Yes, it was an honor killing

A d-mned tragic shame.

If Traditional Values are so much darn better than modern culture, why is the threat of violence required to enforce the former?

"Understand what I'm saying: violence, even deadly violence, against women is (sadly, outrageously) a universal phenomenon. But it's far more acceptable in traditional Arab Muslim culture."

But it doesn't make it an honor killing just because it took place within that culture. We do ourselves a disservice when we toss around terms like "sharia" and "jihad" and "honor killing" without appreciating their meaning. You think it is honor killing because a Muslim is involved. But just because a Muslim kills his female children or wife doesn't make it an honor killing; it's much more complex than that.

I agree it was an "honor killing" but I suspect killings of this kind were also taking place in (non-Muslim) immigrant communities in America one hundred and two hundred years ago.

Part of this is the suspect's resistance to his children becoming Americanized, but an even larger part (all of a piece with his possibly sexually abusing them) is his apparent belief that he owns his daughters, and can do with them whatever he sees fit.

Let's say a prayer of thanksgiving for all the Muslim parents in the U.S. who don't kill their children for becoming Americanized. But, to the extent that Islam justifies this sort of treatment of women and children, Islam can be held partly accountable for this killing.

To the Honor of No Honor:
If the honor of the father or brothers and also the family resides between the daughter's legs or within her dress, then they themselves have no honor to speak of before the world.
To the muslum all- the world- was prefected in the time and spoke by the prophet. The centuries since then have all been dross; nothing need be added.
This type of murder happens all over the world.
The great Moorish city states of Cordoba, Granada and Andalusia were first raided by the fundamentalist Bertbers and not the King and Queen Of Spain. They were adding new knowledge and that was a sin.
I hope that the police catch him and send his son back to Islam.
Sincerely, J R Dittbrenner

I also agree about the tribal roots of honor killing, but it's now become an anachronism. The best way to fight it is to punish the perpetrators so severely that "the family" is for all practical purposes destroyed.

In Palestinian and other Middle Eastern families, elder male relatives push younger male relatives to kill their daughter/sisters knowing their youth will result in lenient sentences. I think making it a capital crime, and giving a life sentence or the death penalty would be one way to bring the practice to a screeching halt.

But under your approach, any Muslim who kills his daughters is automatically committing an honor killing because of the cultural context even if he wasn't doing it for his family or faith's "honor."

No. You are deliberately ignoring evidence showing that this man, who was raised in a culture in which honor killing was acceptable, murdered (allegedly) his daughters after stating openly that he was going to do it because their behavior dishonored the family. You can try all you like to ignore that, but facts are stubborn things.

Watsy is quite right: violence against women is universal, but in some cultures it is taboo, and in others, not. Mr. Said was a sociopath who happens to have been raised in a culture that enshrined his pathology as culturally normative. Why is it so hard for you to admit that? Had he been a Catholic who murdered an abortion doctor because he'd been raised in a Catholic culture that honored men who killed abortion doctors -- a Catholic culture that doesn't exist, by the way; Muslim honor-killing cultures certainly do -- you would have been all over the culture-and-psychology angle. But when it involves a Muslim, you're see-no-evil.

The reaction to this killing from people like Reza Aslan (who should know better) reminds me of nothing so much as family pathology. In many families in which sexual abuse is taking place, some of the children (or even the mother) collude with the perpetrator, whether out of fear of what that perpetrator will do to them, or out of misguided loyalty, and blame the child who speaks up.

The fact that many in the Muslim community are in denial about the pathology of certain elements of their community does not mean that they are right. It may mean that they fear "the family" will come apart and think denial will hold it together, but denial will only make things worse in the long run.

I think if Said showed up on live TV and yelled, "I have sent the infidel whores to hell, by Allah, to preserve my family's honor!", Daniel would still say the jury was out.

The fact that many in the Muslim community are in denial about the pathology of certain elements of their community does not mean that they are right.

I don't think they're all in "denial." Many may well be, but there's plenty who are just snowing us kufrs, aware all the while that there are people like Daniel willing to believe them.

Based on scant evidence, you NEED for this to be about Islam

Based on the evidence, there's a far stronger case for your "need" for Islam to have had nothing to do with this case than for my "need" for it to have done. Derek is right: there is nothing that might be discovered about this case that would convince you that it was an honor killing.

"there is nothing that might be discovered about this case that would convince you that it was an honor killing."

Sure. A confession from the suspect saying, "I did it for the honor of my family and my religion." Something, btw, that is routine in actual honor killings.

The fact that Mr. Said chose to flee rather than stay and be held accountable for his actions also suggests he does not believe he should be held accountable for killing his daughters.

It also means he's more afraid of his culture's rules than he is of our laws. I imagine he's back in Egypt now, being consoled by a cousin who's telling him he did the right thing.

There would have been more "honor" if he had turned the weapon on himself, but he clearly expects to "get away with it" because many in the culture he comes from tell him he should get away with it.

It seems that way because you're thinking of honor in western terms, where the focus is on the individual. In other cultures, honor is a communal thing, and if your family is about to do a dishonorable thing, like apostasy, you have a positive duty to "take care of it."

This thread, BTW, demonstrates what was being discussed in the "authenticity" thread. Here you have some examples of people who'll rationalize away the plain evidence in front of them so they can avoid applying standards to another culture that they'd do their own with nary a second thought.

"Here you have some examples of people who'll rationalize away the plain evidence in front of them so they can avoid applying standards to another culture that they'd do their own with nary a second thought."

No one is contending this wasn't an awful thing. No one is contending the father had serious problems and should be punished. The argument is over the need to label this an "honor killing" based solely on the fact that it was a Muslim father involved in a crime and fact-pattern that is all too familiar to anyone who pays attention to domestic and family violence.

"Because all those cases involve fathers complaining about their daughters falling into western infidel habits?"

Do we know the word "infidel" was uttered? According to whom?

Abusive men complain about the influences on their children and wives all the time. That's why they try to limit their access to others.

Do we know the word "infidel" was uttered? According to whom?

Ah, yes, I forgot to address this bit of pettifoggery. If I don't have an exact quote, Daniel goes into Nick Naylor mode. The quote above pretty much expresses the father's feelings. I'd be curious to see how you'd parse a similar case involving Evangelicals. Oh, I'm sure you'll insist up and down here that you'd be just as energetic defending them, but you'll pardon me if I simply don't believe you.

Daniel and Watsy:

Please, please consider reading the following article - it's very short - and really make an effort to understand it's implications:

"There must be Violence Against Women"(And YES, he REALLY means it.)

http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1117&p=community&a=6

Traditional islamic law states that men are in charge of women, that "men have a degree over women," and that men are their "protectors and maintainers" (that last one, the role of "maintainer," is especially important when it comes to islam). Because of these laws, the obligation to impose islamic norms and to ensure that they are practiced faithfully by the women in the family ultimately FALLS ON THE MEN. Moreover, the standard, explicit, prescribed method of enforcement is through physical violence and threats of violence (Q4:34). Moreover, if the woman continues to refuse to abide by Islamic standards, there's no real provision that describes when the violence against her should end - only that she be beaten into submission, or ultimately, I suppose, killed for apostasy (or, according to one school, incarcerated forever until she relents.) And it's not just husbands who are given this right of enforcement (read the article carefully) it's also vested in fathers, brothers and sons - ALL the men in the family act as enforcers when it comes to "Islamic morals" and the mechanism of last resort is always, always physical assault. . . Violence against women IS a universal phenomenon, but these sorts of killings and assaults are justified AND LAUDED on explicitly islamic grounds, and with very good reason - because these sorts of abuses are the clear, unadulterated consequence of Islamic law. How can you turn away and insist that you cannot see?

Because of the norms of a substantial sector of the Egyptian society Mr. Said comes from, he felt he was entitled to dispose of his daughter's lives in whatever way he saw fit, and he also appears to feel entitled to get away with it.

There appear to be many Muslims and even Muslim clerics who oppose honor killing, however, enough Imams and enough fundamentalist Muslims rationalize it or defend it as "Islamic" to make it very hard to eradicate. It's not "just" cultural, it's also based on religion.

Lots of parents are concerned about their daughters' chastity. Lots of parents are concerned about the culture's influence on their kids. They are called homeschoolers and Crunchy Cons.

Congratulations.

You've hit a new low, Daniel.

Actually, a 9 year old would clearly be morally superior to her 28 year old husband. What I meant to say was "a 12 year old would be emotionally and intellectually superior to her 28 year old husband."

Rod:

Far be it from me to deny the noxious brew of Wahhabi fanaticism and tribal customs in the Middle East that date well before 600 AD.

Yet and still ... the very details you print (that he was/is likely a child molester, that he was not a particularly faithful Muslim) seem to indicate that his Islam reinforced his primary tribalism, NOT the other way around.

Why is Daniel so evil for noting that?

Perhaps he heard the politicians say over and over that this is a "Christian country" and simply followed God's Law as stated in the Book of Leviticus in the Bible?

Yep. Because every Christian nation follows Leviticus complete...

Try again: Every major Christian church and university demands the imposition of Old Testament penalt...

OK. It's considered mainstream Christianity to argue that the Pentateuch is to be followed to the letter as regards civic...

Never mind. Tu quoque--Christians suck, too! QED.

"But shooting your teenage daughters to death in a taxi cab is an even "creepier" activity in my book."

I agree completely, and never said it wasn't. I'm merely analyzing the evidence. Sorry if that subtlety escaped you.

I'm merely analyzing the evidence. Sorry if that subtlety escaped you.

Is that what you call it? I'd missed the reports that said chastity balls were a factor in this one, or that the alleged gunman was influenced by the chastity ball subculture. I'd also missed the arguments that the weird chastity ball phenomenon was motivated by any form of rage, let alone that which ended the lives of the Said sisters.

The problem is, Daniel, that your consistent resorts to tu quoque are the furthest thing from subtle.

Islam is neither a "virus," nor a "disease" nor a "gutter cult." This nothing short of reprehensible.

Rod, go out and Google "Islamic honor killings north america" and see how many results you get. Then Google "catholic priest abuse" and see how many results you get.

Then tell me which religion poses a greater present danger to our nation.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071217/LOCAL/712170430

December 17, 2007

A man who was an altar boy at a Southside parish 30 years ago finally heard the Archdiocese of Indianapolis publicly acknowledge today that his former priest was a molester.

As much like a victory as that felt, the man who alleges he was abused and is known in court records as John Doe NM still says there is much more the archdiocese can do to come clean. For starters, he said, it can stop trying to quash his fraud lawsuit based on the technical argument that it was filed after the statute of limitations.
“I can’t believe that they are even trying to fight it,” he said. “What does the church really stand for?”

The scene today in Marion Superior Court could become increasingly common: the archdiocese squaring off in court against a former parishioner who claims the church knew the Rev. Harry Monroe was a danger to children but did nothing to spare them from harm.

In addition to John Doe NM, 12 men who claim to have been abused by Monroe as boys have sued the archdiocese. Today, attorney Jay Mercer asked Judge David A. Shaheed to rule in favor of the archdiocese on the basis that the claim was filed too late. He said it should have been made by the time John Doe NM, now in his early 40s, turned 20.

Before making that case, Mercer did what the archdiocese had denied in its initial responses to the lawsuits — he acknowledged the former priest’s abuse.

“Harry Monroe was a child molester and a sexual predator who committed some heinous crimes against young boys in the late 1970s and 1980s,” Mercer said. “Unfortunately, Harry Monroe never spent any time in jail for these crimes.”

Originally, John Doe NM’s lawsuit alleged eight counts against Monroe and the archdiocese, including negligence, infliction of emotional distress and childhood sexual abuse. John Doe NM’s attorney, Pat Noaker, recently reduced them to one — fraud — because, he said, that best fit the evidence. Mercer said it was obvious those other claims couldn’t meet the statute of limitations.

Archdiocesan leaders have not directly or publicly addressed the claims involving Monroe. But their attorney’s admission follows the filing last week of a deposition in which Monroe admitted under oath that he had engaged in sex acts and lewd behavior with at least five of the 13 men who have sued him and the archdiocese.

John Doe NM, whose real name is being withheld by The Indianapolis Star, and many other alleged victims say Monroe avoided jail largely because the archdiocese kept the former priest’s abuse secret until the criminal statute of limitations expired.

Evidence in this lawsuit has seemed to show the archdiocese gave Monroe new priest appointments after it became aware of his abusive behavior. Noaker referenced in court another letter that he said showed the archdiocese’s director of priest personnel knew as early as 1976 — eight years before Monroe’s career ended — that parents at St. Andrew’s Parish complained of Monroe’s abuse.

Noaker said the letter referenced Monroe pulling down a boy’s pants and putting peanut butter on the child’s buttocks.

That letter was written, Noaker said, before Monroe was sent in September 1976 to St. Catherine’s Parish, where John Doe NM was an altar boy. Upon arriving, Monroe began bringing boys such as John Doe NM into his parish living quarters for overnight stays and taking them on camping trips.

“How was this family to know,” Noaker asked Shaheed, “that the archdiocese put a child molester in their church?”

John Doe NM said Monroe abused him on several occasions, abuse that ended only after John Doe NM told his older brother. When his mother learned about it two years later, the boy was so embarrassed he made her promise not to report it.

Today, Noaker argued that the case should go forward because the six-year time limit on fraud cases should have begun ticking only after John Doe NM learned, in 2005, that the archdiocese knew of Monroe’s abusive tendencies before assigning him to St. Catherine’s Parish.

For the archdiocese to assign Monroe a position in a parish where he had free access to children, Noaker said, was akin to actively representing that Monroe was a person of good character and of no threat to children. That, he said, is the essence of fraud.

Mercer didn’t dispute any of John Doe NM’s abuse allegations. He said the fact his parents were made aware of the abuse in the 1970s, yet failed to come forward, is a key reason they can’t meet the legal tests required for a latter-day lawsuit to be heard today.

Giving Monroe a parish priest assignment, Mercer also argued, did not equate to the church making an active statement that the priest was of noble character and of no threat to children. With no active assertion of such qualities, he said, there can be no fraud.

But the church asserts some things about priests today, archdiocesan spokesman Greg Otolski said outside the court proceedings. Parishioners should know that men given priest assignments have undergone criminal background checks and thorough psychological testing, and also that they have been deemed fit for the priesthood and were seen as a good fit for the parish.

As to what a priest’s assignment meant 30 years ago, Otolski could not say.
For John Doe NM, success in business hasn’t been accompanied by success in his personal life. A lifetime of insecurity about intimacy contributed to his divorce, he said, and his nervous breakdown.

But he healed a little when he heard Monroe admit his abuse during a June deposition. It helped a little more when the archdiocese stated publicly that Monroe was a molester. But he wants the church to fully live up to its teachings about confession and penance.

“They need to practice what they preach,” he said. “They need to make it right.”

------------

But, a very large minority, at the least, appear to believe they are entitled to kill their female children, sisters, or wives, if they violate Islamic codes of chastity or obedience. That's an entitlement that must end.

Sorry to quibble, but it's not an "entitlement." For them it's an obligation. If they don't do it, their family suffers shame and ostracism. This is not just some privilege that Muslims engage in at will. It's not a bug. It is, I'm sorry to say, a feature. That's why it happens with astonishing regularity from Indonesia to Pakistan to Egypt to Jordan to Britain to Canada and now the U.S.

I wouldn't use the words "virus" or such like, as I find it puerile, but there are some serious problems with Islamic Orthopraxy.

Rod, go out and Google "Islamic honor killings north america" and see how many results you get. Then Google "catholic priest abuse" and see how many results you get.

Then tell me which religion poses a greater present danger to our nation.

Yeah, let's not forget those 19 pedophile priests who killed 3,000 people on 9/11.

"You bring in enough people from these cultures so they can set up their own enclaves, and they'll bring their cultural norms with them."

definitely a big problem in England, a CoE bishop has started a storm over there pointing out that in certain places in England you can't go because it is a Muslim enclave. http://tinyurl.com/2o5hjw
and because of his comment look at the reaction from the Muslim community
"But Mohammed Shafiq, from the Ramadhan Foundation, said: "Mr Nazir-Ali is promoting hatred towards Muslims and should resign.""
http://tinyurl.com/2t9m9s
sounds like a comment from CAIR

What no one has commented on (that I can see) is the fact that the mother got married when she was 15 years old to the man. What did she see in him? what did he offer that was so enticing?

But Christians have chastity balls.

/sarc

You know, like other, when this is brought up as an equivalent action to honor killing, I point out the massive difference in degree, and that is a true argument. And it's certainly not how I would deal with my daughter.

However, there's also very distinct difference in kind. For all it's wierdness, the chastity ball is intended for the sake of kid. The fathers are doing it because they care about their kid and her future. Maybe they're 180 degrees wrong, but the main intent is not selfish. I can't imagine any American male wanting to get fitted out in a monkey suit for high-flown ball for his own sake.

Honor killings on the other hand have an entirely different beneficiary in mind. It's concerned with the family honor, particularly the male's public face, and the daughters are simply a means to preserving it. If it that means getting rid of them, well, so much the worse for them.

I get your point, Derek, and in Islamic countries that operate under Shariah law, I can see how both the cultural norms and the so-called "religious obligations" to uphold chastity and obedience codes can exert a great deal of pressure. However, fortunately, most Muslims ignore those codes, and in non-Muslim countries that aren't under the sway of out-of-control multiculturalism, can be prosecuted for murder if they engage in "honor killing."

Hi, Dale. I agree a big part of the "denial" problem is the prohibition on calling things by their right names. (Remember when we couldn't say the word "cancer" in the U.S.?)

However, fortunately, most Muslims ignore those codes...

Yeah, they ignore them because they don't violate them.

...and in non-Muslim countries that aren't under the sway of out-of-control multiculturalism, can be prosecuted for murder if they engage in "honor killing."

Funny how multiculturalism becomes more out-of-control as the society gets more multicultural. But I'm sure there's absolutely no connection.

What we don't know--except for those with super, mindreading powers like our host who can somehow read the suspect's intent--is whether this madman killed his daughter out of "honor" or out of blind rage and sociopathy. Because he is Muslim, he isn't given the benefit of the doubt that he's just a nutcase or a sociopath; it HAS to be an honor killing based on the anti-Islam perception of what an honor killing is.

Thank you, Daniel. The guy's a nutjob.

We have them in "Christendom." It seems like every other day I open the paper and there's another nutjob who murdered his entire family. Why? What kind of question is that? The very question assumes that the guy is making sense, and he isn't.

But when Muslims fail to make sense (which they sometimes do, like the rest of us) it's an "honor killing."

Daniel's right. It's a mistake to impute "motive" to people like this. When Matthew Sheppard was murdered, everyone decided it was a "hate crime." Was Sheppard killed because he was a homosexual? Or was he killed because the killers were nutjobs? I'd opt for the latter. Frankly, I don't want to wade through the sewer of the "motivations" of people like that - or people like the guy under discussion here.

They don't have "motivations" as normal people understand the word. The father in this story is a sociopathic murderer. Period. End of "analysis."

Granted the point, Rod. Some part of the culture has certainly given sociopaths like this one an outlet.

Maybe this is like Europeans arguing that we have so much violence here in the US because we have so many guns. That's both correct (on one level) and too simple.

Neither argument, though, I think, can be correctly used to park "honor killing" or gun homicide entirely on the culture. There's a human being of some kind on the other end of both: in both cases, someone with something seriously the matter with him. (Or, her.)

Should we get rid of all our guns? In a perfect world, perhaps. If it were possible. Should the culture of Islam be changed in this particular way? I would argue that it should.

But I would also argue that both the guys at Columbine and this nut were and are sociopaths, who might very well have found some other way to express that if guns or honor killing, respectively, had not been available as an excuse. After all, neither the abolition of guns nor the abolition of honor killing has eliminated sociopathy from, say, Europe.

Though the Europeans would be loathe to admit it. :)

So, Derek, you are saying the majority of Muslims in Muslim countries that are under Shariah law commit honor killings on a regular basis? Or, simply, are not able to oppose those who do?

Most don't commit honor killings because they don't have to. The threat is there, and the girls fall in line. Moreover, these unofficial bans are backed by legal prohibitions.

I know it's uncomfortable to face up to, but most Muslims simply don't care to oppose honor killings, and they have a lot of sympathy for the system. Why else would it be able to prosper from one end of the Muslim World to the other?

You'd have to work hard not to see that it played an obvious role in these murders...

I think that shout out's for you, Dan my man.

BTW, I thought you might be interested to see the rankings for highest rate of men killing women, state by state.

1 Nevada
2 Alaska
3 Louisiana
4 New Mexico
5 Mississippi
6 Arkansas
7 South Carolina
8 Alabama
9 Tennessee
10 Oklahoma

Strange that so many of the top ten are in the Bible Belt. It's probably correlation rather than causation, but suggestive of something or other being wrong with that culture, nonetheless.

Rod:

But you never answered my question (and that of Daniel and others): was the worst culprit the ARAB culture or the ISLAMIC culture which influenced this pitiful excuse of a human being?

sig:

Yes, many of the states you listed in the Bible Belt.

But Alaska and Nevada are both strongly LIBERTARIAN states, which have a strongly deserved "anything goes" (or in Nevada's case, ANYTHING goes -- it's even in the tourism ads!) attitudes. That culture no doubt contributes to violence against women.

Alaska's imbalance of men to women demographically, and gambling and other addictions in Nevada, should be considered as well.

And as for Louisiana ... well, yes, it's in the Bible Belt. But as our intrepid blogmaster has expressed many times as a native, its people's "laissez les bon temps rouler" spirit often expresses itself in incredibly dysfunctional ways (see Spears, Britney and Jamie Lynn).

It is an abhorrent practice, but no different in motivation than the murder suicides which plague are own country in the wake domestic disturbance. Again you have a rigid patriarchy with a heavy "machismo" flavor, religious undertones ( I doubt that any of the murderers feel any thing less than a god given right to rule their families unquestionably) , and a history of previous domestic violence or abuse.

Granted this practice if far more "in your face" with the honor killings in tribal societies as their is explicit cultural approval and is tacitly done to preserve the "honor" of a child killer, what ever the hell "honor" means in this type of society.

Man did our boy Rod jump on this like a hen on a June bug or what?

If we eliminate the clutter caused by the name of the faith we see what religion is all about. It's about the control of others. Honor killing is Islam is about controling females.

The killing of the two sisters by their father is a lot more about one crazy SOB (pardon the profanity, entirely appropriate) who wanted to totally control his daughters more than it is about religion. His slaughtering them was about his failure to control them than his faith in Allah or anything else.

One of the things I find intriguing is the same people who rant about the ultimate breakdown in parenting (killing your own kids is a total break down in parenting) are the very same ones who advocate physical punishment for uncontroled children in public. They're also the ones that quote the Bible to support their position, "spare the rod, spoil the child".

Physical abuse of a child in the name of control is about the breakdown of the parent. When a parent slaps a child it's not about the child, it's about the parent. When a parent slaps the child and quotes religion it's still about the parent's inability to communicate with the child.

Everyday we see American parents killing their children. In every instance we see parents resorting to the ultimate statement of personal failure. The only thing different between Said's slaughtering his daughters and the father or mother who kills their children to get back at a spouse is folks like Rod who want to make it about religion instead of the collapse of coping ability in an individual.

Instead of jumping up and down and screaming about my faith being superior to yours we might stop and be appreciative that our lives aren't so chaotic that literally killing the kids isn't even considered an option.

If we remove faith from the equasion we'll probably find life lessons to be learned and applied in our own lives. Stuff like nurturing our children instead of bullying them.

Well that's just great. A major "religion" with aspirations to world dominance uses RICO tactics as a matter of stated policy to enforce it's rules on women, and the good liberals of my own country just shrug their shoulders because, ya' know, 'it's a problem everywhere . . .'

"showing that its position is based on some sort of neurosis rather than rational thought."

Believing the blind prejudice and acting based just on intolerance to judge an entire group of people is not neurotic and actually quite rational.

Would Rod call this a Christian honor killing? Woman in D.C. apparently killed her four daughters because she thought they were possessed by the devil. Oh, and they were homeschooled.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011001174_2.html

Fair enough, Franklin, but how do we separate the "real" homeschoolers from the others? She takes her kids out of school, says they are homeschooling, that's it. Homeschoolers (for reasons that are both good and bad) do not want state scrutiny of their course of study. Just like Said would say he's a good Muslim. Who gets to define who's a real homeschooler or a real Muslim?

Tragic though it is, the D.C. case is an interesting one with parallels to the Muslim killing. I know Rod can't comment on every news story we commentors dredge up, but you'd think he might have found this one pertinent to address, along with the Hindu caste killing in Chicago.

Yeah, well, you brought up the fact that the D.C. woman apparently wasn't a real homeschooler. :)

Well, I see Rod STILL has nothing to say about the mother who killed her "demon possessed" children, a story that has been mentioned by others here.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080111/D8U3NDI00.html

Apparently the only time Rod cares to cite religious belief as a cause of violence is when it is someone else's religious belief.

Of course, there are numerous apologists here saying that this woman wasn't really Christian, or that the Christian religion does not condone this, or that the Bible does not teach this.

The same thing many Muslims claim about the extremists in their religion. Of course Rod doesn't buy that and insists that the Quran teaches violence.

Hypocrite? No...I wouldn't call you a hypocrite, Rod. Not at all.

Christian-hating troll? No...I wouldn't call you a Christian-hating troll, ds. Not at all.

Sig, I am dying to learn from you in what sense the Roman Catholic Church "...changed over time to become less oppressive [to women]." In what sense have the RCC Fathers had "...to twist their scriptures and distance themselves from their origins to become less oppressive."?

"There origins", my dear Sig, were Eve and the "new Eve and our Queen", Mary. Just how has the RCC falsified scripture to uplift the status of women?

"However, I will not allow manipulators within the Christian tradition to use the threat of Islam to shut down or turn back needed change and criticism within Christianity. . . . "

_____________________

Not sure exactly where you're going with this one. I'll let you elaborate if the mood takes you.. . . I would just like to note in passing, however, that the vast majority of folks engaged in "islamocriticism" - at least the most effective amongst them, including Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Mark Steyn (I think), Mark Bawer, with the probable exception of Robert Spencer - are all secular and/or atheists. Also, the fact that some portion of the critical narrative may be useful to folks you don't like surely does NOT make it any the less true. . .

Chris, never sell Sig short. At this very moment the gears are churning to craft an answer.

Cleveland, you know me too well. As our anonymous friend points out, though, this is not really the time or place to contend on that front. No doubt we'll meet to duel another day.

the fact that some portion of the critical narrative may be useful to folks you don't like surely does NOT make it any the less true. . . Lynn, truer words were never spoken. I like your attitude and concur with it.

I've been doing actual work this weekend (no! shudder!!) and in the meantime, I think this topic has died its natural death. Just in case anyone's still reading, I post the following, called to my attention by a friend, which makes some good points.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2008/01/islamaphobia_its_not_just_for.php

This, for instance:

Said married Sarah and Amina’s American mother when she was 15 years old. And according to The News’ story, he routinely sexually, physically and emotionally abused the girls from the time they were small children. They showed up at school with bruises, cuts and scrapes, told their friends they were terrified of him, and before Christmas, Sarah told friends that he’d threatened to kill her sister. As for their mother? She initially took the girls and fled to Tulsa, but guilt drove her back to her husband by New Year’s Eve -- a textbook example of battered women’s behavior.

So why don’t people stop shouting about the evils of Islam and start talking about how to protect women and children who have been so brutalized, and are so utterly dominated by their abusers that they are powerless to protect themselves? It happens all the time, and not just in immigrant families.

Look at all the murders of women and children over the past few weeks. Women and children are the victims of religions that make them second class citizens. Honor killings occur in Christian culture also. Greece has had several.

it is not islamic honour.but islam can not allow to kill man or weman.for this kind of sin.