Islamic Fascism

[Good Sir Knight]

Is it the intolerant, misogynestic, theocratic oppression that is fundamentalist Islam?

 

Could it be used to describe mideast governments like Saddam Hussein's? The Iraqi Baath party was a socialist movement and was remarkably secular when compared to its neighbors.

 

We are witnessing a massive change in Europe, former powers such as Britain and France now have sizable Muslim populations that have proven troublesome at times.

 

Is it Islams lack of a reformation that's leading this wave of slaughter across the world? Most of the conflicts in the world have something to do with an Islamic population. Across Asia and Europe, to the United States and even in the Caribean.

 

Of course not every Muslim is a terrorist, the broad majority live very peaceful lives. The trouble is that there is no reformation, no growth in the core of Islam. After each terrorist attack there is a 'schock' and 'horror' in the Muslim community but is anything ever done about the extremism?

 

Little to nothing.

 

Recently the Muslims in Europe expressed shock at the recent failed plot, though stated that Britain's foreign policy was causing it. It's good cop, bad cop in political speach.

 

Why can't Islam get it's act together?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Of course not every Muslim is a terrorist, the broad majority live very peaceful lives. The trouble is that there is no reformation, no growth in the core of Islam. After each terrorist attack there is a 'schock' and 'horror' in the Muslim community but is anything ever done about the extremism?

 

Little to nothing.

And what the Heck are the moderate Muslims supposed to do? Host Internet petitions to ibn Ladin demanding he stops his terrorism?

 

Let's not forget that they're at least acknowledging that the perpetrators were Muslims (not that they should need to, as every sane person knows that a "regular" Muslim and a "terror-Muslim" are two different things). Whenever a Christian fanatic does something (read: Timothy McVeigh, Paul Hill), every other Christian in the world just distances himself from it. How many priests and bishops did you see publicly distancing their church from terrorism after Timothy McVeigh blew up that Oklahoma courthouse? Hmm...

[ET Warrior]

Pro-Life Virginia - Army of God at http://www.armyofgod.com/ This web site quotes many biblical passages including:

Luke 22:36: "...he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Jeremiah 48:10: "Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood."

Psalm 58:10: "The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked."

 

Someone, perhaps webmaster Rev. Donald Spitz, stated on the web site: "I believe helpless babies deserve to be protected and defended from those who plan to kill them - just like the people in the World Trade Center deserved to be defended. If someone was able to stop the terrorists before they were able to crash the plane into the World Trade Center, that someone would be deemed a hero. In the same manner those who stop babykilling [sic] abortionists from murdering innocent children are heroes."

The Christian Gallery at http://www.christiangallery.com/ promoted "God's plan for government [that] will one day be restored to its rightful place of authority in the land you presently occupy." It had sections of its Web page devoted to people and organizations that are leading this restoration. One section, the Nuremberg files, was found guilty of threatening abortion providers and was heavily fined. Their internet service provider removed the entire website in 1999-FEB. We suspect that the individual web sites will reappear elsewhere on the Internet. Included in the Christian Gallery were:

Pro-life Virginia at: http://www.christiangallery.com/prolifeva/ (No longer online) Their page had a large picture of Paul Hill, a former Presbyterian minister, who was convicted of the murder of John Britton, an abortion provider in Pensacola FL. The caption reads "American Hero"; they state that the reason why he is on death row is that he saved "innocent babies from being murdered by babykilling [sic] abortionist John Britton." No mention is made that Hill killed Dr. Britton, that he killed a bodyguard Jim Barret, and wounded his wife.

Defenders of the Defenders of Life at: http://www.christiangallery.com/prolifeva/homepg2.html#recover (No longer online). They published The Defensive Action Statement

 

"We the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all godly action necessary, including the use of force, to defend innocent human life (born and unborn). We proclaim that whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child."

 

They further state that the murder of Dr. Britton was "morally justified if it was necessary for the purpose of defending innocent human life." The statement was signed by a number of Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox pastors and priests, heads of Christian and Pro-life groups, etc.

Capitol Area Christian News at: http://www.christiangallery.com/bray.html In its review of local activities during the summer of 1997, they commented:

 

"There was a brief flurry of abortuary destruction in the early part of the year (bringing joy to the hearts of those who pray for spiritual revival)...But it is bothersome to be reminded of the call God has placed upon the lives of others. Paul Hill has been sentenced to death. Apparently he was called [by God] to the sacrificial, public witness he made...Paul Hill was called to abort the abortionist, and his wife and children were called to suffer the loss of husband and father for righteousness sake...A righteous man, our brother in the Faith, has been sentenced to die for doing justice and showing mercy. He is to be executed for obedience to our Lord."

 

The site also has a letter from Paul Hill which describes his thought processes before, during, and after the murder of an abortion provider and his bodyguard. When informed that he would be charged with two counts of murder, he writes:

 

"I knew then I had accomplished my task. I continued to lift my heart to the Lord, thankful for success. I had not failed in my errand and He had not failed me. The Lord had done great things through me."

 

Later, he wrote:

 

"Much of the joy I felt after shooting the abortionist, and still feel today, is the joy of having freely obeyed Christ after long being enslaved to fearful obedience to men."

 

The Nuremberg Files at http://www.bestchoice.com/atrocity/ (now inactive) has been called "the most controversial" website on the Net. 5 Neal Horsley leads a "coalition of concerned citizens throughout the USA...[who are] cooperating in collecting dossiers on abortionists in anticipation that one day we may be able to hold them on trial for crimes against humanity." They patterned their web site name after the Nuremberg trials after World War II when Nazi war criminals were tried for crimes against humanity. They attempted to prepare files on all individuals that they term "abortionists." These are people who conduct abortions, own clinics, or provide protection to clinics. They included judges who interpret laws "authorizing child-killing or oppressing pro-life activists" and politicians who create such laws. Their web site contained lists of abortion providers, judges, legislators, spouses etc. Included with many are their home and office addresses. Physicians who have been murdered have had their names crossed off; Dr. Barnett Slepian of Amherst NY, who was assassinated in late 1998-OCT is one. When a physician is injured, their name is grayed out. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution commented: "Horsley's Web site, 'The Nuremberg Files: Visualize Abortionists on Trial,' features images of fetus body parts bordered by dripping blood and includes a list of doctors who perform abortions. Some doctors' names are accompanied by personal information, such as photos, home addresses, names of children and wives." The president of Planned Parenthood, Gloria Feldt, accused the web site of inciting violence. A spokesperson for the National Abortion Federation, Sharon Lau, commented: "It may not come right out and say, 'Go out and kill these people,' but with the blood dripping around the list, I think it's certainly implied."

 

The website was added to a list of threats against abortion providers that formed part of a case against 12 pro-life activists and 2 pro-life organizations. On 1999-FEB-2, a federal jury found the accused guilty and assessed damages of $108 million. The media incorrectly linked the web site's owner, Neal Horsley of Carrollton, GA, to the accused. In fact, there never was a judgment or injunction against the website; there never was a connection between the defendants and the website. The case had involved pictures of abortion providers in the form of "wanted posters," that the defendants allegedly distributed in 1995.

The Creator's Rights Party hosts The Christian Gallery where the Nuremberg Files resided. Referring to the assassination of abortion clinic workers, clinic bombing, etc, they state: "That violence exists because the violence against the unborn creates a vortex of violence that, unless it is arrested will threaten every person in the USA...the American Medical Association is leading this nation toward its own destruction. To ignore the plight of the unborn child being slaughtered meets all the criteria of a condition of mental illness called denial." 7 This group is offering to hold public seminars which it calls "Post Abortion Assassination Seminars" (PAAS). Their intent is to educate the public with their beliefs.

 

When is Christianity going to get it's act together?

 

Of course, this is just a small subset of the kinds of things that those wacky Christians are supporting, but bombing abortion clinics and murdering doctors is pretty indicitive of a lack of reformation. Christianity really needs to have one of those.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Of course not every Christian is a terrorist, the broad majority live very peaceful lives. The trouble is that there is no reformation, no growth in the core of Christianity. After each terrorist attack there is a 'schock' and 'horror' in the Christian community but is anything ever done about the extremism?

 

Little to nothing.

[toms]

Well, Islam is a young religion.. aproximately 600 years younger than christianity. So you could say that attitudes in islam are about where they were in the 1400s in Christian nations.

 

- In 1400 most western countries were still religious dictatorships.

- England, France and Spain were ruled by monarchs of particular christian sects, often with claims of divine right.

- Democracy as an idea hardly existed.

- Wars between different christian sects were bloody. People of the wrong sect, or of other religions were likely to be killed.

- Those fleeing religious persecution hadn't yet left for america.

- Women had no rights.

- Witches had yet to be burnt at the stake.

- The religious elite still controlled almost everything, being the only ones who could read or write or understand latin.

etc..

 

Also, the christian reformation was hardly a peaceful transition. It lead to huge amounts of upheaval, internal wars, massacres, splinter groups, full scale wars between nations, civil wars, a rise in extremist sects and so on.

 

And its pretty easy to argue its still going on now.. with fundamentalist christians in both the USA and Africa holding almost identical beliefs on a lot of issues to fundamentalist islam.

 

So amybe islam's reformation has already started (early) and we are feeling the tremors.. or maybe if and when it does start we are all going to look back on these as the good old days.

[edlib]

...Britain's foreign policy was causing it.

Yeah... that one keeps coming up.

 

Yet the Western powers-that-be seem to want to overlook that as any kind possible reason, or even as a contributing factor. It couldn't possibly be anything we are doing in that region and the world in general that might ever cause them to react this way... it has to be something in their religion and/or culture that is causing it.

 

The combination of a toxic, fundamentalist-extremist religious worldview, aggravated by the perception (real or imagined) that they are being exploited and oppressed by the Westernized nations of the world has lead us to where we are today.

 

But every religion has fundamentalist-extremist adherents, as has been pointed out already. You can't point out one group of zealots as a problem without targeting them all.

 

After all: the biggest part of the problems in the Middle-east has to do with the fact that much of the Messianic prophesies 2 of the world's major religions center on the fact that the nation of Israel not only has to exist for most of these prophesies to take place... but has to exist within it's biblical-time borders. This means the "occupied" or "disputed" territories will continue to be so as long as these prophecies are yet unfulfilled.

 

Leading to more unrest in the Middle-East... and the vicious cycle comes around full-circle yet again.

[El Sitherino]

This is quite possibly the most retarded thread I have ever read.

 

The proper question to ask would be "When are people going to get their act together?".

 

Every religion and belief has their group of a**holes.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Recently the Muslims in Europe expressed shock at the recent failed plot, though stated that Britain's foreign policy was causing it. It's good cop, bad cop in political speach.

What are you saying, that if the Western nations had been nice to the Middle-Easteners all along, we'd still get attacked by them? That Western imperialism has nothing to do with it whatsoever?

 

I'm not seeking to justify terrorism, I'm just saying that there's more to it than they being fanatics and wanting us dead "just because the Q'uran says we're evil".

[TK-8252]

"Islamic fascists" and "Islamofascism" are catch phrases in neocon terminology. Nothing more. It's a very ironic label for the West's enemies considering that the neocons have brought America closer to fascism than we've ever been before. Just ask John Dean of the Nixon White House.

 

Why not call them "Islamic crusaders" instead? Makes more sense. Jihad is just the Islamic version of a crusade. Oh wait, can't call them that because Muslims on a jihad are terrorists while the Christians of the Crusades were just good god-fearing people of faith defending their nations against the evil Muslims and their Islamic empire. I see how it is.

 

Yes, the West is under threat from Islamic terrorism. But a second era of McCarthyism is NOT an appropriate response.

[toms]

Are they technically fascists?

 

The dictionary definition seems pretty broad.. and would include any monarchies, military dictatorships, the vatican, and even places like russia.

 

Personally i wouldn't feel that they are fascists.. as they don't want to set up countries with themselves in control.. they want to set up countries with Islam as the law. I'd say there was a small difference.

[edlib]

I just happened to read this op/ed just yesterday. The author has some interesting things to say about the term "Islamo-Facism", the definition of "fascism" in general, and the possible motivations of those that came up with the term.

 

It has a clear, openly unapologetic liberal bias, however... so be forewarned.

[Jae Onasi]

This is quite possibly the most retarded thread I have ever read.

 

The proper question to ask would be "When are people going to get their act together?".

 

Every religion and belief has their group of assholes.

 

El Sithy, I was going to make some kind of comment on this, but I don't think I can say it any more succinctly than you have.

[Good Sir Knight]

This is quite possibly the most retarded thread I have ever read.

 

Nice vernacular. Is it 'retarded' because it challenges your little assumptions? Some times people get angry when their assumptions are challenged...

 

 

Every religion and belief has their group of assholes.

 

People often respond to the list by disparaging other religions, as if pulling everyone down to the same level satisfies some sort of moral preconception about religion and culture in general. Since no other religion inspires the sort of terrorism that Islam produces, the critic invariably finds it necessary to change the rules of comparison for one side of the equation in order to contrive preferred results.

 

Typically, this will take the form of reaching far back into a religion's history to find the worst that can be found, even if it is in a time of war or is in utter contradiction to the teachings of the faith. In a fit of self-congratulation, the critic then holds their straw man up against the truly global jihad, failing to realize the extent to which they have mitigated their own argument.

 

 

I care for Muslims, which is why I hate Islam and the way it treats women and non-Muslims.

 

You can see this across the world, wherever Islamic communities are found. Islamic societies are so oppressive that Muslims themselves leave them in droves, take a look at the 50 million Muslims in Europe.

 

Remember that I'm asking you for your definition of Islamic Fascism because I'm not sure it's the right phrase.

 

I'd like to stick to 'Islamic Intolerance', which has been a major component of Islam since it's beginnings.

[toms]

People often respond to the list by disparaging other religions, as if pulling everyone down to the same level satisfies some sort of moral preconception about religion and culture in general. Since no other religion inspires the sort of terrorism that Islam produces, the critic invariably finds it necessary to change the rules of comparison for one side of the equation in order to contrive preferred results.

no. they just point out that islam is no different to other religions. no change of rules of comparison is needed.

 

Typically, this will take the form of reaching far back into a religion's history to find the worst that can be found, even if it is in a time of war or is in utter contradiction to the teachings of the faith. In a fit of self-congratulation, the critic then holds their straw man up against the truly global jihad, failing to realize the extent to which they have mitigated their own argument.

 

Thats because there aren't really any equivilent christian states left to compare places like irawn with.

It seems to be you that is holding up straw men and changing the rules of comparison: comparing extremist fundamentalist religious states to secular ones.

 

People seem to forget that Jordan, Morocco and Egypt are muslim populations, but are also constitutional monarchies (like the uk). Turkey and Tunisia are republics.

 

In those nations you have mostly free press, mostly fair elections, some for of womens rights, etc.. at least as good as in a number of secular countries such as Russia. Heck, women's rights aren't that far advanced in some parts of the west.. and have only really gotten better in the last few years.

 

I care for Muslims, which is why I hate Islam and the way it treats women and non-Muslims.

Which is exactly how the BIBLE tells us to treat women and non-christians. Its just that our nations no longer let the religious extremists define the laws.

 

You can see this across the world, wherever Islamic communities are found. Islamic societies are so oppressive that Muslims themselves leave them in droves, take a look at the 50 million Muslims in Europe.

Or the millions of mexicans in america? Most of the muslims in europe have come seeking a better life.. not fleeing some imaginary islamic monster.

 

I'd like to stick to 'Islamic Intolerance', which has been a major component of Islam since it's beginnings.

On this comment i'm gonna have to side with those people calling this thread stupid. Intollerance is no more a part of Islam from the beginning than it is a part of Christianity from the beginning.

[TK-8252]

Which is exactly how the BIBLE tells us to treat women and non-christians. Its just that our nations no longer let the religious extremists define the laws.

 

Exactly. Christianity actually has a WORSE records on women's rights and tolerance than any of the other religions still around. Under Christian law, women were property of the men, couldn't leave the house, and could not show the slightest bit of skin. They were often the ones subject to torture and execution for being "witches" and such.

 

Christianity has come a long way since then though, of course. No question.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Nice vernacular. Is it 'retarded' because it challenges your little assumptions?

Nah, he's probably just high again:p.

 

Typically, this will take the form of reaching far back into a religion's history to find the worst that can be found (...)

...Or posting an article regarding recent abortion clinic bombings another other acts of current terrorism.

[Jae Onasi]

Exactly. Christianity actually has a WORSE records on women's rights and tolerance than any of the other religions still around. Under Christian law, women were property of the men, couldn't leave the house, and could not show the slightest bit of skin. They were often the ones subject to torture and execution for being "witches" and such.

 

Christianity has come a long way since then though, of course. No question.

 

I don't recall seeing any rules like that in the Bible itself, though I'd have to do a review to make sure. And there are a number of stories in the Bible depicting women working outside of the home (Deborah as a Judge, some of the women in the New Testament).

However, some of the interpretations that took specific verses out of context have certainly not been beneficial to women.

[ET Warrior]

Perhaps we need more instances of current Christian terrorism?

 

Northeast Indian

 

Even an entire Wikipedia article.

 

Granted, Wikipedia isn't ALWAYS accurate, but I could probably dig up news articles on a lot of those instances if you really want them.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

While a pretty biased and heavily emotion-laden article (the Northeast Indian one), it is a valid example of Christians not always being too nice either.

[ET Warrior]

It is extremely biased, but there is geniune fact reporting going on as well. Just because someone with a bias reports on something that has happened doesn't really lessen the result.

[toms]

THere are christian militas all over africa slaughtering hundreds..

 

@jae:

 

Religous tolerance:

 

Deuteronomy 13:6-10

'If your brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife tries to secretly entice you, telling you to go and worship other gods, gods of people living near you, or far from you, or anywhere on earth, do not listen to him.

You must kill them. Show them no pity. And your hand must strike the first blow.

Then the hands of all the people. You shall stone them to death.'

 

Deuteronomy 13:13-17

'If you hear that in one of the towns, there are men who are telling people to go and worship other gods, it is your duty to look into the matter and examine it.

If it is proved and confirmed, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword. You must lay the town under the curse of destruction, the town and everything in it.

You must pile up all its loot in the public square and burn the town and all its loot.

That town is to be a ruin for all time, and never rebuilt.'

 

Deuteronomy 23:3

'No Ammonite or Moabite may be admitted to the congregation of Yahweh.

And none of their descendants, even after ten generations, shall ever be admitted to the congregation of Yahweh.'

 

Women's rights:

 

Deuteronomy 22:23

'If, while in a town, a man happens to meet a woman who is engaged to be married and he has sex with her. Take them both to the gate of the town and stone them to death: the girl, for not having cried for help in the town; the man, for having violated another man's wife. You must banish this evil from among you.

But if, while out in the country, a man happens to meet a girl engaged to be married and seizes her and rapes her the rapist alone must die. You must do nothing to the girl. She has not committed a sin worthy of death, for she may have called out for help without anyone coming to her rescue.

If a man happens to meet a virgin woman who is not engaged to be married, And he seizes her and rapes her, but is caught in the act, the rapist must pay the girl's father fifty silver shekels. She must marry the rapist, because he has violated her. And so long as he lives, he may not divorce her.'

 

Deuteronomy 22:13-20

'If a man marries a woman and has sex with her and then turns on her and publicly accuses her, saying, "I married this woman, and when I had sex with her, I found no evidence of virginity, the girl's father and mother must take the evidence of her viginity and show it to the elders of the town, saying, "Here is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.

The elders will then have the man arrested and flogged, and fine him 100 silver pieces, giving this money to the girl's father. The woman will remain the man's wife as long as he lives, and he may not divorce her. But if the accusation is true and no evidence of the woman's virginity is shown, the woman must be taken to the door of her fathers house and stoned to death by the men of the town.'

 

Corinithians 14.34-35:

'Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.'

 

Corinthians 11:4...

'For any man to pray or to prophesy with his head covered shows disrespect for his head. And for a woman to pray or prophecy with her head uncovered shows disrespect for her head. It is exactly the same as if she had her hair shaved off. Indeed, if a woman does go without a veil, she should have her hair cut off too. But for a man it is not right to have his head covered, since he is the image of God and reflects God's glory; but a woman is the reflection of man's glory. As in all the churches of God's holy people, women are to remain quiet in the assemblies, since they have no permission to speak: theirs is a subordinate part. If there is anything they want to know, they should ask their husbands at home: it is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly.'

[Jae Onasi]

THere are christian militas all over africa slaughtering hundreds..

 

Yes, defending themselves against militants of various religions/factions.

 

In regards to these verses below, I should have specified I was talking about the rules on women's dress....My bad for not being clear, though the bit of research I did on some of these was rather interesting.

 

@jae:

 

Religous tolerance:

 

Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Deuteronomy 13:13-17

 

From a modern perspective, I don't think they're particularly tolerant, either. They apparently were more tolerant than other prevailing law codes of the time, however.

There may well be reasons for such a harsh judgment, besides the obvious crime, likely prevention of out-of-wedlock births or issues of questionable parentage. I'd have to consult someone more knowledgeable about theology, history, and legal codes of that time. Children and women needed the security of a family. Legitimate children had specific inheritance rights. Questioning paternity meant also questioning inheritance rights and even citizenship if one of the potential fathers was not an Israelite. They didn't have DNA testing to sort it all out, so preventing the problem in the first place was necessary. Why that harsh of a punishment, I don't know at this time. I'd have to consult someone who has expertise in Old Testament theology/history.

 

 

Deuteronomy 23:3

'No Ammonite or Moabite may be admitted to the congregation of Yahweh.

And none of their descendants, even after ten generations, shall ever be admitted to the congregation of Yahweh.'

 

I use the NIV translation, which is widely considered by scholars as one of the most accurate English translations currently available. My version says 'down to the 10th generation', which is a subtle but important distinction.

Marrying one of these men was like marrying the enemy, and I imagine there would be concerns about where the loyalty of Moabite/Ammonite men truly lay. Interestingly (or not ), this only applies to male Moabites/Ammonites. Ruth was a Moabite, but her great-grandson, King David, was obviously a member of the congregation.

 

Women's rights:

 

Deuteronomy 22:23

'If, while in a town, (snipped)

 

I wouldn't be too excited about marrying my rapist, either. I'd have to check on the reasoning behind that, though again I suspect it comes back to parentage and inheritance questions, in addition to the fact that raping someone is just plain wrong.

 

Deuteronomy 22:13-20

'If a man marries a woman and has sex with her and then turns on her and publicly accuses her, saying, "I married this woman, and when I had sex with her, I found no evidence of virginity, the girl's father and mother must take the evidence of her viginity and show it to the elders of the town, saying, "Here is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.

The elders will then have the man arrested and flogged, and fine him 100 silver pieces, giving this money to the girl's father. The woman will remain the man's wife as long as he lives, and he may not divorce her. But if the accusation is true and no evidence of the woman's virginity is shown, the woman must be taken to the door of her fathers house and stoned to death by the men of the town.'

 

The first part of that was actually a protection for the woman--it prevented the man from lying about her virginity as an excuse to get rid of her. See note above on the reasoning for such a harsh punishment in the second part.

 

Corinithians 14.34-35:

'Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.'

 

OK, you have to understand the context of this particular verse in 1st Cor. Paul has already said in 1st Cor 11:5 that women in the Corinthian church pray and prophesy during worship, so obviously not all of them are silent. Remember he's writing a letter to a particular church, which has its unique set of strengths and problems. In this case, some of the women were talking enough to disrupt worship, and that's what Paul was addressing.

 

It also disproves TK's assertion that Christian law decreed that women can't leave the home. Since they went to church, obviously they had to leave the home.

 

There was slavery in the Bible as there was throughout the region at that time, so yes, some women were slaves, as were some men. However, women who were wives were not slaves--there are no verses that declare that anywhere. In fact, in 1st Cor 11:11, Paul notes that "In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman." This shows a level of gender equality in the Corinthian church that was unusual for that time.

 

Corinthians 11:4...

'For any man to pray or to prophesy with his head covered shows disrespect for his head. And for a woman to pray or prophecy with her head uncovered shows disrespect for her head. It is exactly the same as if she had her hair shaved off. Indeed, if a woman does go without a veil, she should have her hair cut off too. But for a man it is not right to have his head covered, since he is the image of God and reflects God's glory; but a woman is the reflection of man's glory.

 

First, this is different from the assertion that women have to be covered from head to toe. I have found no verse that says women have to be covered from head to toe. This may be from another religious tradition rather than Christianity. The closest verses I found were a. that women should not dress like men and vice versa is Deut 22:5 and b. that a wife of good character is clothed in fine linen and purple (Prov 31:22).

 

Second, this is addressing a specific problem in the Corinthian church. Decent women of good character in Corinth wore head coverings. The 'loose women' in Coringh went without a head covering. Paul's telling the women that their testimony is not going to be effective if they dress like streetwalkers, and it's showing disrespect to themselves, too. If Paul were writing to the church today, he'd be telling women (and some men!) something along the lines of "Don't wear clothing so revealing that your 'wardrobe malfunction' becomes a distraction to the congregation. It's disrespectful to you and to the message you're trying to transmit. They can't concentrate on your message when they're busy looking at your body."

 

As in all the churches of God's holy people, women are to remain quiet in the assemblies, since they have no permission to speak: theirs is a subordinate part. If there is anything they want to know, they should ask their husbands at home: it is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly.'

 

This verse is actually not a continuation of 1st Cor. 11:4 but is 1st Cor 14:33b-35, except a slightly different version. I'm assuming that it was a slight mistake to lump those verses together. See my note above.

 

My thoughts for the moment.

[TK-8252]

It also disproves TK's assertion that Christian law decreed that women can't leave the home. Since they went to church, obviously they had to leave the home.

 

Ahh yes, I was mistaken on that one. They had to leave the house to work the fields for the men after all.

 

BTW check this out:

 

http://www.answering-christianity.com/women.htm

[Jae Onasi]

Ahh yes, I was mistaken on that one. They had to leave the house to work the fields for the men after all.

 

BTW check this out:

 

http://www.answering-christianity.com/women.htm

 

I did. And like a lot of sites like this, it takes verses out of context from the surrounding verses and out of historical/social context to try to make a point that the original author never intended. I don't like some of the things that were allowed in Biblical times like slavery. However, I'm looking at it from a 21st c viewpoint, not a 2000 BC viewpoint. Slavery and the rights of women were very different then, and those books addressed the problems at that time, and in ways that often afforded women more rights than they would have had in any other society at that time.

You cannot take the verses of any religious text out of their context and use them in that manner, pro or con. That's like taking one line out of an entire speech by a politician and saying 'the politician meant x because he said this one line' when that line, in context with the rest of the speech, is entirely opposite. That's shading the truth at best and dishonest at worst.

 

I did a paper on the treatment of women in the Middle East. That was about 15 years ago, and I found their experiences were at odds with what these Koran verses say should happen. They were not treated as equals with men by any stretch of the imagination. The experiences of women in Afghanistan under the Taliban certainly is at odds with what they should experience. Girls there were banned from going to school. Women couldn't hold jobs in order to even feed their families. Teaching women/girls to read and write was illegal, I suppose so they couldn't actually learn how they really were supposed to be treated and their rights as Muslim women. Disclaimer: I do not think some, or even most, Muslims feel the way Talibani treated women was acceptable....

[toms]

Yes, defending themselves against militants of various religions/factions.

 

Ahh, I see. So the christian militas slaughtering whole villages are just defending themselves.. but the islamic militias are an example of the violent, intollerant nature of islam. Hmm.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3689615.stm

That explains the poor KKK as well, always having to defend themselves, poor guys...

 

I don't like some of the things that were allowed in Biblical times like slavery. However, I'm looking at it from a 21st c viewpoint, not a 2000 BC viewpoint. Slavery and the rights of women were very different then, and those books addressed the problems at that time, and in ways that often afforded women more rights than they would have had in any other society at that time.

 

Deuteronomy 4:2

'The Law is permanent for all future generations. You must add nothing to what I command you, nor subtract anything from it, but keep the commandments of Yahweh your God just as I lay them down for you.'

 

Deuteronomy 29:19

'If anyone should think to himself, "I will do well enough if I follow the dictates of my heart, Yahweh will not pardon him. His wrath shall burn against him.'

 

You cannot take the verses of any religious text out of their context and use them in that manner, pro or con. That's like taking one line out of an entire speech by a politician and saying 'the politician meant x because he said this one line' when that line, in context with the rest of the speech, is entirely opposite. That's shading the truth at best and dishonest at worst.

 

Agreed. Though 90% of modern day christianity (and islam for that matter) seems to be based on doing exactly that.

 

In fact, in 1st Cor 11:11, Paul notes that "In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman." This shows a level of gender equality in the Corinthian church that was unusual for that time.

(single line out of context?)

 

2.228 And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them.

 

Basically Islam and Christianity share 99% of the exact same laws:

Death to adulterers - check, Women remain covered and silent - check, death to followers of other religions - check, and so on.

 

Which i guess is only to be expected as they are basically the same religion (muslims following the teachings of christ and all that..) .

 

There are millions of muslims living quite peaceful and happy lives in constitutional monarchies and secular republics around the world.. but the only ones we ever see on tv are the violent extremists attacking us.

 

There are millions of christians living quite peaceful and happy lives in constitutional monarchies and secular republics around the world.. but the only ones they ever see on tv are the violent extremists attacking them.

 

Islam is no more fundamentally violent, or evil, or fascistic than christianity. It simply happens that at this moment in history we are constantly bombarded by images of our enemy.. who happens to be a fascistic islamic state.