Afghan President Hamid Karzai signs a law that ‘legalizes’ rape.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai signs a law that ‘legalizes’ rape.
Today, the UK Independent reports that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has signed the new Shia Family Law, which women’s groups believe will essentially legalize rape. Specifically, the measure “negates the need for sexual consent between married couples, tacitly approves child marriage and restricts a woman’s right to leave the home.” Shinkai Karokhail, a woman MP who campaigned against the legislation, called it “one of the worst bills passed by the parliament this century.” More details:
The most controversial parts of the law deal explicitly with sexual relations. Article 132 requires women to obey their husband’s sexual demands and stipulates that a man can expect to have sex with his wife at least “once every four nights” when travelling, unless they are ill. The law also gives men preferential inheritance rights, easier access to divorce, and priority in court.
A report by the United Nations Development Fund for Women, Unifem, warned: “Article 132 legalises the rape of a wife by her husband”.
Critics are charging that Karzai rushed the bill through parliament “in a bid to appease Islamic fundamentalists ahead of elections in August.” (HT: AMERICAblog)
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Im pretty sure that Bill-O would approve of such laws.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:32 pmDennis Prager would agree. Wives must submit to their husbands’ desires.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:33 pmi have no snark left, this is sick.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:33 pmNot only would he approve them, he’d be on every show saying leftie blogs were behind the legislation!
March 31st, 2009 at 12:34 pmSo….exactly why are we sending more and more troops there?
March 31st, 2009 at 12:39 pmHoly Shiite!
How very Neanderthal.
Article 132 requires women to obey their husband’s sexual demands and stipulates that a man can expect to have sex with his wife at least “once every four nights” when travelling
Nice. And when can the wife “expect” to have sex with her husband?
March 31st, 2009 at 12:39 pmCheesuz. I don’t know where to begin. Let’s just say I’m glad I married a progressive woman who enjoys sex rather than just considering it a required duty.
Why is our “ally” appeasing the enemy?
Don’t we pick the sweetest client states?
Stay out’the sand dunes.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:40 pmWith a mug like that I’ll bet he’s spankin’ the monkey the other 3 nights for sure.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:43 pmAs long as we can pipe stolen oil across their country, who care how they treat women? Republicans are secretly envious of this legislation.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:43 pmWell, Karzai is a Republican. He was appointed by George W. Bush. Don’t think for a second that his counterparts here in the U.S. would not pass the same type of law if they thought they could get away with it.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:44 pmAll snarkiness aside, if you could see me right now, I’m shaking my head in disbelief.
I’m in total shock. Here we are, 21st century, and this crap still goes on?
And a law needed to be passed to give a “man” (and I use that term loosely) the right to act on his demands whenever “he” feels? That’s called rape, folks!
Legalized rape!
FCK! I don’t know what else to type.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:47 pmI.
Am.
OUTRAGED!
The Fundies also believe that a woman has an obligation to submit to her husband whenever he wants. So I don’t see much difference between Islamic fundamentalists and the American Christianistas.
PEACE
March 31st, 2009 at 12:48 pmIn context, we should understand that U.S. foreign policiy has ultimately been central to this turn to fundamentalism in Afghanistan. With our own ideological zeal, we loaded the Taliban and related fundamentalists with arms, to combat the Red Scare, in our own zeal for vengeance we wreaked even more havok on the Afghans after 9/11, destabilizing them further, strengthening fundamentalism as a consequence. This is our own shadow, and it will keep coming back to attack us if don’t change course. President Obama needs to understand these basic ideas.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:50 pmYes, isn’t it funny how fundamentalism and right-wing extremism is bad when it is in other countries and other cultures, but it is perfectly fine when practiced right here in the godd ol’ USA.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:50 pm‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’ might sound nice… but it’s a hell of way to base a foreign policy
March 31st, 2009 at 12:52 pmThis is outrageous and very sad. We clearly have not improved the lot of women in Afganistan after all these years.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:55 pmWhat are we there for? To capture Osama Bin Laden? That hasn’t worked, and the Taliban is back with vigor. What a mess! Those poor women!
dumbstruck Says:
With a mug like that I’ll bet he’s spankin’ the monkey the other 3 nights for sure.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Doesn’t Islam allow up to four wives, if they are all equally well treated.
Wouldn’t this mean that a man with four wives would have the same wife come up in the rotation every four nights. However, the Mr. has his needs taken care of every night? 1/4 X 4 = 1
In Canada and the Netherlands, plural marriage are not legal but are tacitly accepted – social services are provided for families with more than one wife. ( Note: Some demographers are saying the Holland is one of the countries that will lose its European character by 2050. )
Estimates of polygamous marriages in the U.S. range from 50,000 to 100,000. bit doesn’t expect that these marriages are all among Mormons.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:55 pmI’m sure this is what we’d be looking at if the Repubs had stayed in power.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:57 pm.
O.K.
This is sick, sick, sick.
Q U E S T I O N:
What if the wife refuses to comply?
.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:57 pmLet’s hear it for religious fundamentalism. Did he check with Billo on the press release?
March 31st, 2009 at 12:58 pmAnd right before signing the law he had one of those stroking the beard moments pondering in his head ‘hmm, what would george bush do’?
March 31st, 2009 at 12:59 pm.
Mission accomplish…
… Bush’s Freedumb Agenda.
.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:01 pmNot positive on this one but are there any states in the US, any federal laws that say a wife can charge a husband with rape? And if so, how long have they been on the books?
March 31st, 2009 at 1:05 pm‘as the pendulum swings from the left to the right….
this is why we need freedom from religion.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:06 pmAnd bitblt could get laid.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:10 pmThat Bush really understood how to put together a democracy. 20 years for writing an article proclaiming women’s rights and now a law giving men the right to have sex at will
March 31st, 2009 at 1:10 pmShe gets a state sponsored whack upside the head.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:14 pmspencers butterfly mom Says:
The Fundies also believe that a woman has an obligation to submit to her husband whenever he wants. So I don’t see much difference between Islamic fundamentalists and the American Christianistas.
PEACE
March 31st, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Had your eyes checked lately?;)
Though there are people who call themselves Christians actively promoting polygamy, they are not typical of Conservative Christians.
Further, those promoting polygamy do so in spite of Christ’s remark about marriage in Matthew 19. Here Jesus says, when he explains the Creator’s intent by quoting from Genesis, that a man and a woman will be one flesh in a marriage. He also says (paraphrasing)”What God has joined together…,” referring to marriage.
Those TPers who promote so-called same-same gender marriage(SSGM) are also, to bit’s way of understanding, promoting polygamous marriages. Why? Because all the arguments supporting SSGM can be equally applied to other forms of marriage?
And who benefits from promoting polygamous marriages? Well, it’s not the Conservative Christians.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:21 pmpastcaring ceratopogonidae Says:
‘as the pendulum swings from the left to the right….
this is why we need freedom from religion.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:06 pm
This is why we need Christianity.
The Apostles Paul’s advice for a wife to submit to her husband probably gets less prominence that Paul’s advice that a husband love his wife.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:23 pmThat makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:27 pm
If I were President Obama, I’d tell President Karzai that we are going to pull all of our troops out until he repels this law and let the Afghanis sort it out amongst themselves.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:27 pmThis shows exactly why we need to keep Church and State COMPLETELY SEPARATE!!!!!
March 31st, 2009 at 1:28 pmsorry bitblt – NO THEOCRACY ALLOWED!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS IS AMERICA – - LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!!!!!!!!!
March 31st, 2009 at 1:29 pmWhen one religious nut makes whacked out religious statements and another religious nut calls it crazy, isn’t it time to quit paying attention to religious nuts?
March 31st, 2009 at 1:33 pmYes!
No?
Whatever Dr. Dobson says…
March 31st, 2009 at 1:35 pmBill O’Reilly was sexist when he made these comments:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/24/oreilly-single-mothers/
Saying that women need a male breadwinner is wrong. I’m glad that TP highlighted the comments.
Women should be equal to men. To include job opportunities and responsibilities to raise the kids.
O’Reilly’s sentiment is wrong and thankfully fading in western society.
As ignorant as O’Reilly’s comments seem, they are enlightened by comparison to other cultures of the world.
ThinkProgess is doing a good job of highlighting this:
We should try to respect the sovereignty of other countries, but we cannot ignore this kind of affront to the rights of women in those countries.
TP is doing a great job of communicating these issues.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:37 pmJust what is the difference between Kharzi’s statements and those of our own home grown fruits?
March 31st, 2009 at 1:38 pmThe American Taliban speaks. What’s the matter bitblt? Does the little lady get lots of headaches.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:39 pmbackup, the horsehair shirt fits you badly.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:39 pmDon’t get me wrong, I’m not saying I agree with this new Afgani law or whatever but when it comes to Muslims, they will generally always put Sharia law above any other law. The Q’uran says that women are property of men, they have sexual duties and men can beat their wives for disobedience. I’m not sure what good, other than to possibly take out Al Qaeda/Bin Laden, we will do in Afgahnistan/Pakistan or even Iraq for that matter. Because no matter what democracy we instill there, Sharia law will always come first, above all else.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:40 pmtombaker Says:
sorry bitblt – NO THEOCRACY ALLOWED!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS IS AMERICA – - LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!!!!!!!!!
March 31st, 2009 at 1:29 pm
bit never advocates for a theocracy. bit does, however, advocate that the predominance of influence on the U.S. come from Christians. bit believes this is the intent of the Founders. bit further believes this is why the U.S. has endured as well as it has.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:41 pmSo does Christianity.
Notice how our American Taliban calls it “advice”. Kinda like when a mobster “advises” you to pay your gambling debt.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:44 pmTranslation: Bit advocates for a theocracy in practice, if not in name.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:45 pmOnce again a spokesman steps in to re-affirm my statement:
We need freedom from religion.
Hey, I believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, but I don’t ask them for advice on how to run my affairs.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:46 pmAnd fundamentalist (and not so fundamentalist) christian ‘men’ silently said “hell yeah, I’d like me some of that there law.”
Fundamentalist religions are ALL evil.
Organized religion becomes political, and no longer spiritual, and, consequently evil.
Bit is just an idiot and can’t stay on topic, or even understand the topic. Bit, the topic is legalized rape, NOT polygamy.
Does Bit think that a husband has a RIGHT to have sex with his wife, regardless of her concerns (unless she is ill)? THAT is the issue.
Rape is rape, no matter how many euphamisms one wishes to use to defend it.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:46 pmYes, ALL Muslims EVERYWHERE. I’m sure you have your finger on the pulse of the modern Muslim.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:47 pmYou really should have someone sane read and edit your posts before making them public.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:47 pmbitblt Says:
bit believes this is the intent of the Founders.
Bit, actually STUDY history, and you will frighten yourself to learn that the majority of the “founding Fathers” were not christians. And further, if by “founding Fathers” bit means the authors of the constitution, bit would find, by STUDYING some history and the writings of those men, that most of them were deists.
Must go
play nice.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:50 pmand pastcaring does advocate for bit and bit’s cousins to be interred in a very secure mental institution so the rest of us can live free.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:50 pmbitblt Says:
Those TPers who promote so-called same-same gender marriage(SSGM) are also, to bit’s way of understanding, promoting polygamous marriages. Why? Because all the arguments supporting SSGM can be equally applied to other forms of marriage?
March 31st, 2009 at 1:21 pm
_____________
Now that’s a nice bit of Möbius strip logic.
All the arguments used to support gay marriage can also be used to support marrying chainsaws or bowling balls. That doesn’t mean we support either practice.
Gay marriage is one issue. Polygamy is a separate issue. Chainsaw/bowling ball marriage is a different issue entirely. It’s only in the twisted mind of a “Christian” conservative that these would be confused.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:50 pmOh man, it’s not even worth it. To easy.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:50 pmbit thinks history ended 2000 years ago. When he refers to the “founding fathers” he is talking about Abraham and Paul, not Jefferson and Madison.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:53 pmIt’s ok…sit down…take a load off…put a nice blanky over you and get snuggly warm…take a little nap…you’ve exhausted yourself with your pretzel logic dear.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:53 pmwags camponotus saundersi Says:
——————————————————————————–
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying I agree with this new Afgani law or whatever but when it comes to Muslims, they will generally always put Sharia law above any other law.
Yes, ALL Muslims EVERYWHERE. I’m sure you have your finger on the pulse of the modern Muslim.
—-
March 31st, 2009 at 1:55 pmDidn’t say ALL Muslims…I said “generally”. Geez…just stating from what I know and I didn’t claim to know everything.
aksarben60 Says:
The Q’uran says that women are property of men, they have sexual duties and men can beat their wives for disobedience.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:40 pm
_________
So does the Bible:
Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
1 Timothy 2:11-15
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.
1 Peter 3:1
March 31st, 2009 at 1:56 pmLikewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.
Max:
O.K.
This is sick, sick, sick.
Q U E S T I O N:
What if the wife refuses to comply?
Public stoning for 1st offense, beheading for 2nd. Afghanistan is a “2-strike” state.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:59 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
aksarben60 Says:
The Q’uran says that women are property of men, they have sexual duties and men can beat their wives for disobedience.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:40 pm
_________
So does the Bible:
Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
1 Timothy 2:11-15
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.
1 Peter 3:1
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.
—–
March 31st, 2009 at 2:00 pmMe thinks you’ve missed the point…Sharia law will usually be enforced above modern law….that’s not the case in the US.
You are confused by the fact that Christian teachings in this respect are identical to those of Islam. But, there is a big difference:
Christian good.
Muslim bad.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:01 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
bitblt Says:
Those TPers who promote so-called same-same gender marriage(SSGM) are also, to bit’s way of understanding, promoting polygamous marriages. Why? Because all the arguments supporting SSGM can be equally applied to other forms of marriage?
March 31st, 2009 at 1:21 pm
.
.
.
Now that’s a nice bit of Möbius strip logic.
Gay marriage is one issue. Polygamy is a separate issue. Chainsaw/bowling ball marriage is a different issue entirely. It’s only in the twisted mind of a “Christian” conservative that these would be confused.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:50 pm
bit didn’t create any of the arguments to justify either SSGM or polygamy. Those arguments came from someone else.
Don’t believe it would be right for bit to take credit for being so creative. So, would you not insinuate that these are bit’s arguments?
You may be happy to see that they’ve already been used in a legal context.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/5253
The words of a lawyer representing his client convicted of polygamy:
March 31st, 2009 at 2:04 pm
shoeless Chilopoda Says:
——————————————————————————–
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
aksarben60 Says:
The Q’uran says that women are property of men, they have sexual duties and men can beat their wives for disobedience.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:40 pm
_________
So does the Bible:
You are confused by the fact that Christian teachings in this respect are identical to those of Islam. But, there is a big difference:
Christian good.
Muslim bad.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:04 pm——
Um….didn’t say Muslim bad…you did. Christians have adapted to the modern world, there’s the difference. Just my opinion.
Oh, well bitblt isn’t that bad. He just whacks his wife in the head with the bible, then wonders why she has a headache.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:05 pmaksarben60 Says:
Me thinks you’ve missed the point…Sharia law will usually be enforced above modern law….that’s not the case in the US.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:00 pm
___________
Really? Then why isn’t it legal for gays to marry?
March 31st, 2009 at 2:05 pmAll of the below is from Corinthians in the Bible. What’s the difference?
“But I want you know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
“But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
“For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
“Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
“Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.”
March 31st, 2009 at 2:06 pmSome have. Bit hasn’t.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:06 pmshoeless Chilopoda Says:
.
.
.
bit thinks history ended 2000 years ago. When he refers to the “founding fathers” he is talking about Abraham and Paul, not Jefferson and Madison.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Don’t forget George Mason, father of the First Amendment.
bit enjoys quoting himself.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/05/obama-faith-based-discrimination/
It appears that the First Amendment was written with the expectation that the predominant religion was and would remain Christianity. As an example of this expectation of a predominant religion consider what
George Mason, often called the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” proposed as the wording for the First Amendment.
.
Quoted from
March 31st, 2009 at 2:07 pmRowland, Kate (1892), The Life of George Mason (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).
Bush and Co. really cared only about OIl surely not women. Republicans and the Taliban “use” women before discarding them for having suited their religious purposes.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:07 pm——————————————————————————–
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
aksarben60 Says:
Me thinks you’ve missed the point…Sharia law will usually be enforced above modern law….that’s not the case in the US.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:00 pm
___________
Really? Then why isn’t it legal for gays to marry?
—-
March 31st, 2009 at 2:08 pmDo you realize that there are many people who are NOT Christian who disagree with gay marriage? That topic, like abortion, is not always a Christian thing but you seem to make it that way.
——————————————————————————–
wags camponotus saundersi Says:
——————————————————————————–
Christians have adapted to the modern world, there’s the difference. Just my opinion.
Some have. Bit hasn’t.
—-
March 31st, 2009 at 2:09 pmi don’t know about Bit…don’t have an opinion because I don’t know that person, but you’re right…I shouldn’t generalize. Many Christians have adapted to the modern world.
“Christians have adapted to the modern world, there’s the difference. Just my opinion.”
So, the above Bible quotes are now wrong?! Or are you saying that Christians will re-interpret what your God has told you based on modern reasoning? What kind of ‘faith’ is that?
If you’re going to do that, maybe just relying on modern reasoning itself and leaving out the ancient texts would be a better approach.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:09 pmUmmm, not all of them. This country is full of fundamentalist Christians who desperately want to make this a theocracy. Look, there’s one now!
March 31st, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Vinnie Says:
——————————————————————————–
“Christians have adapted to the modern world, there’s the difference. Just my opinion.”
So, the above Bible quotes are now wrong?! Or are you saying that Christians will re-interpret what your God has told you based on modern reasoning? What kind of ‘faith’ is that?
If you’re going to do that, maybe just relying on modern reasoning itself and leaving out the ancient texts would be a better approach.
—-
Oh my word. We’ve adapted and maybe for the times those words were written, they were appropriate but maybe they’re not any longer. We live in a different world than Christ did but those of us that are Christians know what it means to be a Christian and that isn’t something I can explain…it’s called faith. You have to feel it to understand it.
You also have to understand that God did not write the new testament. This isn’t something that you will probably ever understand.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:12 pmThis is so barbaric. Just another sad example of politics at it’s worst!
March 31st, 2009 at 2:12 pmYet, oddly enough, Mason’s take on this particular subject never made it in…
March 31st, 2009 at 2:14 pmaksarben60 Says:
Me thinks you’ve missed the point…Sharia law will usually be enforced above modern law….that’s not the case in the US.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:00 pm
___________
More to the point – Shari’a law, like Mosaic law or secular law, is just one tool used by people who have power to keep themselves in power. If it suits the people in power to dictate who can get married or what reproductive rights women have or whether evolution should be taught alongside mythology in science classes, they will use it. When it suits them to use secular law to accomplish these aims, they will also use it.
Muslims are no different from Christians or Jews – or Atheists – in this respect. If they have power, they’ll hang on to it however they can, using whatever law they need. It has nothing to do with religion.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:15 pmYeah, and notice that did not become the the First Amendment.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:15 pmWhen will the world evolve beyond the point of clinging to fantasy stories about the magic man in the sky?
March 31st, 2009 at 2:16 pmOr any of it. The Bible was written by men. It was tampered with and modified by men over millennia.
Your statement is disingenuous though. There are literalists among Christians who do in fact, believe everything within at face value.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:16 pmCare to back that up with something resembling a fact?
March 31st, 2009 at 2:17 pmWhooeee. Mythology 101.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:20 pmYou know, (I can’t believe i’m saying this) Klatu you have somewhat of a point there. We can only blame our leaders for Afghanistan’s backwards-ass thinking so far. Did Bush teach the Afghans how to treat women? Put the responsibility for this draconian law where it belongs, with the Afghan govt and their religious leaders.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:20 pmMy gods better than your god. Don’t believe me? I have proof in that….oh crap my gods better than your god.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:23 pmChristians: My god rose from the dead! So did Dionysus (on an annual basis). Oh, maybe the Zoroastrian and Egytptian mythologies had the same thing. As did the Celtic, and Hindu. Like Resurrection is an analogy for spring.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:27 pmOr in certain parts to even adopt children?
March 31st, 2009 at 2:27 pmIt’s even funnier that you continue to use a noun as an adjective. Do you think such repeated poor grammar is cute, or are you just too stooopid to learn proper English?
March 31st, 2009 at 2:28 pmLike why did the Western Christian/political system put the birth of the Savior at December 25? Solstice much? Let’s pre-empt the nasty old pagans.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:29 pmThis just makes me sick.
Good thing GWB drove the Taliban out of Afghanistan — and then let them slide right back in.
Another mess to clean up. How many women will be raped and murdered before that happens…?
March 31st, 2009 at 2:30 pmOr maybe we should have a wannabe emperor who claims to see Jebus in the sky call for a council that will give him a book of teachings that consolidate his empire and ignore the ‘less than popular’ writings?
March 31st, 2009 at 2:31 pmSaturnalia anyone?
March 31st, 2009 at 2:31 pmwags camponotus saundersi Says:
——————————————————————————–
You also have to understand that God did not write the new testament. This isn’t something that you will probably ever understand.
Or any of it. The Bible was written by men. It was tampered with and modified by men over millennia.
Your statement is disingenuous though. There are literalists among Christians who do in fact, believe everything within at face value.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:32 pm—-
Did you read the next post? I qualified my response because I generalized which is never a good idea.
Why is the bitbutt troll obsessing on polygamy? That has nothing to do with legalized rape.
Or does bitbutt think rape is all about the sex?
March 31st, 2009 at 2:32 pmaksarben60 Says:
“We’ve adapted and maybe for the times those words were written, they were appropriate but maybe they’re not any longer.”
Then what good is the Bible? What you’ve written could apply to any ancient text.
“…it’s called faith. You have to feel it to understand it”
Well, since I don’t feel it, your argument is worthless and carries no weight in the world of logic. … Sorry, I forgot that your belief system isn’t based on logic. It’s based on ‘faith’, which is basically the opposite of logic (believing something even when the facts tell you it’s not the case).
March 31st, 2009 at 2:33 pmThe day Western civilization gets past mythology is the day it gets a chance to survive.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:33 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
aksarben60 Says:
Me thinks you’ve missed the point…Sharia law will usually be enforced above modern law….that’s not the case in the US.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:00 pm
___________
More to the point – Shari’a law, like Mosaic law or secular law, is just one tool used by people who have power to keep themselves in power. If it suits the people in power to dictate who can get married or what reproductive rights women have or whether evolution should be taught alongside mythology in science classes, they will use it. When it suits them to use secular law to accomplish these aims, they will also use it.
Muslims are no different from Christians or Jews – or Atheists – in this respect. If they have power, they’ll hang on to it however they can, using whatever law they need. It has nothing to do with religion.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:34 pm—-
You right, you make a good point. However, I do believe, from what I’ve learned over the years about Muslims, with them, it DOES have to do with religion. Religion is everything in that world.
For true believers, by your logic, God has written every word ever written. Good or bad.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:35 pmHe had to think of some way to divert attention from the fact that his religion also condones this concept.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:35 pmZooey Lepidoptera Says:
Why is the bitbutt troll obsessing on polygamy? That has nothing to do with legalized rape.
Or does bitbutt think rape is all about the sex?
For that matter, maybe bit can explain why polygamy is bad. Apparently, God had no problem with it for centuries, at least according to the OT.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:36 pmVinnie Says:
——————————————————————————–
aksarben60 Says:
“We’ve adapted and maybe for the times those words were written, they were appropriate but maybe they’re not any longer.”
Then what good is the Bible? What you’ve written could apply to any ancient text.
“…it’s called faith. You have to feel it to understand it”
Well, since I don’t feel it, your argument is worthless and carries no weight in the world of logic. … Sorry, I forgot that your belief system isn’t based on logic. It’s based on ‘faith’, which is basically the opposite of logic (believing something even when the facts tell you it’s not the case).
March 31st, 2009 at 2:36 pm—-
Look, you don’t have to understand it but attacking someone’s faith, which is believed, not proven, it’s intangible, is downright disrespectful. I understand if you do not believe, that’s okay, but telling me my faith system isn’t based in logic, which it is to those who are faithful isn’t right. This is a circular discussion that will never end.
You keep missing the fact that fundamentalism is the same the world over. To a fundamentalist Christian, religion is everything in their world
March 31st, 2009 at 2:37 pmThe least child in the hills of Afghanistan is no different than the most gifted in Washington. When we feel this in our hearts, we will progress.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:38 pmHoodathunktick Says:
——————————————————————————–
For true believers, by your logic, God has written every word ever written. Good or bad.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:38 pm—-
That is absolutely not true.
I thought this topic of discussion was “legalized” rape, and even though I’m not a liberal, I’m on here agreeing that this is something that is wrong, flat out wrong!
March 31st, 2009 at 2:39 pmshoeless Chilopoda Says:
——————————————————————————–
aksarben60 Says:
——————————————————————————–—-
You right, you make a good point. However, I do believe, from what I’ve learned over the years about Muslims, with them, it DOES have to do with religion. Religion is everything in that world.
You keep missing the fact that fundamentalism is the same the world over. To a fundamentalist Christian, religion is everything in their world
March 31st, 2009 at 2:40 pm—-
I am not missing the point…if you’ve read my posts, I’ve been saying that not every Christian has modernized their thinking and that there are fundamentalists all over!
aksarben60 Says:
Hoodathunktick Says:——————————————————————————–
For true believers, by your logic, God has written every word ever written. Good or bad.
—-
That is absolutely not true.
Which is why we have war. Every being on the planet is equal.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:40 pmLeave it to Bit to derail the thread into a pedantic gay-marriage-merry-go-round.
I do appreciate your efforts at rational discussion, despite our disagreements.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:42 pmWestern religion, in particular, has spent 2,000 years trying to explain why this isn’t true. It has also so totally screwed up the planet.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:43 pmwags camponotus saundersi Says:
——————————————————————————–
I thought this topic of discussion was “legalized” rape, and even though I’m not a liberal, I’m on here agreeing that this is something that is wrong, flat out wrong!
Leave it to Bit to derail the thread into a pedantic gay-marriage-merry-go-round.
I do appreciate your efforts at rational discussion, despite our disagreements.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:44 pm—-
Thanks, Wags….back at ya! I have no problem with disagreements, just have problems with a lack of effort to discuss rationally.
Omg… this is who Bush put in charge of Afghanistan. Well, the Taliban is infiltrating.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:46 pmThe really ironic thing about this is that your hero and messiah Barack H. Obama is sending more troops to protect Karzai’s Afghanistan.
So much for womens rights libs.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:46 pmSMELL THE SWEET SMELL OF FREEDOM !
Note that even though I predict the wingnuts to try to paint this as a case of the unrulled tribal areas, Karzai is the head of Afghanistan. Bougnt and paid for with American money and blood.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !
March 31st, 2009 at 2:48 pmAt the time we attacked Iraq, women were half the student and professional population, head-dress was optional. Now, they’ve been set back. War always puts women’s rights off the radar, and often sets them back. Any time anyone talks about their crusades against the Mideast and women’s rights in the same breath, they’re full of it. You don’t fix relationships with bombs. In order to advance the rights of women, children, or any other underclass, you need peace and a reasonable standard of living.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:52 pmAs unconstructive this comment is, Obama’s Afghanistan policy is a sticky point for a lot of us. If we leave, the country collapses into tribal warfare, and Obama gets no end of flak for ‘giving up’ on catching Bin Ladin. If we stay, we’re seen as supporting the regime we helped install, and by association, its policies.
So, Tim. What’s your idea?
March 31st, 2009 at 2:54 pmThe harsh, old testament rules in the case of fundamentalists no matter what religion.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:58 pmreligion = great for churches and believers, and i say that snarklessly.
and
religion = not good for governing or lawmaking.
simple.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:06 pmoh hateful Tim – go find a bar and pick a fight with somebody – it’ll do ya good.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:08 pmReligion at times has greatly helped further the progressive cause. For example, MLK Jr. was greatly inspired by his religious beliefs to change the country for the better via civil rights, which he saw as a moral imperative.
However, he and those who followed him were careful not to couch their rhetoric in religious overtones, nor argue against the spirit of our founding documents. This, I believe, is the disconnect with today’s crop of evangelicals. Most of them seem to advocate the Christianization of the country, rather than being insipred to work for its betterment.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:13 pmOh my god they have Republicans too!
March 31st, 2009 at 3:18 pmwags camponotus saundersi Says:
——————————————————————————–
So, Tim. What’s your idea?
Simply commenting on the war monger obama who is underway with a troop surge in Afghanistan.
My point is that HE IS NO DIFFERENT than Bush, but he is simply fighting war on a different front. He is spending as much or more than the liberal republican bush. He is lying to the people and stepping on the constitution by taxing individuals at 90% (expo facto) and by firing corporate executives and setting the pay of a corporations employee’s (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008919304_apexecutivepay.html ).
Where is the hope and change that you were promised? Appears that the radical street organizer obama is simply extending the failed bush policies and moreover leading us down a path of complete government control.
My idea? …
Less government, less taxes, less government intrusion on individual freedom and the free market. Ironic that liberals once believed in at least less goverment intrusion on freedom.
How did obama fool you?
March 31st, 2009 at 3:23 pmaksarben60 Says:
“Look, you don’t have to understand it but attacking someone’s faith, which is believed, not proven, it’s intangible, is downright disrespectful.”
As this article shows, faith in ancient texts is being used as an argument to legalize what is, for all intents and purposes, rape. I have no problem attacking that ‘faith’. I respect women’s rights more than I respect your right to believe in false gods.
“I understand if you do not believe, that’s okay, but telling me my faith system isn’t based in logic, which it is to those who are faithful isn’t right. This is a circular discussion that will never end.”
The common definition of faith is believing something even when there is no evidence to believe it, or evidence to the contrary (i.e. I have faith in my wife even though there’s evidence she cheated on me). I still maintain that this is the OPPOSITE of critical, logical thinking.
This is not a ‘circular’ discussion. The problem is that once you stoop down to religion, you can believe anything you want. Logic and reasoning take a back seat to belief. Maybe I’ll believe that invading armies have the right to take woman as their own and rape them at will. Prove me wrong! (That last part is actually in the Bible.)
March 31st, 2009 at 3:24 pmWarmonger? No need for hyperbole. But then, you didn’t really offer an alternative.
Ironically, liberals/progressives are all for less government intrusion on individual freedoms, and a well regulated free market. However, cratch phrases do not policy make.
Obama’s policies are far from radical. However, he has made significant strides in reversing many Bush-era policies, and you’ll notice many of us here criticizing some of his choices. Things won’t change overnight though, the ship is just far too large to turn on a dime.
You’re assuming a lot in asking that.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:28 pmActually, this whole post is pretty disrespectful.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:31 pmFrom Deuteronomy 21:10-14.
“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.”
There are many in this country who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I’m glad they have less influnce in our government than they did under Bush.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:33 pmwags camponotus saundersi Says:
“Actually, this whole post is pretty disrespectful.”
If you can’t handle this level of ‘disrespect’ imagine how you’d feel having a husband who rapes you, doesn’t let you leave the house for school or work, and knowing that this is all legal in your government. That’s what we’re talking about here.
Read the article. This law is being enacted to get support for Karzai from the fundamentalists who use ancient text to support horrific behavior. While one could argue that Muslim clerics are much more backwards that most Christian leaders in the States, I believe the issue is the same. Leaders of the religous right in America have and will use the Bible to reduce women’s rights.
I think pointing out the problem of relying on ancient texts for guidance in these matters is entirely relevant. I’m sorry if you find it disrespectful.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:51 pmKarzai is just an American puppet who doesn’t have any say outside Kabul! Is known as the Mair of Kabul! Actually, this American puppet speaking and dog shitting in Kabul or Washington, means the same thing!
March 31st, 2009 at 3:55 pm“He is lying to the people and stepping on the constitution by taxing individuals at 90% (expo facto) and by firing corporate executives and setting the pay of a corporations employee’s”
First off, the House of Representatives was the body that drafted the bill that taxes bonuses being given out at corporations where they receive 5 billion in TARP funds, and the Senate is very likely to straight up kill the bill. Obama never said he would sign it into law, but that is a fact, and Republicans have trouble with those.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:58 pmSecondly, Obama asked Wagoner to step down if he wished for GM to continue receiving government help, which he agreed to and stepped down.
Do you remember last year at all? The new CEO’s of Fannie and Freddie were both chosen by then-Treasury Secretary Paulson, and the CEO of AIG was asked to step down if they were to continue to receive government aid. Gee, that sure sounds familiar, if only it got covered a fraction of the amount of time as when Obama does it, maybe wingnuts like yourself wouldn’t have so much trouble grasping at straws when attacking Obama.
That’s an incredible non-sequitur. Don’t attack religion because some ‘religious’ people are fundamentalist whackos.
It’s beyond disrepectful; it’s ignorant, unfair and clouds any issue at hand.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:58 pmwags camponotus saundersi Says:
——————————————————————————–
Warmonger? No need for hyperbole. But then, you didn’t really offer an alternative.
Simply using the same term that many libs used against the liberal republican bush when he surged the troops in Iraq. Frankly, I do not see the difference. War is war whether it is in Iraq or Afghanistan both presidents (neither of which ever fought in one themselves) were/are for it.
Ironically, liberals/progressives are all for less government intrusion on individual freedoms, and a well regulated free market. However, cratch phrases do not policy make.
Huh, did anyone tell Barney Frank this? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Beyond-AIG-A-Bill-to-let-Big-Government-Set-Your-Salary-42158597.html
Obama’s policies are far from radical. However, he has made significant strides in reversing many Bush-era policies, and you’ll notice many of us here criticizing some of his choices. Things won’t change overnight though, the ship is just far too large to turn on a dime.
Higher taxes, government control over corporations and its individual employees. Divisive rhetoric to promote class warfare between the have’s and the havenot’s. How many times have we seen obama and some other democrats demonize companies and their executives for their pay?
Not radical? He is simply carrying his street organizing practices, that he learned from saul alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”, into the presidency (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/obamas_alinsky_jujitsu.html).
Incidentally, what Bush-era policies has he reversed? Please note that simply closing gitmo and releasing its inhabitants on American soil is probably not a good example. Nor would be the allowing the expiration of the Bush child tax credits for American families. Neither would the multi billion dollar stimulus package of which we were promised that earmarks would not be tolerated … but among other pork … pelosi got 30 million for a salt marsh mouse.
Any thoughts on what he has actually reversed? I contend that he has either extended or magnified the failed bush policies but not reversed any in a positive way.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:03 pm“That’s an incredible non-sequitur. Don’t attack religion because some ‘religious’ people are fundamentalist whackos.”
Kind of like the majority of Americans do with Muslims?
March 31st, 2009 at 4:04 pm“pelosi got 30 million for a salt marsh mouse.”
March 31st, 2009 at 4:06 pmYou just proved you don’t let facts get in your way.
Hoodathunktick Says:
Not positive on this one but are there any states in the US, any federal laws that say a wife can charge a husband with rape? And if so, how long have they been on the books?
March 31st, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Yes. This is a crime in all states now. But they have not been on the books for very many years Only since 1993 have all states considered this a crime. But make no mistake, it still goes on in this country on a daily basis.
A woman can charge her husband with rape (at least theoretically), but it is not done often enough. Many women suffer in silence at the hands of abusive partners every day. Rape is an issue of control, and it crosses all socio-economic barriers. The difficulty being, in a marriage, there is a difficulty in proving the criminal act. And IF it is prosecuted at all, it is considered a lesser crime of assault and battery…
Most of the time these days, one only hears of this being prosecuted is in the case of polygamists and the age of the child/woman… meaning that a minor below the age of consent
From Wikipedia:
“Many United States rape statutes used to preclude spousal prosecution, including estranged or even legally separated couples. In 1975, South Dakota removed this exception.By 1993, this was the case throughout the United States. However, as of 1999, 33 of 50 U.S. states regard spousal rape as a lesser crime [Bergen, 1999].
The perpetrator may be charged with related crimes such as assault, battery, or spousal abuse. It is also known that even if a spouse has an illness causing an inability to sexually respond, the other spouse may engage him or her in conjugal relations without criminal liability. There are other criminal charges that may be inapplicable to married couples. For example, in the U.S., marriage precludes a charge of statutory rape even if one of the spouses is under the age of consent in the jurisdiction where the sexual act takes place.”
March 31st, 2009 at 4:09 pmTwo wrongs do not make a right.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:16 pm
My interpretation of history is that religion has been used in a negative manner such as this far more often than it has been used positively. Remember the Crusades, the Salem witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, etc.
My understanding is that a ‘fundamentalist’ believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible including the many passages that advocate rape, slavery and the subjugation of women.
If you are interpreting the Bible based on your own experience and morals, then your experience and morals are the driving factor in your belief system, NOT the Bible. I think that’s the way it should be.
Again, the issue at hand here is how a religous interpretation is being used to subjugate women. So, I think it’s fair to attack the irrationality of religion as a whole.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:16 pmYes. That doesn’t mean either is acceptable.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:16 pmThank you for clarifying. I’m not in disagreement with your main points; I just dislike when the attack is shifted from fundamentalism to religion or a religion in general.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:17 pmExcept maybe this last part >.>
March 31st, 2009 at 4:28 pmI am trtying to figure out if Tim Vacantlick is insulting Bush by calling him a liberal, or insulting us… either way, as in all of his posts, it makes no sense.
Yawn… better trolls, please…
March 31st, 2009 at 4:29 pmAlthough we are appalled at this in Afghanistan, American women still suffer at the hands of their husbands. In fact, it happens in every country, in every part of the world.
David Finkelhor and Kersti Yllo’s 1985 study estimated that 10 to 14 per cent of all married American women have been or will be raped by their husbands. (Finkelhor and Yllo, 1985)
Diana E.H. Russell, concluded that rape in marriage was the most common yet most neglected area of sexual violence (Russell, 1990)
The fact that this has been made legal in Afghanistan by a propped up leader, is disturbing, but it has only been a mere 16 years in America that this has been illegal, itself.
And if it were up to conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly, then it would still be legal — in her opinion, getting married means that you give up any right to be safe in your sexual person by virtue of getting married:
From a MAY 2008 article:
I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That’s what marriage is all about, I don’t know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn’t mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn’t rape, it’s a he said-she said where it’s just too easy to lie about it. P. Schlafly
March 31st, 2009 at 4:30 pmFaith is all very well and good for the person whose faith it is, but those who do not share that faith should not be affected by it in any way in their lives. I somehow doubt that these raped Afghani women are going to comfort themselves with the thought that it is god’s will. Unfortunately, they live in a theocracy and have no one in their government to stand up for the human rights.
I don’t care if you think me disrespectful. I am an atheist until someone can PROVE (logically, truthfully, scientifically) that there is anything supernatural. I am not “disrespecting” you, I just have the opinion that you are wrong. Are you disrespecting me by thinking I am wrong? If so, then maybe you should stop disrespecting me and admit that there is a possibility that your faith is mispaced.
You can’t have it both ways.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:36 pm——————————————————————————–
Your poor grammar is not a slight to me. I just find it amazing that an entire major political party, consisting of millions of people, is willing to embarrass themselves by constantly making a simple grammatical mistake in a childish effort to make the grownups mad.
So, I have decided to call you fools out, everytime you pull this idiotic stunt.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:41 pmIs this comment addressed at me? Because I’m not wanting or arguing to have it both ways. All I’m saying is that when stories pop up like this, some people have a tendency to attack religion, or Islam, or Christianity, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, instead of the real issue, thusly painting those who choose to believe in their respective deity as irrational, insane or otherwise incapable of seprating their religious beliefs from political realities.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:41 pmNot so much aimed at you Wags, as at bitbit and the like… although it did seem odd that you were bringing up disrespect.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:46 pmIt’s a matter of opinion, there is no respect or disrespect involved. I don’t think you are stupid or evil, I just think that you’re wrong if you believe in any religion at all. Who knows, when I die, I might find out that I am wrong. I will wait until then and deal with it if it happens.
And I do think that the fundamentalists of any religion are evil!
March 31st, 2009 at 4:47 pmVinnie Says:
.
.
.
My understanding is that a ‘fundamentalist’ believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible including the many passages that advocate rape, slavery and the subjugation of women.
.
.
.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:16 pm
If you mean to say there are “..Christians who advocate rape, slavery, and the subjugation of women,” based on a literal interpretation of the OT, bit believes you are mistaken. bit doesn’t begin to speak for all Christians, but does believe that his views are representative of many Christians. Christians generally speak for themselves.
If you’re interested in the 613 Jewish laws you might try http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm to get a run down on the Torah law and discussions and explanations of these laws.
Since bit is not an ancient Hebrews, neither are you bit suspects, you’re doing Christians a huge disservice by opening the OT and simply reading from it.
Both the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul make it clear that Christians do not have to be Jews before they become Christians. That’s why Christianity doesn’t have animal sacrifice or one doesn’t have to be circumcised to be a Christian.
As the NT says, the OT was given for our, believers, learning, and much of it is simply a history of what the ancient Hebrews did and what resulted.
OTW,
Vinnie Says:
.
.
.
Read the article. This law is being enacted to get support for Karzai from the fundamentalists who use ancient text to support horrific behavior. While one could argue that Muslim clerics are much more backwards that most Christian leaders in the States, I believe the issue is the same. Leaders of the religous right in America have and will use the Bible to reduce women’s rights.
.
.
.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
As is often the case on TP when the issue of how to treat women comes up, everyone seems to know what they don’t like, but few seem to have any idea, at least any idea they care to share.
So, where does one go – to what book or to what group of people – to learn how to treat women? Who serves as your example? You what’s wrong with the fundamentalist Muslims and the fundamentalist Christians. So where, and from whom, did you learn?
bit is very open here. If you have a relationship on which you want to brag, go right ahead. If someone taught you “more perfectly” how to treat women, share it with us.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:51 pmI was only bringing up disrespect in regards to those who are dsimissive of the sanity of honest, religious people, as if they are somehow intellectually flawed.
It’s not disrespectful to think that a belief in a religion is incorrect.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:51 pmWell, being a woman, I go to me to make up my mind about how I would like to be treated. I have the example of an equal, loving and respectful relationship between my parents, too. Of course many do not have that, but perhaps if we based the treatment of women on say, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, or the International Declaration of Human Rights, we could get some fairness going on.
Unfortunately, many people seem to think that religion has to have a say in earthly decisions. In my opinion, it does a lot more harm than it ever does good.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:54 pmAs much as I dislike agreeing with Bit, he’s right about this.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:57 pmKdeAnt Says:
.
.
.
Well, being a woman, I go to me to make up my mind about how I would like to be treated. I have the example of an equal, loving and respectful relationship between my parents, too. Of course many do not have that, but perhaps if we based the treatment of women on say, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, or the International Declaration of Human Rights, we could get some fairness going on.
.
.
.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Thanks for the response.
A good example is very valuable, but as you know, not everyone is privilege to have a good example.
From the femme perspective, and in just a sentence or two, what does get some fairness going on mean to you?
March 31st, 2009 at 5:02 pmSKdeAnt
Further, what caused your parents to be such a good example?
March 31st, 2009 at 5:03 pmBitbit, equal protection under the law is a no-brainer. No one needs to make laws about “how to treat women”. That phrase is supreme objectification in itself.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:03 pmwiley Says:
Bitbit, equal protection under the law is a no-brainer. No one needs to make laws about “how to treat women”. That phrase is supreme objectification in itself.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Is equal protection under the law all that women want, if one could be so presumptuous as to say all in the case of women?
March 31st, 2009 at 5:05 pmwags camponotus saundersi Says:
“Because I’m not wanting or arguing to have it both ways.”
Yes you are!! You want to have the belief in a supreme being but not be associated with some of the nuttier things that people have said and done in their belief of a supreme being. I think the difference is only one of degree.
You’re saying you believe in a supernatural being and that you only endorse the actions of other believers that you consider to be ethical. You’re basing who you want to side with based on your modern interpretation of their behavior and not on Biblical writings. You’re using secular reasoning to rationalize belief in a creature that can somehow hear all of our mumbling prayers. Do you believe in Santa Claus too? The latter seems more logically possible.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:09 pmI never said I want to have the belief in a supreme being. I want people to have the right to believe in a supreme being without being dismissed as somehow intellectually challenged or flawed. Religious people DO have a right not to be associated with the ‘the nuttier things people have said and done in their belief of a supreme being’. Paiting all Christains with the Dobson brush is insulting.
Uh, no. I’m not saying that at all.
I’m not saying this either.
Or this. I’ve never tried to rationalize faith.
Now this is just childish.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:13 pmLibertyLover Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Thank for that, LibertyLover. The world is violent enough, but some women aren’t safe from sexual violence in their own homes.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:16 pmwags camponotus saundersi Says:
——————————————————————————–
Simply using the same term that many libs used against the liberal republican bush when he surged the troops in Iraq. Frankly, I do not see the difference.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
So, you are saying that the liberals, especially on this board, were wrong to call bush a war monger?
Higher taxes, government control over corporations and its individual employees.
That our tax money paid for after they virtually destoyed their own companies, nearly taking the whole economy with them? Sorry, no sympathy here.
Even if it means breaking legal binding contracts between employee and employer? Contracts that were made well before any bailouts were given AND WERE EXPLICITLY protected with language in the bailout package by democrats Christopher Dodd and Timothy Geithenr?
Are you saying that because YOU do not have sympathy then it is ok for obama and the current powers to break the law?
Divisive rhetoric? Demonizing companies? Pretty sure unregulated capitalism caused this entire mess. There’s a fundamental flaw in the system when things like this are allowed to happen.
Some regulation is and has been needed and welcome. However, over regulation, which is were we are headed, is tolitarian at best.
As for unregulated capitalism, I would contend that unregulated government regulation is as much or more the problem. Case in point: The community reinvestment act started by Carter and enhanced by Clinton essentially forced banks to make loans to unqualified individuals based on economic status rather than ability to meet obligation. Threats from Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barney Frank against financial institutions if they did not comply with loans to unqualified individuals are not the kind of regulation that we need. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/20/ibd-carter-more-blame-financial-crisis-bush-or-mccain
Why, because you disagree with them? All you have are talking points. Salt marsh mouse, pork, fear mongering, etc.
You call these talking points because you want to diminish the reality of the lies that the teleprompter in chief told us to get elected. Aren’t you outraged that obama signed the stimulus package full of earmarks right after he claimed that he would not stand for earmarks?
Any thoughts on what he has actually reversed?
I’d contend that closing Gitmo and letting tax cuts expire are significant, but since you ruled those out…
Do you like the idea of Gitmo prisoners being released in YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD?
Did you realize that one of the principals that this country was founded on was lower taxes? Why do you go along for the ride and let your government continue to raise your taxes? What, so they can spend more money on bailouts?
BAILING OUT CORPORATE AMERICA? Is that what you want your politicians to do with your hard earned money?
Explicity banning torture via the Army Field Manual - WON”T CHANGE A THING. America doesn’t torture. Unless you call forcing someone to listed to barbara streisand records for 24 hours a day in their underware torture. American military is the most benevolent military on the face of the earth. But you’d need to be captured by North Korea, Iran, Indonesia, etc… to realize that, wouldn’t you?
ending the Mexico City Policy
Another policy that some would consider as stopping murder of the innocent. But, it doesn’t suprise me that king barack would resind this.
signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
Interesting the obama would sign this when he can’t even seem to uphold the standards that he imposes on others… http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=35972 I call this hypocracy,
SCHIP expansion
As much as you libs want the government to run health care why can’t you see from the examples of Europe and Canada that it does not work. Can you realistically name one program that the government can actually run well? Seems that everything that they get their hands on ends up failing miserably. Social Security, DMV, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the post office, welfare and the list goes on. http://clintonhealthcarehorror.blogspot.com/
Ever been to Canada or Europe for health care? Did you know that folks in those countries come to America to get health care because they would most likely die while on the government run waiting lists in their own countries? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp=EM8705
lifting restrictions on stem cell research
Adult stem cells would have done the same job and no one would have to be killed. Given the liberal tendency to protect the weak from the oppressor I would have expected a different answer.
Just for starters.
I suppose things are changing. I contend that they are not changing for the better but for the worse.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:17 pmwags camponotus saundersi Says:
“Do you believe in Santa Claus too? The latter seems more logically possible.”
Now this is just childish.
—
Childish is a good word. Maybe that will get you thinking. What I wrote is true – Believing there’s someone who can deliver presents throughout the world in one evening is more palpable than believing in someone who created the universe and hears all of our prayers.
(BTW, I’ll admit I stole this from the Religulous movie.)
March 31st, 2009 at 5:18 pmThen we share very little common ground, sorry.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:18 pmAre you implying that I am not?
March 31st, 2009 at 5:20 pmbitblt Says:
Is equal protection under the law all that women want, if one could be so presumptuous as to say all in the case of women?
March 31st, 2009 at 5:05 pm
No one can speak for ALL women, moron. Some women are self-loathing enough to buy into a submissive position in society.
Like wiley says: “equal protection under the law is a no-brainer.”
Everyone should have equal protection, and if some ding dong woman wants to play the little submissive game — more power to her. The rest of us will be covered.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:21 pmbitblt Says:
“So, where does one go – to what book or to what group of people – to learn how to treat women? Who serves as your example? You what’s wrong with the fundamentalist Muslims and the fundamentalist Christians. So where, and from whom, did you learn?”
I’m sorry to be rude, but this whole post is just stupid. Do you honestly not know how women can be treated equally and decently in society? To me, it’s common sense.
If you have to ask what’s wrong with fundamentalists, then you obviously don’t understand what this article is all about.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:36 pmwags camponotus saundersi Says:
Childish is a good word. Maybe that will get you thinking.
Are you implying that I am not?
—
Sorry, this thread is bringing out the mean atheist in me.
If you think that there’s a big guy in the sky who’s listening to our prayers and will somehow resurrect our brain functions after they cease to function on this earthly plain, then YES, I think there’s a problem with your thought process that you need to examine.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:37 pmExplicity banning torture via the Army Field Manual – WON”T CHANGE A THING. America doesn’t torture. Unless you call forcing someone to listed to barbara streisand records for 24 hours a day in their underware torture.
Must revist this comment that I made. Upon further consideration… this would be considered torture :-)
March 31st, 2009 at 5:37 pmIndeed it is. But I doubt you’re sorry.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:38 pm“equal protection” says it all…agreed from above…
…even for TIMMAH!
you’re welcome, TIMMAH!
March 31st, 2009 at 5:40 pmWell, that much we can agree on.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:40 pmSKdeAnt Says:
——————————————————————————–
I am trtying to figure out if Tim Vacantlick is insulting Bush by calling him a liberal, or insulting us… either way, as in all of his posts, it makes no sense.
take your pick.
A)
March 31st, 2009 at 5:41 pmB)
Both A and B
Vinnie Says:
I’m sorry to be rude, but this whole post is just stupid. Do you honestly not know how women can be treated equally and decently in society? To me, it’s common sense.
If you have to ask what’s wrong with fundamentalists, then you obviously don’t understand what this article is all about.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:36 pm
bitbutt needs someone to tell him how to do everything. He has no ability of looking within himself and finding out for himself what’s right and wrong. He must be told — so he assumes everyone is like that.
Pitiful.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:42 pmPitiful indeed. But then again he does have a great big storybook written mostly after the “fact” by those who were not present to the many events they may have made up to justify their agenda…
March 31st, 2009 at 5:57 pmExactly, that is why the government should protect the rights of those who do not know from their own experience.
Women should have equal rights and equal protection and equal pay to men. We are not there yet, even in this country.
So if we really mean to be a democracy, we need to fix this.
My parents operate from the position of each of them having equal rights in the relationship. Probably why they are still happily married after 57 years. And I would say largely attributable to them being non-brainwashed by religion. My dad always used to say that religion was a subject not fit for the ears of children.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:02 pmOT: Hi Zooey!
March 31st, 2009 at 6:02 pmTim43 Says:
I haven’t got the time to answer Timmeh point by point, and it would clearly not penetrate his skull if I did. However:
SCHIP expansion
As much as you libs want the government to run health care why can’t you see from the examples of Europe and Canada that it does not work. Can you realistically name one program that the government can actually run well? Seems that everything that they get their hands on ends up failing miserably. Social Security, DMV, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the post office, welfare and the list goes on. http://clintonhealthcarehorror.blogspot.com/
Ever been to Canada or Europe for health care? Did you know that folks in those countries come to America to get health care because they would most likely die while on the government run waiting lists in their own countries? http://www.cbsnews.com/ stories/ 2005/ 03/ 20/ health/
Stats and much more explanation here.
One would think that, if things were so terrible in Canada and Europe (among other civilized nations) with their health care they would switch to a privatized system. But “conservatives” carefully ignore that, along with all the evidence pointing to the success of single-payer health care, choosing to focus on anecdotes that appear to question the wisdom of such programs.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:02 pmHi, SKdeAnt!
March 31st, 2009 at 6:10 pmBitbit says:
So, where does one go – to what book or to what group of people – to learn how to treat women? Who serves as your example? You what’s wrong with the fundamentalist Muslims and the fundamentalist Christians. So where, and from whom, did you learn?
I think I was in kindergarten when I learned the Golden Rule. That’s all it takes.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:18 pmI learned primarily from Susan Brownmiller and Germaine Greer.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:50 pmAnd Dorothy Dinnerstein. The Mermaid and the Minotaur is fantastic.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:55 pmVinnie Says:
All of the below is from Corinthians in the Bible. What’s the difference?
“But I want you know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
“But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
“For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
Fine. Show me a man who has given birth, show me a man who can conceive and carry a child without a woman, and I’ll totally agree that “man is not from woman”.
Until then, take your bible and go have a conversation with yourself in the corner. Or better yet, STFU.
PEACE
March 31st, 2009 at 7:46 pmMy imaginary friend says that I’m better than you are and I can do anything I want to your body.
I’m also bigger than you are and the government is on my side.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:59 pmSoooorrry…but, not according to science:
Source: Beginning of 7th paragraph:
Intersexuality: Male, Female, & In-Between
That pesky science.
April 1st, 2009 at 12:16 amand this from 5th paragraph:
Intersexuality: Male, Female, & In-Between
April 1st, 2009 at 12:17 am“According to the Bible, Adam was created first, and Eve was created from one of his ribs. From the standpoint of biology however, it would be more accurate to say that “Adams” developed from “Eves”.”
Found under subheading Biological Influences pg 224.
Source:
Health in the new millennium
By Jeffrey S. Nevid, Spencer A. Rathus, Hannah R. Rubenstein
Sorry to blow holes in some theories…but..again…that pesky science will get ya every time.
April 1st, 2009 at 12:24 amAlso, from same source and to really drive point home:
“At about 5 to 6 weeks, the embryo is only 1/4- to 1/2- inch long. The embryonic structures of both genders develop along similar lines. Both look female at this time. The basic blueprint of the embryo is female. At this point, the Y sex chromosomes cause it to deviate from the female course. “Adams” develop from embryos that would otherwise become “Eves”. (emphasis mine)
Found under subheading Biological Influences pg 224.
April 1st, 2009 at 12:32 amSource:
Health in the new millennium
By Jeffrey S. Nevid, Spencer A. Rathus, Hannah R. Rubenstein
It’s cultural.
April 1st, 2009 at 11:31 amTrans-Afghanistan Pipeline should be redirected up Karzai’s ass.
This is the “freedom” America brings to the world!
April 1st, 2009 at 1:26 pmIt’s hard for freedom to overcome culture and takes time. This is definitely a step backwards.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:03 pmA man can beat his wife in just about any country in the world. You Obama fanatics have the luxury of living here. This Obamas show, lets see what he can do. of course he allowed N. Korea to launch their missle.
If you think N. Korea is a thriving country, look at nightime satellite photos of that country. Compare it to S. Korea. They are kept in total darkness. These are the countries you and the rest of the libs believe should have their freedom.
They hang gay people in Iran. Look it up on Google. I know many of you are young, but wake up.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:51 pm