Islam don’t fuck around with “threats”.
If you’re going to reject the religion of your elders, then for Chrissakes just be atheist, don’t repeat the mistake by picking up some other dumb religion.
…Scott Paul Beierle murdered two women because he hated women. So lets hope Sinead doesn’t loose faith with womanhood lest she suffer the same fate as Nancy Van Vessem and Maura Binkley.
You could ask Asia Bibi.
I know a guy who has done this a time or two. Makes no sense to me. I wanna ask him,* “That last Ass you ate tasted like shit, what do you think this next one will taste like?”
*
Could have been worse. Celebrities usually join Scientology when they’re looking for a new religion.
That line of reasoning doesn’t work. Did he murder those two women because they became women or stopped being women or something?
Also, Davitt is not very “Muslim.” Was it her mother’s name or something?
She legally changed her name to Magda Davitt in 2017. I don’t think she’s revealed why she chose it but I doubt it was her mother’s name. She has said she changed her name because she was rejecting the name her parents gave her.
…does Sam’s line of reasoning work? It is much more dangerous to be a woman in society than it is to to be someone who criticizes the treatment of women in Islam. Sam cites a murder that happened in 2004. But women get murdered by their husbands and their partners every single day. Which should O’Connor be more worried about?
I don’t that was the point of his post. More that an act of religious criticism towards the catholic faith probably carries less risk than an equivalent act of religious criticism towards Islam. That seems a perfectly reasonable position to put forward. May be true, may be not. We could always debate it.
seems a non-sequitur to me as the point being made was not about who is more in danger overall, men or women?
As a woman is she in more danger of being murdered than a man? I don’t know. Good question. Doesn’t seem to belong in this thread though.
It all smells a bit of “whataboutery” to me. Bad things happen for other reasons therefore we cannot criticise anything else. Pretty such we all have capacity to criticise Islamic intolerance of free speech and violence and yet still be able to condemn violence towards women and men for myriad other reasons.
…your feelings on the matter have been read, acknowledged, and disagreed with. Thanks for sharing. As-Salaam-Alaikum.
Sorry BB, not good enough. Don’t phrase things as if you speak for the whole board. Also, that’s an awfully lazy response with a curious sign-off that in context comes across as rather sarcastic and disrespectful.
Address the points or don’t, correct your errors or don’t.
…what the fuck?
What the fuck?
What the fuck?
This is a thread in cafe society. I expressed my opinion on a matter that really is not cafe society material, you disagreed with me, I decided not to continue the hijack and let you know I disagreed with the disagreement and that really should be the end of it. If you want a debate: go open a Great Debate. But I won’t respond to you further here.
It is a thread about a woman, famous for her vociferous religious outbursts and criticism, converting to a religion that is famously a bit touchy about criticism.
The risks posed by her potential behaviour as a Muslim are pretty much bang on topic, as is a comparison to her behaviour regarding Catholicism.
You are allowed to debate and argue in any forum if you choose to. You don’t. Please yourself.