I can't imagine the horror of first being raped, then beaten to death because of it. This is simply unspeakable. The article is silent on the consequences to the rapist. Presumably, there were none. I wonder if the scumbag even has the grace to feel ashamed of himself after she died from the beating she recieved. I doubt it.
Meanwhile, we tell jokes and jerk the gherkin while fantasizing about some dumbass camel jockey's suggestion that "breastfeeding" (also known as seuxal assaul) would allow a woman to be in the presence of a non-relative male without subjecting her to the same punishment that killed this young girl.
She was 14 years old. Christ. It doesn't get any fucked up than this.
It's because of this:
http://www.nospank.net/n-d67.htm
And this:
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20080619/NEWS/334171062
And this:
http://articles.cnn.com/2005-05-22/justice/louisiana.church_1_abuse-case-pastor-deputies?_s=PM:LAW
And this:
http://www.ajc.com/news/youth-pastor-accused-of-736427.html
The difference, of course, is that this stuff is happening in the United States.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_gunman_11
http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-philadelphia/the-discovery-channel-gunman-was-an-atheist
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/suicidal-florida-school-board-gunman-was-a-progressive-atheist/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin
Last, but not least, my favorite link to an atheist:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/14/us-maher-idUSTRE68D1E520100914
He hasn't killed anyone yet (certainly not with his comedy).
ALL religions are wothless & destructive forces, folks.
Quoting the immortal Charlie : "There is no God"-------
If you capitalize "God," then you are contradicting the statement, since the capitalization implies the existence of a single divine entity.
And as for "religious hobbyist" being hypocritical, it wold depend upon your religion, wouldn't it.
which is why I even capitalize the names of a non-existent deity & you------
as for F_U, assuming he's a Christian & that particular religion has a low tolerance for "unrepentant harlots"--------
and yes, even I normally spell God with a capital G, the only time I don't is when I am intentionally trying to enunciate the fact that I don't believe in "god".
and FWIW Christians have a rather low tolerance for many things. Just like libs who claim to be "open minded", but are nothing of the kind, "compassionate Christians" are anything but when you threaten their beliefs.
If you are going to be a harlot never repent because there is no god!
Anyone like you who judges others in this context in the ultimate hypocrite, regardless of race, creed, color, religion or other believe system like atheism.
As an Atheist-Liberatarian, I believe that all religions are worthess & destructive entities, HOWEVER, I would not infringe on anyone's right to worship as they please, which, of course, is outlined in the 1st Ammendment of the Constitution.
This sets me & others of my "ilk" apart from "fundamentalist loonies" of various religions, who moronically try to force their "belief systems" down other people's throats.
Spare me the holier than thou spiel. Or I will misspelled again.
between a “god” and mankind.
So your reference to the “immortal Charlie” would effectively imply that Charlie is a “god.” Thus, your sentence -- “Quoting the immortal Charlie, ‘There is no God’” -- rises nearly to the level of an oxymoron.
If any of the P & R posters are immortal, my money is on Liorr who will probably still be posting when you go to that great buffet in the sky.
Really, Priapus, if I ever see any improvement, I’m going to have to start charging you for these English lessons.
Today’s grade: F
Jesus, for an "attorney" you're certainly obtuse.
As for your fixation in re to a certain troll, I find that rather pathetic.
You have as much right as grading me on " English lessons", as I would grading you on "Farsi lessons"---------
where religion has been and can be a positive force, if you chose! But, of course you wish to believe what you want to believe, and don't want any evidence to challenge your belief.
A hypocrite is someone who has a standard for you and another for himself. That is very different from someone who has the same standard for both, but just can't live up to it. The second person is weak, but not necessarily a hypocrite. Indeed, that vast majority of religions recognize the standards are too high for people to reach, but promote the idea that it is good to have those standards as an ideal.
An example of this is when I used to smoke, a friend, who knew I wanted to quit, asked me to speak to his son who was about to start.
Without being a hypocrite, I could tell the son it was bad for both of us, but I was hooked and not strong enough to quit. (I eventually did.) I could tell the kid all the negative things I knew and suggest he not be as dumb as me.
This is very important because no one is perfect and no one lives up to standards. If you say people who fail to live up to standards are a hypocrite, which is bad, then it is better to have no standards.
It is easy to have no standards and live up to them. It is better to have high standards, but fail sometimes.
Quoting the immortal Charlie : "There is no God"-------
They like to link crazies to atheism based on zero evidence. What's more amusing is that you call Stalin an atheist, when Russian society viewed their Czars, and therefore their leaders, as deities. At least you didn't call Hitler an atheist this time.
All these incidents and shootings are examples of what happens when a society begins to break down. People get put under pressure, and some of them go mad. It's unfortunate, but reality has consequences. Sadly, we can expect to see more of this.
-- Modified on 2/4/2011 8:04:07 AM
Yeah, that would be a drag if Hitler got picked-on too. Linking to crazies is appropriate and amusing in more ways than one.
All these incidents and shootings are examples of what happens when a society begins to break down. People get put under pressure, and some of them go mad. It's unfortunate, but reality has consequences. Sadly, we can expect to see more of this.
-- Modified on 2/4/2011 8:04:07 AM
You just posted some links about crimes committed by religious nuts and painted an entire religion with a single brush.
Can you say hypocrite?
he failed to LINK atheism to the crimes committed. Hell, he even called religious people atheists.
Sin, there is a very simple principle at work here. In essence, any monotheistic religion is, by it's very design, hegemonic and hierarchical. It's stated outright in the bible. Man is to have dominion over the land and seas, and all the creatures of the earth. In that same bible you will find the ideas of male domination over women.
Now, tell me, if you were raised with the idea that men are to have dominion over women, verses being raised with the idea that both are equal, which person would be more likely to rape a woman, or hold one prisoner as their servant?
1917, when the Bolsheviks came to power, the government leaders were no long viewed a being deities.
-- Modified on 2/4/2011 12:50:04 PM
Your continual defense of Stalin requires no links. That pretty much says it all.
But I think Mao is a tad jealous. Better spread some atheist love his way.
...BTW Fair, what does believing in cloud beings have to do with love?
There is no god?
between the two situations. The 14 year old Bangladeshi girl was flogged as part of Sharia Law. As fucked up as it is, that is what Mohammad said was okay to do.
Th cases you cite were committed by fucking perverts that also claimed to be Christians. They are the furtherest thing from that. Nowhere in the bible will you find that it is okay to do what they did. They are indefensable. If I were king, they'd be taken out and skinned alive, and then set on fire. You don't fuck with kids.
There are plenty of examples in the Bible that tell both Jews and Christians to do horrible things. The reason why that isn't legal in the United States is because we live in a society where the Constitution demands that church and state must remain separate.
Otherwise, we'd have to live under Baptist Law or Presbyterian Law, where it would be legal to put a child to death for talking back to his/her parents, among a number of other horrible things.
But we agree on something else. You don't fuck with kids.
The alternative would be much, much worse. Can you imagine if the Sarah Palins of this country had unfettered power? Willy's seemingly ridiculous example might actually come true.
Christians have been known to commit atrocities every bit as bad as what is committed under Sharia Law. "Honor killing" is not limited to worshipers of Islam. It is still not uncommon for men in Brazil to kill their unfaithful wife and turn themself in for a slap on the wrist and then resume their lives with no real consequences.
Honor killings and all of that stuff have not been condoned by the Christian Church for 1,000 years, or more.
Willy's exampe is silly because even 2,000 years ago, there are no cases of Jewish parents actually killing kids for dishonering them.
Individual people may do horrible things, but try to find one example of anything this horrific that is allowed by any Christian Church in the last 1,000 years. There are a lot of years and a lot of churches. On the other hand, the list of Islamic attrocities that are encouraged, condoned, and allowed by mainstream Islam in the last 3 years could go on for pages. (The woman in Pakistan who is going to be killed for blasphemy is an example. Rather than a mere aberation, significant numbers of prominent Moslem scholars condon it.)
Yes. The Inquisition. I forgot.
Instead of last 1,000 years, make that the last 500 years.
COME ON. My point was that Christianity has evolved past the barbarism of the original post. Yeah, I said 1,000 years, and it is only 500.
I think in principle I am still right. Even if you find something 100 years: My point is within the memory of anyone alive or for a hell of a long time, Christianity hasn't been involved in honor killings or stuff like that.
The killing of kids for disrespect is always cited as the Bible's similarity to modern Islam. Can anyone actually find any reference to that really happening in the last 2,000 years. And I will stick with that number. I don't mean a random killing of a kid, but a Church approved or sanctioned.
Read the "mainstream" Islamic sources on the Pakistan blasphemy case. They are still in the Spanish inquisition.
This isn't ancient history, not 1,000 years ago, not 500 note even 100 years ago, this shit still happens NOW.
Now before you argue that this is not church sponsored or even government sponsored, I'd like to point out that nothing happens in countries like Brazil without at least tacit approval by the Catholic Church.
This whole thread started with Islam's acceptance of this type of conduct, and someone said Christainity does it to. I have said and said and said that while there are a lot of Christians may do bad things, nothing like this that is condoned by Christianity.
You link an article about Brazil and honor killings. In a baseless calumny, you say it had at least, implying probably more, tacit approval from the Church.
I could point to 100 major clerics in Islam who favor killing people who commit blasphemy. You cannot point to one edict of one church that approves of this type of murder.
The biggest university in Cairo, one of the intellectual centers of Islam, EXPRESSLY approved of the killing of the woman in Pakistan. When was the last time Loyola approved of honor killing. Or Notre Dame. Or Our Lady of Good Counsel. OR ANYONE.
You confuse the country of Brazil with Christianity. Can you find one thing the Brazilian Church has said to approve of this. There are scores of dioceses in Brazil. Surely there must be one that has something favorable about this in one of their bullitens. (I don't expect you to read throught them, but the press would have picked up on one.)
(Don't say they approve of women obeying the orders of men. I approve of people obeying court orders, but I don't approve of killing them when they don't)
Where does the church condone this in the manner that the Islamic clerics condone the conduct we are discussing.
particularly as a fellow Jew; many Christians & various churches condoned & participated in 20th century pogroms against Jews.
Don't think I'm only singling out Christianity-----------I find ALL religions to be worthless & destructive.
When you realize the above, Phil, then you'll belatedly be able to join the 20th century.
One last thing, in re to FDR & RR------at least FDR, when giving covert aid to GB, didn't deal with an evil Iranian regime.
-- Modified on 2/6/2011 7:50:34 AM
to equate modern day Christianity with a religion that had a laundry list too long.
I may be hard to argue with, but you never answer one question. You just side step.
One last example. I say, "Give me one example where the church advocates this type of behavior," and you come up with something the church never promoted.
If you said Hindus each children alive, I would protest just as strongly, because it is not true.
Finally, as to FDR and RR.
FDR dealt with a terribly evil country because he had a bigger enemey. He got in bed with Stalin. If RR had anything to do with Iran it was for the same reason. At the time, we had a worse enemy.
FDR realized you side with the second worst person in the world when you fight the first,
Don't think I'm only singling out Christianity-----------I find ALL religions to be worthless & destructive.
When you realize the above, Phil, then you'll belatedly be able to join the 20th century.
One last thing, in re to FDR & RR------at least FDR, when giving covert aid to GB, didn't deal with an evil Iranian regime.
-- Modified on 2/6/2011 7:50:34 AM
and if Hitler wasn't crazy enough to take on both Russia and the Allies at the same time the results might have been quite different. FDR did what he had to do, I won't second guess his decisions made in wartime, especially since we ended up winning.
Now his socialist "New Deal" that's a completely different story. We are still paying the price of that debacle. I currently pay about $15 grand a year into that broken system called Social Security, and if wackos like WW have their way, 15% of every dollar I ever make will be wiped out by payroll taxes.
If you had been at the Salem witch burnings you still would make some type of excuse for the Christians.
Fact is Christians are every bit as bloodthirsty and narrow minded as the followers of Islam, it's simply a matter of degree. I will grant you that the Muslims are worse, but there are millions of examples of Christian intolerance, up to and including murder. I can't help it if you choose not to accept that fact. Not an opinion, FACT
I have nothing further to say on the subject, well not to you at least. No amount of proof will ever sway your opinion. Have fun arguing with Pri and Charlie.
Again you avoid what I was talking about.
I say within memory of any living person and you say "Salem witch trials."
Let's see, was that 400 years ago. Yep. The NY Times covered it.
Last challenge: One thing in the last 100 years that the church has condoned and encouraged that is anything like we are talking about.
Can't do it.
I have nothing further to say to you on the subject
But if we are reverting to Charlie, one of us should add that there is no god, with a small D.
that offer bible quotes or sign off with "have a blessed day", they are both trying to impose their religious beliefs on others, Charlie at least is honest about it.
I think it is funny. What is ironic is that non-religious claim to be thinkers. Mantras are the opposite of thinking.
At least religion recognizes that and is honest about it. Charlie & Co. think it is rational reply
Again you avoid what I was talking about.
I say within memory of any living person and you say "Salem witch trials."
Let's see, was that 400 years ago. Yep. The NY Times covered it.
Last challenge: One thing in the last 100 years that the church has condoned and encouraged that is anything like we are talking about.
Can't do it.
No, actually there are still glaring distinctions between 99% of those calling themselves Christians and the sick fucks calling themselves Muslims.
Yes, the Bible sanctions slavery. You don't see any Baptists campaigning to bring slavery back just because the Bible says so.
The Bible also states that if a girl is raped and she is not betrothed, her rapist must pay her father 50 shekels and then marry her. You don't see any Presbyterians or Methodists filing writs to strike down our rape laws.
The Bible also states that if a girl is raped and she is betrothed, only the male is to be stoned if the rape happened outside the city gates, but both rapist and victim must be stoned if the incident occurred within the city gates. Again, you can't find a single Christian out there campaigning to change our rape laws to fit the Bible.
If we DID in fact have a group of Christian fundamentalists arguing to implement a true theocracy, AND strictly interpreting the Bible precisely as written, they would in fact be attempting to reinstate stoning, among many other horrible practices.
Both Christians and Jews (the Talmud also sanctions slavery and stoning) have EVOLVED though, and no longer regard those portions of their religious dogma as applicable in today's society. That is the problem with Muslims. After 2 millennia, they still have NOT evolved. And they NEVER.....EVER.......WILL. That is why there is NO comparison between the two relgions. I've got plenty of beefs with Christians, which I air periodically on these boards. But their brand of intolerance and arrogance in no way compares to the COMMUNITY sanctioned beating death of a 14 year old rape victim.
do you think things will ever change ? These horrible incidents are buried in western media because of
political correctness & the fact that many of these countries are the West's primary oil suppliers.
Until those factors change, along with cilivilzation entering a certain world area ( perhaps the "Egyptian situation" will change things--or, perhaps not ) then these terrible incidents will continue to occur.
No, the DIFFERENCE Willy is that every single headline you listed started with "POLICE". As in over here, when sick fucks do sick things in the name of their misbegotten religion, they are held accountable. They face charges, they serve time in jail. There is NO comparison to a situation where AFTER a young 14 year old girl is raped, she is the WHIPPED to death for the heinous crime of having been born female. He COMMUNITY did that to her. Do you get that? Instead of treating her as the victim, she was BEATEN, while the scum walked free, to go home to his wife so he could treat her the same way he treated that little girl.
Every once in a while, a story like this will accidentaly filter through and wind up in our media over here, and people will wring their hands and moan about what a travesty such a thing was. Every day, a woman is set on fire by her husband, and sadly sometimes she survives. You don't see those stories making it into our media. This sort of thing happens in countries liek Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakiston, Bangladesh, and numerous others every single day. We aren't talking isolated incidents, which is what you see here in the US. And the widespread murder, torture, and mutilation of women is NOT punished, as happens here in the US. STOP with your idiotic, asinine attempts to parallel the illegal acts of isolated Christian whackos to the institutionalized, and socially acceptable practice of dehumanizing and brutalizing women. There simply is no comparison.
"No, the DIFFERENCE Willy is that every single headline you listed started with "POLICE". As in over here, when sick fucks do sick things in the name of their misbegotten religion, they are held accountable."
Which, of course, explains why the rules establish at Nuremberg were applied, and George W. Bush was executed for war crimes. This is the same man who said he invaded Iraq because God told him to do it.
And, I gotta say, for any American, much less one with a conservative disposition, to criticize how Muslims treat other Muslims sounds pretty freaking hollow, given the enormous amount of Muslim blood on both of our hands. When both of our tax dollars are being used to turn women in these countries into red mist, then a flogging, while admittedly horrible, amounts to small potatoes in comparison.
countries 'we' are specifically targetting women in order to turn them into red mist. Is that stated policy in the Rules of Engagement? I have no knowledge of that. In fact, on scene Commanders have specific orders to not target civilians, and to avoid engaging the opposing forces if there is a threat to non-combatants. Those that do violate the ROE's are brought up on charges and Court Martialled. 99.9% of those cases never see the light of day in the MSM. Remember Lt. Calley, or was that before your time. He went to prison for an extended stay, convicted for what happened at My Lai. That is probably the most publicized 'war crime', of the Vietnam era. There were those in the Army that believed he was the scape goat to avoid exposing higher ups to charges.
Even the marines accused of murdering civilians in, Haditha I believe it was, had the charges dropped after a thorough investigation. And that was after they were labeled murderers by none other than Rep John Murtha, (Dem), PA.
But, as in all conflicts, to be blunt, shit happens. Innocents get killed. To compare what can best be called collateral deaths in combat, to public floggings resulting in death, is a pretty far stretch.
...which is a polite way of saying that we're going to turn men, women, and children into red mist with high powered explosives. We are doing that right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and who knows where else. Yes, sometimes there are prosecutions for this, but the estimates of the number of people killed in Iraq are as high as a million. I would be surprised if there were any more than a thousand prosecutions for those killed.
willy, sorry, but your 'estimates' are way off the mark. Even the Iraqis don't use a number like that. A million? No way, more like 150,000, and most of those were killed by terrorists, suicide bombers, Al Qaeda, and the Sunnis and Shiites fighting amongst themselves.
John Hopkins University did a study that estimated at least a million killed. Their methodology was far more thorough then any other study I've seen. To boot, about 15 million Iraqis have been displaced.
Prior to our invasion, there were no terrorists or suicide bombers in Iraq. Hell, there wasn't any al Qaeda either, and the only Islamist organization working in that country was operating out of the no fly zone, and whose mission was the overthrow of Saddam.
During the Nuremberg war crimes trials, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, said:
"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
George W. Bush is responsible for every single person who has been killed in Iraq. It makes no difference if Iraqis died at the hands of foreign terrorists or not.
"Prior to our invasion, there were no terrorists or suicide bombers in Iraq".
"George Bush is responsible for every single person who has been killed in Iraq".
Those are two of the most outrageous statements I've ever read. Prior to the invasion by GHWB, (the Gulf War), the Hussein government had been terrorizing Iraqi citizens for decades. His two sons were a couple of the cruelest terrorists on the planet, willy. Cutting out tonques, disemboweling, hanging, raping, and so on. The Kurds were blowing shit up because they wanted their own homeland to be independent. The Shiites and Sunnis have forever been at each other's throats. Hussein ruled with an iron hand, but violence was certainly a daily occurence. Most of it caused by him. You forgetting the few hundred thousand Kurds he gassed?
But those deaths were all on GWB's hands? Get fucking real.
As for the two Lancet surveys, sponsored by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, it has as many detractors as it has proponents. The Lancet surveys have mortality figures higher than other reports, including those of the United Nations, the Iraqi Health ministry, The Iraq living Conditions Survey, and the Iraq Family Health Survey. The 2004 Lancet survey has a range of deaths of 8,000 to 194,000, with estimated 98,000 deaths occuring due to violence. That's a very large range spread to be believable. The 2006 Lancet survey estimated 654,965 violent deaths with a range of 392,979 to 942,636. I wouldn't put much credeence in any survey with that disparity of death numbers.
The part that really gets me is, "The most common causes of death before the invasion of Iraq were heart attacks, strokes, and other chronic diseases." I guess those couple hundred thousand gassed Kurds all died of smoke inhalation, and heart attacks, Right?
-- Modified on 2/7/2011 4:13:25 PM
of the news coverage of the Vietnam war. American planes were accused of indiscrementally bombing schools, hospitals, factories, orphanages, etc., in North Vietnam by the NVN propaganda, Chinese, and Soviets. As well as by all the bleeding heart liberals in the MSM, and people like Hanoi Jane.
Consider this, when a SAM missle is fired, and misses it's intended target, then runs out of propellant fuel, what happens to it? It falls back to earth. When American planes were over the north on bombing raids, SAM's were launched by the thousands at those aircraft. One out of 25 actually hit their intended target. In fact, 4,000 SAM's were launched at U-2, and SR-71 recon flights, and every one missed. Upon impacting, they exploded on whatever they fell back on. Namely schools, hospitals, factories, orphanages, etc. But we were blamed for the destruction.
Propaganda is a powerful weapon in forming popular opinion. Everyone does it. We have planes specifically designed to spread propaganda in different ways, Air America,(not the radio talk show), Voice of America, and so on. So when you read of estimates of 1 million deaths in the middle east, caused by the U.S. military, consider the source, and take it with a grain of salt.
The xxtreme fundamentalist Muslims do treat their women inhumanly under Sharia law. And, I'm not here to tell you that you should like Islam. However, for you to imply that all Muslims would look favorably at this act, is inaccurate. The germain portion of this link below is:
"Muslims believe Sharia is God's law, but they differ as to what exactly it entails.[1] Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia as well."
Without our governments control and oversight fundamentalist Jewish and Christian groups would be, similarly, carrying out God laws as expressed in the Old Testament or Torah!
It goes some thing like this:
Man made religion. Man and religion made god. Man religion and god divided the earth. It goes on about other things the three have done. I will leave it for another day.
I would post the song, but you wouldn't understand the language.