2 of 4
2
Back to the Stoneage
Posted: 29 September 2012 03:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  207
Joined  2011-09-23

@Tim B.
Christian Fundamentalists will put People in prison for no crimes at all, muslim fundamentalists will brutally kill people for less, therefor iam more worried about them.

@Thevillageatheist

You are right, but i fear that they could gang up on us, like they already do, christian lunatics work together with muslim fundamentalists to fight the gay, “obscenity” and Criticism of religion.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2012 05:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3254
Joined  2011-08-15

You are right, but i fear that they could gang up on us, like they already do, christian lunatics work together with muslim fundamentalists to fight the gay, “obscenity” and Criticism of religion.


Interesting thought Alexander but the two are diametrically opposed to each other. They do touch on similar issues as you mentioned (see the article in the Aug/Sept issue on Islamic creationism in “Free Inquiry” mag) but xtians, even the fundamentalist brand, aren’t true believers in Allah and his pal Mohammad. Moreover, they help the real enemy of Islam, the Jews. So mixing the two would be like stirring nitro into glycerin.

 

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2012 05:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  348
Joined  2006-11-27

It will not be easy, however, a bad natural disaster, or a deep economic downturn, and we could find ourselves ruled by whackjobs.  I am hopeful, but just barely, that we will make it.

Four years ago this nation came quite close to having a vice president, who, if circumstances led to her being president, would quite clearly have tried to move this country to become a religiously controlled state.  The change would have been promoted with the same logic as I. J. Abdul Hakeem uses to promote the burqa, as being for the good, or safety, or respect, of the individual forced to obey the religious dictate.

(In the case of the burqa, I refuse to accept the idea that men cannot change their mindset and come to see women as fully equivalent, fully equal members of society and respect the woman’s right to express herself.  But, in the Islamic logic, (and this is demeaning to everyone), men, cannot treat women as fully human unless the fact that women are fully human is hidden from the men.  So, cover up, babe, it’s for your own good.  Just think how respectful everyone will be of women when we men can keep them in cages.) 

From what I know of history, while theocracies are to be avoided, it is the attempt to create a theocracy, or just the attempt to effect change by force, that throws society into chaos.

I think we’re always close to chaos.  A generation or less at best if we don’t pay attention.

 Signature 

If we’re not laughing, they’re winning.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2012 08:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
Jeciron - 30 September 2012 05:38 AM

From what I know of history, while theocracies are to be avoided, it is the attempt to create a theocracy, or just the attempt to effect change by force, that throws society into chaos..

Can you think of a theocracy that has the wherewithal to be a first world country? Even Saudi Arabia wouldn’t qualify. Can you even think of a theocracy you would like to live in, even if you followed the tenants of their faith? I can’t!

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2012 08:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  447
Joined  2012-02-02
asanta - 30 September 2012 08:51 AM
Jeciron - 30 September 2012 05:38 AM

From what I know of history, while theocracies are to be avoided, it is the attempt to create a theocracy, or just the attempt to effect change by force, that throws society into chaos..

Can you think of a theocracy that has the wherewithal to be a first world country? Even Saudi Arabia wouldn’t qualify. Can you even think of a theocracy you would like to live in, even if you followed the tenants of their faith? I can’t!

Given the slavish way some Republicans/Libertarians cling to political ideology despite ample evidence that certain tenets of their philosophy won’t work, I can well imagine a theocratic-like state developing here in the US.  This is not to say that some Democrats don’t foolishly cling to unworkable ideology, but it seems less likely that they’d actually come to power.

 Signature 

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

The Atheist in the Trailer Park

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 October 2012 01:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2012-09-14
Jeciron - 30 September 2012 05:38 AM

It will not be easy, however, a bad natural disaster, or a deep economic downturn, and we could find ourselves ruled by whackjobs.  I am hopeful, but just barely, that we will make it.

(In the case of the burqa, I refuse to accept the idea that men cannot change their mindset and come to see women as fully equivalent, fully equal members of society and respect the woman’s right to express herself.  But, in the Islamic logic, (and this is demeaning to everyone), men, cannot treat women as fully human unless the fact that women are fully human is hidden from the men.  So, cover up, babe, it’s for your own good.  Just think how respectful everyone will be of women when we men can keep them in cages.) 

You seem to partially misunderstand what I said. Women DO have the right to express themselves just with a limit. It would be imprisoning if a women only had to wear one type of clothing


Also I never said that only burqa should be promoted.
On the contrary, Islam does allow women to express themselves. You can refer back to the initial post to see them. To give you a better idea,  see the picture at this link.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2010/08/27/the-muslim-mosque-new-york-city-and-free

 

I should also clarify that I believe men should have some limits to. As the Quran states:

[024:030]  And ask the believing men to (be modest and) lower their gaze and maintain their chastity. That is righteous and better. Allah is quite familiar with what they do.

Psychology expert Dr. Heflick also supports this:

research shows that men and women view sexualized images (of both men and women) as lacking “mind,” which is basically a denial of thoughts and emotions. In this work, people even had less concern for the sexualized people’s pain, compared to when they were fully dressed.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201008/sexualized-women-are-seen-objects-studies-find

 


You just seem to disagree with me as to what the limits should be., especially when we take gender into consideration. For example, in most cultures it is considered rude to be nude in public. I think we can both agree on this.  But beyond that it is difficult to agree.

At this point, it comes down to matter as to who we should listen to. Some may agree with your, while others will agree with mine. Those who agree with you will probably include most people in the U.S..
Those who agree with me include

 

1.      Renowned American   Feminist Camille Paglia:

Feminism keeps saying the sexes are the same. It keeps telling women they can do anything, go anywhere, say anything, wear anything. No, they can’t. Women will always be in sexual danger… I call it common sense. 

    Sex, Art, and American Culture: Essays
    page 50-51

 


2.    Psychology expert Dr. Heflick

University of Padova researchers….found that when women were dressed sexually (compared to when they weren’t), people implicitly associated them more with animals….

research has found that merely focusing on a woman’s appearance (fully dressed) is enough for people (men and women) to dehumanize a woman.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201008/sexualized-women-are-seen-objects-studies-find

 

3.  Martha Nussbaum


But the more glaring flaw in the argument [that burqa is oppressive]is that society is suffused with symbols of male supremacy that treat women as objects.  Sex magazines, nude photos, tight jeans — all of these products, arguably, treat women as objects, as do so many aspects of our media culture.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/veiled-threats/

 


I am interested to hear your evidence in response to what I have to say.


Gotta go for now smile

[ Edited: 22 October 2012 01:57 PM by I.J. Abdul Hakeem ]
 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 October 2012 06:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  348
Joined  2006-11-27

I realize that you, I.J. Abdul Hakeem, may not have been promoting the traditional burqa.  The specific form of the prescribed clothing really has nothing to do with my previous response, rather it is the idea that anyone feels it within their rights to control another person’s ability to express themselves. 

You claim that Islam allows for self expression within limits, quite restrictive limits, and quote a number of published individuals and studies in what I take to be an assertion that women, when dressed in a way that reveals themselves as sexual beings, are regarded with less respect and are in more danger than women who wear concealing clothes.  That may all be true, but even if they are facts, they in no way justify forcing a dress code upon women!  How a woman chooses to dress is totally her own choice.  Yes, here in the U.S. our laws consider nudity an offense, in my opinion an archaic outlook, largely based on the Judeo-Christian tradition, which I don’t agree with, either.

My point is that Islam, in forcing a woman to dress in a prescribed manner removes the woman’s right to make that choice for herself, demeaning women.  And, any rhetoric, Islamic or otherwise, which implies men are not able to choose to treat a woman, regardless of her dress, as equal human beings, demeans men.  Whether it is a woman in a burqa or a bikini who is assaulted, or treated as a lesser human being, there is no difference in the culpability of the offender.

 Signature 

If we’re not laughing, they’re winning.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 October 2012 02:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6159
Joined  2009-02-26

I agree completely. I am from Holland and nudity is nothing special. To suggest that men are unable to control their instincts is offensive. That IS stone age thinking.

Some of the most profound works of art depict nudity. Shall we build a big bonfire?

I believe that there are several arguments which propose that sex between consenting adults is a healthy activity and helps reduce stress and violence. To my knowledge, aberrant behavior of any kind, for any reason, is not tolerated in any “civilized” country.

[ Edited: 23 October 2012 02:47 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 October 2012 08:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

>>Women DO have the right to express themselves just with a limit.<<

Then they have no right to express themselves.

You’re going to a lot of trouble to justify mysoginy and a “Must Keep Them In Thier Place” mentality.

Is there any particular reason based on evidence and not self serving religious stupidity thst you’re all so frightened of a vagina that you feel you must contriol it so stringently????

Please don’t insult my intelligence or waste my time by quoting the Bible or Al Qu’ran as if either is an authority. They’re not!

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 October 2012 03:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3322
Joined  2011-11-04

Humans are animals. But humans are also humans.  As such, we have sexual urges and tendencies to view others, at times in terms of our underlying sexuality.  But that doesn’t mean that the best way to avoid potential conflicts that may arise from this, should be to, literally, require women to cover up their sexuality.

As humans, I suggest that the better way to approach this is not through controlling what women wear, but through 1) generally teaching all humans the value of being repectful to one another, regardless of one’s underlying animalistic urges, and 2) when one’s disrespect to another reaches a point of physically harming or accosting the other, then the one doing the accosting one should be subjected to punishment.

In Islamic societies, it is often the reverse that occurs.  When a woman is raped, she tends to be the one that experiences the most severe and punishing consequences.  She may even be forced to marry her rapist. 

Forcing women to dress in a certain way does nothing to address the problem of men who act on their animalistic urges in a harmful way.  It, in fact, is just another way of blaming women for the behavior of men who can’t or don’t control themselves.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2013 04:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2012-09-14
Jeciron - 22 October 2012 06:08 PM

My point is that Islam, in forcing a woman to dress in a prescribed manner removes the woman’s right to make that choice for herself, demeaning women.  And, any rhetoric, Islamic or otherwise, which implies men are not able to choose to treat a woman, regardless of her dress, as equal human beings, demeans men.  Whether it is a woman in a burqa or a bikini who is assaulted, or treated as a lesser human being, there is no difference in the culpability of the offender.


We seem to agree largely, but the only difference is that whether any religion is correct is teaching people to dress and not letting them decide.


In my opinion,  the interests of the people should be protected.  In this case, is has been shown that

Women’s fashion… is based on a ‘seductive principle’ and is designed to make women desirable to men-and thus give them secondary status in the scheme of things
50 Ways to Understand Communication:
By Arthur Asa Berger pg 55-56


This would explain frightening research such as the one done at this website       http://www.surrey.ac.uk/mediacentre/press/2011/69535_are_sex_offenders_and_lads_mags_using_the_same_language.htm?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter  :

Dr Horvath, lead researcher from Middlesex University, said: “We were surprised that participants identified more with the rapists’ quotes [than the one with lad magazines], and we are concerned that the legitimisation strategies that rapists deploy when they talk about women are more familiar to these young men than we had anticipated.”....

Dr Peter Hegarty, of the University of Surrey’s Psychology Department, added:
There is a fundamental concern that the content of such magazines normalises the treatment of women as sexual objects.

 

This is why psychologytoday had an article where they stated

Wolf, Razer, and Greer are hardly the only Western women to have hailed veils (and related accoutrements) as being “liberating.” A central mantra of feminism is that the so-called male gaze constitutes a form of assault. Accordingly, any dress code that negates such “patriarchal oppression” can be liberating. Western media images (and more generally the capitalist patriarchal system) are apparently key peddlers in the sexist subjugation of women

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/201110/the-beauty-myth-versus-the-veil-feminist-perspective

I want women to be protected regardless of whether they are Muslims or not. Even if a women isn’t muslim, that in no way
justifies any violence against her. A conviceted male rapist is to be punished since it is considered his crime ONLY
( by consensus of all Muslim theologians http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-about-islam/ethics-and-values/human-rights/168751-are-raped-women-punished-in-islam.html)

As one poem says

The Prophet said that women totally dominate men of intellect and possessors of hearts.
But ignorant men dominate women, for they are shackled by an animal ferocity. They have no kindness, gentleness or love, since animality dominates their nature.
Love and kindness are human attributes; anger and sensuality belong to the animals.
She is the radiance of God, she is not your beloved. 
She is a creator – you could say that she is not created.

- Jamal-ud-Din Rumi
13th century theologian
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/gender.htm

[ Edited: 03 April 2013 04:49 PM by I.J. Abdul Hakeem ]
 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2013 04:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2012-09-14
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 23 October 2012 08:01 AM

>>Women DO have the right to express themselves just with a limit.<<

Then they have no right to express themselves.

You’re going to a lot of trouble to justify mysoginy and a “Must Keep Them In Thier Place” mentality.

Is there any particular reason based on evidence and not self serving religious stupidity thst you’re all so frightened of a vagina that you feel you must contriol it so stringently????

Please don’t insult my intelligence or waste my time by quoting the Bible or Al Qu’ran as if either is an authority. They’re not!


I quoted psychology books and articles, as well as feminist writings.

With regards to your questions. I never said a “keep in their place”.  The reasons I gave were to protect women from objectification and harsh treatment from men.

Even secular scholars have recognized this.

“Men systematically target women for acts of sexual objectification, degradation, and abuse. Women bear the brunt of our sexist society. But there is also a cost to men in maintaining male dominance; we pay for it with the forfeiture of our humanity.”
Page 7
The Sexualization of Childhood
By Sharna Olfman


Compare that modern gender scholar’s words with what Rumi said:

The Prophet said that women totally dominate men of intellect and possessors of hearts.
But ignorant men dominate women, for they are shackled by an animal ferocity. They have no kindness, gentleness or love, since animality dominates their nature.

Love and kindness are human attributes; anger and sensuality belong to the animals.
She is the radiance of God, she is not your beloved. 
She is a creator – you could say that she is not created.

—- Jamal-ud-Din Rumi
13th century theologian
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/gender.htm

 

If hijab only subjugates women, then why do so many wetsern feminists feel liberated by it? (as psychologytoday.com has noted)


(All book sources can be read as ebook on books.google.com)

[ Edited: 03 April 2013 04:54 PM by I.J. Abdul Hakeem ]
 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2013 09:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 23 September 2012 11:16 AM

In Europe it is even worse: At last it seamed that Europe had become a more rational place even with countrys like Spain denying the right of the church to tell them what to do, but now we have a lot of imported Islamists which are massivly supported by the left, or at least a bunch of idiots who think that they are the left.

Dont worry.  Professor Philip Jenkins mentions that:

        “If we look at the size of Europe’s Muslim population today—and how it is projected to grow over time—then the Eurabian nightmares look ludicrous”

Source:
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=10102
http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-229-4053.htm

I dont know what you think but i find it deeply disgusting to see a completely covered Woman and her husband in the clothes of Arabia 700Ad.

What is your reasoning. I know people who question the burqa but I’ve never seen anyone who has objected to the Arabian robes in the same breath.
As for the woman’s clothes, you cant blame this on religion (given your use of the words ‘Islamists’)
They are free to culturally dress as please as long as they fulfills certain requirements.

They have been mentioned by the Canadain scholar Ahmed Kutty on a populat website.

1. It should cover her whole body except face and hands.

2. It should be loose-fitting.

3. It should not be transparent or revealing.

4. It should not be an attire specifically worn by men only.

http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-the-scholar/morals-and-manners/dress-and-adornment/169830.html?Adornment=


If you still think this may be a little odd, you may find this quote from a psychology magazine interesting:

      “in one study researchers randomly assigned men to view sexualized or nuetral images of women. They were then told that they would have to rate the female experimenter for a task unrelated to the
      images. When the men had just viewed sexualized images of different women, they rated the experimenter, even though she was modestly dressed, as less competent and intelligent.
      These studies are important because every time someone sees a sexualized image of a woman (which studies show are far more frequent than those of sexualized men), this likely is
      detrimental to how women are perceived.”


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/the-sexual-objectification-spillover-effect


see also professor Gad’s brief article on the claim that veiling is oppresive
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/201110/the-beauty-myth-versus-the-veil-feminist-perspective


Many women also an interesting feeling when wearing a veil:

    “Suddenly the realization hit me in the face: Hijab is not a woman’s gift to a man; it’s actually the other way around! It’s a unique and precious wedding gift for her, a priceless moment, exactly what she
    needs to feel on her wedding. She is the woman, above any competition, the ultimate feminine princess of all the fairytales, and the sexiest cover model of all the glossy magazines, in the eyes of one
    man, the only one that actually matters, the only one who truly knows her and wants her for who she is because she is incomparable to any other woman.
      In his eyes, she will see the adoration she craves that she used to look for in all the wrong places, the pure love and sincere boyish wonder and surprise

Heh-heh.  That’s a good one! ROFLMAO.

 

http://www.onislam.net/english/culture-and-entertainment/iblog/450307-the-romantic-veil.html

 

But in germany they even keep those who openly talk about the jihad,

See
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2013 11:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6159
Joined  2009-02-26

I just wish that those who would practice civilization through strict moral behaviors of theocracy, would also practice peace instead of jihad through theocracy.
Instead of talking about the irresistibility of provocatively dressed women, why not apply the same zeal to conquer the male desire to wage war and conquer instead of promoting peace and symbiotic existence.
It all seems so deviously turned around, where good becomes bad and bad becomes good and there is only one (name your religion) way to know the difference.

I say, make love , not war.  I recommend the Bonobo Bible. They seem to have conquered war and completely give themselves to love, all without prayer.

Whenever I hear an argument based on the irresistibility of women over men and therefore woman’s responsibility to not be a source of temptation, I have to smile. That kind of perverse male self deprecation is not allowed in my book. It admits male lack of discipline and seeks to discipline women instead….wow.

[ Edited: 03 April 2013 11:58 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2013 02:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

Women’s fashion… is based on a ‘seductive principle’ and is designed to make women desirable to men-and thus give them secondary status in the scheme of things

So what? A lot of mens fashions are designed to make men attractive to women.

Men and women alike don’t need some sort of nanny, or big brother or anything like that to protect them from their own sexuality. They are adults, they can do it themselves.

And women do not need to be protected from their sexuality. There is nothing about sexuality which anybody needs protection from.

I quoted psychology books and articles, as well as feminist writings.

Bits and pieces sliced and diced out of context to form some sort of pretext. You have a real fear of women ad equals and you appear to be horrified at the prospect that women have the same right to embrace and enjoy their sexuality as any man.

You are clearly stuck on the notion that somebody with a vagina needs to be infantilized, trivializes, micromanaged, supervised and controlled simply because she has a vagina.

You’re in the wrong place to push a concept like that.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2