Goddess

Quit exaggerating what's being said. No one is screaming for blood, no one said she should be in stocks and have tomatoes thrown at her. No one is saying she should be flogged. Knock it off. It's your rhetoric that's over the top.

When my son was in Kindergarten I caught him and his friend ripping ribbons off of someone's Christmas display in their yard. We took him back to the house that evening, made him apologize to the family and pay for the ribbons out of his money. He had 2 five-dollar bills and I'm glad and thankful the woman backed us up and took one from him and said, "I am going to take one of your fives because those ribbons cost a lot of money. You have good parents for bringing you here."

When the "attack" happened, everyone was like, "OMG! Find this guy and castrate him! Poor little Muslim girl attacked while going to school - someone must pay for this terrible racist crime!" Now when it turns out to be a gigantic LIE - the same people want to shuffle it under the rug and do nothing. I think at the very least - I'd be making the kid make a public apology. But we know that's never gonna happen, parents are probably super proud of her. And Trudeau should apologize to all Canadians. I expect tears with the apology, too. He needs to make some kind of public statement since he was so quick to comment publicly when it "happened."

Filing false police reports should not be done for fun. It is serious. These were serious allegations. There should be consequences or they will just keep doing it. The "perception" is that there is rampant, unchecked Islamophobia in Canada. Also serious implications.

I suspected she was lying from the beginning. The whole story was bizarre and contradictory. And there's been a rash of false Islamophobia incidents in the US, too. Being a child, though, I wonder if she somehow ripped or tore the hijab on her own and didn't want to get into trouble so made up the story. Or maybe she takes it off when she goes to school and her brother caught her without it on. Either way, she should be charged with mischief, YES. Also, 11 year old girls should not be in hijabs.

We're not talking politics here. We're talking marital relationships. The Vice President is still given respect, dignity and listened to. This is not the case when a religion dictates that one is the "head" and the other must submit. This is not the case when an every-day man is constantly told he is superior and must be listened to no matter what. If you want it to be the same as politics, then maybe religion should start teaching it's male members what being a real "head" is all about - the responsibilities of headship, not just that they are to be obeyed by women. Good grief, even the President is subject to rules and laws and is informed of what those are. Religious men like to gloss over that part.....

My EX and I went to a few "counselling sessions" during the really bad time of our relationship. It was with 3 elders in the church - it's always 3 men in this particular religion, never any women. One was married for many years, with no kids, one was a newlywed, and the other was very very elderly. None had any experience in marriage counselling. I think they DID try and they DID give him some counsel. They could see he was an idiot, but again - it's very rare in that religion for husbands to receive much instruction on family/relationships. Almost all marital problems - the solution is for the woman to submit and obey. The counselling sessions were okay, but mostly they showed me that he was incapable of changing anything. They made him read the scripture about "cherishing your wife" (I think Ephesians something??) and asked him what that meant in practical, every-day terms. He was unable to come up with an answer. By the time I left, I was the one working full-time, doing ALL the cooking and cleaning (the house was 5200 sf and he refused to allow me to hire anyone to help with the cleaning), raising the children (teens by then). The elders asked him if I had been asking for him to help and he said, Yes. They asked him, "Then why didn't you help out?" His reply was that "Well, I just figured - Now, SHE knows what it's like." This irritated me. When he was the one working full-time, that was all he did - he came home to a clean house, dinner on the table, clean laundry, happy children, an organized life. I just thought, There was never a time in our marriage where I would have seen him struggling with things and not tried to help him. That attitude towards me was directly responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. While they did make some points directed to him during the counselling, years of being told he is the man of the house, woman must submit and obey, women are to be "workers at home" (according to the Bible), etc......had already taken its toll on him and his behaviour. You can't teach this to people and then act surprised when marriages fail.

Not true. Christianity may be a bit further ahead in granting women autonomy than Islam is, but both religions view women as "lesser" than men. I know all about how Christianity views the submission of women. Every marital problem that arises - the solution is for the woman to submit. Yes, that works, when one person is constantly submitting to the other, it creates a kind of "peace" in the home. But it is not good psychologically for either men or women. For women, having to constantly submit to the man - whether he's right or wrong - is demoralizing and dehumanizing and in some decisions - not in the best interests of the family. For men, the usual "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" holds true. Many men - given that kind of power over their wife by a religion - will abuse it. It's the nature of humans. We all see it in religion - all religion. We see it more than "submitting to each other." In the religion I was in, whenever there was a sermon on family/marriage - the focus was on wifely submission. Very little was said about how men were to exercise that authority in a loving way. That part was always glossed over. I suspect it's the same in most other religions as well, since women are still "lesser" in the eyes of all of them.

LOL Now when I look at that statement, I can't understand why ^^^THAT^^^ is more believable than evolution.

Most Christians believe that Jesus was the first creation by God (therefore, his Son), assisted with creation, then agreed to have his life-force (or whatever - soul?) transferred to Mary's womb to be born as a human, die for our sins and return to heaven. At some point, he is expected to return to earth as a warrior and clean up this mess.

I know. I had to get rid of those "glasses" to find out that I am a wonderfully flawed woman, worthy of life on this planet. Otherwise I would still be thinking I am nothing but a lowly woman, subject to the whims of whatever man is in charge, harassed by having a religion dictate each action, choice and decision, constantly reminded that I am "not good enough". You can keep your spiritual "glasses". I'll stick with reality. Every religion says this exact same thing about their own personal made-up Gods/Allahs:

Yeah, I know. That part is very clear. But religion doesn't explain anything beyond: "Hey look, a beautiful flower!" "That flower is clearly evidence that an invisible multi-colored unicorn from outer space created the universe." "???" "You're a fool if you can't see that an invisible unicorn made that flower." "???" Exactly. When a hypothesis turns out to be not true, science adjusts its thinking and continues to look for an answer. Not so with religion. Religion in general refuses to adjust to new information and when it is forced to, it has to be dragged kicking and screaming. If science didn't exist, religion would have kept mankind poor, dirty, confused, enslaved, etc. Women would still be chattel, barbaric punishments for trivial matters would still be doled out - as it still is in countries trapped in the stranglehold of religion to this day.

Wow, I never knew that about her. I agree with the assessment in the article:

So if science is unable to explain something at this time, the conclusion is "God"? You realize that there were a LOT of things attributed to God for many centuries, that were later explained by science, right? You don't see that the creation/God stance has to "make many assumptions" and "can never gain anything close to certainty for their conclusions"? Religion has always impeded science, to humankind's misery. If you were to do some research into how religion and various religious beliefs evolved, you would see that it is 100% man-made.

I was just agreeing with Rue about what he said, since it jived with my own experience. I had always wondered why this girl called herself Palestinian when she or her parents had never lived ther or were born there. Rue explained it, so it made sense to me. The girl at school couldn't explain why she called herself Palestinian.

I'm not sure he's a genius for tweeting that he's a genius. I think it will just open the door very wide for a debate about his mental fitness and I'm not sure he will win that one.

I thought Popeye said that?

This is true. I went to college with a girl who - neither her nor her parents were born in Palestine, nor ever lived there - but she told everyone she was Palestinian and attended every Pro-Palestine rally there was.

I grapple with this too. It's not difficult in trivial interpretations of a religion, but what happens when the differences in interpretation encompass larger issues? Homosexuality - does your religion hate the act, but not the person and let them live in peace? Or does your religion require you to throw them off rooftops? Same religion - different interpretations. Is Islam being practiced as it is meant to be practiced in Muslim majority countries? You would think that they would be the experts in how Islam is to be practiced, yes? Or is it being practiced as it was intended in Western countries? If so, then why is Islam only practiced as intended in Western countries, which would in reality, be a recent and different interpretation of Islam?

That reminds me - Where is Betsy? I kind of miss her.

In what sense? They should have. That is just my own feelings. I do think women in general see this differently from men. Women have always been oppressed by religion, men have not had to deal with that. Some strides are finally being made in women's rights and we are reluctant to go back to the old beliefs, so it's a bit more disturbing to see this, as a woman, than as a man.

Your point about it being positive that she was even allowed to enter the mosque, is taken. I'm sorry, but that's all I can give you. I don't see women, especially non-Muslims, being forced to cover themselves, forced to use the back entrance like a servant, forced to sit seperately from her male co-workers, as a "positive" thing. Even her being allowed in the mosque, really, what else were they going to do, what choice did they have? Can you imagine the backlash against the Muslim community if they had denied her entry? No, they would be idiots if they had done that - so they did the next best thing - made sure she was treated like a second-class citizen, made sure she knew she was being humiliated in front of the country and in front of her male co-workers and made sure the entire country saw our leaders bowing to Sharia law.

Tolerant of intolerance. I guess in some cases it could be a good thing. I'm just not sure this is one of those times when our leaders should be tolerant of intolerance. Some of the Abrahamic religions go further than others with the submission of women thing. This one goes pretty far.

I'll go with "mostly wrong". She still had to cover, use the side entrance and sit seperately from her male counterparts, in deference to Sharia law and a slap in the face to all women, gay or straight.

I just see more negativity in the event than positive, on this one.