Girl, 16, offs herself after being forced to marry her rapist

[zefiris]

What good is it if Islamic law to simply say "oooh, that rapist was wrong" yet stand idly by as he gets no fitting punishment and his victim suffers worst fate? Sharia law is all about Islamic law APPLIED! This is a blatant double standard.

Actually, Sharia law is not really islamic law based on the quran. It's a law based on the quran and the understanding of the quran based on the opinions on people reading it, who happened to be tribal and are thinking in tribal traditions.


Remember Christianity? Christian law did not protect people from being tortured, then burned to death. The bible would have been against this, but Christians didn't mind. Take death penality in the USA: Most people for it are Christians, meaning they COMPLETELY FAIL their religion forever.

The Quran is the same as the bible in this regard. The book itself has parts that would directly contradict the practice, but it's done anyway.

 

[Treblaine]

What good is it if Islamic law to simply say "oooh, that rapist was wrong" yet stand idly by as he gets no fitting punishment and his victim suffers worst fate? Sharia law is all about Islamic law APPLIED! This is a blatant double standard.

Actually, Sharia law is not really islamic law based on the quran. It's a law based on the quran and the understanding of the quran based on the opinions on people reading it, who happened to be tribal and are thinking in tribal traditions.


Remember Christianity? Christian law did not protect people from being tortured, then burned to death. The bible would have been against this, but Christians didn't mind. Take death penality in the USA: Most people for it are Christians, meaning they COMPLETELY FAIL their religion forever.

The Quran is the same as the bible in this regard. The book itself has parts that would directly contradict the practice, but it's done anyway.

Dude, that is religion!

It IS religion for people to take ancient unsubstantiated scripture, declared to be divine and infallible, and draw opinions and conclusions from it. Yes I agree, Christianity is JUST AS BAD! I have JUST AS MUCH a problem with the fundamentals of Christianity and we should all be grateful it is not applied by law like it was in the Spanish Inquisition. Unfortunately we are not totally free of it, still laws based on Christianity they try to force on us usually with little success.

I don't know what you hoped to achieve by highlighting the awfulness of Christian fundamentals, this just makes all religions look like an obsolete and obscene anachronism in this modern world. I hope you don't think saying "ooh, Christianity is just as bad" is any kind of excuse for Islam, as it this is Islam vs Christianity, rather than secularism vs dogma.

Westbro Baptist Church, Abortion Clinic Bombers, Protection of child-torturing Catholic Priest, anti-Condom campaign in middle of AIDS epidemic... these awful things and many others come from the fundamentals of Christianity and I oppose vehemently. There are Christians out there who want to actually have this scenario play out, that rapist should get to marry their victims, it's History as to why there is no where (I know of) that this practice is applied any more yet in Morocco in 2012 it is.

 

[Darth_Dude]

Hey, it's what it says should happen in the bible isn't it?

should fundamentalist Christians count this as a win?

More the Koran than the Bible, but then again, the Koran is based off the Bible. Take that as you will.
Christianity has gotten over their Crusader period, but unfortunately Islam seems to have the highest average of fuckmothering barbaric acts against humanity at the moment.
Can't wait till we get rid of all religion and pretend that it never happened. Seriously, in 10,000 years they will refer to the 21st century as the dark ages.

-sigh-

As I said in a recent post,

"As a Muslim, I just want to set the record straight here.

The Quran states that a woman can't be forced into Marriage. Islamic Hadith and Sunnah (Sayings of the Prophet) and the actions of the Prophets immediate successors clearly show that there must be a heavy punishment for a rapist, but no punishment for the one who has been raped.

Shit like this is a result of Cultural and Tribal practices and traditions, and has NO basis in Islam.

I really dont want anyone to leave this thread thinking Islam is to blame for this."

Then why has a legal system entirely based on this religion failed to stop this happening?

It's pretty simple, if some 'Muslim' does something contrary to the Quran, they are wrong.
The problem is, people aren't educated enough (both 'here' and over there) to know the difference between tribal and cultural practices, and Islam.

What good is it if Islamic law to simply say "oooh, that rapist was wrong" yet stand idly by as he gets no fitting punishment and his victim suffers worst fate? Sharia law is all about Islamic law APPLIED! This is a blatant double standard.

This is the wrong interpretation of Sharia Law then. If someone does something contrary to the Quran, then they are wrong. The Quran and Hadith give punishments for rapists, if these morons have not punished this man, then how can they claim to follow proper Shariah Law and the Quran?

What the hell? Why are you distinguishing between "tribal" and "cultural"? Under a broad enough definition of tribe NEEDED for it to fit in this case is is synonymous with "culture". A tribe has cultural practices.

But not all cultural practises are Tribal. For example, in Pakistan and India it is a cultural tradition to have the bride and groom of a wedding dressed in a certain way, but most of these participants do not belong to a tribe.

(Yes the two are interchangeable, but not everyone in Morocco belongs to a tribe.)

Morocco is governed under Sharia Law... you can't then say the laws applied have nothing to do with this religions but some nebulous tribal-yet-not-religious practice.

I never said that it didnt have anything to do with Religion. I said that they have interpreted it wrong.

Tribal beliefs are almost always RELIGIOUS beliefs, i.e. that the invisible-supernatural is involved in creation or justification.

Tribal beliefs can contradict religious beliefs. This is one case of that, another example would be female circumcision.

 

[Darth_Dude]

Islamic Hadith and Sunnah (Sayings of the Prophet) and the actions of the Prophets immediate successors clearly show that there must be a heavy punishment for a rapist, but no punishment for the one who has been raped.

This man would disagree with you.

This man, is an idiot.

Those quotes have either been taken out of Context or been interpreted wrongly.

The man in this Video is not the Pope, he doesn't represent all Muslims. Furthermore, those aren't the exact words of the Prophet. It's easy to take something and twist its words to suit your purpose.

I promise you, you ask Muslim scholars about Rape, and the vast, vast majority will tell you that it's forbidden and a horrible crime.

 

[VampiresDontSparkle]

Okay, let's get some things straight.

To all those people who are harping on about this being 'proof' that third-world countries are somehow intrinsically inferior to their own, please stop being so naiive.

"Oh noes, a girl died in Morocco, which is conveniently a foreign country, so I can make blatant assumptions and insulting generalisations while still retaining the moral high-ground!"

Ah, so I suppose all the rapes, murders and assaults that go on in America -- land of the free -- have disappeared overnight? Come on, what about the story of the white middle-class couple who kept a girl locked in chains in their basement and got her pregnant multiple times? Or the gang wars or the school shootings or the serial killers? I guess those crimes weren't related to the society, culture and country in which they occurred but were rather a product of some seriously messed up individuals that operated independently of "America" as a whole, right? And I guess that same thinking doesn't apply to Morocco, because foreign/Muslim countries are just full of backward dolts who probably don't know any algebra... The hypocrisy is astounding.

Also, Islam completely contradicts the retarded actions of the judge/father/rapist. Just saying.

 

[Strazdas]

You guys are aware that bible claims this is the way it is supposed to be? you can start congratulating your pilgrimaging ancestors right now.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Okay, let's get some things straight.

To all those people who are harping on about this being 'proof' that third-world countries are somehow intrinsically inferior to their own, please stop being so naiive.

"Oh noes, a girl died in Morocco, which is conveniently a foreign country, so I can make blatant assumptions and insulting generalisations while still retaining the moral high-ground!"

Ah, so I suppose all the rapes, murders and assaults that go on in America -- land of the free -- have disappeared overnight? Come on, what about the story of the white middle-class couple who kept a girl locked in chains in their basement and got her pregnant multiple times? Or the gang wars or the school shootings or the serial killers? I guess those crimes weren't related to the society, culture and country in which they occurred but were rather a product of some seriously messed up individuals that operated independently of "America" as a whole, right? And I guess that same thinking doesn't apply to Morocco, because foreign/Muslim countries are just full of backward dolts who probably don't know any algebra... The hypocrisy is astounding.

Exactly. Horrific acts aren't just committed by Them over There, far enough away that they don't matter and nothing can be done.

 

[Tekkawarrior]

P.S.: I miss the wall in your avatar :<

Can't please everyone y'know .

Oh man, This is why I don't ever visit third world countries.

Because you'll somehow be raped and be forced to marry your rapist?

That is exactly why.

I don't think I've heard of a story where a tourist was raped and forced to marry their rapist. If you live there that could happen but I seriously doubt that it could happen to a visitor like you and me.

I was joking. I don't go to third world countries because of the hostel movies.

This is why I don't visit America.

 

[Treblaine]

Hey, it's what it says should happen in the bible isn't it?

should fundamentalist Christians count this as a win?

More the Koran than the Bible, but then again, the Koran is based off the Bible. Take that as you will.
Christianity has gotten over their Crusader period, but unfortunately Islam seems to have the highest average of fuckmothering barbaric acts against humanity at the moment.
Can't wait till we get rid of all religion and pretend that it never happened. Seriously, in 10,000 years they will refer to the 21st century as the dark ages.

-sigh-

As I said in a recent post,

"As a Muslim, I just want to set the record straight here.

The Quran states that a woman can't be forced into Marriage. Islamic Hadith and Sunnah (Sayings of the Prophet) and the actions of the Prophets immediate successors clearly show that there must be a heavy punishment for a rapist, but no punishment for the one who has been raped.

Shit like this is a result of Cultural and Tribal practices and traditions, and has NO basis in Islam.

I really dont want anyone to leave this thread thinking Islam is to blame for this."

Then why has a legal system entirely based on this religion failed to stop this happening?

It's pretty simple, if some 'Muslim' does something contrary to the Quran, they are wrong.
The problem is, people aren't educated enough (both 'here' and over there) to know the difference between tribal and cultural practices, and Islam.

What good is it if Islamic law to simply say "oooh, that rapist was wrong" yet stand idly by as he gets no fitting punishment and his victim suffers worst fate? Sharia law is all about Islamic law APPLIED! This is a blatant double standard.

This is the wrong interpretation of Sharia Law then. If someone does something contrary to the Quran, then they are wrong. The Quran and Hadith give punishments for rapists, if these morons have not punished this man, then how can they claim to follow proper Shariah Law and the Quran?

What the hell? Why are you distinguishing between "tribal" and "cultural"? Under a broad enough definition of tribe NEEDED for it to fit in this case is is synonymous with "culture". A tribe has cultural practices.

But not all cultural practises are Tribal. For example, in Pakistan and India it is a cultural tradition to have the bride and groom of a wedding dressed in a certain way, but most of these participants do not belong to a tribe.

(Yes the two are interchangeable, but not everyone in Morocco belongs to a tribe.)

Morocco is governed under Sharia Law... you can't then say the laws applied have nothing to do with this religions but some nebulous tribal-yet-not-religious practice.

I never said that it didnt have anything to do with Religion. I said that they have interpreted it wrong.

Tribal beliefs are almost always RELIGIOUS beliefs, i.e. that the invisible-supernatural is involved in creation or justification.

Tribal beliefs can contradict religious beliefs. This is one case of that, another example would be female circumcision.

It still used the scripture to justify this ruling, and it is the fallibility of the scripture that it is so open to interpretation as this. Anyway, scripture is nothing but words, religions are what PEOPLE make of them. They made it out in this case that a rape victim must marry their assailant. That's not thinking about what is right and wrong. That's dogma. This ruling clearly comes from the scripture.

We all belong to some tribe or another. Some cultural group. What is the definition of tribe?

a social division of a people, especially but (not exclusively) of a pre-literate people, defined in terms of common descent, territory, culture, etc.

I don't think you realise how tribal traditions and religious traditions are so indistinct and just as bad as each other: they are arbitrary, defined by ignorance and infallible and unreasonable. Things are done for no reason, simply because they are. It's dogma.

Your argument seems to be "oh they interpreted religion wrong" well that is the problem with religions, it self-declares and treats itself as infallible. Really the problem is from the VERY START of EVER using scripture as a basis of law. Scripture is hugely out of date, is never corrected for progress and is totally arbitrary in the first place. No amendments. No debate. No defence council.

Only "interpretation" of arbitrary diktats

 

[Treblaine]

I was joking. I don't go to third world countries because of the hostel movies.

This is why I don't visit America.

Yeah, that smiley face is so fitting... because you'd only say such a thing meaning well... nope.

If you ever do visit America, go visit the exhibit on the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the many subsequent amendments. Then ask yourself... why doesn't my country have these recognised freedoms and protections of the individual? Why does my country not keep religious organisations out of government? What can it possibly have in its place as a safeguard?

Even as a Brit I have huge admiration of the US Constitution and realise how many miscarriages of justice in my country could be prevented by debating and codifying such rights. And in a far more robust and thoughtful way than the contradictory and toothless EU Human Rights agreement.

I see that we are only as free as we are by constant activism of a liberty-loving elite, that could so easily mutate into something terrible as it was not to long ago.

 

[thevillageidiot13]

Hey, it's what it says should happen in the bible isn't it?

should fundamentalist Christians count this as a win?

More the Koran than the Bible, but then again, the Koran is based off the Bible. Take that as you will.
Christianity has gotten over their Crusader period, but unfortunately Islam seems to have the highest average of fuckmothering barbaric acts against humanity at the moment.
Can't wait till we get rid of all religion and pretend that it never happened. Seriously, in 10,000 years they will refer to the 21st century as the dark ages.

-sigh-

As I said in a recent post,

"As a Muslim, I just want to set the record straight here.

The Quran states that a woman can't be forced into Marriage. Islamic Hadith and Sunnah (Sayings of the Prophet) and the actions of the Prophets immediate successors clearly show that there must be a heavy punishment for a rapist, but no punishment for the one who has been raped.

Shit like this is a result of Cultural and Tribal practices and traditions, and has NO basis in Islam.

I really dont want anyone to leave this thread thinking Islam is to blame for this."

Then why has a legal system entirely based on this religion failed to stop this happening?

It's pretty simple, if some 'Muslim' does something contrary to the Quran, they are wrong.
The problem is, people aren't educated enough (both 'here' and over there) to know the difference between tribal and cultural practices, and Islam.

What good is it if Islamic law to simply say "oooh, that rapist was wrong" yet stand idly by as he gets no fitting punishment and his victim suffers worst fate? Sharia law is all about Islamic law APPLIED! This is a blatant double standard.

This is the wrong interpretation of Sharia Law then. If someone does something contrary to the Quran, then they are wrong. The Quran and Hadith give punishments for rapists, if these morons have not punished this man, then how can they claim to follow proper Shariah Law and the Quran?

What the hell? Why are you distinguishing between "tribal" and "cultural"? Under a broad enough definition of tribe NEEDED for it to fit in this case is is synonymous with "culture". A tribe has cultural practices.

But not all cultural practises are Tribal. For example, in Pakistan and India it is a cultural tradition to have the bride and groom of a wedding dressed in a certain way, but most of these participants do not belong to a tribe.

(Yes the two are interchangeable, but not everyone in Morocco belongs to a tribe.)

Morocco is governed under Sharia Law... you can't then say the laws applied have nothing to do with this religions but some nebulous tribal-yet-not-religious practice.

I never said that it didnt have anything to do with Religion. I said that they have interpreted it wrong.

Tribal beliefs are almost always RELIGIOUS beliefs, i.e. that the invisible-supernatural is involved in creation or justification.

Tribal beliefs can contradict religious beliefs. This is one case of that, another example would be female circumcision.

It still used the scripture to justify this ruling, and it is the fallibility of the scripture that it is so open to interpretation as this. Anyway, scripture is nothing but words, religions are what PEOPLE make of them. They made it out in this case that a rape victim must marry their assailant. That's not thinking about what is right and wrong. That's dogma. This ruling clearly comes from the scripture.

We all belong to some tribe or another. Some cultural group. What is the definition of tribe?

a social division of a people, especially but (not exclusively) of a pre-literate people, defined in terms of common descent, territory, culture, etc.

I don't think you realise how tribal traditions and religious traditions are so indistinct and just as bad as each other: they are arbitrary, defined by ignorance and infallible and unreasonable. Things are done for no reason, simply because they are. It's dogma.

Your argument seems to be "oh they interpreted religion wrong" well that is the problem with religions, it self-declares and treats itself as infallible. Really the problem is from the VERY START of EVER using scripture as a basis of law. Scripture is hugely out of date, is never corrected for progress and is totally arbitrary in the first place. No amendments. No debate. No defence council.

Only "interpretation" of arbitrary diktats

I hope you realize that *ALL* laws, whether written by religious figures or secular politicians, are up to interpretation.

See the Takao Ozawa vs. United States case of 1922. Then see the Bhagat Singh Thind case of 1922. Over the span of one year, the Supreme Court interpreted the same law in two drastically different ways.

Like non-secular governments, these incredibly racist, inconsistent, and biased interpretations of the same law CAME FROM THAT LAW. There was no true deviation from the "scripture" which the judges adhered to.

The interpretation of ALL laws, secular or otherwise, is totally arbitrary.

 

[Treblaine]

Hey, it's what it says should happen in the bible isn't it?

should fundamentalist Christians count this as a win?

More the Koran than the Bible, but then again, the Koran is based off the Bible. Take that as you will.
Christianity has gotten over their Crusader period, but unfortunately Islam seems to have the highest average of fuckmothering barbaric acts against humanity at the moment.
Can't wait till we get rid of all religion and pretend that it never happened. Seriously, in 10,000 years they will refer to the 21st century as the dark ages.

-sigh-

As I said in a recent post,

"As a Muslim, I just want to set the record straight here.

The Quran states that a woman can't be forced into Marriage. Islamic Hadith and Sunnah (Sayings of the Prophet) and the actions of the Prophets immediate successors clearly show that there must be a heavy punishment for a rapist, but no punishment for the one who has been raped.

Shit like this is a result of Cultural and Tribal practices and traditions, and has NO basis in Islam.

I really dont want anyone to leave this thread thinking Islam is to blame for this."

Then why has a legal system entirely based on this religion failed to stop this happening?

It's pretty simple, if some 'Muslim' does something contrary to the Quran, they are wrong.
The problem is, people aren't educated enough (both 'here' and over there) to know the difference between tribal and cultural practices, and Islam.

What good is it if Islamic law to simply say "oooh, that rapist was wrong" yet stand idly by as he gets no fitting punishment and his victim suffers worst fate? Sharia law is all about Islamic law APPLIED! This is a blatant double standard.

This is the wrong interpretation of Sharia Law then. If someone does something contrary to the Quran, then they are wrong. The Quran and Hadith give punishments for rapists, if these morons have not punished this man, then how can they claim to follow proper Shariah Law and the Quran?

What the hell? Why are you distinguishing between "tribal" and "cultural"? Under a broad enough definition of tribe NEEDED for it to fit in this case is is synonymous with "culture". A tribe has cultural practices.

But not all cultural practises are Tribal. For example, in Pakistan and India it is a cultural tradition to have the bride and groom of a wedding dressed in a certain way, but most of these participants do not belong to a tribe.

(Yes the two are interchangeable, but not everyone in Morocco belongs to a tribe.)

Morocco is governed under Sharia Law... you can't then say the laws applied have nothing to do with this religions but some nebulous tribal-yet-not-religious practice.

I never said that it didnt have anything to do with Religion. I said that they have interpreted it wrong.

Tribal beliefs are almost always RELIGIOUS beliefs, i.e. that the invisible-supernatural is involved in creation or justification.

Tribal beliefs can contradict religious beliefs. This is one case of that, another example would be female circumcision.

It still used the scripture to justify this ruling, and it is the fallibility of the scripture that it is so open to interpretation as this. Anyway, scripture is nothing but words, religions are what PEOPLE make of them. They made it out in this case that a rape victim must marry their assailant. That's not thinking about what is right and wrong. That's dogma. This ruling clearly comes from the scripture.

We all belong to some tribe or another. Some cultural group. What is the definition of tribe?

a social division of a people, especially but (not exclusively) of a pre-literate people, defined in terms of common descent, territory, culture, etc.

I don't think you realise how tribal traditions and religious traditions are so indistinct and just as bad as each other: they are arbitrary, defined by ignorance and infallible and unreasonable. Things are done for no reason, simply because they are. It's dogma.

Your argument seems to be "oh they interpreted religion wrong" well that is the problem with religions, it self-declares and treats itself as infallible. Really the problem is from the VERY START of EVER using scripture as a basis of law. Scripture is hugely out of date, is never corrected for progress and is totally arbitrary in the first place. No amendments. No debate. No defence council.

Only "interpretation" of arbitrary diktats

I hope you realize that *ALL* laws, whether written by religious figures or secular politicians, are up to interpretation.

See the Takao Ozawa vs. United States case of 1922. Then see the Bhagat Singh Thind case of 1922. Over the span of one year, the Supreme Court interpreted the same law in two drastically different ways.

Like non-secular governments, these incredibly racist, inconsistent, and biased interpretations of the same law CAME FROM THAT LAW. There was no true deviation from the "scripture" which the judges adhered to.

The interpretation of ALL laws, secular or otherwise, is totally arbitrary.

Not to the ridiculous level seen with religions scripture that is inherent from how religious scripture is:
-infallible by definition (of believers)
-Arbitrary in its very inception
-Inevitably obsolete by impossibility of amendments

Interesting you compare religion with racism, it kind of supports my argument as the latter is universally agreed to be a plight on mankind yet we hesitate to roundly condemn the former.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I wanna say Well it is Africa but i feel that would be rather controversial and unfair.

So I guess I'll say lets hope that this country catches up to the twenty first century sooner rather than later.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

People tell me that you're not supposed to judge other cultures based on your own.

"You're supposed to show tolerance to these cultures! You're in no position to judge whether they're right or wrong!" they say. You know what my answer to that is? Fuck that. Fuck them. And fuck you too, asshole.

That viewpoint might be acceptable when comparing two relatively developed countries... but any civilization that treats its women like this is downright evil. There is no justification.

Nah, you can't pick and choose when it's acceptable. Choose a hard stance damn it.

 

[Zeckt]

It might be sick, but she made the right choice killing herself. I would of done the same. Only fault is with its piece of shit government, where the people who are in power that get paid to protect you abuse you while living the high life.

I may be going off topic here, but I bet if an american soldier raped a pakistani woman the taliban would suddenly spew more crap about the american devil. However if a taliban committed rape he would be congratulated.

 

[thevillageidiot13]

Hey, it's what it says should happen in the bible isn't it?

should fundamentalist Christians count this as a win?

More the Koran than the Bible, but then again, the Koran is based off the Bible. Take that as you will.
Christianity has gotten over their Crusader period, but unfortunately Islam seems to have the highest average of fuckmothering barbaric acts against humanity at the moment.
Can't wait till we get rid of all religion and pretend that it never happened. Seriously, in 10,000 years they will refer to the 21st century as the dark ages.

-sigh-

As I said in a recent post,

"As a Muslim, I just want to set the record straight here.

The Quran states that a woman can't be forced into Marriage. Islamic Hadith and Sunnah (Sayings of the Prophet) and the actions of the Prophets immediate successors clearly show that there must be a heavy punishment for a rapist, but no punishment for the one who has been raped.

Shit like this is a result of Cultural and Tribal practices and traditions, and has NO basis in Islam.

I really dont want anyone to leave this thread thinking Islam is to blame for this."

Then why has a legal system entirely based on this religion failed to stop this happening?

It's pretty simple, if some 'Muslim' does something contrary to the Quran, they are wrong.
The problem is, people aren't educated enough (both 'here' and over there) to know the difference between tribal and cultural practices, and Islam.

What good is it if Islamic law to simply say "oooh, that rapist was wrong" yet stand idly by as he gets no fitting punishment and his victim suffers worst fate? Sharia law is all about Islamic law APPLIED! This is a blatant double standard.

This is the wrong interpretation of Sharia Law then. If someone does something contrary to the Quran, then they are wrong. The Quran and Hadith give punishments for rapists, if these morons have not punished this man, then how can they claim to follow proper Shariah Law and the Quran?

What the hell? Why are you distinguishing between "tribal" and "cultural"? Under a broad enough definition of tribe NEEDED for it to fit in this case is is synonymous with "culture". A tribe has cultural practices.

But not all cultural practises are Tribal. For example, in Pakistan and India it is a cultural tradition to have the bride and groom of a wedding dressed in a certain way, but most of these participants do not belong to a tribe.

(Yes the two are interchangeable, but not everyone in Morocco belongs to a tribe.)

Morocco is governed under Sharia Law... you can't then say the laws applied have nothing to do with this religions but some nebulous tribal-yet-not-religious practice.

I never said that it didnt have anything to do with Religion. I said that they have interpreted it wrong.

Tribal beliefs are almost always RELIGIOUS beliefs, i.e. that the invisible-supernatural is involved in creation or justification.

Tribal beliefs can contradict religious beliefs. This is one case of that, another example would be female circumcision.

It still used the scripture to justify this ruling, and it is the fallibility of the scripture that it is so open to interpretation as this. Anyway, scripture is nothing but words, religions are what PEOPLE make of them. They made it out in this case that a rape victim must marry their assailant. That's not thinking about what is right and wrong. That's dogma. This ruling clearly comes from the scripture.

We all belong to some tribe or another. Some cultural group. What is the definition of tribe?

a social division of a people, especially but (not exclusively) of a pre-literate people, defined in terms of common descent, territory, culture, etc.

I don't think you realise how tribal traditions and religious traditions are so indistinct and just as bad as each other: they are arbitrary, defined by ignorance and infallible and unreasonable. Things are done for no reason, simply because they are. It's dogma.

Your argument seems to be "oh they interpreted religion wrong" well that is the problem with religions, it self-declares and treats itself as infallible. Really the problem is from the VERY START of EVER using scripture as a basis of law. Scripture is hugely out of date, is never corrected for progress and is totally arbitrary in the first place. No amendments. No debate. No defence council.

Only "interpretation" of arbitrary diktats

I hope you realize that *ALL* laws, whether written by religious figures or secular politicians, are up to interpretation.

See the Takao Ozawa vs. United States case of 1922. Then see the Bhagat Singh Thind case of 1922. Over the span of one year, the Supreme Court interpreted the same law in two drastically different ways.

Like non-secular governments, these incredibly racist, inconsistent, and biased interpretations of the same law CAME FROM THAT LAW. There was no true deviation from the "scripture" which the judges adhered to.

The interpretation of ALL laws, secular or otherwise, is totally arbitrary.

Not to the ridiculous level seen with religions scripture that is inherent from how religious scripture is:
-infallible by definition (of believers)
-Arbitrary in its very inception
-Inevitably obsolete by impossibility of amendments

Interesting you compare religion with racism, it kind of supports my argument as the latter is universally agreed to be a plight on mankind yet we hesitate to roundly condemn the former.

I did not compare religion with racism. I compared two racist interpretations of a secular law with certain backwards interpretations of religious laws.

Religions are no different from any other intellectual ideal. Capitalism, humanism, communism, Freudian theory, modern welfare. These are all concepts that sprung out of the times in which they were born. Humanism was a reactionary movement to the overzealous religious devotion of the High Middle Ages. Rationalism became a natural progression of humanism. Capitalism was a real-World application of rationalistic and humanistic beliefs. Marxism was a reaction to that. Freudian theory was a reaction to rationalism. The Great Depression emerged out of unchecked capitalism and its divisive properties, and then, modern welfare was a reaction to that.

Arguing that religion is inherently wrong is foolish. Scripture is merely a product of the times, and I agree: anybody who interprets a law from an ancient book without any understanding of the context under which that law was written or what the original intent of the lawmaker was is an idiot. But you can say that about any set of intellectual ideals. Do you think, in an age where people who were oppressed by Adolf Hitler and Mussolini are still alive, any reasonably sane political leader adheres to Machiavelli's standard of realpolitik? Does this make these ideals inherently evil? No. They're just ideas to be experimented-with, examined, polished, and adjusted when they fail to meet the needs of changing times (which they all have been, to some degree or another).

Is it foolish to create an entire government and a set of unwavering, infallible laws based on a book written hundreds of years ago? Yes. However, this doesn't make religion inherently evil, just like it doesn't make capitalism or realpolitik or socialism inherently evil. These are just intellectual ideals that tried to meet the demands and needs of the times. Understanding them as timeless is foolish, and yes, people *do* try to understand religious laws as timeless, which is foolish.

For instance, I empathize with the Hippie Movement, and I have a massive amount of respect for the New Left in general. This includes a fascination (I hesitate to use the term "admiration") with the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground. Will I be bombing government buildings anytime soon? No. Will I be going to any three-day music concerts where hundreds of thousands of people get together to listen to Jimi Hendrix, get naked, do drugs, and have sex? No. Will I buy a trailer and live out in the woods? No. Do I believe in Black Nationalism in the way that Huey Newton did? No. Do I appreciate them? Yes. Do I try to channel the spirit and energy of the Hippie in a lot of the things I do? You damn well bet I do.

In the same way, understanding religion in terms of merely an ancient (and yes, outdated) text to be taken word-for-word and given infallible and immortal credibility is idiotic. However, understanding people who do this as an accurate reflection of ALL religious people is equally idiotic. If somebody started running up to you and talking about Black Nationalism, today, in 2012, you'd think he was an idiot. But was Black Nationalism a valid idea in the late 1960s and early 1970s? Yes, it was. Did it have a reason for existing back then? Yes, it did. Does the idiot who believes in Black Nationalism in 2012 accurately reflect the intellect and spirit of the original Black Nationalists in America? Of course not, that's ridiculous.

So why do you understand religion merely in terms of the idiots who adhere to ancient scriptures today? Why can't you accept that it's possible to channel the spirit and energy of an ancient ideal without dogmatically treating it as an infinite word-for-word law? It's possible to be a Christian and still believe in evolution, feminism, gay rights, and all that other good stuff. The ones who adhere to religious texts with a psychotic devotion and refuse to deviate and adapt their interpretations to changing times are just idiots. Why condemn religion because of a select few incompetents?

 

[TheVioletBandit]

Hey, it's what it says should happen in the bible isn't it?

should fundamentalist Christians count this as a win?

More the Koran than the Bible, but then again, the Koran is based off the Bible. Take that as you will.
Christianity has gotten over their Crusader period, but unfortunately Islam seems to have the highest average of fuckmothering barbaric acts against humanity at the moment.
Can't wait till we get rid of all religion and pretend that it never happened. Seriously, in 10,000 years they will refer to the 21st century as the dark ages.

Yeah, lets hate those religious people, fuck them! Hey guys, we should start a hate group!

I don't hate religious people. Couple of my best friends are Christians and Muslims, but they are not so extreme in their thinking. I hate the religious vocal minority who seem to stop at nothing to make the world a worse place. Would the world be without assholes if we didn't have religion? Of course not.

I want religion gone because it no longer fits in the 21 century. Pretty much all the questions of life have been answered or are close to an answer. We no longer need fictional Gods to explain the world. And we certainly don't need them as a basis for law that forces a rape victim to be married to her attacker.

Captcha: You First.
Damn straight captcha, damn straight.

Seriously? You really believe pretty much all the questions of life have been answered? I'm not sure how to even address this properly other than to tell you that your comment is simply untrue. I'm not going to try to convince you that agnosticism is the only rational viewpoint in terms of religion. I have seen how vehemently against anything other than atheism people are on this site and so understand that it's like talking to a christian or Muslim about the possibility that their wrong, pointless. I will ask you to rethink you faith in this fictional wealth of human knowledge though, and will ask you to try at lest to not be so extreme in your opposition to theists. In the end it's not religion that causes problems it's extremism, or the unwavering believe that your right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[Treblaine]

I did not compare religion with racism. I compared two racist interpretations of a secular law with certain backwards interpretations of religious laws.

Well I did at least and there are many comparisons to make. Realise there was a time when "protecting your race" was considered a good and noble thing that was wrong to oppose, much like religion. Racist unfair protection and persecution is also seen with religion, the Catholic Church protecting its religion by covering up horrific child sex abuse cases FOR DECADES! The persecution of other religions.

Religions are no different from any other intellectual ideal... anybody who interprets a law from an ancient book without any understanding of the context under which that law was written or what the original intent of the lawmaker was is an idiot.

The distinction of religious ideology from something like rationalism, is how religions arrogantly claim divine infallibility and eternal relevant... they were after all the teachings of the creator of the universe, a being of absolute power and perfection. Other ideologies come close with infallible unchallengeable dogma, such as many totalitarian communist and fascist regimes, only there the dictat comes from a single powerful dictator rather than quote mined from a book.

Religions are not "ideas to be experimented-with, examined, polished, and adjusted when they fail to meet the needs of changing times" they are literally written in stone. Men who lie with men are abominations who must be killed, that's the dogma. No debate. Lying is as bad as murder, no debate, it's God's Commandment, no one can question God.

Religion is inherently negative for how the teachings DEMAND to be obeyed. Harry Potter isn't much different from The Bible, loads of ludicrous shit happens and loads of crazy ideas but it doesn't demand to be taken seriously... it doesn't blackmail billions of people with an eternity of torture in hell. Pascals Wager is capitulation to blackmail, to sell your will over an hollow threat.

There is no problem with religion being treated as just another story, a nice fable, where the Story of Jesus and the Story of Luke Skywalker are given equal reverence, where the lessons to learn from their actions and words and decisions stands as self evident regardless of if real or not.

So why do you understand religion merely in terms of the idiots who adhere to ancient scriptures today?

Because it is precisely that adherence that separates religions from mere fan-clubs. The reason that Trekkies are not a religious affiliation. They follow those "scriptures" and greatly value what message it may try to give, but it does not follow it as dogma. Religion by definition requires faith in divinity. That gives unfair weight to ancient and irrelevant works.