Rue

Its a great story. Thanks for sharing it.

http://www.holosonics.com I checked out the above web site after reading your reference Buff E. From what I can understabd its concentrated sound beamed to a specific spot no one outside the spot can hear and so its used in museums or at trade shows and now with billboard ads. I suppose one could argue such technology would disturb members of the public if they do not understand what the technology is but I would imagine as it becomes more common place, less and less people will get spooked about it as they get used to it. Well Buff E. yes you have a point. Imagine walking down the street innundated with message after message as you walk. If the technology was used by too many sounds in too compact an area it would create gibberish that would prove very problematic. Actually it would imitate exactly the phenomena many schitzophrenics experience (numerous conversations and sounds going off at the same time). So Surely Buffy there will have to be some sort of municipal laws regulating the density of billboards using such technology as it becomes more popular. I would imagine it could also have disasterous affects beamed at people driving cars or operating machinery, etc. Well there was the air and noise pollution to start with, then the exposure to toxic chemicals and micro-waves The amount of micro-waves, not to mention crime and the stress of people rushing and packed together, now this. Forget it Buffy. You want a date I am taking you to the country to listen to the loons cry out their song(Zionists are not mean Zionists are not mean).... not this city slicker nonsense.

In post 411 Keng stated: "liberated" women in Canada don't want to have children, and population growth is key to economic growth. So, in other worlds, left-wing radicalism is responsible for bringing this kind of problem to Canada. If we had a truly Christian society, this would not even be an issue, and Canada would be a stronger country. When questioned on this generalization he simply responded that the word women was in quotation marks but he did not respond to how he came to the above conclusion. Whether the word liberated is in quotation marks or not does not change the fact that you Keng made a sweeping series of negative generalizations with no basis. You make absurd references to liberated women not wanting to procreate and suggest of course you feel they are not fulfilling their primary duty as true Christians to procreate. You suggest if they do not see their primary role as a birthing device, this necessary makes them left wing radicals. So once again Keng you provide hate references towards women who will not do your bidding and hate references to a society that will not do your bidding. Interestingly you make reference to Amish sects as ideal Christians. Does this mean you will start your own sect with you at the head and women procreating for you and no one challenging your views?

In regards to Keng's reference to the Amish amd Mennonite communities as being ideal Christian ones without domestic violence or sexual abuse you may wish to refer to: http://www.state.in.us/ilea/2528.htm (unreported crimes) http://www.in.gov/ilea/2528.htm http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2365919&page=1 http://www.mennoweekly.org/FEB/02-21-05/AMISH02-21.html http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January...bi_janfeb05.msp http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/mckelvey/secretsandlies/ http://www.wherestheoutrage.org/articles/art_153.php In fact the isolation and dettached, segregated life of closed societies including certain Amish and certain Mennonite sects precisely because of its religious fundamentalism has t led to demostic violence, incest and rape. So once again Keng makes references to a subject and societies he assumes he understands but does not.

Could be something simpler JBG. It just could be the father is a simple man without the kind of reasoning processes that see things in greys, just black and whites. Might have nothing to do with religion at all but his inability to assimilate. None of us even know his Immam told him he sould force the Hijab on his daughter. IF the Immam did then its a problem in that respect. But that's a big if. This father's decision to try impose his values may have nothing to do with the Koran and everything to do with how his father taught him to run his home. Where cultural and religious values and and begin is very hard to say. Its not black and white. I mean for all you know the Hijab wasn't even the real issue. It could be simply the final straw so to speak. If there is a religious context to this homicide, its important not to smeer Muslims or anyone else. Making negative generalizations about all Muslims is not rational to understanding what happened, understanding how men may use their religion to inspire violence may be-that I believe is Amerc women's point.

JBG on this kind of issue the defense lawyer is the one who may try use religion as a pretext to defend their client-its the last thing the Crown will pander to in establishing its case if it is to get a conviction. To prove criminal intent the necessary element in a homicide or violence, the last thing the Crown is going to do is pander to allowing religion to be used to rationalize being violent. Canadian case law has shown the exact opposite. I would also not lump in all Muslims with what this guy did. Its like trying to blame all Christians for Keng's views or all Jews for mine!

I agree with you Black Dog on this.

Its interesting Keng but you did not anwer the questions I asked but instead tried to change the subject. It was you and it has been you from day one of your arrival on this forum who has preached to people to read the New Testamenbt literally and it can't just be read literally for that matter, it must be read the way you read it literally or its not true Christianity. Now in your response you assume I am a fundamentalist and read the Bible literally because you do. No Keng the fact that you process your thoughts and beliefs and feelings in a certain way does not mean I or anyone else does the exact same way. You continue to respond showing you can not distinguish the way you conceive from how others may. No Keng, myself and many many others do not read the Bible whether its the Old Testament or New Testament or any other book literally precisely because to do so would lead to absurd conclusions and this is precisely why we need to question and challenge what we read and not simply follow it blindly. So tell me Keng, reading back all your responses who of the two of us has told posters to take the New Testament and read it literally and not just literally but according to your religious denomination which you continue to refuse to disclose. Tell us Keng, you not I stated that matriarchal socities feature reverence to sexual deceit and manipulative females using sex to manipulate and deceive. You not I stated the role of Christianity was to make women moral by controlling them and determing precribed roles for them in the home. See Keng its all out in the open. Your reference to women in sexual positions, their being deceitful and sexually manipulative unless they prescribe to your version of Christianity, its there in writing by you and that is what I am responding to and challenging and calling me names and suggesting my religion requires I stone people and Jesus had to stop me won't destract from that Keng. So now answer the question Keng. If someone does not prescribe to your views on sexuality and they are a woman, what will you do to them if they do not listen. Will you respect them and walk away or will you force yourself on them because you believe they are sinful and need to be saved by you? You started this Keng with your statements that women are immoral and in need of salvation by you. So tell us, how will you do that? You told another poster you BLAME people who do not follow your Christian beliefs. So-when you BLAME Keng what then do you do? Now that they can be assigned BLAME do tell us, what does that in your mind and world, give you the right to do? Stop trying to talk about what I would do. We know what I would do-never at one time have I stated I would stone or impose myself on someone who disagreed with me? How about you? Would you respect a woman who says you can not touch her or tell her what to do?

Yes we are. I responded because you know I respect your opinions and found them important to respond to precisely because I respect them. I hear you.

In response to Keng's latest unreferenced comments I would simply respond by saying the fact that he is not aware of matrifocal societies, does not mean they do not exist and he can assume he speaks on behalf of everyone in saying they do not exist because he has not heard of them. They exist. I also contend his further unreferenced comments that matriarchal societies featured people showing reverence to sexual deceit and female manipulation is something that comes from his inner conceptions as to what he thinks women represent and not any facts and that is why they are not referenced. Please Keng, show me wrong and provide reference sources for your negative comments about matriarchal societies being full of sexually deceitful manipulative women-which is very interesting considering you also stated you only knew of one matriarchal society. So how would you know such things. You said you only heard of one Chinese matriarchal society. Is that the one you suggest was full of sexually manipulative women? Is this your basis for depicting women as sexually deceitful and manipulative? So Keng, are you arguing you would have beaten this girl if she did not follow your doctrine? Would you impose yourself on people who do not agree with you and force them to obey you? Am I wrong to infer from your latest comments that is what you are advocating against women and for that manner anyone who disagrees with you? You did Keng tell a poster you "blame" non Christians when you accused that poster of being an atheist, moral relativist non Christian for challenging your version of Christianity did you not? Read back your words Keng,. So what happens once you blame them Keng-do you stop there or do you act further on it as this father did? Have you acted further against those you perceive as sinners to impose Christianity and purify the world from sin?

With due respect Black Dog you have make the same kind of subjective assumptions of some of us as you fear may being imposed on "brown" people. Its a subjective generalization just as the one you stated that speculated that domestic violence happens with poor uneducated people from certain societies. (its actually not true, domestic violence and violence against women as per StatsCan or UN crime statistics shows it transcends social and economic class, religions, cultures, its not limited to poor people or certain religions or cultures-i.e., rich educated men also beat and murder women) Respectfully Dog, brown skin, yellow skin, white skin, is not the issue-domestic violence is. The race or religion card thrown into the equation to try suggest the reason people are criticizing this case is because they are anti-Islam is just as bigoted a thing to assume as it is to assume all Islamic peoples are violent or all brown skinned people are violent. With due respect dogm someone can just as easily turn your comment around and say they are just as sick and tired of liberal guilt types like you so worried about being politically appropriate you will look the other way when the violence is with someone of as you say "brown skin". The fact that I strongly argue religious fundamentalist beliefs are inter-related to certain kinds of domestic violence and in this case fundamentalism Islam does not make me racist or anti-Muslim just as it doesn't make me anti-Christian or anti-Jewish or anti-Hindu or anti-anyone with a dogma or doctrine that believes in moral frameworks that can be forcefully imposed on others who do not agree. Dog I got into this huge debate with some nice folk in New York at the UN during a family mediators and domestic violence conference. These very law dee duh upper crust New Yorkers began lecturing me on how tolerant they were and how open minded they were and how wonderful they thought it was that Muslims should be able to opt out of family laws to pursue their own Sharia law and how we in North America should encourage such tolerance. My arguement then was as it is now. You want to be religious, and pursue fundamentalism, I am happy for you. Use it to opt out of the criminal code, Ontario family laws or the federal divorce act I have a problem and so does society. No you can't come to Canada or the US and opt out and only select certain things from the menu when you choose citizenship in Canada or the US. There are limits to multi-culturalism. The limits end when you try take cultural values and impose them to supercede and violate criminal and family laws. That is the issue not being anti-Islam or anti-ultra Orthodox Jewish or anti-certain Christian sects. If a Mormon wants more then one wife, sorry aint gonna happen. If someone wants to beat their child senseless cuz she was out with someone after a certain hour, yah its a problem with society. You want to get violent and commit a crime or violate criminal and domestic laws, yah its a problem and no playing the race card is bull shit. Its wrong whether one is pink, yellow, brown, blue, green and no please do not presume you can generalize and assume because I criticize fundamentalist Islam I hate all people with brown skin or who are Muslim. Some of us do know the difference between a woman who chooses the hijab freely and one who had it shoved down her throat. It doesn't make us anti-anything, just pro-choice for women. I never taught my daughters to blindly accept what I said. The more they argued and questionedthe more I knew I did my job properly as a father to teach them their identity was not dependent on getting my approval, but on believing in themselves and trusting their own judgement (getting their own approval). Its a respectful partial disagreement Dog because I also understand what you are getting at. I understand these topic attracts those looking to advance their agendas of intolerance or hatred. I do not deny that at all. I guess I am saying, so what? You really think these hate mongers looking to use this to exploit the situation make any points? They end up evidencing the very thing they criticize. Chances are the people who get incited by this stuff to hate Muslims will have hated Muslims anyways and they use any opportunity to reinforce what they want to see and hear-that doesn't mean it should prevent the rest of us from trying to find a way to learn from this and talk about it openly and candidly and trust Muslims to know we do not hate them if we question the role their religion might have had in this episode but could just as also easily been another religion. If we are gonna put this shit down man don't you think we need to criticize everyone equally?

Strongly agree. Fundamentalist religious beliefs in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and Sikhism to name but a few, have been used by men to justify depicting women as property, or secondary identities whose definition comes only when attached as a supplemental support to a male one, and with words and concepts that depict the female body as evil and in need of control. The psycho-sexual references in these religions have been used by certain people to promote violence and hostility towards women and provides the rationalization for such actions. No religion is beyond criticism for the way they depict women and their bodies and they will continue to fuel these kinds of conflicts and violence unless we confront fundamentalists and say-no your way is not the only way. When a Muslim woman says to me she chose the Hijab, I get it. If she tells me she did not choose it, it was forced on her, I also get it-either way I will support her in what she thinks is right, not what someone else says. I appreciate if a woman is not of legal age, there are limits to how we interefere with their parents in raising them, but society has certain rules and one of them is you do not beat or hit your children or wife or commit violence even if you think it is in the name of your family's honour or God. The moment you engage in violence, you make it society's business and its no longer a religious issue, its a criminal law issue. At least that is how I postulate it and why I strongly agree with you but am not anti-religion, just anti people who use religion to promote violence and intolerance.

Actually Angus I do not disagree with you. In your reference which I would think I agree with keeping in mind I do not have all the information, it sounds like because this girl would not follow a certain moral script prescribed by her father, she enraged him. Totally agree with you. When I responded to Keng, I was repudiating his arguement that women need to follow his moral script (version) of Christianity to not be immoral. What I am arguing is no women is necessarily immoral or moral because they may or may not choose to obey the moral script prescribed to them by their father or any man. I hope that clarifies it.

Psst still waiting for a response.

Actually Scott I edited the post as you were responding to it so its no longer there. Lol. You know I do so hard to try control myself for you. By the way Crusader, in your buddy's world you will be right there smack dab beside me in hell. Do you really think you get an exemption? Doesn't work that way Scott. Lol.

Keng You responded to three posters using insulting and abusive language when they expressed disagreement with your remark to Scott as to the sexual position of women in response to this series of posts. The point is Keng your comments were abusive, inapropriate and only compounded when you defended them with further insults and in fact made it clear you do not care about other peoples' feelings, so yes Keng the pretence of you being a Christian is over. Now you can call me all the names you want but I will continue to challenge you or Scott or anyone else who thinks they can use this homicide as a platform for their own agendas. In the case of Scott, he has been consistent in advancing an arguement that generalizes all Muslims as hostile to Western values so I would expect him to use this homicide to advance his arguement In your case Keng, you have done something I challenge directly and that is you use Christianity as a pretext to suggest this homicide victim was immoral and brought her problems on her self and to suggest women are evil and immoral unless they subscribe to your values. We still do not know what your values are Keng because while you did state you are a member of a particular Christian denomination you refuse to tell anyone what it is just as you claim to be an expert on the new testament, German history, the holocaust, and women's issues but won't disclose your academic expertise. So yes Kening I continue to challenge you on what you continue to say. Now here is what I challenge you on this time Keng-this homicide was not caused because this young girl did not follow a certain moral script-it happened because her father lost control just as you do in your responses Keng.

Glad you enjoy it Scott considering I am sure you feel this homicide is an opportunity to promote your agenda that the world as we know it is crumbling because of people that do not share your moral values. But wait I am not done.

There are cross cultural issues (including fundamental religious values in this case Islamic ones) and gender issues involved. This could happen to any group moving from one culture to another. Its o.k. to examine what role Islam or any religion may be playing in this. It can be done openly and intelligently without smeering Muslims or immigrants. I really believe Black Dog the kind of people who try exploit such tragedies to advance their own agendas of intolerance may sound like they are making a lot of noise but no one remembers them or even hears them. What people do remember is a rational legal system, remaining unemotional, dettached and dealing with this matter in a fair, rational, and meaningful manner so we can learn from it so that we can prevent it from happening again.

Were you talking about Keng or the Zionists Buffy the Zionist Slayer? Seriously Oh Slayer of Evil, have a nice holidays. All I ask is when you slay slow down and look at what you slay. Please? It may have another side to it. Other then that how about you do something really nice and go after Keng for me. I need a rest. Ciao. Oh go one have a Stella on me. Its the only real beer of the righteous.

Keng its over. All this does is reinforce you are an abusive person. You just dig the hole deeper and that personna you tried to play slips further away.

Its sad but Keng's sexually abusive comments that have come out during this homicide topic should not come as a suprise to anyone. I think it crucial people understand the kind of man who talks in such terms is also a man who will talk about morality and virtue. The two go hand in hand and that is the very point of this post and a tragic way to show the exact point-that people who harbour abusive thoughts and feelings often turn to fundamentalism as a pretext for their behaviour.

Well Keng your role on this forum of holier then thou Christian preacher gets a bit difficult now doesn't it? The comments Keng appear t evidence you couldn't control yourself and in a discussion about the homicide of a young girl made sexually abusive comments ridiculing women. Now if you try defend yourself and laugh it off it will only reinforce the fact you are anything but what you have claimed to be preaching. If you ignore it, its not going away either. So what do you do now Keng? How does the man who preaches about morality to others preach his way out of this one?

"Hedonism"? I would argue that just as the pusuit of materialism in our Western society has also taught us to value things by how much we can control and as expendable objects which one "buys" and therefore "owns and controls" until we discard them and start the cycle again, so have we learned to treat relationships as we do material objects. Our relationships have become expendable and easily thrown out just as we do objects. In the material world we are conditioned to discard so we will buy again and refuel the economic cycle and it creates huge piles of garbage. We do the same with people trying to buy and control them until we throw them out like refuse. I think or pursuit of materialism is responsible for how we deal with each other. Sorry I do not subscribe to any alleged Christian such as Keng or anyone such as yourself lecturing me on what is or is not morally acceptable and claiming to know what is. This issue has to do with men being violent and trying to control the free will of women using the same exercise you are-claiming to know what is morally acceptable. In this specific case men moved to a society whose freedom of choice dealing with lifestyle issues was not acceptable to them and they felt they could impose their restrictions on a family member based on their religious and gender beliefs. Its bullshit whether it comes from them or you or any one else claiming to know what is right or wrong. Men pretending to be Gods. How quaint.

In response to you Keng; You stated; "It's funny how whenever a person has an opinion that doesn't suit a left-wing agenda, that this opinion manifests because of some supposed "fear". " Uh Keng the fact I disagree with your generalizations as to women doesn't make them left wing. "So the fact that women are increasingly violent and that immorality is on the rise really isn't the product of extensive reading, observation, and contemplation--it's just a knee-jerk reaction based on (unfounded) "fear"." This is a post about a tragic act of male on female violence fueled by fundamentalist religious beliefs that in this specific case are Muslim fundamentalist beliefs but could just as easily be caused the religious fundamentalist beliefs of many religions. You have now seen fit to use it as an opportunity to make negative generalizations about all women and assuming because some women have become violent (presumably you are talking about teen-age girls) this gives you a platform to suggest women are immoral. For that Keng you are in my opinion someone who tries to use once again his version of what he thinks Christianity is, to label all women to justify coontrolling them and demonizing them if they do not agree with you and so yes Keng your very words lead me to believe you fear women and in particular women who you can not control. I have no other way to try rationalize an alleged grown man talking about women in such simplistic negative generalized terms describing them as immoral. "Moreover, I'm not sure how simply holding an opinion on a subject somehow leads you to consider that I think of myself as an "expert" on any topic." Because quite simply Keng you have repeated on numerous occassions as you insult others that you are an expert. " I base my opinions on the findings of experts," And yet you will not reference your opinions to where you get your information from and time and time again have been shown to make statements that are clearly your subjective feelings but subjective feelings you want people to accept as fact. A fact Keng is not what you feel, its what is proven by neutral third party sources. "but I read about a wide variety of topics and tend not to focus on any specific one to the point where I consider myself an expert." So now we are back to you being an expert. So I again say to you-you claim to be an expert, state your religious denomination and academic training and area of expertise and site your academic references you claim to be reciting.