Is needing or wanting to worship a God a human defect or benefit?

First topic message reminder :

Is needing or wanting to worship a God a human defect or benefit?
 
Gods have no needs or wants that man can assuage. Gods are said to be so high above us that for any God to have such a need would be like man craving the adoration of germs.
 
I see us as just as foolish as germs and the creatures shown in this clip as we act the same way.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4a_uwyY_H4
 
I can see where at one time it would have been profitable to bend the knee to King/Gods as in the original archetype city states, as used in the original Eden myth written by the Jews, but not today.
 
That myth I think was written of the following reality.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ9cvYB7Tes
 
Our present secular systems of governance have bested the Gods in the moral and legal senses and only the really right wing theists would want to live under the laws of the old barbaric Gods.
 
I am not an atheist and seek God to appease what I recognize as my spiritual side. But not to bend the knee or adore; just to improve any defect in my thinking; if I have one.  
 
I know that there are way more followers out there than leaders but cannot fathom why someone would want to lower themselves to adore even a God unless it is strictly as a self-serving action that we hope God will recognize and reward.
 
That is hardly being good for goodness sake. God would know and send such hypocrites to hell. Which scriptures say is where the vast majority of us will end up regardless.
 
That means that you, even if you pray daily and hard, are likely going to hell along with most of those you know. In a sense, you should feel sorry for those few who make it to heaven as they must spend eternity watching their loved ones in purposeless torture. That would drive any moral person insane.
 
Gods have no needs or wants and has no rewards to give in exchange for what Gods have no need or want of.
 
The Godhead I know certainly disavows such a need or want.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkT1-N0VqUc
 
 
Why then, if you are a believer, do you need or want to worship a God if not for the reward you think it will bring you?
 
Is your need to adore a God a defect or benefit?
 
Regards
DL

Actually since we can often see and surely do feel the ghost and spirits and the Demons then that is empirical evidence indeed. wrote:JP Cusick

So you don't have the remotest clue what empirical means, why am I not surprised. You're talking about experiential "evidence", which has entirely the same validity as sailors claiming they've encountered mermaids, and lone farmers in Montana claiming they've been beamed onto the mother ship by aliens.

And not just that as things like knowing about the Big-Bang being the day that the universe was created - that too is empirical evidence. wrote:JP Cusick

 

I really am not sure I can be bothered to explain it again, but no it's not empirical evidence of creation, jesus wept.

Those are not common events, and we really could list atrocities done to females here in the west which are every bit as horrendous. As like Monica Lewinsky who committed adultery with a married man who had a wife and a minor child and afterwards she is not punished and instead the adulteress is cheered on as a celebrity - this is an example of how we in the west degrade Women. I see your Islamic bigotry as hypocritical, and definitely contrary to long established morality. wrote:JP Cusick

Your a sexist misogynist, and that's as clear as day...

I ignored that video because it is lame. It gives a prejudicial reason as to why the woman is being punished, so the truth is not included. wrote:JP Cusick

What's lame is your pathetic attempt to justify the public flogging of young girl for wearing trousers, by Islamic thugs. Pathetic, but utterly predictable, as I said precisely how you'd react. Blinkered religious bigots are easy to predict.

polyglide wrote: If you believe in Jesus then you will automatically lead a decent life and ignore that which you know to be wrong, just as you would avoid putting your hand in a fire knowing the consequences of doing so, the choice is ours.

Hitler believed in Jesus, as did 94% of Germans in a census conducted in Nazis Germany in 1939.

It gives a prejudicial reason as to why the woman is being punished, so the truth is not included. wrote:JP Cusick

Nonsense, you're just ignoring the evidence because it refutes your biased blinkered defence of these thugs.

Secondly smaller and poorer Countries can not afford prisons and jails, so the punishments have to be quick and decisive. wrote:JP Cusick

She'd committed no crime you dolt, they were flogging her for wearing trousers. No arrest, no charges, no trial, that speaks for itself, as does your repulsive attempts to defend them.

Plus here in the West we put females into prisons and we execute females, so we are not better than other societies. wrote:JP Cusick

No we don't, the only western democracy that has the death penalty is America, and even though I fundamentally disagree with capital punishment, they don't dish it out to women for not dressing in accordance with their antiquated misogynistic superstition, nor do they execute people without a trail, even if their criminal justice system does contain flaws they at least have laws that if adhered to properly would defend the rights of an accused person, as opposed women in countries with strict Islamic law, like that poor girl in the video.

And I happen to know that very many if not the vast majority of prisoners in the USA would be happy to exchange their prison sentence for a one time whipping, because the whipping is fast and done, while the long prison terms do a greater harm to them. wrote:JP Cusick

What a stupid lie. Are you seriously suggesting you know what the vast majority of people in the American penal system think? Re-read your post and try and see what an idiotic claim you've made. I know theists love to use hyperbole but good grief. Just for the record have you ever been whipped? You seem to be suggesting you know how it feels, as I seriously doubt the person being whipped finds it passing quickly, nor is it done after it finishes as it undoubtedly leaves both physical and emotional damage, so if you haven't then that's another false idiotic claim.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

Nonsense, this video shows a young girl flogged by Sudanese police in a strict Islamic culture for the crime of wearing trousers, you're talking rubbish I'm afraid.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
She'd committed no crime you dolt, they were flogging her for wearing trousers. No arrest, no charges, no trial, that speaks for itself, as does your repulsive attempts to defend them.

That woman in the video is NOT wearing pants or trousers so the claim that she is being punished for her clothing is simply NOT true, not accurate, not real.

The video is telling a lie, and you are believing the lie, but I recognize it as a lie.

And as you say = There is no arrest, no charges, no trial, as she is being punished for something that we do not know.

Here in the USA when we catch a Woman stealing a $1.00 item of food then we haul them off to jail, and if it is a third (3rd) offense then the Western Women can go to a prison for a very long time just for a petty offense.

Go figure.     Or go compare.


=================================================

Norm Deplume wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:Actually since we can often see and surely do feel the ghost and spirits and the Demons then that is empirical evidence indeed.

You may claim to have experience of ghosts, spirits and demons but I can assure you that it is not universal. Can you produce anything to substantiate these assertions?

It is substantiated, as people see and experience such "spiritual" creatures and that is the famous empirical evidence, and I certainly believe my own life experiences.

Plus there are billions (with a b) of people who confess authoritatively to having experienced ghost / Demons / spirits or whatever one might call the things, so those massive eye witness accounts throughout humanity works for me as rather substantial indeed - and rather "universal" too.

And there are places here in the USA and many such places reported in the UK where you your self can experience the spirits, so the experience is readily available to your self too.

Also HM the Queen has ghost in all of her Castles.

Norm Deplume wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:And not just that as things like knowing about the Big-Bang being the day that the universe was created - that too is empirical evidence.

You have this backwards - the empirical evidence is the expanding universe; this leads to the best explanation for its existence, the big bang theory. The empirical evidence indicates that at least one universe exists and does nothing to validate claims for the supernatural.

Says you!

Having a scientifically verified creation day (or creation event) is very big validation of a Creator indeed.

You use the word "supernatural" but I did not, as I see God as being very natural, and even as being extremely natural.

I see nothing supernatural about the Big-Bang of the natural creation day.

Norm Deplume wrote:

JP Cusick wrote: ...here in the West we put females into prisons and we execute females, so we are not better than other societies.

In this part of "the West" the death penalty was abolished years ago. From your statement by implication, then, the UK is better than other societies including some parts of the USA.

I agree, and I really do see the UK as more advanced than the USA in some ways and maybe in many way.

I happen to really like the British, which is a big reason why I am here on a UK forum.

The UK stopped its death penalty - and I say God bless the UK for it, also the British Empire ended slavery long before the USA as we had to go through a bloody civil war to stop the brutality in our Country, so again - may God bless the British for leading the rightful ways.

That woman in the video is NOT wearing pants or trousers so the claim that she is being punished for her clothing is simply NOT true, not accurate, not real. wrote:JP Cusick

Yes she is, but well done for coming up with ever more hilarious excuses to justify the thuggery of Islamic excesses against women, and bonus points for ignoring the screaming girl being flogged whilst trying to deflect the main issue with your appalling apologetics.

The video is telling a lie, and you are believing the lie, but I recognize it as a lie. wrote:JP Cusick

So the empirical evidence of my eyes, and ears, are trumped by your ludicrous unevidenced and blinkered bias, I think not, I think we can all see how laughable your unevidenced denial of the facts are.

And as you say = There is no arrest, no charges, no trial, as she is being punished for something that we do not know. wrote:JP Cusick

So flogging a girl in public with no arrest, no charges, and no trial is a good thing in your opinion, well I'll have to disagree, and we do know what the police tortured her for, you're just denying it because you're hopelessly biased.

Here in the USA when we catch a Woman stealing a $1.00 item of food then we haul them off to jail, and if it is a third (3rd) offense then the Western Women can go to a prison for a very long time just for a petty offense. wrote:JP Cusick

You'd rather they flogged children in the street for wearing trousers without the bother of gathering evidence bringing charges and then having a trial? Again I'm going to have to disagree.

.... and there was lil' ol' me thinking that Sheldon Lee Cooper Ph.D, was a fictional character on the CBS television series The Big Bang Theory.

What's up, Doc?

The video is telling a lie, and you are believing the lie, but I recognize it as a lie. wrote:JP Cusick

Rubbish, here are few more, lets see you deny them all.

It is substantiated, as people see and experience such "spiritual" creatures and that is the famous empirical evidence, and I certainly believe my own life experiences. wrote:JP Cusick

Personal experience is subjective, it's the very antithesis of empiricism. Do you believe that sailors who claim to have seen mermaids are correct? Do you believe that people who claim to have been beamed onto alien spaceships are correct? That's two examples of experiential "evidence", it's not empirical.

JP Cusick wrote:That woman in the video is NOT wearing pants or trousers so the claim that she is being punished for her clothing is simply NOT true, not accurate, not real.

Actually, she IS wearing trousers. If you watch the video carefully, you'll get occasional glipses of trouser legs underneath the "gown/burqa" thing she's wearing.

In addition, every major media source is carrying the story from Fox News to CNN to the Huffington Post to the Telegraph to NBC to the BBC. They all state that she was flogged for wearing pants. I suppose all of those media outlets got it wrong, but you somehow got it right?

JP Cusick wrote:Here in the USA when we catch a Woman stealing a $1.00 item of food then we haul them off to jail, and if it is a third (3rd) offense then the Western Women can go to a prison for a very long time just for a petty offense.

Comparing a flogging in the street with the US justice system is just a deflection, a tangental red herring. You seem to think that if we live in a nation that has any kind of justice system at all, then we have no right to criticize another nation with a barbaric system. I guess only anarchists have the right to be critical.

Moreover, there just isn't a good comparison between the US system and their system. It's like trying to compare a jaywalker to a serial killer. And yes, perhaps some folks locked up in jail would prefer a whipping instead. Who knows? But did the woman in the video get a choice? I very much doubt it.

oftenwrong wrote:.... and there was lil' ol' me thinking that Sheldon Lee Cooper Ph.D, was a fictional character on the CBS television series The Big Bang Theory.

What's up, Doc?

I heard of the Big-Bang sitcom as it just got a few awards but I never watch it.

And had no idea of who that "Doc" was.


==================

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

The video is telling a lie, and you are believing the lie, but I recognize it as a lie. wrote:JP Cusick

Rubbish, here are few more, lets see you deny them all.

[ Three flash YouTube videos ]

The videos are all propaganda lies about the hated Muslims, and it is all a matter of perspective.

You and other people view such things with your malice intent and so you will always see the negative view when it is just your own malicious projection.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

It is substantiated, as people see and experience such \"spiritual" creatures and that is the famous empirical evidence, and I certainly believe my own life experiences. wrote:JP Cusick

Personal experience is subjective, it's the very antithesis of empiricism. Do you believe that sailors who claim to have seen mermaids are correct? Do you believe that people who claim to have been beamed onto alien spaceships are correct? That's two examples of experiential "evidence", it's not empirical.

Full definition of empirical:

1:  originating in or based on observation or experience

2:  relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory

3:  capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

4:  of or relating to empiricism

Marriam-Werbster online dictionary - Empirical

'All a matter of perspective'? Which perspective do you think one should take after watching those videos, Mr Cusick? That the guys beating the woman with a stick are having a bit of piñata fun? Or that they are following orders dictated by men, for the benefit of men, to the detriment of the women, by restricting their choice of dress?

J P Cusick is either trolling or in denial. His posts are so similar to Slade's from the Amazon site it can't be a coincidence, can it? He lies, denies evidence when it's irrefutable,  claims evidence when he has none, doesn't know what empirical evidence is or how it differs from biased and subjective experiential evidence. He hasn't even a passing understanding of evolution. He equates a complex and highly developed criminal justice system which incorporates the constitutional rights of every citizen of a country with arbitrary public flogging for violating draconian misogynistic dress codes. All to maintain some wishy washy superstition.


Have I missed anything out?

JP Cusick wrote:

Dan Fante wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:
And that Women are far more highly valued and respected in the Islamic Countries.

Can I ask you something? Would you like to be so highly respected and valued that weren't allowed to drive a car?
Or would you prefer to be so highly respected and valued that you were too afraid to report to the authorities that you had been raped because you feared that you would be publicly flogged for doing so?
Or maybe you'd liked to be forced to marry a man much older than you before you'd even gone through puberty?
Or perhaps you'd like to have part of your clitoris and labia removed for no good reason and without an anesthetic?

Those are not common events, and we really could list atrocities done to females here in the west which are every bit as horrendous.

As like Monica Lewinsky who committed adultery with a married man who had a wife and a minor child and afterwards she is not punished and instead the adulteress is cheered on as a celebrity - this is an example of how we in the west degrade Women.

I see your Islamic bigotry as hypocritical, and definitely contrary to long established morality.

In Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam, if you like, women are not allowed to drive. Now, this is the only country in the world which has a law like this, I freely admit, but we're still talking about the oppression of millions of people. And you were the one who made the claims about women being respected in these places.

Moving on to my next example, it's impossible to say how many don't report something like that so your assertion that is uncommon is disingenuous. There was however a recent case in the Maldives (where a 15 year old rape victim only escaped 100 lashes for 'fornicating' after over two million people signed an online petition - or to put it another way, the authorities there were concerned about the potential impact on tourism).

Regarding the next point, here's a wiki article on Child Marriage in Afghanistan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_Afghanistan
It points out that 21% of females are married before the age of 15.

As to my last point, here's another article from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country
As you'll see it affects a 'mere' 97% of women in Egypt, which has a female population of over 40million. Perhaps you can run by me how you consider this to be an uncommon event.

And yes, we could list the atrocities committed in the west against women but the absolutely crucial difference, which you completely fail to address, is that they aren't done with the legal or tacit approval of the authorities and are contrary to general public opinion. I find it staggering that I actually have to point this out.

Incidentally and for what little it's worth I'd like to point out that I don't have an anti-Islamic agenda, it was simply a response to the laughable assertion women are more respected in Islamic culture. In theory they might be but in practice they aren't.

Hi Dan

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Islam as an ideology is so flawed. I work with many people who are muslim and they are lovely (as are most people, theists and atheists alike). The problem I have with Islam is the lie they try to tell the world. Islam might be wonderful for millions of people but for a proportion of them it is a living hell. The individual counts for nothing and if you are a woman or a child you have no voice. I applaud women who stand up and say no this is not Islam, who say No to oppression and freedom of choice, who say No to violence. If you are interested please visit the websites Violence is not our Culture and Equality Now to lend your voice in support of Muslim women's human rights.

Many thanks

snowyflake wrote:Hi Dan

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Islam as an ideology is so flawed. I work with many people who are muslim and they are lovely (as are most people, theists and atheists alike). The problem I have with Islam is the lie they try to tell the world. Islam might be wonderful for millions of people but for a proportion of them it is a living hell. The individual counts for nothing and if you are a woman or a child you have no voice. I applaud women who stand up and say no this is not Islam, who say No to oppression and freedom of choice, who say No to violence. If you are interested please visit the websites Violence is not our Culture and Equality Now to lend your voice in support of Muslim women's human rights.

Many thanks

Thank you, I'll have a look at those websites you mention.

JP Cusick wrote:

Having a scientifically verified creation day (or creation event) is very big validation of a Creator indeed.

This is based on assuming that the term "creation" is applicable. If it is then the argument is fallacious since the conclusion is assumed in the premise. If it is not then the conclusion does not follow. Either way your logic is faulty.

JP Cusick wrote:
You use the word "supernatural" but I did not, as I see God as being very natural, and even as being extremely natural.

I see nothing supernatural about the Big-Bang of the natural creation day.

I used the word "supernatural" because it is associated with the concept of gods. You have redefined a god as "natural" which suggests that no god would be required for "creation" but rather they would be themselves created.

Please try to define your terms before making assertions. That way it will not give the impression that you are desperately trying to twist your way out of a corner when you claim that your words meant something entirely different to the commonly accepted meaning.

The videos are all propaganda lies about the hated Muslims, and it is all a matter of perspective wrote:JP Cusick

Propaganda? Those stories were picked up by all the major news networks. Any remotely objective person can see they're true, as the evidence is irrefutable. You claim they're propaganda yet offer no evidence to support the claim. Furthermore it's clear you lie your pants on fire before accepting any criticism of this vile woman hating religion. You're utterly brainwashed.

Those are not common events, and we really could list atrocities done to females here in the west which are every bit as horrendous wrote:JP Cusick

Those are crimes in the west and men who victimise women are charged with a crime, and prosecuted, and if found guilty sentenced. The islamic thugs in those videos were torturing raping and killing with impunity, sanctioned by their religion which controls or constitutes the male dominated governments.

I see nothing supernatural about the Big-Bang of the natural creation day wrote:JP Cusick

You still haven't presented one shred of empirical evidence for what you keep referring to as a creation day. You admit yourself it was a natural occurrence and that what you call god is natural. So it should be possible for science to empirically test the existence of this god. Why in that case hasn't anyone published this evidence and had it peer reviewed?

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

Those are not common events, and we really could list atrocities done to females here in the west which are every bit as horrendous wrote:JP Cusick

Those are crimes in the west and men who victimise women are charged with a crime, and prosecuted, and if found guilty sentenced. The islamic thugs in those videos were torturing raping and killing with impunity, sanctioned by their religion which controls or constitutes the male dominated governments.

I haven't tried it yet but I suppose for fairness sake we should be looking for videos on YouTube depicting punishment floggings in public (or private!) in western countries. I am sure there must be a few stonings and beheadings we can find carried out in the US.

Look I have found a video of stoning made in the west  

Since JP Cusick introduced the subject of the death penalty in relation to the west I thought this was apt:
On World Day Against the Death Penalty, Al Jazeera looks at state-sanctioned killing around the world.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2013/10/infographic-breaking-down-death-penalty-2013101011252327485.html

Dan Fante wrote:Since JP Cusick introduced the subject of the death penalty in relation to the west I thought this was apt:
On World Day Against the Death Penalty, Al Jazeera looks at state-sanctioned killing around the world.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2013/10/infographic-breaking-down-death-penalty-2013101011252327485.html

Anti-muslim Propaganda innit.  

Al Jazeera obviously pushing their pro-West, anti-Islamic agenda again  

Well Dan, if Islam is the stoning ,gassing,and electric chair for wow how many women? for what here in the west are minor/trivial offences if offences at all,( ie wearing pants) for me the west is the best place for the Islam females to be to get support.

Kazza wrote:'All a matter of perspective'?  Which perspective do you think one should take after watching those videos, Mr Cusick? That the guys beating the woman with a stick are having a bit of piñata fun? Or that they are following orders dictated by men, for the benefit of men, to the detriment of the women, by restricting their choice of dress?

Whatever reason the woman was getting beat was not because of her clothing, as she is wearing a long to the ground dress and head covering so the claim that she is being punished for her clothing is just a slander and a lie.

That video claims the woman is beaten for wearing pants when we can see in the video with our own eyes that she is wearing a long dress.

Otherwise we do not know whatever is going on in that video.

Sorry - but the malicious prejudice against Muslims is not supported by the video.

And the laws could easily have been made by the Women as that happens a lot in this world that laws are created by and for Women.

I realize that it is hard for westerners to face-up to any truths, but the truth is available anyway.


====================================

Dan Fante wrote:In Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam, if you like, women are not allowed to drive. Now, this is the only country in the world which has a law like this, I freely admit, but we're still talking about the oppression of millions of people. And you were the one who made the claims about women being respected in these places.

There is no reason to believe that those women even want to drive.

When I was married here to my very white-American wife then she did not want to drive and I was the only driver for a long time, until I myself pressed my wife to get her own license, which now in hind-sight it might have been a mistake on my part.

And rich people here in the righteous western wonderlands have paid chauffeurs driving the rich around, and yet no one thinks the rich folk are being deprived.

A Saudi wife has her own husband or sons chauffeuring her around while the self-righteous westerners call it some kind of an injustice - well it is not.

Calling it "oppression-of-women" because instead of driving they get driven around - so it is the western self-righteousness that needs to grow up.

Dan Fante wrote:Moving on to my next example, it's impossible to say how many don't report something like that so your assertion that is uncommon is disingenuous. There was however a recent case in the Maldives (where a 15 year old rape victim only escaped 100 lashes for 'fornicating' after over two million people signed an online petition - or to put it another way, the authorities there were concerned about the potential impact on tourism).

There are lots of injustices in this world, and you are making emotional claims without any real facts about the case.

Here in the USA our laws put a Woman into prison for 20 years just for firing a warning shot at her abusive ex-husband = CNN - Jacksonville, Florida, woman given 20 years in prison

And there are lots more examples of injustices around the world in every society and every Country.

Westerners single out obscure cases against Muslims simply because of the religious bigotry and racism against anything Islamic.

And seriously I think that I myself would choose to get 100 lashes rather then 20 years in prison for the same crime.

Dan Fante wrote:
Regarding the next point, here's a wiki article on Child Marriage in Afghanistan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_Afghanistan
It points out that 21% of females are married before the age of 15.

Child marriages happen here in the west too, and we do have laws here in the superior west where so long as the parents give their approval then we still have under 15 marriages, and certainly lots of under 15 pregnancies going on here.

I seriously believe that people like your self need to check your self-righteousness before criticizing others.

And also Afghanistan has been violently attacked and occupied by our western powers, so is the UK over there trying to stop the young marriages or not? and are the western military's over there getting prostitution from the local population or not?

Dan Fante wrote:As to my last point, here's another article from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country
As you'll see it affects a 'mere' 97% of women in Egypt, which has a female population of over 40million. Perhaps you can run by me how you consider this to be an uncommon event.

Here we have male genital mutilation of circumcision, so are we better then they?

I certainly do not approve of the body mutilations but they do go onward.

But if we are going to just be prejudiced about female mutilations in other Countries, then I say we need to include things like the western traditions of breast implants and buttox implants and plastic surgery, and yes we do it all on minor children too, except here in our righteous west we do not call ours as mutilation as we call ours as health choices.

Dan Fante wrote:And yes, we could list the atrocities committed in the west against women but the absolutely crucial difference, which you completely fail to address, is that they aren't done with the legal or tacit approval of the authorities and are contrary to general public opinion. I find it staggering that I actually have to point this out.

I say that I have sufficiently address the reality above that yes it is sanctioned and even prettified in the so enlightened west of ours.

Note = That last part of "enlightened" was given as sarcasm.

As to the "public opinion" then I can say with my certainty that the actions of our western Women do not care about any public opinion.

JP Cusick wrote:Whatever reason the woman was getting beat was not because of her clothing, as she is wearing a long to the ground dress and head covering so the claim that she is being punished for her clothing is just a slander and a lie.

Sorry - but the malicious prejudice against Muslims is not supported by the video.

Not at all. Who could possibly consider representatives of the law flogging a helpless woman in public to be morally questionable?

It obviously can't be for wearing pants, because she's not. Also can't be for theft, because at the moment she's not stealing anything.

I wonder if Mr Cusick has considered a career in crime detection?

JP, you only believe what you wish to believe, whatever evidence is put before you you will dismiss it will you not. To think that you actually stood for election too, I know what would happen to you if you came to England spouting what you do, you would not even get accepted to stand for election by the normal parties anyway.exactly tony?another spin I BELIEVE

JP Cusick wrote:

There is no reason to believe that those women even want to drive.

That was not the point. If they were permitted to drive then it becomes their choice. There was no suggestion that they should be forced to learn. If the opportunity exists some will take it up and some will not. Just like in my country and yours. I can see no problem with that but I can see that forbidding one sector of populace from undertaking an activity while allowing another the freedom to do so is discriminatory.

Oh, and you can settle the question of whether they want to drive by asking them.

Norm Deplume wrote:That was not the point. If they were permitted to drive then it becomes their choice. There was no suggestion that they should be forced to learn. If the opportunity exists some will take it up and some will not. Just like in my country and yours. I can see no problem with that but I can see that forbidding one sector of populace from undertaking an activity while allowing another the freedom to do so is discriminatory.

Oh, and you can settle the question of whether they want to drive by asking them.

I say it is none of your business, and it is none of my business.

If you want to make the world better then start in your own world and in your own business.

Telling other cultures how to live is a lot like the imperialist mentality, or colonialist, or conquistador, but it is not the way of a friendly neighbor.

JP Cusick wrote:

I say it is none of your business, and it is none of my business.

I'm sure I've seen this sentiment expressed as "Am I my brother's keeper?" but I can't remember where.




Ah! Now I recall.

WELL JP, just because it is the biggest country in the world and probably the most powerfullest what as the US OF A been doing for as long as I can remember? telling everyone what they should do or else, AMERICA just cannot wait to go to war with anybody to show off their power. The troop's all spit and polished come out at the raising of the flag with your national song playing.I can hear it now,god bless america god save america. IT has been played in so many wars you have been in that's almost all the usa is a killing machine blessed by god.

JP Cusick wrote:That video claims the woman is beaten for wearing pants when we can see in the video with our own eyes that she is wearing a long dress.

Jesus H. Christ on a cracker ... either you're just not listening or you're flagrantly ignoring my posts.  

I TOLD you that if you watch the video carefully, there are scenes where she is rolling on the ground, the burqa/dress thing rides up her legs a bit, and you can SEE that she has pants on underneath the garment. Chances are, the idiot morality police told her she had to put on that black tent to hide her pants, but that didn't absolve her of getting a beating. But you can see plainly that she has pants on.

JP Cusick wrote:And the laws could easily have been made by the Women as that happens a lot in this world that laws are created by and for Women.

Women rarely engage in politics in these countries so it is hardly likely that women are making these laws. You forget that women will often "force" other women to abide by dress codes enacted by men because the women do not want to see their female friends getting into trouble.

JP Cusick wrote:I realize that it is hard for westerners to face-up to any truths, but the truth is available anyway.

I lived in a Muslim nation for awhile, so ....

Perhaps somebody would be kind enough to explain the ambiguity which affects US English as opposed to British English.

The word pants signifies intimate underwear (m or f - no difference) to a British speaker, but apparently in the USA signifies trousers (formerly pantaloons!) which cover the body (m or f) from waist to ankle.

In the 1960s, Spanish people were aghast at the sight of female tourists wearing slacks, but definitely preferred slacks when the mini-skirt appeared.

US to English LOSS IN TRANSLATION right this time I BELIEVE OW

Norm Deplume wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:I say it is none of your business, and it is none of my business.

I'm sure I've seen this sentiment expressed as "Am I my brother's keeper?" but I can't remember where.

Ah! Now I recall.

So clearly you know very little about the Bible.

That was said = "Am I my brother's keeper?" - said by Cain after he had murdered Abel, Genesis 4 and linked here = Verse 9

So no, we are not to trespass into the business of other people.


=========================================

oftenwrong wrote:Perhaps somebody would be kind enough to explain the ambiguity which affects US English as opposed to British English.

The word pants signifies intimate underwear (m or f - no difference) to a British speaker, but apparently in the USA signifies trousers (formerly pantaloons!) which cover the body (m or f) from waist to ankle.

In the 1960s, Spanish people were aghast at the sight of female tourists wearing slacks, but definitely preferred slacks when the mini-skirt appeared.

True, I did not know that.

Pants in the USA are outer wear.

If the meaning and pretentious claim is that the woman in the video is wearing forbidden underwear underneath of her full length dress then that is more absurd then the original lie.

Of course some people want to see evil because some people only view an event based on their malice-perspective so then the truth is irrelevant to them.

JP Cusick wrote:There is no reason to believe that those women even want to drive.

LOL! Yeah, that's like saying, "But there is no reason to believe that the slaves in the South even want to be free."

Funny how you are quick to condemn slavery based on race, but you squirm every which way to champion slavery and oppression based on gender. Hmm .... your stocks aren't very high at the moment, if you take my meaning.

JP Cusick wrote:When I was married here to my very white-American wife then she did not want to drive and I was the only driver for a long time, until I myself pressed my wife to get her own license, which now in hind-sight it might have been a mistake on my part.

Well I'm an American and I'm not white ... and I very much want to drive. In fact, I like driving. I love it when I have to take a trip somewhere, especially if I'm not on a time schedule. I take all the back roads to see all of the little towns and off-the-beaten-path places that the interstate cannot show me.

So there you have it. My anecdote cancels out your anecdote.

Oh, and then there's this:

Saudi women launch new campaign to end driving ban

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – Many women in Saudi Arabia have had it. They want the right to drive and argue there is no religious justification for them not to.
The oil rich country of 27 million is the only nation in the world where women are forbidden to drive.

Saudi female activists who want the Kingdom to lift the de facto ban have launched an online campaign urging women to drive on Oct. 26.

Over 10,000 women have already signed the oct26driving.com declaration that says: “Since there are no clear justifications for the state to ban adult, capable women from driving. We call for enabling women to have driving tests and for issuing licenses for those who pass.”

Bzzzzzt! Thanks for playing.

It looks like there's reason to believe they want to drive after all! Research: You're doing it wrong.

JP Cusick wrote:And rich people here in the righteous western wonderlands have paid chauffeurs driving the rich around, and yet no one thinks the rich folk are being deprived.

Is a rich person prohibited by law from driving if he or she chose to do so?

NO!

Therefore, your comparison is an abysmal failure in every way that matters.

You seem to have a comprehension problem in regards to freedom of choice ... which is the crux of many of these dilemmas.

JP Cusick wrote:A Saudi wife has her own husband or sons chauffeuring her around while the self-righteous westerners call it some kind of an injustice - well it is not.

ROFL! Right .... because Muslim men are required and compelled by law to drive women anywhere they want to go, whenever they want to go, at a moment's notice. Muslim men are also prohibited by law from simply saying, "No, I don't feel like it."

Is that what you think goes on in these Muslim households?

JP Cusick wrote:Calling it "oppression-of-women" because instead of driving they get driven around - so it is the western self-righteousness that needs to grow up.

And how many Saudi women have you talked to ... and asked them personally what they want? Have you read any articles, blogs, or seen any interviews of Muslim women talking about their desires? Please post links or citations of any such articles that you've read and then we can go further. Otherwise, you're just making shit up and ASS-uming you know what women want.

I'm betting you're single, too.   

JP Cusick wrote:and you are making emotional claims without any real facts about the case.

You would know all about that, wouldn't you.

JP Cusick wrote:Here in the USA our laws put a Woman into prison for 20 years just for firing a warning shot at her abusive ex-husband

Wow, what stunning logic! Well, thanks to you, I know what I'm going to do tonight. I'm going to walk down to the bank on the corner and rob it. But I'll only take, maybe, $20,000. When the cops come to arrest me, I'll just say, "But officer, people like D.B. Cooper robbed banks and took $100,000 or more. Since there are greater injustices in the world than my $20,000 heist, you should just let me go and forget about my crime."

Foolproof!

JP Cusick wrote:Westerners single out obscure cases against Muslims simply because of the religious bigotry and racism against anything Islamic.

And how is that worse than you DEFENDING sexist bigotry and gender bias?

JP Cusick wrote:And seriously I think that I myself would choose to get 100 lashes rather then 20 years in prison for the same crime.

I think the real question is whether or not some things ought to be a crime in the first place -- like women wearing pants.

JP Cusick wrote:And also Afghanistan has been violently attacked and occupied by our western powers

Hmmhmm, because the Taliban and Al Qaeda were just innocent victims ruthlessly attacked by a bully nation. Yeah, we know the drill.

JP Cusick wrote:But if we are going to just be prejudiced about female mutilations in other Countries, then I say we need to include things like the western traditions of breast implants and buttox implants and plastic surgery

LOL! Plastic surgery and breast implants are hardly "western traditions." I don't know a single person who has had either procedure. However, the moment you can show me an incident here in the West involving a little girl who was forcefully dragged to a plastic surgeon and compelled to undergo surgery with sharpened rocks and sticks with no anesthesia, then by all means, THEN we can start making these comparisons. Until then, however, you're being rather absurd.

And once again, you leave out the most important aspect of this debate ... CHOICE. Whenever you make these comparisons, like rich people and chauffeurs, you completely ignore the freedom of choice that is the major yardstick when measuring whether someone is being oppressed and tyrannized. You compare actions that are a CHOICE here in the West to actions that are FORCED in some of these other nations. I really haven't the desire to compare apples and oranges.

JP Cusick wrote:and yes we do it all on minor children too, except here in our righteous west we do not call ours as mutilation as we call ours as health choices.

The only thing we do to minor children here is circumcision ... and I am against it. But we're not TALKING ABOUT THE WEST. If you want to talk about circumcision, then start a thread about it.

JP Cusick wrote:I say that I have sufficiently address the reality above that yes it is sanctioned and even prettified in the so enlightened west of ours.

Whoa, you say you've "sufficiently address the reality ..."   WHICH reality? Certainly none that exist in this particular dimension. I think I've "sufficently addressed" all the reasons why your assertions are just plain erroneous.

JP Cusick wrote:As to the "public opinion" then I can say with my certainty that the actions of our western Women do not care about any public opinion.

We have these marvelous places here in the barbaric West where shiny birds come and go, carrying more advanced and enlightened people to other parts of the flat earth we live on. I heard from a more sophisticated Muslim on her way to a voluntary beating that these fantasic places are called "airports." Now, as a sufficiently Westernized Asian, the Western influence has caused me to lose all knowledge of how to use an "airport," but I bet you would know. I'm not sophisticated enough to figure out how to buy a ticket to somewhere else, climb onto one of those shiny birds, and fly away.

BUT ... seeing as how you're so enlightened and cultured and apparently knowledgeable about places like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan and Kurdistan, might I suggest that YOU buy a ticket to one of these places, climb onto one of those shiny birds and .... fly away! I think you would be more happy living in a land of burqas and all-male drivers and women being beaten in the street. Maybe you'll even get lucky and be invited to take part in stoning to death a teenage girl!

After all, there is no evidence that Muslim girls don't WANT to be stoned to death, right?

JP Cusick wrote:....

I won't quote all your post for the sake of brevity but I'll address your points.
The women in Saudi Arabia don't have a choice about whether they can drive or not. That's the point. An anecdote about your wife is completely irrelevant.
Regarding the case in the Maldives, I didn't make any emotional claims. I stated the facts other than an opinion as to why the sentence was not carried out. Can you give a better explanation as to why it wasn't?
Your attempts to compare female genital mutilation to male circumcision (which I do not approve of when carried out on babies for religious reasons, I might add) are rather ludicrous since the latter does not impinged upon the sexual pleasure of men later in life and is a far less intrusive procedure since it is basically just removing a small piece of skin. Plastic surgery is not comparable either since it is done on consenting adults. It's illegal if it's carried out on minors so I don't see your point there. It certainly is in the UK anyway.
As for Afghanistan, I don't approve of the war but I don't see how that makes forcing young girls to get married to older men to be ok.
Incidentally, the line "As to the "public opinion" then I can say with my certainty that the actions of our western Women do not care about any public opinion" makes no sense. And please don't try and use what goes on in certain parts of the US as being the norm for "we in the West".

 Very true Dan and Shirina, dan for your last paragraph especially. Shirina too for your last paragraph, instead of taking part in the stoning to death of a teenage girl, maybe JP would like to take her place to see what it feels like. 

JP Cusick wrote:

Norm Deplume wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:I say it is none of your business, and it is none of my business.

I'm sure I've seen this sentiment expressed as "Am I my brother's keeper?" but I can't remember where.

Ah! Now I recall.

So clearly you know very little about the Bible.

I'm reasonably sure that Norm was being sarcastic, JP. He knew exactly where the quote came from.

JP Cusick wrote:So no, we are not to trespass into the business of other people.

Sometimes, we're morally obliged to intervene in other people's business. If there is no harm being done, then we can leave them alone and give them privacy. But if someone is being hurt or oppressed or someting like that, then we need to step in. Surely, it would be immoral to not intervene.

Extremely true sam, it would certainly be immoral not to intervene, and try and help in whatever way we could. Especially as I have just posted to Peter as usual, and his specialist confirmed his condition as terminal. could not stop tears as I posted, I DO NOT THINK HE WILL LAST ANOTHER MONTH