Can no one stop this???

[thir]

http://www.newsweekinteractive.net/2....html?from=rss

[MMI]

How I wish we could.

However, we are dealing here with a paranoid nation stuck in mediaeval times with a bigoted judiciary and an unjust judicial system (I won't say corrupt ... oh, I just did), which seems to penalise victims rather than perpetrators. I'm not sure what we can do to help: I think if we try to intervene, they will tell us not to interfere with their internal affairs.

[Thorne]

How I wish we could.

However, we are dealing here with a paranoid nation stuck in mediaeval times with a bigoted judiciary and an unjust judicial system (I won't say corrupt ... oh, I just did), which seems to penalise victims rather than perpetrators. I'm not sure what we can do to help: I think if we try to intervene, they will tell us not to interfere with their internal affairs.

Actually, the system penalizes female victims rather than male perpetrators. In virtually any crime involving men and women, the women are automatically presumed guilty of something.

But let's face it: any religion/government which requires women to be covered from head to toe because a man might lose control if he sees some skin is just sick to start with. If the men have so little self-control, why not force them to wear steel chastity harnesses. Then it won't matter if they can't keep themselves under control.

Or here's a radical concept: PUNISH the men who lose control, until all of the men understand that they'd damned well better learn some self control!

Bah! All of these misogynists ought to be required to spend a year being treated just as they treat women. Let them see how it feels.

[MMI]

Men are also subject to stoning for crimes such as adultery.

But it does seem as though women get the blame and pay the penalty more often than men, and I cannot account for that: it takes two to tango, even in moslem countries!

[Thorne]

Men are also subject to stoning for crimes such as adultery.

Yes, but did you see the methods involved? Men are buried to their waists in the ground, women to their necks. If they can dig themselves out they are pardoned. Which do you think has the better chance of escaping?

But it does seem as though women get the blame and pay the penalty more often than men, and I cannot account for that: it takes two to tango, even in moslem countries!

Yes, but by Muslim thought, men can't help themselves from taking advantage of women. They aren't expected to control themselves, so the women have to pay for that lack of self control. Besides, the women are property, not people. They don't really matter.

[MMI]

I think it's pretty universal that people think men can't/won't control themselves. I remember the outrage here in UK some years back when a judge suggested that a girl who wore a short skirt and no bra was partly to blame for her assault

[Thorne]

I think it's pretty universal that people think men can't/won't control themselves. I remember the outrage here in UK some years back when a judge suggested that a girl who wore a short skirt and no bra was partly to blame for her assault

Yeah, similar things have happened here. I think it's criminal when a judge goes lenient on a rapist because a woman happened to dress provocatively. It's as bad as the judge who gave a convicted pedophile a suspended sentence because he was too short to go to prison.

[DuncanONeil]

Problem may be the Muslim understanding of rape as it plays out in conjunction with Islamic restrictions of the validity of a woman's testimony in court. In court a woman's testimony is worth half a much as that of a man. (Qur'an 2:282) This has further been restricted to cases involving, in the words of one Muslim legal manual, property, or transactions dealing with property, such as sales. In cases of sexual misbehavior four male witnesses are required, and they must have seen the act take place. (Qur'an 24:13) It is believed that 75% of women in prison in Pakistan are in fact there for the crime of being a victim of rape.

Actually, the system penalizes female victims rather than male perpetrators. In virtually any crime involving men and women, the women are automatically presumed guilty of something.

But let's face it: any religion/government which requires women to be covered from head to toe because a man might lose control if he sees some skin is just sick to start with. If the men have so little self-control, why not force them to wear steel chastity harnesses. Then it won't matter if they can't keep themselves under control.

Or here's a radical concept: PUNISH the men who lose control, until all of the men understand that they'd damned well better learn some self control!

Bah! All of these misogynists ought to be required to spend a year being treated just as they treat women. Let them see how it feels.

[DuncanONeil]

See message eight, it offers some explanation.

Men are also subject to stoning for crimes such as adultery.

But it does seem as though women get the blame and pay the penalty more often than men, and I cannot account for that: it takes two to tango, even in moslem countries!

[Thorne]

Problem may be the Muslim understanding of rape as it plays out in conjunction with Islamic restrictions of the validity of a woman's testimony in court. In court a woman's testimony is worth half a much as that of a man. (Qur'an 2:282) This has further been restricted to cases involving, in the words of one Muslim legal manual, property, or transactions dealing with property, such as sales. In cases of sexual misbehavior four male witnesses are required, and they must have seen the act take place. (Qur'an 24:13) It is believed that 75% of women in prison in Pakistan are in fact there for the crime of being a victim of rape.

And this is what happens when you let religion control civil law. Basing modern legal systems on 1400 year old (or 2000 year old, or 6000 year old) religious fantasies can only bring problems.

And this is the kind of thing the right wing religious nuts (c.f., Sarah Palin) want to bring to the US. Of course, they call it 'Christianity'.

[DuncanONeil]

Except that Christianity does not require the laws listed in the Bible be installed as the laws of the nation. In fact Christians require no law be that of the Bible, though there is the belief that the values and morals expressed by Christ should be closely held by the authors and arbiters of the laws that are created and ajudicated. That is not to say the laws should institute morality but that they should be protective. The most basic of laws, against theft and murder are rooted in morals and values. Morals and values transcend religion.

And this is what happens when you let religion control civil law. Basing modern legal systems on 1400 year old (or 2000 year old, or 6000 year old) religious fantasies can only bring problems.

And this is the kind of thing the right wing religious nuts (c.f., Sarah Palin) want to bring to the US. Of course, they call it 'Christianity'.

[Thorne]

The most basic of laws, against theft and murder are rooted in morals and values. Morals and values transcend religion.

Which is a very good reason for keeping religion, ANY religion, out of the legal process.

In fact Christians require no law be that of the Bible

A good thing, since Biblical law is capricious and archaic and downright scary! Slavery is legal, so is killing your enemies, and forget about women's rights!

though there is the belief that the values and morals expressed by Christ should be closely held by the authors and arbiters of the laws that are created and ajudicated.

And what of the "values and morals" of Muhammad, or Buddha, or any of literally hundreds of other revered demi-gods? Why should Christ be selected as the primary arbiter of "values and morals"?

[DuncanONeil]

Which is a very good reason for keeping religion, ANY religion, out of the legal process.

In the US the fight is to try to remove any inkling of the existence of christianity. But christians seek not inclusion in civil law of anyu of the requirements of the religion.

A good thing, since Biblical law is capricious and archaic and downright scary! Slavery is legal, so is killing your enemies, and forget about women's rights!

In the Bible the nature of the system to follow changes drastically between the two major sections. In that called the New Testament the nature of God and the mandates to the people is to be kind and helpful to all.
The other major religion in question with regard to laws also has a book divided in two sections. But a major difference is that the vengeful nature of the book actual can be seen to increase rather than ameliorate. So the choice is a benevolent system that does not seek to intrude, or one that essentially DEMANDS that its religious law must apply to all and that law is less than benevolent.

And what of the "values and morals" of Muhammad, or Buddha, or any of literally hundreds of other revered demi-gods? Why should Christ be selected as the primary arbiter of "values and morals"?

As I have said before, there are very few differences among the major religions of the world in their basic tenents. The language I use tends to be the one most familiar to me.

[Thorne]

In the US the fight is to try to remove any inkling of the existence of christianity. But christians seek not inclusion in civil law of anyu of the requirements of the religion.

This is rather ingenuous, don't you think? The fight is not to expunge Christianity, but to separate it from the government and education systems. While it's true that many Christians are moderate and tolerant, some of the more fundamentalist sects are desperately trying to establish some form of theocratic system. In Texas the school board is attempting to reinterpret history in a more "conservative" tone and attempting to force creationism into science classes, to teach "the controversy". Throughout the US these fundies are rambling on about the Christian values of the founding fathers, when in fact those founding fathers, while deists in most cases, where frequently anti-Christian and almost universally against any form of state sponsored religion. And there is no controversy over origins. The Bible is a fiction. Evolution is a proven fact, something which can be studied and cataloged, proven beyond reasonable doubt. (The mechanisms of evolution are still being debated, yes, but not the fact.)

But more in keeping with the topic of this thread, these same fundamentalists are forcing religious interpretations on so many aspects of our lives that it's impossible to get around them. They want, for example, to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, because that's how they view it, and that's how they claim their Bible views it. And because the idea of two men, or two women, having sexual relations is disgusting to them. Yet in truth, marriage is more of an economic issue than a sexual one. It is quite possible to have a secure, happy household without any sexual activity at all. The fundies can't see that, though. And their own Bible (Old Testament) actually does endorse polygamy, though only between a single man and many wives. I think the idea of a single woman wanting to marry more than one man would make their heads explode.

But they want to control all aspects of family life, from raising children to having sexual relations, all within their own warped framework of reality. And any who would violate their reality must be punished according to their idea of "justice".

There's a reason why they are beginning to be referred to as, "The American Taliban".

As I have said before, there are very few differences among the major religions of the world in their basic tenents. The language I use tends to be the one most familiar to me.

I have the same problem. I grew up in a Catholic household. I'm far more familiar with that culture than with, say, Buddhism or Islam. That also makes me more aware of the abuses which Catholics, and Christians in general, try to get away with.

[thir]

[QUOTE=DuncanONeil;880367]But christians seek not inclusion in civil law of anyu of the requirements of the religion.

There were some judges who insisted on ruling according to the bible.
They should be fired.

[leo9]

But christians seek not inclusion in civil law of anyu of the requirements of the religion.

Which Christians? Not these ones:
http://www.morallaw.org/
http://www.tldm.org/news7/judgeroymo...mmandments.htm

In the Bible the nature of the system to follow changes drastically between the two major sections. In that called the New Testament the nature of God and the mandates to the people is to be kind and helpful to all.
The other major religion in question with regard to laws also has a book divided in two sections. But a major difference is that the vengeful nature of the book actual can be seen to increase rather than ameliorate. So the choice is a benevolent system that does not seek to intrude, or one that essentially DEMANDS that its religious law must apply to all and that law is less than benevolent.

Which would be fine if it was the benevolent system that does not seek to intrude that people were trying to introduce to the law: but they invariably refer to the Old Testament, a document rather less liberal than the Quran (which does intersperse its bigotry with messages of peace and charity, unlike the OT.)

In any case, the whole point of the separation of church and state is to not have to choose which religion will dictate your laws: none of them should.

As I have said before, there are very few differences among the major religions of the world in their basic tenents.

Only to the extent that any code of behaviour for a viable society has to start with such basics as "Don't kill our sort of people," "Don't steal within your own community," and that most popular religious commandment, "RESPECT AUTHORITY." Once you get beyond the self-evident, they go off in all directions. Honour your mother, don't listen to women, be a warrior, turn the other cheek, all men are brothers, high caste is far above low caste, I could go on all day.

It's true that spirituality is much the same whatever religion people reach it by, but spirituality is to religion as good behaviour is to law: one is what people feel from within, which is human nature, the other is the system imposed on them, which is different everywhere.

[DuncanONeil]

I disagree with a lot of what you say here. Especially with respect to the founders. Save one thing, that being the issue of a state religion. The major problem is that opponents of religion seem to see the mere existence of a Christian symbol is somehow forcing people to accept Christianity as their religion. But the same people see no problem with displays of symbols of other religions. Usually citing tolerance as the justification for display of non-Christian symbols. I find that particular set of positions as hypocritical.

This is rather ingenuous, don't you think? The fight is not to expunge Christianity, but to separate it from the government and education systems. While it's true that many Christians are moderate and tolerant, some of the more fundamentalist sects are desperately trying to establish some form of theocratic system. In Texas the school board is attempting to reinterpret history in a more "conservative" tone and attempting to force creationism into science classes, to teach "the controversy". Throughout the US these fundies are rambling on about the Christian values of the founding fathers, when in fact those founding fathers, while deists in most cases, where frequently anti-Christian and almost universally against any form of state sponsored religion. And there is no controversy over origins. The Bible is a fiction. Evolution is a proven fact, something which can be studied and cataloged, proven beyond reasonable doubt. (The mechanisms of evolution are still being debated, yes, but not the fact.)

But more in keeping with the topic of this thread, these same fundamentalists are forcing religious interpretations on so many aspects of our lives that it's impossible to get around them. They want, for example, to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, because that's how they view it, and that's how they claim their Bible views it. And because the idea of two men, or two women, having sexual relations is disgusting to them. Yet in truth, marriage is more of an economic issue than a sexual one. It is quite possible to have a secure, happy household without any sexual activity at all. The fundies can't see that, though. And their own Bible (Old Testament) actually does endorse polygamy, though only between a single man and many wives. I think the idea of a single woman wanting to marry more than one man would make their heads explode.

But they want to control all aspects of family life, from raising children to having sexual relations, all within their own warped framework of reality. And any who would violate their reality must be punished according to their idea of "justice".

There's a reason why they are beginning to be referred to as, "The American Taliban".


I have the same problem. I grew up in a Catholic household. I'm far more familiar with that culture than with, say, Buddhism or Islam. That also makes me more aware of the abuses which Catholics, and Christians in general, try to get away with.

[DuncanONeil]

Evidence please!

[QUOTE=thir;880507]

But christians seek not inclusion in civil law of anyu of the requirements of the religion.

There were some judges who insisted on ruling according to the bible.
They should be fired.

[DuncanONeil]

Which Christians? Not these ones:
http://www.morallaw.org/
http://www.tldm.org/news7/judgeroymo...mmandments.htm

Which would be fine if it was the benevolent system that does not seek to intrude that people were trying to introduce to the law: but they invariably refer to the Old Testament, a document rather less liberal than the Quran (which does intersperse its bigotry with messages of peace and charity, unlike the OT.)

Sorry but I must disagree. The vast majority of Christian theology comes from the New Testament, rather than the Old. Still there is no expressed intent to replace all other religions by force or duress, as there is in the other in the discussion.

In any case, the whole point of the separation of church and state is to not have to choose which religion will dictate your laws: none of them should.
Only to the extent that any code of behaviour for a viable society has to start with such basics as "Don't kill our sort of people," "Don't steal within your own community," and that most popular religious commandment, "RESPECT AUTHORITY." Once you get beyond the self-evident, they go off in all directions. Honour your mother, don't listen to women, be a warrior, turn the other cheek, all men are brothers, high caste is far above low caste, I could go on all day.

I wholeheartedly agree that no nation needs to be ruled by a set of religious laws. However when I speak of the major tenents I have morals and values in mind. The Christian book does not make a distinction between our kind and another kind when it comes to murder. There are religions that do make the distinction as you say, do not murder us. Them other people fine go right ahead.

It's true that spirituality is much the same whatever religion people reach it by, but spirituality is to religion as good behaviour is to law: one is what people feel from within, which is human nature, the other is the system imposed on them, which is different everywhere.

[denuseri]

According to Lauren Frayer:

A Contributor to AOL News:

(July 9) -- An Iranian woman sentenced to death by stoning for adultery will escape that punishment, Iranian state media reported today, after an international campaign drew Hollywood stars and global leaders decrying what one U.S. senator called a "barbaric" punishment.

But it's unclear whether 43-year-old Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani will avoid the death penalty altogether, or be killed by another method Iranian executioners use, like hanging or beheading. She's already endured a flogging for having an "illicit relationship" outside marriage, even though Ashtiani was a widow at the time of the alleged affair.

Another court investigating her husband's 2005 slaying convicted Ashtiani of adultery in the period when he was alive as well, citing the "judge's knowledge" but little evidence. The mother of two has been in prison in the northwestern city of Tabriz since 2006.

Ashtiani's case drew worldwide attention after her lawyer, Mohammad Mostafaei, blogged about her case last month, writing that his client was "on the threshold of stoning," according to Amnesty International, which issued a statement calling on Iran to halt her execution and commute her death sentence.

Human Rights Watch also got involved, issuing a statement on Wednesday calling on Iran to "immediately put a stop to this execution."

"Death by stoning is always cruel and inhuman, and it is especially abhorrent in cases where judges rely on their own hunches instead of evidence to proclaim a defendant guilty," the organization's Nadya Khalife said in a statement.

A State Department spokesman said Thursday that the United States has "grave concerns" that Ashtiani's punishment doesn't fit her crime. And Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, blasted Iran's execution method as "appalling" and "barbaric," according to Fox News.

After a photo of the black-veiled Ashtiani appeared on the front page of The Times of London on Thursday, British Foreign Secretary William Hague spoke about her case at a news conference alongside his Turkish counterpart, Ahmet Davutoglu.

Stoning is a "medieval punishment which has no role in the modern world," Hague said in comments carried by several news agencies. "If the punishment is carried out, it will disgust and appall the watching world."

The Times quotes Kerry and Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, as expressing outrage over Ashtiani's sentence. Celebrities such as Robert Redford, Colin Firth and Emma Thompson have also signed a petition for her release, the paper reported.

Even Lindsay Lohan -- mired in her own legal troubles over a DUI conviction -- joined the cause, posting a Newsweek article about Ashtiani on her Twitter feed.

Ashtiani's 22-year-old son Sajad told the Guardian he was overwhelmed by international support for his mother's case and said the campaign for her release "is going very well."

"They gave me permission to talk to her and she was very thankful to the people of the world for supporting her. I'm very happy that so many have joined me in protesting this injustice," he said in comments published late Thursday. "It was the first time in years I heard any hope in my mother's voice."

Ashtiani's apparent reprieve came in a statement from Iran's embassy in London, citing "information from relevant judicial authorities in Iran" and saying that Ashtiani "will not be executed by stoning," state-run Press TV reported today. The statement notes that death by stoning isn't part of a draft Islamic Penal Code being deliberated in Iran's parliament, but it stopped short of saying the punishment is being phased out in Iran.

"It is notable that this kind of punishment has rarely been implemented in Iran," Press TV quoted the statement as saying. "Various means and remedies must be probed and exhausted [by the judiciary] to finally come up with such a punishment."

But the Guardian also reports that despite Ashtiani's last-minute reprieve, 12 other Iranian women and three men on are death row awaiting execution by stoning.

In Iran, male victims of execution by stoning are first buried up to their waists, then pelted with stones by a crowd of executioners. Women are normally buried up to their necks. The stones used are large enough to cause serious injury but not kill the person, and the victim often dies slowly and painfully.

At least 126 executions have been carried out in Iran this year, according to Amnesty International.

[leo9]

Sorry but I must disagree. The vast majority of Christian theology comes from the New Testament, rather than the Old.

Arguably true, but we weren't talking about theology, but about appeals to the Bible for mundane law. And people looking for rules generally refer to the OT, because Jesus's reported sayings are way too liberal-hippie for most Biblical literalists' taste. (Though of course there is a rich seam of dictatorial and misogynist pronouncements from Paul.)

If you really believe there is no current movement for Christian religious law, you're not following the news: http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...186#post881186

Still there is no expressed intent to replace all other religions by force or duress, as there is in the other in the discussion.

In the first place, you were the one who introduced that as a test of liberalism: the rest of us were discussing more everyday issues of law and social attitudes. In the second place, that's a consequence of history, not a sign that one text is more humane or enlightened than the other. The Israelites didn't bother about converting other peoples, by force or otherwise, because they simply massacred them. And the early Christians had to convert people by being nice (indeed, it's been argued that they censored a great deal of militant stuff from the early Bible to make themselves look safe and acceptable,) because they were too few and weak for a Jihad. Once they were in a position to replace other religions by force, history records in detail all the bloody ways they did it, but that came too late to be part of the Book.

And if you think the OT is more liberal than the Quran, note that it doesn't even require witnesses before a woman is put to death for adultery...

I wholeheartedly agree that no nation needs to be ruled by a set of religious laws. However when I speak of the major tenents I have morals and values in mind. The Christian book does not make a distinction between our kind and another kind when it comes to murder.

As I have noted, much of the OT is concerned with lists of the various tribes which the Israelites are proud to record that they slaughtered to the last man. (And, by implication, raped to the last woman, but that's another issue.) There is no record of their god or his priests showing anything but approval for these massacres, nor for other piecemeal killings of assorted enemies. A reasonable reading is that when their laws said "Thou Shalt Not Kill" they understood it to mean "...Your Own People."

To the best of my knowledge, the NT says nothing for or against the subject.

[denuseri]

"Love thy nieghbor as thy self." Basically covers em all.

[Thorne]

A reasonable reading is that when their laws said "Thou Shalt Not Kill" they understood it to mean "...Your Own People."

From what I've read, the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" would have been more properly translated as, "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder." A subtle difference, perhaps, but when you consider outsiders to be non-people it makes a difference. Killing in war is not considered murder. Killing a heretic is not considered murder. Killing a slave is not considered murder. Convenient, that.

[MMI]

Are we saying that Moslem adulteresses are non-people?

[Thorne]

Are we saying that Moslem adulteresses are non-people?

I'm not saying that. But from what I can gather, Muslim women in general are not considered to be people. They are property, to be used and abused, and made examples of. Any culture which would condemn a young rape victim for the horrid crime of being raped is, in my opinion, a grotesque, sick parody of culture or religion.

[DuncanONeil]

Arguably true, but we weren't talking about theology, but about appeals to the Bible for mundane law. And people looking for rules generally refer to the OT, because Jesus's reported sayings are way too liberal-hippie for most Biblical literalists' taste. (Though of course there is a rich seam of dictatorial and misogynist pronouncements from Paul.)

I really have not seen much of this assignment of modern society to the laws set out in the Bible. Admittedly I have not read Leviticus. But the "laws" therein can not be much different or worse than the Code of Hammurabi. I have read some of those.

If you really believe there is no current movement for Christian religious law, you're not following the news: http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...186#post881186

News! I am not sure this qualifies as news. While some in the blogosphere do a creditable job in presenting news articles this one is quite weak. Much of what is said seems to be a leap of conclusion, or faith if one chooses. The author does not provide much in the way of support for their conclusions. There are precious few quotes from Ms Angle, I remember none. Suffice to say I do not qualify this as news.

In the first place, ... Once they were in a position to replace other religions by force, history records in detail all the bloody ways they did it, but that came too late to be part of the Book.

Humans are a cantankerous bunch. Just which events do you have in mind when speaking of "replace other religions by force, history records in detail all the bloody ways they did it"?

And if you think the OT is more liberal than the Quran, note that it doesn't even require witnesses before a woman is put to death for adultery...

I believe the comment was based on the fact that the Bible becomes more tolerant and the Qu'ran less tolerant as time progressed through the books. That is the Bible begins 'violent' and lessens through its pages. The Qu'ran begins 'violent' and becomes more so. I seem to remember the break in the Qu'ran is after Medina. Whatever happened to the Prophet in that time soured him quite a bit and it is carried into his writings.

As I have noted, much of the OT is concerned with lists of the various tribes which the Israelites are proud to record that they slaughtered to the last man. (And, by implication, raped to the last woman, but that's another issue.) There is no record of their god or his priests showing anything but approval for these massacres, nor for other piecemeal killings of assorted enemies. A reasonable reading is that when their laws said "Thou Shalt Not Kill" they understood it to mean "...Your Own People."

In and among my readings and viewings I picked up a tidbit, which I do not remember the source. But the point is that the word "kill" is a mistranslation. The actual prohibition was for that of murder. "In Exodus 20:13 we have the Fifth Commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. Take a good look at that word “Kill”. In the Hebrew Manuscript the word is “Ratsach” which means: Murder; ie - to Murder, a Murderer; to dash to pieces. Thus, Exodus 20:13 Actually reads “Thou Shalt Not MURDER”. Next, look to Exodus 21:12 “He that smiteth a man so that he die, shall be surely put to death”. Here, the Hebrew word translated ‘Smiteth’ is “Nakah”, which means: Murder, To Slay, to make slaughter. Thus, Exodus 21:12 Actually reads “He that Murders a man so that he die, shall be surely put to death”. " (http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...cgi?read=31043 & http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/docs/6_37.pdf) They both say essentially the same thing one is a bit easier to read.

[denuseri]

Just as many see any culture which would condemn a young woman to a life of atheistic sexually open exploitative conditoning to be a whore or a feminist just as grotesque, and sick a parody of culture or religion.

[Thorne]

Just as many see any culture which would condemn a young woman to a life of atheistic sexually open exploitative conditoning to be a whore or a feminist just as grotesque, and sick a parody of culture or religion.

I'm not sure where that came from, but it certainly doesn't express any of my own views. I want to see a culture in which everyone, including women, have the freedom to choose for themselves what kind of role they wish to have. Atheism has nothing to do with it. Someone can be just as modest as a nun and still be an atheist. Just as someone could be as sexually open as a porn artist and still be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Mormon.

[denuseri]

Just saying there is an opposing view to the "anti-muslim" one is all.

[MMI]

I think we are also in danger of branding all Moslems as misogynistic tyrants who belong to a period that ended several centuries ago.

Islam requires women to behave modestly and to dress appropriately. Local traditions in various places within the Moslem world impose different standards upon the female population. Many of the "stricter" traditions belong to communities that have barely left the mediaeval times those customs date from. Those communities believe their customs and traditions actually protect the womenfolk and are for the common good.

It it the rarer, but more vocal fanatics who adopt such traditions and take them out of their original contexts in order to impose them on the rest of us who are so despicable.