How Bad Off Is New Zealand - Do We Have Any *Real* Islamic Awareness?

Educated "Skeptic" Elite of New Zealand Defend Islam And Argue: 

"No DIRECT CORRELATION between Islam and Wife Beating"

I have something utterly BREATH TAKING to show you all. Something, BREATH TAUNTINGLY PAINFUL to show my fellow Kiwis, Aussies and other Westerners. 

A while back I joined a group called "NZ Skeptics" on FB. I recently made a post on the page under my name: Mark Bennett.

Here is how this group describe themselves:

OPEN GROUP: "The New Zealand Skeptics form a network of New Zealanders including magicians, teachers, scientists, health professionals and many others from all walks of life. Members have a variety of economic beliefs, political leanings and views on religion, but are all interested in examining what objective scientific support there is for claims of such things as psychic abilities, alternative health practices, creationism and other areas where science, pseudo-science and shonky science interact.

To become a member of NZ Skeptics, go to http://www.skeptics.org.nz/ (annual subs are currently $40 for waged, $20 for unwaged $60 for a household, and $50 for overseas).

I would like to submit and reproduce the following conversation as anecdotal evidence, showing how those who consider themselves intellectually elite (which may reflect other organisations such as these, who may influence politics here in the land of the long white cloud) think uncritically, irrationally and dangerously about Islam. To catalog all the fallacies made here would be a lengthy process, so rather I will let you, look at the fallacies employed by those who wish to equate Islam with all other religions.

Unfortunately it turns out that if this is the Skeptically inclined educated elite in NZ , we are (politically) as doomed to failure as every other European democracy.

Please note at the beginning of the conversation the guy implying i'm an Islamophobe has removed his comments. And further note I clicked: "leave group" half way through this discussion, as I noticed a whole load of cheer leading, and misrepresentation, but however no critical thinking.

All the other claims made by the Liberal Left of NZ will surely leave you dazzled and baffled, after viewing the irrationality of this group, and because they are viewed as the representatives of "Skeptics" in NZ. I am honestly contemplating thinking about relinquishing the term skeptic and/or atheist. While I recommend going to the page itself to view the conversation, I have reproduced it here (the first part may be confusing since various people have removed comments after my exposure of them).



Mark BennettRE: Domestic violence in NZ/West vs in Islam. For those of you don't know, the Quran mandates wife beating even if a man fears rebellion from his wife. Beating the wife is stage three, after he punishes her in two other ways (Surah 4:34). Every mainstream translation and interpretation of the Quran sanction this view (including those from Saudi and Egypt). And scholarly commentary has remained the same on these verses since the beginning of Tafseer (Quranic exegesis by Scholars). MemriTV documents how this is implemented in Saudi, Egypt, etc TO THIS DAY. Don't give me this ballshit that there is no direct link between issues Womens Rights and Islam. I thought this was a skeptics page, not a "favor Islam above every other religion" and "equate every religion" with an equal amount of danger, irrationality, ignorance and hostility PC zone.
Like · Share · Yesterday at 1:31pm

3 people like this.
Mark Bennett ROFL @ "Islamophobic". I'm sorry are you a kiwi? Using that word? Islam has no special status or privilege over any other religion, all religions can be and will be ridiculed and mocked. We don't have terms like "Judaismophobic" or "Christophobe" used in media or the vernacular. In fact if anything Islam deserves more criticism for perpetuating State sanctioned woman beating violence. As for "so what". It's clear that you didn't read the post. Islam legislates wife beating. That's "WHAT".
Yesterday at 1:40pm · LikeVic Willyams https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32UGD0fV45gEduard Khil - Official TrolololoThe original Eduard Khil Trolololol - "I'm very glad because I'm finally coming home." RIP Edward Khil, 03/06/2012
Yesterday at 1:41pm · LikeAxl Evans I am skeptical as to whether he has a point.
Yesterday at 1:50pm · Like · 3Mark Bennett Okay so stating facts makes me "Islamophobic" I'm glad you understand this. As for the post, the point was simple there is a DIRECT CORRELATION between Islam and Womans Rights Abuses perpetuated til this day because of the religion itself, not merely people violating the principles of the religion. I'm skeptical of whether people actually read before they comment.
Yesterday at 1:51pm · LikeAxl Evans I don't like the notion that you can't discuss the shot falls of one religion without discussing the others, but the post did seem to come out of no where and is strange in the context of the page.
Did I miss another post/conversation?
Yesterday at 1:55pm · Like · 2Daniel Neville Harping on about the absurdities of Islam, Christianity and other religions (without reference to scientific claims being presented) in a sceptics group is like having all the breakfasts, lunches, dinners and desserts put through a blender first.
Yesterday at 1:57pm · Like · 6Axl Evans ^ Sounds efficient
Yesterday at 1:58pm · Like · 3Mark Bennett "who doesn't already know that". I believe you could just scroll down to where various kiwis were equating sanctioned domestic violence in Muslim lands vs domestic violence in New Zealand. Another person attempted to argue "Correlation does not imply causation". So it appears multiple people on this page are not aware that New Zealand does not sanction domestic violence, while Saudi, Egypt, etc certainly do because of Islam.
Yesterday at 1:59pm · Like · 1Josh Collins FFS not this again. Nobody (AFAICT) was making the claim that Islam is a paragon of feminism, stop creating strawmen. The problem was people's attitudes towards Muslims. Islamophobia *is* a word we've ended up, it would probably be better as anti-islam or something but it's what it is so suck it up.
In your post you have found that the Qur'an mandates wife beating (well done, have a cookie). Where it might become islamophobic is if you then decided to conclude that all Muslim men beat their wives since, well... you name me one religion with a sacred text in which *everything* in the sacred text is followed to the letter by absolutely every believer.
Yesterday at 2:01pm · Edited · Like · 13Eric Hurley There are people who are bigoted towards Muslims for certain. The claim of Islamophobia is often used to quash dissent though. Seems the best course of action is to analyze specific claims and judge them on their merits. Fortunately one thing religions excel at is making absolute claims.
Yesterday at 2:01pm · Like · 2Mark Bennett The only straw man is from the half illiterate one who can't read the post. The comparison was that Saudi SANCTIONS wife beating because of Islam, not that every Muslim beats his wife. Reading comprehension please.
Yesterday at 2:01pm · Like · 3Daniel Neville @Mark: So? By analogy, ice cream is delicious!
Yesterday at 2:02pm · Like · 1Josh Collins "Don't give me this ballshit that there is no direct link between issues Womens Rights and Islam." Help help! I'm being oppressed!
Yesterday at 2:03pm · Edited · Like · 2Vic Willyams "Every mainstream translation and interpretation of the Quran sanction this view (including those from Saudi and Egypt). And scholarly commentary has remained the same on these verses since the beginning of Tafseer (Quranic exegesis by Scholars). MemriTV documents how this is implemented in Saudi, Egypt, etc TO THIS DAY."
[Citation fucking needed], as a quick glance at the (rather well sourced) wikipedia article on the passage you cite indicates that the translations and interpretation of this passage might generously be characterised as "controversial".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34An-Nisa, 34 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org
Transliteration: Arrijalu qawwamoonaAAala annisa-i bima faddalaAllahu baAAdahum ...See More
Yesterday at 2:15pm · Like · 2Josh Collins Axl: "Did I miss another post/conversation?"
Yeah there were three or so posts like a week ago in which this came up in.
4 of the posts are
https://www.facebook.com/groups/111540397760/permalink/10151828591147761/?stream_ref=2https://www.facebook.com/groups/111540397760/permalink/10151830658047761/?stream_ref=2https://www.facebook.com/groups/111540397760/permalink/10151831743407761/?stream_ref=2https://www.facebook.com/groups/111540397760/permalink/10151832710057761/?stream_ref=2There was another mea culpa one by Troy but I can't find it.
New Zealand SkepticsNot entirely on topic but thought it might be related enough to be worth a share.
Yesterday at 3:07pm · Edited · LikeJames Broughton Mate the Quran isnt the only holy book that breeds and promotes violence! A few bad lines from me Best bets racing Mag puts me in hot water with the old lady!
Yesterday at 2:16pm · LikeVic Willyams Alternatively, is your only source MemriTV, the Israeli-run NFP that "Critics charge... aims to portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, through the production and dissemination of inaccurate translations and by selectively translating views of extremists while deemphasizing or ignoring mainstream opinions."
Yesterday at 2:17pm · Like · 3Mark Bennett I wasn't aware that yusuf al-qaradawi, sheik ibn baz, albani etc, were "extremists", and seeing that I have footage of their claims that exceeds 30 minutes, I don't possibly see how anything is taken out of context to potray a negative light.
Yesterday at 2:19pm · LikeMark Bennett As for the link you just gave , thank you for providing the foremost authorative manuel on Islamic jurisprudence: Al-Nawawi explicated in Reliance of the Traveller,
“if keeping from her is ineffectual, it is permissible for him to hit her if he believes that hitting her will bring her back to the right path, though if he does not think so, it is not permissible. His hitting her may not be in a way that injures her, and is his last recourse to save the family.”
Yesterday at 2:20pm · LikeMark Bennett Further more the link you gave does not provide a translation from Saudi or Egypt where the word is translated other than "strike/beat".
Yesterday at 2:21pm · LikeMark Bennett James, there is no comparison from other religious texts to the Quran. The Quran is part of the constitution of several countries that is used to justify and enforce hideous punishments, barbaric laws (that you find in the time of biblical Israel), including, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi and (formerly, and maybe presently): Egypt.
Yesterday at 2:23pm · LikeJames Broughton Mark Bennett My Best bets Mag has managed to land me a few kicks from the old girl... Thats my bible bro!
Yesterday at 2:24pm · LikeMark Bennett I wonder if it was "Islamophobic" to point that out? haaha. The educated elite in this skeptics page might need some enlightenment.
Yesterday at 2:24pm · LikeMark Bennett Here's a quote from the page you linked us to from another non-extremist, and grand scholar of the ulema himself, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an influential cleric in Sunni Islam and head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, has commented,
"If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion, and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored, and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive parts. In no case should he resort to using a stick or any other instrument that might cause pain and injury."[28]
Yesterday at 2:28pm · Like · 2Daniel Neville I gather Saudi Arabia is the Kansas of the Muslim world. (I presume the country is the butt of Muslim jokes about corn analogues and banjo analogues.)
Yesterday at 2:32pm · Like · 3Mark Bennett It was also the butt of the joke of Osama Bin Ladin who viewed Saudi as violating aspects of the Sharia by allowing Americans on the soil to do business with them, and of course that opinion is shared by all those who agree with him, you know: all 120 million Muslims world wide. So yes it's the butt of jokes because it simply isn't applying Islam STRICTLY enough. Such an Astute observation chap.
Yesterday at 2:36pm · LikeVic Willyams Seems you're shifting the goal posts. Where did "Every mainstream translation and interpretation of the Quran sanction this view" go? Nobody would argue that there aren't people even within the mainstream of Islam who are misogynist, but your original argument was that all translations and interpretations of the Quran sanction beating your wife, which is clearly a false statement.
Yesterday at 2:39pm · Like · 3Daniel Neville Osama bin Laden’s arse is so tight only dogs hear him fart. Wasn’t he working for the Americans, being trained at WHISC and all in order to do nasty things to people for the benefit of the Master Race of Shoppers?
Yesterday at 2:41pm · Like · 1John Dennis Seems we have a few Islamophilliacs on this thread today. "Nothing to see here, it's individuals behaving badly and has nothing to do with the instructions they are required to follow in their Islamic "how to live" manual they're clutching to their beards." Just a coincidence they all have beards of course, these individuals..
Yesterday at 2:47pm · Edited · LikeVic Willyams ^ Ad hominems, stay classy John DennisYesterday at 2:54pm · Like · 4Axl Evans ^ Quit being logical falaciphobic
Yesterday at 2:55pm · Like · 2Daniel Neville Though discussions about scriptural efficacy, fluffy bunnies, essentialism, the relationship between moderates and fundamentalists can be worthwhile, I find it discouraging to feel like someone with a swarm of bees in their bonnet might run with a forced interpretation of something I said, proclaiming “See? I’m totally vindicated. For great justice!”
Yesterday at 2:56pm · Like · 2Storm Geldenhuis I don't think that anyone is saying that Islam doesn't have some pretty awful stuff. The problem is when you take issues with Islam and apply it to ALL Muslims.
It also becomes problematic when you decide to treat all Muslim women as victims. That completely strips them of their agency.
Yesterday at 2:56pm · Like · 7John Dennis Who applied it, go?
Yesterday at 2:57pm · LikeKerry Harpur @Mark So all the 120 Million Muslims worldwide agree with Osama Bin Laden? I may only know a handful of Muslims but in conversations I have had with them has shown me that they saw Osama for what he was a violent zealot.
Yesterday at 2:57pm · Like · 1Vic Willyams Incidentally I'd like to point out that according to Mark's "logic" in the OP all mainstream supporters of Christianity support forgiveness for paedophile priests. Hell, while we're here all mainstream supporters of Atheism support Pol Pot. All mainstream supporters of communism support Pol Pot, too! As do all mainstream supporters of Capitalism! That guy sure is beloved by all, yes sirree.
It's fun what you can come up with when you throw logic to the wind by taking the statements of a few prominent folks and applying them as a wild generalisation. He's definitely not islamophobic though, he just has his skeptic hat on tighter than the rest of us folks.
Yesterday at 3:00pm · Like · 5Nicholas Smeaton Given the amount of Sunni on Shia terrorism (Most victims of Islamic inspired terrorism are Muslims) I find claims that all Muslims think alike laughable.
Yesterday at 3:02pm · Like · 5Daniel Neville The BBC doco, The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear is probably accurate in that Muslims almost universally loath the likes of Osama bin Laden and regard people like him as a sort of a Rik Mayall in People’s Poet mode: “First, we’ll blow up this and that. And the People will rise up, and there will be a revolution!”
Yesterday at 3:03pm · Like · 3Daryl Trask Religious weirdos lmao
Yesterday at 3:03pm · Edited · Like · 1John Dennis I think there's a certain amount of white guilt that drives some of it (justified to some extent), the whole colonization thing, a certain amount of knee-jerk anti-Americanism (also justified to some extent), an embarrassing level naivety, and an ability to put together long winded answers loaded with opinion but devoid of honesty - that's what makes progressive intellectuals so fucking stupid
Yesterday at 3:16pm · Edited · Like · 1Daniel Neville Well, you’ve certainly rendered yourself *ahem* unassailable with that one, John.
Yesterday at 3:17pm · Like · 3Grant Jacobs This is a beat-up, eh?
John Dennis - re "Islamophilliacs" - can't see anyone promoting or advocating Islam here. Even those suggesting it’s not an intelligent idea to "bash" Muslim _individuals_ have pointed out Islam has it’s issues.
Also: you wrote, "the instructions they are required to follow".
'Sanctioning', 'permissible' or 'mandates' (in the sense of 'allows') ≠ 'requires'.
As a sort-of analogy, until recently New Zealand allowed smacking [some would say beating] of children by their parents. That didn’t _require_ that NZ parents smack [beat] their children, it just allowed them to not be punished if they choose to.
Word in the media today is that a creationist MP — guess who! — is now advocating to bring back the biff, starting by admitting he smacks his kids. (I wonder if anyone has the gumption to have him charged with it?)
Yesterday at 3:23pm · Like · 6John Dennis Look, you can't tell me that millions and millions of muslims are not inspired by both the good and bad in their sacred instruction manuals. Nor that it is wrong headed to attack Islam, and its followers who support and strengthen its influence over innocent people for the violence perpetrated in its name, because that's what your trying to do it seems. Islamaphobia? Give me a fucking break.
Yesterday at 3:24pm · Edited · LikeJenny Whyte Be great to see you great feminist men out rattling a tin for Women's Refuge on appeal day, to help out all the women beaten to a pulp daily in NZ by their overwhelmingly non-Muslim partners.
Yesterday at 3:25pm via mobile · Like · 7Vic Willyams Yes John Dennis, you've made it abundantly clear that there's no point telling you anything because you'd rather throw ad hominems from the sidelines than engage in intellectual discussion. Are you sure you want to be signed up to this group?
Yesterday at 3:25pm · Like · 3John Dennis LOL.
Yesterday at 3:28pm · LikeJessika Stringer Without reading everyone else's comments, I don't get what your question is Mark Bennett. Is there a diff in violence toward women within this religion between diff cultures you're wanting to discuss? Woman's mental health stats/suicide rates? Please elucidate.
Yesterday at 3:31pm via mobile · Like · 1Jessika Stringer I see you've stated above a direct correlationMark Bennett but you've provided no other evidence other than holy text. That's not evidence.
Yesterday at 3:33pm via mobile · Like · 1Vic Willyams Mark Bennett has left the thread, his trolling at this point proven quite successful.
Yesterday at 3:33pm · Like · 2John Dennis Islam is an ideology that stinks, much like a range of other religious ideologies we can identify. Its followers help to perpetuate its myths, and the violence and evil done in its name, and that makes even the otherwise decent ones fair game. It's not racism - you idiots - it's, er... politicial?
Yesterday at 3:34pm · Like · 1Josh Collins John: I think you are the first person to bring up race (unless I missed something).
Yesterday at 3:37pm · Like · 3Jessika Stringer Shall we talk about extremist anti theists like John Dennis perhaps? How about we shine the spot light on you? Or is that too uncomfortable?
Yesterday at 3:39pm via mobile · LikeJenny Whyte It's rude to call people idiots. What is an extremist anti theist?
Yesterday at 3:41pm via mobile · LikeJessika Stringer Lol was just trying to make a comparison when someone's ideology doesn't permit them to discuss things rationally or logically. When things are very black and white and no grey, the intolerant attitude. You see where I'm going?
Yesterday at 3:43pm via mobile · Like · 5Daniel Neville I think that according to John here, despite the diverse forums, all conversations must be about Islam sucks until Islam goes away or stops being sucky, if we are not to be taken for wishy-washy liberals or Islamist collaborators
Yesterday at 3:43pm · Like · 9John Dennis I suspect that sensitivity to racism motivates a lot of the western liberal angst surrounding any criticism of Islam. That's just how I see it at this point. I get that too, but I think it's misplaced in the case of any religion.
Yesterday at 3:44pm · Edited · Like · 1Daniel Neville Sure, Islam stinks. But ice cream is delicious!
Yesterday at 3:45pm · Like · 1John Dennis I'm rude sometimes, others have been rude to me too but I don't give a fuck - try it.
Yesterday at 3:46pm · LikeJessika Stringer Look I like Sam Harris too, but stop! Just stop. His philosophy hasn't been ratified as good by other philosophers
Yesterday at 3:46pm via mobile · LikeJosh Collins Fuck Sam Harris, srsly.
Yesterday at 3:46pm · Like · 1Josh Collins I'm not interested in acquiring other people's linguistic taboos. I don't think I swear particularly much (for a Kiwi) and it really does quite aptly summarise exactly what I think of him, in particular due to his 'philosophy'.
Yesterday at 3:50pm · Edited · Like · 1John Dennis If you say so Daniel... backs away slowly...
Yesterday at 3:49pm · LikeDaniel Neville John, did my all-meals-blended analogy go over your head? Why do you hate ice cream?
Yesterday at 3:51pm · Like · 2Jenny Whyte Isn't sensitivity to racism a good thing?
Yesterday at 3:54pm via mobile · Like · 1John Dennis Anyway, from what I can glean from things the Saudis are mandating domestic violence, that right? I haven't checked myself but it sounds plausible despite it being 2014 in the civilised world (that we are lucky enough to be living in). Does anyone want to dispute the authority of the mullahs in Saudi Arabia, or their influence on the laws in Saudi Arabia?
Yesterday at 3:54pm · Edited · LikeDaryl Trask Like the corporations will have in NZ post TPPA lol
Yesterday at 3:55pm · LikeJohn Dennis Absolutely. But Islam isn't a race, yes/no?
Yesterday at 3:55pm · LikeEmmanuel King Turner Skeptic: The belief does not necessarily indicate the action?
I know people that practise symbolic cannibalism of a zombie in the hope they become vampire lords. Should I not trust them as undertakers? Oh, slightly mistaken, that's christians.
Yesterday at 3:56pm · Like · 1John Dennis yes Danny, you're too clever by half
Yesterday at 3:56pm · LikeJessika Stringer Ok but you've gone from arguing about all of Islam to just Saudi Arabia.......
Yesterday at 3:57pm · Like · 2Grant Jacobs John Dennis - Try a word other than 'mandate' - that has more than one meaning.
Yesterday at 3:57pm · Like · 1John Dennis Yep, its called changing gears. I didn't even read the post that started this and thought it would be polite to at least see what all the fuss was about. I'm being serious, i didn't read it. I saw the meaningless word Islamaphobe and decided to engage.
Yesterday at 4:01pm · Edited · LikeMark Bennett Vic Willyams I never argued "all translations" I argued "all mainstream translations and intepretations of the Quran". Do you know what constitutes mainstream in Islam? Ahlus Sunnah Wa Jammah which is reprsented by two prestigous universities , Al Azhar and the University of Medina. When you have to resort to straw man it means you can't address what was originally said.
22 hours ago · LikeMark Bennett To the woman who argued we blamed "ALL MUSLIMS". You might want to try actually reading what was said. Honestly, people will applaud for anything, and yet this is meant to be a page of skeptics who are able to comprehend argumentation? wtf
22 hours ago · LikeNicholas Drake It's silly to contrast "NZ/West" with "Islam", because Islam is a religion and "NZ/West" is not - it's a group of countries. Islamic theocracies are horrendous, but so are Christian theocracies and (non-nominally) Christian-based autocracies, which include as standard practice horrific public torture for insignificant crimes, brutal oppression of the poor, totalitarian censorship, and constant warfare over trivialities. The difference between Christian states and Islamic states is that Christian states went out of existence in recent centuries, by accidents of history. Buddhist states are horrific too - pre-invasion Tibet was ruled by a brutal slave-owning clerical elite who punished disobedience with torture and amputations, and who kidnapped children to keep as sex slaves. If you want to argue that Islamic states are worse than devoutly (not nominallly), officially Christian, Buddhist, or other religious states, you need to provide some real evidence.
Pointing to verses in the Quran is stupid, because anyone with a passing familiarity with religion knows that Judaism and Christianity have equally horrendous instructions in their scriptures. It really takes a high level of ignorance about religion to think that a religion is defined by its scriptures - a fundamental feature of religious psychology is the universal tendency to state adherence to the scriptures while not adhering to them. Reading any few verses of a scripture at random are often sufficient to show this, but if you're struggling with this idea, consider this instruction from Jesus: "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven" (Matt 23:9) and then look up how Catholics address priests. You could also read 2 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14-15 and then check if women are allowed to speak in church. Or read Luke 12:33 and 14:33 and then check if Christians tend to own anything.
There is a large group of sciences called "social science" which includes anthropology, psychology, sociology, and history. Those of us who favour the scientific method in answering empirical questions use the social sciences to answer questions like "Are Muslim men more likely to beat their wives than non-Muslim men?" and "Are men in Islamic states more likely to beat their wives than men in states with another (non-nominally) state religion?" In answering questions like this scientists don't just measure the rates of male-against-female domestic violence in Islamic states and states with another (non-nominally) official religion, because they control for something called "variables". Answering a current empirical question by looking in an old book is not going to work.
If you have any interest in how Islamic states might become more humane and have lower rates of such things as domestic violence, there is a massive amount of solid research to draw on. Start with Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature: The Decline of Violence in History and its Causes" and Kwame Anthony Appiah's "The Honor Code: How Moral Revolutions Happen".
22 hours ago · Like · 9John Dennis "It really takes a high level of ignorance about religion to think that a religion is defined by its scriptures" - Facepalm.
22 hours ago · LikeMark Bennett Islam is a complete system of life including a political ideology and a theocracy. Thus there is no inadequate comparison. We are comparing Secular Law with Religious Law and Tyranny.
22 hours ago · LikeMark Bennett The claim that Islam should not be judged by it's scriptures and it's traditions because Christianity and Judaism are "violent" is not only Tu_quoque, but it's a false analogy, as you have clearly not appealed to any mainstream Judeo/Christian tradition that globally uses these passages to mandate domestic violence.
22 hours ago · LikeMark Bennett No one has ever argued: "are Muslim men more likely to beat their wives".
22 hours ago · LikeMark Bennett You just appealed to ancient history to compare apples and oranges. 57 Muslim nations. How many Christian nations are theocracies that legislate domestic abuse as retaliation for "fearing rebellion".
22 hours ago · LikeMark Bennett No critical thinking on this thread at all. I'm not going to even finish, the fallacies on here are innumerable
22 hours ago · LikeJessika Stringer John Dennis considering this is a group for skeptics, instead of face palming a fellow member you might want to consider a more valid rebuttal.
22 hours ago · LikePukeko Da Malo The conversation (I've read most of it) is repeating itself again and again. I think Nicholas got the point: the behaviour of any person is determined by many things, including his religious beliefs, often in a non linear way.
Hence social sciences developed a (quite) rigorous method to study the correlation between variables as religious beliefs and the tendency to commit crimes. It is not straight forward to identify the causal variables, as a long list of examples may testify. Nor a variable has a fixed result in every context (Torquemada and Mother Teresa were both fervent catholics).
So, please, Mark and John, be rigorous and make reference to scientific evidences (ergo data!) of the statement you're supporting, preferably peer reviewed. That's plain "skeptic methodology", anything else.
22 hours ago via mobile · Like · 3Jessika Stringer Mark I don't think you have actually read and seriously thought about what Nicholas was saying above. Stop reread think awhile, then respond.
22 hours ago · LikeDaniel Neville Fortunately, Christianists tend to predetonate before they can really throw their weight around, perhaps as a result of the PVC wars in the late 15th century, so all the recent Christian politicians and preachers calling for the execution of all homosexuals tend to make complete fools of themselves.
The very late repeal of the Marital Rape Exception and the somewhat late reinstating of independent legal economy for women is an example of Christian theocratic influences. In some US states in which marital rape is merely less legal than it was 40 years ago, deadly force or the threat of such is a requirement for the legal recognition of rape. (There are still a few traditionalist fuddy duddies who regard the rape of a woman by a man strictly a property offence against another man.)
Islam is not uniquely retarded. Give it few more Internet kittens and hopefully some bubblegum variants of Islam will eviscerate the fuddy duddy variants.
21 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2Jessika Stringer And dissing us on your personal page as being uneducated shows a fatal flaw in your thinking too btw mark...... Of course, everyone else has made mistakes and nobody else has valid points to make except you right?!
22 hours ago · LikeJosh Collins Hah!
22 hours ago · LikePukeko Da Malo A scientific literature does exist:
Maybe we can start from Douki, Saida, et al. "Violence against women in Arab and Islamic countries." Archives of Women’s Mental Health
Or one of the 141 citing articles.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00737-003-0170-xWhich concludes <>
Violence against women in Arab and Islamic countries - Springerlink.springer.com
¶In Arab and Islamic countries, domestic violence is not yet considered a major ...See More
22 hours ago via mobile · Like · 3Nicholas Drake Mark, could you provide your source for your claim that there are 57 Muslim nations (I can only count six) and that these states legislate domestic abuse? (I'm assuming that the odd sentence "57 Muslim nations." is connected to the sentence following, and refers to Islamic states.)
If Islam is a complete system of life including a theocracy, what do you call the religion of the people who call themselves Muslim but don't believe in theocracy - Turkish, Malaysian, and Indonesian Muslims for example? If we don't call that religion "Islam", isn't that unnecessarily confusing, as everyone apart from you (so far) calls it that?
I didn't make any connection between Judaism or Christianity and domestic abuse - if you look at my comment again you'll see that I was demonstrating that adherents of religions don't typically follow their scriptures, although they insist that they do. I don't know why you think that not owning possessions, calling priests "Father", and women not speaking in church have something to do with domestic abuse, but I'm sure you can see that they don't if you think about it a little.
I didn't claim that Islam shouldn't be judged by its scriptures and traditions. I claimed that current levels of domestic violence among adherents of a particular religion can't be ascertained by checking what their scriptures say on the subject. If you really think science should be disregarded in favour of reference to scriptures knock yourself out - you can't reasonably be expected to be taken seriously though. If you're not convinced and think science doesn't work try a little experiment out yourself - read the gospels (that doesn't take long) and then read a book on Norwegian society (Norway is a Lutheran state [Lutheranism is a Christian denomination]), and see if Norwegians spend their time preparing for the second coming of Jesus, or carrying out Luther's instructions on removing Jews from society and enslaving them as manual labourers. I'm fairly confident that you'll find that Norwegians don't do those things, even though their scriptures and foundational teachings tell them to. Science can explain that.
If you are not arguing that men who follow Islam are more likely than men who don't to beat their wives, what the hell are you worrying about? If your original point was just to show that the Quran has terrible sexist verses in it, I think you were wasting your time - we all knew that already.
21 hours ago · Edited · Like · 9John Dennis Indeed, Jessika! Now, your dissing of Mark for perhaps not reading and thinking about the thread properly seems somewhat hypocritical in light of your attitude to others supposed dismissals. oh and thanks, but I understand that this is a skeptics page, it's written at the top of the thread.
21 hours ago · LikeJosh Collins Nicholas: I suspect he's getting it as the number of member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation which has 57 member countries. Don't know that it really follows they're Islamic countries though.https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Organisation_of_Islamic...Organisation of Islamic Cooperation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC; Arabic: منظمة التعاون الإسلامي‎; F...See More
21 hours ago · Like · 1John Dennis "It really takes a high level of ignorance about religion to think that a religion is defined by its scriptures" followed by "I didn't claim that Islam shouldn't be judged by its scriptures and traditions." You can see how we ignoramuses could become confused though, right?
21 hours ago · LikeNicholas Drake Look up "judge" and "define" in the dictionary, John. You'll find that they have different meanings. Then look up "scripture" and "tradition". You'll find they have different meanings too.
21 hours ago · LikeJessika Stringer No John, I accused him of not reading one particular post which was evident by his response, I see Nicholas felt the same way. Marks a big boy and doesn't need you to fend for him surely. Glad you understand this is a skeptics page, you won't mind providing a proper rebuttal then, saying facepalm isn't what I'd call an intellectual response. If you think he's wrong, say so and why. What is your reasoning etc...l
21 hours ago · Like · 1John Dennis Good luck communicating with earth bro.
21 hours ago · LikeJohn Dennis Jessika, it seems to me that there are bigger things to worry about than my lack of meeting your somewhat exacting standards for how I choose to comment about something on facebook. It's facebook! Also, it's okay to swear if we want to (I can't believe I am saying that in an adult forum). My comments are reasonably straight forward, in line with my limited intellect.
21 hours ago · Edited · LikeDaniel Neville John, I think you’re being overly precious while being strangely oblivious to your especially uncharitable characterisation of others, when you set yourself up to be so… unassailable:
———
“I think there's a certain amount of white guilt that drives some of it (justified to some extent), the whole colonization thing, a certain amount of knee-jerk anti-Americanism (also justified to some extent), an embarrassing level naivety, and an ability to put together long winded answers loaded with opinion but devoid of honesty - that's what makes progressive intellectuals so fucking stupid ”
———
In a similar manner of pop psychoanalysis, should we have you recline on a couch and tell us about your mother?
21 hours ago · Like · 2Nicholas Drake A string of silly or pointless comments in a serious thread is an annoyance, John. There is a strong tradition in this group of making rational arguments, and it does help things a lot. Any real jokes are always welcome of course.
21 hours ago · Like · 3Jessika Stringer So in other words you don't have a rebuttal to make.
21 hours ago · LikeJohn Dennis My jokes aren't real? That cuts me deep... You're not agreeing with my comments and that's okay, but it's somewhat patronising to call them pointless isn't it? You made the comments, I highlighted them and rightly or wrongly see them as being contradictory. I also found your explanation to be disingenuous and I expressed that. That's it. Don't get me wrong, i'm very interested in these topics.
21 hours ago · LikeJohn Dennis Jessika: I've forgotten now, what am I rebutting?
21 hours ago · LikeJohn Dennis What does overly precious even mean? I've never really understood that term "overly precious." It seems to me to be a window into the attitude and opinion of the person who's saying it rather than the person being accused, right?
21 hours ago · LikeNicholas Drake Sorry if it's patronising - if there's a rational point a comment which is a quote followed by *Facepalm* I don't know what it is. It seems to be a way of saying "What you said was stupid" which is pointless even when it's true. The rational point of the comment "Good luck communicating with earth bro." also escapes me. I know those kinds of comments are common on Facebook, but this group does tend to have a higher standard which we value highly. For many of us it's a refuge of rationality.
The tone of my own comments this afternoon has been unnecessarily rude, for which I apologize. That tone has been embedded in rational argument however, not a replacement for it.
21 hours ago · Like · 2John Dennis The use of the word facepalm is fairly common these days, it expresses exasperation (at least that's my understanding). When I perceive a comment to be disingenuous, as yours was, exasperation is my go-to expression! "Good luck communicating with earth bro" was probably unfair, but it was a ham-fisted attempt to say that "I think you could have been clearer if that's actually what you meant." I engage with christian and Islamic fundies, you aren't being rude.
21 hours ago · Edited · LikeDaniel Neville John, one who is being “[overly] precious” is one who acts as if their impeccable character and intellect is grievously maligned with the slightest dissent or chortling. The behaviour is closely related to Baby with a Bazooka syndrome.
21 hours ago · Like · 2John Dennis Anyway, what were we discussing again?
21 hours ago · LikeDaniel Neville Hehe. Sometimes I get a condescending “*sigh*” from people who don’t feel like explaining their position.
21 hours ago · LikeJohn Dennis I get people unfriending me, you're not trying hard enough.
20 hours ago · LikeDaniel Neville Tracing the comments, John, the thing that Jessikachallened you to refute was Nicholas Drake’s claim that scriptures does not define a religion (let alone behaviour of individuals, if I understand it correctly). It’s what the facepalm was about.
20 hours ago · LikeJohn Dennis Right, thanks. Well, it seems to me that without the scriptures you're probably going to struggle to find a way to justify a movement as even being a religion, certainly for the mono theistic ones, right? What else distinguishes them that would allow us to dismiss the defining characteristics of a religions teachings: the clothes they wear? Perhaps the places of worship? Of course you may not agree that many religious people are guided by the scriptures being preached to them by the mullahs and clergy in their lives?
20 hours ago · Edited · LikeJosh Collins How about: what they believe?
20 hours ago · Like · 2Nicholas Drake I said that I know writing *Facepalm* is common - it's just that it's pointless if you're trying to communicate anything other than an insult.
My comment wasn't disingenuous. My knowledge of religions is fairly good - I was raised by Christian missionary parents in Singapore in a multi-religious society, had many visits to Malaysia, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka, lived in religious communities as an adult for 12 years (while an atheist), studied religion on my own for many years (primarily Indian religions and Christianity), and minored in religious studies during my undergrad philosophy degree, in which my grades for religious studies were 11 A+s and an A-. My A+ papers included three on Islam, with a focus on Islam and society in the twentieth century. although my Master's thesis is on ethics, it covers a substantial amount of research on religious thinking on practical questions. I agree with every serious scholar of religion on the planet: religions are not defined by their scriptures. It doesn't take a great deal of erudition to know that though; just see if there are any differences between the scriptures of say, St Mathews In The City, the Jehova's Witnesses, the Roman Catholic Church, the Westboro Baptist Church, and the Lutheran Church of Norway, and then see if their members believe and do the same things. They don't. Or check if Conservative, Reformed, Orthodox, and Secular Jews have the same scriptures (they do), and then see if they believe and do the same things (they don't). Any religion as vast and old as Islam (or Christianity, or Buddhism, or Judaism) isn't defined by *anything* straightforward; they're way too diverse for that (whereas something like Raelism or Aum Shinrikyo can be small and localized enough for beliefs and actions to have relatively simple causal links to particular teachings or scriptures). There are a few things that can be said of Islam as a whole: that it's fundamental tenets are ridiculous for example, and that any state that bases its laws on the tenets of Islam will be a terrible place to live. Any ascriptions more substantive than that are likely to be false. There is plenty that can be said about particular sects and traditions within Islam however, and plenty that can be said about Islamic states and states with Muslim majorities. I an certain that the social sciences are the best way to know about religions.
Religion is one of those subjects (like philosophy and political science) something that everyone believes they know everything about that they need to, but it really is worth reading on if you want to know about it. On Islam I recommend "A New Introduction to Islam (2nd edition)" by Daniel Brown. If you want to know about Islamism and Islamic fundamentalism, Ruthven's "Fundamentalism" and Karen Brown's "The Battle for God" are good introductions. On the sociology of religion Stark & Bainbridge's "The Future of Religion" is required reading (and should be read by anyone with a general interest in religion).
20 hours ago · Edited · Like · 4John Dennis Josh, if they believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then how do you think they got that into their heads? The resurrection of Christ is the primary event that defines Christianity from what they keep telling me. Do you think it came to them in a dream? Take this away and you no longer have christianity it seems.
20 hours ago · Edited · LikeDaniel Neville My own claim concerning religion, BTW, is that religion is defined by whatever formal mechanism is used to propagate the religion, so that transient self-indulgent musing and interpretations by rakish individuals are excluded. (For bubblegum Christians, the Bible wholly defines their religion. For Catholics, very little of the Bible does.)
That’s not to say that the actions of, say, bubblegum Christians are determined by their religion, of course. Their religion, defined this way, is helpful in highlighting the conspicuous impotence of bubblegumers to condemn on religious grounds evils easily justified by scriptures they idly hope no one takes too seriously.
20 hours ago · LikeJosh Collins John: What a lot of people have been trying, obviously in vain, to get you to realise is that what people believe may be quite distinct from what appears in any holy book. You asked what would allow us to dismiss the defining charcteristics of a religious teaching in the absence of scripture. To me it's obvious that it would be what the followers of the religion believe, in fact I think it's possibly even more important than the contents of any book they happen to consider sacred.
20 hours ago · Like · 5Bennet McComish John, it's obvious that religious people's beliefs are heavily influenced by their scriptures, and I don't think anyone here is claiming otherwise. The problem is that the same scriptures influence different people in radically different ways, so you can't just use the scriptures as a proxy for the beliefs, which is what you seem to be trying to do.
20 hours ago · Like · 5Nicholas Drake Not all religions have scriptures, John. Definitions of "religion" are hotly contested among scholars, but I've never encountered a definition that included having scriptures as a necessary condition. I would agree that for those religions which do have scriptures, the scriptures have an influence - that hasn't been in dispute. The question is whether the influence is direct enough for a religion to be defined by its scriptures; that is, whether we can know what, say, Judaism is by reading the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible). If you believe that, you believe that culture, tradition, history, and exogenous forces have no effects on religious belief or behaviour, which is absurd. The other question at issue is whether or not we can determine what the behaviour of the adherents of a religion is by examining the content of their scriptures. I've been trying hard to be polite about this, but the idea really is stupid. Can we tell what Christians in New Zealand think and do now by reading the Bible? If so, can we tell what Christians in 12th century Spain thought and did by reading the Bible? If so, the Bible is magic, because Christians in New Zealand now don't believe or do the same things as Christians in Spain in the 12th century. There must be some factors in the thoughts and behaviour of religionists other than their scriptures.
20 hours ago · Edited · Like · 4John Dennis I recommend: Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Infidel, a grass roots expose on being a female in the Islamic religion today; Anything by Ibn Warraq, in particular: Why I'm not a Muslim, and any number of other books that match my own opinion...
20 hours ago · LikeDaniel Neville The issue of “what the followers believe” might be rather tricky in the case of the followers believing whatever suits them at the moment while expecting others, including non-members to be bound by the book the believers follow.
20 hours ago · LikeJohn Dennis I know that not all religions have scriptures, but all have a narrative, right? They do not teach the same things, and those teachings may take many forms. However, the mono theistic religions - it seems to me - do teach their scriptures, and we're talking about Islam as far as I can tell. I assume that i can lump scriptures in with all other forms of teaching in each religion, be they oral or written, and that without these it is difficult to define one from the other.
20 hours ago · Edited · LikeNicholas Drake I've read "Infidel", and "Why I am Not a Muslim". I liked them both.
20 hours ago · Like · 1John Dennis Or maybe you don't believe that scriptures are actually communicated and taught to the religious?
20 hours ago · LikeJosh Collins Or maybe we don't think people believe everything they are taught.
20 hours ago · LikeNicholas Drake They all "teach their scriptures" but they don't teach the same things about their scriptures! Why is this so hard to understand? We are talking about Islam, and there's no doubt that scriptural literalism is way more prevalent in Islam than in Judaism or Christianity at the moment, but if you want to argue that that is something inherent to Islam and not to other religions you need some argument to back you up. You can't appeal to how things are in the world now, because that is begging the question against the possibility (which all serious scholars of religion regard as indisputable) that religious belief and practice at any particular time are to a great extent a product of factors other than their scriptures, and that they change over time.
20 hours ago · Like · 3Daniel Neville People very, very often believe what is convenient.
20 hours ago · LikeJohn Dennis Bennet, if I asked a group of religious people to shoot you in the back of the head because their god wanted it to happen, he'd told me himself, and they'd be rewarded mightily afterwards, "and just one of them believed me" that would be a problem of my making, right? It wouldn't matter if two thousand others didn't follow my instructions, I would be culpable for the violence that person metted out to you. What i'm saying is that the teachings in both the koran and the hadith, coupled with the mullahs etc all unique to the Islamic movement, do define the Islamic religion, and do inspire its adherents.
20 hours ago · Edited · LikeJohn Dennis Absolutely. The murderer for following my instruction, and me for teaching it. People are influenced to act by what they hear from those in authority. And what do they hear from those in authority? Go to the scriptures and find out; at least that's where i thought they were getting their information from.
19 hours ago · Edited · LikeJosh Collins Sorry I deleted my post because I thought it might be off topic. What you are missing in your analogy is that what the single person did isn't reflective of what the entire group believes. It's one lone nutbar and someone egging him on.
19 hours ago · Edited · LikeNicholas Drake Is that at issue though, John? I thought the question was whether religions are defined by their scriptures, and whether the behaviour of religionists has a direct scriptural cause. I think "Bennet" has blocked me, so I may be missing something.
I'll repeat a comment from an earlier thread (having gone over all this so thoroughly is why I've been irritated by the conversation):
The problem with all these statements about Islam is that Islam simply doesn't exist as a coherent, homogeneous social structure or set of beliefs. Almost no religions do (certainly none that are large and centuries old). The idea that anything like a 1400-year old religion with 1.5+ billion adherents in almost every country in the world can be characterized in one sentence or another is absurd. Philosophers call this "essentialism" - the idea that a phenomenon has some "essence" that defines it. The idea is to sociology somewhat as "souls" are to theory of mind. The idea that a religion can be defined by its scriptures is absurd, though popular with religious fundamentalists of course. The behaviour of religious Jews has little to do with the Tanakh, and the behaviour of Christians has little to do with the New Testament. If you think otherwise, look at the instruction of Jesus's he spoke on most, the importance of his followers selling all their possessions and giving the money to the poor, and then find some Christians who did that. Or try to find something in the Buddhist scriptures that justified the pre-Chinese Tibetan religious leaders keeping slaves and punishing them with amputation, or the Tibetan and Zen practice of monks kidnapping children and keeping them as sex slaves. There's obviously some relationship between religions and their scriptures, but they have far less effect on religionists than non-scriptural factors in almost all cases. Major religions can only be defined in terms of what Wittgenstein called "family resemblances"; they have a diverse but determinate number of features which not every instantiation will share, just as there are a number of features that help define the word "games" without there necessarily being any one thing that NFL football, chess, poker, and ring-a-ring-rosie all have in common.
4 January at 18:23 · Edited · Like · 6
19 hours ago · Like · 2John Dennis Well, I disagree that it's one lone nutbar. Further, that doesn't excuse the ideology from culpability for that one lone nutbars behaviour in my opinion. I'm from the school of thought that believes that religious fundies are not necerssarily mentally retarded psycopaths. Their acting like it notwithstanding.
19 hours ago · LikeNicholas Drake I can understand why unfamiliarity with intra-religious diversity, with the liberal traditions within religions, and with the dramatic changes in particular religions over history, would lead one to think that there is a direct causal link between scripture and behaviour in Islam; there are actually many Muslims who take the Quran fairly literally, so you have the scripture on one hand and the belief on the other. So I don't think it's an idiotic position - it's just that it doesn't hold up once you try to go from correlation to causation because the variables (history, economics, culture, politics, technology) completely stuff it up.
19 hours ago · LikeJohn Dennis Okay, Bennet said: "John, it's obvious that religious people's beliefs are heavily influenced by their scriptures, and I don't think anyone here is claiming otherwise. The problem is that the same scriptures influence different people in radically different ways, so you can't just use the scriptures as a proxy for the beliefs, which is what you seem to be trying to do."
19 hours ago · Like · 1Nicholas Drake Oh sorry, there he is . . . my mistake.
19 hours ago · LikeLisa Taylor I would ask directly to places like these groups:
http://www.wellingtonrapecrisis.org.nz/http://www.womensrefuge.org.nz/Wellington Rape Crisis Inc.www.wellingtonrapecrisis.org.nzWellington Rape Crisis is a Support Centre for survivors of rape and sexual abuse, their families, friends and whanau.
19 hours ago · LikeLisa Taylor There's also the Child Bride part of it,http://www.equalitynow.org/node/868Child brides are more likely to have domestic violence against them. (from their adult husband, as well as his family).
This has been seen to happen in NZ as well, although it's illegal to marry anyone under the age of 16 (that's with parental consent).
Child Marriage Factsheet | Equality Nowwww.equalitynow.orgChild marriage, defined as marriage before age 18, is a violation of human right...See More
19 hours ago · LikeNicholas Drake I see you've moved from defining Islam by scripture to including all religious teaching in the definition. That's a big improvement. If you want to defend the original post you need to show that that religious teaching advocates domestic abuse. I wouldn't be surprised if much of it did in a couple of countries, but I'd be very surprised if it did in say, Indonesia, China, Malaysia, or New Zealand. We'll be happy to see your evidence though!
19 hours ago · Like · 4John Dennis Nicholas, I hear you. My own take on the Koran (which I painstakingly read some four years ago, but with reference to the annotated skeptics version) is that it's more an instruction manual than the bible, and that given the right circumstances is perfectly capable of inspiring violence on the innocent in a way that the bible doesn't. To me it is more direct, and that must worry you?
19 hours ago · LikeJessika Stringer The Koran requires the Hadith for interpretation as far as I understand it
19 hours ago · LikeJosh Collins I hear that there are different sets of Hadith depending on which denomination you follow.
19 hours ago · Like · 1Daniel Neville Don’t fundamentalists who perform evils in the name of their religion and with scriptural support have a better claim to defining their religion than the inaction of the moderates?
19 hours ago · Edited · LikeKieran Pegler well that'd certainly help your preconceived narrative.
19 hours ago via mobile · LikeJohn Dennis You said that it was ignorant to define religion by its scripture in the context of Islam, so I was focused on that comment and rightly so. I agree with you that it wouldn't be surprising to find that religious teaching inspired by scripture not only advocated but increased the availability of domestic violence to some of its less thoughtful adherents, that's clearly been my position throughout.
19 hours ago · LikeJessika Stringer What's your response to the study posted above?
19 hours ago · LikeJohn Dennis is there anything in it that I can colour in?
19 hours ago · LikeDaniel Neville Isn’t the Quran protected against “interpretation” on the charge of idolatry? (IIRC, Prophet Mohammed commented on the conceptual degeneration of Christianity.)
19 hours ago · LikeThomas Robertson The authorial intent of the Quran is certainly much clearer than most holy books especially the Bible.
19 hours ago · LikeJohn Dennis Daniel - i think they do in some respects, though an equally valid argument could be made that the moderates make up the majority across the billion or more adherents thus having a stronger claim to it. I disagree with them because the defining characteristic of Islam for me is violence and subjugation; i'm not too supportive of all the others either but for different reasons in the main.
19 hours ago · Edited · LikeNicholas Drake I've had trouble getting my comments to post; in reply to your antepenultimate comment:
That's a different question, and a good one I think. No, I don't think it's more prescriptive than the Bible - except perhaps that the Bible is so much longer. The Bible contains long non-prescriptive books (such as Psalms, or Revelation) but I'm pretty sure (without having measured though) that the prescriptive content of the Bible is equal to the Quran. The Bible has plenty of clear commands to murder, enslave, commit genocide, and treat women like shit. If anyone wants to take it seriously it's all there.
I have wondered whether the content of scriptures makes a real difference where fundamentalists are involved, but it actually doesn't very much. I mean, Christian fundamentalists regard abortion as an incredibly important issue, but there's nothing against it in the Bible and quite a bit in favour of it. Where fundamentalists do take their scriptures literally (really, not nominally literally) they are exactly the same regardless of religion. Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and Hindu fundamentalists are all heavily sexist, anti-gay, anti-science, anti-rational, anti-pleasure, pro-capital punishment, pro-war, etc. etc. The differences (once you control for contingent variables) are fairly insignificant. Likewise the liberal elements in different religions, which claim to take their scriptures as seriously as the fundamentalists do, agree on just about everything.
19 hours ago · Edited · Like · 3Nicholas Drake I agree that it's a really strange phenomenon - I think as it's something I've learned over quite some time I may not appreciate how weird it is.
19 hours ago · LikeDaniel Neville Thomas: That’s because the Quran isn’t a collection of plagiarised works annotated with collaborative spiteful fiction between major factions of the same religion and subject to major reforms and a failed attempt at streamlining and the Quran hasn’t had its claim to supremacy inverted with the clumsy addition of a UFO cult.
19 hours ago · LikeBennet McComish I don't think violence and subjugation are defining characteristics of Islam for most Muslims, and their view on it is far more relevant in practice than yours.
19 hours ago via mobile · Like · 2Nicholas Drake I think the reason that interpretation of the Bible is more complex is because most Christian and Jewish societies (for reasons that have nothing to do with them being Christian and Jewish) have undergone a far more thorough process of humanization than most predominantly Muslim ones have (the "mosts" are important there, as, for example, Muslim Malaysia is way more liberal than Christian Uganda). No one thought interpreting the Bible was tricky before the societies Christians live in became fairly humane and liberal.
18 hours ago · LikeJohn Dennis I find rape to be abhorrent. In fact girls and boys, women (and men in some cases) being raped then killed is quite possibly the most evil crime that can be perpetrated on someone to my way of feeling. That's my response.
18 hours ago · LikeNicholas Drake In my view theology consists of nothing more than the reinterpretation of Christianity to make it fit recent secular developments. I'd like to do some real research on that some time, but for now I'm fairly confident it's true.
18 hours ago · Like · 2John Dennis yes, Islam has not had its reformation.
18 hours ago · LikeDaniel Neville The bubblegum bibles are great for shoehorning modern science into biblical cosmology, anyway.
18 hours ago · LikeStorm Geldenhuis John, I haven't been paying close attention to the whole thread so I'm not actually sure what your reply is in response to but rape is hardly confined to Muslim countries.
18 hours ago · LikeJohn Dennis Nicholas, I missed this "They all "teach their scriptures" but they don't teach the same things about their scriptures! Why is this so hard to understand?" - this is a point that I wanted to make also.
18 hours ago · Like · 1Nicholas Drake Not that (if you'll forgive the pedantry) Islam can have a Reformation - it has long existed in the post-reformation form, not having any centralized authority. Christianity was just as savage after the Reformation as before, in fact more so - the death and destruction of the intra-Christian wars of the 17th century were horrific. I'm now convinced that all the factors that changed ethically-relevant Christian beliefs were exogenous.
18 hours ago · Like · 2John Dennis Storm - I think I was being asked by Jessika to comment on one of the articles that Lisa posted (Rape crisis); it had nothing to do with this other discussion. I'm out!
18 hours ago · Edited · LikeStorm Geldenhuis John, got it. That makes more sense.
18 hours ago · LikeJohn Dennis That was my understanding also, a harder nut to crack as a result.
18 hours ago · LikeJessika Stringer I wasn't referring to Lisa's links but the study that was posted oh so many posts ago by pukeko de malo
18 hours ago · LikeDaniel Neville I’m particularly annoyed by Christians who attribute the pleasant status of liberal democracies to Christianity, which raises the question “When did Christians first become Christian?” (400 years ago, perhaps?) and how hard does one have to practice Christianity just right before realising that the custom of wiping out members of other Christian denominations might be sinful?
18 hours ago · Edited · Like · 5John Dennis Christ, the delays between posts and replies when there are multiple parties can really stuff things up. I've just browsed back and i missed a lot of stuff you all posted, not good. I bid you all a goodnight, I'm knackered.
18 hours ago via mobile · Edited · LikeNicholas Drake It is really hard when you're on one side of a FB argument and several people are on the other. I think you did quite well, John.
18 hours ago · Like · 1Daniel Neville It helps to check that the URL doesn’t include the keyword for limiting the total number of comments displayed (so that the display of future comments is suppressed) and to quickly check for out-of-sequence comments.
18 hours ago · LikeJenny Whyte A helluva lot of people who follow a religion probably can't read. They have to take a priest's word for what scriptures say.
17 hours ago via mobile · Like · 3Pukeko Da Malo Scientific literature, if you like the sort:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00737-003-0170-xConclusions in full length:
"Conclusion: ending violence against women in the name of GodDomestic violence and its acceptance cannot be attributed solely to religion but also to patriarchal ideologies. Often religion is used to rationalize and give authority to more human motives. “It is also true, however, that in many so-called “Islamic” countries, women are not treated according to their God-given rights. But this is not the fault of Islamic ideology but rather the misapplication or sometimes the outright denial of the ideology in these societies. Much of the practices and laws in “Islamic” countries have deviated from or are totally unrelated to the origins of Islam. Instead, many of these practices are based on cultural or traditional customs which have been injected into these societies” wrote a famous Islamic scholar, Badawi (1971).It is impossible for anyone who is truly informed to justify any mistreatment of woman by any decree of rule embodied in Islamic Law, nor could anyone dare to cancel, reduce, or distort the clear-cut legal rights of women given in Islamic Law. All these cultural factors may be changed by information, sensitization and education. Mental health providers can play a critical role in preventing violence against women in addition to treating its consequences by beginning to address the cultural as well as psychological conditions that create and support this kind of violence in our societies."
Douki, S., Nacef, F., Belhadj, A., Bouasker, A., & Ghachem, R. (2003). Violence against women in Arab and Islamic countries. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 6(3), 165-171.
Violence against women in Arab and Islamic countries - Springerlink.springer.com
�In Arab and Islamic countries, domestic violence is not yet considered a major concern despite its increasing frequency and serious consequences.
9 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1Pukeko Da Malo Suggested reading:
Idriss, M. M., & Abbas, T. (Eds.). (2010). Honour, violence, women and Islam. Taylor & Francis.
9 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1Nicholas Drake I'm not sure that's quite true, Jenny; there are few countries with literacy rates below 75%. Even in highly religious countries with low literacy rates such as Bangladesh or Ivory Coast half the people can read, so clergy are vastly out numbered by other literate people. In many highly repressive, religious societies the literacy rates are high though: 87% in Saudia Arabia, for example. Apart from outliers like Afghanistan, the countries with very low literacy rates aren't dominated by scripturally-based religions (PNG for example). Literacy and publishing were an extremely important factor in religious liberalization in the early modern era, but don't play that role now (though without them there would no doubt be a great deal of moral backsliding).
8 hours ago · Like · 3John Dennis Islamic scholars - an oxymoron?
8 hours ago via mobile · LikeJosh Collins Hur hur hur.
8 hours ago · LikeNicholas Drake Religionists qua religionists have little to contribute to the intellectual world, particularly now when there are secular alternatives. But in the pre-modern world Islamic philosophers were way more brilliant and active than their Christian or Jewish counterparts. They also did the world the favour of preserving ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, which they took very seriously, and which allowed Europe to rediscover them in the Renaissance (often in translations from the Arabic).
8 hours ago · Like · 5Pukeko Da Malo The paper is not by an Islamic scholar, although they cite one. Please read it, if you want to criticise it.
8 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1John Dennis Maybe, but first I need proof the papers haven't been cherry picked. I await your confirmation.
7 hours ago · LikeJenny Whyte How is "literate" defined though? Does it mean able to read and write to the level required plus having the time, access and confidence to study religious texts? I think most of what a lot of averagely religious people, or people religious by convention rather than conviction would probably not be to bothered with reading up on all the rules, I think they would probably take it on faith that the priest or rabbi or mullah etc know what they are talking about.
7 hours ago via mobile · Like · 3Jenny Whyte I can't believe people are trying to correlate violence against women with religious faith. As if religion is what causes it when in fact it's just a bunch of guys bashing the crap out of women. As they have done since the dawn of time as a means of maintaining power. If you think Islam is a bunch of bollocks, fine. If you think violence against women sucks, good. Do something about it here in you own backyard.
7 hours ago via mobile · Like · 4Pukeko Da Malo Fair point, just pick your ones fromhttp://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar... and let we speak about those. I simply selected the first two that were not on a local case (yet, nothing against local case studies!).
islam violence women - Google Scholarscholar.google.co.nz
7 hours ago via mobile · LikePukeko Da Malo (P.s. My modest opinion is fairly similar to Jenny's: remove all religions from the planet, you will still have violence against women. Religion is just an excuse.)
7 hours ago via mobile · Like · 3Jenny Whyte I want to see the data on violent atheists!
7 hours ago via mobile · LikeJohn Dennis It seems to me that we live in a society that explicitly opposes domestic violence. That should have an effect on the rates here compared to elsewhere where tacit approval of domestic violence is prevalent. Remove all religions from the planet and you'd be left with other more ethical approaches to living your life. Or have I got the positive effects civilization wrong?
7 hours ago · Edited · LikeJosh Collins Oh! That must be why North Korea is such a great place to live.
7 hours ago · Like · 3Pukeko Da Malo I can't discuss a "should have".
7 hours ago via mobile · LikeJohn Dennis That would be interesting - to compare the prevalence of domestic violence by atheists compared to theists. Anyone want a $5 bet that Jenny will be disappointed by the findings?
7 hours ago · LikeJohn Dennis Josh, the world wouldn't become some huge North Korea if religion didn't exist. That's something I hear from theists all the time.
7 hours ago · LikePukeko Da Malo Jenny: that data seems much more difficult to retrieve. I'll let you know if I find any survey. Nonetheless a direct comparison would be difficult: atheists have usually a different social status (citation needed, but by memory we heretics antichrists are usually richer, more educated and, speaking about me, incredibly hot) than theists. Violence seems to be correlated with this other variables. Moreover, I don't think that atheism is used as a post hoc rationalisation for machismo and women oppression.
7 hours ago via mobile · Edited · Like · 1Jenny Whyte It is fascinating that a group of educated men will sit round working themselves into an intellectual lather to prove that men in another country are violent towards women. Have you read the paper today? Have you counted then numbers of women and children killed by their male partners annually here? It seems that regardless of whether laws are are explicitly grounded in religion or not, men just want to maintain power over women and will use violence to do that. Anywhere on the planet. If you are being beaten and raped by your uncle does it matter whether he is a Muslim or a scientist?
7 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1Josh Collins But atheists can doubtless use other post hoc rationalisations for machismo and women oppresion, for example evolutionary psychology.
7 hours ago · Like · 3John Dennis Do they, and are they encouraged towards this by evolutionary biologists and other related scientists?
7 hours ago · LikePukeko Da Malo Josh, sure, that point of mine is not clear: due to the fact that seemingly few people used atheism as their excuse, it is difficult to gather data about atheism and violence.
7 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1Josh Collins What I was talking about wasn't about encouragement, it's about having an excuse to do what you were going to do anyway.
7 hours ago · LikeJenny Whyte No they do it in secret, and rely on the fear they instilled to maintain their victims silence. And guys like you who pretend that educated white men are not violent towards women help to maintain that silence.
7 hours ago via mobile · LikeJosh Collins Pukeko: I would be surprised if you found *anybody* claiming atheism as their excuse. I think it's a different question. The question is the behaviour exhibited by a particular group, not the justification the group uses to engage in that behaviour.
7 hours ago · Like · 2John Dennis Jenny, it's about the influence of religion on the minds and behaviors of its adherents, in this case the prevalence of domestic violence. You yourself are getting lathered up about something that I at least am not focusing on.
7 hours ago · LikeJenny Whyte Is domestic violence more prevalent in Muslim countries? And really why are you so terribly concerned about the role if religion in domestic violence? Violence against women predates religion.
7 hours ago via mobile · Edited · LikePukeko Da Malo Jenny, with all the dubitative care and some exceptions, it seem that violence in economically underdeveloped countries where education is less accessible is more prevalent. Muslim countries are within these.http://www.who.int/.../violence/9789241564625/en/index.htmlWHO | Global and regional estimates of violence against womenwww.who.intAuthors:WHO, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, South African Medical Research Council
7 hours ago via mobile · Like · 2Pukeko Da Malo This is NOT saying that white rich educated men are not violent. And being more in contact with these kind it is where my focus and action is. Yet, we can not simply ignore the data because we don't like it. Education IS important, women economical independence IS important, and so on...
7 hours ago via mobile · Like · 4John Dennis Wouldn't a better question be: is it wrong to see religious approval of any form of domestic violence as a regressive step that creates more harm than good, and should we obfuscate by leaping to isolated studies that confirm our own prejudices?
7 hours ago · LikeJenny Whyte So why focus on the countries with lots of Muslims? What do you think is causing New Zealand's high rates of family violence?
7 hours ago via mobile · LikeStorm Geldenhuishttps://womensrefuge.org.nz/.../Domestic.../Statistics.htmHere are some stats for domestic violence in NZ. About 1 in 3 women in NZ will experience psychological or physical abuse from their partners.
Women's Refuge New Zealand | Statisticswomensrefuge.org.nz
One in three women experience psychological or physical abuse from their partner...See More
7 hours ago · Like · 3Storm Geldenhuis And, IIRC, about 1 in 4 NZ women will experience sexual assault or rape.
7 hours ago · LikeJenny Whyte Can't blame that on Islam really can you?
7 hours ago via mobile · LikeJosh Collins Storm: Apparently that 1 in 4 number is the subject of some debate but everyone agrees it's more than 1 in 10, which is still pretty high.
6 hours ago · LikeJenny Whyte Ha ha! What is an acceptable amount of family violence? And what is an acceptable motivation?
6 hours ago via mobile · Edited · LikeJosh Collins John: 'is it wrong to see religious approval of any form of domestic violence as a regressive step that creates more harm than good, and should we obfuscate by leaping to isolated studies that confirm our own prejudices?'
Other than containing weasel words? It also assumes a major unstated premise that religious approval creates the harm that is blamed on it. Rather than, as people have been saying, is just used as rationalisation.
6 hours ago · Like · 2John Dennis "Rather than, as people have been saying, is just used as rationalisation." A moot point that is far from settled.
6 hours ago · LikeJosh Collins But one you nonetheless took for granted.
6 hours ago · Like · 1John Dennis It's called "working the problem"
6 hours ago · LikeJosh Collins 'Working the problem' isn't a term I came across in the logic papers I've done, 'begging the question' was though.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question6 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1John Dennis Wanker
6 hours ago · Like · 2Pukeko Da Malo 0 is an acceptable amount, Jenny, but I am losing the point. Your question was "is VAW more prevalent in Muslim countries?". Yes, so it seems, in statistical terms. New Zealand data is surprisingly high, and I don't have a serious clue about why (I'm here since one year). And, if you read what I've written, I've hardly blame anybody but the male perpetrators and their supportive groups...
6 hours ago via mobile · LikeJohn Dennis I've got Despicable Me 2 going off in one ear, and Malaysian incompetence going off in my work inbox. I'm out!
6 hours ago · Edited · LikeJenny Whyte It seems that the point is "Muslims are more violent towards women than non-Muslims and it's because their religion approves of and encourages this".
6 hours ago via mobile · LikeJenny Whyte What about Hindus? Can we start bagging them just for a change?
5 hours ago via mobile · Edited · Like · 1Pukeko Da Malo That's not my point.
6 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1Jenny Whyte No but it appears to be the point of the original posting
5 hours ago via mobile · Edited · Like · 1Pukeko Da Malo Fair enough. I think there's some confusion about who's answering to who. Sorry.
6 hours ago via mobile · LikeJenny Whyte Sweet as
6 hours ago via mobile · LikeStorm Geldenhuis Josh, I think the statistics will change depending on how sexual assault is defined at the time. But, yeah, 1 in 10 is too many. Most stats I've come across estimate, for NZ, 1 in 4 women and 1 in 10 men will experience sexual violence in their lifetime.
(Trigger Warning for sexual assault stuff)
Also, if we're talking about violence against women around the world, South Africa has one of the highest rates of rape per capita. Estimates put it at over 50% of South African women will be raped in their lifetime and there are an estimated 500,000 rapes per year.
South Africa's Muslim population is about 1.5% (they are predominately Christian with about 80% of the population identifying as Christian).
Rape in South Africa is far more linked to poverty, lack of education and the prevalence of the patriarchy (which is certainly reinforced by religion but not exclusive to religious groups) than it is to the religious demographics of SA.
5 hours ago · Like · 5Jenny Whyte Yeah but nerdy white guys aren't scared of South African guys taking over the world.
5 hours ago via mobile · LikePukeko Da Malo Well, nerdy white guys like me are scared that The Culture will take over the world...
5 hours ago via mobile · LikeBennet McComish Nerdy white guys like me are _hoping_ the Culture will take over the world.
4 hours ago · LikePukeko Da Malo Mmm, I still have to make my mind around it (digested only the first three books). There's something sinister in The Culture, even behind all the clear positive and attractive benefits. Something like the softest and most illuminated tyranny ever existed, yet still a tyranny. An anarchist tyranny? Dunno.
2 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1Vic Willyams Eh, one of the nice things about The Culture is that you can always just leave if you want to, and the galactic meta-civ is vast enough that you could surely find a place. There are also a lot of Culture Diaspora civs that would be very easy to integra...See More2 hours ago · Like · 1