Print

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(damam @ Jun 15 2006, 03:34 PM)

all i can say is wow . . .
first, I am glad that none of the husbands in your family has hit there wives.
but you are still defending it to a degree saying there are instances where it is appropiate. I cant believe anyone would defend something that supports marital abuse of any type.
"They resort to violence quickly." <- as opposed to what? In due time? As a last alternative?
A husband should NEVER resort to violence. EVER!!!!


kind of . . . but certainly not to the extent that most Americans imply from the words "Freedom of Religion". Dont believe me, ask the bahai's or evangelicals.
WIKI: Status of religious freedom in Iran

Look man, I don't agree with striking women either but who are we to criticize these people who are faithful to their religion? They have been doing it for thousands of years and like with us and our religions believe there is no other purpose to life than to make ourselves worthy for our God to accept us into the afterlife. Don't be judgemental just because his faith is different from yours. The only time we should take issue with it is when someone wants to do us harm for not believing what they do.

Also, according to Christianity, there is only one God. Jesus is his messenger. The difference is, Jesus is believed to be God's son as well. This does not mean God in human form. There are several scriptures that contradict this. Who does Jesus pray to on the Mount of Olives? Whose voice is revealed to the disciples on the mount? Who is Jesus speaking to when he is on the cross and states "Why have you forsaken me?" The Holy spirit is the eyes in which God sees all and carries out his will. These do not directly contradict the Muslim religion until you compare statements made by Jesus versus those made by Muhammad. At any rate, let's all just get along

[puckSR]

QUOTE

Iran is a so-called democracy(even though I don't believe so). A true Islamic governemnt would not be democratic, since it would follow the Qur'an. In this aspect you are right; Islam cannot coexist with a democracy. By Islamic beleif, democracy is not right. Islamic law is kept in place to prevent people from doing wrong things(take Roe v. Wade, abortion is legal; a public policy decision whcih would only happen in a democracy; by Islamic law abortion is illegal since it is the killing of innocent humans).

Quickly...isnt Iran a theocratic republic?
That means that it refers to a democratic system, but the democratic element of the govt always defaults to the Theocratic elements?
The argument could still be made that for all practical purposes the will of the people(democracy) is the govt.  Even in the US, the will of the people is not always the direction of the govt.  Take taxes for example.  If the US held an open election to decide if we should continue with taxes....I am sure most people would vote for lower or no taxes.  This, of course, is not practical.  It would cause the govt to collapse.  So even though most people are against taxation....we still have taxation

QUOTE

A husband should NEVER resort to violence. EVER!!!!

That is a rather sexist attitude....
If the wife is endangering the lives of the children, and the only way to stop the wife is through violence....can the husband resort to violence?
Lets say that the wife is assaulting the husband, does the husband have the right to retaliate?
If men and women are equal, then the entire concept of "never strike a woman" is a mute point.
Im a pacifist so Im not encouraging violence, but even I acknowledge that it is necessary sometimes.  I am also completely for the equality of women....so should we even consider the sex of the attacker and the victim?

QUOTE

Also, according to Christianity, there is only one God. Jesus is his messenger. The difference is, Jesus is believed to be God's son as well. This does not mean God in human form. There are several scriptures that contradict this. Who does Jesus pray to on the Mount of Olives? Whose voice is revealed to the disciples on the mount? Who is Jesus speaking to when he is on the cross and states

Ok...we could have a long discussion about theology...and I could explain the entire concept of the trinity to you....
But, there is another flaw...
Christianity is the belief that Jesus is the Messiah.  THATS ALL.
Some Christians believe in Jesus as divine, some as non-divine.  
Those who believe Jesus is non-divine explain the claim to "son of God" as follows.  Jesus frequently referred to people as his "brothers".  We are all God's Children...and Jesus was just another one.
The only condition that must be satisfied to be a "Christian" is the belief that Jesus was the prophesized Messiah.  The Savior of God's people.
Belief in the New Testament is non-essential.
Belief in any form of divinity is non-essential

QUOTE

kind of . . . but certainly not to the extent that most Americans imply from the words "Freedom of Religion". Dont believe me, ask the bahai's or evangelicals.

Yeah...you might want to go talk to the Mormons...
The people that we banned from having polygamy....
We also did the same thing with Muslims....
We banned govt sanctioned marriages(which were originally only an endorsement of Church-sponsored marriages) of polygamist marriages, despite the clear religious imperative for both groups to be allowed to marry multiple wives.

[juan_2006]

QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Jun 13 2006, 10:24 PM)

geographically, muslims have no more "allegiance" to mecca than christians has to jeruselem or bethlehem

domestically, in this case you might have half a point, muslims are required to marry as many women as they can support financially, as far as beating, its legal in some states (alabama and arkansas for example) and christians and jews are instructed by the bible to put their son to death if he should disobey them

Umm im a Christian and im not obsesed with those cities you talk about. Are you referring to Jews???

Umm why hasnt my father killed me yet??? I think hitting women is totally wrong, i have never hit a women in my life.

QUOTE(damam @ Jun 15 2006, 08:56 AM)

@w2kj  -  couldnt much of that be sed/muslim/7th day adventist/ and still apply?  Oh crap, we gotta stop the 7th day advantist's
Hold on I gotta grab my gun  . . .

well, Im off to go kill me some 7th day advantist's  

Hey when are you gonna kill me?? What do you have against 7th day adventists??

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE

Ok...we could have a long discussion about theology...and I could explain the entire concept of the trinity to you....
But, there is another flaw...
Christianity is the belief that Jesus is the Messiah. THATS ALL.
Some Christians believe in Jesus as divine, some as non-divine.
Those who believe Jesus is non-divine explain the claim to "son of God" as follows. Jesus frequently referred to people as his "brothers". We are all God's Children...and Jesus was just another one.
The only condition that must be satisfied to be a "Christian" is the belief that Jesus was the prophesized Messiah. The Savior of God's people.
Belief in the New Testament is non-essential.
Belief in any form of divinity is non-essential

There was no reason for this comment whatsoever. I understand the concept of the trinity thoroughly. I was trying to explain it to someone who is of a different religion and had some misconceptions in the easiest way I could. If I've wandered away from your definition of Christianity or the "official" definition then fine. What difference does it make to you? The discussion is on whether Muslims can be good Americans. Why are you off on these tangents and quoting things I'm saying even though you have no point in doing so? Maybe you do with others but you did not with me. At any rate I still say we should all get along.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE

Yeah...my comment really had nothing to do with the thread...but neither did your original post...
So I guess its all good

yeah I can see how you could get that. I really was just trying to say that people shouldn't judge based on difference of religion unless the difference is the person wants to kill you because of their religious beleifs. I know I didn't make that clear and I got off on a tangent that really didn't seem to make a lot of sense. But you're right... it's all good

[lordvader129]

QUOTE(juan_2006 @ Jun 15 2006, 05:42 PM)

Umm im a Christian and im not obsesed with those cities you talk about. Are you referring to Jews???

well thats pretty much my point, muslims dont have a "allegience" to mecca, they pray facing it (i dont see how that makes them bad americans) and they are called to make the pilgrimage there at least once during their lives (again, i dont see how going somehwere could make them bad americans)

QUOTE

Umm why hasnt my father killed me yet??? I think hitting women is totally wrong, i have never hit a women in my life.

again, youve made my point, being a "good christian" doesnt mean following every rule or law to the absolute letter

QUOTE

Exd 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

heres another one

QUOTE

Exd 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh [is] the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth [any] work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

and i know many muslims who dont believe in hitting their wives

[afruff23]

Pork eats its own shit. Would you eat it?

[lordvader129]

QUOTE(afruff23 @ Jun 15 2006, 08:35 PM)

Pork eats its own shit. Would you eat it?

as long as the shit keeps making their bellies taste like bacon im fine with it

[damam]

QUOTE(afruff23 @ Jun 15 2006, 09:56 AM)

This interperetation makes more sense to me, so please disregard my previous statements about hitting being the correct way. The Qur'an is very much understood as how it is interpreted. However, I still can see how the interpretation that hitting your wife as a last resort in a non harming way is just. It's purely emotional pain, just like me saying "I hate you".

thank you for clarifying your personal feelings on the matter - I was in utter shock that someone was writing a defense for physical spousal abuse.  I still found the wiki article you posted a little disturbing.  but if that is not your view point, i wont ask you to defend it.

as for spousal abuse in my religion: it is not explicitely aloud anywhere in any form.  Some believe it is condemned in Malachi 2:13-14
13And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.  
14Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
15And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
16For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
in this passage, the lord stopped listening to the prayers of the israelites because of the abuse and infidelity the husbands were commiting.

Many have argued that it is grounds for divorce in christianity as well, but that is really up to interpretation.  The bible gives two reasons for divorce: one is abandonment and the second is a lifestyle of infidelity and immorality.  People have argued that spousal abuse is a form of spiritual abandonment and immorality.  The bible also states that a husband should treat his wife as he wants to be treated (a variation on the golden rule).  Assuming your not a masochist , hitting your wife would go against this rule as well also giving grounds for divorce.  

some sources from the bible:
Malachi 2:13
1 Corinthians 7:15
Colossians 3:19
1 Peter 3:7
Matthew 5:32
Ephesians 5:25-33

unfortunately, some christian churches do focus on passages that talk about submission of wives to there husbands, and ignore passages that give wives the right to leave the situation.  This can lead to a women feeling traped in there situtation by there religion.

QUOTE(afruff23 @ Jun 15 2006, 09:56 AM)

Please don't cite wikipedia unless the article cites many sources. You are right about Baha'i freedom is limited, but heresy is considered a grave sin in Islam(i.e. converting from Islam). If you have been given the opportunity to the right message (in Islam's view), then why convert?

I understand that aspect of the muslim faith.  it is an aspect shared by many/most christians as well.  And by stating it you have proven my point.  In a state that truly has "Freedom of Religion", people would be allowed to convert freely to what ever they want.  Furthermore, for evangelical christians, it is a commandment from g-d to prosylatize and by iran putting the restrictions that they have on the evangelical churches they are not really allowing them to practice their religion.  So, in my oppinion, Iran really does not have a great degree of religious freedom.  

QUOTE(pucksr)

Yeah...you might want to go talk to the Mormons...
The people that we banned from having polygamy....
We also did the same thing with Muslims....
We banned govt sanctioned marriages(which were originally only an endorsement of Church-sponsored marriages) of polygamist marriages, despite the clear religious imperative for both groups to be allowed to marry multiple wives.

the status of polygamy is pretty sad.  It was definitely done with the sole intention of persecuting mormons.  Not one of our finest hours to say the least.  I am not saying the US is perfect either, only closer to an ideal situation than iran is.  

QUOTE(pucksr)

That is a rather sexist attitude....
If the wife is endangering the lives of the children, and the only way to stop the wife is through violence....can the husband resort to violence?
Lets say that the wife is assaulting the husband, does the husband have the right to retaliate?
If men and women are equal, then the entire concept of "never strike a woman" is a mute point.
Im a pacifist so Im not encouraging violence, but even I acknowledge that it is necessary sometimes. I am also completely for the equality of women....so should we even consider the sex of the attacker and the victim?

yes it is somewhat sexist.  spousal abuse is wrong in either direction.  And someone always has the right to defend themselves, but as a pacifist, and somewhat large guy, I would be willing to bet you could defend yourself against your gf without really needing to harm her in any way (unless she is like a 4degree black belt or something).  I would also argue that the moment you felt the need to beat your gf, as the only solution to a problem that it would be a relationship ending event.  I would ask yourself if that is someone you really want to live with long term anyways.

@jha'dhur
I am not the one that is obssessed with race and tries to insert it into everything.

QUOTE

And having been to the great pyramid and seen the drawings of the pharoah, (made by the ancient peoples of the region) I find it highly contradictory that Charton Heston could have passed for the son of a Pharoah..

its well established that the ancient egyptians had a wide range of skin colours and their pharaohs did too.  There are pictures of pharoahs that are all sorts of colours.  Try neferititi's bust for a comparison.  It is a closer approximation to the time that the exodus was supposed to have occured.
Tutankhaun: skintone
being from egypyt did not necessarily mean black.  that is a european interpretation.

QUOTE(juan_2006)

Hey when are you gonna kill me?? What do you have against 7th day adventists??

next week - please be patient, my schedule is kind of hectic

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(damam @ Jun 16 2006, 12:14 PM)

@jha'dhur
I am not the one that is obssessed with race and tries to insert it into everything.

Only making observations, you can fill in the conclusions with whatever slant you see fit.

QUOTE(damam @ Jun 16 2006, 12:14 PM)

@jha'dhur
its well established that the ancient egyptians had a wide range of skin colours and their pharaohs did too.  There are pictures of pharoahs that are all sorts of colours.  Try neferititi's bust for a comparison.  It is a closer approximation to the time that the exodus was supposed to have occured.
Tutankhaun: skintone
being from egypyt did not necessarily mean black.  that is a european interpretation.

I know a fair amount of coloreds and the funny thing is none of them are physically black. And the coloreds that are of lighter completion than Italians are the blackest (mentally). Indians and Pakis arent black yet they are darker than blacks.

So whats your point?

I am not obssesed with race every f*ing thread is race or religion. CHANGE the topic then. You all recycle the same BS every 9 days.

P.S. Egyptians are Africans, and Arab Egyptians are descended from Africans.

[damam]

QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Jun 16 2006, 07:39 AM)

Only making observations, you can fill in the conclusions with whatever slant you see fit.
I know a fair amount of coloreds and the funny thing is none of them are physically black. And the coloreds that are of lighter completion than Italians are the blackest (mentally). Indians and Pakis arent black yet they are darker than blacks.

So whats your point?

I am not obssesed with race every f*ing thread is race or religion. CHANGE the topic then. You all recycle the same BS every 9 days.

P.S. Egyptians are Africans, and Arab Egyptians are descended from Africans.

this is the politics news and religion section of this board.  if you dont want to talk about politics news and religion then leave.  if you dont want to talk about religion then dont respond to the posts.  If you dont want to talk about race, stop bringing it up.  If you desire a new topic, start one yourself.  You have it with-in you to do each of these things.

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(damam @ Jun 16 2006, 02:54 PM)

this is the politics news and religion section of this board.  

Duh, no shit but same f*ing angle every GD time, gimmie a break.

QUOTE(damam @ Jun 16 2006, 02:54 PM)

if you dont want to talk about politics news and religion then leave. .

If you are gonna wine about everything pick up a tampon or take your own advice.

QUOTE(damam @ Jun 16 2006, 02:54 PM)

If you dont want to talk about race, stop bringing it up.

I have started one topic nothing to do with race but someone interjected race into it. I will converse on any topic I choose (that isnt boring or flooded with idiots). It seems race is the only thing you understand other than Israel.

You put your panties in the ring with Bastard. We were having a discussion, that YOU choose to enter.

QUOTE(damam @ Jun 16 2006, 02:54 PM)

If you desire a new topic, start one yourself.  

No thanks, you guys are amusing enough.  

The spin you put on issues are "classic".  Now you are wearing your pride all out on your bra strap and your face all balled up   like one of those "white looking" SOB's on that serial killer website.

[throwingks]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jun 17 2006, 10:35 PM)

The point is still perfectly valid.
Male-on-female violence is not inherently wrong because it is a man attacking a woman.  Violence is inherently wrong.  The sex of either the attacker or the victim is irrevelent.  
There are valid reasons for violence....and those reasons are equally valid no matter what the sex of either participant.
I hate the concept that a man should not strike a woman because it is a woman.  That is sexist, double-standard bullshit.  No human should attack any other human...but if violence does occur, I dont understand why sex suddenly becomes important.

So...dont say "a man should NEVER strike a woman".  Say "people should never strike people".  
Plus you were arguing against the apparent tolerance of husband-on-wife violence....simply because it is tolerance of violence against women.  You are refusing to acknowledge that under certain circumstances violence may be necessary.

You have some validity, yes. But, I don't think the argument of man hitting a woman is a moral issue. I think it is a physical issue. Men have testosterone, therefor they have bigger muscles. If 2 men hit each other they can fight back. If a man hits a woman, she has no chance. Same as hitting a child. If I see a grown man hit a grown man, without weapons, that's fair game. If I see a man hit a woman, that fucker is getting the shit kicked out of him. It is a physical matter to me.

[damam]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jun 17 2006, 03:35 PM)

The point is still perfectly valid.
Male-on-female violence is not inherently wrong because it is a man attacking a woman.  Violence is inherently wrong.  The sex of either the attacker or the victim is irrevelent.  
There are valid reasons for violence....and those reasons are equally valid no matter what the sex of either participant.
I hate the concept that a man should not strike a woman because it is a woman.  That is sexist, double-standard bullshit.  No human should attack any other human...but if violence does occur, I dont understand why sex suddenly becomes important.

So...dont say "a man should NEVER strike a woman".  Say "people should never strike people".  
Plus you were arguing against the apparent tolerance of husband-on-wife violence....simply because it is tolerance of violence against women.  You are refusing to acknowledge that under certain circumstances violence may be necessary.

I already altered my initial statement by saying spousal abuse is wrong in either direction.  

what i am argueing is that the moment you decide violence is the only answer (and you may be right), do what you need to do and dont escalate the violence any further than it needs to be, and then leave the situation forever (ie leave your partner).  I am not a pacifist, but I also dont believe that violence should exist with in a relationship and the minute you have reached a point where violenece is necessary, it should be a relationship ending event as well.

[throwingks]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jun 19 2006, 06:50 PM)

Hmm....so its a physical issue?
So would you "kick the shit out of" a one guy who was beating up a weaker guy?
Oh...its a physical issue, but only when it is a weaker woman?
See....take off the blinders.....
Its a sex/moral issue....

Yes I would. Men are built to fight and defend themselves. Women are not. What blinders are there? I don't live in your "all is fair" world. Not everything is fair. There are situations where if a body builder was taking advantage of a puny or handicapped guy I would jump right in. I wish all of your values were achievable, but unlike you I live in the real world. I recognize your utopia is unattainable.

Like I said a month ago. Keep trying though. You can do it.

QUOTE(damam @ Jun 19 2006, 12:11 PM)

I already altered my initial statement by saying spousal abuse is wrong in either direction.  

what i am argueing is that the moment you decide violence is the only answer (and you may be right), do what you need to do and dont escalate the violence any further than it needs to be, and then leave the situation forever (ie leave your partner).  I am not a pacifist, but I also dont believe that violence should exist with in a relationship and the minute you have reached a point where violenece is necessary, it should be a relationship ending event as well.

You are correct.