Muslim father chokes daughter to near death

[Rue]

Have you never read a single thing on Sharia Law and how women are treated in Muslim nations? There are also countless "honour killings" on top of women being unfairly stoned to death.

Do you really need me to go to a news source and look up examples?

Traditional Sharia, much like traditional Rabbinical law and most other fundamentalist religious laws, are incompatible with today's family and criminal laws in certain aspects and when they are, the Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear, Canadian laws will prevail and there is no opting out.

I personally believe orthodox Jewish rabbinical law, Sharia law, certain Hindu laws, fundamentalist Christian beliefs all have value systems that could be used to justify violence, etc., against women and so must be questioned openly taking care not to insult an entire people or its entire religion BUT THOSE aspects of it we find questionable with intelligent, well reasoned logic and decisions such as those enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada which make it clear what our laws are without insulting anyone's belief system.

[Guest American Woman]

If it was in fact an honour killing (yet to be proven) which it very much looks like, then that is what must be confronted and questioned including the role any organized religion or cultural values inter-related to it.

I realize this particular case has yet to be proven, but like you said, it very much looks like it is an honor killing-- or at least done in the mindset of it. I had no idea this was a problem in the western world until this happened and I started looking into it. I was shocked to find out that 91% of murder victims in Pakistan are women.

[cybercoma]

Bush never said God told him to invade Iraq. That quote has been attributed to him, but he didn't say it.

I apologize for repeating the statement if it is inaccurate. Do you know where I can find information about what was actually said and how it was taken out of context?

[Guest American Woman]

I apologize for repeating the statement if it is inaccurate. Do you know where I can find information about what was actually said and how it was taken out of context?

No problem.

Journalist Arnon Regular wrote, in the June 26 edition of Ha'aretz (Israel's most reputable newspaper), that he has minutes of a meeting among top-level Palestinian leaders, including Prime Minister Mahmoud Abas. The minutes are apparently quite detailed, because Regular wrote a long article recounting very specific conversations. The last paragraph of the article reads:

"According to Abbas, Bush said: 'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.'"

Before you jump to any conclusions, remember that you are reading a translation of a translation of a translation. Mahmoud Abas does not speak English. Bush does not speak Arabic. If Bush said these words, or something like them, Abas heard them from a translator. Then Abas repeated them, as he remembered them a couple of weeks later, in Arabic. Some unknown person wrote down what he thought he heard Abas say. Then Regular, or someone at Ha'aretz, translated them back into English-or perhaps first into Hebrew and then into English.

Link

Bush has denied saying it and there are just too many translations involved, not to mention it was 'as remembered a couple of weeks later' and it was "some unknown person" who wrote down what he "thought he heard Abas say" ... an so forth.

[cybercoma]

I would prefer to sit down with the next generation of Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jews, whoever and encourage them to ignore the generation before them...

I would prefer to spend my time with young women teaching them regardless of what culture or religion they come from, anything to do with their body, begins and ends with them

There will be clashes as old and new values meet, but the next generations will synthesize them as yours did and those did before yours.

Excellent post. Thank you.

[cybercoma]

I personally believe orthodox Jewish rabbinical law, Sharia law, certain Hindu laws, fundamentalist Christian beliefs all have value systems that could be used to justify violence, etc., against women and so must be questioned openly taking care not to insult an entire people or its entire religion BUT THOSE aspects of it we find questionable with intelligent, well reasoned logic and decisions such as those enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada which make it clear what our laws are without insulting anyone's belief system.

That's fair, but when it's the religion that's creating an environment for these things to flourish, questioning the religion should not be taken as an insult and attack by those who are moderate. Many times this is the case, when that's not what people are doing. Moderates get overly defensive about their religion at times when questioning it is not only appropriate, but necessary.

Edited December 31, 2007 by cybercoma

[jbg]

Double post

Edited January 1, 2008 by jbg

[jbg]

The only thing that remains the same is the thinking that there is a God given right to harm others. It is unquestioning faith that has seriously warped the moral compass of these people and their society.

That's plenty to have in common. When wsa the last murderous Jewish spree or honor killing, for example?

[cybercoma]

That's plenty to have in common. When wsa the last murderous Jewish spree or honor killing, for example?

You know, just as well as I do, that Hasidic and Orthodox Jews have certain rights and traditions that are completely male dominated. Although they have not murdered their wives and daughters (and why would ANYONE anyway? We're not comparing here), they still haven't treated them as equal human beings.

You want to say, "yeah but the Muslims are worse, they routinely kill." And, yeah... you're right. But, taken as seperate issues, the Jews and Christians still oppress women.

It's not about which is worse, because clearly the issues in Islam are much worse, but it's about equality, rights and freedom for everyone regardless of gender.

Edited January 1, 2008 by cybercoma

[Argus]

Why would I argus? Have you seen me engage in any remark where I make negative generalizations about an entire group of people and assign them negative general characterizations based on my subjective preconceptions?

You seem determined not to make moral judgements regardless of how morally repugnant some behaviour is. You appear to believe this is the right way to go. I, on the other hand, have no difficulty in judgeging a group's behaviour - as a group - and finding that behaviour wanting.

Did it ever dawn on you not all Christians are evil and perverted just because they burned people at stakes, tortured them when they would not convert and engaged in blood rituals for centuries? Should I condemn all Christians because Keng claims to be a true Christian?

I don't know. How stupid would that be? Keng is not a Christian from the medieval period, after all. I have no difficulty condemning Christians of that period as generally woefully ignorant, culturally primitive and religious fanatics.

Come on Argus the point was to challenge such thinking in regards to ALL people not just some.

Challenge it where you find it, but don't gloss over cultural and religiously inspired violence because you're afraid of condemning minorities.

Edited January 1, 2008 by Argus

[Argus]

Here is specifically what I challenge in Argus' reasoning as he states;

"I wish people like you would stop whining about "peaceful muslims" and "moderate muslims". According to the polls almost all Muslims are, by our secular standards, religious fanatics who are not particularly moderate at all. "

Of course there are no such polls. It is absurd to suggest an accurate poll of every single Muslim on this planet could be taken to prove "almost all" are fanatical.

Of course there are no such polls? How do you know? Did you look? Such polls have been discussed on this forum many times, polls which show a vast number of Muslims throughout the world want to bring in Sharia law, for example. Even in the UK, almost half of Muslims want Sharia Law. Sharia Law is barbaric, so why would I not find such people to be barbarians?

What Argus is doing is engaging in a negative generalization of millions upon millions of people he does not know claiming they all can be assigned the same simplistic generalized negative category.

I am saying what I believe to be true based on the repeated behaviour patterns and expressed opinions of Muslims throughout the world. I don't believe that is illogical. I recognize there are individuals who will vary from the norm, but that does not make "the norm" any less accurate as a generalization.

As for subjective opinions. Virtually everything expressed on this web site is a subjective opinion, including your posts.

What I challenge is the statement that there is one monolithic value system shared by a majority of Muslims. I do not doubt in many Muslim societities fundamentalism is a fact, an every day fact and that fuels the kind of violene JBG refers to or Argus is now referring to including violence against females. That is not the issue. Discussing it in a way that does not assume every single Muslim is an evil violent fanatic is the issue. There is a way to speak openly about problems in ANY society without condemning an entire people.

You don't challenge that there are "many Muslim societies" where fundamentalism is a fact. How many? Can you give me a few where it is NOT a fact? Where there are not substantial numbers of the citizenry who are fundamentalists and who want a fundamentalist government - ie Sharia law? By "substantial" I do not mean five or ten percent, but fifty or sixty or seventy percent.

I find such categorization simplistic, inaccurate, and simply inciting hatred and the rationalization for demonizing an entire people. I use this exact same criticism when I see people slur Jews, Christians, gays or anyone else, not just Muslims.

I am not slurring Muslims. I am describing them.

So Argus you want to get into a pissing contest with a Muslim fanatic as to whose pee pee is bigger be my guest. Me I would prefer to sit down with the next generation of Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jews, whoever and encourage them to ignore the generation before them precisely because of this need to kill and point pee pees at one another.

How noble of you. Forget that "the next generation" of Muslim is more violently inclined, more fundamentalist than the last. We had a young Muslim woman shot to death here in Ottawa by her brother last year because she was seeing a man he didn't approve of. That brother was in his early twenties. There's your next generation! I realize that doesn't match that flower-power sixties, youth is good, love-everyone mentality you appear to be aiming at. You go and chat with them and get your head cut off for your trouble.

I would also say to young men, while my generation is busy destroying the planet with petty ignorance, moral indignation, civil wars and terrorism over pure bull shit pride precisely because of men who have pee pee anxiety or who are busy destroying the planet with toxic waste because once again we humans don't acknowledge anything but our own needs, the next generation must distance itself from us and find ways to get along if it is to preserve what is left of this planet.

Boy, what a load of crap. People like you have been claiming the planet is being destroyed for decades now. Doesn't seem to have happened. And I don't think it's "big pee pees" as you describe it in your extremely sexist manner, which is responsible for toxic waste. But then I don't doubt you disdain capitalism as well as common sense.

See the point is Argus you will be in an old age home soon but what about the next generation? While you raise bloody hell in the home over Mohamed not respecting your ham, maybe just maybe your grandchildren and his have far more serious things they will have to deal with and rely on each other for help to resolve.

Well, as I said above, the "next generation" of Muslims are far more likely to be willing to kill anyone who doubts Muhammed, and to despise Jews most of all. So I expect the next generation will wind up with much more violent clashes between moderate Christianity and the Muslim world. I expect that the growing number of Muslims in the West will result in much more anti-semitic violence and violence towards women, as well as a growing effort at legislating "moral" codes of conduct in keeping with Muslim beliefs.

Edited January 1, 2008 by Argus

[Rue]

Argus you stated;

"You seem determined not to make moral judgements regardless of how morally repugnant some behaviour is."

Actually you are dead on about that. Why? Because I believe if we are to denounce violence of ANY kind it must be done objectively because none of us can claim we are not violent. To me its an issue as to credibility. The same standards I see must apply to all. So don't mistake that for me being "afraid" or not wanting to condemn any religious wack job.

"You appear to believe this is the right way to go. I, on the other hand, have no difficulty in judgeging a group's behaviour - as a group - and finding that behaviour wanting."

I actually respect that in your position Argus and understand it. I say the same about JBG's position which is the same as yours. I personally do not think it will be effective. If you want someone to stop engaging in violence the approach to contain them must come by using very precise logical methods of containment not subjective angry reactions. At least that is what I think.

Is their morality in any law of course Argus I concede that point. My arguement goes to the application of the law-its the ancient arguement of applying the law without being arbitrary. Its why for example I believe laws do not work if they simply knee jerk react to the anger of a crowd wanting someone burned at the stake.

You stated;

"Challenge it where you find it, but don't gloss over cultural and religiously inspired violence because you're afraid of condemning minorities."

Your last point I hear loud and clear. My arguements should never be used to justify avoiding condemning ANYONE simply because they are a minority. I agree in the sense that NO ONE should get a free pass based on a race or religious or ethnic card. The law is to be applied to all equally. It should not be about a political propriety contest. In that classic sense we are both on the same wave length.

[Rue]

Argus I am deadly serious about the pee pee comments. It may sound simplistic but I am one of those who subscribe to political psychology theories that much of the violence we see is inter-connected to sexual dysfunction and the aberrated or side-tracked or repressed sexual drive of males. I am sure you would disagree but to me much violence can be explainedand understood and prevented in my opinion using modern psycho-analystic models which analyze behaviour on an individual level as being inter-connected to one's dna, biological and genetic traits, environmental factors, learned behaviour and exposure to certain kinds of behaviour and chemicals, etc.

I personally see us men as primative apes who have not yet learned to develop our intelligence to a level where we can evolve past indiscriminate violence, killing and hatred. I believe we are still primative baboons who have not progressed too far from learning how to use a stick to bash in brains. Now before I insult baboons I would also point out that baboons, chimpanzees, guerillas and orango-tans ( and I suspect Sasquatch) are far less violent then we humans.

Much of what I see in human behaviour is alpha male pack behaviour and alpha male baboons trying to be the head of the pack. I sound sexist to you because I believe the statistics we do have on homicide and violence clearly shows the vast majority of murders and violent killings and crimes are done by men suggesting a strong co-relation to our testosterone and primative instinct to hunt and kill.

So do I believe men are inferior to women-no, just more violent and prone to killings and violence. So it doesn't make me sexist because I do not see men as inferior to women per se, just more vulnerable to diseases and behaviours that flow from being violent, including premature death.

That said my daughters and wife are of course superior to me and as well I concede any other woman on this forum is smarter then me. And yes God is a woman. I have no problems conceding such points.

There is an old Yiddish expression-"any man who thinks he is smarter than a woman dies alone without a legacy or a clean bottom".

Now for me, since I may need someone to reach for my urine bag and I don't like male nurses ( o.k. I am sexist!) because I find them too hairy, I prefer to concede now.

Edited January 1, 2008 by Rue

[Guest American Woman]

As I've said over and over, notwithstanding whoever Tarek Fatah is, the silence of the Muslim world to these "isolated incidents" has been deafening, and this father has received a lot more covert sympathy than Picton has.

Tarek Fatah is the founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress. You might be interested in what he's had to say about Aqsa Parvez (emphasis mine):

"In my mind this was an honour killing," Tarek Fatah, the founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, says adamantly about what he calls a blight on Islam.

Make no mistake, says Fatah: "This has happened before" and will again. "It is going to get worse before it gets better," he said. "There needs to be honest debate about it." Fatah says these murders have been covered up. "Sometimes they involve a balcony and they say it's suicide and other times they just don't find the body."

One teen said while her parents would not appreciate her removing her hijab, it would never go beyond a minor disagreement. But Fatah said the "media should not just talk to ones wearing the head scarfs but ones who don't want to."

And he's not the only one to recognize that it's a problem.

Islamic Social Services Association president Shahina Siddiqui said "if religion and culture has played a part in this, it cannot be ignored." Calls from teens come "often enough to concern me" and she wants to ensure there is never another Aqsa case. "Girls should not be left on their own to deal with this," she said. "They need a place to go for help."

Link

[kengs333]

I personally believe orthodox Jewish rabbinical law, Sharia law, certain Hindu laws, fundamentalist Christian beliefs all have value systems that could be used to justify violence, etc., against women and so must be questioned openly taking care not to insult an entire people or its entire religion BUT THOSE aspects of it we find questionable with intelligent, well reasoned logic and decisions such as those enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada which make it clear what our laws are without insulting anyone's belief system.

That's kind of ignorant, don't you think?--"fundamentalist" Christians take their lessons from the NT, and if they take what is written so literally, then that would mean that they are non-violent because Jesus taught non-violence. There's nothing in the NT that states that a man has the right to strike a woman; or vice verse.

[cybercoma]

That's kind of ignorant, don't you think?--"fundamentalist" Christians take their lessons from the NT, and if they take what is written so literally, then that would mean that they are non-violent because Jesus taught non-violence. There's nothing in the NT that states that a man has the right to strike a woman; or vice verse.

...as long as she's cooking, cleaning and taking care of the kids, right?

[Eric James]

From what I gather in this thread the discussion has revolved around the reasoning why something like this would happen and the reaction of the people in response to this horrible event.

Firstly, I think that regardless of how you feel about the reasons and the reaction you simply can not deny that this is a horrible event. There is no reason for murder - whether or not a certain society supports reasons or not.

Secondly, every murder, every crime in fact has a reason. There is a whole discipline in academia on it called criminology. Regardless of the reason a murder is a murder - just the same that stealing is stealing whether it is done by a poor man or a rich man.

The reaction of the people is all presumption and thus should all be taken with a grain of salt no matter how hubris is dripping from the bounty of facts they present to support their theory.

[kengs333]

...as long as she's cooking, cleaning and taking care of the kids, right?

There's nothing wrong with women taking care of the children; ideally that's the way it should be, since children need a solid foundation. Only someone who has a devalued opinion about children can make such a hostile remark as you did. Do you think that children are not worthy of the love and nurture of their biological mother? Of course the situation sometimes dictates the need for additional income, and there's no reason that a woman can't go out and work; but one aspect of traditional Christian society was the social role that women have played in maintaining links between members of the community/parish/congregation. This is one of the reasons why feminists brainwash women into believing that in order to be "equal" they have to enter the workforce without question.

Edited January 2, 2008 by kengs333

[BornAlbertan]

There's nothing wrong with women taking care of the children; ideally that's the way it should be, since children need a solid foundation. Only someone who has a devalued opinion about children can make such a hostile remark as you did. Do you think that children are not worthy of the love and nurture of their biological mother? Of course the situation sometimes dictates the need for additional income, and there's no reason that a woman can't go out and work; but one aspect of traditional Christian society was the social role that women have played in maintaining links between members of the community/parish/congregation. This is one of the reasons why feminists brainwash women into believing that in order to be "equal" they have to enter the workforce without question.

Oh common...can't you see what they are telling us?! I will have to re-evaluate how I treat my wife...for I never once realized I am an oppressive husband. I mean, I told her "When you are ready for kids, let me know...I have been ready for a long time". I then also said, "If you want to stay home with the kids until they are in school...I 100% support that and we will make it work. But it is your choice". Oh...and I never realized that by me preparing tonights supper last night only to turn on the crockpot this morning was opressive....or for making a majority of the meals for that matter. I am a complete and utter prick. Maybe I should leave my church...because obviously since I am a Christian, I am a lousy husband!

Then again, maybe it is just some chucklehead beaking off about something he doesn't understand.

Edited January 2, 2008 by BornAlbertan

[Rue]

That's kind of ignorant, don't you think?--"fundamentalist" Christians take their lessons from the NT, and if they take what is written so literally, then that would mean that they are non-violent because Jesus taught non-violence. There's nothing in the NT that states that a man has the right to strike a woman; or vice verse.

No what is ignorant is you trying to pass yourself off as an authority on the New Testament and now trying to suggest the New Testament does not contain sexist passages that continue to be used by Christian fundamentalists to rationalize violence or sexism against women.

Of course there are numerous references in the New Testament that have been used by Christian fundamentalists to argue a “Christian” women’s role is subordinate to a man’s and justify violence against women including;

1-Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. -- I Corinthians 11:9

2-Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in the church. Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? -- I Corinthians 14:34-36

3-The head of the woman is the man, just as the head of man is Christ. -Corinthians 11:3 -

4-The wife should obey her husband as the church should obey Christ. Ephesians 5:22-24 -

5-Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. -- Ephesians 5:23-24

4-Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. -- Colossians 3:18

5-Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach, or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. -- I Timothy 2:11-14.

6-Women should be subject to their husbands as Sarah was to Abraham. - Peter 3:1,5,6 and Tit. 2:5; Col. 3:18

7- She must obey her husband even if he is not serving God. A wife may think she can disobey her husband if he commits sin, but God says she must still obey. –Peter 3:1

8- Then of course there is reference in Acts 5:20 that a woman can only disobey a man if the husband asks her to commit a sin.

9-There is also reference in 2 Peter 2:19-21 that the Bible is a divine book written by God to men. Then of course there is Timothy 2:8-15 and Corinthians 11:2-18 that state women are not allowed to teach or have authority over men and cover their heads in worship.

It is my opinion Keng you use the New Testament as a pathogen/cover/pretext to express your personal subjective feelings about sexuality and women among other things.

I would argue this is why Keng you have made references to women being sexually manipulative and coercive in matriarchal societies or made a crude remark about their sexual position in response to the homicide of a young woman. In my opinion, it appears because you pretext it with a reference to Christianity, you think you are able to then argue its not your own personal psycho-sexual feelings but religious ones.

To me, you are precisely an example of how an individual man, with specific issues as to how he perceives women can easily use the Bible or ANY book of religion to express and fuel his individual psycho-sexual attitudes including violence.

That was the point and you continue to demonstrate it in your subsequent post to another reader as to what you perceive is the role of women.

I would contend an abusive man who engages in violence of a woman is a weak and sickly man desperately trying to compensate for his feelings of inferiority.

Edited January 2, 2008 by Rue

[cybercoma]

Oh common...can't you see what they are telling us?! I will have to re-evaluate how I treat my wife...for I never once realized I am an oppressive husband. I mean, I told her "When you are ready for kids, let me know...I have been ready for a long time". I then also said, "If you want to stay home with the kids until they are in school...I 100% support that and we will make it work. But it is your choice". Oh...and I never realized that by me preparing tonights supper last night only to turn on the crockpot this morning was opressive....or for making a majority of the meals for that matter. I am a complete and utter prick. Maybe I should leave my church...because obviously since I am a Christian, I am a lousy husband!

Then again, maybe it is just some chucklehead beaking off about something he doesn't understand.

Chucklehead, nice.

Of course, you took what I said and turned it into something entirely different. Kengs has a history of misogyny on this forum, and that was the point I was making.

When a woman CHOOSES to stay home with the children, that's one thing. When she's told to stay home by her husband, or threatened with unrelenting torment in the afterlife by her church or ostracized by her peers and therefore is FORCED to stay home, that's a whole different story.

I'm not saying all Christians, so don't put words in my mouth, but as Rue has shown, when the book is followed to the letter it is oppressive towards women. Their roles are defined and the definition is that their purpose is to serve their men.

You need to understand that the difference between what you said in your post and what I'm talking about is that you gave your wife a choice. The option was hers; however, did you offer to stay home and raise the children, while she stayed at work?

[kengs333]

To me, you are precisely an example of how an individual man, with specific issues as to how he perceives women can easily use the Bible or ANY book of religion to express and fuel his individual psycho-sexual attitudes including violence.

That's just complete nonsense. It's really getting to the point where I think you just keep going too far in you hyper quest to disrespect Christianity. Simply listing passages from the Bible without, apparently, any real understanding of what is meant by them or the context in which they were written and pounding out hysterical diatribes about what you think it means and using this as pretext for indirectly attacking Christianity in general, is pretty ignorant. Needless to say, this only seems to confirm for some what people like you are bent on doing when it comes to Christians and Christianity.

I would contend an abusive man who engages in violence of a woman is a weak and sickly man desperately trying to compensate for his feelings of inferiority.

That's the typical feminist attitude towards domestic violence, but the problem is a little more complex, and at it's core is the prevelance of sinfulness in our society that allows for such things to happen; Christ taught non-violence, and non-violent behaviour means not striking or abusing a wife, child, or anyone for that matter. Violent behaviour is rooted in sin, and like I said sin is widespread in our society, and the reason for this is because many people prefer to live in sin and be sinners. Seeing that you would, apparently, prefer that people not be Christian, I would suggest that in a very small way you yourself--as many people do--have some responsibility in this matter, as well. Which begs the question what really motivates you in being so hostile towards Christianity...

[BornAlbertan]

Chucklehead, nice.

Of course, you took what I said and turned it into something entirely different. Kengs has a history of misogyny on this forum, and that was the point I was making.

When a woman CHOOSES to stay home with the children, that's one thing. When she's told to stay home by her husband, or threatened with unrelenting torment in the afterlife by her church or ostracized by her peers and therefore is FORCED to stay home, that's a whole different story.

I'm not saying all Christians, so don't put words in my mouth, but as Rue has shown, when the book is followed to the letter it is oppressive towards women. Their roles are defined and the definition is that their purpose is to serve their men.

You need to understand that the difference between what you said in your post and what I'm talking about is that you gave your wife a choice. The option was hers; however, did you offer to stay home and raise the children, while she stayed at work?

Sorry for the Chucklehead comment...it is just when I get stereotyped because I share the same conceptual belief as someone (note I never said fundamental) I do take offense because I am not like that. I don't push my views, nor do I preach. I drink, smoke and I swear...some in that order I am not perfect...and yes, my wife is free to tell me so. For the record, I told my wife I would be more than willing to stay at home with the kids (we don't have yet but are trying). When the time comes, I very well might be the one as she owns her own business and would not readily be able to take maternal leave and my job is a little more flexible...so long as I have an internet connection I can VPN and do all my work from home. Makes economical sense...as well as it jives with both of our beliefs that PARENTS should raise the children....not the state...and deffinately not some uneducated chainsmoking drunk (sorry...I know one of those who works at a daycare...had a kid too with FAS because she didn't want the baby and continued to binge drink....want one of those raising your kids? I sure as hell don't!). Besides, when your kid is screwed up...who do you blame then? Kids are not cattle. They should not be scuttled around like they are from daycare to daycare facing multiple levels of authority figures when they are still trying to figure out who is ultimately the ones responsible for their well-being.

ANYHOOOO....enough on "daycare"...

A good read on the topic...

http://www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa078.htm

Christianity does not condone such treatment of women. It was the men in the early centuries that brought this menality forth...and it continued for centuries. It was NOT Christ's teaching nor was it the writs of the New Testament. It was the twistings of men.

[kengs333]

Of course, you took what I said and turned it into something entirely different. Kengs has a history of misogyny on this forum, and that was the point I was making.

Let's not forget you have "a history of [being hostile towards me and Christianity in general] on this forum" so naturally you are going to paint me in this light. Sorry, but if you consider my not wanting women to live in sin, not engage in self-destructive sexual behaviour, then it would appear to me that you may have some issues you need to resolve. Labelling someone as a misogynist is a classic feminist tactic to exclude men from certain discussions, and it's quite sad that you would have to resort to such a thing.

[kengs333]

Christianity does not condone such treatment of women. It was the men in the early centuries that brought this menality forth...and it continued for centuries. It was NOT Christ's teaching nor was it the writs of the New Testament. It was the twistings of men.

Actually, I believe that the purpose of many of those pasages was to exclude certain women who were more inclined to incorporate their still deeply-felt pagan beliefs into the respective Christian communities. Understanding the epistles requires an understanding of Mediterranean cultures and religions of the time. Studies of the early church make for interesting reading, and I doubt that cybercoma has ever taken the opportunity to do so.