WOMEN IN ISLAM

A rather irritating Islamic proselytiser visited an ex-xtian site and began posting up large propaganda speal, the usual stuff. First off on Islam and peace, I just responded with...

Pity the spin doesn't match the reality, Islam is an excuse for men to abuse women, under the guise of pious virtue, that's my testimony.

But not to himself..

This doctrine is the prime cause of all the evils of religion, the fact that immoral theists like yourself are still preaching this crap shows you have not learnt a thing. You'll continue to commit the same mistakes forever, all in the name of your deity, be it a thousand or a billion slain, as long as you think your god is happy, it will go on.

Unless the sane stop you.

Yo all. This is the response to a personal message this "mosa" sent me, I repeat it here for you lot. It's on a subject I've even more passion for than xtianty's crapness, nobody tries to tell me the "realties" of women's rights, not xtians, Moslems or any other bunch of morally defunct cretins.

I understand you feel the need to jump to your religion's defence, but you are communicating to someone who has seen to the very depths of Islam's evils when it comes to this issue. Even if you were an Islamic woman and claimed you were not the victim of abuse, that still doesn't change things. You could be a victim of the Islamic equivalent of wife beater's syndrome, or a victim of abuse and not recognise the fact, thinking it was your place to be subordinate, you could be genuinely scared for your life and compelled by specific threats or out of general fear to defend your abusers, or you could be one of the lucky few have not be mistreated and who thinks your life reflects that all women in Islam.

I am well aware that your religion's claims certain ideals with respect to women's rights, even if these ideals where ever realised that still does not guarantee anywhere near as much for women as the legal and moral rights women are entitled to in the West. Rights they fought hard to achieve, but when any such self liberation is attempted by women in the Islamic world they are treated most barbarity, and I have the research to prove it. Even in Turkey last century women were tortured to death for speaking out against their oppressors.

The ideals, although spun to look enlightened, are crude and only progressive when compared to the way women were treated in pagan Arabia, but downright backward compared to Western values today. We overtook your religion, after it's long superiority to us, and although for many centuries women had comparatively better treatment in the Moslem world, it is ignorance and depravity to suggest that situation has not changed drastically, and women are now not treated better in West than they have ever been in any country in any period ever. (At least since the pagan matriarchies, besides it doesn't take much to have a better human rights record than a Christian country. I mean come on, name a Christian leader who wasn't a woman hating git!.) You can hardly look at the Middle East and say "women have a better lot" compared to America or Europe. You are clearly blind to the reality of your religion, so fixated by its ideals, you not only misrepresent them but also fail to see what's happening right in front of your eyes.

Even the Sikh gurus in the 15th century recognised your claims of sexual equality fell short and attempted to correct it. If they could see the problem back then, it is far easier to make it out now, and only those blinded by fixation and belief are able to ignore the daily reports of abuse coming in to humanitarian and women's rights organisations. All you have to do is look on the web, case after case comes in, all the killings, rapes, incest (On a far larger scale than you can imagine, based on what I came across) the "honour killings", the house arrests. Your protective "moral" attitude is akin to the way some people treat elderly war veterans, with condescension and as if they were precious vases, too delicate to have independent lives, and in constant danger of breaking. You stick them in those ridiculous Halloween costumes, claiming that you do so in order to prevent them from being attacked, and then when women are attacked, often by their own family, their word is worth nothing in court. And under Islamic law they must suffer the consequences for their failed accusations. (And it's getting even worse now that they've taken to pillaging the Torah, to complement their ever more draconian rules)

There are a few worse experiences in this world than being a woman under the double standards and hypocrisy of Islam. History gives us few occasions were such large numbers of people are oppressed simply for an accident of birth or upbringing. The black man and woman in pre-civil war America (and after), the Jew in pre-war Nazi Germany, pagans in post-Constantine Europe. Or the native inhabitants of the second world under colonial rule. When women were burnt in Europe those responsible had at least the excuse being Christians, and thus were incapable of acting morally. But when women are burnt in India, Bangladesh, or Pakistan, when their genitals are hacked away, or when daughters are passed around among her father's work mates, what can you say to them that will make you feel better? Allah wills it? You'll get to be one of the 72 martyr's virgins in heaven? (The only women mentioned there)

The reality is that many women would be better off dead than being born into certain Moslem cultures, who have nothing to look forward to but a life in the home, an arranged (i.e. forced) marriage to someone three times her age, who she's never met, and then a death as a "honoured" grandmother who's sole contribution is to the population count. And that just represents what some Muslim women go through in England! Let alone the Middle or Far East! Except of course if they were to fall for the wrong kind of man (i.e. not chosen for his family connections) and elope. Or just rebel and seek freedom, in which case it's a life on the run, a change of identity, and bounty hunters hired by their families out to gun them down. You try being the bodyguard for a girl in that situation. If that doesn't scar you for life, nothing will. Compared to that, your understanding or experience of Islam is laughably naive.

Anyone who can see the reality of this world, either through study or personal experience can see this horror and hopeless trap Muslim women are born into. You may personally know victims of the most appalling abuse, and be totally blind to it. Your position is irresponsible, immoral, and an insult to anyone with decent ethical values and capacity for compassion and empathy. Do not come here claiming that we have Islam all wrong, or that it is any better than the abomination of Christianity. We are not stupid, we know theistic bullshit when we read it. Your mindless, standardised polemics remind me of when the Nazis claimed that their Jews were being treated well in the concentration camps, and made propaganda films showing them happy and well cared for. If even Charlie Chaplin could see through the facade back then, then it doesn't take a world class freethinker to spot the colossal contradictions between your dogma and reality.

I suggest you read the posts of other members here on the threads you started then ignored, they list the many instances when women face abuse and miss-treatment. They may not have seen it with their own eyes, but they have a very keen eye for injustice and a far greater capacity to accept reality than you. I am a humanitarian, you are a Muslim, we live in different worlds, you live to defend your God, I to defend the rights of humanity. Do not bother sending any more of your copy and pasted propaganda bullshit, I have read it all before, many times, usually from the kind of people who do the kind of sick shit I have listed. If you are innocent of all these evils then you have my pity for being the puppet of an immoral regime, completely ignorant of the truth. Islam, like Christianity, will ultimately amount to nothing but a setback for humanity's progress.

But you may well deserve this tirade, as the facade of Islamic respectability has been often used to hide a monster. I have walked through streets where every male face is that of a rapists, all of whom claimed to be "true" Moslems, to escape responsibility or critical scrutiny and hide their daughters and wives in the house, while they sodomise and "groom" them. The more depraved they get, the more they used the Koran to brainwash their victims and the shallow trappings of Islamic tradition to fool the community, (those few not in on such abuses.) I have spoken to girls of 12-18 reliving their abuses since birth, who's every bone has been broken, who developed schizophrenic disorders, and who had to watch their brothers and sisters, mothers and sometimes even daughters ritually abused, physically, psychologically, and "spiritually". For despite their experiences, that have given them obsessive-compulsive disorders and pathological fears that cause flashbacks and violent outbursts, they still defend their faith, the very thing that prevented people from seeing what was going on.

(I'm of course not saying all Moslem men do these things, but only a religion with as many loop holes, slavish unthinking devotion and patriarchal traditions as Islam makes such degrees of abuse possible. Doctrines like that of xtianity as well as Islam can be twisted to any subjective interpretation or use, as there's no empirical reality to such material, just polemics of long dead theocrats. A secular culture of objective, sceptical and critical thinkers who value life over religious "values" and shallow conservative respectability would allow less opportunity for such fiends.)

I've even faced aggressive proselytisation by those who were on the receiving end of both the indoctrination and the molestation or suppression. Religion is the excuse, the justification used by abuser and their defenders, and the longest lasting mental scar. Some victims had been conditioned to see the cause of their suffering as the only thing giving them strength, free of their abusers, but not of the "tool of choice" for such men. That is the state of many of Islam's victims, but not for me, and I will speak out against your religion for the rest of my life. It will take more than a fatwah to shut me up.

("Mosa" then responded with precisely the same kind of copy and pasted shite, this time twice the length)

Mosa, I don't know why you bothered with all that, any claims or examples of Islam not sucking do not cancel out the fact that Islam, being a religion, and a particularly enslaving on at that, inevitably creates inhumane results. I write essays on the inherent immorality of religion, I know what I'm talking about. Absolutism, and claims to sole truth, or supreme morality and authority lead to intolerance and suffering, end of story.

All the good intention of "ethical" doctrine can do nothing to prevent inevitable results of monopoly claims. No matter how inclusive it intends to be, not everyone will agree, its as simple as that, and an enemy to those "in" the faith will not benefit from your otherwise ethical standards. Hegemony is what Islam is designed for, with the infidel gone or all converted no doubt peace would reign, but at the cost of cultural, philosophical and spiritual diversity. One humanity, one god, one moral law, one culture, fuck that.

No matter how enlightened your faith may be, there are those who will never believe in your or any other god, how will you solve that one? And with no alternative view left to contrast, how can you tell if you are right? Uniform good, and no evil will render either term meaningless, there has to be difference, pluralism, and a higher "brotherhood" over and above even religion. But your faith only excepts those within its control, and applies its principles to no outsider, who are assumed the enemy, until their "inevitable" submission, there is no room for compromise, no image of Islam with other faiths, even Abrahamic, as in the end "there can be only one". This is the Koran's image of the future, and that of most Muslims in their heart. You deny you think all of humanity should convert?

You list Islam's values in response to examples of suffering, this is no better an argument than when an xtian uses the death toll of communism to negate the death toll of his own ideology. If your faith creates suffering no amount of good changes that, you show great indifference to humanity, and seek only to defend your cult. Insensitive is what you are, like all theists, your mental state denies you empathy, the root of all good. You don't list the "good" principles of Islam because you think it benefits humanity, but only through loyalty to your creed, you show no concern for the people I mentioned, or even bother to deflect blame. You're clearly new at this, your average xtian apologist would have set about blaming our "sin" or other degrading crap right from the start.

My first concern is the inhumanity, these cases need to be addressed, you fail to see the worth of life as it is, only how it fits into theistic doctrine, and the "role" your deity gives us. For me the reality triggers the perspective, for you your perspective is used to blot out reality. The empirical vs. the idealistic, stop repeating what you think Islam is and actually LOOK at it. I can trace all atrocities directly to theism's inhumane nature as a system of control. I can demonstrate the reasoning, and give many an example, of all you can do is state your opinion, with no personal or academic testimony, your words are wind, and mine have the full weight of reality.

Everything you "type" I have heard many time before, and often have already dealt with, re-stating your position, or rather the approved image and propaganda, doesn't adequately counter any of my points, all of which you fail to address. If someone is accused of a specific crime, you don't ream off a list of good things he's done but attempt to deal with the accusations, you never do that.

You also keep pointing out the old cliché of Islam being the fastest growing religion, this means nothing, and is due to the higher birth rates of those in Muslim counties, nothing more. No compulsion in religion? Please! When a child is borne by Muslim parents, they are counted as Muslin, (hence the religion's growth rate). They are never offered a choice of faiths, circumcised from birth, they are never allowed to contemplate atheism, and are ostracised and threatened, or even killed if they de-convert. They are named the greatest of evils, this is a fact, don’t try to deny it, you clearly ignored the link I put up. Your confidence in your faith's superiority is absolute, this goes way beyond compulsion, many are rendered incapable of comprehending the existence of an alternative, same as the really isolated xtians who’ve never heard of atheism.

Stop putting up propaganda, its dull reading, and says nothing but the official version. You're not a debater, but blind to reality, you sit and paste all the usual stuff you are made to believe and don't pay attention to any other source of information, all of which contradict your claims. The laying out of an ideal is not a refutation of the failure to meat it, or a counter to the fact that even the best interpretation of your so called moral faith is eating the dust of western progress. Or even older eastern philosophies.

Also fundy rationalisations of scripture are far more honest and true to the original than any moderate, westernised (or "true" as you see it) Muslims, they are consistent with doctrine and history, you only deplore the fundies because you'll get your asses kicked if you don’t, like the Talaban. Fundies have a much greater number of scripture quotes, as they don't block out the bits "moderates" like you ignore.

Islam owes whatever nations it has through conquest, or are you saying More-Ham-Ed was a pacifist? It took force of arms to prevent Europe being conquered, it took western technological and military supremacy to end hostilities with the Arab world, and yes you've been good little brick-cube worshipers since, but only through enlightened self interest. Read a history book.

Honesty I have far less hostility to Islam than its mutated little cousin xtianity. I used to respect it, but too many women and others suffer daily all over the world, at the hand of your brand of theism. I cannot ignore that, my principles go before any appreciation for culture, or values that only work on paper.

You cannot make me forget what I have seen. When it fails, it really fails, I'd address these examples of immorality and not try to prop up the better stuff. At best Islam is constantly failing to be correctly applied, you should humbly admit these failures, and work to reducing them, not ignore them and continue to prattle on about how great it all is. At worst without your faith these instances and nations of cruelty would never have taken place, as secular modern standards based on a realistic and wiser understanding of humanity would make these crimes the past of Islam, not its present or future.

(The death of Van Gogh at this time further demonstrated my point, a martyr of our own, my respects)

Hey AUB, I want to take this opportunity to tell you that I have found an area where I appreciate you, in your zeal to see women treated with more of the respect they deserve!

I think I read in your previous post something to the effect that you dislike Christianity even more than Islam - so I understand that your zeal propels you to attempt to destroy what I consider a treasure, but even so, I do still respect you because at least you care (and are willing to speak up) when you see women being treated as a 'second class gender'.

I don't approve of the language you use (in part, because I think you show disrespect to people like myself who love God, at least in part because we think God loves women equally with men), having said that however, I am glad to see you are outraged by the hypocrisy of people (many of whom are Christians, sad to say) who claim to love God, and also try to use the scriptures to justify their(our?) actual disrespect (shown by our actions rather only by our words). Religious hypocrites show disdain for at least half of the people who (we say) God has made possible!

I do remember that even Jesus (my hero), characterized the religious hypocrites of his day (Pharisees, etc...) with some very unfriendly (and even disrespectful?) comparisons, (the words 'whitewashed tombs' and 'vipers' come to mind).

I can understand your zeal a little better when you say you have talked with women who have been hurt by men who use their religion as a cloak to justify their sin.

We Christians need to be more sensitive to this kind of injustice, starting within our own ranks.

I cannot do one without doing the other, if I see organised religion has the most significant factor in this in the subjugation of women or humanity in general then I am morally compelled to speak out against it, even if it happens to be somebody's "treasure".

That is just typical of xtian theists, we are talking about crimes against humanity and you fret about my language! Obsession with minutiae while ignoring what is most important is the defining xtian trait in this era. Still at least you are not committing major immoral acts and worrying about minutiae anymore (much).

Why should I respect Theists? Your love for a non-existent being takes away the respect you own humanity as its progeny and beneficiary of its achievements. You may believe God loves women equally with men, but this is just your modern (PC) ideals (derived from western progress, despite the church's best efforts), and is in no way reflected by the Bible, where it clearly states the women are worth half that of men financially, where women are given the greater punishment for the "fall", and there are many hundreds of quotes throughout that clearly demonstrate they are seen as inferiors, that have been shown on these forums many times.

That again is a moderate Theists perspective, you simply dismiss those you disapprove of as being hypocrites or not "true" xtians, it never occurs to you that the origins of their sexism might actually be the Bible, and that in fact they might be truer xtians than you. I can give you many more scriptural reasons for women's role as inferiors than you can find quotes declaring women equal to men, in fact I'd doubt you'd actually find any. Your modern ideals are a part of society's progress not in any way genuine xtian doctrine, which you perceive as being as enlightened as your society has made you, but in fact has been left far behind both morally and ideological. Those who stick to the archaic and immoral xtian's values of the Bible are merely labelled as extremists, but they represent Christianity as it was for many centuries, and are not to be dismissed as hypocrites. They are a product of doctrine, you are a product of modern western values, mixed in with an idealistic view of the xtian deity that reflects your values, not those of the Bible. Liberal xtian's are basically Humanists, with Jesus's face stuck on the front, the Sophics, Stoics or Epicureans of ancient Greece would recognise your values as their own, far more than Christians of 500 years ago.

And here we go with your idealism of Jesus, he treated women with disrespect, particularly his own mother, and was as much a hypocrite as anyone else. Again I can furnish you with quotes if I so chose, but I see no reason why an atheist has to inform a theist about the contents of his own "holy" book. You worship the Jesus you want, not the one in the Gospels, a character no one has been able to demonstrate had any redeeming features whatsoever. His condemnation of the Pharisees was absurd as they were teaching precisely the same thing he was, and his raving against those who refused to worship him bordered on the outright anti-Semitic, clearly demonstrating the character's Gentile origins.

If he was an historical figure the majority of his teachings were typical Talmudic and rabbidical material, but because he was sold to Romans and Greeks, instead of speaking out against the Romans as most of his peers would have done, they make him speak out against those who did not deserve condemnation. Those Pharisees and rabbis were at times even more enlightened than the Jesus character, as can be seen in the writings of time, and in Judaism today. Yet Gentile's through the Gospels developed a view of Jews as immoral and hypocrites, because that is how Jesus spoke about them. This in itself has resulted in tremendous suffering for the Jewish people due to the way they are portrayed in the anti-Semitic gospel accounts. In all probability these accusations were levelled against Romans originally, but because of the re-branding of Christianity as a Gentile cult after it failed to impress the Jews, (I wonder why?) Jesus is made to condemn his own people and not the tyrannical and regime that was about to destroy them.

As a result neither the depiction of the Jews or the Romans in any way matches all other pieces of evidence concerning them, Pilot, the Sanhedrin, to name but two ridiculous depictions. It's pro-Roman trash. Jesus's teachings simply reflect changing theological doctrines, first benign and then the harbinger of suffering, he is an archetype, a composite, and an ever pliable justification. I do not admire this creature, and don't particularly regard him as heroic, even if I bought the "dying for our sins" crap, (which in another thread I very thoroughly dealt with) Adam -2- Jesus The gospel events are eerily false and typical of forced theological motifs. It just doesn't ring true, cliché teachings, cliché miracles, and pagan concepts, look at history to see what such an unpredictable and clearly messed up melting pot of ideas leads too. Everything it possibly can.

Again with this sin crap, this is about morality, the cause of immorality is not due to some "transcendent" curse or fallen state, but those with no values, or people who's values are radically different from ours. Usually because they are based on an irrational or unrealistic appraisal of moral concepts or reality in general, usually ideologues or Theists. They either possess depraved attitudes and use their vague and ever malleable Scriptures for their purpose, or genuinely wish to be faithful to Scripture and become obedient to its immoral nature. In both cases doctrine bares a significant degree of the blame, both from being so open to miss-use for it's exploitable and shortsighted language or because it is the inspirer and promoter of those "values" we disapprove of.

You as an xtian cannot seriously claim to be on my side on the issue of women's rights, has your religion has burnt women alive, declared them soulless, imprisoned then in cloisters, held them to unrealistic expectations of perpetual virginity, and demonised them as temptresses. More has been written of in a vile and spiteful nature, from Paul onwards that denigrates and demeans women than any other religion or culture in the history of human civilisation. If you have outgrown such putrid and lamentable origins than it is a credit to progress and not your cult, if you cannot see the Bible's role in all this but still insist on blaming humanity alone, you like most theists will only repeat the mistakes of your past, ignorant of history, blind to your doctrine's true nature. As a result the desire to place your beliefs above mankind, when it's those beliefs that drag humanity down, will create further troubles for the next generation.

As long as you stick to the Bible, there will forever be extremists, and immoral people of all kinds, you cannot cut out the cancer because it is your entire religion, until you realise that, telling off a few of your less desirable fellow theists will not make a damn bit of difference. You do not recognise the cause of the problem, and most Theists do not even recognise there is a problem, if Islamic doctrine can be held responsible for the crimes committed against women, then xtian doctrine is equally as accountable. I notice you agree with me when I start attacking other religions, but all such condemnations apply to xtianity for the same reasons, and to any other religion or inhumane ideology.

I think I understand where you are coming from AUB.

I would like to ask you a question which I think may have some relevance in this area.

If you were to ask the men and women who trick young girls (in such countries as Nepal and India) into entering the sex-trade industry -- what religion they are involved with? - what do you expect they would say?

(I understand you may choose to use expletives as you describe the words they would probably use in forming their answer to that question).

(My guess is, they would say something to the effect that they don't think any religion has the right to restrain their choice of how to "earn a living").

I think while reading your posts, it's possible that one might get the idea that nothing is ever done to hurt a woman by anyone who is not a religious zealot of some (most likely fundamentalist) persuasion. I personally don't think that to be anywhere even approaching a truthful assumption.

I suspect most of the folks (even in this country) who profit from selling the bodies of women (pimps, pornographers, etc...) are most likely not "Bible (or Koran) toting "fundamental religious zealots". Now, I am certainly NOT saying that is the only way that women are demeaned (though from my perspective, it is one way), I am simply making a point that women can be (and are) demeaned not only by people who use some religious holy book to justify their attitudes, but even by people who claim no authority has the right to restrain their own personal desires, (regardless of who they hurt).

I am not (in this post) trying to say that your 'humanity first' position is any more (or less) likely to produce the kind of men (and women for that matter) who will treat women with equal value, dignity, and respect (as is ascribed to men). I am just saying that a lack of religious belief does not (in and of itself), guarantee that women will be treated with equality.

If you were to go into one of the churches which my relatives pastor, I could introduce you to the wives of men who will tell you that their husbands have treated them consistently better - after they "found God" (or however you want to say that), and since they started reading the Bible consistently --- verses before --- when their husbands were just ignoring both the Bible and the Church and taking their "morality cues" from the general secularized culture in which we live.

AUB, I understand your disdain for people who do not agree with your interpretation of the underlying message of the Bible - but I am saying that what is read in the Bible, does not always effect each person the way that you think (based on the way your mind works) that it should effect them.

-Dennis

Not to speak for AUB, but I believe the point was that the people who do these things are sick and twisted. The problem is that theistic belief gives a ready-made framework within which these people may carry out these acts and still feel they are, somehow, in the "right".

I'm not, nor was AUB I'm sure, suggesting that non-theists are incapable of such acts. As my daddy used to say: an asshole is an asshole is an asshole. But a non-theist doesn't have the easy source for justification of their actions. Like he said, any modern sense of women's rights have come from society evolving, and required quite a bit of effort to overcome the religious prejudices that had been in place beforehand...

IMOHO,

Skankboy, I think I understand where you are coming from, but I think a case can also be made that there is a "ready-made framework" lurking in a godless evolutionistic understanding of human origins. I understand that each atheist does not necessarily assume that since they will not have to 'give account' to any power greater than human society, if they can 'get away' with hurting a woman - maybe that would be OK since one of the often quoted evolutionary themes: 'survival of the fittest', indicates that there are rewards for those who are more powerful? Like I say, I understand that many (maybe most?) atheists don't act as if they view things as simplistically as I mentioned - but then again, I don't think that there is a good reason to think that more Christian or Islamic people try to use some "ready-made framework" within their religion to justify treating women as being less than equals when compared with men.

-Dennis

Skankboy, Succinctly put.

SOIL, firstly, throwing the old prostitution ploy at me does not so much speak of your religion as your politics. Self-righteous religious Conservatives often like to use crime, drugs, and prostitution, not to mention the porn industry in an attempt to foster a false dichotomy that if you are not an xtian you are a left-wing atheistic immoral pimp. Prostitution is a moral and a social issue, it has nothing to do with religion or atheism. (In my opinion prostitution and all drugs should be legalised and monitored for the sake of public health and order. So as to reduce the potency of organised crime, but that it is a side issue). Using examples of people you regard as less religious and less moral may work on a theistic audience but not on me. That is an old argument and a very flawed one.

Once again my position is this, you are not more likely to be humane if you are secular, but you are more likely to be inhumane if you are theistic, that is my position. I therefore advocate a moral philosophy that is secular, it is that simple, the emphasis is on the moral not the secular, it just has to be naturalistic as that is the only rational position, (+Plus theism opens some very nasty flood gates of course). Theists can be moral but only in despite of their religion not because of it. Finding a good, moderate, liberal Christian and I'll show you someone who has never read the Bible. Show me a right-wing, raving, backward fundamentalist and I'll show you someone who knows the Bible even better than I do.

We're not talking about merely the supposed exploitation of women, we are talking about crimes against humanity. Female genital mutilation, "honor" killings, marginalisation, stonings, all without exception in the name of religion. (And that's just the Islamic cases, the xtian ones are historically even worse, and currently far more insidious) Prostitution is not even arguably immoral, it is a questionable practice, but it might be argued a necessary one. I suspect even if all women were guaranteed an income and did not need to resort to selling themselves, there would still be volunteers for such work, for the sake of a person's psychological stability, "sexual therapists" if you will. Anyway, are you saying those liberals in our society who promote that kind of attitude, are as bad as those who torture and mutilate women in the name of their religious customs?

Again you focus on fringe concerns and miss the larger issues. Those who exploit women in an immoral manner are immoral, whether or not they are religious is completely irrelevant. If they're not using their religion to justify their actions then it is their conscience which is at fault, you could find many such people of any conceivable worldview, it does not fit as neatly into your categories as you imagine.

That is justification, or rationalisation, one thing that Theists do better than anybody else, and as I keep having to repeat. The pliability of doctrine allows them to do this to any conceivable extent, pointing to those with a non-religious persuasion who do the same thing is hardly gives your position any credence. You also assumed that religion would automatically constrain them from doing such things, but many religions would not, or can be twisted to allow for such things, do I have to bring up the Abbey brothels? For someone nearly three times my age you can be very simplistically black and white about the world. It's that lack of learning and theistic mind-drain no doubt.

Again you seem to think I am arguing that atheism is morally superior to theism, or that the removal of religion would solve all our problems. Those who do not recognise any "authority" by which I assume you mean law or moral constraints, are irresponsible and should be prevented from doing all that they wish, such people whether they are Theists or not are precisely what a moral philosophy is designed to deal with. But by using religion to do so, far greater problems are created. I am not making my moral attacks against religion in the name of atheism, might I remind you that I am a humanist, and also support many other secular moral philosophies. These, what I regard as the superior alternative to any religion, will prevent the exploitation of women, and guarantee human rights, without inventing any gods or heaven and hells. Pointing to people who are immoral and lacking in religion does not in any way touch on the issue of religion, only moral concerns, because religion can only hand out sets of "pseudo ethical" principles mixed in with abhorrent doctrine that is morally bankrupt. If you separate the issue of morality from religion you see a very different picture.

Religion doesn't mean good, that is a fact, and atheism doesn’t mean evil, it may suite the theocrats to tell you sheep that, but it's just a conversion ploy. We humanists don’t go around saying secularists are good and theists are evil, (just misguided, and liable to be corrupted by doctrine). Which is what you seem to think I'm saying. We simple see a problem and use our minds to solve it rather than prayer or conversion, any good that ever does is cosmetic, the holy wars alone cancel out that type of stuff.

Try to appreciate how I see the world, to me religion is a completely redundant and unnecessary appendage to civilisation, thought and observation are the only means of determining moral truths, not oracles and revelation. Ethical considerations must be free of religious contamination. That you consider your religion to be a source of morality is purely due to your conditioning, reality speaks of a very different story. All moral concerns are to be solved using reason, scientific method and rational thought, no ideology, political or religious has any claim to ethical "truths" merely self-serving goals. They may rationalise them as being justly superior to ethical considerations, but only to those who believe these goals are "right" and recognise such a priority as rational or "good". (How may time have xtians thrown away moral concerns for god, crusade, souls, the afterlife or any other shite you care to invent?) All objective observers regard such focused institutions as purely self-serving and uncaring regimes, that certainly have no right to consider themselves an "authority" in this matters, just because it is expedient for them to do so.

I rally against all such ideologies and worldview's that cause immoral behaviour in their followers, regardless of whether or not they are religious. I've have had to repeat this a great many times. I'm not out to destroy religion because it is a religion, but because it is irrational and immoral, and I prefer reason and morality. That is the point, and your attempts to justify religion as a superior alternative due to the example irresponsible non-theists is wide of the mark. I don’t recognise religion has any morality, so you cant convince me it is responsible for any good. It fails to use convincing rational explanations for it's so called enlightened values, just divine opinion, a terrible bases for any value system, as it lack reasoning of any kind and is just assertion based on faith. The problems with which are obvious. If human life is only of worth due to gods say so, then that same authority can out-way with one word any respect for life. (I know you think he'd not do that, but your inner voice doesn't correspond to other people's, its subjective not objective).

To me, putting humanity first is common sense, rational, and of self evident virtue, we are part of a human civilisation, with a man-made laws, man-made values, in a reality that is indifferent to us, and thusly we only have ourselves to rely on. The idea that we should have any form of man-made social structure based on anything other than humanity is completely insane. The reason behind this is solid, although some theist tried to tear it down, they only managed to make themselves sound even more morally abhorrent than they already are, with such vile and inhumane doctrines that lie at the heart of all organised religion.

I have never even so much as suggested this, and have frequently pointed out that that is not the point of my writings, but merely to demonstrate that religion in itself is no guarantee of moral behavior, and in many instances is a guarantee of immoral behavior. Only when morality is taken out of the sphere of ideals, dreams and fantasy can it do any good. It has to be realistic, empirical, rational, scientifically tested, and it has to be capable of evolution and responding to circumstance, because when any "ethical" system is incapable of doing these things, that is when harm comes to humanity. This is to a certain extent the cause of most of the horrors committed by religion and ideology.

If the humble, tentative, accumulative falsification process of trial and error science uses can produce so much real change, benefits and understanding of our universe, then there is no reason why the same methods cannot be applied to moral and philosophical issues. Are we not products of universe and susceptible the same laws and principles of reason and logic? And so determining the best, most humane way of functioning amongst ourselves should be a matter for the rational scientist/philosopher not the theologian, mad hermit, Bible bashing cretin or theocrat. They are a product of our flaws, are misunderstandings and mistakes made in attempts to deal with ourselves and the universe, the ignorance of our past. They are the failure, science and reason are the successes, and the issues of life and morality are too important to leave to the losers.

If naturalistic medicine works better than faith "healing" and exorcisms, Maths better at working things out than prayer, why not in all other aspects of our lives?
Every radical claim science has made has been borne out by experiment and experience, every radical claim any religion has ever made has, without exception proved to be false, or yet remains to be proven, which amounts to the same thing.

So you give me a typical Theist anecdotal "evidence", your personal experiences should not reflect upon your judgement, any more than mine do (unless as a rational inference). I could present cases where being converted to a religion has made a person far worse than they were previously. And yet I do not consider such examples crucial to the argument, so please be not furnish me with these attempts at "evidence" to show that your version of your cult is the right one and works. Nothing your experience, and no isolated case you give me is sufficient for that. If you choose to interpret his improvement in moral behaviour as down to the Bible, show me the passages directly applicable to specific ethical improvements. Because I suspect it is simply the overall social consensus that "improved" him, as well as a psychological "tune-up" (and an outer society so bad that it was even behind local Christian attitudes). Take a drugged up dossier and tidy him up, and dump him into a middle class theistic culture, then you'll see a difference, but you could do the same for a stray dog.

There are areas and "secular" society that are immoral and areas great moral strength, however in the political, legal and areas of civil and human rights secular society is far superior to religion. Compare the universal declaration of human rights to the 613 Torah Commandments. Looking at crack houses and graffiti on walls, or seedy bars does not in any way make any rational points. Because if we are to judge your philosophy by it's ideals then we must judge Western society by its ideals. And in that respect secular progress wins hands down. It may fail to always deliver, but I have far greater confidence in the success rate attributable to our culture than your cult. Besides it's my philosophy I'm advocating, not "secular" society as a whole, which is at least salvageable.

Giving examples of personal improvement when this site is littered with many testimonies that demonstrate the complete opposite, is not a good debating tactic. If you can so easily dismiss the examples when religion goes wrong, then the examples when society fails to produce a decent human being are not any more pertinent for me, and if you can ignore Humanists who do great good then I can ignore your xtian boy-scouts. You have not demonstrated his life to be the norm for your cult, and I have never bothered to demonstrate any Humanist who's better after reaching their philosophical epiphany, because this method of "evidence" is invalid. Demonstrate that your cult is more morally consistent and enlightened than humanism, anecdotes prove nothing.

Interpretation has nothing to do with it, that is just what it says!

If you can read it objectively you would see the immorality that you dismiss, in the same way that I used to be forgive the atrocities committed by Julius Caesar or any of my other historical heroes. I now see all events in strict moral terms, I do not allow for the period in which they lived, the wars in which they took part or the fact that they were fighting for a cause I agree with. Morality is central, and if there is immorality in the Bible then it must be acknowledged, not dismissed because it is in a supposedly good book or committed by your ever spun deity.

That is just ridiculous, I can demonstrate case after case where specific Bible passages had a consistent effect and were used to inspire or justify particular atrocities, these passages are capable of fostering unique immorality, this is proven so the threat is there. For the sake of life, theism is to be declared a danger to humanity, very simple really. The fact that some people may see passages as benign is irrelevant. Many different people read the Bible and interpret many different things into it. That means the Bible is either amoral, pliable or a blank slates for our projections. If that is what you're saying, it cannot be considered good or in any way a guarantee of moral improvement. My position is that it's passages have a far greater potential for immorality than for decent behavior. I can give many examples of this, not just people I know, not just quaint anecdotes, but vast historical events involving tens of millions of people, I think big, you think small. The exceptions do not disprove the rule.

The bible's little good, is found in virtually all other faiths and philosophies, its evils are on a greater scale than all products of the imagination. A good xtian has reasons for his/her nature that are nothing to do with it, maybe a quote here or there, but they have to ignore the majority of it, and find justification in vague feeling, and sentiments. While the evil xtian has more material to work with than he/she could ever get through. And then of course there's the Koran…

P.S. your irritatingly stupid view of evolution as some sort of philosophical justification tells me you SERIOUSLY need to read a biology text-book. Fittest mean most adapted, or appropriate, not strongest or violent you simpleton. I don’t miss quote your bible, you get your scientific facts right. What have your theistic overseers done to you? Does all you world-view rest on such colossal ignorance of what science and rational thought actually as to say? (Not to mention you own doctrine)
You don’t so much disagree with me as have no idea what I'm talking about, go back to school, and stop objecting out of theistic habit on matters you have never thought about before, or studied, I deserve a higher quality theistic argument. We humanists wouldn't last 2 second if we knew as little as you. Doesn’t it bother you theists that you get corrected and educated by us so often, wouldn't that say something about your position?

AUB, I get the impression that you didn't really understand me to be speaking about the 'trafficking industry'. Now if I am wrong, and you don't actually consider the trafficking industry to be something that is against the concept of women being of equal value with men, then perhaps I should not have said the good things about you, earlier in this thread.

However, I expect I am not wrong - but rather, maybe you were simply using me to provide you with an excuse to break into a sermon about your brand of "politics". I wasn't referring to the girls (or women) who are involved in the sex-trade industry, but rather those who "trick" them into bondage (actually, what usually amounts basically to 'slavery') in the trafficking industry (often the unsuspecting girls are being lured by claims - among other things - that they are being taken to a respectable job as a household servant in the home of some rich family)

AUB, I think if you look at the beginning post in many of the threads at this site, you will see that what you have described is precisely a technique often used by ex-christian folks.

-Dennis

1. The techniques we use are to show xtianity is a fraud when it comes to making people more moral, it is a specific creed, atheist isn't, so examples of non-theists being immoral is strictly a ethical (or cultural) issue, such examples hardly make your faith look good, as you fail to garantee you could prevent such things, especially as your cult has particular doctrines that can and often are used to abuse women, same as inIslam. You can't jsut limb all non-thiest together, we are not bound by world-view of moral condition, xtians are supposed to be, so examples of this not being so are critical, when showing the flaws in the fiscade. Analogy - showing the cracks in a product is a legitamate method of analasise, showing any cracks in those without the product may highlight a need for A productm but not automaticly yours, you ignore the facts concering your cult, and use fallacial reasoning to attack mine.

2. I am aware of what you were referring to, and dealt with the subject, read it again. Examples of non-xtian exploitation are a moral not a theological concern, and do nothing for your cause.

3. My experiences do not colour my judgement because I was referring to Islamic communities, not yours, and have found my experience to be representative of a significant problem in Islam. (Read carefully, I did mention rational inferences as an exceptable use of verified anecdote) My dislike of xtianity is based purely on an objective study of it's history and doctrine, and not personal experience as I've never met an xtian who I didn't like.
Your attempt at a parallel has failed, countered religious propaganda with real cases were it doesn't work is justified to balance out a white picture with a little black, as all is grey. If a case is representative of a problem that is ignored or rationalised away then it is evidence of a serious moral concern that must be addressed.
Your anecdotes are for you a proof of a supernatural or spiritual event, which is a perceptual error, and not a rational appraisal. I see good done as evidence of only social or psychological improvement, not evidence of any other kind of claim.

Interpretation renders anecdote inadmissible if it is irrationally put to a use that reason cannot justify. I use human rights abuses to rebuke a faith as its moral claims are rightfully falsified, I accuse you faith of fraud theological and morally. No case showing only a supposed moral improvement touches on the theological, and is only evidence that xtianity is not always harmful, but I never claimed it was, only immoral overall. You use a life improving incident as evidence not only of any virtue you think you faith has but of other less reasonable things, that is my objection.
With your faith I have but facts, not experiences, which is always the opposite of what you offer.

I have nothing much to add, except that, coincidentally I came across this quote not long ago, which I am currently using as my signature. It befits this thread:

"I write against the religion because if women want to live like human beings, they will have to live outside the religion and Islamic law."
[Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasrin, in exile, 6/21/94]

MJ

Thanx MahJong, so few really know how bad it is for women, we just assume the stereotype is wrong, and buy all that "equal rights in Islam" crap, when everything I have seen and studied says otherwise, its as bad as when xtians claim their religion has done humanity good. My facts outnumber their assertions, that's what's important, as many people as possible need to know these things.

AUB, I have been of the opinion that even the "facts" uncovered via scientific method were at least in some ways related to "experiences" (AKA: experiments)?

When you separate facts from experiences, are you talking in some way about 'mind over matter'? -- surely you would not be getting metaphysical here would you?

-Dennis

Don’t be daft.

Experience = subjective until validated empirically

Evidence = Objective once varied via the scientific method, + interpreted only rationally

Experiments are to be conducted using the correct empirical standards, your religious or personal experiences are no more validated my such methods than a shamanistic trance.

Your experiences are subject to a different interpretation that you give them, and are not proof of any of your claims, but of other factors.

My experiences have been verified by objective studies of Islam. I fail to see why you are so confused, (except deliberately i.e. argument from ignorance) you are out of your league if you think fallacies get past me. I suggest you give this one a rest.