a piece" with the other Special Books of Abrahamic monotheism . . . even when one ignores the substantial but garbled borrowing that the Koran has done from the Hebrew Bible and from Christian scriptures. In that sense, the Koran is not "uniquely vile."

But I'd say that the Koran has made some "improvements" on the model for book-based, absolutist, authoritarian theism. The Koran has taken the not-original concept of "This book is the absolute true Word of God because it says so in this book," tweaked it a little, and made the message even more stark, by claiming that the entire book was dictated by God via an angel to a single prophet / messenger / mouthpiece. And by claiming that it is the final, most perfect expression of God's commands and God's wisdom.

The other way in which the Koran "improves upon" the other monotheistic Special Books is in the degree to which Islam demands that its adherents submit to a system of birth to death, sun-to-sun supervision of every aspect of life, from dress to diet to five-times-a-day prayer. And of course the most absolutist, Salafist / Wahabi interpreters have added helpful glosses, such as the idea that the only political system compatible with Islam is a oligarchic theocracy of male clerics elected on a one-time basis (literally, one man, one vote, one time).

I hasten to add that none of this makes Islam unique. It just so happens that in time sequence, Islam came after Judaism and Christianity had, and Islam did very well with its opportunity to evolve improvements on the model, the better to keep believers' minds enslaved in hard-to-break credulity and servility. I suppose that the only other more recent cults or religions that have done even one tenth as well as Islam are Scientology and the LDS church.
Jeff D

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby nmblum88 » Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:35 pm

I have no quarrel with anyone who is taken aback by the dogmatism in re "crime and punishment" in the Koran: too often when checking out something that has come up in discussion one is actually shocked by the degree of meanspirited demands made of adherents... and by extension then, the citizens of Sharia- dominated nations.
Certainly not conducive to temperance (other than in matters of drink).
Although on the other hand there are examples in history, where Arab/Islamic communities have not only extended themselves to so -called infidels, they have done so in the face of Christian attack (see any history of the experience of the Moors in Southern Spain).
Further, Jeff is correct when he points out that (in contrast to Christianity and its limited ritual, diurnal personal demands on the practicing Christian) "The other way in which the Koran "improves upon" the other monotheistic Special Books is in the degree to which Islam demands that its adherents submit to a system of birth to death, sun-to-sun supervision of every aspect of life, from dress to diet to five-times-a-day prayer. And of course the most absolutist, Salafist / Wahabi interpreters have added helpful glosses, such as the idea that the only political system compatible with Islam is a oligarchic theocracy of male clerics elected on a one-time basis (literally, one man, one vote, one time).

This is, of course, true.
But it was not original with the writer/composers of the Koran... can on forget that the Hebrew Bible tells us, among other bits and pieces relating to justice, that laboring on the Sabbath deserves a sentence of death?
And further LABOR does not necessarily mean "toting that barge, lifting that bale..." making bricks or mining coal, but rather simly igniting a burner on a stove, or pushing a button in an elevator.
Or, (a result of centuries of scholarship and debate about modern appliances) tearing toilet tissue from a roll?
Deuteronomy and Leviticus as the source of the 613 inarguable, undebatable laws, by which the Orthodox Jew lives his life, for the same reason that the Orthodox Muslim lives his: to love god, to obey his word, to have no other god before him, is, essentially, the first Commandment, from which all else follows.
It is very touchy subject (believe me, I know) to remind believers that from the Torah comes the Code Book of Jewish Law, in which every moment of human life from the cradle to the grave, with every nitty gritty detail in between (deportment in and out of ritual requirement, how and what to eat, and where to eat it, what to wear, not only for women but for males as well,how to treat one's parents, how to raise one's children, how to treat household animals.... and of course, how to treat one's slaves... and on an on and on. Nothing that impacted on either daily life, personal or communal is omitted),
As a matter of scholarship, it CAN be argued that one of the attractions of Christianity was its freedom from such minute direction.
A man who forgot to wash his hands before eating his bread MIGHT still be able to claim god''s affection and an entry into the eternal life.
But one can argue: isn't that what primitive, volatile (and often desperately poor) people need? Firm direction?
Because there IS this (and I can only speak of those Islamic societies that I know something about from personal experience) that (omitting for a moment Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Dubai, whch have unique histories, populations and sources of wealth ) the poorest Islamic countries are the most orthodox and the most influenced by Sharia.
As Islamics are altered by contact with the West and economic development, it is quite noticeable to the naked, even untutored eye that there is a wide variety in both dress and behaviors, religious as well as secular..
In Algeria, Morocco, Mali, the Sudan, in Eqypt, Francophone sub-Saharan Africa., and even those hotbeds of radical, aggressive Muslim politics, Pakistan and Iran: women are not universally wrapped in the modest dress required of the Quran, nor are they restricted to marriage bed, kitchen and maternity ward.
Quite the opposite... It is common to walk down a street and come upon families where the grandmother wears a burka and/or jihab, the mother something approximating Parisienne couture, and the teen agers are dressed in the ubiquitous jeans and tee-shirts (University of Texas...is a favorite) of the Western world.
As well as vice-versa: radically religious children and adamantly emancipated prior generations.
And where the economies have need of their labor, women are not only employed outside the home, it is sometimes at levels of importance that are suprising even by our standards.
Television, radio, tourism.. availability of education, but mostly money,... made the difference.
And led, inevitably to those inroads AGAINST prevailing religious orthodoxy.
That may be the value of travel, by the way: the awareness that, at least in the context of this discussion, "things are seldom what they seem," or what we have been led to believe.
Secular "Muslims" do exist... and in some numbers.
In fact, I personally do not know really well, any religious citizens from Muslim countries..
I do know a lot of once Muslim, or even like me, never religious at all, people from Islamic countries.
Israel is an, perhaps, extreme example, of what I am trying to say, although that miniscule population pales in significance when viewed against a billion and a half, Muslims.
Israel, is effectively in thrall to it Orthodox religious minority,,, whose behaviors are sometimes shocking.
On the other hand, the majority of Israels are secular, religion (other than an acknowledgment of holidays) playing little or no part in personal lives.
And for the obvious reasons of its Western, European ties, its economy, its educational system,
Israel women (other than Orthodox or Chassidic) drive buses and lorries, and are of course, in the military services alongside men (something the religious eschew for all their bizarre nationalism).
Because the country NEEDS their labor.
It's as simple as that.
If Yemen (that really primitive Muslim enclave) had sufficient passable roads, and then buses, and then needed drivers for them, it MIGHT have to resort to using women to operate those buses ON those roads.
And that's the beginning of the end of those nitty gritty laws from the Koran about what women are and are not allowed to do.
I think.

NMB
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby nmblum88 » Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:54 pm

A-number wrote:Oh my sweet jesus, there are muslims here that claim to be atheists, and yet they think they have the right and qualify to come in here and attack me (on other threads) because I put the bottom of my boot to islam's ass embracing instead Xtianity. At least Christ Loved me for Who I am, and to work to honor that love I am striving to practice accountability toward Him as well as everybody else around the clock. What does islam promote beside for thugs to ride their women like mules while continuing to be the vile brutes that they are.

LOL... who knew that reading a selected view of Islam by a Christian could be so much fun?
I had an aunt who in her dotage believed, insisted, that she was being stalked by Harry Belafonte, not out of mere lust but for genuine, not -to-be-denied love.
"Imagine," she said.. "such a handsome young man and he not only loves me, he wants me to bear his children!!'
("Harry loves me, this I know, 'cause my depleted hormones tell me so!")_
Now at the time, I knew even less about Harry Belafonte than I know about the putative Jesus, but I did know that no matter what he was doing or not doing, being in love old Dotty Dot, was not it.
One does have sympathy for both Harry AND Jesus, though.
Having a catchy product, and/or being popular doesn't guarantee the quality of the adoration one gets, only the quantity.
No one, no matter how powerful and charismatic, gets to choose his/her fans.

NMB
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby nmblum88 » Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:48 pm

A-number wrote:Oh my sweet jesus, there are muslims here that claim to be atheists, and yet they think they have the right and qualify to come in here and attack me (on other threads) because I put the bottom of my boot to islam's ass embracing instead Xtianity. At least Christ Loved me for Who I am, and to work to honor that love I am striving to practice accountability toward Him as well as everybody else around the clock. What does islam promote beside for thugs to ride their women like mules while continuing to be the vile brutes that they are.


P.S.
Little Girl Blue, don't blow your own horn: why would anyone care any more about what you think of Islam than they care what you think about Jesus, even as you insult him by making him out to be nothing more than a crank faith-healer?
So undignified!!

You haven't put "the bottom of your boot to Islam's ass," which even as a figure of speech is preposterous and witless....
Whatever Islam is... and much of it is terrible as well as blind and deaf to rational approaches to solutions to its own internal problem, still...it is not conglomeration of "thugs" anymore than Christianity is an unameliorated collection of either Torquemadas, Borgias, or Cromwells. Or for that matter retrograde, self-serving charlatans of the quality of Pat Robertson or James Dobson.
"Thugs" didn't design and build the Alhambra in Granada , or the Mosque of Omar, or the Shah Faisal Mosque in Pakistan... to name but three architectural, artistic and cultural monuments.
And there are hundreds more.
As a matter of fact, the same inspiration went into all of them that went into the creation of the great Gothic cathedrals of medieval Europe...
Islam is a religion, and as a religion it attracts a wide, and disparate variety of humans to its siren song.
Some are more rational, smarter, better informed and aware of the world's complexity than is true of the lowest common denominator of deluded and desperate humans who are born into a world they never made and will never understand.
And some are, even more tragically, perpetually hungry, cold, and uncomfortable in this life, yearning for nothing more - what a terrible, even tragic idea, to the rational mind!!- than to leave it for some promised, but unlikely paradise.
But surely that doesn't sound, nor is it unfamiliar or unique to Islam, except perhaps to those excessively deluded followers of the other Abrahamic religious persuasions, who in their delirium like to think that somehow their own god (s) not only LOVES them, but has also made them smarter, more insightful, calmer .... given to more realistic judgments and religious aspirations.
Ridiculous, no?
Certainly eems so.


Norma Manna Blum
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

User avatar
Jeff D
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:24 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby Jeff D » Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:06 am

A-number illustrates (or acts out) a paradox:
A reminder:::

This post was made by nmblum who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

...just in case someone is again barking at themselves.


Why go to the trouble of placing some poster on one's personal ignore list (frequently justifiable), and then proceed to read those posts anyway (OK if curiosity is stimulated, but who else has to know), and then tell the rest of the forum that these "ignored" posts are being read?

It's not more strange, I suppose, than embracing the profound mathematical mysteries of the Trinity.
Jeff D

User avatar
vanderpoel
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4572
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:01 am
Location: Honolulu
Contact:

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby vanderpoel » Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:25 am

Jeff D wrote:A-number illustrates (or acts out) a paradox:
A reminder:::

This post was made by nmblum who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

...just in case someone is again barking at themselves.


Why go to the trouble of placing some poster on one's personal ignore list (frequently justifiable), and then proceed to read those posts anyway (OK if curiosity is stimulated, but who else has to know), and then tell the rest of the forum that these "ignored" posts are being read?

It's not more strange, I suppose, than embracing the profound mathematical mysteries of the Trinity.

Jeff, I don't think you appreciate the profound sense of purpose Christians feel when doing God's work by sharing their prejudices with us.
"When you put a toucan on a monkey’s ass, don’t be fooled by the brightly colored plumage, beware of the enormous bill!"

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby nmblum88 » Fri Jun 25, 2010 12:49 pm

Jeff D wrote:A-number illustrates (or acts out) a paradox:
A reminder:::

This post was made by nmblum who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

...just in case someone is again barking at themselves.


Why go to the trouble of placing some poster on one's personal ignore list (frequently justifiable), and then proceed to read those posts anyway (OK if curiosity is stimulated, but who else has to know), and then tell the rest of the forum that these "ignored" posts are being read?

It's not more strange, I suppose, than embracing the profound mathematical mysteries of the Trinity.


I, on the other hand, being no different from the lowest, meanest mind among us (mankind), read every word that A-Number writes for consumption here.
For who among us, after all , doesn't get a charge at having his/her prejudices confirmed?
And one of mine is that religion, like any other drug, while potentially dangerous as a tool in social organization ( is Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" still on required reading lists?) is too often fatal to the mind (a terrible thing to waste) of the already addictive personality.
But god and religion are symptoms, not cause: the capacity for capture by excess comes first, and the focus of the "enthusiasm" is second.

NMB
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby Lausten » Fri Jun 25, 2010 2:52 pm

But god and religion are symptoms, not cause: the capacity for capture by excess comes first, and the focus of the "enthusiasm" is second.
Assuming I am not being ignored, which is no doubt extremely presumptuous, could I get a definition for "capture by excess"?

capture being drawing in the converts?
excess being all the fluff and high holy ritual?

The second part is to get them whipped up, excited and believing anything they do is to serve god, then they get them to do just about anything. I believe I have that right.

Interesting post Norma, I often interpret your longer posts as indicating that you think religion IS the primary cause of many of the world's problems throughout history. Or at least that if it were eliminated, things would be better. Maybe I have misinterpreted. But as Theodoric of York once said, "nah".

http://www.hulu.com/watch/3529/saturday-night-live-theodoric-of-york
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

Chachacha
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:07 am
Custom Title: Irrational Skeptic

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby Chachacha » Fri Jun 25, 2010 4:13 pm

Lausten wrote:
But god and religion are symptoms, not cause: the capacity for capture by excess comes first, and the focus of the "enthusiasm" is second.
Assuming I am not being ignored, which is no doubt extremely presumptuous, could I get a definition for "capture by excess"?

capture being drawing in the converts?
excess being all the fluff and high holy ritual?

The second part is to get them whipped up, excited and believing anything they do is to serve god, then they get them to do just about anything. I believe I have that right.


The effect religion has on people is not always bad. I have relatives who are racist, but they support a church in Haiti, because their church told them, "We're going to support a church in Haiti." After the earthquake, they continued their financial support of the church, gave ongoing additional financial support for relief, and they worked into the night, night after night, gathering and packing supplies for Haiti after the earthquake. I could be wrong, but I do not believe they would have done these things - or done them to the degree they did - if not for the local leaders of their religion telling/asking them to do it because it is part of the teachings of their religion.

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby nmblum88 » Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:32 pm

Lausten wrote:
But god and religion are symptoms, not cause: the capacity for capture by excess comes first, and the focus of the "enthusiasm" is second.
Assuming I am not being ignored, which is no doubt extremely presumptuous, could I get a definition for "capture by excess"?

capture being drawing in the converts?
excess being all the fluff and high holy ritual?

The second part is to get them whipped up, excited and believing anything they do is to serve god, then they get them to do just about anything. I believe I have that right.

Interesting post Norma, I often interpret your longer posts as indicating that you think religion IS the primary cause of many of the world's problems throughout history. Or at least that if it were eliminated, things would be better. Maybe I have misinterpreted. But as Theodoric of York once said, "nah".

http://www.hulu.com/watch/3529/saturday-night-live-theodoric-of-york

Lausten:
Fear not.
Your record for misinterpretation (if not incomprehension) remains solid, intact, inviolate.
Reassurance, for those that need it, that in a complicated and ever evolving universe, some things really don't change.
Either because they can't (the mechanisms for adaption being absent) or they won't, because change and terror are one and the same thing.

However, as it happens I have NEVER (even before I came to accept that the capacity for belief in the supernatural MIGHT be a function of the human brain) believed that religion is the PRIMARY cause of the world's (or humankind's) ills.
And I have ALWAYS believed that that if religion were not an influence (read deterrent) to human solutions to human problems "things" (or at least certain, specified "things" would indeed be better.
Those two ideas not only CAN exist in tandem, they DO exist in tandem.
And always have: I did not invent either of them, nor am I the only one who encompasses both as an approach to life or thought.

Now I sincerely hope this explanation is sufficiently clear but short enough to cause little or no stress to your attention span.
And allows you a speedy return to what seems like a valiant (but hopeless) attempt to turn (by dissimulation, paraphrasing,and disassociated quotations), "50 Voices of Disbelief," into " At Least a FEW Voices of Corroboration that Religion is Meaningful and Good For You in the Words of Really Accomplished, Scientists, Philosophers, and above all Skeptical Thinkers.."
Quite an undertaking, that.
I must confess to being awed by the size of the windmill you have taken on to fool around with, given the condition of your elderly steed (questionable understanding of the material) and your damaged, inadequate sword ( your even more questionable, confused theology).

Norma Manna Blum
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby nmblum88 » Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:16 pm

Chachacha wrote:
Lausten wrote:
But god and religion are symptoms, not cause: the capacity for capture by excess comes first, and the focus of the "enthusiasm" is second.
Assuming I am not being ignored, which is no doubt extremely presumptuous, could I get a definition for "capture by excess"?

capture being drawing in the converts?
excess being all the fluff and high holy ritual?

The second part is to get them whipped up, excited and believing anything they do is to serve god, then they get them to do just about anything. I believe I have that right.


The effect religion has on people is not always bad. I have relatives who are racist, but they support a church in Haiti, because their church told them, "We're going to support a church in Haiti." After the earthquake, they continued their financial support of the church, gave ongoing additional financial support for relief, and they worked into the night, night after night, gathering and packing supplies for Haiti after the earthquake. I could be wrong, but I do not believe they would have done these things - or done them to the degree they did - if not for the local leaders of their religion telling/asking them to do it because it is part of the teachings of their religion.

Is this serious?
Does the story have a happy ending?
Do the previously unreconstructed racists return home ready to open their schools and neighborhoods to Blacks?
To espouse equality before the law?
Will they stop referring to their (not always) darker brothers by epithets?
Will they stop longing for the good old days when they could not only wallow in the conviction that Blacks are, and supported by the Bible, inferior in every way but athletics, to Whites, and therefore could, with impunity be pushed off the sidewalks (and worse) when Whites needed the room?
Forgive me, Chachacha...... I freely admit to not always being clear on what is tongue-in-cheek, irony... or is being seriously offered up , anecdotally, as exemplary of significant changes in human behavior.

You have racist relatives who are helping acknowledged inferiors, Black people, in Haiti, because their preachers or pastors have told them its a good thing to do?
One would have to be feral, a beast, to think of such exhortations as well as the resultant action as anything less than admirable.
It would even seem cheap and snide to express grief that such behavior would require external, human, introduction: that a natural event of such epic proportion would be the instrument of even temporary enlightenment.
Especially since it is now well known that many fundamentalist Christians in Haiti are not only giving out Bibles with their generous, practical ministrations, while also reminding the (Roman Catholic) Haitians that an earthquake (especially such a destructive one) is not just an earthquake, the shifting of ancient tectonic plates, but a sign, a warning, of god's displeasure with Haitians in general, and specifically with their slow rate of rebirth... as BORN AGAIN Protestants..

I have friends, volunteers, not only atheists, anti-clericals, godless and Cuban who are in Haiti for as long as it takes, paid for and supported by their atheist, anti-clerical godless Cuban government (is there a more reviled government on American earth?) feeding people, practicing medicine, delivering babies, building shelters, establishing schools, with, and not by accident, not a bible distributor among them.

Who have been there from the day after the first tremors occurred and are still there, away from jobs, schools, family and personal interest.
And I have other friends, among "Medecins sans Frontiers" who happen to be atheists who have also been in Haiti from the beginning, except for intermittent travel abroad to make pleas for, and collect, medicines and hospital equipment as they become increasingly rather than less important.
Some of them are even.... that dread human disability .. Socialists.
And to pursue the point, they weren't racists BEFORE the earthquake in Haiti (or the slaughters in Rwanda and Darfur) and they won't be racists when they return to their personal lives wherever (Ireland, France, Germany, America ) they came from.
One does hate to carp... but it is my feeling that if racism might have been alleviated (rather than deliberately encouraged) by religion, and/or religious institutions and hierarchy, it would have already happened, and long, long ago.
That it didn't, that it is still with us, written virtually in stone, appears to be related to, exacerbated rather than ameliorated by, our bibles...


And quite frankly - although I certainly regret the necessity of tooting my own family's horn, I was brought up in an atheist household, and ran my own household the same way: that anyone who needs anything within one's power to give that would make another life easier to live, is simply by asking, entitled to have it (other than firearms, of course).
Without question, and without the necessity of philosophical agreement.

NOT having it forced upon them with an "atheist handbook" mind you, (although such a handbook is nonexistent) but because it is quite simply the human thing to do.

Norma Manna Blum
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby nmblum88 » Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:53 pm

Oh GOODY!! Here's my chance to be ignored yet again.
(An ignore a day keeps the thought police at bay.)
It is true that humans have many subsidiary identities... but being born of flesh and blood, the issue of human parents, leads all the rest.
In fact all the others, doctor, lawyer, Indian Chief, child or parent, pale in comparison, in significance.
If you prick Jeff, he will definitely bleed.
And oddly enough, so will you if you are similarly assaulted.
Both of you, it is reasonably safe to say, within any of your earthly identities, will consistently see your reflections in a mirror.
Hey!! Me too!!
The all too solid flesh does not melt.
(Although, yes, it will eventually become dust after its earthly tenure.)

Norma Manna Blum
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

Chachacha
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:07 am
Custom Title: Irrational Skeptic

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby Chachacha » Fri Jun 25, 2010 11:37 pm

I was serious. The effects of religion are not all bad. I think it's a matter of choice. Religion "does it" for some people, they follow the positive teachings of their religion. Because the people I cited are racists, don't mean their money ain't no good ;), and it doesn't mean the supplies they packed and sent are of any less value to the recipients: what it does mean is that money and supplies were desperately needed, and they and untold numbers of others - not necessarily racists - sent money and supplies because their religious leaders told/asked them to. Would they have helped if their religious leaders hadn't told/asked them to? We have no way of knowing, but I think it's a safe assumption that some of them would have and some of them wouldn't - again, less money and supplies to those who needed it, less good; and I think it's a safe assumption that racists wouldn't have sent any money to help a country of people with black skin if not for their willingness, in this case, to respond to the words of their religious leaders.

The rest of your comments that atheists can do the same thing without religion is nice, it's true, but it doesn't change the fact that religion motivates some people to do good things.

User avatar
Jeff D
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:24 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby Jeff D » Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:02 am

Lausten,
Interesting post Norma, I often interpret your longer posts as indicating that you think religion IS the primary cause of many of the world's problems throughout history. Or at least that if it were eliminated, things would be better. . . .


Nobody asked me, but I contend that many of the world's problems throughout history have been caused primarily by "defects" in our nature as social and occasionally rational human beings with rich imaginations, language, and knowledge of our mortality:

(1) a mediocre ability to think about the long-term consequences, over decades or centuries, of our actions and decisions

(2) the strength of habit and inertia as social / psychological / cultural "forces" within individuals and groups

(3) the ease with which other human beings who are not in our clan, tribe, or nation-state, or who have different cultural practices and rituals, can be labeled, and feared or hated, as "the other," "the enemy," "the heretic," "the idolater"

(4) an extremely well-developed ability to tell / imagine stories and to engage in deception of self and others

The dangerous pathologies of religion are just special cases (frequently, highly concentrated, distilled, potent special cases) of (3) and (4) in combination, with a heapin' helpin' of (2) ["Tradition!" "We have always believed this / done it this way." "Faith of our fathers, holy faith . . . ."] stirred in.

But my prejudices, which I think I have come by honestly, lead me to survey the historical record of the last 3 or 4 millennia and to fairly conclude that even though religious ideas -- as motivators of human action ranging from beautiful to silly to pernicious or horrific -- are just special cases of human folly, religious ideas have evolved to perpetuate themselves from mind to mind, and from generation to generation, and are particularly good at sticking around, at reinforcing belief, at pushing the believers in the pews to punish dissenters and doubters, so that the priests and rabbis and imams need not lift a finger, and so that group members who are inclined to doubt keep those doubts to themselves (much of the time).

I think that there is something different in degree, if not in kind, in the power of religious ideas to give the believer the conviction that whatever he or she is doing --

A. displaying admirable empathy and kindness toward neighbors or even strangers,

B. making war on groups that don't look any different and speak the same language,

C. murdering or burning one's own child (or withholding available medical treatment from that child),

D. cherishing ancient, ignorant superstition and shunning or hiding from the hard-won discoveries and explanations of science and empiricism --

is either permitted or virtuous or a sacred mission, because a god or the gods will it to be done, or because doing it will "save the soul" or earn eternal life.

I think there is a difference in degree, at least, in the case of religiously-inspired folly, because although human beings don't need religion in order to engage in good actions like A or to engage in barbaric, violent acts like B, human beings who are not clinically psychotic generally do not engage in C or D without a significant "assist," if not a healthy prod, from religious belief.

And as an illustration of the difference in degree / difference in kind about religious belief as a motivator, here is an interesting interview with Reed Cowan, the gay, raised-as-a-Mormon director of the new documentary about California's Proposition 8 and the LDS church's involvement in winning approval for the ban on same-sex marriage. The Salon interviewer asks Cowan how the Mormon backers of Prop 8 counteracted the larger sums of money mobilized against Prop 8.
Nobody does it better than the Mormons. Money is one thing. What outsiders don't understand is the volunteer aspect: the "means and time" trigger language that comes from the temple, and how it literally played to their obedience.

Their greatest asset is the obedience of their people. They had people signed up to go street by street and house by house. They knew who to take with them and were extremely organized.

[Question] What is it about those two words, "time and means," that triggers obedience?

You're told in the temple that what you are about to do, your eternal salvation hinges on it. God will not be mocked. Then you see a character named Satan who basically threatens to take away your eternal salvation if you don't live up to covenants you're making. When they used the trigger language of the temple, most of the Mormon faithful got it. Your salvation and the salvation of humanity depends on it. It's inferred that you will lose everything if you don't obey.



Bold italic emphasis added by me.
Last edited by Jeff D on Sat Jun 26, 2010 9:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Jeff D

User avatar
Jeff D
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:24 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby Jeff D » Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:41 am

Remember the girl who was killed for refusing to wear the hijab? Strangled by the brother, but with the father claiming that he killed her.

Her father and brother were sentenced to life in prison by an Ontario jury.

There is another recent story several paragraphs down in the linked article:

Days before Aqsa Pervez’s killers were sentenced, another Canadian Muslim girl, Bahar Ebrahimi, was stabbed by her mother when she went out with friends and did not return until the next morning. On June 13, 19-year-old Bahar was returning home when her mother stabbed her in the chest and head with a knife. The mother, Johra Kaleki, has been charged with attempted murder, assault and possession of a weapon. During the hearing her husband got up and started shouting that his wife was innocent and was ordered to sit down by the judge. The couple’s other children, three younger daughters aged 10, 14 and 16, have been taken away from the family home and placed with youth services. In the meantime Bahar is in hospital, recovering from her wounds.
Jeff D

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: 16-year old girl killed for refusing to wear the hijab .

Postby nmblum88 » Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:42 am

Chachacha wrote:I was serious. The effects of religion are not all bad. I think it's a matter of choice. Religion "does it" for some people, they follow the positive teachings of their religion. Because the people I cited are racists, don't mean their money ain't no good ;), and it doesn't mean the supplies they packed and sent are of any less value to the recipients: what it does mean is that money and supplies were desperately needed, and they and untold numbers of others - not necessarily racists - sent money and supplies because their religious leaders told/asked them to. Would they have helped if their religious leaders hadn't told/asked them to? We have no way of knowing, but I think it's a safe assumption that some of them would have and some of them wouldn't - again, less money and supplies to those who needed it, less good; and I think it's a safe assumption that racists wouldn't have sent any money to help a country of people with black skin if not for their willingness, in this case, to respond to the words of their religious leaders.

The rest of your comments that atheists can do the same thing without religion is nice, it's true, but it doesn't change the fact that religion motivates some people to do good things.



Sure. People (and puppies) should always be commended for the good they do.
But it doesn't change the fact that the same religions have motivated people to do things that are not only bad, but monstrous.
Religion, after all IS what motivated the parent/sibling who is the focus of this thread....among other heinous crimes, mass or personal, throughout history.
Further, the killing of one's own child is against nature, and shakes the biological foundation of not only the parent-child relationship but the concept of tribe, of clan.
And Islam is NOT the only religion that makes excuses for excessively using the rod to avoid spoiling the child.

Pointing out that religion does some good things is almost the same thing to me as pointing out that plague is useful to keep the planet's population to manageable numbers.
A in "spare the rod, and spoil the species..."
It may be true but there are better, more pacific , less extreme and tragedy provoking ways to do it.
Moreover, while the soup kitchen can pass as commendable, it can hardly be equated with the damage done by the presence on earth of so many needing the soup.
Nor can the distribution of bandages, even without the accompanying Scriptures, make up for the killings of doctors and nurses serving women whose personal convictions allow them to opt for termination of pregnancies.

More puzzling to me, however, is why religion gets such a pass from people who are otherwise acute critics of the status quo in our society, our inability to cast aside the iron ties that bind while we bend over backwards to make excuses for the damages done to ALL of us by it in the past, now at a crucial period in our history, and presumably -given the evidence - in the future.

For instance, it is now an established myth of American society, started by the religious establishment itself, abetted by our media, and now a rarely challenged cliche, that the Churches were the source and the bedrock of the American civil rights movement of the sixties.
That not only did the leadership come from the churches (the firmly SEGREGATED African-American churches of the South as well as the SOMETIMES (but in practice rarely) unsegregated WHITE churches of the rest of the country)... but that the encouragement, the nourishing of the brave young people who put themselves in harms way everywhere, was learned from the pulpit.
Somehow the fact that it took them 150 years (to omit much of human history) to get there, seems to have been lost it the shuffle.
And that despite the what looked like a universal eruption of righteousness really involved a minority of the country's clergy.
We seem to have forgotten that if there was any institution that made the objects of segregation and prejudice docile enough to tolerate the injustices hurled upon them, its was those same churches.


You did mention, I assume accurately, that your relatives are under ordinary circumstances, racist.
It is not simply my personal point of view that the racism actually inherent in our society, if not entirely due to Abrahamic religious teachings... has certainly been reinforced by it, not only for Americans, but in the entire (nominally Christian) Western world.
And by the way, as a matter of record, fact, anyone who has spent any time at all in Islamic countries will tell you despite the horrors of life in most of them, color lines are both blurred and ignored.
There is an enormous panorama of color from Black to blue -eyed blond, and everything in between.
And in contrast say, to almost universally Christian Latin America, that spectrum transcends class.
Not enough to make life palatable perhaps... but a fact that CAN be attributed to the religion.
But so WHAT?
That doesn't make killing heretics, either their own, or others admirable, palatable or tolerable.
Criminal behavior should never been tolerated in the name of religion which is where excusing its excesses by pointing out its minor virtues.
And the soup kitchen, or the distribution of bandages, while commendable, is hardly enough to warrant ignoring the crimes.... or even mentioning.

NMB
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."


Return to “The Letting Go of God Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests