something something something religion

The Islamic view of women is horrific.

Banish Them to Their Beds and Beat Them -- Muhammad's Low Opinion of Women

 

Totally agree that Mohammeds view towards women was barbaric and completely unacceptable now. I'd also argue that regardless of what Mohammed did and the various hadiths relating to women that modern progressive muslims can balance having faith and practice gender equality.

What does gall me in liberal Western societies is when we accommodate religious/cultural views over gender equality. Gender equality and secularism should be sacrosanct and some of our best tools to prevent religious intolerance.

 

I love the phrase "modern progressive (insert religion)".

What it really means is a religious person who isnt very good at following their religion. Someone who cherry picks beliefs from their religion that agrees with a secularist belief system and ignores the beliefs that dont.

I do agree with you about the error of western societies accommodating religious beliefs over gender equality and secularism. Its like society views religious beliefs as something that trumps everything else. Or at the very least a religious belief system is somehow as valuable as all other belief systems.

I see absolutely no value in any religious belief. If I had the choice between $1 and all accumulated "religious teachings" I would walk away with a nice shiny dollar and have an infinite amount more value in my dollar than the morally bankrupt ignorance fuelled ponderings of long dead mentally ill sadists.

 

@Tim86

I too am not religious but we live in a world where most people profess to have a 'faith' system and belittling faith ad hoc doesn't really seem to get anyone anywhere.

To be fair, any religious person especially of the abrahamic systems have to 'cherry pick' their faith. It is impossible to abide by all the inconsistencies of a book written by bronze age men. All religions have syncretism; belief systems layered on top of previous systems and adapted to suit current agendas.

 

The real question is, when a culture makes a worthless and morally depraved belief system part of their integrated identity, how should more developed societies handle them. Its racist to say one race or culture is better than another right? And no one wants to be a racist.

So do we sit by and swallow the idea that Islamic culture is somehow equal to our own?

Does anyone actually truly believe that?

There are always exceptions to any rule. But we are talking about some pretty solid general views of each society. At what ratio or at what threshold can we say one culture has certain undesirable characteristics and is therefore worse than a culture that does not share those same extreme flaws. At what point in a public swimming pool can we just admit we are swimming in other peoples' ****?

 

@Tim86. There is no Islamic Culture in the same breath there is no Christian culture. A Jakarta businesswoman, Bosnian shopkeeper in Missouri, Somali warlord and Omani taxi driver may all profess a belief in Allah and Mohammed as much as the english speaking world is nominally Christian but thats where the unity of culture ends.

And what is our 'own' culture? White Christi-Judean?

I suspect you think Islam is all hardcore and fundamentalist not realising the incredible internal dynamics happening amongst a billion people.

Yes it is racist and ignorant if you think a billion people are slaves to an ancient ideology and collectively inferior based on the luck of where people are born.

It is not racist to say that gender equality is a basic human right, nor that laws should be based on the rule of law overseen by a democratic government and not from an old book.

 

The thing I dont like is the shifting target. How can you hold to a religion that teaches horrible things, but then say dont treat me like a person that believes horrible things just because I believe in a religion that teaches horrible things.

 

@Tim86

You seem to be under the impression that Muslims are robots that evaluate all life decisions based on a pre-programmed koran based algorithm.

Its just not the case. If you seek the horrible things you will find them as Jews and Christians do in the Torah and old Testament to justify your agenda.

Just because someone identifies as Muslim is totally different from saying they believe and support a world wide caliphate or dar-al islam

LIke their christian counterparts, I suspect most muslims have little idea what is contained in their text, let alone have much understanding of the hadiths that are used to justify atrocities around the world.

 

I doubt you would find similar support for making the old testament the official law of ''christian'' nations.

 

I dont disagree with you.

I guess my point, and i dont know if its a well thought out idea. Is that if someone presents themselves as following a religion that teaches something and somone discriminates against you based on that. Should you blame the person who assumed you followed the teachings of the religion you said you belong to. Or should the person who believes in their religion actually question their own religion.

Say for example if someone belonged to the "I hate fat people club". And a fat person didnt want to be your friend because of this. Is it fair for the club member to call the fat person discriminatory. Maybe the club member says that he is a modern and progressive member and he actually really likes fat people.

Who is at fault here?

And why belong to a club that says things that you dont believe in. And why get offended when people assume that as an active member you actually believe in what you apparently follow.

Why is the onus on everyone but the person who holds to the particular religious view?

Maybe it should be a compromise somewhere in the middle. But it just does my head in when a violent belief system somehow gets off scott free. Like it has nothing to do with the issue.

 

Yes we are quite lucky that where were colonised by a nation whose laws and institutions were shaped in part by Henry VIII wanting to divorce to have a kid.


edit.

a secondary thought as I went to get a cup of tea.

The closest parallel I can think of is those southern US states wanting the 10 commandments taught in schools etc etc.

 

Thank god

 

I dont know if a religion 'teaches' anything. Its the people interpreting what has been written interplayed with culture and suiting the current agenda.

Im not going to argue the hate fat club analogy against an incredibly convoluted set of beliefs practised by a billion people of differing levels of faith of all socio-economic groups over 1,500 years

 

This is what I dont like. Saying its all about the interpretation and not the teaching. Such a poor defense.

 

Given there isn't an old testament law system that I know of to support... let's just pick a random topic from the old testament... gay marriage (technically it's just homosexuality in general from the bible).



The figures are very comparable. That's essentially taking a part of Leviticus, a book that says adulterers should be stoned to death, that wearing a cotton blend is punishable by death and that eating shellfish is also death by stoning and applying it to what lawmakers should be doing.

Religious people will accept things that seem outrageous to the non-religious, it's what they've been conditioned to do by their religion, it's what religions are, an opiate to the masses to keep them dull and controllable. Sharia law is just an example of using the stick to enforce subordination to the religion.

 

You're stretching so far as to strain credibility. A belief that same sex marriage is against religious beliefs is not akin to a belief that Sharia law should be the law of the land. They are not even in the same galaxy.

 

Have you read the bible? What does it 'teach' if you take it all at face value and apportion equal weight to every chapter? Leviticus is a great example

 

I disagree. The only differ in degree. Both are examples in contemporary society of attempts of laws being implemented based upon religious ideals.

 

Not even close. Sharia law is the legal framework that controls a persons public and private life. In the case of gay marriage, the opposite is occurring, laws are being made that are contrary to religious beliefs (and all the poll asked was exactly that; was it contrary to religious beliefs). The other poll of Muslims however states the complete opposite, that poll suggests a majority of Muslims want Sharia law as the law of the land.

If you had a poll of ''christian'' nations where a majority wanted the bible as the law of the land, you would have a point. You however do not.

 

I think we are talking at cross-purposes.

The Sharia poll is disturbing perhaps with a slight caveat that Sharia Law is usually based more around marriages rather than stonings. Regardless I am against any non secular legal frameworks. I was saying that with regards to defence of marriage acts. In the US, laws were attempted to be implemented based somewhat upon religious justifications. The fact that these laws were not implemented is a great win for secularism.

Defence of marriage is an interesting case where more hard-line Christians and Muslims would agree with each other.