Killed for not wearing a hijab

Seems like the state's human rights laws are beginning to closely correlate to the mentality in many Islamic nations. Hmmmm...maybe it is true that if you bend the edges of extremism back far enough, you have totalitarianism either way.

A question for you, Rod. How many Muslim clerics must denounce this kind of violence before you will stop trying to characterize all of Islam as violent, abusive and terror-loving?

"A question for you, Rod. How many Muslim clerics must denounce this kind of violence before you will stop trying to characterize all of Islam as violent, abusive and terror-loving?"

______________

And how, exactly, can they do that DS? Woman may be beaten for disobedience and in 3 of 4chools may be killed for apostasy. This young woman appears to be both disobedient and, based on the information given, probably quite close to open apostasy. Islam is everything that Mohammad said and did, and he was

sd0490, it's funny because I don't really hear _any_ Muslim clerics ever denouncing this sort of thing. And if they do, they always word it very carefully and qualify it to such an extent where they may as well not even have said anything. As to your other reply where you point out the Catholic abuse, yes of course it's dreadful... but nobody there gets killed for what they wear... by their own fathers.

"As to your other reply where you point out the Catholic abuse, yes of course it's dreadful... but nobody there gets killed for what they wear... by their own fathers."

Yes...and your point? I concede that there are Muslims who commit horrid atrocities with the belief that their faith's teachings condone it, or that their religious leaders will provide them with cover. Whether it be the bombings of the WTC (both in the early 90s and in 2001), the numerous terrorist attacks over the past 50 years, or the countless instances of abuse such as this one, where a father commits what he may well have viewed as some sort of "honor killing" of a disobedient child. The Muslim religious world is replete with such instances. However, I draw the line at characterizing the religion as being of this nature, and that seems to be where you (and Rod) would take issue with me.

In Rod's posts we see this formulation:

Person claiming Muslim faith does terrible thing, therefore all Muslims are terrible, therefore the Muslim faith is terrible.

Many people have challenged me here on my characterization of the Catholic faith as an incubator of abusive behavior. They seem to be able to make distinctions between the actions of those within the faith itself. In other words, one sinful priest (or 15,000) does not make the faith of those priests invalid.

Further, they are unwilling to accept an unbeliever's critique of their Scripture, or an unbeliever's questioning of their exegesis of said Scripture, because that unbeliever cannot understand the true meaning of the Scripture. Why? Because he is not a believer.

And then, these unbelievers (from a Muslim standpoint) show no compunction in critiquing the Quran or the exegesis of the Quran by numerous Muslim believers. When their errors in exegesis are pointed out to them, they react negatively and toss out accusations of "dhimmitude".

Sauce for the goose, Jean. If instances of abuse and violence committed by Muslims with the belief that their religion or its leaders support such actions is to be accepted as evidence that the Muslim faith is defective, then Catholics (and in a broader sense, Christians) should be subject to the same standards.

Personally, I hope that "father" is convicted to the fullest extent of the law, and that he does not see the light of day for many, many years. Same with the "brother". I use quotes because I do not believe that a real father or brother could do that to someone they truly loved.

But folks (and especially Rod & Erin) will you hold the religious leaders here in this country, namely the Catholic and Orthodox leaders, to the same standard that you hold the Muslim leaders in Canada? Would you expect them to condemn the instances of child abuse here as you expect the Muslims to condemn this murder in Canada? Would you expect Catholic priests to offer full assistance and cooperation with law enforcement here as you expect the Muslim clerics in Canada to offer in the murder case?

Will you think it OK if a Muslim mosque declares bankruptcy to protect its assets so it can continue to do the ministry it provides, just as the Catholic churches here in the US are doing?

Will you think it is wrong for the Catholic and Orthodox leaders to do anything less than a full, public admittance of guilt in their involvement with the abuse issues, as I expect you would demand of Muslim clerics with regards to violence or terrorist issues?

Is there a double standard present?

The real issue here for me is the human rights laws suppressing any reasonable criticism of Islam. Hell--half my professors from undergraduate would be rotting in jail if this rule were in place in the U.S. and applied to criticism of Christianity.

Erin: "Honestly, ds0490, can you find a single tenet of Catholicism pretending that abuse is a good thing, permissible, or to be overlooked? Those responsible for the abuse cases you cite are clearly in violation of every principle of Catholicism--and of Christianity, for that matter. The equivalence you're trying to imply doesn't exist."

Maybe it's the link that is preventing the filter from posting my response...not certain. In any case, I will simply refer to the document by its name and go from there.

"Crimine solicitationies" came to light in 2003. The document, under the seal of Pope John XXIII, orders officials of the church to handle any instances of sexual misconduct in complete secrecy. It also suggests that relocation of the offending priest is quite acceptable.

I've posted links to this a couple of times. Perhaps the filter is simply slowed by inclement weather. Not certain. In any case, the document, which has been acknowledged as authentic by the Church, sanctions the cover-up of child abuse on the orders of the Pope himself.

Oh yes, I hear priests speaking from the pulpit all the time advocating the rights of priests to be pedophiles, And all those people who were killed by protesting Christians during the "Piss Christ" affair were just horrid. And the way ministers regularly advise husbands of the permissability of wife beating in pre-cana classes. Oh, and it's just awful how women are locked in their homes with the windows papered over in Christian countries - france has a long history of such things, you know. And why doesn't anyone ever speak out against those Christians who hunted down and slit the throat of the director of The DaVinci Code? I mean, isn't it clear to everyone that we're on the verge of having our right to even speak critically of Christianity away? How could anyone possible miss the mortal threat to life limb and liberty posed by the unregenerate Christians in our midst?
Obviously, there's a HUGE double standard at work here.

ds wrote:

"Crimine solicitationies" came to light in 2003. The document, under the seal of Pope John XXIII, orders officials of the church to handle any instances of sexual misconduct in complete secrecy. It also suggests that relocation of the offending priest is quite acceptable. ...
[T]he document, which has been acknowledged as authentic by the Church, sanctions the cover-up of child abuse on the orders of the Pope himself.

Have you read the document in question? Or are you cherry-picking talking-points you don't understand?

DS0490: The Church document to which you refer deals not with "any instances of sexual misconduct" committed by priests, but only the very specific ecclesiastical crime in which a priest solicits sexual favors (or allows himself to be seduced) in the confessional. It is not about the abuse of minors. Far from ordering complete secrecy, it obliges those who are aware of the solicitation to report it to the proper Church authorities; it also makes provision for the possible removal of the offender from priestly ministry (rather than merely relocating him). In fairness, you must acknowledge that the obligation of secrecy placed on those handling such cases flows logically from a respect for the strict confidentiality of sacramental confession, and not, as you recklessly allege, any desire to cover-up child abuse "on the orders of the Pope himself."

Your anti-Catholic straw men add nothing to the discussion; get a grip.

I need to read the article by Steyn before forming any conclusions. The Muslims aren't trying to stifle free speech. They are trying to get people to stop saying things about them that aren't true. Falsehoods lead to prejudice and hatred, and that could possibly lead to hate crimes against Muslims.

What if I wrote an article that said inner city blacks are breeding like rabbits compared to their suburban white neighbors. We will see crime spread to the burbs due to an increase in homicides, illegal drug use, single mothers, prostitution, and declining schools if this trend continues.

I think that African Americans would be right to be upset. I haven't read the article, but if Steyn really did show statistics that Muslims are having more children than non-Muslims AND state that the result will be more violent behavior in the society, then they are right to be upset.

The father murdering his daughter has nothing to do with the Muslim protest against Steyn's article. I'm not sure why we're talking about the two things on the same thread. TV/radio stations take dumb polls all the time in an attempt to generate discussion. I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that the poll was designed to blame society for father's actions. That's looking for Manning's Corollary where it doesn't exist.

Look, this crime is disgusting. May that poor girl's soul rest in peace.

But Toronto is the one of the most diverse cities in the world -- even more diverse in many ways than New York. So why should it surprise us that there was at least one unreconstructed fanatic Muslim in Toronto who was willing to engage in the horror of honor killing despite now living in the New World?

Are the Mounties supposed to spy on all Muslims to stop this from happening? (Are American authorities?)

This thread has the ring to me of that Oscar-nominated song from "South Park, Bigger, Longer, and Uncut" -- "BLAME CANADA!!!"

The entire document Crimen Sollicitationis -- *entire document* including the last four paragraphs -- concerns only cases of "solicitation," which is a very specific term in Canon Law for the not very common crime of the abuse of the Confessional for sexual purposes. (And hence the particular need for secrecy in such cases.)

Very few of the sexual misconduct cases in the American presbyterate did not involve such matters (disgusting enough matters though they did involve).

Because it's a document of canon law procedure, the secular law is never mentioned in it and has no more need to be mentioned in it than World War I, silent movies or 17th-century fashion styles do.

Here is that ultramontane John Allen breaking down the false furor and the aftermath originating in ignorant secular reporters, but which anti-Catholic liars like yourself have stuck into their playbook between the albino assassins and The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk.

Please, Victor...go ahead an enlighten me as if I have not read the document.

Why should that be necessary, since you are the one citing it in the first place? Had you read it before citing it? Are you a canon lawyer, able to understand it?

Well, Rod, it took two comments before we got the "Christians (specifically in this case, Catholics-color me shocked) are just as bad" argument. And, for the most part, the discussion in the comments is now about the scandal in the Catholic Church. Terrible as some priests' actions have been, and they have been truly horrible, they have no bearing on this story. Now, if you could come up with some stories about the Catholic priest murdering his victim because of his/her(the victim's) impurity, you might have something that could relate to this situation.

God rest her soul, grant her mercy and peace.

I read Rod's links and my instinctive response was about I wished the father had been in my circle of friends.

A couple of months ago I was cornered in a local grocery by a manager. In our banter over the years we'd discovered she was an evangelical Christian and I was an atheist. So when she approached me with her arms crossed and a "we need to talk" I assumed the worst.

She wanted to know how I became an atheist just what I believed. I answered her questions while trying to figure out where she was going.

Then she asked if atheists were pagans.

I explained that pagan was the oldest faith but for me it was a faith in deities and as an atheist I saw a world without deities. The only thing atheists and pagans had in common from my perspective was we weren't Christians.

She then told me about her fifteen year old son coming into the house the night before and telling her he was pagan. She'd told him that if pagan was against God then he would have to leave her house. She wasn't going to have something against God under her roof.

My response was, "my gawd woman, you're not going to let something as silly as religion come between you and your son are you?" I went on to explain that a fifteen year old going pagan is all about being a fifteen year old and nothing about faith.

A long time ago I decided that the cross gender relationship between a parent/child is more special in some ways than a same gender relationship. I believe it's about potential. Same gender we tend to be more judgemental wanting the offspring to be what we should have been. Cross gender we don't have that cross to carry and so we see a potential of what we could have been if we'd been of that gender. I do know that the father/daughter relationship is just as special in my book as the mother/son relationships I see.

I would have counseled the Muslim father with the same advice. I would have explained that we as humans come with a gene that's activated at puberty. What that gene does is make us rebel against everything around us. I call it the butt hole gene.

The butt hole gene is a good thing. Because without it the parents would want to keep the kid in the house forever. It saves us from ourselves. As parents we are obligated to always weigh teenager behavior for butt hole itis. If we identify the behavior as butt hole itis we should, well, darn, love the sinner while hating the sin?

In the twenties for most of us the butt hole gene goes into remission. The only time it acts up after that is when we're confronted with dealing with butt hole itis in a teen ager. The reaction is just as irrational as it was before.

I don't see this story as being about the good or bad of Christianity nor the good or bad of Islam. I see this story being about a catastrophic failure in what is probably one of the greatest opportunities a person has for a meaningful relationship they'll have in a lifetime.

If you google my name and "redemption" you'll find a story I wrote about an experience I had with my daughter when she was sixteen. She's now twenty nine and one of the high moments of my life happened last year. As I was playing with my grandson I caught her watching us. The look on her face spoke volumns about how she feels about her father and her son. She's still my hero and one of the reasons I wake up mornings counting my blessings and the day just follows on that note.

Yes, I would have liked to have been in his life. Maybe I could have helped him know the wonder that I do now later in his life.

The world would be a better place if the butt hole gene was identified and explained. I don't think it should be modified, it's too important, kids need to be on their own and parents don't allow that willingly.

God rest her soul, grant her mercy and peace.

mary margaret, that is a very kind and compassionate thought on your part. Unfortunately, it's not really possible according to many orthodox Christians, is it? This little girl died a Muslim, as far as we know from the story, so she is now burning in hell for all eternity, isn't she? It's not God's fault, though. She made Him do it, by willfully failing to profess faith in Jesus before she was strangled. Attn. Victor: I am expressing contempt now. Certainly not for all Christians, and not for all Christian beliefs--just for the particular conviction that God would consign a murdered child to eternal torment.

Sig: Actually, what I have learned in Orthodoxy is that our salvation, as well as the salvation of others, is not for us to say. God, in God's infinite wisdom, will be the final arbiter, not us. I can no more say this Muslim girl will be condemned to hell than I can say that I will be saved. Despite her Muslim faith, she may be more pleasing to God and more Christ-like than this unworthy sinner.

I realize there are many Christians who will actively make pronouncements on who is saved, and who is not. But, IMHO, that borders on blasphemy, IOW, speaking for God. We cannot do that.

Ira: Where have you been for the past six years? There have been innumerable stories about honor killings in both the West and the Middle East. This isn't just a case of a single individual snapping. Many muslims are still stuck in the tribal/shame culture that has existed in their societies for millenia.

Unfortunately, it's not really possible according to many orthodox Christians, is it? This little girl died a Muslim, as far as we know from the story, so she is now burning in hell for all eternity, isn't she? It's not God's fault, though. She made Him do it, by willfully failing to profess faith in Jesus before she was strangled.

What sort of "orthodox Christians" are these? Christ commands us clearly not to judge. It is no part of Christian tradition to declare that so-and-so, having died, is now in hell (much less to rejoice at such a horror). The Church, east and west, has always declared a handful of people "saints." It has never declared that any particular person is in hell. In traditional, orthodox Christianity, such particular judgments belong to God alone. We are entitled to HOPE that each person may find salvation in and through Christ, regardless of the external realities of his or her life.

Rebecca,

I agree that we have to be careful about how we limit free speech, but I don't think that it means that you can say whatever the heck you think short of threatening a person or yelling fire in a crowded theater. There are consequences to things that we say, and the more people whom you reach with your speech, the higher the standard or bar should be set for those people. Journalists, who's writings reach millions, don't get to say whatever they want without evidence to back it up. If Steyn wants to go around writing that all Muslims are terrorists and the world is going to be a more dangerous place because of Muslim breeding demographics, then he better have included numbers in his article to demonstrate & back up his claim that all(or most) Muslims are terrorists. Or, Maclean's magazine should get a Muslim writer on staff to counter what he has written & not rely on a 4 sentence blurb in the editorial section to counter what he said.

You might be willing to die for the right for people to say whatever the hell they want, but my guess is that you don't belong to a minority demographic that's targeted for hate crimes because of falsehoods that people are printing.

But don't turn every other Muslim in Canada into a potential jihadist.

Some of them are not just potential jihadists.

www. danielpipes.org/article/1639

I think it's important to understand the context of Canadian law and speech rights. For good or for naught, Canadians view group rights differently than in the U.S., where individualism is the master. Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms--which was only written in the early 1980s--there is an acknowledgment that groups have a collective right to be free from discrimination and harassment. This likely comes from Canada's tradition of acknowledging the rights of French-speaking Canadians in Quebec and the Maritimes.

This has meant that minority religions--Sikhs most prominently--have been given broader acknowledgment under the law than in the U.S. Because sexual orientation is included in the Charter, it also means gays and lesbians--as a group--have acknowledged protections. Thus, writing anti-gay or anti-Muslim screeds does trigger the possible protection under the Charter and provincial laws.

Under the Charter--which is like our Bill of Rights--there is also an acknowledgment that sometimes the majority will have to make sacrifices for the sake of the minority. That's a concept foreign to those of us in the U.S.

Sigillaris, Do you really think that is Orthodox Christian belief that the poor girl is condemned to hell? Did you forget that one of the central tenents of the faith is that we are not to judge, God judges. To declare that she is damned is to assume the mantle of God. Speaking as an Orthodox Christian, I'm not going there. Also speaking as an Orthodox Christian, the most authoritative statement i can make about this poor girls ultimate fate is "I don't know".

Will Harrington and Simon, I think I understand and respect where you're coming from. (And I didn't respond to Simon earlier because I felt I'd be cross-talking against where this thread is going right now, but I'll interpose a response anyway.) You are correct, of course, that the Catholic and Orthodox traditions have been careful not to say that any one particular human being is going to Hell--since this would be, as you rightly state, claiming knowledge that belongs only to God. However, I think you're being a little bit over-optimistic in your assessment of how teachings on Hell are actually applied. For instance, there's hot debate even in those traditions about whether one is even allowed to HOPE for the salvation of all, or even most, of mankind. Don't take my word for it--you can find such debates over on First Things.

When I was growing up, which was not SO long ago, the idea that "there is no salvation outside the (Roman Catholic) Church" was widely taught and believed. This made a pretty definite impression that non-Catholics one knew personally were going to Hell if nothing changed, or if they were hit by a bus before it did. My little brother lost his faith when the nuns told him our mother was going to Hell for being a Protestant. He felt that a religion that encouraged him to picture his own gentle, virtuous mother burning in Hell forevermore was not a religion he needed to have in his life--and I don't blame him. We were definitely taught that if you missed Mass on Sunday and happened to die before going to confession, you would go to Hell. I had a friend who converted to Catholicism and later had something resembling a mental breakdown when her beloved but atheist father died without professing faith, in spite of all her prayers. She was certain he'd gone to eternal punishment. As for divorced and remarried people, they were definitely Hell-bound, unless they would agree to live "as brother and sister" with their illegal second spouse. Without that, they couldn't repent, so they couldn't receive the sacraments, so they would go to Hell. There were a lot of crash-landings on that list. Now, you may think of these things as regrettable failures of catechesis, but that is how people thought, and I'll bet more of them still do than you might believe.

And I won't even start on Calvinist/evangelical positions on Hell. I guess you're just lucky enough never to have encountered earnest street-corner or door-to-door evangelists who ask you things like, "If you died tonight, do you know where you would go?" If you have not specifically, verbally accepted faith in Jesus, you are not a Christian in their book. You are "unsaved," and unsaved people go to Hell. That most certainly includes Muslims. So I think you'd have to say that there is a long Christian tradition of believing that large groups of people will inevitably go to Hell--even if one is allowed to hope that they will not.

We don't really know what Steyn wrote, but if the Muslims are correct & what he wrote depicted most Muslims as terrorists, then he should be held accountable for writing falsehoods.

Posted by: watsy | December 12, 2007 2:52 PM

As I understand it, the "article" in Maclean's was an excerpt from Steyn's book "America Alone." I've read it. I wish I still had it, but it's on loan to a friend. I can tell you, however, that Steyn certainly did not depict "most Muslims as terrorists." In fact, I got the impression that we went out of his way NOT to do that. (He's no fool!) The thrust of his book was that if things don't change, most Europeans will be Muslims... with all the cultural ramification that might imply.

Aaron: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/12/12/subway.attack/

"Oo look, a terrorist helping Jews"

Interesting that the police went ahead and arrested the Muslim who helped defend the Jewish man. Only after Mr. Adler told the police what happened did they release Mr. Askari.

All this over a holiday greeting. But of course, this story couldn't really have happened. Erin and Rod assure us that Christians do not do this kind of violence over mere words.

"Erin and Rod assure us that Christians do not do this kind of violence over mere words."

Erin and Rod have assured you of nothing of the sort, of course, but go right ahead and equate the behavior of jerks and buffoons who happen to be Christian with the behavior of the Muslim dad who murdered his own daughter for not wearing a hijab. 'Cause it's exactly the same.

Hey, Rod, did *you* get the fatwa from your Orthodox leaders telling you to heckle Jewish subway riders? We Catholics haven't gotten ours, yet, what with all the emphasis on helping the youth group earn money to go to the next World Youth Day; but I'm sure it will be forthcoming, mixed in with the K of C blood drive announcement and the altar flower fundraiser. (End sarcasm. If anyone really needs to be told that.)

Erin: "Erin and Rod have assured you of nothing of the sort, of course, but go right ahead and equate the behavior of jerks and buffoons who happen to be Christian with the behavior of the Muslim dad who murdered his own daughter for not wearing a hijab. 'Cause it's exactly the same."

LOL..where have I said that jerks are always Christian. I think that the kindest thing that can be said about the male biological parent (I can no longer refer to him as a father) in that instance is that he is a jerk who happens to be Muslim.

Clearly you see him as a new leader on the forefront of a terrorist wave that will hit us before the end of the year.

Oh man, I take a few days out just to get some work done, and I lose the thread entirely. GREAT discussion, but I can't keep up!

Clearly I don't, ds. Clearly I'm simply tired of the constant reaction of the left to incidence of violence involving Islamic fundamentalists being comprised of the tu quoque "Christians do it too! Christians bad! Christians eeeeevillll!" ad infinitum.

If you're really more worried about Christians rising up and committing acts of violence than you are about Muslims doing the same, that's your prerogative, of course. I find it extremely silly, short-sighted, and fantasy-based thinking, on a par with Daniel's manufactured prejudices which apparently give him the power to convict me of a racism I've never expressed and do not, in fact, hold within me.

Interesting you have these facts, when the police and the Canadian officials haven't reached that conclusion. I realize when you see a Muslim, you assume that he's going to commit an honor killing because that's your preconceived bias. Unfortunately, we don't really have any basis for knowing if it's true, not that it stops you from taking that leap.

________________

Daniel and DS - For G*d sakes people, a couple of years ago the "religious enforcement" officers of a sovereign islamic country forced little girls back into a BURNING BUILDING for not being covered; in another islamic country, the police detain hundreds of thousands of women for showing a wisp of hair, and those who do not mend their ways are beaten and arrested over and over and over again until they submit to Islamic standards of dress. In some parts of the world they throw acid in your face, in a few places right now (Mosul comes to mind) they just shoot you like a dog in the street . . . and the Islamic justifications are RIGHT THERE, in the "holy" books: "beatings" for disobedience; "lashings" for female sexual impropriety; and "death" for apostasy - of which refusal to wear a hijab is a sure sign. Pedophile priests and asset protection schemes sure are despicable, but in the constellation of abuses that are sanctioned and practiced by sovereign countries under the banner of Islam today, they barely register . . .and I can assure you there are abuses of that nature and worse going on right now in many Madrassas that will NEVER see the right of day - not to mention the time honoured custom of child marriage, sanctioned under Shariah by the despicable example of Mohammad, in which 9 and 10 years old girls are being pawned off RIGHT NOW, TODAY, LEGALLY, for child rape across the islamic world. (I'd show a clip, but I'm scared my comment will disappear like the last one. If you need an instructive example, search "Camille Sadat," the daughter of Anwar Sadat - by no means an uneducated peasant - for a description of her Islamic marriage at the age of TWELVE).

Wow, ds0490, you just willfully misunderstand, don't you? I hesitate to speak for Erin, but I would consider Paul Hill to be a murderer, as is the father of this poor girl.

Took me a bit to get back to this thread, so I'll make just a few comments here. First, thanks to the Orthodox who have commented and said just exactly what I, as a Catholic would say. God judges--we pray that all souls will be led to heaven. Now, to the "raised Catholic" folk who were told that everyone who was not clearly in the RCC were doomed to hellfire and damnation; I'm very sorry that this was taught to you. Those sisters, or whoever, were wrong. I hope that the injury that they did to you was unintended, but they simply did not know the teaching of the Church. I grew up in what sounds like the same time period, and never, ever was I told such a foolish thing. Hey, my brother asked a Bishop about those people who lived before Jesus, or in places where they had never even heard of Christianity, and the Bishop told him that they were to be judged by God, according to their situation. He assured my brother that God cannot, and would not be unjust. (This was probably around 1959--in other words, before VII.)

I also do not think that all Muslims are terrorists/murderers, or even potential terrorists/murderers. I do think that the religion itself seems to place a higher value on submission, than on love, but that's just me. I could be wrong, and would be pleased to learn that I am.

Once again, may God let eternal light shine upon her, and give her peace.

"This man killed this girl for the same reason men always kill women, because she belonged to him and she wouldn't comply.

Religion is not the place to look for the reasons for this type of crime."

_______________

It's part of the answer, but if you're a woman living in an islamic country, governed by Islamic law, what that law actually SAYS has profound, real world consequences. . . .

It's part of the answer, but if you're a woman living in an islamic country, governed by Islamic law, what that law actually SAYS has profound, real world consequences. . . . Posted by: Lynn

Tell me about it Lynn, we have a gay son living in a Christian country, we can feel your pain.

It's part of the answer, but if you're a woman living in an islamic country, governed by Islamic law, what that law actually SAYS has profound, real world consequences. . . . Posted by: Lynn

Tell me about it Lynn, we have a gay son living in a Christian country, we can feel your pain.
______________

Oh Good Lord. Are you actually trying to draw an equivalency between Islamic shariah and the treatment of gays in America . . . ? At this point, that just makes me tired and sad.

Meanwhile, just today, a priest in Maine was removed pending investigation into charges of abuse.

This is terrible news! Once again, another church [S.R.O. in the summertime]with wonderful people - many of whom have young children and grandchildren who visit this parish by the ocean.

God bless all of the parishoners at St.Mary's and any families that may be dealing with tragic consequences. Keep them in your Sacred Heart this Christmas season.

And watch over all of the victims of priest abuse this Christmas. May God find them and heal them and call them back to the Truth.

Sheilagh, there were two allegations made, but against different priests.

http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/news/local/4546709.html

Correction: I typed Guatemala above. I meant Nicaragua. Though it's poasible the same thing has happened in Guatemala.

Grand Ayatollah Fadlallah has come out against the use of any violence towards women.

http://archive.gulfnews.com/region/Lebanon/10171067.html

Violence and Islam go together like peanut butter and jelly. The history of Islamic violence stretches from Mohammad to two-seconds ago.

violence and islam do NOTTTT GO TOGETHER... don't stereyotype or make ur own concusions

"Geef, he's always held that position. Of course it is a direct contradiction of what the Koran says. Who are most Muslims going to believe, the Koran or what one imam says?"

A grand ayatollah is a very high figure to the shiites who's rulings are binding.

I don't understand how you can show some people positive reports and all they do is look for a negative. Someone posted a quote about violence in the old testament and the response was that traditional christian teachings have put the old testament under a new perspective. I accept this explanation. But now we have one of the highest religious authority figure in islam trying to re-interpret a verse from the koran and all some people can do is say he's wrong.

A billion plus muslims are never going to suddenly drop their faith and convert to christianity. If you think islam is evil than that's a pretty sad view of humanity.

Someone posted a quote about violence in the old testament and the response was that traditional christian teachings have put the old testament under a new perspective. I accept this explanation. But now we have one of the highest religious authority figure in islam trying to re-interpret a verse from the koran and all some people can do is say he's wrong.

Geef, all I know is that he says women shouldn't be beaten by their husbands. I don't know what his logic is to refute the Koranic verse that allows wife beating. Or how he explains away the Koranic verse that says the wife is the field of the husband and he can plow when he wants (i.e. the wife is his sexual property). Or how does he handle that Muslim men can take non-Muslim women as slaves and use them for sex. Anyone can announce that something is wrong but it's important to know how he explains these verses in a better light.

For instance, let's say I declare that the Bible says the man isn't the head of the household. Someone is going to point out the several verses where I am wrong. You may agree with me, but that doesn't make me right in the context of what Christianity says. The people pointing out how the OT does or does not apply to the NT has been something discussed by Christians for centuries and there is fairly broad agreement. It's the same for Islam on how certain verses are addressed. And wife beating, based on certain criteria, has been allowed in Islam for centuries. So, if someone suddenly says it doesn't, don't expect me to cheer from the mountaintop unless there is some persuasive proof.

If you think islam is evil than that's a pretty sad view of humanity.

I do think Islam is evil. It was founded on blood and violence. That doesn't mean there aren't some good points to it or that there aren't good Muslims. However, there were good points to Communism, Fascism, and the French Revolution, but that doesn't mean that on the whole the ideologies involved were not evil.

Your statement implies that one act results in the foundation of a religion. That's like saying Christianity was founded at the birth of Christ and then ignoring his ministry, death, burial, and resurrection. Islam is founded on Quran (for a Muslim the direct word of Allah), Sura (sayings of Mohammed), and Hadith (life of Mohammed). Look at all of those and you'll see a violent and perverse religion when taken as a whole.

Harvey, day after day, month after month, you display your profound ignorance of what Christianity's about and what it believes. I recommend that you do some reading and study on what traditional Christianity actually teaches.

I know virtually nothing about Hinduism, consequently I don't comment on it. Maybe you should follow suit about Christianity, at least until you're somewhat informed on the issue.

Harvey, since you are an atheist, why should we care about your view on morality? It is only based on your subjective reason. How do you feel about that?

Or, since as an atheist, you probably are a materialist in the sense that material is all that exists and assuming it is governed by consistent laws, and you are made of material, you have no free will. How do you
feel about that?

You explain to me your reasonably consistent worldview that isn't based on fantasy like atheism and we can talk. Otherwise you are trapped in a logically inconsistent belief system and there is no reason to discuss anything. Because if your view is correct, then nothing matters and why should any of us care what anyone thinks? Actually, if you are right, we have no free will at all.

Anyways, as Rob G. pointed out, get beyond the Skeptics Bible and we might be able to talk.

harvey, I'd love to discuss this with you, but I don't want to derail the challenge to Rob and Chris, because I'd really like to hear their answers, too. However, just FYI, I went and googled "Jesus Hell"--which I thought was a very amusing search term. I found all kinds of extremely scary and offensive material. This, for instance, by the Rev. J. Furniss, which is thought to have been one inspiration for the Hell sermon segment of Portrait of the Artist As a Young Dog. (I honestly hesitate to quote it, because it is so gruesome and horrible. So, spoiler alert--do not read if you have tender sensibilities.)

See on the middle of that red-hot floor stands a girl: she looks about sixteen years old. Her feet are bare. Listen; she speaks. “I have been standing on this red-hot floor for years! Look at my burnt and bleeding feet! Let me go off this burning floor for one moment!” The fifth dungeon is the red-hot oven. The little child is in the red-hot oven. Hear how it screams to come out; see how it turns and twists itself about in the fire. It beats its head against the roof of the oven. It stamps its little feet on the floor. God was very good to this little child. Very likely God saw it would get worse and worse, and would never repent, and so it would have to be punished more severely in hell. So God in His mercy called it out of the world in early childhood.

This strikes me as obscene. Really. The stuff of nightmares in the name of a merciful God. What could Muslim writings contain that would be a lot worse?

However, I also found the following interesting website by one Samuel Dawson.
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/jesusteachingonhell.html

He argues that when Jesus is made to speak of "Hell," this is a mistranslation and that's not at all what he had in mind. A quote:

False theories of eternal punishment of the wicked have done unfathomable damage in the religious realm. Untold millions of people have obeyed God purely out of fear of a false concept of hell. Other untold millions have turned their backs on God because of a false sense of hell, as described by Roman Catholic sources, and their followers in most denominations.

I can certainly say Amen to that, whether Dawson's exegesis turns out to be correct or not.

OK let me get this straight. Because of "flaws" in the main texts of Judaism and Christianity, it's wrong to say that it's wrong for a Muslim to slay his daughter because he feels he is obeying an equally "flawed" Muslim text?