View Full Version : Gays Deserve Torture, Death Penalty, Iranian Minister Says
PanzerJaeger
11-13-2007, 10:01
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2859606.ece
Gays Deserve Torture, Death Penalty, Iranian Minister Says
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
By Dominic Kennedy
Homosexuals deserve to be executed or tortured and possibly both, an Iranian leader told British MPs during a private meeting at a peace conference, The Times has learned.
Mohsen Yahyavi is the highest-ranked politician to admit that Iran believes in the death penalty for homosexuality after a spate of reports that gay youths were being hanged.
President Ahmadinejad, questioned by students in New York two months ago about the executions, dodged the issue by suggesting that there were no gays in his country.
Britain regularly challenges Iran about its gay hangings, stonings and executions of adulterers and perceived moral criminals, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) papers show.
The latest row involves a woman hanged this June in the town of Gorgan after becoming pregnant by her brother. He was absolved after expressing his remorse. Britain said that this demonstrated the unequal treatment of men and women in law and breached Iran’s pledge to restrict the death penalty to the most serious crimes.
A series of reported executions of gays, including two underage boys whose public hanging was posted on the internet, has alarmed human rights campaigners.
The Pet Shop Boys dedicated Fundamental, their Grammy-nominated album, to Mahmoud Asqari and Ayad Marhouni, who were hanged in Justice Square in Mashhad in 2005. Graphic photographs of the execution of the youths, who were under 18 when arrested, were released by the Iranian Students News Agency.
Gay rights groups in Britain, such as Outrage!, accuse Iran of cloaking executions for homosexuality with bogus charges for more serious crimes.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, the FCO released papers to The Times about the death penalty being used in Iran for homosexuality, adultery and sex outside marriage.
Minutes taken by an official describe a meeting between British and Iranian MPs at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, a peace body, in May. When the Britons raised the hangings of Asqari and Marhouni, the leader of the Iranian delegation, Mr Yahyavi, a member of his parliament’s energy committee, was unflinching. He "explained that according to Islam gays and lesbianism were not permitted," the record states. "He said that if homosexual activity is in private there is no problem, but those in overt activity should be executed [he initially said tortured but changed it to executed]. He argued that homosexuality is against human nature and that humans are here to reproduce. Homosexuals do not reproduce."
Nicole Pichet, a researcher who also took notes of the gathering, told The Times that the discussion began with British MPs discussing the underage gay hangings. Mr Yahyavi responded by saying homosexuality was to blame for a lot of diseases such as Aids.
Ann Clwyd, the Labor MP and head of Britain’s delegation, said yesterday: "It is of great concern that these attitudes persist and we made it clear what we felt."
Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Nigeria apply the death penalty for homosexuality, according to the International Lesbian and Gay Association.
Another bad interpretation? :hide:
HoreTore
11-13-2007, 10:03
A view that is sadly held by a large part of the world. Might even be a majority view...
The guy is obviously nuts, along with the people who share his idea's on this..
I'm not going to say I choose one of the two, but it's either that as well the Islam as Chritianity are 'evil' (as in, "kill gays!", etc), or both aren't, because you shouldn't interpret it as 'evil'.
PanzerJaeger
11-13-2007, 10:26
A view that is sadly held by a large part of the world. Might even be a majority view...
Probably among muslims, but in the Western World?
Im as right wing as they come and I certainly do not support any sort of punishment for homosexuality.
HoreTore
11-13-2007, 10:33
Probably among muslims, but in the Western World?
Im as right wing as they come and I certainly do not support any sort of punishment for homosexuality.
Turn time back half a century, and we executed masses of them. I don't really believe that those views are eradicated.
Don Corleone
11-13-2007, 11:47
Turn time back half a century, and we executed masses of them. I don't really believe that those views are eradicated.
The Nazi regime in Germany was hardly an archetype of the Christian West.
HoreTore
11-13-2007, 12:02
The Nazi regime in Germany was hardly an archetype of the Christian West.
Hitler didn't create the feeling that made the actions possible, however. That's something that's been present here long before him. The law against gay people here was removed only 30 years ago, 30 years after Hitler died. It's something that actually is present here too, and it's not just because of the nazi's.
Everybody is pretty comfortable with the concept it here, except of course, ah well. But if a gay couple pubicly shows affection that's another thing, for me as well, can't watch it. It's a shame about these gays ravaging eachother in public parks meant for family's get a room you perverts like the rest of us ah well I am slightly homophobic so shoot me.
If there is a God and he says being gay is bad, who are we to oppose the almighty? :inquisitive:
HoreTore
11-13-2007, 13:51
If there is a God and he says being gay is bad, who are we to oppose the almighty? :inquisitive:
But is there a god, and if it is, does he think that being gay is bad?
And why should we care what this god says?
I can't quite understand why this is even newsworthy ??
Not like they and others haven't been saying the same message for years.
Sounds like Bush is trying to drum up support to invade Iran.
Hmmm is it bush&co or co.uk
Geoffrey S
11-13-2007, 15:35
I can't quite understand why this is even newsworthy ??
Not like they and others haven't been saying the same message for years.
Sounds like Bush is trying to drum up support to invade Iran.
Heh, that'd go down well with the Christian right. "My fellow Americans, we have decided to invade Iran to protect gays from the axis of evil..."
HoreTore
11-13-2007, 15:43
Heh, that'd go down well with the Christian right. "My fellow Americans, we have decided to invade Iran to protect gays from the axis of evil..."
Didn't you know?
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/gays_too_precious_to_risk_in
I'm so confused. Didn't I'm-a-dinner-jacket guarantee us that there are no homosexuals in Iran?
Proletariat
11-13-2007, 16:05
It's a veiled swipe at US Republicans, Lemur. This Iranian minister must've read your toe tapping thread. :beam:
FactionHeir
11-13-2007, 16:17
Death penalty for sexual orientation seems rather inappropriate, but I am more concerned that the news outlets only seem to bash Iran for it and not the other countries listed at the bottom.
Good to be a poor country or a "Western Ally" I guess?
Seamus Fermanagh
11-13-2007, 16:20
I'm so confused. Didn't I'm-a-dinner-jacket guarantee us that there are no homosexuals in Iran?
Yes he did, at least to the extent that "that sort of thing" didn't occur there. I guess that means that we don't have to worry about anything horrific....:rolleyes3:
Horetore:
Yes, historically, homosexuals have been persecuted in Western society. This was a basic truth until at least the late 1960s. Cultures are more than willing to persecute any "outlier" groups as part of solidifying and affirming the central cultural "identity" of the primary group.
As our culture values change, and as knowledge grows that homosexuality is and will be an ongoing minority element of any culture as it is a minority component of the human condition (at least until the genetic recessive or recessive combo that is responsible for homosexuality is identified and chemically neutralized), the degree of persecution attenuates. Cultural changes require decades to implement themselves, so "equality" of treatment for homosexuals in Western cultures is only just now beginning to establish itself. Many other cultures, apparently including Iran's brand of Islam, have not even begun that process.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2859606.ece
Another bad interpretation? :hide:
Of the general population, maybe.
It could just be the nuts the just running the government, not the majority of the people in general who want this to happen. It also really could be both. Not really sure, so I can't make a judegement call.
What I can say though, these executions are horrible human rights violations and atrocities.
HoreTore
11-13-2007, 16:46
Horetore:
Yes, historically, homosexuals have been persecuted in Western society. This was a basic truth until at least the late 1960s. Cultures are more than willing to persecute any "outlier" groups as part of solidifying and affirming the central cultural "identity" of the primary group.
As our culture values change, and as knowledge grows that homosexuality is and will be an ongoing minority element of any culture as it is a minority component of the human condition (at least until the genetic recessive or recessive combo that is responsible for homosexuality is identified and chemically neutralized), the degree of persecution attenuates. Cultural changes require decades to implement themselves, so "equality" of treatment for homosexuals in Western cultures is only just now beginning to establish itself. Many other cultures, apparently including Iran's brand of Islam, have not even begun that process.
I agree completely. The problem is getting that ball rolling around the world. However, is the best way to do that by placing our moral bums on our high tower and fling insults at each other? I doubt it.
I think we'll have to do that the same way it happened here. That wasn't state action or wars, it was by student(and young people in general) uprisings.
Louis VI the Fat
11-13-2007, 17:56
Cultural changes require decades to implement themselves, so "equality" of treatment for homosexuals in Western cultures is only just now beginning to establish itself. Many other cultures, apparently including Iran's brand of Islam, have not even begun that process.Good post. However, I tend to hold a different opinion. Firstly, homophobia was not always the norm, neither in the West nor in the Islamic world. It is a very 19th / 20th century thing. Secondly, civilisation doesn't follow a set path. That is, the Muslim world is not simply 'behind' the West in this respect, nor in many others.
If anything, the current rage of homophobia in the Islamic world, like much of Islamic fundamentalism, is a very modern backlash. The Islamic world is not still in some sort of Mediaeval stage yet, from which they have yet to develop. On the contrary, Islamism is a very modern development. That it is a 'return' to old-fashioned Islamic society is a fallacy, one that both many Muslims and Westerners believe.
However, is the best way to do that by placing our moral bums on our high tower and fling insults at each other? I doubt it.
I think that I am going to sit in that moral high tower. In fact, since I am in a belligerent mood, I am going to accuse you from the heights of it of a blatant, racistic sell-out of your principles.
You'd be up in arms if a white society persecuted gays like this. I can only imagine what your post would be like if this thread read: 'Bush Instates Death Penalty and Torture Camps for Gay Americans'.
Why, HoreTore, this difference? Admit it, you would explode with anger if somebody of the Bush administration said anything of this kind about gays. We wouldn't hear the end of it from you. If the evangelicals try to prevent gay marriage, I never hear anybody of the left defend them with the argument that homophobia is simply a view that is sadly held by a large part of the world. Yet when people want to beat and hang gays, relativism of gay rights is the leftist norm.
Why, HoreTore, would you stand up for the human rights of Westeners, and not for those of Muslims?
This means either of two things:
Western gays are worth more than Muslim ones. Who cares what happens to those darkies anyway.
Or, Muslims are yet savages. That is, the 19th century trap of there being 'stages' of civilisation, with some races on a higher stage than others. Muslims are still semi-savages, albeit, since you are on the 'right' side, noble savages. Yet savages they are, incapable yet of civilised Western refinities such as human rights.
And why should we care what this god says?
If you don't, he'll throw you in hell together with the gays.
Cædite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
"Slay them all. God will know his own."
- Arnold Amaury
On a more serious note, what can we do? Hope for a revolution in Iran? Will that revolution ever happen? How much does it take for Iranians to stand up and overthrow the current government? Would it make sense to invade and kill more people than the gays they would otherwise execute? Oh, that last one sounds harsh, but think about it on the basis that every human life is worth the same. :shrug:
Good post. However, I tend to hold a different opinion. Firstly, homophobia was not always the norm, neither in the West nor in the Islamic world. It is a very 19th / 20th century thing. Secondly, civilisation doesn't follow a set path. That is, the Muslim world is not simply 'behind' the West in this respect, nor in many others.
If anything, the current rage of homophobia in the Islamic world, like much of Islamic fundamentalism, is a very modern backlash. The Islamic world is not still in some sort of Mediaeval stage yet, from which they have yet to develop. On the contrary, Islamism is a very modern development. That it is a 'return' to old-fashioned Islamic society is a fallacy, one that both many Muslims and Westerners believe.
Might want to check that one up again, start with Gross Domestic Product.
Two different sources here, map 1 best and newest:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/GDP_nominal_per_capita_world_map_IMF_figures_for_year_2006.png
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/world_maps/world_gdp96.jpg
I think you'll find that lifestyle, cash and popular opinions are much of the same, and that if "the Arab world" had experienced the same development as the west, there would not be found much extremism, about the same levels of extremism we have today in the western world anyway.
Do not come here and say Iran is civilized. ~:wacko:
HoreTore
11-13-2007, 18:30
I think that I am going to sit in that moral high tower. In fact, since I am in a belligerent mood, I am going to accuse you from the heights of it of a blatant, racistic sell-out of your principles.
You'd be up in arms if a white society persecuted gays like this. I can only imagine what your post would be like if this thread read: 'Bush Instates Death Penalty and Torture Camps for Gay Americans'.
Why, HoreTore, this difference? Admit it, you would explode with anger if somebody of the Bush administration said anything of this kind about gays. We wouldn't hear the end of it from you. If the evangelicals try to prevent gay marriage, I never hear anybody of the left defend them with the argument that homophobia is simply a view that is sadly held by a large part of the world. Yet when people want to beat and hang gays, relativism of gay rights is the leftist norm.
Why, HoreTore, would you stand up for the human rights of Westeners, and not for those of Muslims?
This means either of two things:
Western gays are worth more than Muslim ones. Who cares what happens to those darkies anyway.
Or, Muslims are yet savages. That is, the 19th century trap of there being 'stages' of civilisation, with some races on a higher stage than others. Muslims are still semi-savages, albeit, since you are on the 'right' side, noble savages. Yet savages they are, incapable yet of civilised Western refinities such as human rights.
I do love your new style of posting, Louis :yes:
Anyway, to the point: There is a big difference in "us" and "them". Or rather, what I can do to change "us" and what I can do to change "them". I'm a believer of internal change, not in external change. And I'm a big believer in the power of revolution(no, I'm not talking commie revolution here). And that revolution, if it is to be successful, have to be orchestrated and supported by the population, not by another state or another state's population. So what can we do then? It's very simple; Support the revolutionaries. Help them organize, help them financially, help them with propaganda. However, if we constantly attack the current regime from the outside, they will only gain support from it. We have to attack from within, it can't be done from the outside. A good example of that would be Iraq.
In the case of the west, I'm suddenly one of those revolutionaries, so my job is to scream as much as I can :beam:
I never hear anybody of the left defend them with the argument that homophobia is simply a view that is sadly held by a large part of the world.
I wouldn't say defend, I would say explain. And I say the same about the gaybashers here. It's a sad fact that there are plenty of homophobes in the world.
HoreTore
11-13-2007, 18:36
On a more serious note, what can we do? Hope for a revolution in Iran? Will that revolution ever happen? How much does it take for Iranians to stand up and overthrow the current government?
Iranians have a good history of revolutions, they had the islamic one 25 years ago and they've attempted some commie ones too. And the Shah wasn't some weak idiot, he had all the usual despot stuff, like secret police, random arrests, big army, support from a powerful ally, torture chambers etc. I'd say there's an equally good chance for a new revolution.
I wouldn't say defend, I would say explain. And I say the same about the gaybashers here. It's a sad fact that there are plenty of homophobes in the world.
Well I kinda get homophobic when people are shredding eachothers asses in the middle of the day in a public park but that's just me I guess. Gays should stop whining, what do they want acceptance of a person or as a sexual preference? Can't have both, if it isn't such a big deal stop making it one by taking any excuse to hop around with feathers in the exit strategy.
But is there a god, and if it is, does he think that being gay is bad?
And why should we care what this god says?
Being gay is a right thing you say?:inquisitive:
Damn, what a low society this days..
Geoffrey S
11-13-2007, 18:57
Good post. However, I tend to hold a different opinion. Firstly, homophobia was not always the norm, neither in the West nor in the Islamic world. It is a very 19th / 20th century thing. Secondly, civilisation doesn't follow a set path. That is, the Muslim world is not simply 'behind' the West in this respect, nor in many others.
If anything, the current rage of homophobia in the Islamic world, like much of Islamic fundamentalism, is a very modern backlash. The Islamic world is not still in some sort of Mediaeval stage yet, from which they have yet to develop. On the contrary, Islamism is a very modern development. That it is a 'return' to old-fashioned Islamic society is a fallacy, one that both many Muslims and Westerners believe.
Indeed a symptom of modern states attempting to define what is normal and what isn't, hoping for a unified feeling of the majority as a result. It's why homophobia gained a lot of ground in the nineteenth century in the West, and has done the same elsewhere as new states trying define some idea of national identity rose from the ashes of imperialism.
Not that it makes this kind of agressive homophobia any less despicable, but at least it puts it in some kind of historical context which provides hope that when Middle Eastern nations feel more comfortable about their national identities, socially vulnerable minorities such as homosexuals will be able to breath more freely.
HoreTore
11-13-2007, 19:00
Being gay is a right thing you say?:inquisitive:
Damn, what a low society this days..
Can't see why it's a bad thing...
Crazed Rabbit
11-13-2007, 19:09
And I'm a big believer in the power of revolution(no, I'm not talking commie revolution here). And that revolution, if it is to be successful, have to be orchestrated and supported by the population, not by another state or another state's population. So what can we do then? It's very simple; Support the revolutionaries. Help them organize, help them financially, help them with propaganda.
Huh? So do we support them or not?
Louis - very good post.
CR
HoreTore
11-13-2007, 19:14
Huh? So do we support them or not?
Uhm... Yes? Where did I say that we shouldn't? :inquisitive:
Crazed Rabbit
11-13-2007, 19:16
Just wanted to make sure, since you said it had to be supported by the population, not by another state.
CR
HoreTore
11-13-2007, 19:19
Just wanted to make sure, since you said it had to be supported by the population, not by another state.
CR
It has to be supported by the population in the state we're trying to revolutionize(ie. Iran).
Ie. what hasn't happened in Iraq...
Rhyfelwyr
11-13-2007, 20:15
I think I feel a bit like Fragony on the issue. I'm not surprised that of all the countries that have these policies it was Iran that was singled out by the US. Is this some kind of weak attempt to gain liberal support for these Middle-Eastern wars?
Anyway, at the risk of getting flamed by everyone here, you just can't have gay marriage in the Christian Church. The Bible quite blatantly condemns it, and you can't just pick and choose which parts of your religion you follow. I sympathise for them, but I didn't write the Bible...
Louis VI the Fat
11-13-2007, 20:43
Might want to check that one up again, start with Gross Domestic Product.
Two different sources here, map 1 best and newest:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/GDP_nominal_per_capita_world_map_IMF_figures_for_year_2006.png
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/world_maps/world_gdp96.jpg
I think you'll find that lifestyle, cash and popular opinions are much of the same, and that if "the Arab world" had experienced the same development as the west, there would not be found much extremism, about the same levels of extremism we have today in the western world anyway.
Do not come here and say Iran is civilized. ~:wacko:Hah! Iran is a very civilised country. :yes:
Persia has a long history. They wrote brilliant poetry when my ancestors where plucking wild boar with their fingers out of their beards. Even today, Iran is not a poor country. They have electricity, clean water. Drug addicts in the main cities, women with academic grades. Football teams, protesting students. Literature and chess champions.
Other than that, what your map shows, is that Saudi-Arabia is one of the wealthiest countries around. Yet it is Fundamentalism Central. Tunisia is poor, Bagladesh dirt poor, but both are much more enlightened. Qatar, or the UAE, are as rich again as Saudi Arabia, yet far more open.
I think that fundamentalism is a reaction against modernisation. As such, it is by definition modern. They all claim to maintain old values, but they are really creating new ones. Be it Christian fundamentalists in America, Orthodox Jews in New York or Israel, or Islamic Fundamentalists in Iran or Saudi Arabia.
Here (http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0203&article=020310) is a good article, and an excerpt below:
Karen Armstrong: Fundamentalism has erupted in every single major faith worldwide, not just in the Islamic world. The term "fundamentalism" was coined here in the United States, at the turn of the 20th century, when Protestant Christians said that they wanted to go back to the fundamentals of their faith. Sometimes Jews and Muslims, understandably, find it slightly offensive to have this Christian term foisted upon them, because they feel they have other objectives. It also suggests that fundamentalism is a kind of monolithic movement expressing the same kind of ideas and ideals.
Nevertheless, the term has come into popular parlance and tends to stand for a group of militant pieties that have erupted in every single major faith worldwide during the 20th century, first in Protestant fundamentalism. But also we have fundamentalist Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Confucianism, Hinduism.
Fundamentalism is not simply extremism. Fundamentalism is not simply conservatism.
Armstrong: Typically, fundamentalists have proceeded on a fairly common program. Very often they begin by retreating from mainstream society and creating, as it were, enclaves of pure faith where they try to keep the godless world at bay and where they try to live a pure religious life. Examples would include the ultra-orthodox Jewish communities in New York City or [Christians at] Bob Jones University or Osama bin Laden's camps.
In these enclaves, fundamentalist communities often plan, as it were, a counteroffensive, where they seek to convert the mainstream society back to a more godly way of life. Some of them may resort to violence. Why? Because every fundamentalist movement that I've studied—in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—is rooted in a profound fear. They are convinced, even here in the United States, that modern liberal secular society wants to wipe out religion in some way or is destructive to faith.
In some parts of the Muslim world, the modernization process has been so accelerated and so rapid that secularism is very often experienced not as a liberating movement, as we have in the United States, but as a deadly assault upon faith.
at the risk of getting flamed by everyone hereOh, few get flamed here. We merely enjoy arguing about things. :beam:
I do love your new style of posting, Louis:yes: She left me, so now the world must pay and burn. :whip:
To the point: you are probably right, at large. Revolution, or evolution, from within may be the more prudent, and more effective, cause.
But for me, there is a clear limit to that line of action where either our safety is threatened, or where universal human rights are at stake.
I guess I am just not a big fan of cultural relativism, which I challenged you about in my previous post.
HoreTore
11-13-2007, 20:54
But for me, there is a clear limit to that line of action where either our safety is threatened, or where universal human rights are at stake.
I guess I am just not a big fan of cultural relativism, which I challenged you about in my previous post.
Cultural relativism is beyond the main point, which is changing Iran. We can all agree that this and this is bad, but without figuring out a solution to the problem, it doesn't add anything. Then it's simply sitting on a high tower flinging insults.
I don't think that will work, and I don't think invasions will work. The little marxists in me wants to see the flame of the revolution burn... It might take longer to replace the regime than with an invasion, but I think the end result and the time to get there will justify it.
Oh, and you live in france. No need to be sad about a woman, you're swimming in hotties down there. If it gets too hard though, I'll be more than happy to lend you my gf :2thumbsup:
AntiochusIII
11-13-2007, 21:25
Good post. However, I tend to hold a different opinion. Firstly, homophobia was not always the norm, neither in the West nor in the Islamic world. It is a very 19th / 20th century thing. Secondly, civilisation doesn't follow a set path. That is, the Muslim world is not simply 'behind' the West in this respect, nor in many others.While I agree with you that the current wave of fundamentalism in the major religions is a modern thing, I must raise an objection to this. I'm pretty sure homosexuality has been despised and villified ever since Christianity became an Imperial religion.
It was not only sex, a worldly thing which devout Christians despise by definition, but nonreproductive sex, the worst kind. The entertaining kind. The sinful kind.
And although the concept that Islam is "still in the Middle Ages" is BS, I find it ironic that this Iranian government espouses ideas once widely held by the West less than a century ago: anti-Semitism and anti-Homosexuality. From this viewpoint "Islam" being behind "the West" is, while not exactly historical or truthful, an amusing sound byte.
If there is a God and he says being gay is bad, who are we to oppose the almighty?REBELS!!!!
https://img230.imageshack.us/img230/7752/berserkdh0.jpg
Hah! Iran is a very civilised country. :yes:
Persia has a long history. They wrote brilliant poetry when my ancestors where plucking wild boar with their fingers out of their beards. Even today, Iran is not a poor country. They have electricity, clean water. Drug addicts in the main cities, women with academic grades. Football teams, protesting students. Literature and chess champions.
Other than that, what your map shows, is that Saudi-Arabia is one of the wealthiest countries around. Yet it is Fundamentalism Central. Tunisia is poor, Bagladesh dirt poor, but both are much more enlightened. Qatar, or the UAE, are as rich again as Saudi Arabia, yet far more open.
I think that fundamentalism is a reaction against modernisation. As such, it is by definition modern. They all claim to maintain old values, but they are really creating new ones. Be it Christian fundamentalists in America, Orthodox Jews in New York or Israel, or Islamic Fundamentalists in Iran or Saudi Arabia.
Here (http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0203&article=020310) is a good article, and an excerpt below:
Iran is not anywhere near the living standards of the west, which is my point anyway. Look some 60-70 years back in time, our countries were still civilized, but human rights had not came that far back then. ~:wacko:
The fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia, are they to be found among the wealthy part of the Saudi society? Saudi Arabia lacks the history of human rights fighters that the west has; the oil gave KSA sudden wealth, give them some time.
Summed up, Qatar and UAE got roughly 5.2 milllion inhabitants compared to KSA's 24.7 mill.
I do not find anything pointing out Tunisia or Bangladesh being especially enlightened. Tunisia does not score bad on HDI, but it is also fairly wealthy, thus proving my point oh my.
There's fundamentalism in the West also, but are they willing to risk their own lives for it? I think not, they prefer to isolate themselves in order to better preserve their faith.
Kralizec
11-13-2007, 23:55
Good post. However, I tend to hold a different opinion. Firstly, homophobia was not always the norm, neither in the West nor in the Islamic world. It is a very 19th / 20th century thing.
The truth is that homosexuality was accepted by practically nobody until rather recently, and it wasn't thought of much. With the advent of liberalism a lot of traditional ethics could not be taken as granted anymore, action--->reaction.
On the contrary, Islamism is a very modern development. That it is a 'return' to old-fashioned Islamic society is a fallacy, one that both many Muslims and Westerners believe.
Why is it a fallacy? I'm no expert on pre-modern islam, but that some of the things that radicals preach are plainly medieval is pretty obvious. AFAIK one of the chief traits shared among "islamist" doctrines is the return of the Kaliphate, wich would clearly mean a return to Islam's early state.
That doesn't mean that I'd lump early Islamic figures together with OBL or the Wahabis, I view the Qu'ran as being a product of its time and Mohammed should be judged by the standards of his contemporaries. But this is the 21th century, and since I view liberalism as an essentially good thing I also view Islamism as an ideology of regression.
Geoffrey S
11-14-2007, 00:30
Why is it a fallacy? I'm no expert on pre-modern islam, but that some of the things that radicals preach are plainly medieval is pretty obvious. AFAIK one of the chief traits shared among "islamist" doctrines is the return of the Kaliphate, wich would clearly mean a return to Islam's early state.
They don't reflect early Islam, but their perception of what the early days of Islam were like. The supposed golden years of the caliphate are a case in point; rather than a golden age they were a period defined by interneccine strife, a lot of worthless rulers ruling for very short periods and a few good ones, and continuation of perverting the original Koran to the political realities of the day. Islamists have decided on a fairy land version of the past shaped by the present, a product of a time they perceive as needing a unified front of Islam against unbelievers.
Edit: I'd also like to add that 'modern' does not necessarily equate to 'progress'.
Kralizec
11-14-2007, 00:52
Well, as far as I know the Wahabis explicitly made it their goal to return to the Islam as it was during Mohammed, not necessarily the caliphs wich followed him. Besides wether or not the Kaliphs were the allmighty stewards of Islam that they were supposed to be is besides the point, the point is that all muslim nations have de facto rejected the very notion of a caliphate by dividing themselves into different nation-states. The fullfilment of Wahabist goals would be a throwback to an earlier condition.
Also, by "modern" I meant modern age, sorry for the confusion.
AntiochusIII
11-14-2007, 00:55
Why is it a fallacy? I'm no expert on pre-modern islam, but that some of the things that radicals preach are plainly medieval is pretty obvious. AFAIK one of the chief traits shared among "islamist" doctrines is the return of the Kaliphate, wich would clearly mean a return to Islam's early state.I should think that whenever someone expresses that Islamism is "Medieval," that person refers at least unconsciously to a positively European Medieval outlook. The Islamic civilizations contemporary to Medieval Europe, while in close contact with the latter, are very, very different. Many of them were downright "advanced" compare to the attitudes of, say, the Taliban.
"Stuck in the Middle Ages" is therefore a terrible, terrible metaphor to use.
Although Geoffrey already explained the point about the "Caliphate," I should add that of the many Caliphates quite a few of them are responsible for the kind of cultural flowering that these Islamists most likely would oppose in modern days, and most are actually pretty loose with their morals. Religious fundamentalism is, I think, completely independent of the idea of history as a linear path of progress, even with the bumps and roadblocks accounted for.
An example would be an explosion of religious fundamentalism in Christianity during the Reformation in Europe. While we consider witch-burning to be a Medieval thing these days, the truth is that there's a lot more of that kind of thing during the supposedly more enlightened "Renaissance" era.
Edit: Didn't see your post after Geoffrey's, sorry. :sweatdrop:
Boyar Son
11-14-2007, 01:32
not so private anymore huh?:happy2:
wow who was 2 faced, or eavesdropping being that let this one out lol
What about fundamentalism being to oppose changes and defending moral values that currently exist? :sweatdrop:
InsaneApache
11-14-2007, 17:26
Can some of the christians enlighten me here? Where in the New Testament does Jesus condemn homosexuality? :inquisitive:
HoreTore
11-14-2007, 17:51
Can some of the christians enlighten me here? Where in the New Testament does Jesus condemn homosexuality? :inquisitive:
Ah, you're forgetting that they also follow the things they like in the Old Testament. It's just the parts they don't like they cut out...
Myrddraal
11-14-2007, 17:54
Ah, you're forgetting that they also follow the things they like in the Old Testament. It's just the parts they don't like they cut out...
:inquisitive: Am I supposed to be doubled over laughing?
HoreTore
11-14-2007, 18:00
:inquisitive: Am I supposed to be doubled over laughing?
For a lot of people, it's true. They take what they like, and ignore what they don't like. Other people again either ignore the old testament completely, or they follow it as they follow the new testament.
Sex, for example. The bible is rather clear, sex outside marriage is prohibited. However, it's not like a lot of people these days care about that little bit...
http://www.lifeway.com/tlw/
woad&fangs
11-14-2007, 18:52
HoreTore is correct that a lot of people pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to believe and what they want to ignore. The Old Testament and the new Testament also contradicts each other a lot.
Must be an old vs new thing, now where were we
InsaneApache
11-14-2007, 18:56
sexual abstinence from this day until the day I enter a biblical marriage relationship."
So according to this, I was never married. (Try telling that one to Mrs. Apache MKI :laugh4:)
I would be an hypocrite to do this. As a devout atheist I only married in civil ceremonies. :idea2: Also what does that make my children and grandchildren? :inquisitive:
It doesn't seem to answer my question though, does it? Where in the New Testament did Jesus denounce homosexuality?
Louis VI the Fat
11-14-2007, 18:58
Can some of the christians enlighten me here? Where in the New Testament does Jesus condemn homosexuality? :inquisitive:Condemn it!? Au contraire. Methinks that in the Hellenic world, a man of learning like Jesus knew very well how disciples expected to be educated and initiated in the world of men. I mean, twelve young single men, a teacher, together day and night? Lush gardens, soft Mediteranean summer nights, preaching endless love?
Mind, this is not the dark and gloomy age of the Old Testament. This is the lascivious Hellenic age. The NT is a Greek work, with a loving God, not a wrathful one. And with a literature that glorified physicality and the male body. People understood perfectly well what was meant by 'men loving each other'.
The New Testament is very much a homosexual guide book. I especially love the description of Jesus' last, lustful evening, where he loves all his disciples one last time. It's very sensual. A hot night in spring, a blossoming olive garden just outside the city, the love of Jesus blossoming in the bossoms of his loved ones.
Below's the King James version. Jesus knows his time has ended, so he loves all his disciples one last time, the way he has always done. Twelve of them there are, but he loves them all 'to the end'. What stamina! Then, they have a quick snack together, undress again, Jesus cleanses them, and without shame to his disciples he exposes himself again as takes off the towel that covers his most sacred parts, and gently wipes his disciples off with it.
When he's finished, as John lies on Jesus' bossom, and later on against Jesus' breast, Jesus tells them that when he is gone, they ought to love each other as he had loved them always, and just now. And that they, these 'children', young boys yet, in turn, should go forth and seek disciples of their own, to love, to initiate into love, in turn. This way, the love of God is spread to all men.
It is beautiful, almost makes me wish I was gay too:
Jhn 13:1 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.
Jhn 13:2 And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's [son], to betray him;
Jhn 13:4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.
Jhn 13:5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe [them] with the towel wherewith he was girded.
Jhn 13:6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?
Jhn 13:7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.
Jhn 13:8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.
Jhn 13:9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also [my] hands and [my] head.
Jhn 13:10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash [his] feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.
Jhn 13:11 For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.
Jhn 13:12 ¶ So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
Jhn 13:13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for [so] I am.
Jhn 13:14 If I then, [your] Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
Jhn 13:15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
Jhn 13:17 If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.
[...]
Jhn 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
Jhn 13:24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
Jhn 13:25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
[...]
Jhn 13:31 ¶ Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
Jhn 13:32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.
Jhn 13:33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.
Jhn 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Jhn 13:35 By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
So according to this, I was never married. (Try telling that one to Mrs. Apache MKI :laugh4:)
Wrong.
I have long thought about it but never "researched" this until now, but now I found someone else explaining what I have thought before:
Sex Makes People One Flesh (http://home.flash.net/~billtess/sxmkspl1flsh.html)
One Flesh Is The Marriage Union (http://home.flash.net/~billtess/1flshismrgun.html)
This kinda takes the wind out of the sails of the above page I linked. :sweatdrop:
Well, as long as you stay with the one you first have sex with but then a formal marriage ceremony doesn't guarantee that either.
edit: This seems to adress homosexuality etc: Sexual Immorality Biblically Defined (http://home.flash.net/~billtess/sximrltyblbclydfnd.html)
hellenes
11-14-2007, 19:16
Heh, that'd go down well with the Christian right. "My fellow Americans, we have decided to invade Iran to protect gays from the axis of evil..."
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Damn you I almost fell of the chair...
InsaneApache
11-14-2007, 19:39
This seems to adress homosexuality etc: Sexual Immorality Biblically Defined
I'm sorry, am I missing something here? That's the Old Testament. I rather had the idea that it was superseded by the New Testament. Surely if you follow the christian doctrine, you follow the new Testament. Otherwise, you'd be a Jew. :inquisitive: :laugh4:
As for Louis, you're a bugger mate, you really are. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :2thumbsup: :yes:
My understanding was if the NT doesn't say otherwise, the OT still counts.
Jesus also says the ten commandments are still effective IIRC, he just offers a way to be saved without following all of them to the letter because no human is capable of doing that.
InsaneApache
11-14-2007, 20:08
My understanding was if the NT doesn't say otherwise, the OT still counts.
Jesus also says the ten commandments are still effective IIRC, he just offers a way to be saved without following all of them to the letter because no human is capable of doing that.
Really? IIRC Jesus said "I am the light, the truth and only through me will you find salvation."
So as a christian how do you reconcile that little gem, if you decide to follow anothers religious teachings?
Really? IIRC Jesus said "I am the light, the truth and only through me will you find salvation."
When you consider the light at the end of the tunnel and that sort of stuff that IS kinda gay. Only through me you will find slavation??
Really? IIRC Jesus said "I am the light, the truth and only through me will you find salvation."
So as a christian how do you reconcile that little gem, if you decide to follow anothers religious teachings?
To me this means you can only get to heaven through believing in him, but when you believe in him you will also try to follow God's rules, some of which are described in the old testament. That would exclude things like sacrificing lambs because these are replaced by believeing in Jesus and asking him to forgive your sins. I think Jesus summed the ten commandments up by saying love everybody else like you love yourself, so Jesus mainly changes the way to be forgiven and to get to heaven, he died for your sins, not to abandon the rules that define sin.
InsaneApache
11-14-2007, 20:40
I understand what you're driving at, however wasn't Jesus sent down to wipe the slate clean? It's hardly wiping the 'slate clean' if you then adhere to the, one assumes misguided/incorrect/wrong teaching that went before. Is it?
Rhyfelwyr
11-14-2007, 21:12
I always thought that he died for the souls of everyone both past and in the future.
Condemn it!? Au contraire. Methinks that in the Hellenic world, a man of learning like Jesus knew very well how disciples expected to be educated and initiated in the world of men. I mean, twelve young single men, a teacher, together day and night? Lush gardens, soft Mediteranean summer nights, preaching endless love?
Mind, this is not the dark and gloomy age of the Old Testament. This is the lascivious Hellenic age. The NT is a Greek work, with a loving God, not a wrathful one. And with a literature that glorified physicality and the male body. People understood perfectly well what was meant by 'men loving each other'.
The New Testament is very much a homosexual guide book. I especially love the description of Jesus' last, lustful evening, where he loves all his disciples one last time. It's very sensual. A hot night in spring, a blossoming olive garden just outside the city, the love of Jesus blossoming in the bossoms of his loved ones.
If your not in the HOF, this little diddy should ensure your enshrinement. Thanks for reminding me of the entertainment value of the backroom, at times one can get lost in the misigosh.
:flowers:
Geoffrey S
11-14-2007, 21:29
It certainly puts a new twist on the whole 'love your neighbour as yourself' deal...
I understand what you're driving at, however wasn't Jesus sent down to wipe the slate clean? It's hardly wiping the 'slate clean' if you then adhere to the, one assumes misguided/incorrect/wrong teaching that went before. Is it?
The wrong things about the teachings from before were, IIRC, mostly added by humans, the jews created new religious laws based on their interpretations and whatnot, those were wrong, but the teachings of God in the old testament were not, it would be quite a stretch to say that Jesus, being the son of God and God at the same time, would say that the word of God was wrong. :dizzy2: :sweatdrop:
Proletariat
11-14-2007, 22:56
When I was a little girl still going to sunday school, it was taught that Jesus just simplified the ten commandments by stating that if you treated your neighbor the way would like to be treated, and loving God with all your heart, you were basically doing all ten anyway. Just no more sacrificing goats or whatever to have your sins washed away since that's what Jesus died for.
:2cents:
When I was a little girl still going to sunday school, it was taught that Jesus just simplified the ten commandments by stating that if you treated your neighbor the way would like to be treated, and loving God with all your heart, you were basically doing all ten anyway. Just no more sacrificing goats or whatever to have your sins washed away since that's what Jesus died for.
:2cents:
Little prole has been listening very well. :2thumbsup:
It's what I wanted to say, I'm just unable to explain it that well. :sweatdrop:
InsaneApache
11-14-2007, 23:37
If that's the case, why the references to the OT?
If that's the case, why the references to the OT?
Because they still count and they weren't repeated in the NT. They have nothing to do with forgiveness for your sins, they're just the rules outlining what a sin is. Sins in the OT and NT are pretty much the same thing, there's just a different way to forgiveness.
Boyar Son
11-15-2007, 00:38
I learned alot from the org.. like..
Jesus is gay too?!?
seriously.. we are some kind of people...
InsaneApache
11-15-2007, 00:39
So, let's be clear, in order to be a christian, you have to take account of a different religion (Judaism)? Is this what you're saying?
Isn't this precisely what Jesus abandoned?
AntiochusIII
11-15-2007, 00:46
Isn't this precisely what Jesus abandoned?Eh, theology (or conspiracy theories) aside, it's pretty clear from what little evidences we have that this dude called Jesus viewed his task as reforming Judaism and not the creation of a new religion.
Probably like what the Reformers during the 1500's were trying to do: Call out on the hypocrisy and corruptions of Orthodox Judaic establishment and the return to simpler, more honest ways.
Not only is he gay, a commie, and a pacifist; he's a fundamentalist to boot! :laugh4:
Don Corleone
11-15-2007, 01:31
So, let's be clear, in order to be a christian, you have to take account of a different religion (Judaism)? Is this what you're saying?
Isn't this precisely what Jesus abandoned?
Technically, no. Jesus was the fulfillment of Mosaic law (derived from Moses, not 'a pretty picture made out of little stones'). The Jews of the OT were screwed. They had struck a bargain with God... we don't sin, you let us live vs. we do and you don't. Due to the terms of the contract, an offering had to be made to even the score. Unfortunately, no offering was good enough for the sins of mankind, so they were screwed. Dust unto dust, and all that. No afterlife (not even a Hell, mind you, just oblivion).
I find myself surprised that I actually chuckled at Louis' diatribe. However, I don't think it's an accurate representation. For one, Jesus wasn't 'highly educted' in the Hellenistic sense. He spoke Aramaic, not Greek (kind of the equivalent of speaking in Elizabethen English in modern America, it was the language of everyone who was anyone at one time, but by Jesus's time was a sign of being a yokel).
I'm honestly not certain what contemporary Jewish thought in the Cesarean Levant was with regards to sexual mores. Polygamy was not only allowed, it was encouraged throughout the Old Testament, but its clear that by Jesus' day, it was frowned upon at best. Ditto for concubines.
As for 'He didn't explicitly prohibit it', well, He didn't explicitly prohibit a lot of things. Technically, he never actually says its wrong to steal, though He does imply that the definition of theft is a lot broader in His book than ours. Nor does He say incest is wrong, and that was a stoning offense in His day.
That being said, I think if you want to know how Jesus would actually treat out-of-the-closet homosexuals, well, there's several examples. He wasn't shy about hanging around with the dregs of society. Sometimes they changed their ways and cleaned up their act. Sometimes they said it was too hard and went about their ways. But he was there with an open hand, all along. Didn't approve of the sin, but He didn't advocate violence against anyone. He did get a little crazy with the moneychangers in the Temple. But I think part of that was the sheer size of the crowd He had to move out. Think about trying to clear the Capitol Mall in D.C. and booting all the street vendors out.... you think you could do it with a polite "excuse me...", and they're not even selling livestock.
One thing I've come to the conclusion on with homosexuality. Regardless of what I think about it, I'm pretty sure on how I'm supposed to act with regards to it. And when you come right down to it, Jesus says there's no heirarchy of sins. Anybody who's jacked (or jilled) off is every in every bit as much trouble as somebody who's gay. We all need to lighten up with each other and worry about our own sorry selves and getting our own acts together. I know this guy who has a way with phrases and metaphors. He said something about having a plank in your eye, and how you should work on getting it out so you can see what you're doing to help your friends get the specks out of theirs. Makes sense.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.