If the Ivory Tower is the brain of the board, and the Transformers discussion is its heart, then General Discussions is the waste disposal pipe. Or kidney. Or something suitably pulpy and soft, like 4 week old bananas.
Moderators:Best First, spiderfrommars, IronHide
-
Yaya - Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3374
- Joined:Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:58 am
- Location:Florida, USA
Post
by Yaya » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:50 pm
Best First wrote:
uh-huh.
except the statement is "do this, but its better to do this"
Which remains indecisive.
I don't see it as indecision or confusing.
There are degrees of right and wrong.
By forgiving someone, yes, the person forgiven does benefit practically (I take that back), but the gist of such an action is the chance for the forgiver to benefit spiritiually by showing mercy to one asking for it. Such is the nature of God Himself, whose Mercy is greater than His Wrath. Implementing this is one's daily life is seen as the better way.
"But the Costa story featuring Starscream? Fantastic! This guy is "The One", I just know it, just from these few pages. "--Yaya, who is never wrong.
-
Best First
- King of the, er, Kingdom.
- Posts:9750
- Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
- Location:Manchester, UK
-
Contact:
Post
by Best First » Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:04 pm
ah, its amazing how humanlike god is isn't it? its almost as if... nah, couldn't be.
ugh.
-
Professor Smooth - Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3132
- Joined:Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
- ::Hobby Drifter
- Location:Tokyo, Japan
-
Contact:
Post
by Professor Smooth » Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:31 pm
From The Guardian:
Muslim veil poses problems in court
Marcel Berlins
Monday October 9, 2006
The Guardian
The issue of Muslim women's veils has ramifications for our trial system. The question is: should women witnesses be asked to remove the full veil when giving evidence in court? A QC friend faced the problem at the Old Bailey recently. One of the often-cited arguments for retaining the jury system is that jurors, using their common sense and experience of life, are good at assessing whether or not a witness - including an accused - is telling the truth.
Article continues
Jurors make up their minds not just on the basis of the words spoken but by the demeanour of the witness, his or her body language and - importantly - facial expression. But if the face cannot be seen at all, much of the jury's capacity for judging truthfulness or otherwise is taken away. Lawyers in the trial face similar difficulties. "You cannot effectively cross-examine a witness when you can't assess how they're answering your questions," my friend claims. He raised the issue with the trial judge, who didn't feel he could do anything.
Should barristers in the case raise the point when addressing the jury? Should the judge mention it in his summing up? The verdicts in the trial my friend was in were probably not dependent on the evidence of the veiled woman, and I don't claim that there is a serious problem at the moment. But I'm sure there soon will be.
You wouldn't let someone testify in court while wearing a Batman mask, would you? Hell no! Anyone who wanted to wear a sodding MASK while on trial would (and rightfully so) be thought of as a total crank! "Well, my religion says that I have to wear a full-body covering when I'm in public!" Well, then you're an idiot for following that religion, aren't you?
snarl wrote:Just... really... what the **** have [IDW] been taking for the last 2 years?
Brendocon wrote:Yaya's money.
-
Shanti418
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2633
- Joined:Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:52 pm
- Location:Austin, Texas
Post
by Shanti418 » Tue Oct 10, 2006 5:03 pm
A Batman mask isn't a part of anyone's religion.
I think that people's differences should be accepted and celebrated, not homogenized to fit into a forcefully secular system.
Besides, the main argument of this article is flawed, as body language and facial experssion have differnt cultural meanings in different cultures.
Best First wrote:I thought we could just meander between making well thought out points, being needlessly immature, provocative and generalist, then veer into caring about constructive debate and make a few valid points, act civil for a bit, then lower the tone again, then act offended when we get called on it, then dictate what it is and isn't worth debating, reinterpret a few of my own posts through a less offensive lens, then jaunt down whatever other path our seemingly volatile mood took us in.
-
Metal Vendetta
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:4950
- Joined:Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:00 am
- Location:Lahndan, innit
Post
by Metal Vendetta » Tue Oct 10, 2006 5:43 pm
Shanti418 wrote:A Batman mask isn't a part of anyone's religion.
I think that people's differences should be accepted and celebrated
So if I were "different" to you in that I choose to wear a Batman mask, that shouldn't be respected, but if I invoke my Sky God it should?
This is pure and utter bollocks. What about religions that circumcise girls? (Islam, I'm looking at you here, apparently there are Imams in Bradford who still do this) For that matter, what about religions that circumcise boys? Why should the ritual mutilation of a child's genitals be acceptable because people are too afraid of offending someone's religious values to speak out about it?
What about Amish children? Do they get a choice whether they would like home comforts and television or working in a barn? Oh, but we have to respect their differences. The point is that the children who are born into these lunatic cults don't have a choice in those differences, yet we stand by in the name of cultrual understanding while their parents deprive them of the things the rest of us take for granted - including medical care. Same goes for the Jehovah's bloody Witnesses.
Why should I respect what someone does just because their god tells them to do it? This wishy-washy attitude that you can't speak out for fear of offending someone is simply cowardly and wrong.
I would have waited a ******* eternity for this!!!!
Impactor returns 2.0, 28th January 2010
-
Yaya - Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3374
- Joined:Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:58 am
- Location:Florida, USA
Post
by Yaya » Tue Oct 10, 2006 5:47 pm
Metal Vendetta wrote:
This is pure and utter bollocks. What about religions that circumcise girls? (Islam, I'm looking at you here, apparently there are Imams in Bradford who still do this) .
That is crap. Islam does not allow genital mutilation, either male or female. It is forbidden. This has come up before, and there is no reference for these in any verse in the Koran or Hadith. Those few African nations that do do it are acting only on cultural rituals.
"But the Costa story featuring Starscream? Fantastic! This guy is "The One", I just know it, just from these few pages. "--Yaya, who is never wrong.
-
Shanti418
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2633
- Joined:Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:52 pm
- Location:Austin, Texas
Post
by Shanti418 » Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:26 pm
I'm not saying you can't speak out. That's why I'm not coming down hard on Straw.
But I'm saying, if you try to legally enforce the removal of that veil thingy in the court of law, I think that's wrong. Principally, it's akin to asking an Orthodox Jew to shave off their hair curls because you find them distracting.
Again, no one is saying anything about not speaking out. No one is saying anything about children raised in cults. No one is saying anything about Amiish kids. (although, if you must know, all Amish children go through a coming of age ritual where they're sent to spend time out into the real world, and have to come back under their own choice) You're extrapolating my point entirely too far.
Best First wrote:I thought we could just meander between making well thought out points, being needlessly immature, provocative and generalist, then veer into caring about constructive debate and make a few valid points, act civil for a bit, then lower the tone again, then act offended when we get called on it, then dictate what it is and isn't worth debating, reinterpret a few of my own posts through a less offensive lens, then jaunt down whatever other path our seemingly volatile mood took us in.
-
Professor Smooth - Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3132
- Joined:Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
- ::Hobby Drifter
- Location:Tokyo, Japan
-
Contact:
Post
by Professor Smooth » Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:08 pm
Wearing a mask in a court of law should not be allowed for more than a few common sense reasons. Not the least of which is confirming that the person under the hood is the person she's claiming to be.
snarl wrote:Just... really... what the **** have [IDW] been taking for the last 2 years?
Brendocon wrote:Yaya's money.
-
Shanti418
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2633
- Joined:Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:52 pm
- Location:Austin, Texas
Post
by Shanti418 » Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:24 pm
This is not a mask, it's a veil.
There are plenty of ways to confirm identity other than facial features, and there are plenty of ways to fake facial features or identity regardless.
Best First wrote:I thought we could just meander between making well thought out points, being needlessly immature, provocative and generalist, then veer into caring about constructive debate and make a few valid points, act civil for a bit, then lower the tone again, then act offended when we get called on it, then dictate what it is and isn't worth debating, reinterpret a few of my own posts through a less offensive lens, then jaunt down whatever other path our seemingly volatile mood took us in.
-
Professor Smooth - Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3132
- Joined:Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
- ::Hobby Drifter
- Location:Tokyo, Japan
-
Contact:
Post
by Professor Smooth » Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:03 pm
Shanti418 wrote:This is not a mask, it's a veil.
A veil that MASKS the features of person wearing it.
snarl wrote:Just... really... what the **** have [IDW] been taking for the last 2 years?
Brendocon wrote:Yaya's money.
-
Yaya - Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3374
- Joined:Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:58 am
- Location:Florida, USA
Post
by Yaya » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:26 pm
Though I am not a mufti (Islamic jurist), I think the taking off of the hijab for the purposes of preventing any chance of error in the meting out of proper justice would likely be permitted under Islamic Shariah. Again, I could be wrong on this. Provided she would be permitted to replace her hijab after proper identification is made.
"But the Costa story featuring Starscream? Fantastic! This guy is "The One", I just know it, just from these few pages. "--Yaya, who is never wrong.
-
Impactor returns 2.0
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:6885
- Joined:Sat Sep 22, 2001 11:00 pm
- ::Starlord
- Location:Your Mums
Post
by Impactor returns 2.0 » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:50 am
I would hope that this is true - but I would prefer everyone to start wearing Jedi gowns and veils as its my 'religion'
on a side note.
If I were to wear this out in the street, I expect some pp wouldnt like it.
One of these is a Ninja and the mask is actually illegal in some countries, like the USA! - one is a Muslim...
-
Metal Vendetta
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:4950
- Joined:Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:00 am
- Location:Lahndan, innit
Post
by Metal Vendetta » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:07 pm
Yaya wrote:Metal Vendetta wrote:
This is pure and utter bollocks. What about religions that circumcise girls? (Islam, I'm looking at you here, apparently there are Imams in Bradford who still do this) .
That is crap. Islam does not allow genital mutilation, either male or female. It is forbidden. This has come up before, and there is no reference for these in any verse in the Koran or Hadith. Those few African nations that do do it are acting only on cultural rituals.
I'm getting kinda tired of teaching you about your own religion, but male circumcision is one of the obligatory practices in Islam. Female circumcision is optional, though Mohammed is reported to have recommended the practice to a midwife, and has both opponents and supporters thoughout the Islamic world. It still goes on a lot, even in the UK. It's true that circumcision isn't mentioned in the Koran, but Islamic law states quite clearly that it is obligatory for males and desirable for females.
For more information, try
this page on Islam Online.
Maybe I was taking Shanti's point to extremes, but I see no real difference between wearing a Batman mask and wearing a Burka. If we respect one then we should respect the other too. I'd be more inclined to respect an adult's conscious choice to dress as the Dark Knight than these "cultural traditions" that serve no purpose except to keep women relegated to second-class citizens.
I would have waited a ******* eternity for this!!!!
Impactor returns 2.0, 28th January 2010
-
Best First
- King of the, er, Kingdom.
- Posts:9750
- Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
- Location:Manchester, UK
-
Contact:
Post
by Best First » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:10 pm
yeah, but in fairness Rob, you can prove anything with facts, can't you?
-
Metal Vendetta
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:4950
- Joined:Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:00 am
- Location:Lahndan, innit
Post
by Metal Vendetta » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:21 pm
Best First wrote:yeah, but in fairness Rob, you can prove anything with facts, can't you?
Only if you lack sufficient faith.
I would have waited a ******* eternity for this!!!!
Impactor returns 2.0, 28th January 2010
-
Yaya - Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3374
- Joined:Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:58 am
- Location:Florida, USA
Post
by Yaya » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:39 pm
Metal Vendetta wrote:
I'm getting kinda tired of teaching you about your own religion, but male circumcision is one of the obligatory practices in Islam. Female circumcision is optional, though Mohammed is reported to have recommended the practice to a midwife, and has both opponents and supporters thoughout the Islamic world. It still goes on a lot, even in the UK. It's true that circumcision isn't mentioned in the Koran, but Islamic law states quite clearly that it is obligatory for males and desirable for females.
Yes, male circumsicion is done, but female circumcision, what is called clitoridectomy, is strictly and absolutely prohibited. There is a big difference between male circumcision and this. One is removal of the foreskin, the other removal of the pleasure centers of the sexual organ, or genital mutilation.
Maybe female circumcision is something
else than clitoridectomy, in which case I don't know.
But certainly, removal of the clitoris of a women is strictly prohibited, as sexual gratification of the women by her husband is actually not a privilege in Islam, but her right. In fact, if her husband is not having sex to satisfy her and is neglecting her, it is grounds for divorce in Islam.
"But the Costa story featuring Starscream? Fantastic! This guy is "The One", I just know it, just from these few pages. "--Yaya, who is never wrong.
-
Impactor returns 2.0
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:6885
- Joined:Sat Sep 22, 2001 11:00 pm
- ::Starlord
- Location:Your Mums
Post
by Impactor returns 2.0 » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:11 pm
Yet it is practised by Muslims.
there seems to be alot of things that Muslims mis-understand about thier own religion.
-
Yaya - Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3374
- Joined:Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:58 am
- Location:Florida, USA
Post
by Yaya » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:22 pm
Metal Vendetta wrote:
For more information, try
this page on Islam Online.
Here, in your reference, is the crucial point I'm making:
"Before delving deep into the question of female circumcision, we would like to make it clear that "female circumcision" means removing the prepuce of the clitoris, not the clitoris itself.
And yet, many think Islam commands clitoridectomy. It's one of those favorite things that anti-Islamist like to tell the world about my religion. That, and their favorite verse, the one that says "slay the unbelievers" in the Koran, taken completely out of context.
"But the Costa story featuring Starscream? Fantastic! This guy is "The One", I just know it, just from these few pages. "--Yaya, who is never wrong.
-
Metal Vendetta
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:4950
- Joined:Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:00 am
- Location:Lahndan, innit
Post
by Metal Vendetta » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:29 pm
Yaya wrote:Yes, male circumsicion is done, but female circumcision, what is called clitoridectomy, is strictly and absolutely prohibited. There is a big difference between male circumcision and this. One is removal of the foreskin, the other removal of the pleasure centers of the sexual organ, or genital mutilation.
Maybe female circumcision is something else than clitoridectomy, in which case I don't know.
It's not a full clitoridectomy, but many Muslims practice the removal of the clitoral hood (**** knows why, presumably Allah told them to), and if a girl is born with a larger-than-usual clitoris then it will be cut down to size. Some Muslims go even further and practice full clitoridectomy.
And if you want to get semantic, removal of the male's foreskin *is* genital mutilation. It's just one that is "culturally acceptable", presumably because people don't want to offend Jews and Muslims.
So, in closing, Muslims do practice ritual genital mutilation on all males and a percentage of females. Some females are luckier than others in that they only have their genitals partially mutilated, while others get the full chop. All in the name of Allah, isn't he great?
I would have waited a ******* eternity for this!!!!
Impactor returns 2.0, 28th January 2010
-
Guest
Post
by Guest » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:31 pm
Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:Yet it is practised by Muslims.
Actually, it is practised widely across the African continent regardless of religion, due to the mistaken belief that by not having so pronounced genitalia, women appear more youthful, and therefore more attractive to prospective partners.
Also, the method of removal is often brutal and without any form of anaesthetic.
All in all, it is an unnecessary, barbaric and highly misogynistic practice.
-
Impactor returns 2.0
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:6885
- Joined:Sat Sep 22, 2001 11:00 pm
- ::Starlord
- Location:Your Mums
Post
by Impactor returns 2.0 » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:49 pm
yes, sorry, sont get me wrong I understand its practised by many cultures, especially africa tribes.
I was just arguing that Muslims do practise it in the name of Islam and because its good for the female in medical terms or based on some tribal ritual of the rain god or somthing else equally strange and tribal.
-
Guest
Post
by Guest » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:53 pm
Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:yes, sorry, sont get me wrong I understand its practised by many cultures, especially africa tribes.
I was just arguing that Muslims do practise it in the name of Islam and because its good for the female in medical terms or based on some tribal ritual of the rain god or somthing else equally strange and tribal.
And all I was saying is that it's practised by everyone else who practises it for those very same reasons. Replacing the word 'Islam' with 'Allah', 'Christianity', 'God', 'Jehovah', 'Jesus', 'Zoroaster', 'Mao', 'Adolf', 'Idi', 'toast', etc. as required.
-
Impactor returns 2.0
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:6885
- Joined:Sat Sep 22, 2001 11:00 pm
- ::Starlord
- Location:Your Mums
Post
by Impactor returns 2.0 » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:55 pm
I can forgive a tribal practise due to thier education and reasons for doing it.
But many muslims should know better?
-
Metal Vendetta
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:4950
- Joined:Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:00 am
- Location:Lahndan, innit
Post
by Metal Vendetta » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:13 pm
Rebis wrote:And all I was saying is that it's practised by everyone else who practises it for those very same reasons. Replacing the word 'Islam' with 'Allah', 'Christianity', 'God', 'Jehovah', 'Jesus', 'Zoroaster', 'Mao', 'Adolf', 'Idi', 'toast', etc. as required.
Amnesty International note that although the practice predates Islam, under Islam it has acquired a religious dimension and Egyptian scholars have issued fatwas ordering Muslim followers to perform this procedure. It's generally compulsory for Shias and is almost universal in Iran. It can also be found in Christian Ghana, where they point to the Old Testament - Abraham's wife apparently had it done.
I would have waited a ******* eternity for this!!!!
Impactor returns 2.0, 28th January 2010
-
Yaya - Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3374
- Joined:Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:58 am
- Location:Florida, USA
Post
by Yaya » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:16 pm
Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:I can forgive a tribal practise due to thier education and reasons for doing it.
But many muslims should know better?
But most Muslims
don't practice this, as Allah does NOT command this, as MV would have you believe. Only those where it has become part of cultural norms, as I have said, in parts of Africa.
How is it that a women can experience sexual gratification, a clear right ordained by Allah, if she has no clitoris?
Because there is no such command.
From Islam Online: "
When we come to the issue of “Female circumcision”, however, the mater is quite different. There is nothing in the sources, either the Qur’an or the Sunnah, to suggest that it is a PRESCRIBED ritual of initiation for women in Islam.
While one finds a number of traditions from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, which clearly indicates that he ordered pagan males who converted to undergo circumcision, it is not stated anywhere that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, ordered any woman who entered Islam to undergo this practice.
Because there is no absolute proof from the sources of Islam prescribing female circumcision, the vast majority of scholars do not include it in the OBLIGATORY rituals of Islam.
It is common knowledge in Islam that if the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, had wanted female circumcision to be an integral aspect of religious practice in Islam the same way that male circumcision is, he would have said so clearly. Since he did not do so, we can safely assume it is not a prescribed ritual of Islam." "But the Costa story featuring Starscream? Fantastic! This guy is "The One", I just know it, just from these few pages. "--Yaya, who is never wrong.
-
Impactor returns 2.0
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:6885
- Joined:Sat Sep 22, 2001 11:00 pm
- ::Starlord
- Location:Your Mums
Post
by Impactor returns 2.0 » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:18 pm
But there are Muslims who do practise this in western countries - you will say they are not Muslims but they belive they are.
the rulebook isnt clear enough is the point.
-
Shanti418
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2633
- Joined:Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:52 pm
- Location:Austin, Texas
Post
by Shanti418 » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:21 pm
I don't think that Yaya is denying that some people who are Muslim practice this. What he IS saying though, is you can't extrapolate that to all Muslims any more than you can attribue Al Quaeda actions to all Muslims. That's commiting an ecological fallacy.
Best First wrote:I thought we could just meander between making well thought out points, being needlessly immature, provocative and generalist, then veer into caring about constructive debate and make a few valid points, act civil for a bit, then lower the tone again, then act offended when we get called on it, then dictate what it is and isn't worth debating, reinterpret a few of my own posts through a less offensive lens, then jaunt down whatever other path our seemingly volatile mood took us in.