We are heading to into the next decade of the 21st century. My question is when will women be invited to join our so called advanced civilization? Follow the link back to the Feministe eZine for the whole article. One picture below the fold shows a woman being prepared for gang rape, be forewarned.
The Ten Worst Countries for Women Today
Afghanistan: The average Afghan girl will live to only 45 – one year less than an Afghan male. After three decades of war and religion-based repression, an overwhelming number of women are illiterate. More than half of all brides are under 16, and one woman dies in childbirth every half hour. Domestic violence is so common that 87 per cent of women admit to experiencing it. But more than one million widows are on the streets, often forced into prostitution. Afghanistan is the only country in which the female suicide rate is higher than that of males.
Democratic Republic of Congo: In the eastern DRC, a war that claimed more than 3 million lives has ignited again, with women on the front line. Rapes are so brutal and systematic that UN investigators have called them unprecedented. Many victims die; others are infected with HIV and left to look after children alone. Foraging for food and water exposes women to yet more violence. Without money, transport or connections, they have no way of escape.
Iraq: The U.S.-led invasion to “liberate” Iraq from Saddam Hussein has imprisoned women in an inferno of sectarian violence that targets women and girls. The literacy rate, once the highest in the Arab world, is now among the lowest as families fear risking kidnapping and rape by sending girls to school. Women who once went out to work stay home. Meanwhile, more than 1 million women have been displaced from their homes, and millions more are unable to earn enough to eat.
Nepal: Early marriage and childbirth exhaust the country’s malnourished women, and one in 24 will die in pregnancy or childbirth. Daughters who aren’t married off may be sold to traffickers before they reach their teens. Widows face extreme abuse and discrimination if they’re labelled bokshi, meaning witches. A low-level civil war between government and Maoist rebels has forced rural women into guerrilla groups.
Sudan: While Sudanese women have made strides under reformed laws, the plight of those in Darfur, in western Sudan, has worsened. Abduction, rape or forced displacement have destroyed more than 1 million women’s lives since 2003. The janjaweed militias have used systematic rape as a demographic weapon, but access to justice is almost impossible for the female victims of violence.
Guatemala: The impoverished female underclass of Guatemala faces domestic violence, rape and the second-highest rate of HIV/AIDS after sub-Saharan Africa. An epidemic of gruesome unsolved murders has left hundreds of women dead, some of their bodies left with hate messages.
Mali: One of the world’s poorest countries, few women escape the torture of genital mutilation, many are forced into early marriages, and one in 10 dies in pregnancy or childbirth.
Pakistan: In the tribal border areas of Pakistan women are gang-raped as punishment for men’s crimes. But honour killing is more widespread, and a renewed wave of religious extremism is targeting female politicians, human rights workers and lawyers.
Saudi Arabia: Women in Saudi Arabia are treated as lifelong dependents, under the guardianship of a male relative. Deprived of the right to drive a car or mix with men publicly, they are confined to strictly segregated lives on pain of severe punishment.
Somalia: In the Somali capital, Mogadishu, a vicious civil war has put women, who were the traditional mainstay of the family, under attack. In a society that has broken down, women are exposed daily to rape, dangerously poor health care for pregnancy, and attack by armed gangs.
“While the potential of women is recognized at the international level,” says World Health Organization director-general Margaret Chan, “this potential will not be realized until conditions improve – often dramatically – in countries and communities. Too many complex factors, often rooted in social and cultural norms, continue to hinder the ability of women and girls to achieve their potential and benefit from social advances.”
17 comments
March 23, 2010 at 6:11 am
bob
so impresive and gloomy. but there are other places to add to the list. please do not forget iran in the 1st place of your list. if you do not believe please search “Neda aghasoltan” on web.
LikeLike
March 23, 2010 at 11:00 am
The Arbourist
I do not think we should ‘compete’ to say which country is the worst or who was missed per-say.
It may be helpful to look at this as a sample from a spectrum of injustice and be aware of what can be done to help all women in their struggle.
LikeLike
July 28, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Woman
All your info is not true.
I know muslim women especially in Islamic countries who have moved there by choice and are living happily in a place like you said – “the segregated lifestyle” because they have seen the other side of life where women have all the freedom and experienced the way women have been degraded to expose themselves in the name of fashion, invite strangers to ogle at them, molested etc etc etc.
But on the contrary it is true that some places mentioned above needs to have literacy rate increased too. Because Islam is a religion for the “Aalim” (people with intellect) as mentioned by God.
PLEASE EVERYONE DO NOT BE LAZY AND OBTAIN YOUR KNOWLEDGE FROM WHAT PEOPLE SAY. PICK UP THE ORIGINAL BOOKS FROM THE BIBLE (original testament is recommended) TO THE QURAN AND YOU WILL COME TO KNOW HOW GOD THROUGH HIS WAY CAN GIVE THE WORLD A FAIR JUSTICE AND PEACE. VIOLENCE AND DISTURBANCE ARE ALL CREATED BY POLITICALLY AND POWER HUNGRY HUMANS.
PLEASE READ AND NOT ONLY LISTEN TO HUMANS AND INTERNET.
LikeLike
July 28, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Mystro
“All your info is not true.”
Oh, you must be about to point out which claim(s) is(are) false and why.
“I know muslim women especially in Islamic countries who have moved there by choice and are living happily…”
…or not. sigh.
What you just did was the equivalent of responding to a summation of atrocities done at concentration camps in WWII by saying ‘that’s not true, because I know some Jewish people with German friends’. Absolutely ludicrous.
Further I can assure you that it has never been suggested by any of the authors of this blog that the status and treatment of women in western societies is anything close to ideal. But to suggest that the status/treatment of women is better in the places mentioned above is beyond absurd (re-read post if you’ve forgotten why). It’s abhorrent.
“ORIGINAL BOOKS FROM THE BIBLE (original testament is recommended) TO THE QURAN…”
If you took your own advice and did some reading on the subject, you would find that there is next to nothing original in either the quran or the bible. They are jam packed filled with rehashed myths from earlier religions. For instance compare the story of Jesus with that of Horus, a god of Egypt over 2000 years before Jesus was said to have been born.
You would also find that the god of these books engaged in, condoned, supported, and commanded more violence and death than any political leader in all of human history. When is the last time a dictator drowned the every man, woman, child, and infant on the planet, save one family to incestuously repopulate the earth?
To sum up
1) if you are going to claim something said is false/wrong/inaccurate, please point out what exactly you have issue with, and, if you’re feeling extra rational, you could actually support your disagreement with some reasoning.
2)Read something that lies outside of where your religion tells you look. There is amazement and wonder to be found in the realm of reality. Try it.
LikeLike
July 28, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“Woman”,
I’ll add more respect to this reply than I did to my reply of your “buttocks” response.
I respect a woman’s free choice to choose that segregated lifestyle. My question to you is this: what laws exist for the women there (or even here) who do not wish to conform to Shari’ah law? It would appear that the options in such a case are not so “peaceful.”
I can respect someone’s faith and their right to get into and practice a religion (so long as it doesn’t do anyone else harm), but it’s how restrictive religions are in allowing anyone to get OUT of their religion that I can neither, respect, understand, or appreciate. More specifically, in your view of Islam (modernist/traditionalist/fundamentalist/Sunni/Shi’a), how is apostasy to be punished?
In my opinion, the great things in our society have come to be from not only Freedom OF Religion, but Freedom FROM Religion as well. Largely (but not entirely), we have made sure that no one religion in this country truly dominates another, and through that, no one PERSON can truly dominate another. Within that we all have rights, one of which being the right to be, and remain, individuals free to choose our own paths.
These rights are protected by laws, and we have thus become a nation of laws which also protect our freedoms. This freedom is not just freedom to be, but also freedom to think, and from this freedom our society has made many advances in the arts, sciences, and technology – advances that I find to be far greater than those that have come from the segregated, religiously-oppressive side of the world.
While I believe we do need a restoration of values in our society and respect you for choosing a way of life that makes ones’ values paramount, I do not believe the solution is reverting back to the “wisdom” of barbarian kingdoms from over 3,000+ years ago throwing out all of the true wisdom we’ve gained since then.
If you’ll notice, the only people truly calling for a return to the old ways of the Bible or the Qur’an on a large scale are those who are indeed “political and power-hungry humans.” Perhaps an update of the old ways into modern society is more the way to go.
LikeLike
July 28, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Mystro,
I’ve seen the comparisons between the Bible and Egyptian Book of the Dead as well. Interesting stuff! I’ve also heard suggestion that the Muslim religion was hatched by the Illuminati as an open offensive to Vatican power. Again, interesting stuff!
For everyone else here, when I bring up my points re: religion it is not to slam somebody’s religion (or their right to choice of one). I believe we are spiritual beings, and to that end I can respect religion as a vehicle to help someone meet their spiritual needs. However, when it starts becoming a “right vs. wrong” thing or a “my way or else”-type argument, my back goes up.
LikeLike
July 28, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Mystro
Vern,
Noticing the vast similarities in belief nuances, myth structures, significant dates, symbols, celebrations etc. over a history of popular religions and inferring that later ones took up many things from the older ones is quite a bit different than noticing that there are people who dislike each other and inferring secret societies and conspiracy.
“I can respect religion as a vehicle to help someone meet their spiritual needs. However, when it starts becoming a “right vs. wrong” thing or a “my way or else”-type argument, my back goes up.”
Sounds like ‘People can have whatever faith they want, as long as it limits itself and conforms to the parameters set by my judgment.’ Can’t have it both ways. Faith, by definition, is outside of reason. Judgment can only be employed through reason. Thus, if you are respecting faith, you cannot say one faith is better than any other. Put another way, it is hypocritical to say “I respect your faith and Mystro is wrong to condemn it. Except if I don’t like it, then your faith is bad.” The long version of my views on religious tolerance is here.
Spirituality does not require religion or faith. Given religion and faith’s blood soaked history, I would say they are devastatingly poor choices for a “vehicle to help someone meet their spiritual needs” and ought to be dissuaded as much as possible.
LikeLike
July 28, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Hi Mystro,
You said: “Noticing the vast similarities in belief nuances, myth structures, significant dates, symbols, celebrations etc. over a history of popular religions and inferring that later ones took up many things from the older ones is quite a bit different than noticing that there are people who dislike each other and inferring secret societies and conspiracy.”
Perhaps not when you consider what purpose those beliefs, nuances, myth structures, symbols, and celebrations served. Nonetheless, my point was simply to say that the Qur’an may have been just as much a “story” as the Bible.
“Sounds like ‘People can have whatever faith they want, as long as it limits itself and conforms to the parameters set by my judgment.’” Not so. For one, I didn’t say you were wrong to condemn anything, and for another, I’ve never said what religion a person can or can’t have. I believe someone’s faith to be an individual thing and not something to be forced upon another.
“Spirituality does not require religion or faith. Given religion and faith’s blood soaked history, I would say they are devastatingly poor choices for a “vehicle to help someone meet their spiritual needs” and ought to be dissuaded as much as possible.”
Medicine has a very barbaric and blood-soaked history as well, yet surely you do not reject it or dissuade people from it? Things can evolve.
As for spirituality, what vehicle do you suggest, then?
LikeLike
July 29, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Mystro
“the Qur’an may have been just as much a “story” as the Bible. ”
Agreed. All the contradicting and mutually exclusive religions of the world have exactly the same level of veracity. Zero.
“I’ve never said what religion a person can or can’t have. I believe someone’s faith to be an individual thing and not something to be forced upon another.”
“I can respect someone’s faith and their right to get into and practice a religion (so long as it doesn’t do anyone else harm), but it’s how restrictive religions are in allowing anyone to get OUT of their religion that I can neither, respect, understand, or appreciate.”
A great deal of faiths deal exactly in the things you have issue with. There are plenty of people who’s personal faith tells them that their deity commands them to do harm to outsiders and to punish deserters. By saying you don’t approve, you are not respecting their faith. You are saying that their faith is wrong. And you are right on that point. But its wrong to think that one can support faith and disapprove of faith’s horrendous consequences and be consistent.
“Medicine has a very barbaric and blood-soaked history as well, yet surely you do not reject it or dissuade people from it? Things can evolve.”
What an interesting analogy. I shall propose a similar one. Instead of comparing medicine to faith, lets try medicine to spirituality and I think it will work better. You are right, the beginnings of medicine where horrendous. Why? It was contaminated by faith and religion. People were thought to have daemons possessing them, that blood letting was effective way of dealing with pneumonia, just to site a couple disastrous unsubstantiated beliefs. How did it evolve, as you say, to the much more efficient medical model we have today? Medicine dropped faith. With the development of the scientific method and testing procedures, the medical field was able to bloom to the point where we have eradicated smallpox and tripled life expectancy rates, again only mentioning two of a wealth of examples.
In the same way, faith and religion are a bane on quests for spirituality. For examples, just read the original post. The misogyny that saturates the worlds main religions is causing tremendous suffering. By abandoning faith, people would be free to explore their spirituality in a much more efficient and a monumentally less destructive way. Spirituality, just like medicine, will flourish with the dissolving of faith. Which leads to your final question:
“As for spirituality, what vehicle do you suggest, then?”
This is not an exhaustive list by any means, but one could try:
Hiking through the mountains
Listening to an orchestra
Reading poetry
Walking through a forest
Volunteering to help kids/elderly/poor/disabled/anyone else who needs it
Gazing at the wondrous cosmos, either by telescope or naked eye
Making love with someone with whom you share vast respect and affection
Engaging yourself at an evocative art exhibit
Swimming in a lake
Having a large meal with loved ones
Celebrating in the achievements of others
Sharing a really good hug
Going to the opera
Having wind rush past your face and through your hair
Petting a dog
Going to a restaurant or cafe with live music
Respectfully observing wildlife
Getting lost in a story
Eating an exceptionally good piece of chocolate
Playing a sport
…just off the top of my head. There are countless other ways, I’d imagine. Notice that not one of them requires faith. I don’t need to imagine some god to notice the boundless marvel displayed by nature, nor do I need to obey some dogma to appreciate the goodness and warmth of my fellow humans, nor do I need some cosmic dictator to delight in helping my family friends and community. Faith is a perversion of these goods. It is a manipulation of these goods. It is a very very very dangerous and destructive framework of these goods. And these goods do not need anything from faith to exist.
LikeLike
July 29, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Mystro,
My comment: “I can respect someone’s faith and their right to get into and practice a religion (so long as it doesn’t do anyone else harm), but it’s how restrictive religions are in allowing anyone to get OUT of their religion that I can neither, respect, understand, or appreciate.”
Your response: By saying you don’t approve, you are not respecting their faith. You are saying that their faith is wrong.
Ah yes, upon review of my words chosen, you are correct in my contradiction. Perhaps I can rephrase with words more accurately stating my position: “I can respect that someone has CONVICTIONS, but where a religion will not allow someone to question, challenge, or back out of those convictions, I find it hard to respect or even understand such a religion.”
Regarding your comments and suggestions around spirituality, I’m curious – all those things you’ve mentioned are simply things we can all enjoy. To me those may not be vehicles towards spirituality, but perhaps only to some form of pleasure, which can be arrived at through a number of ways.
My question, then, is in your view, where is the “spirituality” in helping the needy, or in loving another person? What “spirit” are these acts in fact catering to, and how do they serve? Or, are they perhaps just another shade of biochemical reaction?
I recognize that people can be spiritual without religion. Just curious as to where you see yourself on that spectrum.
LikeLike
July 30, 2010 at 7:23 am
Vern R. Kaine
Mystro,
You said: “By abandoning faith, people would be free to explore their spirituality in a much more efficient and a monumentally less destructive way. Spirituality, just like medicine, will flourish with the dissolving of faith.”
We may require a clarification of our definitions here. Gandhi had faith, and relied on that faith to get him through the tough times and achieve great things. Same with Mother Theresa. With those examples I don’t see how one can abandon faith in order to be spiritual.
Is faith a belief in a higher purpose? Is spirituality a belief in a higher being? I guess you can have faith that nature will always find balance, but based on what, what our emotions desire that balance to be?
Perhaps we abandon religion to be able to explore our spirituality and faith freely through the use of our own (ahem!) God-given faculties?
Such an interesting topic. I suppose for me, “Spirituality” is a belief that there is something within us greater than the sum of our scientifically-understood parts, “Faith” (in this context) is a belief in some form of afterlife, and “Religion” would be what seems to me to be what is (wrongly) forced upon us as the only vehicle that can take us there.
To me, religion is where our need for connection gets corrupted by our need for significance.
Anyways, I may be getting off into the weeds here. If so, my apologies. I just find the topic fascinating.
LikeLike
July 30, 2010 at 11:56 am
Mystro
“We may require a clarification of our definitions here”
Very well.
faith (feɪθ)
–noun
strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
As to Gandhi and mother Theresa, faith is NOT what made their good works good or possible.
Theresa’s altruistic works, helping sick etc, came from a belief that people helping each other brings about a better overall outcome than people letting others fall and to only worry about themselves. This belief is backed with evidence, as we are a societal and communal species. One human in the wild won’t last too long, whereas a group can survive generations. That’s why Theresa’s nursing activities were good, not because it had anything to do with faith.
However, when Theresa advocated against contraceptives (as there is no evidence or reason to say that contraceptives are evil), that was based entirely on faith. The Catholic position on contraceptives and its influence in Africa have helped push AIDS to disastrous pandemic levels. Faith causes suffering on a global scale.
Oh, as an aside, the paragraph of Theresa’s goods was extraordinarily charitable, just to help make my point. A fair bit of reading suggests that she let her faith corrupt her nurse work as well, with horrendous outcomes.
Likewise, Gandhi believed that peaceful cooperation is more effective than violent opposition. That position is backed by evidence, it is not faith based. He also had a strong connection to the people and a desire to see things improve. Again, nothing there that requires faith. Your connection between faith and good works is a false one.
“I don’t see how one can abandon faith in order to be spiritual.”
Did you not look at my list above?
“I suppose for me, “Spirituality” is a belief that there is something within us greater than the sum of our scientifically-understood parts, “Faith” (in this context) is a belief in some form of afterlife”
I almost agree with your definition of spirituality. I have a problem with the vagueness of ‘something within us’. It leaves open that there could actually be something in us (i.e. a soul) when there is no reason to believe that there is. The ‘greater than the sum of our parts’ is spot on though. I left out the ‘scientifically understood’ bit, because, well, it is. It’s called Gestalt.
The point is exactly that there IS NOT something there, but we EXPERIENCE it anyway. By engaging in these gestalt experiences we involve ourselves in our experience, instead of merely being outside observers. WE are filling in the blanks, thus we become a part of what we are getting sensory data from. And being a part of nature, a part of art, a part of humanity sounds like spirituality to me. And again, you can experience this by trying some of the things in my list above.
My next issue is your jump to an afterlife. You appropriately labeled it as faith, as I see not one reason that one would infer afterlife from gestalt theory. It just isn’t there. It ties back to my position that all the benefits that are falsely attributed to faith can be obtained without faith. Indeed faith more often than not hinders those beneficial aims. Thus, faith should be done away with.
Please, if you choose to respond again (which I would welcome) I would encourage you to try to directly tie Faith-a belief without any evidence- with some good in a way that necessitates that Faith. So far, in a million different interactions, I’ve only encountered goods that have been merely associated with faith. That just won’t cut it.
LikeLike
July 30, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Mystro,
You said: “Your connection between faith and good works is a false one.”
No, your saying that I made that connection is false. I connected faith to INSPIRATION to commit good works, as a way to emotionally recharge, specifically saying that Gandhi and Mother Theresa credited it to helping them deal emotionally with the struggles they were dealing with. I did not say that it was what did or forced their physical acts.
I don’t believe Faith is necessary to commit a “good” deed, but I believe it can help depending on one’s circumstances.
Re: spiritual, I still don’t see based on your definition what, then, would make walking up a mountain “spiritual”? Is it that you’re made up of the same parts as the mountain, so you feel connected to it? How is enjoying a walk a spiritual experience rather than an emotional one? It does nothing for the mountain, nothing for society, nothing for the “greater good” – in fact nothing unless we choose to attach an emotional meaning to it. I guess I don’t understand how can you speak of doing something spiritual when you’re saying (if I’m reading you correctly) that you don’t believe you have a spirit to begin with. And your comparison to art and music – didn’t artists have their muse? Let’s hope they would not have to scientifically prove it before they’d be allowed to paint. :)
You also said:
“Please, if you choose to respond again (which I would welcome) I would encourage you to try to directly tie Faith-a belief without any evidence- with some good in a way that necessitates that Faith.”
I would not say that a good deed necessitates Faith, and I would certainly not say that a good deed necessitates Religion.
It would seem that your faith is in Science, that you believe only what it can prove? So be it, but then how do you prove that a mountain walk is a “spiritual” experience? How also do you “prove” love for a family member, perhaps one that is not of one’s own flesh and blood?
LikeLike
July 30, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Mystro
“No, your saying that I made that connection is false. I connected faith to INSPIRATION to commit good works”
paraphrase: faith->inspiration->good works…how is me saying you made a connection there false? Looks like a connection to me. All you really did was affirm my point that faith is not directly related to good works. It is unnecessary.
“I don’t believe Faith is necessary to commit a “good” deed, but I believe it can help depending on one’s circumstances.”
My point was not that it is impossible to possibly derive some inspiration for good from faith, my point was that the good can be derived without it.
So, option A: use faith-something shown throughout history to result in hate, death, and hostility
option B: use reason, acquire the same good result, but without all that nasty hate killing oppression misogyny stuff.
Going with option A when B is available is just irresponsible, even it did work out once or twice.
Further, this does not mean that a specific instance of faith will necessarily lead to evil. It means that faith, as a general practice, ultimately does lead to evil. Check the history books. Or current events.
On your criticism of my thoughts of spirituality, you point out my exercises in spirituality means
“nothing unless we choose to attach an emotional meaning to it.”
Absolutely correct. Bang on. Correctamundo. It’s why I gave a varied list. Going to a symphony will give no spiritual benefit to someone who hates the symphony. Volunteering will have no spiritual benefit for a misanthrope. It is indeed our personal selves that determines what will inspire us, enhance our spirituality, and “be our muse” (I’ll pardon the personification if you will :D). It is not different from an emotional experience, it is an important subset of emotional experiences. This diversity in spiritual sources lends itself to support that spirituality comes from the individual, not some universal cosmic force.
What makes it spiritual is the experience of being a part of something that is far greater than your physical make up, it is an experience of transcendence. For instance, when I hear Beethoven’s 6th, I experience the sensation of soaring, though I cannot fly. I feel a connection to the music, though I am not a note or a wave of air pressure.
“I guess I don’t understand how can you speak of doing something spiritual when you’re saying (if I’m reading you correctly) that you don’t believe you have a spirit to begin with”
Well, its much the same as with the word ‘sunrise’. There is a phenomena each morning that looks like the sun is rising in the east. So people came up with the word ‘sunrise’ to mark it. But much later on it was discovered that the sun is not actually rising, but it is the earth rotating that creates an illusion of the sun rising. Now, most everyone knows this, and if questioned carefully, there would be very few indeed that would still claim that the sun is actually rising, but still we use the word ‘sunrise’. Why? Well, “time-of-day-whereupon-the-rotation-of-the-earth-creates-the-illusion-of-the-sun-rising” doesn’t quite roll off the tongue like “sunrise” does. So we stuck with the really nice word that happened to have erroneous faith-based origins.
Much the same with spirituality. The phenomena of the transcendent experience was first explained by spirits, gods, jubuses, allahs, yawehs, faeries, karmas, gayas, celestial consciousnesses, etc. Hence the word ‘spiritual’. But, for all the reasons I’ve shown, such an explanation is unnecessary, and ultimately harmful, but it’s still a nice word. I guess, I’m hoping ‘spirituality’ undergoes that evolution you were talking about and shirks its faith based origins so it can truly become beneficial to society, just like medicine did.
This coincides with the spiritual being a classification of experience. One does not “prove that a mountain walk is a “spiritual” experience” just as one does not prove that a wild feline with very pointy ears is a lynx. Lynx is a label, and organizational tool, just like the word spiritual. You then attach definitions and conditions something must meet to be classified under that label. What labels and definitions we use depend on the utility of those labels and definitions. I want a set of conditions for spirituality that has no possible way of leading people to murder, hatred, rape, etc. and that can only be done with the abandonment of faith.
“It would seem that your faith is in Science”
You asked for a definition, I gave it to you. I even linked it so you could look it up yourself. What does your last sentence looks like with some definitions put in. ‘It would seem that your beliefs-without-evidence are evidence-based-beliefs’. Really?
LikeLike
September 7, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Simon
Why oh why are all islamic counties still in the dark ages. The people are religiously ignorant, hipacritical and backward and they attack the west because they are jellous, no other reason. If they are doing God’s will then perhaps they will be allowed to come out of the darkeness and into the light rather than being shunned by the free and enlightened world.
Oh, and anyone who is not muslim is not cannon foder put on this earth by God so that extreamists can kill us either.
LikeLike
September 7, 2010 at 5:40 pm
The Arbourist
If they are doing God’s will then perhaps they will be allowed to come out of the darkeness and into the light rather than being shunned by the free and enlightened world.
I would rather they ash canned the religious nonsense altogether and truly embrace the values of the Enlightenment. It was the path out of the Christian Dark Ages for the West. A similar occurrence would do wonders for many religiously addled states.
Oh, and anyone who is not muslim is not cannon foder put on this earth by God so that extreamists can kill us either.
Extremists come in all shapes and sizes. One should consider the causes of their fanaticism rather than point to one particular sect or race.
LikeLike
August 11, 2012 at 5:49 pm
Ram Singh
The greatness of a people is known by the amount of respect it shows it’s women. This is other than papmering on one stage, and brutality at the other, as in most Islamic countries. Pakistan is for once, not an Islamic country. It is a tribal barbaric nation showing identity with an Islamic faith that it does not follow. It is with a modern army, like that of Attilla the Hun, or Chenghis Khan. So women will naturally but show the features of the same.
LikeLike