Interestring how you read only the first three words of my post and skipped the rest. Read the whole thing, then read post #70.
If you remain unconvinced, try this: Find three atheists today, and ask them if they think that throwing people into gulags or death camps for speaking against atheism is a good idea.
If that doesn’t convince you, seek out some photos of Nazi German, Leninist Russia, Maoist China, or modern North Korea. Notice if there are big giant walls with some dude’s face on them. Then think about this: If you knew nothing at all about world history, and had to make assumptions, what conclusions would you draw about those places? That they are atheistic? Or maybe that their gods are plastered giant sized on big walls?
If that doesn’t convince you, I’m afraid you’re beyond hope.
I did not judge the entire religion. Which was clear in my post.
However, a sadly large portion of this particular religion is running countries and running them in a sad and depressingly oppressive ways in the name of Mohamed. This is not the exceptions in many Moslem countries, it is the norm and in their enforced laws.
Sorry I exempted the Jews, they just don’t have the list of atrocities that the Moslems and Christians have. The Christians appear to be largely over their greater excesses, but the Moslems sure as hell are not. As **cmkeller ** already pointed out, this may have more to do with ability to oppress than the religion itself.
It seems reasonably clear from the history of Communist movements that the real reason they are atheistic is because they don’t want competition for the loyalties of the people. Despite what they may say in their writings about scientific rationalism (and since when did we take Marxist or Maoist doctrine at face value?), it seems to me, anyway, that they are against religion because they fear it will supplant them in the minds and hearts of the proletariat.
That does not make Communism a religion, exactly, but the comparison sheds more light than you seem to allow. IMHO.
Well, have you got any proof that women are unhappy, by and large, living under sharia, whatever that is? (Hint for the unwary: you’ll have an easier time deciding whether atheism is a religion than you will defining sharia.)
Yep. It’s institutionalized assholery. That’s not religion’s fault, but it’s really easy for that to happen in any environment where extreme group thinking can occur. Religion just so happens to be an excellent vehicle for that.
I’m sorry. You are being serious? You want a cite that women aren’t perfectly happy being subject to sharia law? I’m sure the one being whipped for the crime of being raped might have something to say. You think that makes a difference?
Sharia law inserts religion into the personal life. So by definition it is atavistic regardless if you can find some tiny island where some less malignant variant exists.
Sharia law is easily defined by the specific legal code it is embodies in for a particular country. Can you find one extant sharia law legal system that does not drive a coach and horses through what we consider basic human rights (beginning with ‘equal before the law’.)?
So, you are comfortable with the fact that to make our case, we need to be able to site a poll of woman living in countries where they have little rights and they get punished for speaking out or in many cases just being in a non-related man’s car.
I’ll be right back with that and a poll of how cows feel about the beef and leather industry while I am at it. That should be about as easy to get and about as scientific.
Are you actually denying that Iran, Saudi, Sudan and other Islamic countries have unfair and extremely harsh laws that are religion based?
Yes it is religion’s fault. Religion is purely what it does in the world, the mumbo-jumbo is mutable and irrelevant. If it is done in the name of religion it is religion that picks up the tab. Just like marxist leninism and nazism picks up the tab for their crimes.
This is so vague that lacking a greater degree of precision on your part, I don’t know whether I agree or disagree. In any event, I think you’re conflating two phenomena – Islam, and general Third-World poverty and bad government. The Islamic world and the postcolonial world overlap to a significant degree, and I’d defy you to tell me that the Islamic postcolonial countries are more repressive than their non-Islamic neighbors. Is Guinea worse, on account of Islam, than Sierra Leone, for example? I would hardly say so.
From what I can gather from the Usual Apologists it is all one big coincidence. Just as likely that the Quaker Commonwealth would be doing exactly the same thing.
[eentsy nitpick]She wasn’t sentenced to a whipping for being raped, but for being out in a car with another unrelated man at the time the rape occurred. Just to keep the facts straight.[/en]
Again, the actions of a handful of judges, in a handful of countries, are not representative even of sharia law in general, still less of Islam.
Not in the least! What I am denying is that Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan are the same thing as Islam. And are you saying that Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan are the only countries that have harsh and unfair laws?
You are the one making ludicrously ignorant claims about sharia law. You do your own research. I already have and have found no jurisdiction without unequal laws. That women and men are not equal is the very nature of sharia.
But lets start withMalaysia as it is usually the poster-child for giving Islam a pass.
This is interesting. I have been comparing the Middle-Eastern & North African world to the third world countries of South and Central American and I find them lacking in this regard, however I have not compared them to there nearest non-Moslem neighbors except for Israel. I honestly don’t have an answer here. I know I am not at all qualified to answer this as I largely ignore most of Central Africa in my readings. Maybe someone else can rise to your challenge.
I think I have already agreed to this when **cmkeller ** brought it up.
You make the mistake of thinking sharia is one thing – it isn’t. It’s an exceptionally broad framework, so broad as to be nearly meaningless. Jordan, for example, has maintained some aspects of sharia law, but the Jordanian constitution says flatly, “Jordanians shall be equal before the law.”
Do you recall that when Iran went over to religious dictatorship that the woman of Iran were forced to take back up the veil and that repression of their rights were instituted? It seems the Ayatollah and his puppet government were much harsher on the people of Iran than our semi-puppet government managed to be in 20+ years.
I am well aware that the Western Democracies, Japan, South Korea do not have horrific laws on the scale of most Muslim countries. I am also aware that where ever there is a despot, the law tend towards the horrific. I don’t think I was arguing this is strictly a Muslim problem, but these countries would be better off if the Religion got out of the courts and government and back to the Mosques where it belongs.
It’s not interesting, it is irrelevant unless it can be shown that adjacent countries, with different religions, both end up persecuting women in their legal systems.
The thing that I love about these “debates” is that, by Der Tries’ definition above, atheism IS a religion, but he’ll never, ever admit it. It’s always amusing to watch him twist and turn trying to avoid admitting the ramifications of what he said. Either he’s an idiot who refuses to admit the meaning of what he said or he’s an idiot who in his zeal to attack religions defined them so broadly that the definition is meaningless and includes himself. Either way he’s an idiot.
This does not seem like the best example, while I am repulsed by the concept of a 12 year old being married, I don’t understand the hang-up over a 17 year old getting married with her family’s permission. I don’t think it is wise, but I don’t think it should be illegal. I would think just the fact that the court system in India will not whip an unmarried female for being in a car with non-related males or arrests a teacher for allowing her class to name a teddy bear Mohamed would be better arguments.
I do think the two countries you picked are good examples.