the racism of feminism

[Hyena Dandy]

Yeah, "My religion says I have to" isn't considered a viable excuse.

[Ginger Tea]

Sharia law is not as legaly binding as some think, the accused can choose not to be tried under sharia law but instead under the law of the land.
But I doubt many males and elders in the comunity are going to say to the women folk "You can be tried for adultery under Sharia law and get stoned (not to death) or under British law where no one gives a fuck."

Nor does it allow a Muslim to attack anyone becaues they are dressed immodestly and get away with it cos ner ner.
If the results of the punishment actually involve breaking the law of the land, then if it is reported it can and will be prossecuted saying "sharia law permits me to behead my wife." should never give someone a free pass out of a trial. Save where Sharia law IS the law, but this is not the case in the UK.

[Amanita]

I've often believed that this notion of extreme tolerance (We must never impose our beliefs on others, we must tolerate everything that's cultural or religious) sometimes leads to tolerating things that never should be tolerated.

In a similar vein, I found this:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/20...to-the-taliban

[Hyena Dandy]

There's a fear, I think a very reasonable one, amongst people about trying to change other people and just assuming Western = Better. But I think that people need to be able to look at cultures analytically BEFORE judging them.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Just as a side note;

I wasn't implying that Muslims had this thing about beating up scantily clad women. My hypothetical situation was completely and totally hypothetical, hence why I made no mention of any religion and just picked something that had a very simple and clear line that was crossed to demonstrate my point.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Thing is, Islam will never reform if we consistently give its followers something to hate more than the excess of their own religion. That creates radicalization of thought and it creates a fake enemy. So while we may detest what goes on, it will never change if its never confronted within Islam. It won't be confronted in Islam if the bigger issue is outsiders attempting to influence the religion. As a feminist, its an extremely ugly choice either way but its why there is no universal support for either course of action.

[Kheldarson]

Ah, i understand the confusion then. I've never heard of Golden Dawn before, but I do know that GO & RC are extremely similar in core beliefs, especially the beliefs on the Eucharist. Both faiths hold that it isn't just symbolic of the Body & Blood, but actually becomes it.

I don't remember it so much, but my mother remembers one of our RC priests who use to invite GO priests to join in with the Mass sometimes. About the only difference she noted was that they asked for blessings for different bishops etc, rather than the ones we normally named.

So, it's not exactly surprising to me that the 2 faiths might be confused with each other.

The two biggest differences are dogma and politics honestly. The break between the two is called the Great Schism. Essentially, RC said "Peter was placed as the front man, so the Bishop of Rome (the pope) is his spiritual successor and head of the church." And GO said, "What? No. We have a conclave of bishops. Who's this pope guy?"

Then there was a debate about various dogmatic practices in the remains of the Western Roman Empire vs. the Eastern and things became irreconcilable. So that's the major differences.

But back on topic, it is a quandary is it not?… when two protected classes clash. Which wins out? Rights for women or rights to freedom of religion?

Kinda like when the "Ground Zero Mosque" was a hot topic, on one of my other message boards someone suggested building a gay bar next to it, just to see their heads explode in outrage… and to see which group got more support as a protected class.

It is kind of a quandary, but a major point here is that Sharia law is not from the Koran itself. It's a cultural law the developed around the religion from the tribes of Arabia.

[BlaqueKatt]

But back on topic, it is a quandary is it not?… when two protected classes clash. Which wins out? Rights for women or rights to freedom of religion?

It shouldn't even be a question, people, as in actual living beings trump religion, as in a belief system EVERY TIME. Full stop.

[Hyena Dandy]

Yeah, this isn't really a debate to me. Suppose that someone's religious belief requires them to commit human sacrifice? Would you be fine with that? If someone's culture marries and has sex with children as young as nine, would you be okay with that?

Religious people can believe anything they like. You can get some exceptions, but for the most part, a crime is a crime, even if you say your religion requires it.

[Kelmon]

Yeah, this isn't really a debate to me. Suppose that someone's religious belief requires them to commit human sacrifice? Would you be fine with that? If someone's culture marries and has sex with children as young as nine, would you be okay with that?

Last year a boy in Germany a boy was hospitalized due to complications arising from a recent circumcision. Since there was no medical reason for the circumcision (it was for religious reasons; the boy's parents are muslims), the judge ruled it as an "assault" to cause bodily harm. Just in the same way he would rule if parents would have wanted to cut off their boy's fingers or ears.

Cue huuuuuuge outrage about the alleged anti-semitism and anti-islamism of this ruling, politicians caved quickly to bullying from the religious and changed our civil law to explicitely allow circumcision of male children. A competing proposal for a new law - banning circumcision for religious reasons until the child is 14 and can decide for himself - was dismissed. Even though 70% of Germans were against the former.

I guess human rights - like the one about bodily inviolability as stated in our own basic law (our "constitution") - doesn't mean jack if it's "religious reasons".

[crashhelmet]

Last year a boy in Germany a boy was hospitalized due to complications arising from a recent circumcision. Since there was no medical reason for the circumcision (it was for religious reasons; the boy's parents are muslims), the judge ruled it as an "assault" to cause bodily harm. Just in the same way he would rule if parents would have wanted to cut off their boy's fingers or ears.

Cue huuuuuuge outrage about the alleged anti-semitism and anti-islamism of this ruling, politicians caved quickly to bullying from the religious and changed our civil law to explicitely allow circumcision of male children. A competing proposal for a new law - banning circumcision for religious reasons until the child is 14 and can decide for himself - was dismissed. Even though 70% of Germans were against the former.

I guess human rights - like the one about bodily inviolability as stated in our own basic law (our "constitution") - doesn't mean jack if it's "religious reasons".

Are you saying that parents shouldn't be allowed to pierce their children's ears and it should be left up to the child to decide when they turn 14?

[HYHYBT]

I didn't know Muslims circumcised.

[Andara Bledin]

Are you saying that parents shouldn't be allowed to pierce their children's ears and it should be left up to the child to decide when they turn 14?

I honestly don't think parents should do that, either. However, due to the fact that pierced ears can be reversed, it's not nearly the same thing.

[crashhelmet]

I honestly don't think parents should do that, either. However, due to the fact that pierced ears can be reversed, it's not nearly the same thing.

Not exactly. New skin doesn't grow there. If it closes up completely, it's scar tissue. Then there are the risks of infection, rejection, or allergic reaction to the jewelry itself.

But the fact remains that it's still bodily harm. As for "assault?" Who knows what the mind of a child perceives it as?

[Andara Bledin]

The fact that it's not nearly the same thing doesn't automatically make it completely different and doesn't change the fact that I'm still against it.