»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Girl With Nose Cut Off On Time Mag Cover
| The Alley |
|
Girl With Nose Cut Off On Time Mag Cover |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007269,00.html Think that changed any minds? . |
||
| © Copyright 2010 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Changed minds about what? . |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
So many questions... Perhaps humanity's weaknesses come in all shapes and sizes. -Juju -Juju -"So you found a girl Who thinks really deep thoughts What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
This is an example of how Sharia values women. It is utterly barbaric and shouldn't be countenanced in any society. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Changed any minds about what, John? Whether or not we should be fighting in countries that oppress women? Some people, myself among them, feel that the United States oppresses women in many ways, and is seeking ways to oppress them more completely. Are you suggesting we should be fighting a government that tries to roll back abortion rights? I suspect not. What about Female circumcision, such as is the custom in some countries that are allies of The United States, such as Egypt? Should we declare war on Egypt? Perhaps you believe we ought to. What about countries that offer unrestricted abortion rights? Don't you believe that that is something that is murder? Don't you believe we should be fighting people who do that? Perhaps we should declare war on, say, Canada or some of the Scandinavian countries? We are already at war with the Taliban, as far as I understand things. Perhaps we could pass a law that would make a Super Duper at war with the Taliban? Nobody says you have to like sharia, but it is only the law in those parts of Afghanistan that are controlled by the Taliban. We are working as allies of the Karzai government there, and it is up to them what accommodation they intend to reach with the Taliban unless we wish to say that the Karzai government is not legitimate. That government is certainly more legitimate in their country, however we may feel about them, than we are. Why not offer some sort of justification for some set of actions in Afghanistan rather than simply suggesting that cutting off somebody's ears and nose are barbaric. I agree that these actions are hideous and barbaric. I want to know what you suggest we do about it, and why. Suggesting the picture and the actions behind the picture are repulsive doesn't distinguish your position from mine, and I see no need to change our actions in Afghanistan on the basis of this repulsive picture. If you do, what changes do you suggest? And why do you suggest them? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Some people, myself among them, feel that the United States oppresses women in many ways Quite a comparison.. I guess the inference is that we are no better, John.. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
I think (I could be wrong)the problem is instead of going after the men who maimed this poor young lady, we are making her a marter to spread fear "amongst ourchildren." Not everyone who Islamic thinks this is right, contrary to what the media says, however far to many think it is. I am shocked that these men are not being hunted down for war crimes. That is what should be happening. Disgusting. -Juju |
||
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
We lost the moral high ground when Bush ordered the Shock and Awe bombing of Baghdad, a city with a population made up of approximately 50 - 60 % of children under the age of 16, http://www.the7thfire.com/Iraq_War/us_war_crimes_in_iraq.htm when we dropped clusters bombs on civilian areas “liberating” children from their limbs, eyes and very lives. “The horror. The horror. And unlike Apocalypse Now, there are real, not fictional images to prove it. But they won't be seen in Western homes. The new heart of darkness has emerged in the turbulent history of Mesopotamia via the Hilla massacre. After uninterrupted, furious American bombing on Monday night and Tuesday morning, as of Wednesday night there were at least 61 dead Iraqi civilians and more than 450 seriously injured in the region of Hilla, 80 kilometers south of Baghdad. Most are children: 60 percent of Iraq's population of roughly 24 million are children. Roland Huguenin-Benjamin, a spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Iraq, describes what happened in Hilla as "a horror, dozens of severed bodies and scattered limbs". Initially, Murtada Abbas, the director of Hilla hospital, was questioned about the bombing only by Iraqi journalists - and only Arab cameramen working for Reuters and Associated Press were allowed on site. What they filmed is horror itself - the first images shot by Western news agencies of what is also happening on the Iraqi frontlines: babies cut in half, amputated limbs, kids with their faces a web of deep cuts caused by American shellfire and cluster bombs. Nobody in the West will ever see these images because they were censored by editors in Baghdad: only a "soft" version made it to worldwide TV distribution. “ |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Would you mind clarifying the point of your example? I am not sure what this has to do with this girl in afganistan. Sorry. I am not to smart. -Juju |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
The point is, we have maimed women and children too. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Terrible things happen even to good people all the time. There are mass graves and severed heads just south of our own border yet no one suggests we send in the Marines, (let alone lose some of them), until those decapitated bodies start showing up in Dallas. We are over there not because of what they do there but because of what they want to help export here. We’re not under any obligation otherwise to civilize the whole world, (regardless of who is suffering though I would much prefer out of political correctness that they were Western white men), just to do what we can in that part we call our own. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The point is, apparently, Juju, that our killing of women as casualties of war is the same as cutting off noses and ears of women who want to get away from their in-laws. When we start cutting off body parts of our own women from trying to get out of abusive relationships, I may buy it.  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I wonder, how often does extreme marital violence like this happen in Afghanistan? Is it commonplace or a rare event? . |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
No we don’t cut off body parts for leaving an abusive relationship, but we did (and still do) blow up innocent civilians, women and children, leaving a bloody trail of body parts across Iraq and Afghanistan damning us as the ashes from 9/11 damn those who committed that atrocity. Nine years in Afghanistan, civilians are still being killed by our troops and women like Bibi Aisha are still suffering. Heck of a job, Brownie. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Afraid I have to remain in the dark with Juju, in not knowing how this relates to the girl on the cover. I realize she has served as a springboard for going off on many tangents but, unless the bombing of Baghdad caused her relatives to cut off her nose and ears, I don't see it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No need to wonder, Grinch. Just type marital violence Afghanistan in your search engine and you will get your answer. Here's one...http://www.afghan-web.com/woman/domestic_violence.html |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Do you think marital violence is less prevalent in the west Mike? . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Certainly less sanctioned But the days of suttee ending are over. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It is certainly less tolerated....and punishable. It is not sanctioned. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
That has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am simply saying that by maiming that girls face those poeple should be charged with war crimes and be hunted down. -Juju |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The woman was treated cruelly and immorally according to my values, but not illegally. We allow children to be executed, which most of the rest of the world condemns as cruel and immoral, but which we consider legal. The world has not declared war on us for our immoral treatment of children according to their values. And we have not declared war on Afghanistan for their cruel and unreasonable treatment of women. We should be involved in an international attempt to change afghani law on this matter, I believe, but we did not declare war and ship a hundred thousand plus troops and a like number of contractors over there because of this. If we had, there would a declaration of war, and there isn't, with that reason written across the top. We went over because the Taliban gave sanctuary to Osama Bin Laden. Bin Ladin is gone. The Taliban left and then came back. We may be there now because we have a quarrel with the Taliban, but if that is so, it's a pretty pathetic quarrel because reportedly Karzai is treating with them, and he is our ally. The business about the woman who has been mutilated is horrific, but mutilation of women happens in Pakistan as well, and Pakistan is our ally. If John's logic is true logic, we should be invading Pakistan and all of the other countries in which is custom hold sway. We haven't dome so and aren't even pretending to do so, since that would put us in conflict with, among other countries, Russia, wouldn't it? The argument is specious, though the practice is hideous and we should be involved in attempting to curb it. [Edited - Ron] [Edited - Ron] [Edited - Ron] [This message has been edited by Ron (08-10-2010 10:31 AM).] |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "If John's logic is true logic, we should be invading Pakistan and all of the other countries in which is custom hold sway." ? . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
If not, then changed any minds about what, pray tell? Income tax? If not trying to justify policy in Afghanistan, what is the purpose of your posting? Perhaps in hope of finding somebody foolish enough to support the sort of barbarism illustrated in that terrible photo? Whoever might that be? Please. Of course if there is some other point to such a posting, I am open to being informed and considering such a thing. Was there another reasonable intention to the proposal of your posting? One I might have reasonably missed? |
||
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
In answer to your question, "No, this won't change any minds in that country." This is a sanctioned atrocity that happens every day, and will keep happening, until it becomes against their law. There are similar things done to women and children all over the world. Hopefully in years to come with knowledge, they will eventually do better. It would have to be passed as being against the law to break this chain. Abuse is a disease more often than not, passed down from one generation to the other. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
We can expect this type of sanctioned savagery to escalate, from rapes and mutilations to 'honor' killings, since, unfortunately, Sharia law will also now be legal in Kenya, thanks in part to the push for it and dollars from Obama. Way to go. Does this make sense to anybody? Everything should be done to eradicate this barbarism, not promote it. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
So sad... I heard that, \\ Juju -Juju |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Presumably it makes perfect sense to the people who voted for it Denise, are they right? You can have an opinion either way but at the end of the day it was their choice and they made it. The money America spent? It simply went towards advertising the fact that the choice existed. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I wonder if the women were allowed to vote on it? Should people even be given such choices if one choice is something that includes the subjucation, mistreatment, mutilation and murder of women? The money from Obama was spent to advertise and promote and push hard for the YES vote, not simply to advertise a choice. Why? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Yes, women in Kenya can vote. More about the Constitution: “The new constitution will bring about the changes Kenyans want in a number of ways. To reduce the power of politicians and keep a check on presidential powers, Parliament will be divided into the Senate and the National Assembly. Independent bodies will audit public finances and review land rights. The president's powers will be limited making him accountable and voters can recall members of Parliament if they are not doing their job adequately. The cabinet will be halved, with all the ministers drawn from outside parliament for the first time and there will be no post of prime minister. One change that will bring a sigh of relief to many road users of Kenya is the construction of better roads and provision of health and water services to all in the poorer areas. These will be funded through the 15 percent of the national budget that will go to the regional counties and the creation of a new Equalization Fund. Kenya’s politicians will have to start paying taxes on their salaries and allowances, which will fill Kenya Revenue Authority’s coffers with an estimated Sh700 million per annum. In addition, dual citizenship will be allowed as will the right to emergency treatment for all at any Kenyan hospital. A fair representation of both sexes and people from different ethnic backgrounds in the cabinet and the civil service will be another welcome change. Women will have more rights under this new constitution giving married couples equal rights, including property rights. According to Grace Maingi, the Executive Director of FIDA (Federation of Women Lawyers), “the new constitution is a very big gain for women” She also said that,” Finally, Kenyan women will be allowed to effectively participate in the decision-making of this country’s affairs.” http://www.helium.com/items/1918091-kenyas-new-constitution-a-change-for-the-better |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
oh yah Im sure I would vote for my self to be stoned..... I bet there is no inforcement of laws about men getting muttlated when they rape or cheet. sheesh. -Juju |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Men are also stoned and mutilated. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Unbelievable. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Unbelieveable is the perfect word, Denise. You have my complete agreement there... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
"Everything" includes exactly what for you, Denise? "Since the custom of mutilation is not confined to Afghanistan, are you suggesting we declare war against all countries that practice it? Are you suggesting the death penalty for those beasts that iunfluct it? Having worked on psych units in this country, I've known women who've been mutilated by the men in their lives. This sort of thing happens here and it is not confined to Muslim countries, and the mutilations are not confined to the ones you've seen. What do you suggest? Attaching the idiocy to sharia sidesteps the issue of violence against women, which is common to all cultures that I know of, and in some cultures is so institutionalized that the women themselves take part in it. For example, Female genital mutilation is traditionally a female on female custom, though these days a male physician will sometimes become involved. That custom, as with the mutilations you speak about, are not unique to Muslims, tyhey are frequently local cultural customs that have gotten enshrined in religious custom along the way. None of which makres the customs right to my mind. [Edited - Ron] We have our own issues with women's rights and violence against women in this country, including the occasional mutilation. By and large the conversation here is just that — conversation — but it more than occasionally gets out of hand, and issues such as rape and assault against women are very high here. The Muslim world by and large prides itself on the degree of respect with which it treats its women, and women who by and large coinform to the laws of the Muslim culture. This does not suggest that the various stories about Mudslim violence toward women are wrong. It does suggest that the general information available here about women in Muslim culture is studiously one-sided. I myself am not sure exactly how to evaluate the whole story and where to put emphasis on the overall picture. [This message has been edited by Ron (08-11-2010 07:51 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Attaching the idiocy to sharia sidesteps the issue of violence against women Actually, attaching the idiocy to violence against women sidesteps the issue of it being condoned and permissable by sharia law, which is basically what this thread refers to. It is not only about violence to women, which occurs in every country in the world, rather about a religion that allows and condones it. Criticizing America, where it occurs illegally and the perpetrators convicted as criminals, doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Referring to men being stoned and abused makes even less sense. I have a hard time understanding even why these references are made. I expect it in a left vs. right thread but, in a non-political topic simply about women being mutilated in accordance with the policies of a religion, which is how this thread began, I can't believe that everyone would simply not be in agreement here and declare it as barbaric. If it can't happen on a topic like this, I can't imagine it happening on any topic that could ever be brought up for discussion here. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Opening statement in thread: “Think that changed any minds?” Request for clarifiication: “Changed minds about what?” Response to that request: Nothing Second request for clarification: "Changed any minds about what, John?" Response to that request: Nothing Third request for clarification: “If not, then changed any minds about what, pray tell?” Response to that request: Nothing Outcome: A far reaching and rather informative discussion. Why would anyone have a problem with that? We were not asked to limit the discussion to whether or not, in our opinion, the act was barbaric. Referring to men being stoned and mutilated was a response to “I bet there is no inforcement of laws about men getting muttlated when they rape or cheet. sheesh.” |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Its all fun and games until it's your kid, someone you love. Then it is racism, bigotry,male shovenist, and well the story goes on doesn't it. -Juju -Juju |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No, I wasn't talking about war or death penalties, Bob. By 'everything' I simply meant that we should do as much, and with as much gusto, to get Sharia defeated or abolished around the world as Obama did to get the Yes referendum in favor of Sharia passed in Kenya. Again, why did he do that? Why would he do that? Government sanctioned or Religion sanctioned barbarism and brutality is not comparable to domestic abuse, as Michael stated. The one is 'according to law', the other is 'against the law'. I think therein lies the difference between barbarians and civilized people. Imam Rauf, of Ground Zero Mosque fame, wants the US to be Sharia compliant. Take a hike, Rauf. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Many countries consider us barbaric because we execute criminals, including some with diminished capacity, suffering from mental illness, or, up until just a few years ago juveniles, or those whose crimes were committed when they were juveniles. Barbaric, civilized or not? And some of the methods of execution we have used - gas chamber, electrocution, hanging - barbaric, civilized or not? “Imam Rauf, of Ground Zero Mosque fame, wants the US to be Sharia compliant.” - Denise Perhaps a quote or source would add credibility to that claim. Ground Zero Mosque Opposition: The Paranoia About Sharia Law “As Serwer goes on to say, this basically boils down to whether you accept that Faisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" -- after having a long career building interfaith bridges with the stated intention of out-competing Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda death cult for the hearts and minds of young Muslims -- has now accidentally tipped his hand to the secret plot to destroy America that he's been hiding all along. (If only he'd been smart enough to call the proposed center "The Newt Gingrich House of Pancakes!") And then, if all that is true, you have to imagine that somehow, it's even possible for Sharia law to be imposed somehow on America. One need only look at how difficult it is for a global superpower to impose Western democracy on Iraq and Afghanistan to see how foolish an idea that is. From my perch inside the Beltway, I find it hard to believe that the "Impose Sharia Law Act of 2011" wins Ben Nelson's vote in the Senate. I suppose it could be done through sorcery, but al Qaeda will really have to step up its game, from crotch-based incendiary discharges, to make that work.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/03/ground-zero-mosque-opposi_n_668955.html |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I don't think it is right to attribute it to Sharia Law (in general), because how people interpret/use Sharia Law differs among Muslims. ALL muslims as I understand believe in Sharia Law, but they differ among themselves as to what belongs to it. Are such extremes native to Sharia Law itself? I don't believe so. I believe these are extents that extremists groups take Sharia Law, not extents that are stipulated by Sharia Law itself. The majority of Muslims don't use Sharia Law for violence, even though all Muslims apparently believe in some form of Sharia Law. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Referring to men being stoned and mutilated was a response to “I bet there is no inforcement of laws about men getting muttlated when they rape or cheet. sheesh.” Is it your statement then, Jenn, that me DO get mutilated by enforcement of laws when they rape or cheat? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
My understanding is that stoning for adultery applies to both men and women and is allowed as punishment for the crime of rape or murder. Mutilation, cutting off fingers or hands is a punishment that may be given for serious theft, or repeated acts of theft, thus my response "Men are also stoned and mutilated." |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. #10 . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-ground-zero-mosque-developer-muslim-brotherhood-roots-radical-dreams/?singlepage=true |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I'm in favour of the Sharia courts as laid out in the Kenyan constitution. I'm also in favour of a similar judicial system being set up in the UK to run in conjunction with the existing system, a suggestion that was recently proposed. After reading the details of the proposals, both in Kenya and the UK, I honestly can't see what all the fuss is about. Unless, of course, it's because there are some people who don't understand the proposals who are intent on screaming about death, destruction and the end of the world as we know it. I'm almost surprised that they haven't used the label 'Death Panels' yet. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
My understanding is that stoning for adultery applies to both men and women and is allowed as punishment for the crime of rape or murder. Mutilation, cutting off fingers or hands is a punishment that may be given for serious theft, or repeated acts of theft, thus my response "Men are also stoned and mutilated." I'm trying to understand where you are coming from, Jennifer. When you say "my understanding", what do you base that understanding on? Is it from some information you have found somewhere? If so, where? The female subject of the thread was mutilated due to trying to get away from an abusive relationship. Your example discusses rape, murder, serious theft or repeated acts of theft. Do you have any example of a man being mutilated for the reason the girl on Time was mutilated for? If not, can you explain the connection of a man being mutilated for a major crime with that of a female being mutilated for running from abuse? I'd be interested in knowing how you consider them similar, since you use the word "also". I can state as fact that, if my sister were to have her ears cut off for leaving an abusive husband and someone were to say to me, "Well, men get punished, too", I would have something to say to that individual. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I like what a Canadian once said in an interview about her country’s attitude. She said, rather apologetically, that while they acknowledged it was a good cause they had not suffered such casualties since the Korean War and simply weren’t ready to suffer them again. Another way of saying it could be that Canadians are not willing to lose their sons so some other country’s daughters can keep their noses. I like that because it’s far more honest. Why die for Danzig? . |
||
|
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Grinch, I agree with you 100% I think the new constitution is a step in the right direction, and am so glad it went through without violence. I am disappointed however, in that here we go again using the net and its "newsworthy" propaganda to influence people on their next voting experience in the States. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
So what Imam Rauf said was not that he “wants the US to be Sharia compliant.” but rather --"the American political structure is Shariah compliant." Thanks for that source, Denise. "[Inviting] voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation’s practical life, [and allowing] religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws (22)." Wish the full quote had been posted.. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from, Jennifer. When you say "my understanding", what do you base that understanding on? Is it from some information you have found somewhere? If so, where? - Balladeer I read it on Fox News  “Two men convicted of adultery were stoned to death in northeastern Iran last month but a third convicted man managed to escape, Iran's judiciary spokesman said Tuesday. Ali Reza Jamshidi said the stoning took place in the city of Mashhad in late December but did not provide the names of the convicted men. Under Iran's Islamic law, adultery is punishable by stoning, but such sentences are rare. International human rights groups have long criticized stoning in Iran as a cruel form of punishment.” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479752,00.html Maybe this will help your understanding, Balladeer. "Men are also stoned and mutilated." was an in passing comment meant to point out that men and women, not just women, have been/are being stoned and mutilated for certain crimes and acts. Yep, Mysteria, definitely a step in the right direction. I think Obama was right in supporting the new constitution. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I think there is sufficient evidence, Grinch, of the evil done around the world, especially to women, in the name of Sharia. They are the ones who suffer most under that system. If any group, either religious or governmental bureaucracy, has the power to make decisions that affect the lives, literally, of people, yeah, I would call them death panels. How is having Sharia elevated to legal status in Kenya a step in the right direction, Sharon and Jennifer? Was there something deficient in their secular legal system that Sharia enhanced? Obama did more than 'support' it. He funded the VOTE YES campaign for Sharia and abortion to the tune of $23 million. And I'm sure that $23 million goes much further there than in Western economies. That's quite a bit of support. Why do you think he was right in doing it? What justification could there possibly be for him doing it, as opposed to supporting the side that didn't want Sharia to have equal footing with secular law? And why are voices opposed to this characterized as "using the net and its "newsworthy" propaganda to influence people on their next voting experience in the States." You left part of it out, Jennifer: quote: We're not quite there yet. He said this to groups advocating for Sharia in the U.S. and one of those things is for religious communities to have more leeway in using their own laws. For Islam that is Sharia. You can't have two laws reigning in a nation on equal footing. One or the other will have to have the upper hand. If Sharia is given legal status in the U.S., then the U.S. laws will be subordinate to Sharia relative to Muslims, with all its potential horrors. There will be one law for one group and another for the others. The only benefit will be to the clerics and 'aggrieved' husbands, fathers and brothers who engage in stoning and honor killings. They will be 'protected' by the legal status given to Sharia. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Maybe this will help your understanding, Balladeer. "Men are also stoned and mutilated." was an in passing comment meant to point out that men and women, not just women, have been/are being stoned and mutilated for certain crimes and acts. Yes, I understand now. I had thought you were making the comparison for similar acts/crimes between the two groups but I see it was just a general statement tossed in for whatever. Thanks for the explanation. It's good that you are using Fox News for your fact-finding. There is hope... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: I too believed that the thread was about Muslims and sharia, and responded to that perception. John literally questioned my response ("?"). He was not forthcoming with any more details than that. Therefore, it appears that his intention was other than to question the tenets of that Religion and of sharia law. Should there be a clear statement by John that says otherwise, I see no evidence of it. I see only his question of my assumption and his refusal of a chance to clarify his meaning. If Mike intends to speak for John, it might be a good idea if he could get John's agreement, first. In thart way both of us would have a much clearer notion of what John's intention might have been for the thread. In the meantime, I see no evidence that Mike's understanding of that purpose is other than mindreading. Should Mike care to offer evidence otherwise, I would be happy to be convinced otherwise, but simple assertion is not enough, and my own capacity for error is as ample as Mike's is. I would also suggest that any pretense of understanding of sharia law by Mike would be an error, as would an assumption of understanding of Napoleonic Law or of Rabbinic Law. I have difficulty with American Law, and our Lawyers seem to quarrel about it all the time. The violence visited on many Muslim women may or may not be attached to Sharia law. John used a reference to sutee, which is not Muslim at all, as far as I understand it, but a Hindu custom, and not applicable to all Hindus at that. Yet John apparently clumps it in with sharia. Female genital mutilation is a custom in both some Muslim cultures and some non-muslim cultures through Africa, and it may be a custom in other places as well. Sharia as far as I know has nothing to do with it, though some Muslim cultures in Egypt apparently act as though it does. It apparently runs with the same sort of cultural custom that one finds cross culturally in many corners of the globe and it affects both genders. In Australia, it was researched and filmed as applied to boys in a rite called sub-incision. The anthropologist who did the work was the Hungarian Freudian anthropologist Geza Roheim. With men it is part of initiation rites, like a bar mitzva, as Female genital mutilation is supposed to be part of the initiation into the women's mysteries. These ceremonies and rites initiate youths into the inner workings of the culture. The sort of punishment that the woman on the cover of Time incurred may be covered up in some of the more backward parts of the society, yet it may still happen. When I moved to Virginia in 1966, the sheriff of one small local community beat his wife to death when he found her in bed with another guy. He shot the other guy to death. The next door neighbor, in explaining the case to my family, used this phrase to my father, "same as you or I would do." In this down home part of Virginia, this was what was expected behavior, and the jury let the sheriff off after a very short deliberation. I don't remember if he was elected next time around or not, though I wouldn't have been surprised. The key was that phrase, "same as you or I would have done." There was no sharia law involved there, it was plain, down home American justice, and everybody would have look at you funny if you'd have suggested that there was anything Muslim about it. It was simply the way things were done. It was the way you were more or less expected to treat infidelity. Now the country has changed a lot in the forty years since, but what were talking about in Afghanistan isn't all that different. It is wrong. It is beastly. It should be illegal and that law should be enforced strictly. But don't pretend that it doesn't happen here, and don't blame it on the religion, or not solely, at least. That's simply plain racism, and it suggests that such horrors couldn't, and don't happen here. I've worked in the hospital system, and I know that's not true, and at least some of the people I'm talking to have worked in the hospital system as well. They should know better. And those of you who've worked in the justice system ought to have seen almost as much as I have. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, you have resorted once again to speaking of me in the third person. If you have something to say about my thoughts or intentions please do me the courtesy of speaking to me, not about me. That way you can save yourself a lot of surmising. I appreciate it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I continue to be amazed. An article, appearing in Time, showing pictures of a woman mutilated for no other reason than wanting to leave an abusive relationship, should provoke horror at the act, disdain for a law which condones it, and sympathy for the victims that endure this. Instead it produces references to... - female circumcision - unrestricted abortion rights - dropping cluster bombs on civilians - how we allow children to be executed - men being stoned and mutilated for commiting major crimes - rape and assault against women high in the U.S. - gas chambers and electrocutions barbaric - Austrailian boys in a rite called sub-incision - bar mitzvah initiation rites - a sheriff beating his wife to death " I myself am not sure exactly how to evaluate the whole story and where to put emphasis on the overall picture."....Bob How about the emphasis on simply the horror of it? There's no need for the sideroads, really. It is an unpardonable action condoned by a religion. It would be unpardonable,even if every country in the world participated in it. No one called for war against countries who practice it, simply that people be aware that is actually is condoned. The way you responded in your post#4, Bob, I wouldn't have responded to you, either. It's all horrific. That's the evaluation.... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I beg your pardon, but I doubt any religion sanctioned it. Rabbinic courts function in the United States. Not all Jews recognize their authority. Not all Muslims recognize sharia law over the law of the land, depending on the land where they live. Have you examined Rabbinic Law? If you had, you wouldn't be speaking as you do. There are extremists in Israel who would very much like to go back to use of biblical Law. Have you, perchance, had a look at that particular abomination? Stoning is not peculiar is sharia law by any means. The more conservative sections of the Muslim religion may indeed feel that such actions are legitimate, but then they hardly speak for the entire religion, do they? Any more than the most conservative Christian sects speak for the entire Christian community in the West. In both instances, I'm sure they would love to do so. In both cases they are frustrated because they do not and cannot impose their views about the culture and the customs of their culture upon the rest of their communities. Perhaps you disagree with this? Perhaps you believe I made the list of accusations you laid out. I believe I did not, though I believe that most of them are correct. I notice you have stopped trying to claim authority for the nature of the thread, but haven't acknowledged you were probably mistaken in trying to do so in the first place. I am grateful you have at least stopped trying to claim authority in the matter. Thank you. Perhaps you have also missed my frequent references to the fact that I believe that the actions taken by whomever took the actions against the woman in question were barbaric. I will happily repeat myself. They were barbaric. They were cruel and terrible and nobody should be treated in this way. I would raise questions about why you seem to be trying to excuse the actions of others when they do the same sort of thing. If people attempting to enforce sharia law on some poor woman are barbaric swine when they do this sort of thing, why aren't we barbarians when we drop bombs on wedding parties? Does the fact that we don't actually know personally any of the victims make the action less barbaric? Not to my mind. Suggesting that these were accidents isn't really much of an excuse, since the war itself was not an accident at all. We knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And the involvement that Afghanistan had could have been settled by allowing the government to turn Bin Laden over to a neutral government for trial; failing that, it could have been settled by pursuing that war to a conclusion instead of invading Iraq. Suggesting that the sort of atrocity committed on this poor woman is justification for war is patently ridiculous, else we'd have declared war on Egypt and Pakistan, among other countries. We use atrocities to whip up a rage for war, not as reason to declare it. We go to war for reasons of national self-interest and occasionally out of stupidity and error, the same way other nations go to war. The same horrors that happen in other places to women happen here. I notice that you, Mike, (and you have specifically requested me to address you directly. I will try to keep the subject fixed on the subject, however) have not addressed the point I made about the experience of people with police experience having had experience enough to be able to confirm what I say. You have some police experience, I believe. You should be able to confirm my point about the frequency and severity of the abuse of women in this country. I notice you have avoided dealing with this point. If you have had much police experience, they you should be able to confirm my comments and in fact add to them in spades. I suspect you would rather not address the issue because it reflects badly on the state of the relations between men and women here, and it confirms the level of violence is high here as well. And you are reluctant to speak poorly of your fellow Americans. I think, at least. I am as well, but one should be willing to address the truth. And there are serious problems in other cultures as well, and the cultural norms there aren't American norms. But we've both seen seriously injured American women, and they've been injured by American men, who offer really stupid excuses, not simply the really stupid excuses offered by some very early Muslim Law that's been inappropriately applied by some guys who don't really understand it, but really stupid excuses that have been offered by guys who can read and who have some notion about there being a real live outside world. Both of us have seen that sort of thing. Acting scornful of me for bringing it up doesn't really address the problem we have right here any more than it addresses the problem they have over there. That's what I think. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, Bob, as you know I do have the police experience and I could add to your list of atrocities in ways you can't even imagine. However, in the case of everything I could list, there would be one common denominator...they were all crimes perpetrated by criminals who were hunted down and punished for their crime. The question is not whether a religion sanctioned it but, rather, that the government sanctioned it as part of religious law, without punishment. There are parts of the Bible that, when taken literally, can produce similar results...an eye for an eye comes to mind. There are undoubtedly Christians who believe this. Does that mean that, if an act is committed against one, one has the right to hunt them down and exact revenge? Perhaps in their mind it does, but not according to the law of the land and they will go to prison for it. Could they get a sympathetic jury issuing a light sentence? Very possible...but they would still be convicted and punished in some way. When the government hands out passes to barbaric acts committed on innocents because it is a part of a religion recognized by some as just, both the religion and the government share in the barbarism. There are some in this country that believe sharia law is a good thing, without recognizing these traits. Both Time magazine and John brought it up and showed the results of what it can do. If you want to criticize John for doing so, I can only imagine how you feel about Time magazine. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"And you are reluctant to speak poorly of your fellow Americans. I think, at least .I am as well, but one should be willing to address the truth. ".....BobK "If people attempting to enforce sharia law on some poor woman are barbaric swine when they do this sort of thing, why aren't we barbarians when we drop bombs on wedding parties?"....BobK I don't think you are reluctant at all, Bob, based on that comparison, along with many others you have made. Whenever I think of the differences between liberals and conservatives, one thing always stands out louder than the others. Conservatives are, for the greatest part, always pro-America. They speak of the good of America, the kindness and generosity of t he American people. They salute our military and support them completely. People that liberals despise, like Rush, Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly speak only good of the country. They hold concerts, freedom rallies, 4th of July spectaculars involving hundreds of thousands of attendees, fund-raisers for the troops, and if you have ever seen one, you would see that they are not political, they are pro-America. They do not post political signs, they do not use these events to bash liberals...they celebrate the goodness of America, which they believe in. One leaves them with a feeling of pride and optimism in their country. I dare you to watch a televised production of one of these events and not walk away feling good about America. Liberals appear to be the opposite to me. I haven't seen any concerts or fund-raising events held by liberals, have you? Has Rachel or Keith or any of the liberal popular talking heads orchestrated any such events? Do they speak positively of America and the military? I don't hear it. While conservatives salute the military, people like Kerry and others bash it, speaking of rapes, atrocities and cruelty performed by our troops. Giants of our industry like Wal-Mart and Microsoft are branded as enemies of the country. Law enforcement agencies are branded as "stupid" and "prejudicial" by our president. I have watched the liberal talk shows and I hear no optimism or love of country at all. I hear exactly the opposite. This thread alone bears me out. Conservatives like Denise and myself speak of the barbarism perpetrated on this young girl and others like her. Liberals like you and Jennifer speak of the evilness of American actions, ranging from Bush, to war to bombings to our law-enforcement agencies to whatever bad things about America you can use. That says a lot about the two sides of the coin. No, Bob, I am not reluctant to speak poorly of my fellow Americans. I see no reason to. I am proud of them, our country, and what our country stands for. We have the same highs and lows as any other country in the world but I am proud of the American citizen and what our country is and stands for, which is one reason why I could never be a liberal. Conservatives will attack liberal leaders but never the country. Liberals attack the country, as you have so aptly illustrated in your replies. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
The “humanitarian” campaign for the war in Afghanistan 10 August 2010 The US media has launched a full-scale effort to suppress growing popular opposition to the war in Afghanistan, using one-sided propaganda about Taliban atrocities to conceal the murderous character of the American intervention. Beginning with the cover of Time magazine, showing a young woman mutilated by her Taliban husband, the media blitz now focuses on the killing of 10 medical aid workers Friday in the northeastern province of Badakhshan. Six of the ten were American citizens. Both of these events are, without a doubt, terrible human tragedies. But they are being used in the most cynical fashion to browbeat the American people into accepting an indefinite continuation of the war in Afghanistan, under conditions where a clear majority of the population now regards the war with hostility and favors a rapid US pullout. The July 29 issue of Time marked the official kickoff of the campaign, with the cover photo of the young woman whose nose and ears were hacked off for attempting to flee her husband, and an accompanying headline declaring this atrocity to be “What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan.” The political message was unmistakable: those who advocate withdrawal of US forces are condemning Afghan women to butchery. Managing Editor Rick Stengel gave the following explanation to readers upset at the magazine for publishing the gruesome image, writing, “I felt that the image is a window into the reality of what is happening—and what can happen—in a war that affects and involves all of us. I would rather confront readers with the Taliban’s treatment of women than ignore it. I would rather people know that reality as they make up their minds about what the US and its allies should do in Afghanistan.” It is fair to ask a different question, however. Why didn’t the Time editor publish a photograph on the magazine’s front cover of any of the thousands of innocent Afghan men, women and children killed by US air strikes, missiles, artillery and mortar shells? He might have chosen the scene at Kunduz, where 140 people were incinerated in a single air strike that detonated a gasoline tanker. Or the wedding party in the eastern province of Nangarhar, where 47 were blown to fragments by bombs and missiles, including the young bride. Or the 90 people machine-gunned by US helicopter gunships during a funeral ceremony in Herat province. Or any of the hundreds of individual, small-scale killings of civilians detailed in the recent release of documents by WikiLeaks. There are enough such victims of imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan to fill the covers of American news magazines for decades to come. But the giant corporations that control the media are not in the business of informing the American people about the atrocities being committed in their name. Their task is to manipulate public opinion in the interests of policies decided on by the financial aristocracy and its political representatives, and they are hard at work at that task. The Time cover is a lie on another level as well. The horrific treatment of women under the Taliban (and to a large extent under the US-backed Karzai regime as well), is itself the product of the American intervention in Afghanistan over the course of three decades. The Carter and Reagan administrations sought to mobilize opposition to a Soviet-backed regime in which, at least in urban areas, women had substantially improved rights, education and social standing. The mujahedin were drawn from the most right-wing elements in the Islamic world, financed by Saudi Arabia, trained by the CIA in terror techniques, and dispatched to Afghanistan. Among them was the future leader of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden. The United States government deliberately fomented and spread a version of Islamic fundamentalism that had no widespread support at the time, except from a handful of close US allies like the Saudi monarchy. When the mujahedin warlords fell into civil war after the Soviet withdrawal, the Pakistani military, with US backing, promoted the Taliban as a more reliable replacement. Thus the Taliban, like Al Qaeda, is very much a Frankenstein’s monster, raised up in the course of the Cold War struggle with the USSR, which has turned against its creator. The killing of the medical missionaries in Badakhshan has now become the focus of saturation media coverage. Many basic facts of the massacre remain uncertain, including the affiliation of the killers. There have been suggestions that bandits motivated by robbery were actually involved, despite the Taliban’s claim of responsibility. Most other encounters between unarmed Western aid workers and insurgent forces have resulted in kidnapping for ransom and propaganda purposes, and only a handful, albeit well-publicized, have ended in murder. Whatever the exact circumstances, however, such atrocities are an absolutely inevitable by-product of a counterinsurgency war waged by an imperialist state armed with overwhelming firepower against an enemy rooted in a tribal society that has proven fiercely hostile to foreign occupiers. The bulk of the US media coverage initially focused on the individual medical aid workers, their long labors in Afghanistan, and the sorrowful impact on their families and colleagues, but has begun to exploit the event to promote the war. One New York tabloid published its report under a giant one-word headline, “SAVAGES,” consciously or unconsciously making the connection between US policy in Afghanistan and the attempted extermination of Native Americans in the 19th century. The Obama administration began to draw its desired political conclusions from the event Sunday, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issuing a statement denouncing the “despicable act of wanton violence” that revealed the “twisted ideology” of the Taliban, and reaffirming her government’s determination to prevail in the war, now nearly nine years old. Characteristically, the Wall Street Journal drew the most explicit and reactionary conclusions from the event in an editorial Monday headlined “The Taliban Method,” calling the killings “especially notable as an education in the nature of our enemy.” “The murders are a window on the threat that thousands of Afghans face every day if they dare to cooperate with the Afghan government,” the Journal continued. “The assassinations and disfigurements (cutting off ears or arms) are a war tactic, designed to make it harder for the government to collect intelligence and deliver services to win over the population.” This ignores the well-known fact that a large majority of the Afghan people oppose the US-led occupation of their country and Washington’s corrupt puppet government in Kabul. Moreover, the high-tech war machine operated by the Pentagon inflicts far worse damage on the bodies of its victims, without the well-paid reactionaries in US editorial offices shedding any tears. The Journal concludes, “The main US strategic purpose in this war is self-defense in denying an Al Qaeda sanctuary. But our cause also includes the moral imperative of preventing Islamic radicals from a victory that would give them rein to maim and murder thousands of innocents.” This combines the lie that was the original basis for the invasion of Afghanistan—the war as revenge for the 9/11 terrorist attacks—with the “moral” and “humanitarian” rationale now being propagated so assiduously by the American media. In his explanation of why Time published its cover photograph, executive editor Stengel makes a revealing reference to the fact that “The much publicized release of classified documents by WikiLeaks has already ratcheted up the debate about the war.” A major reason for the furious hostility towards WikiLeaks is that this small Internet-based organization has broken through the self-censorship practiced by the vast corporate-controlled media machine. Those who play the decision-making role—the editors of the leading newspapers and magazines, the executives, producers and anchormen of the major television networks—are well aware of the nature of the war in Afghanistan. WikiLeaks was no revelation to them. In their deliberate suppression of the brutality of the American war, they play an important role in enabling the crimes of imperialism. Patrick Martin |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Untrue and inaccurate, Mike. You have acknowledged the various atrocities Americans have committed upon Americans, which is a decent start. I personally have been supportive of American troops. I am not always supportive of American policy any more than you are. When Clinton was involved with the bombing in Kosovo during the hearings that Republicans were using to try to remove him from office, for example, I would suspect that you were supporting the Republican position on that military intervention while I would have been supportive of the intervention. I would have seen your criticism of the government position as undermining government policy. It could have been seen as being critical of the military mission, and this is the sort of cast that Republicans tend to cast criticism of government policy when they are in power. In that case I saw it as criticism of government policy which I supported and not any particular criticism of the troops. I agreed with their mission, but could see that reasonable people might disagree on the basis of policy, so long as the criticism wasn't directed at the troops themselves. I've criticized the policies that have placed our troops in the middle east on several reasonable grounds. I have not criticized the goodwill of the troops. I have no problem at all with celebrating what is good about America. My problem is with the pretense that there is only good about America, and that we have no responsibility for noticing and correcting those problems that we have as a country. I don't mean blaming others for our problems, I mean taking responsibility for the problems we create. Starting a war, for example, with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 was irresponsible. Lying about the causes of that war was irresponsible. Suggesting that we didn't do large amounts of bombing in pursuit of that war is irresponsible, and that a large number of the casualties of that bombing were civilian non-combatants is irresponsible. Do I celebrate America. Certainly I do. Do I celebrate those actions. I do not; I deplore them. I have mixed feelings about almost everything and everybody in my life that has any importance to me. Some people do not. These are people who do not allow themselves access to a full range of feeling and information about these events and people or who do not allow the significance of this information and these feelings to sink in. They can be wonderful people, like Edith and Archie Bunker, salt of the earth in their own fashion. They simply can't tolerate mixed feelings. quote: I notice that you, Mike, whom I only address personally here because you actively requested me to, believe as I do that the behavior directed toward the poor brave woman in Afghanistan was barbaric. Why isn't the sort of bombing that we do and have done in Afghanistan and Iraq also barbaric, then? And why is it impossible for you to conceive that it's possible for Americans to be both decent Joes and Barbarians at the same time? Have the rules of human nature been somehow magically suspended for us? Have we been somehow simplified as human beings so that we exist with only a single side of our natures available? And that side, because we are American, will always be the good side? I see that as unreasonable. I see that as unreasonable as the reverse, that we are entirely evil, when we are not. And yet the attempt to simplify human nature continues as though humanity and politics were that simple, and Liberals and Conservatives were that simply defined. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "The US media has launched a full-scale effort to suppress growing popular opposition to the war in Afghanistan" Well, there's a twist . . . . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Of course there is but there's also a lot of good stuff done under the name of Sharia law too and guess what, it's only the good bits that the people are asking for. In Kenya for instance the Sharia courts will have the same powers as a tribunal, they'll hear disputes regarding religious, family and business matters between Muslims only if both parties agree to it. There'll be no stoning, no decapitations and any findings or judgements handed down will be open to being overruled in the standard courts. The proposed Sharia courts will be closer to Judge Judy than the Judge Dread picture you are trying to paint.  If consenting Muslims want a system to deal with cultural disagreements that don't fit into the standard system why shouldn't they be accommodated? Still not convinced it's a good idea? Maybe you're right, we'll soon find out though - as I said under the new Kenyan constitution both parties have to consent to having their case heard in a Sharia court, if no Muslims in Kenya agree to settle their disagreements in a Sharia court I'll be happy to concede that it wasn't a good idea. quote: How much did the Democrats spend in the last election trying to convince you to vote for them Denise? I might be wide of the mark but I'm guessing it didn't work, I'd go even further and suggest that it actually convinced some people to vote for the other side. The money the US spent made Kenyans aware of the referendum but the choice of which way to vote was down to the individuals and they made their choice all on their lonesome. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"(You)believe as I do that the behavior directed toward the poor brave woman in Afghanistan was barbaric. Why isn't the sort of bombing that we do and have done in Afghanistan and Iraq also barbaric, then?" My question would be the same one Juju asked at the beginning of this thread. What does one have to do with the other? How does a woman being butchered for leaving an abusive relationship relate to Afghanistan bombings? Why should they even be in the same thread? Is it simply an irrepressable desire to say "We're nasty, too"? Where is the connection? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Jennifer, you didn't provide a link to the article you posted. Be so kind,,,,? |
||
|
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Jennifer, if I may? Michael, that article is all over the internet. You know how it works, one posts, then sites steal it and post it from there. Here you go. Google - Multiple Links To Jennifer's posted article |
||
|
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
I actually put all those links into date order to see where this got started, and it was interesting to see where it was. the People's Voice. Not a real reliable news source is it? http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/ Then it was picked up by World Socialist Website. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Thanks for posting all those links Mysteria. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: They can do that now without it being elevated to legal status in the government. There has to be a reason why they wanted it elevated to legal status. We're not being given the whole story here. Perhaps it's a just a 'foot in the door'? The Quran teaches that Sharia is the Law of Allah, and that all other forms of government are sinful and that it is the duty of all muslims to strive until Sharia is the law of the land worldwide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0deanRGb8w&feature=player_embedded quote: What types of cultural disagreements could be addressed by a Sharia, elevated to legal status, that couldn't be addressed by the secular law, or by the Sharia practiced prior to being given legal status? quote: Not all people are won over by campaign blitzes, Grinch, but many are. Otherwise why have them? The fact remains that Obama was a major force, with our dollars, to heavily promote the Vote Yes campaign. Again, I ask why? Why did he choose that side over the other? Can anyone here explain or defend his decision? If some feel that it was the right decision, WHY do you believe that? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Rabbinic law has a similar status here, in some communities, Denise. Where I grew up it was fairly common for the rebbe to function as judge in many disputes within the religious community that might otherwise have been seen in a secular court. The orthodox rebbe, one of them, was a scholar in Jewish divorce law and wrote about it extensively in Hebrew, not that I was ever able to read any of his stuff. Surely if your comments about sharia law are true, then the same comments about rabbinic law must be true as well. What sinister plots do you feel the Jews were up to? And what sinister plots do you feel the more orthodox Muslims are up to, so long as they practice their faith in the constraints of the wider judicial system. That would probably exclude the stoning and trimming of noses and hands and so on that were a feature of so many basic religious legal systems. For that matter, nose trimming and hand loping were features of the English justice system until the past few hundred years. Not to mention burning for witches and other penalties for the misdeeds of (mostly) women. Our fascination with these practices is quite clear still when you look at what we offer for entertainment in our movies and on our televisions. The distance that we've come from actual belief in many of these things may not be all that far when you consider the number of snake handling religious practices in this country, which operate, if I understand correctly, as proofs of faith. It's always more comforting to think of the other people as the barbarians. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The People's Voice and World Socialist Website....no, not very reliable at all. Thank you, Sharon  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"It's always more comforting to think of the other people as the barbarians." Ok, Bob, you've won me over. We are the barbarians. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Well, Mike, I think it would have to do with the point being made by the original stories, wouldn't it? I believe that the point of many of these sorts of stories is to dehumanize the enemy, and thus to justify any action you wish to take against him or her. Perhaps you think that there are other reasons for selecting this sort of story for publicity at the expense of offering other sorts of information in addition. Suggesting that this sort of story should be suppressed is, I believe, a mistake because — among other things, it does represent at least one important aspect of the truth, and we can do well to find as much of the truth and the facts as we can, and to pay attention to them. I am not in favor of pretending that everything is all good or all evil. I don't believe I've run across anything that I could jimmy into one of those slots so far in my life, though Love comes very close, as does Compassion. I am particularly skeptical about any story that paints somebody I am not supposed to like in terms of absolute evil. Again, I'm not sticking up for Stalin or Hitler here; there are situations where evil is more obvious than others, just as there are cases where good is more obvious, but it's not absolute as far as I've seen outside of theological debates, and not even in all of those. In this case, the case of the barbaric treatment of the woman on the Time Magazine cover, I doubt there is much sentiment that speaks to how noble and wonderful the folks who did this stuff to her was. If there is such sentiment, I find it hard to fathom and difficult to sympathize with, and I have fairly serious doubts that there are a lot of Muslims who'd really want to support such a stance. There may be some. As there may be some Christians who'd believe that women should be in very circumscribed roles, and who should not be permitted outside of them. We have had trouble in this country with some very extreme Mormon cults which abuse women and children in severe ways, including murdering them. There are Jewish extremists that can have very fixed and rigid views about the roles of women. These views are not Muslim alone, they seem more fanatic than particular to any one particular species of fanatic. Why do they come into the debate? Because they skew the debate away from the actual issues and attempt to transform it into a comparison of the worst of one culture against the pretensions of another. It is interesting to look at other propaganda campaigns for comparison, that of the Russians versus the Germans during the Second World War, for example, where two totalitarian powers attempted to convince their populations that they were superior to the beasts that inhabited the other, and where both sides were guilty of significant war crimes. In this case, the issue is also a propaganda issue, not because the case at hand is false — it isn't false at all — but because it obscures the moral issues of the war being fought. We are not fighting the war in afghanistan because of the wretched way some Afghanistani men treat their women. These are in fact the same Afghanistani men that we made into cultural heroes here in America when they fought the USSR, with American support, in the 1970s and 1980s. The customs were the same and Osama Bin Laden was one of our guys who ran a supply depot for the mujahadin fighters there. (Al Qaeda means "The Depot," I'm told.) The treatment of women and the ideas about religion were not significantly different at that time. Except our propaganda was anti-soviet at that time. As I said before, we seem to get along fine with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, where many of these same customs are common. If we were against the customs, why aren't we preparing a publicity blitz against these other countries? Because we are trying to keep support high for a war in which there is declining interest. Why should we criticize American actions? Well, I would suppose that their being wrong isn't enough for you. It really seems that it ought to be, since that seems to be the basis for the criticism for the criticism of beastly behavior of the fanatics in Afghanistan. It seems that the position that our Right Wing is advocating here is that atrocities are foul when our enemies commit them, but should not be discussed when we do. Apparently it's unpatriotic. I was under the impression that free countries were free because they were supposed be be open to examination. Scrutiny would be one of the things that kept them honest. That's why the press is supposed to be able to write about this stuff. As they say in AA, "You're only as sick as your secrets." I hear the Right Wing being particularly jealous of the need for this Democracy, if AA is right, to be very sick indeed. Apparently we need lots and lots of secrets and we need to deny a lot of real and true things to survive, if the Right Wing is to have its way. What we do to prisoners, the way we bomb, and target groups of people, and the reasons we go to war are not things that the Right wants to have known or to tell the truth about. And what I am saying is that these things are very much to the point. If you want to tell the story of why the poor woman lost her nose and ears in Afghanistan, then I think we should be wanting to know why we aren't hearing about the same sorts of things among people that we consider our allies. I want to know, if these sorts of things are so horrible, and they are, then why aren't we hearing about the horrors that we control. I think it's silly to say that they aren't relevant. You can bet that the people in Afghanistan who are moved to take up arms against us because of such things find them very much to the point. To pretend this isn't the case is like asking folks to disregard gravity or death. It makes for grand rhetoric, but has no practical value. And showing contempt because I call attention to the issue is not a way of actually proving the point wrong. It's merely a way of trying to assert superiority by proclamation, and has the same effect of an attempt to proclaim one's self Pope without the backing of the cardinals. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
" I believe that the point of many of these sorts of stories is to dehumanize the enemy, and thus to justify any action you wish to take against him or her. I am particularly skeptical about any story that paints somebody I am not supposed to like in terms of absolute evil. Because they skew the debate away from the actual issues and attempt to transform it into a comparison of the worst of one culture against the pretensions of another. In this case, the issue is also a propaganda issue, not because the case at hand is false — it isn't false at all — but because it obscures the moral issues of the war being fought. Because we are trying to keep support high for a war in which there is declining interest." Well, Bob, those are certainly thoughts espoused by the World Socialist Website article. "It seems that the position that our Right Wing is advocating here is that atrocities are foul when our enemies commit them, but should not be discussed when we do. Apparently it's unpatriotic." Here you lose me. How does the right wing figure into this? If you check the Oval Office, Obama is sitting in there. If you check further, you will see that he is not a member of the right wing. This information is coming out during HIS administration and HIS administration is certainly saying nothing against it. One should assume that it connects to our being in Afghanistan NOW and not pulling out, with Obama in charge. One must further assume that, for you to make such statements, you must find quite a bit of disfavor with Obama for using such a tactic and yet, in some way I can't fathom, you attribute it to the right wing. That makes no sense at all. I realize that wanting to have it both ways is not uncommon, but you really can't do it here with any validity. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Sooooo....those here who claim that Obama did the right thing in Kenya don't care to explain why they believe that? Interesting. Bob, I don't see any rabbis or the pope trying to get the religious laws of their faiths elevated to legal status along with secular law in different countries around the world. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Anyway, here’s another article about Bibi Aisha: Afghan Women Have Already Been Abandoned “I know Bibi Aisha, the young Afghan woman pictured on the August 9 cover of Time, and I rejoice that her mutilated nose and ears are going to be surgically repaired. But the logic of those who use Aisha's story to convince us that the US military must stay in Afghanistan escapes me. Even Aisha has already left for America. I realize that last remark has no logical basis, but then neither does the Time cover line "What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan" beside a shocking photo depicting what happened (to this woman) after we had already stayed for eight years. I heard Aisha's story from her a few weeks before the image of her face was displayed all over the world. She told me that her father-in-law caught up with her after she ran away, and took a knife to her on his own; village elders later approved, but the Taliban didn't figure at all in this account. The Time story, however, attributes Aisha's mutilation to a husband under orders of a Talib commander, thereby transforming a personal story, similar to those of countless women in Afghanistan today, into a portent of things to come for all women if the Taliban return to power. Profoundly traumatized, Aisha might well muddle her story, but what excuses reporters who seem to inflate the role of the Taliban with every repetition of the case? Some reports have Aisha "sentenced" by a whole Taliban "jirga." http://www.thenation.com/article/154020/afghan-women-have-already-been-abandoned |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: I thought that the Pope was putting a lot of effort to do so, and in our country, where Law is supposed to be secular, and where he has put a lot of effort to get that law changed to bring it into conformation with church doctrine in relation to abortion, to cite one huge example. Many conservative Christians and Jews have done so. I'm somewhat surprised you hadn't noticed. In case it's evaded your notice, this is not the only country in the world where Christian and Jewish conservatives have attempted to influence the laws in this fashion. Apparently it only seems disgusting when some other religion does it or when the point is not in agreement with your own personal point of view. I would suggest that it's pretty much unamerican in all these situations. At least that's what the Bill of Rights says. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I already explained that Denise, or did you just ignore it? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I see a big difference, Bob, between having the entire body of Canon Law elevated to co-equal status with the secular law of the land and trying to influence some changes in the secular law. No, Grinch I didn't ignore what you said. I responded to what you said. Nobody has yet explained why they think Obama did the right think regarding involving himself in the Kenya Sharia Law referendum. Just stating it was the right decision is not explaining why they believe so. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The only people that I am aware of who suggest that sharia should be part of the law in the United States is the right wing, and even they are doing it by saying that they must pass laws to prevent it from happening. It's a basic racist position. It imputes motives to Muslims that I have heard no American Muslims espouse. American Rightists, however, leap to espouse countermeasures where no threat is offered. I have made prior references to statements by Dr. Gingrich and by others of his — and I do so love this word — ilk, as they rush to whip up religious hysteria in essential contravention of the first amendment, seeking to save the constitution by dismantling it. The hypocrisy is approaches high hysteria. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
If that is the case, Denise, perhaps you would care to recast you sweeping and apparently misstated assertion from the terms in which you put it into terms that might actually reflect what you meant. I have a difficult time, and I think understandably so, trying to address statements you didn't make, and avoiding commenting on statements you did make but don't mean. I don't need them to be absolutely exact, simply close enough to communicate your actual intention, and to allow me to offer a response to the actual proposition you're setting forth. My understanding is that in Nigeria, the sharia law is only supposed to be applicable in cases where both parties agree to its application and where its principles are not in conflict with the common Law there. This is the was Rabbinic law has been applied here, in the United States, according to my understanding. In cases of conflict, United States Law is supposed to have jurisdiction. It also seems to be the way that other systems have been useed in the United States as well, such as Arbitration. In cases where undue power is given to the non statutory power, such as in the Halliburton attempts to sweep rape charges levied against its employees under the table by suggesting that their Arbitration procedures had already settled these cases, the Arbitration procedures are supposed to take back seat to the actual Law. Do you have some different understanding here, Denise, or are we on the same page? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Is it possible that the thoughts being espoused by socialists has nothing to do with whether they are valid or not valid, Mike? It is a logical fallacy to suggest that the truth of a thought can be determined by the person who expresses it. You are aware of this because we have had the discussion before, and you've had the chance to have a look at the sites I presented on logical fallacies. Having been only an occasional reader of this thread anyway, I was interested to find out that I have others who agree with me. The fact that the folks you quote are apparently socialist seems nothing more than coincidence, since they are reasonable enough. Even well intentioned conservatives can have and do have such thoughts. Apparently you think only those on the Left are capable of disagreeing with you, and I would suggest to you that there may actually be people who are conservative who might disagree with you on any one of any number of different grounds. It is sad to think that you apparently believe that politics is the only reason for disagreement here. Personally, I believe the World Socialist Web Site is probably in favor of regular dental hygiene as well as medical checkups and that many of their readers enjoy apple pie. I am not that fond of apple pie. However, your logic seems to have placed you in the anti-dental hygiene and anti medical checkup columns as well, if I am to take your implication correctly. I can no doubt place you, since the world socialist site is clearly against child murder, gassing Jews and tormenting cats, on the opposing side of those fences as well. Unless you might allow for the possibility that there might be other possible reasons than politics for differing or agreeing with the socialist agenda on those things as well. quote: The issue we are talking about, near as I can understand it from the title of the thread, is "Girl With Nose Cut Off On Time Mag Cover." The debate here has been about sharia law and about what we should do about this sort of thing. You and I differ as to whether the President is Right Wing or not. You say, "no." I have held from before the election that the man is "Republican Lite." Perhaps you have forgotten this or chose to ignore our disagreement about it. Whatever he is, I am not particularly in favor of the war in Afghanistan, though I do understand the rational for it. You may have me confused with somebody else, who thinks the way you seem to believe liberals are supposed to think but so frequently don't. I am very much concerned with the anti-Muslim sentiment expressed in this country today, and I see this as very much a product of what I see as Right Wing Jingoism. Such Right Wing efforts have supported a range of initiatives against minority communities in the United States. These have included campaigns against ACORN, an essentially black run community organizing group, and against immigrant communities such as the hispanics, and now against Muslims. This is what I see it has to do with the Right Wing. Talking back to this sort of Right Wing campaign of innuendo frequently gets innuendo tossed at me. For example, quote: That may look familiar. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
" I am not that fond of apple pie." Somehow the phrase "As American as apple pie" comes to mind and I can understand your saying that |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
You may not have noticed that you just insulted my feelings for my country without actually commenting on any of the points I made in my discussion. My impression is thatmoderators are supposed to be on the lookout for this sort of thing, though not for the chance to see if they can get away with them. Suggesting that because a posting in a socialist site meant that my comments were somehow less worthy than others was inappropriate. This continues an inappropriate pattern. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, I didn't comment on your other points because, frankly, I saw nothing new or worthy of comment from me. You were able to make them visible to the readers of the thread. That should satisfy you. The apple pie comment just struck me because in this thread alone, not to bring up others, you have made numereous references to what's wrong with America, Americans and our way of life, from how we abuse our women to how police kill wives and then get off to religious whackos usinig snakes in worship....and the list goes on. I don't need to name them all. The comment about not liking apple pie sounded like a postscript. I don't doubt your love of America, but you say it like a father, spanking his child, saying "This hurts me more than it hurts you" or a husband telling his wife, "I only treat you badly because I love you". You do more than acknowledge American weaknesses - you offer them up. Insulting? "However, your logic seems to have placed you in the anti-dental hygiene and anti medical checkup columns as well, if I am to take your implication correctly. I can no doubt place you, since the world socialist site is clearly against child murder, gassing Jews and tormenting cats, on the opposing side of those fences as well. " Well, let's see. I am anti-dental hygiene, anti-medical checkup, pro child murder, pro gassing Jews and I torment cats (although my seven felines may disagree with that point). And you wish to speak of insulting one's feelings??? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: The Kenya Sharia Law referendum? What Kenya Sharia Law referendum? There hasn't been a Kenya Sharia Law referendum. There's been a Kenyan referendum to introduce a new constitution and a small part of that constitution allows the recognition of Muslim courts within the Kenyan legal system. Is that the referendum you're talking about? It's hard to keep pace Denise when you flit around from one subject to the other. First there was outrage against a girl getting mutilated that was supposedly sanctioned by Sharia law yet no Sharia court passed down such a judgement. Then there's outrage that Sharia courts are being instigated in Kenya presumably to lop off the noses of the folks there and finally there's the outrage that US money might have been spent to ensure nose lopping becomes an international sport. The girl had her nose cut off in a mountain pass by her husband and relatives as they were bringing her back from Kandahar. No Sharia court sanctioned the act or even heard the case, they acted independently and their actions should be judged accordingly. If you want a parallel to act as a comparison try this: Some courts in the US sentence offenders found guilty of certain crimes to forfeit their lives, but that doesn't mean that US courts sanction the murder of anyone accused of a capital offence. A family from Texas aren't carrying out US law if they hang a woman accused of killing one of their relatives - you'd call me stupid if I suggested that Denise. What was the next outrage? Oh yes, Sharia courts in Kenya. I explained why nose lopping wasn't going to be part of the Sharia court system - the courts will act in a similar fashion to tribunals, passing judgements on matters of family, business and religious disagreements between consenting Muslims. Apparently you can't see the point of having them, you believe that there's no need for them. I've already said that you may be right and if no Muslims use the system that would be sufficient evidence prove your point but you seem to want an example of a case that the Sharia court would hear that couldn't be heard in a standard court - OK Denise here's an example: Bob is a Muslim, part of his religion requires him to attend prayer meetings at the Mosque on a Friday and fast during the period of Ramadan unless there are valid reasons why he's unable to do so. Bob has put himself forward as the chairperson of the local community council, he's claiming that he's a good chap for the job. Bill is also a Muslim, he thinks Bob has been dodging prayers and breaking the fast during Ramadan, he's also running for the chair of the community council. The accusations have escalated into heated arguments whenever the two meet, several times almost coming to blows and the issue seems to be spreading tension throughout the community. In the end Bob decides that enough is enough and goes to the local Sharia court to clear his name, Bill is invited to attend the hearing and after both parties offer their testimony the court decides that there's no evidence that Bob has been anything but a good Muslim. Bill agrees to issue a public apology and as a measure of good faith offers to withdraw his nomination to the office of chairperson. In the above example Bob had no recourse to a criminal court because no crime had taken place, he could seek redress in a civil court for defamation of character but that would be costly and without a specific understanding of Muslim religious tenants the claim that Bob missed prayers may not be seen as a clear case of defamation. BTW The end of my little story, in case anyone was wondering, was that Bob became the chairperson of the community council and invited Bill to head the finance committee and they all lived happily ever after. What's next? The US money to publicise the Kenyan referendum on the proposed new constitution. I'm not generally in favour of American involvement in the politics of other countries, especially when it's armed involvement but given the history of Kenya and recognising that the old constitution is seriously flawed I'm willing to make an exception in this case. Kenya has a constitutional system similar to the US system; the flaws in the old constitution however mean that it's possible that the President could, quite legally, hold more power over the judiciary than is comfortable. That wasn't a big issue previously because the last President was pretty good, although accusations of some abuse have been made, he managed to avoid going completely power crazy and destabilising the country. Not only that, he was actively working to introduce a new constitution which would, effectively, reduce his powers. Recently though all that changed, the incumbent fought, and lost, an election in which his opponent was accused by international observers of rigging the vote. The consensus was that the new president may not be as reluctant to use the holes in the old constitution. Chaos ensued as people demonstrated against the legitimacy of the new regime, thousands died in armed clashes, 600,000 fled their homes and rumours abounded that both sides were arming for a fully fledged civil war. Enter the UN. They managed to broker a peace deal that led to the formation of a temporary coalition government; part of that deal was that the proposed referendum on the new constitution would be brought forward. The idea was that if the new constitution was in place the chances of any future president abusing his power would be diminished - if the bad guy won next time it wouldn't be so bad. The US, along with other members of the UN thought that this was a good idea and pledged money to support the 'Yes" vote which was a damn fine idea if you ask me and a lot better, and cheaper, than shipping over a few thousand troops to calm a civil war. Does that answer your questions Denise? |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
