A woman accused of immodesty has been beaten up by an ultra-religious gang. This follows another recent attack on a woman and a soldier for the "crime" of sitting next to one another on a bus.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Printable View
A woman accused of immodesty has been beaten up by an ultra-religious gang. This follows another recent attack on a woman and a soldier for the "crime" of sitting next to one another on a bus.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
What the article actually says is that the beating was done by thugs who police suspect were hired by an ultra orthodox religious group.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
I honestly didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
It's uncanny. I almost skipped your OP from sheer boredom about that sort of stuff. Then I reckoned you were much too smart to post the umpteenth vignette about bad Muslims taken straight from the Daily Mail. So it had to be Israel, the #2 hotbed of religious mania in today's world. Lo and behold..
No one expects the Jewish Taliban.:7gangster:Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Gah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
Since when did trivialities like the facts detract from frothing generalisations designed to demonise entire religious communities?
~:rolleyes:
As I got told off for using the phrase 'religious nutters' in a thread some time back. I shall refrain from such musings again. :whip: :laugh4:
If they aren't religious nutters, then what are they? Religiously challenged? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Damn you Banquo :furious3:
You could at least have gone to the effort of posting the article but changing a few words .
But anyhow ,for anyone that wants a good laugh please make the effort to read through the "talkback" section at the bottom of the article .
Religious fanatics should not be tolerated anywhere in the world, and this sort of oppression should be rubbed out.
CR
Why is the "Immodest" in the thread title in quotes, implying that it isn't true?
Just look at how she's dressed in that video. She is definitely immodest to the extreme. In fact, she looks like a prostitute in that video.
I found it hilarious how she says she has to move out of there in a very hostile way that makes it clear she never even considered to try being modest and respectable for a change. :idea2:
So how to define what a prostitute looks like? Make up? Short skirt? Low cut top? If so, that's what nearly all my girlfriends looked like, including my wife, when I met them. Does it therefore follow that 'religious nutters' are sexually frustrated? I do hope so.
Mate, it's what I look like by the end of a fine Saturday night. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Religious nutters, the lot of them.
Yeah, I can't believe anyone would be so bold as to wear a short-sleeved striped blouse. Why, the should have burned her face with acid, the slut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
:laugh3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Well, Navaros never fails to deliver. Our friend is living proof of the intimate relationship between religious fanaticism and a profound hatred of freedom and humanity. This goes for every religion, in case anyone wonders. It is what unites the nutters world-wide; they would rather switch to a totally different religion then lay off the hatred.
The muslims refuse to be outdone by the evil Jews.
edit: linked to a better article
Sigh. At least Sikh fanatics mainly kill each other. I wish other religions would copy their example.Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Those with spiritual awareness are in this world, but not of it. That's really what you are describing in that post. They realize that man, in his natural state, and his behaviours, is nothing but disgusting garbage. Realizing this is not a bad thing though. Not realizing this is the bad thing. If everyone realized this then then society on Earth would be a paradise. It is morally correct to hate all manner of disgusting garbage, and to want it to be replaced with goodness instead. :yes:
As much as I get the impression this woman was probably looking for trouble (why dress like that in the video?), her wrong-doing pales into insignificance compared to this gang that targeted her.
Also Navaros as much as I agree with you, surely attacking this woman has not achieved any goodness? They must have known at the time it was a petty vigilante act that was going to discredit their beliefs as much as anything else?
I've always felt that religion does the natural world a great disservice. I happen to find the scientific explanations for the way things are to be far more satisfying and profoundly beautiful than the handwavy explanations religion gives.Quote:
They realize that man, in his natural state, and his behaviours, is nothing but disgusting garbage.
Nevermind. I never posted here.
I agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr
I'm not saying she should have been attacked. But moreso I am simply pointing out that her complete lack of taking any responsibility for her own immodestness and no one holding her accountable for that (other than me, apparently LOL :laugh4:) is a one-sided way to look at the issue. She's not so 'saintly' as the report paints her, and as the majority of the posts in this thread do.
Point taken, Viking.
In my more cynical moments I wonder whether this is a tautology.Quote:
Religious nutters
Hmm, I should learn to edit my posts faster. ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry
I am reminded of an old joke: Why did Australia get all of the criminals, while America got all of the religious nuts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry
Damn right :wink:
...and there my friends lies the crux. Why in Gaias name try to talk any sort of sense, never mind humanity or logic to people who think like this? They are so indoctrinated and brainwashed nothing and I mean nothing is capable of changing their world view. It's a mental illness.Quote:
Those with spiritual awareness are in this world, but not of it.
So there we have it the utter idiocy of fundamental fruitcakes , women should cover their arms and legs at all times , their heads must be covered in public , they must not use the same door on a bus as men and must certainly not sit in the mens section not only because they might cause temptation but they might be having a period and would sully the purity and rightousness of anyone who later sat in the same seatQuote:
I'm not saying she should have been attacked. But moreso I am simply pointing out that her complete lack of taking any responsibility for her own immodestness and no one holding her accountable for that (other than me,
And the reason for this is simple as one of the posters in that talkback section states , if women do not follow these rules of modesty it makes men masturbate .
Religeous fundamentalists are therefore clearly a bunch of ******* .
I agree with you that man is garbage, flawed as the day is long. However, I must disagree with you on constitutes "disgusting garbage". I find your rigidness, petty intolerance and virulent hatred of all those who disagree with you to be disgusting. If you are spiritually aware, you would not condone acts of violence upon those you deem unenlightened, you would not condone acts of hypocrisy and blind loathing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
One thing though, religious fundamentalists aren't the only ones with a very specific code of modest conduct, to be strictly enforced. We all force other people to follow our code of dress, to follow our code of gender relations, and to follow our code of modesty. These contemporary Western majorty codes are enforced as specifically, as instantly, and often as violently as those of our derided religious nutters. We are all Navaros.
If I don't cover myself properly in public, I get thrown into jail. Yes, my arms I can bare, but other parts of my body not. What can be laid bare, what is considered modest, differs for men and women.
If I use the same bathroom as women, some woman will scream and some big guys will come and beat me beat up. There is no rational reason for stricly segregated bathrooms, other than the demands of modesty. Not very different from sepreate parts of buses for men and women.
If I insist on wearing anything that deviates from the norm too far, I'll be socially outcast. I can not have a social or professional life if I insist on wearing only my New Guinean Koteka. Or my Darth Vader costume.
The differences between the nutters and us are, firstly that our contemporary Western codes mostly are not grounded in / legitimised by ancient texts, but on newer customs. Our codes are more fluid, prone to change. And secondly, partly because of the previous, these codes are not considered universal.
We do not differ much in the strict social enforcement of these codes. Nor, sometimes, in the amount of violence that we are prepared to use to dissuade persons from deviating from the norm.
The majority norm in the West is, however, usually regarded as transient. Nor as universal. Which perhaps has a mitigating influence on the amount of violence society is prepared to use against those who deviate from the norm. Or perhaps a more general emphasis on individual liberty is the root for a greater tolerance and a less violent dissuasion of deviancy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
Was there ever any question?