Cleric supports forced sex and beatings on women

cybercoma · February 2, 2009

Where else is it being taught in today's society?

How about the objectification of women in western popular culture? What about the social pressure for women to undergo body modifications in the form of plastic surgeries?

Women are treated poorly in our society as well, but ethnocentrism doesn't allow us to see it that way.

CANADIEN · February 3, 2009

I see. I'm against women being raped and beaten. I'm against this being taught in today's society by religious figures daily in any way, shape or form. I'm sorry but standing up for the woman's right not to be raped and beaten isn't bigotry. No matter how much CANADIEN thinks it is. I'm sorry CANADIEN but shame on you for saying that being against women being raped and beaten is bigotry. Shame.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Nobody is buying your "one needs to be islamophobic to defend women's right" line, and few are unable to see that your so-called "defense of women" is nothing more than a pathetic excuse.

Mr.Canada · February 3, 2009

:lol: Nobody is buying your "one needs to be islamophobic to defend women's right" line, and few are unable to see that your so-called "defense of women" is nothing more than a pathetic excuse.

Being critical of Islam isn't a hatred towards Islam. If that were the case many here hate Christianity by your definition, oh that's right. It's perfectly fine to hate Christians but not the poor helpless Muslims who happen to be killing people in terror, cutting people heads of in the streets, raping and beating their wives, are anti-homosexuality and anti-abortion, right? Because they're minorities they get the free pass while the socialists line up to be photographed with a bhurka clad person in Canada.

Yes, I am for women and against violence against women in all forms including the beating and raping of women who refuse to give sex on demand to Muslim men.

charter.rights · February 3, 2009

I see. I'm against women being raped and beaten. I'm against this being taught in today's society by religious figures daily in any way, shape or form. I'm sorry but standing up for the woman's right not to be raped and beaten isn't bigotry. No matter how much CANADIEN thinks it is. I'm sorry CANADIEN but shame on you for saying that being against women being raped and beaten is bigotry. Shame.

There is more to women's rights than being raped and beaten. In fact these aren't about rights per se but about society's failures in any culture and in any ethnic group. So just to see if you are honest about being concerned about womens rights perhaps you will answer the following:

1. Do women have the right to decide for themselves and determine which path in life they will take?

2. Do women have a right to displace a male counterpart in competition for a job, even if it means tipping the scale in order to provide women with equal opportunity in the workplace?

3. Are women capable of becoming ministers of God and promoting and teaching the doctrine of the Catholic Church?

4. Do women have a place in the home as sole caregivers for children?

5. Do women have a right to join predominantly male clubs and groups that were once off limits to them because of their gender?

Although this is just a sample it might help us see where you are coming form if you are really concerned about womens rights, or whether or not it just bigotry against religion and ethnic minorities.

Mr.Canada · February 3, 2009

There is more to women's rights than being raped and beaten. In fact these aren't about rights per se but about society's failures in any culture and in any ethnic group. So just to see if you are honest about being concerned about womens rights perhaps you will answer the following:
1. Do women have the right to decide for themselves and determine which path in life they will take?

2. Do women have a right to displace a male counterpart in competition for a job, even if it means tipping the scale in order to provide women with equal opportunity in the workplace?

3. Are women capable of becoming ministers of God and promoting and teaching the doctrine of the Catholic Church?

4. Do women have a place in the home as sole caregivers for children?

5. Do women have a right to join predominantly male clubs and groups that were once off limits to them because of their gender?

Although this is just a sample it might help us see where you are coming form if you are really concerned about womens rights, or whether or not it just bigotry against religion and ethnic minorities.

1. What do you mean path? Career path?

2.The best person for the job. Male or female makes no difference just the best person.

3.No they aren't. This has nothing to do with equality, it's the rules of the Church. In place for 2000 years. The Church has respect for tradition unlike secular socialists.Women can be Protestant Ministers.

4.That's a decision to be made by the husband and wife to decide.

5.Men have a right to have private male-only groups and clubs just as women do. Could I join an all female health club? No, I couldn't. Same thing. I'm a member of the KoC. A Catholic all male fraternal organization.

Argus · February 3, 2009

How about the objectification of women in western popular culture? What about the social pressure for women to undergo body modifications in the form of plastic surgeries?

Only the weak generally fall for that. There are all sorts of social pressures on people all over the world, in every culture, as to how they look (well, except for women in Islamic countries who have to hide their faces, I suppose).

Women are treated poorly in our society as well, but ethnocentrism doesn't allow us to see it that way.

There are more women in most college programs than men. Young women in Canada rule. Canada is one of the few countries were parents would prefer to have a girl than a boy. What the heck are you talking about?

Argus · February 3, 2009

2. Do women have a right to displace a male counterpart in competition for a job, even if it means tipping the scale in order to provide women with equal opportunity in the workplace?

Do you not see the irony in that question?

ToadBrother · February 3, 2009

3.No they aren't. This has nothing to do with equality, it's the rules of the Church. In place for 2000 years. The Church has respect for tradition unlike secular socialists.Women can be Protestant Ministers.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Mr. Canada.

WIP · February 3, 2009

Hypocrisy, thy name is Mr. Canada.

This would be a good time to add that the Catholic Church plays both sides of the religion/politics & banking field since they are the only church that has its HQ in its own sovereign nation - the Vatican - which incidentally happens to be the only nation on Earth with no female citizens. Other nations are pressured to drop their misogynistic practices, so why not this one?

And other churches are limited to threatening or campaigning for politicians to influence the political system, but the Vatican has a seat at the U.N., where they can lobby other governments directly to advance their wreckless campaign against birth control and zero population growth.

Mr.Canada · February 3, 2009

Hypocrisy, thy name is Mr. Canada.

There is nothing hypocritical at all with what I said. The Church has had the same rules that are divinely inspired for 2000 years. There is no questioning involved. Catholics follow doctrine, if the Pope was to change rules every time someone whined it wouldn't have as many followers as it does. People like stability which equals strength. Men and women are treated equally within the Church as men and women have different roles in society.

If you don't like it that women cannot be priests and The RCC won't marry homosexuals and bless your abortion don't be a RC. It's that simple. There are plenty of religions out there pick a different one or pick none at all, I couldn't care less. The RCC fits my beliefs the best so I joined up. I don't like a religion that tells me it's ok to beat and rape my wife or that my wife has to be covered from head to toe or if my wife insults my family I should kill her or if someone draws a cartoon I should try to kill them or everyone that isn't Muslim is an infidel and should be killed or that blowing myself up in the name of Allah will grant me admission to heaven with 72 virgins. It doesn't fit with my core beliefs so I didn't become Muslim. Understand?

M.Dancer · February 3, 2009

The Church has had the same rules that are divinely inspired for 2000 years.

If that is true, them why have the rules changed? Orginally, priests were allowed to marry, then they saw the inheritence of deceased priests going to their heirs instead of Rome and then Rome got this divine inspiration....the church law wasn't even written till 1139...

Mr.Canada · February 3, 2009

If that is true, them why have the rules changed? Orginally, priests were allowed to marry, then they saw the inheritence of deceased priests going to their heirs instead of Rome and then Rome got this divine inspiration....the church law wasn't even written till 1139...

Great! So you agree with the rest of my post. Good for you, it's a step in the right direction.

Catholics follow doctrine, if the Pope was to change rules every time someone whined it wouldn't have as many followers as it does. People like stability which equals strength. Men and women are treated equally within the Church as men and women have different roles in society.
If you don't like it that women cannot be priests and The RCC won't marry homosexuals and bless your abortion don't be a RC. It's that simple. There are plenty of religions out there pick a different one or pick none at all, I couldn't care less. The RCC fits my beliefs the best so I joined up. I don't like a religion that tells me it's ok to beat and rape my wife or that my wife has to be covered from head to toe or if my wife insults my family I should kill her or if someone draws a cartoon I should try to kill them or everyone that isn't Muslim is an infidel and should be killed or that blowing myself up in the name of Allah will grant me admission to heaven with 72 virgins. It doesn't fit with my core beliefs so I didn't become Muslim.

Edited February 3, 2009 by Mr.Canada

charter.rights · February 3, 2009

1. What do you mean path? Career path?
2.The best person for the job. Male or female makes no difference just the best person.

3.No they aren't. This has nothing to do with equality, it's the rules of the Church. In place for 2000 years. The Church has respect for tradition unlike secular socialists.Women can be Protestant Ministers.

4.That's a decision to be made by the husband and wife to decide.

5.Men have a right to have private male-only groups and clubs just as women do. Could I join an all female health club? No, I couldn't. Same thing. I'm a member of the KoC. A Catholic all male fraternal organization.

So in essence you are conceding that you don't truly believe in women's equal rights:

1. Women hold the right under Charter law to freedom of thought and expression. That also means they have a right to decide for abortion or not without interference, choose a career in any field traditionally off-limits to them because of their gender and free to walk topless down the street if they so choose.

2. In fact women and minorities are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to compete for jobs where men traditionally dominated the workforce (such as fire-fighting and police services) and the hiring policies of these types of agencies are required to adjust the hiring policy and criteria to accommodate them where women are not represented in a proportionate number. As such it is their right to demand that the same criteria used for males be adjusted where it imposes a barrier to their employment on equal standing.

3. The point of the Catholic Church refusing to indoctrinate women as priests is not an issue with womens' capabilities but one where religion has an equal right under its traditions not to hire women for that position. Further, your chauvinist misogynist opinions aside, it is not necessary for women to be certified by the Church to teach the doctrine to say their children or others. It is in fact their right to become ministers of God if they so choose. However, they may be limited by the religious tradition within the Church.

4. Women do have a role in the home as the primary care-givers IF they decide. It is not up to her husband at all to decide for her. And if she chooses, she can allow her husband's wishes to help her decide.

5. Its good you brought up the Knights of Columbus since it is a chartered group and NOT a religious order protected under the freedom of religion under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is unlikely in the face of a Charter challenge that the KofC would survive its exclusion of women. However, your example of using a womens' health club as a similar circumstance is false, since under the Charter government can allow:

"reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"

in order to protect the woman's secondary right to privacy and security. Other than for misogynist reasons there is no other purpose to exclude women from the KofC.

I thank you for answering honestly to the point that you are in fact promoting bigotry against minorities and not the protection of womens rights as you claimed you were. And just in case you think you were tricked here I would ask others to weigh in on the fairness of the questions and whether or not they were simple and clear......

Mr.Canada · February 3, 2009

1. I agree with everything but abortion.

2. I said the same thing but I'm not long winded like you are. I like to get to the point not blather on and on and on.

3. Completely agree and said so.

4. I said the same thing. It's for the husband and wife to decide together.

5. charter.rights, it sounds like you want women to have special rights not equal rights. So women can have women only facilities/social clubs but men cannot?

Try to keep your replies short and sweet. It only portrays arrogance when one uses 20 words when 4 or 5 will do.

Edited February 3, 2009 by Mr.Canada

charter.rights · February 3, 2009

1. I agree with everything but abortion.
2. I said the same thing but I'm not long winded like you are. I like to get to the point not blather on and on and on.

3. Completely agree and said so.

4. I said the same thing. It's for the husband and wife to decide together.

5. charter.rights, it sounds like you want women to have special rights not equal rights. So women can have women only facilities/social clubs but men cannot?

Try to keep your replies short and sweet. It only portrays arrogance when one uses 20 words when 4 or 5 will do.

No you didn't say the same thing. The fact that you do not agree with a woman's right to choose even abortion means that you deny her the rights she has under the law. Of course you completely glossed over point 5 and then quickly turned in to non sequitur ...as usual....

Women have rights under the Charter that require employers to modify their hiring policy. This is not a "special right" but a right defined by the Supreme Court of Canada to tip the scales in their favour in order to dislodge "the old boys club" that used to dominate the workforce.

I would rather engage people in reasonable discussion than to use simplistic one-liners intended to support bigotry and misogyny.

Edited February 3, 2009 by charter.rights

M.Dancer · February 3, 2009

Great! So you agree with the rest of my post. Good for you, it's a step in the right direction.

If I correct you in the first two lines it's a safe bet I don't bother to read the rest of your drivel.

Mr.Canada · February 3, 2009

No you didn't say the same thing. The fact that you do not agree with a woman's right to choose even abortion means that you deny her the rights she has under the law. Of course you completely glossed over point 5 and then quickly turned in to non sequitur ...as usual....
Women have rights under the Charter that require employers to modify their hiring policy. This is not a "special right" but a right defined by the Supreme Court of Canada to tip the scales in their favour in order to dislodge "the old boys club" that used to dominate the workforce.

I would rather engage people in reasonable discussion than to use simplistic one-liners intended to support bigotry and misogyny.

Because I disprove of late term abortion doesn't make me completely against women and misogynistic. Get a grip.

The best person should get the job, male or female. No affirmative action please.

I don't like a religion that tells me it's ok to beat and rape my wife or that my wife has to be covered from head to toe or if my wife insults my family I should kill her or if someone draws a cartoon I should try to kill them or everyone that isn't Muslim is an infidel and should be killed or that blowing myself up in the name of Allah will grant me admission to heaven with 72 virgins. It doesn't fit with my core beliefs so I didn't become Muslim.

CANADIEN · February 3, 2009

Being critical of Islam isn't a hatred towards Islam.

That being said, you're hatred of Islam is pretty much evident.

M.Dancer · February 4, 2009

I don't like a religion that tells me it's ok to beat and rape my wife or that my wife has to be covered from head to toe or if my wife insults my family I should kill her or if someone draws a cartoon I should try to kill them or everyone that isn't Muslim is an infidel and should be killed or that blowing myself up in the name of Allah will grant me admission to heaven with 72 virgins.

What about religions that say run on sentences are the devil's prose?

Mr.Canada · February 4, 2009

What about religions that say run on sentences are the devil's prose?

Stuff White People Like
#99 Grammar

...It is in their blood not only to use perfect grammar but also to spend significant portions of time pointing out the errors of others...

Source

I did it on purpose so I could use this. Thanks for the laugh. I enjoy how you always ignore the substance and put all your energies into a non-factor when I'm right.

Molly · February 4, 2009

Here's short and sweet for you, Mr. C.:

Why on earth would those of us who are neither Muslim nor Catholic accept Catholic sexist rules as 'divinely inspired', yet reject that 'justification' for Muslim sexist rules?

Edited February 4, 2009 by Molly

Argus · February 6, 2009

2. In fact women and minorities are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to compete for jobs where men traditionally dominated the workforce (such as fire-fighting and police services) and the hiring policies of these types of agencies are required to adjust the hiring policy and criteria to accommodate them where women are not represented in a proportionate number. As such it is their right to demand that the same criteria used for males be adjusted where it imposes a barrier to their employment on equal standing.
.....

In other words, if they're smaller and weaker, and thus can't do the job as well, they have a right to preferential treatment - regardless of how patronizing that is.

cybercoma · February 6, 2009

In other words, if they're smaller and weaker, and thus can't do the job as well, they have a right to preferential treatment - regardless of how patronizing that is.

It's not preferential if they lower the standards for everyone. :rolleyes:

Oleg Bach · February 6, 2009

It's not preferential if they lower the standards for everyone.

There are a lot of larger and more powerful woman about than in the past.. At two in the morning it is not uncommon for an industrious female to ride on the back of the garbage truck and toss cans. You can not expect a hundred and ten pound female or male for that matter to do what is phyically impossible...If the female can do the job and is not forced into the job - she should have that job...but I don't need a ninety pound female cop tazering some bulky boy to death because she was not fit for the postion.

cybercoma · February 6, 2009

I don't need a ninety pound female cop tazering some bulky boy to death because she was not fit for the postion.

Would you rather a larger, stronger female officer getting into a physical altercation with some bulky boy instead? I would think the potential for injury--not only to him, but also to her--would be higher in that situation. I understand there have been questions about the safety of tasers. But, on the whole, it seems to me that they could potentially prevent serious injury that would otherwise be unavoidable. Further inquiry into their use needs to be done, but they seem to be a reasonable answer to prevent physical altercations.

Also, the point is about gender equality in employment standards. Setting the bar unnecessarily beyond the abilities of some women only serves to reinforce male dominance in those professions. The adjustment to the standards has not resulted in more injuries to cops, fire-fighters, paramedics or the public they serve; unless it is being covered up and we're not hearing about it. So, it doesn't appear that women getting into these professions now are unfit.

We don't need unfit cops regardless of their gender. Also, it is unfortunate that some people died because they were tased, so we need to look into their safety. If the taser is found to be safe in most circumstances, I think it's a very reasonable solution to getting into a physical altercation with an aggressive suspect.