One in four is Muslim, study says

[edesignuk]

A report from an American think-tank has estimated 1.57 billion Muslims populate the world - with 60% in Asia.

The report, by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, took three years to compile, with census data from 232 countries and territories.

It showed that 20% of Muslims lived in the Middle East and North Africa.

The data also showed that there were more Muslims in Germany than in Lebanon, and more in Russia than in Jordan and Libya together.

MUSLIM POPULATION BY REGION
Asia-Pacific: 61.9%
Middle East - North Africa: 20.1%
Sub-Saharan Africa: 15.3%
Europe: 2.4%
Americas: 0.3%
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8296200.stm).

I wonder what the figure is for the other major wastes of time religions. I wonder if this worries them. You can't all be right!

All hail the Dudeists (http://www.dudeism.com/)! http://up.edesignuk.com/files/1/Images/Smilies/BowDown.gif

[Queso]

I love the way they play the population statistics. I bet there are more Christians in Germany than in Vatican City too :D

[Shivetya]

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8296200.stm).

I wonder what the figure is for the other major wastes of time religions. I wonder if this worries them. You can't all be right!

All hail the Dudeists (http://www.dudeism.com/)! http://up.edesignuk.com/files/1/Images/Smilies/BowDown.gif

couldn't resist another religion bashing post? Does MacRumors have a quota for these?


Don't worry, I am quite sure the Muslims will peacefully coexist with you haters.

[iBlue]

couldn't resist another religion bashing post? Does MacRumors have a quota for these?


Don't worry, I am quite sure the Muslims will peacefully coexist with you haters.
Couldn't resist bashing another religion bashing post?

[edesignuk]

couldn't resist another religion bashing post? Does MacRumors have a quota for these?Yes, I live to ridicule you. :rolleyes:
Don't worry, I am quite sure the Muslims will peacefully coexist with you haters.whew, that's good.

[.Andy]

Couldn't resist bashing another religion bashing post?This is great :D

[Dagless]

couldn't resist another religion bashing post? Does MacRumors have a quota for these?

I'm not religious but I have to agree. If we had regular posts against consoles or companies that person would be banned for trolling, I'm sure.

[electroshock]

I love the way they play the population statistics. I bet there are more Christians in Germany than in Vatican City too :D

Or even in Tehran. :D

The strangest sight I ever saw (on the web) was Christmas... ...in Tehran, of all the places. ;) Apparently, there's a small Christian population there.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3584/3335150516_d01d4f61f0_m.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3373/3335150514_2f7a514756_m.jpg

But I digress. Anyway, yeah, agreed with point about spin on numbers. From recollection, it's something like 33% Christian, 25% Muslim, 15% Hindu, 16% atheism or theistic but nonreligious, 10% 'all the rest', worldwide. Will be interesting to see if Christians starts to feel threatened if being eclipsed by the Muslims at some point and see the reaction.

[yg17]

Or even in Tehran. :D

The strangest sight I ever saw (on the web) was Christmas... ...in Tehran, of all the places. ;) Apparently, there's a small Christian population there.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3584/3335150516_d01d4f61f0_m.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3373/3335150514_2f7a514756_m.jpg

But I digress. Anyway, yeah, agreed with point about spin on numbers. From recollection, it's something like 33% Christian, 25% Muslim, 15% Hindu, 16% atheism or theistic but nonreligious, 10% 'all the rest', worldwide. Will be interesting to see if Christians starts to feel threatened if being eclipsed by the Muslims at some point and see the reaction.

Iran isn't as crazy as Ahmdaninejwhatever makes it out to be. I saw a documentary on the BBC once about Tehran and life there, and it looked like it could've been New York, LA or London. It looked just like any modern major city in the world and I think it could be a good tourist destination if Ahmdajinecrazy didn't give his country such a bad name.

[Scarlet Fever]

I wonder what the muslim population in the Americas was before september 2001...

[iBlue]

I'm not religious but I have to agree. If we had regular posts against consoles or companies that person would be banned for trolling, I'm sure.

That's not exactly the same thing. PRSI topics, by their vary nature, mean disagreements but that doesn't automatically mean trolling.

As if rampant political correctness is not impeding enough, I don't think we need more of it in here. The religious among us can usually give as much as their given.

[That-Is-Bull]

Don't worry, I am quite sure the Muslims will peacefully coexist with you haters.

What reason do you have for believing in Christianity over Islam? "MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS" is not a viable answer.

[Teh Don Ditty]

1 in 4 eh? I was gonna say that's a bit impossible over here in the USA but it makes more sense now that I see this data.

EDIT: Nothing like the religious folk to get up in arms. Bring on the fear mongering!!!

[iShater]

I wonder what the muslim population in the Americas was before september 2001...

While it might have been higher (a lot of non-document/non-residents left), that was around 8 years ago, so it might have recovered.

I recall that the number is closer to 6mil in the US. I need to read more of the report to see how they collected the data.

[zap2]

Don't worry, I am quite sure the Muslims will peacefully coexist with you haters.

To be fair, the OP here(and many Atheists, Agnostics) will mocking religion,but are all for peaceful coexistence. You don't see many irreligious groups who go out killing those who believe.


Thats also true of religious people(by and large), peaceful coexistence is pretty popular(which is a great thing!)

[Ugg]

It would be interesting to see some historical data. What were the percentages 100 years ago, etc.

I think if you were to look at the figures, oil wealth probably parallels population growth in oil producing muslim nations. The continued repression of Muslim women is probably another reason.

[iShater]

It would be interesting to see some historical data. What were the percentages 100 years ago, etc.

I think if you were to look at the figures, oil wealth probably parallels population growth in oil producing muslim nations.

I am sure a general wealth will play part in population growth, but not necessarily. Egypt for example is very populous, but is not really an oil-wealthy nation.


The continued repression of Muslim women is probably another reason.
How so? and how do you decide that all Muslim women are repressed?

[Tomorrow]

It would be interesting to see some historical data. What were the percentages 100 years ago, etc.

I think if you were to look at the figures, oil wealth probably parallels population growth in oil producing muslim nations. The continued repression of Muslim women is probably another reason.

That is a pretty interesting thought, especially since 20% or so of Muslims are in the Middle East.

I imagine a great deal of the Asian Muslim population is in Indonesia, which does have a decent oil industry but is not a major exporter.

[skunk]

Don't worry, I am quite sure the Muslims will peacefully coexist with you haters.Haters of what? :confused:

[Ugg]

I am sure a general wealth will play part in population growth, but not necessarily. Egypt for example is very populous, but is not really an oil-wealthy nation.


How so? and how do you decide that all Muslim women are repressed?

In regards to the oil producing countries of the ME, if they didn't have oil, then the only thing they would be exporting would be themselves. In order for substantial and sustained population growth to occur, there needs to be some sort of fuel for the fire.

I think it's telling that the Muslim countries with the most migrants and refugees are the most impoverished as well.

Egypt was also doing pretty well until its population growth outstripped its ability to grow food and provide jobs. Now where is it?

In Iran, abortion and birth control was banned after the ayatollahs took over. The birth rate skyrocketed and it wasn't too many years before the ayatollahs realized the error of their ways.

I think the average birth rate in Yemen is between 7 and 8 children per woman. Are all those women voluntarily bearing that many children?

High birth rates are almost a certain guarantee of the early death of the mother as well as complications from pregnancy and childbirth.

Since many muslim countries believe in keeping it in the family, there are also high rates of mental retardation and other physical and mental problems associated with incest. Few women choose to marry their close relatives...



My overall point is that oil producing countries have misused their profits to maintain a way of life that should have died out with the dodo. That way of life is rarely respectful of women as human beings.

You don't need to look very far back in Western history to discover a time when women where chattel, but by doing so, I guarantee that you'll be disgusted with the way they were treated. It's time to move on.

[Burnsey]

In regards to the oil producing countries of the ME, if they didn't have oil, then the only thing they would be exporting would be themselves. In order for substantial and sustained population growth to occur, there needs to be some sort of fuel for the fire.

I think it's telling that the Muslim countries with the most migrants and refugees are the most impoverished as well.

Egypt was also doing pretty well until its population growth outstripped its ability to grow food and provide jobs. Now where is it?

In Iran, abortion and birth control was banned after the ayatollahs took over. The birth rate skyrocketed and it wasn't too many years before the ayatollahs realized the error of their ways.

I think the average birth rate in Yemen is between 7 and 8 children per woman. Are all those women voluntarily bearing that many children?

High birth rates are almost a certain guarantee of the early death of the mother as well as complications from pregnancy and childbirth.

Since many muslim countries believe in keeping it in the family, there are also high rates of mental retardation and other physical and mental problems associated with incest. Few women choose to marry their close relatives...



My overall point is that oil producing countries have misused their profits to maintain a way of life that should have died out with the dodo. That way of life is rarely respectful of women as human beings.

You don't need to look very far back in Western history to discover a time when women where chattel, but by doing so, I guarantee that you'll be disgusted with the way they were treated. It's time to move on.

How do you explain the population growth in China and India then?

Also I'm pretty sure the population explosion in Iran was due to the Iraq war, the ayatollah's actually encouraged population growth because they had no idea how long the war would last, and needed people to fight in it. I highly doubt it was because of a ton of teenagers having unprotected sex all of a sudden.

[Ugg]

How do you explain the population growth in China and India then?

Also I'm pretty sure the population explosion in Iran was due to the Iraq war, the ayatollah's actually encouraged population growth because they had no idea how long the war would last, and needed people to fight in it. I highly doubt it was because of a ton of teenagers having unprotected sex all of a sudden.

Here's an article in Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2220390/) that gives a good overview of Iran's population and there's a good article in Wikipedia with a graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iran_Population_(1880-2005).JPG) of Iran's population growth.


India is #90 on the UN population growth index and China is #156.

China's population growth as a percentage is of course very small since they instituted the one child policy in the early 80s.

The green revolution in India led to explosive population growth but perhaps you have forgotten that India's population policies were also pretty repressive in the 70s with forced abortions and sterilizations.

[iShater]

In regards to the oil producing countries of the ME, if they didn't have oil, then the only thing they would be exporting would be themselves. In order for substantial and sustained population growth to occur, there needs to be some sort of fuel for the fire.

I think it's telling that the Muslim countries with the most migrants and refugees are the most impoverished as well.

Isn't that the standard reasons for anybody to migrate? the Irish? Mexicans? etc?


Egypt was also doing pretty well until its population growth outstripped its ability to grow food and provide jobs. Now where is it?

But Egypt has had a very long history of war and major corruption that impacted it. Still nothing to do with oil and still a population growth. Basically what I am saying is, your OIL theory doesn't hold up to most countries in the ME, because population growth is still high in many regardless of the oil wealth.


In Iran, abortion and birth control was banned after the ayatollahs took over. The birth rate skyrocketed and it wasn't too many years before the ayatollahs realized the error of their ways.

I don't know much about Iran, so I cannot comment there, but the people I know (and no, they are not liberal pro-shah people) do not have that many kids.


I think the average birth rate in Yemen is between 7 and 8 children per woman. Are all those women voluntarily bearing that many children?

Do you have evidence that they are all being coerced? Why don't you bring up Syria as an example? Jordan? Algeria? Malaysia?

I still don't see how you see the population growth as a sign of repression of women. The Muslim world is comprised of many cultures, languages, customs, etc. You cannot paint everybody with the same brush.


Since many muslim countries believe in keeping it in the family, there are also high rates of mental retardation and other physical and mental problems associated with incest. Few women choose to marry their close relatives...

Where the hell did you get that from?


My overall point is that oil producing countries have misused their profits to maintain a way of life that should have died out with the dodo. That way of life is rarely respectful of women as human beings.

You are again using very general terms, knowing that most Muslim countries are NOT oil producing, and the wealth in those countries that ARE producing is not always going down to the average folk.

[skunk]

In regards to the oil producing countries of the ME, if they didn't have oil, then the only thing they would be exporting would be themselves. In order for substantial and sustained population growth to occur, there needs to be some sort of fuel for the fire.No, there may be only a lack of social or medical provision and/or contraception and/or education, as in many third world countries, leading to people having large families either to offset high child mortality rates, to keep the parents in their old age, or because they don't have the wherewithal, approved methods or means to prevent large families.

I think it's telling that the Muslim countries with the most migrants and refugees are the most impoverished as well.What does it tell you about Muslims in particular? :confused:

Egypt was also doing pretty well until its population growth outstripped its ability to grow food and provide jobs.Source?

I think the average birth rate in Yemen is between 7 and 8 children per woman. Are all those women voluntarily bearing that many children?See above.

Since many muslim countries believe in keeping it in the family, there are also high rates of mental retardation and other physical and mental problems associated with incest. Few women choose to marry their close relatives...Source? Please note that marrying a cousin is not the same as incest.

My overall point is that oil producing countries have misused their profits to maintain a way of life that should have died out with the dodo. That way of life is rarely respectful of women as human beings.Really, such a broad generalisation serves no useful purpose.

You don't need to look very far back in Western history to discover a time when women where chattel, but by doing so, I guarantee that you'll be disgusted with the way they were treated. It's time to move on.It may be an archaic way of life, but it has its own values which are valid in their own way, and it is certainly not up to members of a corrupt, colonialising, war-exporting consumer society to instruct such lesser mortals on the correct way to live.

[Zombie Acorn]

Source? Please note that marrying a cousin is not the same as incest.


According to who? I know for **** sure I wouldn't marry one of my cousins.

[Tomorrow]

According to who? I know for **** sure I wouldn't marry one of my cousins.

Perhaps you wouldn't, but it's legal in much of the U.S. and not considered incest:

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266

Note that this isn't limited to the southern states, either.

[Jaffa Cake]

According to who? I know for **** sure I wouldn't marry one of my cousins.I wouldn't marry any of mine either, although that's probably due to the fact that they're all male. And it would annoy Miss Jaffa Cake.

First cousins marrying is perfectly legal in many countries, and no country prohibits second cousins from marrying.

[Zombie Acorn]

Perhaps you wouldn't, but it's legal in much of the U.S. and not considered incest:

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266

Note that this isn't limited to the southern states, either.

Prohibited here thank god, that is disgusting.

[skunk]

Prohibited here thank god, that is disgusting.Strange sentiment from an avowed atheist...

[tofagerl]

Well, genetically, that's just not very smart!

[localoid]

Perhaps you wouldn't, but it's legal in much of the U.S. and not considered incest:

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266

Note that this isn't limited to the southern states, either.

Rudy Giuliani and Franklin D. Roosevelt married cousins. As did Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, John Adams, J. S. Bach, Edgar Allen Poe, Albert Einstein, H. G. Wells, and Charles Darwin.

[skunk]

Maybe not very smart, but extremely widespread.

[obeygiant]

Rudy Giuliani and Franklin D. Roosevelt married their cousins. So did Thomas Jefferson, J. S. Bach, Edgar Allen Poe, Albert Einstein, H. G. Wells, and Charles Darwin.

GREAT BALLS OF FIRE! You forgot Jerry Lee Lewis!

[localoid]

GREAT BALLS OF FIRE! You forgot Jerry Lee Lewis!

Along with a good chunk of the world's monarchy....

[Queso]

Along with a good chunk of the world's monarchy....
Probably not the best advert for it...

[localoid]

Probably not the best advert for it...

And then there's Joseph and Mary. The Joseph and Mary...

[djellison]

I am quite sure the Muslims will peacefully coexist with you haters.

Do I hate the institutionalised segregation and humiliation of women based on archaic man-made scripture?

Yes - justifiably so. It's the 21st century.

Do I hate someone because they are Muslim?

No.

[Burnsey]

Do I hate the institutionalised segregation and humiliation of women based on archaic man-made scripture?


I take it you've never watched pornography?

[XNine]

Does this mean I'ma religious minority? WOOT! FSMism will get me through college on minority grants!

[djellison]

I take it you've never watched pornography?

Muslim women are forced to follow certain religious rules.

There is no equivilent law "Thou shalt partake in the creation of pornography" - that is a decision that both women - and men - can take, freely, for their own financial gain.

The difference is night and day. That you would try and draw an analogy is quite remarkable.

[skunk]

Muslim women are forced to follow certain religious rules.Far too broad a brush you're using there, maestro.

[djellison]

I live in a city with a >25% muslim population. The VAST majority are in specific religiously specified clothing that varies from covering their heads, to covering everything but their eyes, to covering absolutely everything. Their religion dictates that's what they should do. Most organised religions treat women differently. Look at the long fight to have female vicars in the CofE for example.

It's an unacceptable sexist stance that should have gone a long long time ago. Anything other than a backward, outdated, socially and morally unacceptable religion would have no differentiation between man and women. The muslim faith would appear, from what I have seen, to be probably the worst offender in this regard.


Going back to the pornography analogy - we have a name for anyone who forces a women to partake in something pornographic. Rape.

[skunk]

I live in a city with a >25% muslim population. The VAST majority are in specific religiously specified clothing that varies from covering their heads, to covering everything but their eyes, to covering absolutely everything. Their religion dictates that's what they should do. Most organised religions treat women differently. Look at the long fight to have female vicars in the CofE for example.You are still brandishing too broad a brush by far: go to Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and you will find plenty of outspoken, unveiled women. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches and large parts of the CofE are deeply sexist, as is much of our secular society. These attitudes do not exist in a vacuum.

Anything other than a backward, outdated, socially and morally unacceptable religion would have no differentiation between man and women.You had better include most hierarchical religions and a good deal of secular society as well, then, as above.


Going back to the pornography analogy - we have a name for anyone who forces a women to partake in something pornographic. Rape.Exploitation, expectation and money can achieve the same end without overt violence.

[Don't panic]

You are still brandishing too broad a brush by far: go to Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and you will find plenty of outspoken, unveiled women. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches and large parts of the CofE are deeply sexist, as is much of our secular society. These attitudes do not exist in a vacuum.

You had better include most hierarchical religions and a good deal of secular society as well, then, as above.


Exploitation, expectation and money can achieve the same end without overt violence.
you certainly have some good points, but it is a matter of fact that, currently, islamic societies tend to be much more socially repressive and sexist than western ones.
it might have been different in the past, but in today's world it is not even close.

[XNine]

Is it really a fact that their religion, more specifically the Quran (Koran, Q'Ran, etc) states that women MUST cover themselves? I find that rather hard to believe. I think it's more of a religious doctrine that's been handed down by generations of oppressive men than anything else.

Prove me wrong.

[skunk]

Is it really a fact that their religion, more specifically the Quran (Koran, Q'Ran, etc) states that women MUST cover themselves? I find that rather hard to believe. I think it's more of a religious doctrine that's been handed down by generations of oppressive men than anything else.

Prove me wrong.Islam is variously interpreted by scholars/imams by reference to the Quran and the Haditha. There is no single paramount authority, no "orthodox version", hence the various different schools of thought.

[Eraserhead]

Is it really a fact that their religion, more specifically the Quran (Koran, Q'Ran, etc) states that women MUST cover themselves? I find that rather hard to believe. I think it's more of a religious doctrine that's been handed down by generations of oppressive men than anything else.

No, see Malay/Indonesian women as a good example.

[Burnsey]

Muslim women are forced to follow certain religious rules.

There is no equivilent law "Thou shalt partake in the creation of pornography" - that is a decision that both women - and men - can take, freely, for their own financial gain.

The difference is night and day. That you would try and draw an analogy is quite remarkable.

Wrong. The rules that Muslim women have to follow vary greatly from culture to culture and country to country. But your point is that such a society is based on scripture, and oppresses and humiliates women. Our society is not based on scripture (personally I wouldn't want it to be), but our women are still humiliated and objectified in our exceedingly popular porn industry, advertising industry, music industry, movie industry, and pretty much any other industry you can think of.

So there you have it, two extremes, and in both women lose. In the ultra conservative cultures, where they attempt to "protect" women from objectification by covering them up as much as possible and reducing their interaction with men, you have oppression, where she can't drive, or even pick her husband (though again this varies greatly from culture to culture).

In the ultra-liberal western culture where you set women "free", you end up with half naked girls selling you everything from chewing gum to cars. Not to mention the pornography industry where they are abused and humiliated for male pleasure. In other words, they are heavily objectified (even if you ignore the porn industry), and thus still oppressed and controlled by men in many ways for many purposes. Perhaps you are not aware of the self esteem and body image issues that young girls face today.

Of course people on both sides of this fence encourage the other side to adopt their style. The conservative Islamic cultures see western culture as vulgar and morally bankrupt. We see theirs as backwards and oppressive. We want them to adopt a culture like ours, and they want us to adopt a culture like theirs.

[djellison]

In the ultra-liberal western culture where you set women "free", you end up with half naked girls selling you everything from chewing gum to cars. Not to mention the pornography industry where they are abused and humiliated for male pleasure. .

And those half naked girls don't do that because there are rules that dictate they must. They do it because they choose to, for money. That is a free choice. The burka, for example, is not.

Can you not tell the difference, really?

[Eraserhead]

Wrong. The rules that Muslim women have to follow vary greatly from culture to culture and country to country. But your point is that such a society is based on scripture, and oppresses and humiliates women. Our society is not based on scripture (personally I wouldn't want it to be), but our women are still humiliated and objectified in our exceedingly popular porn industry.

So there you have it, two extremes, and in both women lose. In the ultra conservative cultures, where they attempt to "protect" women from objectification by covering them up as much as possible and reducing their interaction with men, you have oppression, where she can't drive, or even pick her husband (though again this varies greatly from culture to culture).

In the ultra-liberal western culture where you set women "free", you end up with half naked girls selling you everything from chewing gum to cars. Not to mention the pornography industry where they are abused and humiliated for male pleasure. In other words, they are heavily objectified (even if you ignore the porn industry), and thus still oppressed and controlled by men in many ways for many purposes. Perhaps you are not aware of the self esteem and body image issues that our young girls face today.

Good point. If I want to go out of my house I have to have showered and shaved my face within the last couple of days, wearing a pair of jeans and a t-shirt of pretty much whatever colour I like and noone will think any less of me. I don't even have to comb my hair. If I was a woman I'd basically be forced by society to wear makeup, and choose my clothes carefully and shave most of the hair off my body. And I'm not judged on my appearance against people who have been not only made up by a professional in magazines, but have actually had their appearance extensively modified in photoshop, so much so that they essentially don't actually exist.

This isn't remotely fair.

And those half naked girls don't do that because there are rules that dictate they must. They do it because they choose to, for money. That is a free choice. The burka, for example, is not.

Can you not tell the difference, really?

While compared to, say, Saudi Arabia our way is obviously superior, he's definitely got a point with regards to how muslim women are treated in more moderate islamic countries like Malaysia and Indonesia.

[zap2]

Wrong. The rules that Muslim women have to follow vary greatly from culture to culture and country to country. But your point is that such a society is based on scripture, and oppresses and humiliates women. Our society is not based on scripture (personally I wouldn't want it to be), but our women are still humiliated and objectified in our exceedingly popular porn industry, advertising industry, music industry, movie industry, and pretty much any other industry you can think of.



They aren't humiliated...you might feel that way if it were of you, but those went into the industry because it pays well, and they clearly don't have a huge problem with it.

Comparing forced covering up of women(in nations where it is the law/there are punishments to not doing it, which certainly is not all nations with large populations of Muslims) to freedom of women's body in Western nations is stupid. I'm not saying the covering up of women is wrong, by it has to be by their own free will. I'm not saying thats easy to do(women may be pressured by their family members), but being forced to covered up is very different.

[Eraserhead]

They aren't humiliated...you might feel that way if it were of you, but those went into the industry because it pays well, and they clearly don't have a huge problem with it.

Agreed on the porn, though I think concentrating on that is sidestepping the issue.

Comparing forced covering up of women(in nations where it is the law/there are punishments to not doing it,

There is a huge social punishment if you as a women went out without having shaved your underarm hair.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Islam is variously interpreted by scholars/imams by reference to the Quran and the Haditha. There is no single paramount authority, no "orthodox version", hence the various different schools of thought.You mean lack of thought. Woman are a whipping post for this religion period.

[Eraserhead]

You mean lack of thought. Woman are a whipping post for this religion period.

What about Malaysia and Indonesia? Or moderate women in developed nations.

[zap2]

There is a huge social punishment if you as a women went out without having shaved your underarm hair.


But you won't be stoned or arrested. (Clearly those are extreme cases, which is what I'm arguing against.)

[Eraserhead]

But you won't be stoned or arrested. (Clearly those are extreme cases, which is what I'm arguing against.)

In a lot of muslim countries this doesn't actually happen very much if at all (case in point Malaysia and Indonesia). Even in Sudan there was a huge international outcry when Lubna Hussein was punished for wearing trousers (source (http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=7294978&story_id=14177575)).

[Burnsey]

They aren't humiliated...you might feel that way if it were of you, but those went into the industry because it pays well, and they clearly don't have a huge problem with it.

Comparing forced covering up of women(in nations where it is the law/there are punishments to not doing it, which certainly is not all nations with large populations of Muslims) to freedom of women's body in Western nations is stupid. I'm not saying the covering up of women is wrong, by it has to be by their own free will. I'm not saying thats easy to do(women may be pressured by their family members), but being forced to covered up is very different.

So should we allow women in the west to roam the streets topless then? Isn't there a law against that? Wouldn't that be forcing women to cover up?

There are many women in Islamic cultures that willingly cover up, probably the vast majority if you believe it or not. Regardless objectification is a form of oppression, and our society puts a lot of pressure on how women should look and act, all so that they can be more sexually appealing to men.

[Dont Hurt Me]

A woman born in a muslim country for the most part is screwed, how much depends on which country. Any country that is ran by its religion means no liberty,freedom or expression. Religions are nothing more then primitive mind washing boxes that they want you to be put into.

[Eraserhead]

A woman born in a muslim country for the most part is screwed,

In Malaysia and Indonesia too? Really? I guess you have a source for that.

Any country that is ran by its religion means no liberty,freedom or expression.

There are a lot of muslim countries that don't apply Islam to everything they do.

[zap2]

So should we allow women in the west to roam the streets topless then? Isn't there a law against that? Wouldn't that be forcing women to cover up?.

No moral problem against that....



There are many women in Islamic cultures that willingly cover up, probably the vast majority if you believe it or not. Regardless objectification is a form of oppression, and our society puts a lot of pressure on how women should look and act, all so that they can be more sexually appealing to men.

People put pressure, but not legal pressure. All societies put pressure,we can't stop that. Some people go against the pressure, some people don't. I'm talking strictly legal punishment or threat/usage of physical force. The day our society using laws/threats of physical force to make women sexually attractive, I'll be against it as well.(which of course would be way I'm against things like rape)

And as far as women being ok with women covering up, do you have a good source on the percent of women being ok with it? I'm sure some are ok with it, thats great. And of course there are some who aren't.

[Eraserhead]

People put pressure, but not legal pressure. All societies put pressure,we can't stop that. Some people go against the pressure, some people don't.

How many women do you see who haven't shaved their armpits?

I'm talking strictly legal punishment

But in lots of muslim countries this doesn't actually happen.

[zap2]

How many women do you see who haven't shaved their armpits?


Thats a personal choice...as long as there isn't a legal push either way, its not that big of a deal.


But in lots of muslim countries this doesn't actually happen.


I agree 100%, and I'm not talking about those countries. I'm not criticizing all Islam in that regard, just the nations that do.

[Eraserhead]

Thats a personal choice...as long as there isn't a legal push either way, its not that big of a deal.

Social pressure is often stronger than the law. You see people speeding on the motorway all the time, and you see people selling drugs openly in the street sometimes - and you certainly see people taking drugs in the street fairly regularly. All of which are illegal.

[zap2]

Social pressure is often stronger than the law. You see people speeding on the motorway all the time, and you see people selling drugs openly in the street sometimes - and you certainly see people taking drugs in the street fairly regularly). All of which are illegal.

Agreed, and I'd be eager to talk about the social causes of women feeling they must covering up, but I think thats 2nd to the legal issue, not to mention a much harder issue to deal with. Take a country like Iran, where there were women who opted not to where forms of cover. Thats where the legal threat is far more power then a social one(for some women).

[Burnsey]

No moral problem against that....

Yes there is. It is both morally wrong and against the law. Would you be fine then with everyone walking around nude? Wouldn't that make for an extremely backwards society? What would happen if a girl here decided to go to university class topless? Or walk in the streets topless? She will likely be stopped by the authorities, just like any Iranian girl would in Iran. Different levels of morals are enforced.

Each society has a set of laws and morals, some are more severe/conservative than others. Women in some islamic countries can't show their hair, women here can't show their breasts. Are we oppressing women by passing laws that forbid them from walking around topless? Or are we making laws based on a certain level of morals that says women walking around in public topless is wrong? If there was a society that allowed women to walk around topless or even nude, would that society look at ours and call us backwards? Say that we oppress women?

Islam's position on women dressing does not call for covering everything up (like the saudis do for example) but like all other religions, it asks that women dress modestly for obvious reasons, considering they can easily be objectified and/or taken advantage of for their bodies. How certain cultures and countries interpret this varies greatly in the Islamic world. Some are stricter than others.

Personally I think this is wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dip_ThFvjKI

I also think this is wrong: http://www.hyscience.com/Sexy%20Saudi%20Women.jpg

But those are the two extremes: an ultra liberal and an ultra conservative society.




And as far as women being ok with women covering up, do you have a good source on the percent of women being ok with it? I'm sure some are ok with it, thats great. And of course there are some who aren't.

When you grow up in a society where as a little kid you are raised a muslim, told and encouraged to cover up, and it is the norm in society, when you grow up it is normal for you. It will be very difficult forcing a western girl from covering up like the Saudis and a Saudi girl from taking it all off like the western girl. I highly doubt most people in the middle east would want to adopt a western-style culture and society, just like most people in the west do not want to adopt a middle-eastern type culture/society. This is also why you find a lot of muslims who move to western countries still maintain their dress codes.

A woman born in a muslim country for the most part is screwed, how much depends on which country. Any country that is ran by its religion means no liberty,freedom or expression. Religions are nothing more then primitive mind washing boxes that they want you to be put into.

It depends on the country, if she's born in Turkey, Iran or Saudi Arabia, she would experience completely different levels of freedom.

Religion as a whole has always been a tool for social control and to keep people in line. Right back to the Catholic Church and it's opposition to many new ideas, such as heliocentrism. It's a powerful political tool, and any spirituality involved in the concept has long been lost.

[Eraserhead]

Women in some islamic countries can't show their hair,

So just like the UK and other "Western" countries, except that its not technically illegal - just socially unacceptable, and its hair on a different part of the body.

[zap2]

Yes there is.


It was a personal statement.....


It is both morally wrong and against the law


Your morals, but yea, illegally...actually it was brought up for that reason.

Would you be fine then with everyone walking around nude?


In theory, no, in practice, things could get a bit hairy, no? :-p


What would happen if a girl here decided to go to university class topless? Or walk in the streets topless? She will likely be stopped by the authorities, just like any Iranian girl would in Iran.


Yes, but I was saying I wouldn't really care. Much like a man wearing a shirt, most often they would(I'd assume).

[Eraserhead]

In theory, no, in practice, things could get a bit hairy, no? :-p

How is this morally superior to social pressure to covering your hair with a shawl?

EDIT: I think I should actually attach a picture of (Malay) women who are modestly dressed so you can see what we're getting at.

198315

Its not exactly repressive, and aside from the headscarf I wear clothing that covers up a similar amount of skin.

[djellison]

aside from the headscarf

Why should they wear one, yet men not?

[zap2]

How is this morally superior to social pressure to covering your hair with a shawl?


I never said it was...if my post lead you to believe I did, my apologize



EDIT: I think I should actually attach a picture of (Malay) women who are modestly dressed so you can see what we're getting at.


Its not exactly repressive, and aside from the headscarf I wear clothing that covers up a similar amount of skin.

Really, I don't have any issue with the wearing of a headscarf, in fact I think they should be allowed. Its the forcing of it, through law or force, I have a problem with(just as I would if in Western culture we forced women through force or law to shave it underarm hair)

[Eraserhead]

Why should they wear one, yet men not?

Really, I don't have any issue with the wearing of a headscarf, in fact I think they should be allowed. Its the forcing of it, through law or force, I have a problem with(just as I would if in Western culture we forced women through force or law to shave it underarm hair)

There is no legal requirement to wear one in Malaysia if you are Malay. Its just good old social pressure - just like there is for women to remove most of the hair from their bodies, or wear makeup all the time, or to be excessively thin in the UK.

[djellison]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab#Non-governmental

"In Basra Iraq, "more than 100 women who didn't adhere to strict Islamic dress code" were killed between the summer of 2007 and spring of 2008 by Islamist militias"

"In India a 2001 "acid attack on four young Muslim women in Srinagar ... by an unknown militant outfit, [was followed by] swift compliance by women of all ages on the issue of wearing the chadar (head-dress) in public"


and above, under governmental

" is enforced in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and in the Islamic Republic of Iran"


No women is forced to shave their armpit hair - in the same way no man is forced to shave face hair to some degree. In many many cases - both do however. In some cases, they do not.

However, many religions state that these 'gods' make demands of women that they do not make of men for them to stay in the spiritual good books. Why should a women be obliged to cover herself up to get into 'heaven' whilst a man does not. Why should there be ANY difference?

[Eraserhead]

I think its worth doing some further research on this issue, I'm not sure whether I was right or not.

[skunk]

Why should a women be obliged to cover herself up to get into 'heaven' whilst a man does not. Why should there be ANY difference?There should not, obviously. However, the "dress codes" vary from state to state, partly according to the edicts of particular imams, partly according to the degree of secularity of the state. Nobody gets into trouble for not wearing a head-covering in Turkey.

Just to clear things up:

Muslim world

Afghanistan
Under the Taliban, the burqa was obligatory. Under the current government, it is technically optional but in southern Afghanistan it is de facto obligatory.[citation needed]

Bangladesh
There are no laws which require women to cover their heads, and it is not encouraged by the government. Any women can wear the hijab without any restrictions applied. However the national airline, Biman does not allow women to wear hijab. It is mostly worn by women in rural areas, and a few in urban areas.[57]

Egypt
About 75 percent of Egyptian women wear a headscarf, and an increasing number also wear the face veil, but small numbers of people wear the niqab. The secular government does not encourage women to wear it, fearing it will present an Islamic extremist political opposition. In the country, it is negatively associated with Salafist political activism.[58][59] There has been some restrictions of wearing the hijab by the government of which it views hijab as a political symbol, in 2002, two presenters were excluded from a state run TV station for deciding to wear hijab on national television.[60] Mohammad Tantawi, a leading Islamic scholar in the country and the head of Al-Azhar University, issued a fatwa in October 2009 arguing that veiling of the face is not required under Islam. He had reportedly asked a student to take off her niqab when he spotted her in a classroom, and he told her that the niqab is a cultural tradition without Islamic importance.[58]

Indonesia
In Indonesia, the term jilbab is used without exception to refer to the hijab[61]. Indonesia had as of 2008, the highest population of Muslims, yet the Indonesian Constitution of Panca Sila provides equal State protection for the five existing religions (namely Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism and Hinduism), without a supreme or official State religion, despite continuing Islamic fundamentalists' Saudi-funded campaigns to install Islam as official State religion, suh as the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah and the formerly eradicated Darul Islam.
Under Indonesian National and Regional Law, female head covering is entirely optional and not obligatory under the Regional or National law but some women may elect to wear a headscarf to be more formal or "religious" such as the jilbab or kerudung (a native tailored veil with a small visor), especially for formal or cultural events especially such where Muslim religion may be involved- such as official governmental events, funerals, circumcision ceremonies or weddings- although wearing this "Muslim" attire to Christian relatives' funerals and weddings are not all uncommon.
In daily practice, the jilbab is more of a fashion accessory and status symbol for fashionable women to wear their latest haute couture, expensive branded scarves. Sanrio's Hello Kitty is especially popular with young Muslims female children.
Culturally to the Javanese majority, plain, Saudi-style hijab, the niqab or socially worse yet the indigenous peasant kerudung or North Sumatran tudung is concerned vulgar, low-class and a faux pas- the traditional Javanese hijab are transparent, sheer, intricately brocaded or embroidered fine silk or lace tailored to match either their sarung or kebaya blouse.
Females may also elect to wear the hijab publicly to avoid unwanted low-class male attention and molestation and thus display their respectability as "good Muslim girls" that are not "easy" conquests[62]
The sole exception where enforced female head covering is mandatory is in Aceh Province, under Islamic Sharia-based Law No 18/2001, granting Aceh special autonomy and through its' own Regional Legislative body Regulation No 5/2001, as popularly selected by the people of Aceh. This Acehnese Hukum Syariah and the reputedly over-bearing "Morality Police" whom enforce its' mandatory public wear are subject of fierce debate especially regards to its' validity viz-a-viz the Constitution among Acehnese male and female Muslim academics, female politicians and female rights advocates.
Similarly, the physical and emotional abuse of Indonesian females in Saudi Arabia, as maids or as Hajja and Saudi Wahhabi intolerance for non Saudi dress code has given rise to mass protests and fierce Indonesian debate up to the highest levels of society about boycotting all Hajj activity to Saudi Arabia- as many high status women have been physically assaulted by the Saudi morality police for non-conforming head gear or even applying lip-balm in the hijab- most insulting considering the vulgarity and low social status Saudi's are held in Indonesian society. [63][64]

Iran
Iranian law requires women to wear loose-fitting coats or cloaks in public, as well as a head-scarf that covers the hair. Some women wear a chador and cover their hair almost completely, but most do not.

Jordan
There are no laws requiring the wearing of headscarves nor any banning such from any public institution. The use of the headscarf increased during the 1980s, however the use of the headscarf among the Jordanian population stands at 60%. Veils covering the face are rare. The chador is worn by members of the older generations but its popularity is declining. It is widely believed that the hijab is increasingly becoming more of a fashion statement in Jordan than a religious one. [65]

Kuwait
Kuwait's fatwa authority at the Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs ruled in October 2009 that wearing the hijab is mandatory for Muslim women. The ruling has attracted support from Islamist and Salafist Members of Parliament. Maasouma Al-Mubarak has promised to bring the matter to the Constitutional Court, the highest legal body in Kuwait.[58]

Lebanon
The wearing of headscarves has risen since the 1980s, even though Lebanon is seen generally as more liberal than other Middle Eastern countries (with large Christian and secular groups). Women who support Hezbollah wear headscarves generally and some wear the chador, which covers the hair and body but not the face or hands.[59]

Malaysia
The headscarf is known as a tudung. Muslim women may freely choose whether or not to wear the headscarf, except when visiting a mosque where the tudung must be worn; this requirement also includes non-Muslims. All female police officers and a majority of Malays[citation needed] do wear the hijab.

Morocco
The headscarf is not encouraged by governmental institutions, and generally frowned upon by urban middle and higher classes but it is not forbidden by law. The headscarf is becoming gradually more frequent in the north, but as it is not traditional, to wear one is considered rather a religious or political decision. In 2005, a schoolbook for basic religious education was heavily criticized for picturing female children with headscarfs.[citation needed]

Pakistan
While Pakistan has no laws enforcing ħijāb, there are many parts of the country where there is strong social pressure for women to observe ħijāb, or purdah, which is a cultural practice observed even by some Islamized Hindus. Many Pakistani women who observe purdah wear a garment called the pak-chadar, a headscarf with attached veil. However, there are also many Pakistani women who simply wear a dupatta or chunari to cover their heads. These are long scarves, often made of a light material, that match the woman's garments. However, in the major cities of Pakistan most women do not wear Hijab.

Saudi Arabia
Wearing the hijab is enforced in Saudi Arabia. All Saudi Muslim women are required to wear a full black cloak, called an abaya and a face-veil, called a niqab. They can be harassed by the religious police if they do not.
The Saudi niqāb usually leaves a long open slot for the eyes; the slot is held together by a string or narrow strip of cloth.[66] Many also have two or more sheer layers attached to the upper band, which can be worn flipped down to cover the eyes. Although a person looking at a woman wearing a niqab with an eyeveil would not be able to see her eyes, she is able to see out through the thin fabric.
In 2008, the religious authority in Mecca, Mohammad Habadan called on women to wear veils that reveal only one eye, so that women would not be encouraged to use eye make-up.[67]
According to Saudi Arabia's Shariah law, a woman's clothing should meet the following conditions:
Women must cover their entire body, but they are allowed to expose both eyes in necessity.
Women should wear abaya and niqab thick enough to conceal what is underneath, the abaya should be loose fitting.
Women should not wear bright coloured clothes or clothes that are adorned so that they may attract the attention of men.[68]

Tunisia
Tunisian authorities say they are encouraging women, instead, to "wear modest dress in line with Tunisian traditions" i.e. no headscarf. In 1981, women with headscarves were banned in schools and government buildings, those who insist on it face losing their jobs.[2] Recently in 2006, the Authorities launched a campaign against the hijab, banning it in some public places, where police stop women on the streets and ask them to remove it, and encourage them not to wear it again. The government described the headscarf as a sectarian form of dress which came uninvited to the country.[69]

Turkey
Main article: Headscarf controversy in Turkey
Turkey is officially a secular state, and the hijab is banned in universities and public buildings - this includes libraries or government buildings. The ban was first in place during the 1980 military coup, but the law was strengthened more in 1997.[70] Over the years thousands of women have been arrested or prosecuted for refusing to take off the hijab or protesting against the ban, by the secular institution.[71] There has been an increase in the number of people who wear the hijab particularly in Ankara and Istanbul. There has been some unofficial relaxation of the ban under governments led by Islamic-oriented parties in recent years,[59] for example the current government of the AKP are willing to lift the ban in universities, however the new law was upheld by the constitutional court, and on the other hand the military sees itself as the protector of secularism. The ban has been highly controversial since its implementation, in a country where 99% are Muslims. A reasearch say that around 60% of women in Turkey wear Hijab. In cities like Istanbul and Ankara most women do not cover their heads. In many cities in eastern Turkey where the AKP has much support more of the women cover their heads. [70][72][73]
Turkey is a secular state founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in 1923. Atatürk saw headscarves as backward-looking and an obstacle to his campaign to secularize and modernize the new Turkish Republic. Kemalist ideology continues to emphasize secularism, despite the majority of Turks being Muslims. Until 1960's female students or public servants wearing headscarves were not seen in Turkey.
On February 7, 2008, the Turkish Parliament passed an amendment to the constitution, allowing women to wear the headscarf in Turkish universities, arguing that many women would not seek an education if they could not wear the hijab.[74][75][76][77] The decision was met with powerful opposition and protests from secularists. On June 5, 2008, the Constitutional Court of Turkey reinstated the ban on constitutional grounds of the secularity of the state. Headscarves had become a focal point of the conflict between the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the secularist establishment, which includes the courts, universities, and army. The ruling was widely seen as a victory for Turks who claim this maintains Turkey's separation of state and religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab_by_country

[XNine]

How is this morally superior to social pressure to covering your hair with a shawl?

EDIT: I think I should actually attach a picture of (Malay) women who are modestly dressed so you can see what we're getting at.

198315

Its not exactly repressive, and aside from the headscarf I wear clothing that covers up a similar amount of skin.

I'd tap both of em!

Seriously. Saying women in the western world are all whores, and are forced into pornography for male enjoyment, and all of them run around half-naked is obtuse. What if the women in porn are ENJOYING what they're doing? And getting paid to do it?! Good for them. Plus plenty of women enjoy watching. pornography as well.

Maybe if these Muslim run countries that are forcing their women to cover up just let their women let their hair down, and put on some makeup, maybe the world would be more accepting of their religious dogma. Maybe people wouldn't have a rather bad view of them.

Women deserve to be sex objects because they are so beautiful. Their bodies were sculpted by some higher force to be the most naturally beautiful thing on the planet. Why not allow people to see it?

I'm not saying women have to run around scantily clad or naked in public, but ffs, let them express their beauty.

[rasmasyean]

I’m sure much of it is based on affiliation from country and families rather than actually worshippers. The USA is predominantly Christian based right? But it’s a rarity to know a family that actually goes to church and donates money to their god in some fashion. Most Christians, especially younger and more educated ones are not really religious and barely know anything about the bible. It’s mostly like grandparents and maybe some parents that have kept to traditions of the family. As world knowledge became more open and people learned more about the world (like younger generations) they start to believe less and less of these things and if they do practice, it’s for respect of their elders rather than conforming their actually lifestyle.

[zap2]

There is no legal requirement to wear one in Malaysia if you are Malay. Its just good old social pressure - just like there is for women to remove most of the hair from their bodies, or wear makeup all the time, or to be excessively thin in the UK.

Yes, I understand that is the case in many countries. (I've said this before, so I'm not 100% why you're quote me, then explaining that)

[Eraserhead]

Yes, I understand that is the case in many countries. (I've said this before, so I'm not 100% why you're quote me, then explaining that)

I missed that post of yours sorry :o.

[Wotan31]

I'm not religious but I have to agree. If we had regular posts against consoles or companies that person would be banned for trolling, I'm sure.
Yes, it's amazing how much hatred and disdain dwells in the minds of these "activist atheists".

Don't like organized religion? Fine! Nobody is forcing you to participate (not in the UK, at least, like the OP). Go on with your life.

Going out of your way to bash something that is doing you no harm is the very definition of hate speech. These people are no different than those who went after the Jews some 60 odd years ago in mainland Europe.

[Queso]

It's no different than those who went after the Jews some 60 odd years ago in mainland Europe.
IMO anyone who posts this has completely lost their sense of perspective. Seriously, how can you even think this?

[yg17]

Don't like organized religion? Fine! Nobody is forcing you to participate (not in the UK, at least, like the OP). Go on with your life.

By trying to push things such as gay marriage bans through based on religious beliefs, yeah, us atheists are being forced to participate in your religion.

[Zombie Acorn]

Yes, it's amazing how much hatred and disdain dwells in the minds of these "activist atheists".

Don't like organized religion? Fine! Nobody is forcing you to participate (not in the UK, at least, like the OP). Go on with your life.

Going out of your way to bash something that is doing you no harm is the very definition of hate speech. These people are no different than those who went after the Jews some 60 odd years ago in mainland Europe.

Funny that when you impose laws using your religion as the basis on those who do not recognize your religion that they don't have a cheery tone left.

Actually the government does force us to participate in your fantasy because we still have laws on the books that are derived from Christian belief.

Trust me, Christians have enough blood on their hands that this makes your last statement hilarious. Only Christians can hold a 85%+ majority in the US, rally to harm other's lives, and still play the victim.

[edesignuk]

Going out of your way to bash something that is doing you no harm is the very definition of hate speech. These people are no different than those who went after the Jews some 60 odd years ago in mainland Europe.Holy crap batman, you win the prize for scary crazy perspective!

[skunk]

Is there a Godwin Award?

[takao]

Going out of your way to bash something that is doing you no harm is the very definition of hate speech. These people are no different than those who went after the Jews some 60 odd years ago in mainland Europe.

from somebody with Wotan in his username, i sure didn't expect that

[rasmasyean]

Funny that when you impose laws using your religion as the basis on those who do not recognize your religion that they don't have a cheery tone left.

Actually the government does force us to participate in your fantasy because we still have laws on the books that are derived from Christian belief.

Trust me, Christians have enough blood on their hands that this makes your last statement hilarious. Only Christians can hold a 85%+ majority in the US, rally to harm other's lives, and still play the victim.

Well, I think even the higher-up non-Christians and Atheists would recognize the value of adopting some religious bases for governance. For example, it’s still an effective way to quell desperation in the poor which would other-wise lead to social instability without the dictations that come with religion. And to support an army, it also helps a lot when people believe they are under a divine banner, or at least are going somewhere nice after they die. I mean, look at the Islamics. Do you think that there would be as many suicide bombers if they didn’t think they would go on vacation afterward? Or even just to meet their entire family shredded by American bombs?

Though as civilization advances and these kinds of “forces” are not needed as much, it seems more and more regulation based on ancient beliefs are dropped. And as older conservatives retire and are replaced by politicians who grew up in later eras take over, you will see dated governance principles go away to adapt to the times. If you don’t like it, you can always go to parts of Afghanistan for “Sharia Law”! :p

[Ugg]

from somebody with Wotan in his username, i sure didn't expect that

W.O.T.A.N. is an acronym for Will Of The Aryan Nation, created by David Lane. via wikipedia

That's just one of the many acronyms for the Pagan god Odin.

Funny how so many religious fundamentalists gravitate towards pagan names and traditions...

[skunk]

via wikipedia

That's just one of the many acronyms for the Pagan god Odin.

Funny how so many religious fundamentalists gravitate towards pagan names and traditions...And there I was, thinking he just had delusions about being a lightbulb.

198709

[skunk]

<utter bollocks>Is your thinking always so profound?

[rasmasyean]

Is your thinking always so profound?

It’s not just MY theory of the origin of religion. And it’s not too hard to imagine political purposes for the benevolent as well as adversarial aspects of religions.

Of course you can always go with theories like…

“There is only one God…and Mohamed is his prophet!”

…if you so prefer. :cool:

[zap2]

I mean, look at the Islamics.
Yes, those darn Islamics!

[skunk]

It’s not just MY theory of the origin of religion.Indeed it is not. You are stating the blindingly obvious.

[Wotan31]

Funny how so many religious fundamentalists gravitate towards pagan names and traditions...
Religious fundamentalist? Now that is real humor! I can't even remember the last time I've been in a church. Funny how so many left-wing radicals gravitate to the most extreme possible interpretation of everything they see. And incidentally, that bizarre and extreme view point just happens to support their equally twisted agenda. How convenient. :rolleyes:

My MR user name is certainly not derived from any aryan slogan (I'm not even white FYI) nor is it derived from the pagan god odin. I could come up with a myriad of interesting and offensive acronyms and origins for your name "Ugg" but I don't participate at such as sophomoric level as you do.

[rasmasyean]

Religious fundamentalist? Now that is real humor! I can't even remember the last time I've been in a church. Funny how so many left-wing radicals gravitate to the most extreme possible interpretation of everything they see. And incidentally, that bizarre and extreme view point just happens to support their equally twisted agenda. How convenient. :rolleyes:

My MR user name is certainly not derived from any aryan slogan (I'm not even white FYI) nor is it derived from the pagan god odin. I could come up with a myriad of interesting and offensive acronyms and origins for your name "Ugg" but I don't participate at such as sophomoric level as you do.

Only internet noobs discuss people’s handles in some “deep” fashion. After all, many just come from some favorite movie, game, something that sounds good, or a random collage of syllables. I mean it’s near equivalent of making fun of someones RL name in grade school. :rolleyes:

Though in the case of skunk, I bet it’s because he smells! Yeah, I know it! :D

[takao]

Only internet noobs discuss people’s handles in some “deep” fashion. After all, many just come from some favorite movie, game, something that sounds good, or a random collage of syllables. I mean it’s near equivalent of making fun of someones RL name in grade school. :rolleyes:

well norse/germanic mythology obsession is very often a dead giveaway even today wether it's runes, names, symbolism etc. ... and it always was: the obsession with germanic mythology through Wagner, the Thule Society, Himmler's obsession with mysticism, paganism and rituals,, structurizing party/military organizations after knight orders or the Societas Jesu.. etc.

no offense but when people with germanic mythology nicknames start talking about das Dritte Reich it just pushes all the wrong buttons... if you didn't get the irony of sombody with "wotan" in his handle talking about the atheist nazis, i'm sorry to offend you...

[rasmasyean]

Yes, those darn Islamics!

Well, the recent focus of suicide bombers happen to be arround the ones doing it in the name of Islam (I mean, I'm sure some just want revenge for their loved ones or something). But Japanese wariors did it. Vietnamese also.

It's usually any force that is despirate enough to resort to suicide tactics just to close the gap in being disadvantaged. But whatever the "religion", it helps to do it for a divine purpose.

[Rampant.A.I.]

I'm still amazed how politically correct it's become to discriminate against Muslims.

It's fundamentally the same religion is Christianity and Judaism. In fact, it uses the same texts!

And yet, it's OK to publicly decry the religion and announce that everyone practicing it is a terrorist, and discriminate against them.

Mind boggling.

[bobber205]

I'm still amazed how politically correct it's become to discriminate against Muslims.

It's fundamentally the same religion is Christianity and Judaism. In fact, it uses the same texts!

And yet, it's OK to publicly decry the religion and announce that everyone practicing it is a terrorist, and discriminate against them.

Mind boggling.

People are scared and stupid, makes sense to me. Very sad though. :(

[rasmasyean]

I'm still amazed how politically correct it's become to discriminate against Muslims.

It's fundamentally the same religion is Christianity and Judaism. In fact, it uses the same texts!

And yet, it's OK to publicly decry the religion and announce that everyone practicing it is a terrorist, and discriminate against them.

Mind boggling.

Most people aren’t religious scholars and most religious people barely even know anything about their own religion. The sad fact is Islam, which used to be barely worth any notice, is now "branded" as the religion of terrorists because of OBL.

[iShater]

Well, the recent focus of suicide bombers happen to be arround the ones doing it in the name of Islam (I mean, I'm sure some just want revenge for their loved ones or something). But Japanese wariors did it. Vietnamese also.

It's usually any force that is despirate enough to resort to suicide tactics just to close the gap in being disadvantaged. But whatever the "religion", it helps to do it for a divine purpose.

Interestingly enough, all those who do it, do believe that they are making the ultimate sacrifice for something worth it, Tamil Tigers, Kamikaze, Taliban, etc. Difference between Kamikaze and Vietnamese soldiers and others today are the targets. It used to be military suicide missions, not anymore. :(

Most people aren’t religious scholars and most religious people barely even know anything about their own religion. The sad fact is Islam, which used to be barely worth any notice, is now "branded" as the religion of terrorists because of OBL.

ouch.

You have to admit that started before OBL, Delta Force movies and others? it was all them Arabs and Muslims right? Now it has become EASIER than before because of all the news. I mean look at 24!

[Eraserhead]

The sad fact is Islam, which used to be barely worth any notice, is now "branded" as the religion of terrorists because of OBL.

Its not a sudden recent phenomenon that 1/4 of the worlds population is Muslim. Most of these "surprising" muslim countries like India and Indonesia have had large muslim populations for centuries.

[skunk]

The sad fact is Islam, which used to be barely worth any notice, is now "branded" as the religion of terrorists because of OBL.The even sadder fact is that Christianity, which used to be barely worth any notice, is now "branded" as the religion of illegal occupation and mass slaughter because of GWB.

[Zombie Acorn]

The even sadder fact is that Christianity, which used to be barely worth any notice, is now "branded" as the religion of illegal occupation and mass slaughter because of GWB.

Never heard that branding attributed to them.

[skunk]

Never heard that branding attributed to them.You obviously weren't around in the Middle East during the original Crusades or the most recent one.

[Macaddicttt]

You obviously weren't around in the Middle East during the original Crusades or the most recent one.

Equating in any way the Crusades with the current Iraq and Afghan Wars is completely intellectually dishonest.

[Ugg]

You obviously weren't around in the Middle East during the original Crusades or the most recent one.

Nor were you in Morocco and the rest of North Africa during the 55 year reign of Moulay Ismail. His "misdeeds" would inspire the Barbary pirates well into the 1800s. Megalomaniacs like him as well as Ottoman leaders of the same period are probably responsible for much of the anti Muslim feelings of today.

via Wikipedia

The term has also been used to refer to people from Barbary, a region encompassing most of North Africa. The name of the region, Barbary, comes from the Arabic word Barbar, possibly from the Latin word barbaricum, meaning "land of the barbarians".

[Burnsey]

Most people aren’t religious scholars and most religious people barely even know anything about their own religion. The sad fact is Islam, which used to be barely worth any notice, is now "branded" as the religion of terrorists because of OBL.

Indeed, the number of actual terrorists and suicide bombers is incredibly tiny compared to the overall global muslim population.

[bobber205]

Equating in any way the Crusades with the current Iraq and Afghan Wars is completely intellectually dishonest.

There is great evidence that Bush and Co. wanted to go into Iraq since the very beginning no matter what evidence they actually had. Sept 11th was just convenient for them. They may not be fighting over "Holy Land" but there is still a very big "Christians vs Muslim" conflict over there, see: Blackwater.

[Macaddicttt]

There is great evidence that Bush and Co. wanted to go into Iraq since the very beginning no matter what evidence they actually had. Sept 11th was just convenient for them. They may not be fighting over "Holy Land" but there is still a very big "Christians vs Muslim" conflict over there, see: Blackwater.

Any equivalences are superficial at best.

To be clear, I'm not trying to justify either excursion; my only point is that comparisons are inaccurate, and when made, serve only to antagonize since there are no real, substantive points of convergence that are meaningful to discussion.

EDIT: And yes, I use the word "excursion" ironically.

[skunk]

Equating in any way the Crusades with the current Iraq and Afghan Wars is completely intellectually dishonest.Not as seen from the perspective of many Muslims.

[Zombie Acorn]

You obviously weren't around in the Middle East during the original Crusades or the most recent one.

Obviously.

[Eraserhead]

Equating in any way the Crusades with the current Iraq and Afghan Wars is completely intellectually dishonest.

Not when the official figures (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) state that 100,000 people have been killed in Iraq alone.

[Macaddicttt]

Not as seen from the perspective of many Muslims.

So comparisons are valid when a group of people feel they are? By that logic, comparing Obama to Hitler and calling him both a Nazi and a socialist is perfectly legitimate, which is absolutely ridiculous.

Not when the official figures (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) state that 100,000 people have been killed in Iraq alone.

I wasn't talking about numbers. (And what good would it do to equate two totally separate conflicts merely on the basis of numbers when the only possible goal is creating a sense of Christian-Muslim or East-West tension?)

On what sense are you equating the Iraq and Afghan wars with the Crusades? "A lot of people died" is not a good point of comparison. With that criteria, then WWII is just like the Crusades, which is just like the American Civil War, which is just like the Crimean War, which is just like any conflict in the history of mankind.

[kavika411]

Indeed, the number of actual terrorists and suicide bombers is incredibly tiny compared to the overall global muslim population.

Thanks for the stat. That makes me feel s-o-o-o-o much better.

[skunk]

So comparisons are valid when a group of people feel they are?I am not talking about validity, simply perspective and perception. Bush and Blair both behaved like Crusaders, both prayed for divine guidance in their foul adventure, both habitually wear their religion on their sleeves, if not their tabards.

[Beric]

I am not talking about validity, simply perspective and perception. Bush and Blair both behaved like Crusaders, both prayed for divine guidance in their foul adventure, both habitually wear their religion on their sleeves, if not their tabards.

So a lot of people are more religious than you. They don't choose to keep it private. And you're saying you have a problem with that?

I don't think everyone should have to act unreligious just to be politically correct.

[skunk]

I don't think everyone should have to act unreligious just to be politically correct.If you both act religious and attack a country which adheres, predominantly, to an "opposing" religion, you might be mistaken for a Crusader. It is not only politically incorrect but also politically idiotic.

[iShater]

Didn't Bush himself call it a Crusade? :rolleyes:

[rasmasyean]

I think the majority of the muslim world thinks that at least Iraq is for oil rather than crusades. The crusades notion is just propaganda for recruiting extremists and getting the support of the poor and uneducated people who don’t know any better than to be led by simplistic notions…which unfortunately there are a lot in the muslim world as in any third world concentration.

Afghanistan is mostly viewed as the US just not knowing what the hell they are doing and causing needless damage. Some might also believe that US is interested in the potential money from future establishment there as well, but not for crusading…unless again, you’re talking about some sheep herders and such, who might be recruited for jihad because of it...or that a bomb killed their family member...or sheep.

[DoNoHarm]

Is it really a fact that their religion, more specifically the Quran (Koran, Q'Ran, etc) states that women MUST cover themselves? I find that rather hard to believe. I think it's more of a religious doctrine that's been handed down by generations of oppressive men than anything else.

Prove me wrong.

I agree, the only thing I've seen in the Koran is that women must dress modestly. The veil/covering of the head is a cultural, not religious phenomena.

In any case, I would argue that all of the major religions are equally unreasonable since they ask a "believer" to "believe" and accept using a facility other than reason. Once you let go of reason, everything you believe becomes a whim to the tune of a taste, style, or whatever.

Seriously, some of you guys are sitting here aghast that some women can erroneously believe that "dressing modestly" = covering one's head when you both believe in this intricate fairy tale about angels, heaven, hell, etc.

[DoNoHarm]

Nor were you in Morocco and the rest of North Africa during the 55 year reign of Moulay Ismail. His "misdeeds" would inspire the Barbary pirates well into the 1800s. Megalomaniacs like him as well as Ottoman leaders of the same period are probably responsible for much of the anti Muslim feelings of today.

via Wikipedia


Ugg: It's always wise to note that all civilizations, including yours, have dirty. Just ask the Native Americans. Oh wait, they were slaughtered en masse by the American army. Source?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tippecanoe

Or how about the fire-bombing of Tokyo, or the Nuclear HOLOCAUST against Hairoshima and Nagasaki. Even McNamara said that he would probably be tried as a war criminal if the US lost.

You may then want to read about the crusades, and it's effect on the local civilian population, before you go on blaming other religions for the world's ills.

After considering those events, you may realize that just because the term "barbarism" was coined at a certain time, it was perfected long ago.

[skunk]

The crusades notion is just propaganda for recruiting extremists and getting the support of the poor and uneducated people who don’t know any better than to be led by simplistic notions…which unfortunately there are a lot in the muslim world as in any third world concentration.You hit the nail on the head: just look at all those in the US who were led by "simplistis notions" to lend their support to an illegal war and brutal occupation in the name of bringing "Western civilisation" to those poor, benighted brown folk.

[Eraserhead]

I think the majority of the muslim world thinks that at least Iraq is for oil rather than crusades.

So why not invade Myanmar? They have oil too and are a nasty regime too.

To be fair for the muslim world it isn't just Iraq and Afghanistan that are issues. The US's bias towards Israel in the Israeli Palestinean conflict (certainly that is at least true in the eyes of the Arab world) and further back the frankly unsuccessful partition of Israel/Palestine and India/Pakistan by the British

You hit the nail on the head: just look at all those in the US who were led by "simplistis notions" to lend their support to an illegal war and brutal occupation in the name of bringing "Western civilisation" to those poor, benighted brown folk.

Exactly, put better than I ever could.

Ugg: It's always wise to note that all civilizations, including yours, have dirty. Just ask the Native Americans. Oh wait, they were slaughtered en masse by the American army. Source?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tippecanoe

Or how about the fire-bombing of Tokyo, or the Nuclear HOLOCAUST against Hairoshima and Nagasaki. Even McNamara said that he would probably be tried as a war criminal if the US lost.

Its worth noting that the fire-bombing of Tokyo killed almost as many as each Nuke did - I believe around 100 000 died in the firebombing of Tokyo.

[rasmasyean]

So why not invade Myanmar? They have oil too and are a nasty regime too.

To be fair for the muslim world it isn't just Iraq and Afghanistan that are issues. The US's bias towards Israel in the Israeli Palestinean conflict (certainly that is at least true in the eyes of the Arab world) and further back the frankly unsuccessful partition of Israel/Palestine and India/Pakistan by the British



If you ask for MY analysis, Iraq (a.k.a. Sadam Husian) is a pretty convenient target due to past political dealings. It is also right next o Iran, a historical political enemy as well with lots of oil.

I’m not sure how you consider Jews a player in crusading other than some remotely related made up reasons I’m sure many opposition leaders may come up with. Israel happens to be a significant world player in exportation of desired goods. It may have something to do with the Jewish faith making people work hard (i.e. love money, etc. according to the common stereotype), but that doesn’t classify them as crusaders.

Although Pakistan is an ally to the West supposedly as well, I do believe India provides more desirable economic goodies that the West is interested in….Muslim or not

Perhaps this all sounds rather superficial to some people, but the fact of the matter is that the world DOES revolve around money. Without energy resources secured, the West would cease to exist as we know it. Without industrial and commercial activity that is enabled by this energy, global economies will also halt. If Iraq (like Saudi Arabia, and UAE) remain friendly traders in this scheme with reasonable exchange of black food for hungry economies, you will see this Muslim nation not “crusaded” despite the fact that they are not “Christian”. And McDonalds and Coca Cola are not crusades. They are tasty products (much like Microsoft) that happen to be like by a lot of ppl and hence are there to make money, like anyone else.

It’s also a myth that everyone in the West or even US is Christian that many of these uneducated people are led to believe. The fact is that even as the actual Christian families evolve, many generations drop the faith all the way from just habitual rituals, to pure atheism. Not to mention the vast amount on non-Christian religious people abounding.

[Macky-Mac]

....

To be fair for the muslim world it isn't just Iraq and Afghanistan that are issues. The US's bias towards Israel in the Israeli Palestinean conflict (certainly that is at least true in the eyes of the Arab world) and further back the frankly unsuccessful partition of Israel/Palestine and India/Pakistan by the British

......

oh, the partition of India and Pakistan......who was it that wanted that? wasn't it actually muslim politicians that were pushing the idea? admittedly, the british made a mess of it, but was it their idea in the first place?

[Eraserhead]

oh, the partition of India and Pakistan......who was it that wanted that? wasn't it actually muslim politicians that were pushing the idea? admittedly, the british made a mess of it, but was it their idea in the first place?

This is true, but not if you're a moderately extremist muslim in Pakistan you probably aren't going to look at it from that perspective. You might well even like the partition, but not the problems it is caused.

[Eraserhead]

I’m not sure how you consider Jews a player in crusading other than some remotely related made up reasons I’m sure many opposition leaders may come up with.

The Israelis aren't exactly innocent, they've behaved appallingly towards the Palestinians EDIT (the Palestinians have also behave badly back), and the muslim world takes our bias towards Israel over Palestine as being against their interests. EDIT: That said Obama has done better on this than Bush, hopefully it'll continue.