Another reminder why religion shouldn't make the rules
-
This is why the word "f*cktard" was created. The court in the eastern town of Al-Qatif is apparently staffed by f*cktards.
Saudi punishes gang rape victim with 200 lashes
Nov 15 10:51 AM US/Eastern
A court in the ultra-conservative kingdom of Saudi Arabia is punishing a female victim of gang rape with 200 lashes and six months in jail, a newspaper reported on Thursday.
The 19-year-old woman -- whose six armed attackers have been sentenced to jail terms -- was initially ordered to undergo 90 lashes for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape," the Arab News reported.
But in a new verdict issued after Saudi Arabia's Higher Judicial Council ordered a retrial, the court in the eastern town of Al-Qatif more than doubled the number of lashes to 200.
A court source told the English-language Arab News that the judges had decided to punish the woman further for "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media."
Saudi Arabia enforces a strict Islamic doctrine known as Wahhabism and forbids unrelated men and women from associating with each other, bans women from driving and forces them to cover head-to-toe in public.
Last year, the court sentenced six Saudi men to between one and five years in jail for the rape as well as ordering lashes for the victim, a member of the minority Shiite community.
But the woman's lawyer Abdul Rahman al-Lahem appealed, arguing that the punishments were too lenient in a country where the offence can carry the death penalty.
In the new verdict issued on Wednesday, the Al-Qatif court also toughened the sentences against the six men to between two and nine years in prison.
The case has angered members of Saudi Arabia's Shiite community. The convicted men are Sunni Muslims, the dominant community in the oil-rich Gulf state.
Lahem, also a human rights activist, told AFP on Wednesday that the court had banned him from handling the rape case and withdrew his licence to practise law because he challenged the verdict.
He said he has also been summoned by the ministry of justice to appear before a disciplinary committee in December.
Lahem said the move might be due to his criticism of some judicial institutions, and "contradicts King Abdullah's quest to introduce reform, especially in the justice system."
King Abdullah last month approved a new body of laws regulating the judicial system in Saudi Arabia, which rules on the basis of sharia, or Islamic law. -
lol at those incompetent sand-hoppers
-
Once the oil runs out, they will go back to living in tents.
-
As I have mentioned before, the Islamic rules are very biased against the female gender.
Ask yourself this qn. Who wrote the Qu'ran? Who set the Islamic rules? of course is Men. (dun tell me Qu'ran just drop from heaven, given by God Allah himself)
As such, in the ancient time, they used religious laws as means to rule over the females. It is very often to see laws that are discriminative to the women in Arab Islamic laws.
In this case, you have to ask yourself again why a rape victim is punished more severely than the gang rapers. Cos the Islamic law put 99% of the blame on women. Men rape becos women wore too sexy clothes.
So funny logic. then guess Arab men (even other Muslims eg in Malaysia) have no self constraint at all? -
Yup. Men use religion to justify all kinds of unjust actions. Since they realize they have no right to impose their will on others, they claim that god commanded it.Originally posted by Spartans:As I have mentioned before, the Islamic rules are very biased against the female gender.
Ask yourself this qn. Who wrote the Qu'ran? Who set the Islamic rules? of course is Men. (dun tell me Qu'ran just drop from heaven, given by God Allah himself)
As such, in the ancient time, they used religious laws as means to rule over the females. It is very often to see laws that are discriminative to the women in Arab Islamic laws.
In this case, you have to ask yourself again why a rape victim is punished more severely than the gang rapers. Cos the Islamic law put 99% of the blame on women. Men rape becos women wore too sexy clothes.
So funny logic. then guess Arab men (even other Muslims eg in Malaysia) have no self constraint at all?
Just like in Singapore. I don't like homosexuality so it should be illegal because god commanded it.
-
Qu'ran = fiction novel
honestly, its so damn obvious his 'revelations' were just an excuse for him to impose his own will on others on the pretext that Allah wants him to do so. -
You could say the same for any religious book.Originally posted by thehappybunny:Qu'ran = fiction novel
honestly, its so damn obvious his 'revelations' were just an excuse for him to impose his own will on others on the pretext that Allah wants him to do so.
The Book of Mormon is a good example. -
Talking about unjust act, do you all still remember in 2005 (I'm not sure also), there was a big fire in a all-female school in Saudi Arabia.Originally posted by Phaze:Yup. Men use religion to justify all kinds of unjust actions. Since they realize they have no right to impose their will on others, they claim that god commanded it.
Just like in Singapore. I don't like homosexuality so it should be illegal because god commanded it.
But the Saudi religious police refused to let the female students out of the school simply because the dress code. The students were not covered from top to bottom. In the end, most of the female students died in the fire tragedy just because the religious police deny their escapes.
So to those moronic idiotic brainless Saudi religious police, female lives are worthed much lesser than some stupid discriminative Arabic Islamic dress code. Screw those retards. -
Please use a condom.Originally posted by Spartans:Talking about unjust act, do you all still remember in 2005 (I'm not sure also), there was a big fire in a all-female school in Saudi Arabia.
But the Saudi religious police refused to let the female students out of the school simply because the dress code. The students were not covered from top to bottom. In the end, most of the female students died in the fire tragedy just because the religious police deny their escapes.
So to those moronic idiotic brainless Saudi religious police, female lives are worthed much lesser than some stupid discriminative Arabic Islamic dress code. Screw those retards.
Personally, I wouldn't do it. :p
But seriously, it's hard not to get angry at this kind of news. -
Seriously, I do not understand their mentality.
Why do them have to put religion in the utmost way without any regard to simple humane concern?
Some of these Muslims had (have is better word cos they are still doing it now) stupid things like destroying ancient Buddha statues. -
It's called zealotry, and unfortunately, we can't do anything about it. Short of an apocalyptic event. It's a pity people can't handle things the very "Jedi" way, like think "Well, too bad." if a guy refuses to follow one's customs.
-
Not only Buddha statues , When they(muslim warriors) invaded india , they destoryed most of the hindu/buddha temples , and rule india and its ppl with terror , killing them and forcing them to convert to muslim , (Mass genocide on the hindus or other idol worshippers)Originally posted by Spartans:Seriously, I do not understand their mentality.
Why do them have to put religion in the utmost way without any regard to simple humane concern?
Some of these Muslims had (have is better word cos they are still doing it now) stupid things like destroying ancient Buddha statues.
But after 1000 yrs of ruling india , they finally evaporated , thank god for india and its ppl , and today india has 80% hindus again , which should have been 100%, and once again ruled by non-muslim (God bless india and its ppl for that) .
I have many good malay friends , and like them alot , but i cant say the same for their religion !
Im not Christian nor catholic or Atheism , but i would say good things about them , A religion should nv teach violents against other human.
If you read other common religions , the only violents they mention is with the demons , not with human.
Anyway I proud and thank god everyday , that i am a KAFIR!!!!
Anyway its funny how this ppl are against ppl of other religion , and the funny thing is they believe in god , and they believe god created everything , but are violent against other human .... Other humans were created by god also wor , so why dont you respect others.
Sorry to the :athesim bro/sis , for talking abit too much about god. -
Religion brings troubles in this time.
-
Great lyrics condemning religion
"Can't explain the other side
Answers lost before their eyes
Violence surges from inside
A state of mind that never dies
Born into a chosen way
Life that doesn't fit today
To die a painful death it seems
Is better than your misery
Contemplating rearranging
Changing all your ways of tinking
Everyday you life seems like
It's pushed into a hole
Acting out another's needs
To rule a soul eternally
Adjusting to another set
Of values takes it's toll
Growing in a lunacy
That plays on your stupidity
Circle of beliefs
Secrets never keep
Living in a lie
Right before your eyes
Born without a brain
Helpless is your name
All you do is pray
Living is your pain
Mentally so small you can't
Accept another side
Your point of view a memory
Because it doesn't mean a thing
The resurrection's waiting for
A world without sin
The temples will crumble
While awaiting for it to begin
Circle of beliefs
Secrets never keep
Living in a lie
Right before your eyes
Losing is your way
Mental disarray
I can see your strain
You don't want to be saved
Can't you see no validity
Must control silencing of souls
Slow decay spreading through your brain
Devastate the deviant will dominate
Can't you see there's no validity
Your way is not the only way
Slow decay spreading through your brain
Don't you see the power of the enemy
Tyranny total supremacy
Control the silencing of souls
Slavery within the entity
Devastate, dominate
Can't explain the reason why
Someone would rather live than die
If dying is the only way
To end a life of mental stains
All your life he's been the cause
A man impaled upon a cross
Pure religious holocaust
If religion dies it's not my loss
Perception always biased Feeding off a fallacy
Your systematic way of life
Decided for you every night
Intentional conflicting words
Avoid solidity
Blinded by the holy light
That constantly consumes your mind
Circle of beliefs
Secrets never keep
Living in a lie
Right before your eyes
Burning in my wake
Souls are free to take
You're following a fake
Everyone awake!!!"
Slayer - Circle of beliefs -
Just a question ...
how does an atheist differentiate between good and bad? -
Atheists and irreligionists have their own code of conduct and they do follow the nominal legal system.Originally posted by IvanSong:Just a question ...
how does an atheist differentiate between good and bad? -
But following one's own code seems a bit too subjective? Would leave the interpretation of good and bad open to abuse, and based on my feelings, wouldn't it?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Atheists and irreligionists have their own code of conduct and they do follow the nominal legal system. -
Mr Song, did you purposefully leave out the "and" word? I said follow their own code of conduct as well the nominal law as per country.Originally posted by IvanSong:But following one's own code seems a bit too subjective? Would leave the interpretation of good and bad open to abuse, and based on my feelings, wouldn't it? -
as a free thinker, i basically practice ethics wherever i go, and try to be as moral as i can being a person of conscience.
atheists do have code of conducts but they are rational beings who constantly question everything and practice critical thinking, before making important decisions.
i believe as free thinkers, we are free from religious dogmas in a way that it gives us the ability to make the most out of life instead of thinking of how are we to spend our days in heaven after we die.
as a psychology undergrad, i learned that it is our innate nature that we humans have the potential to do good and to be moral depending on our upbringing. religious christians would argue that we are born sinners in that no one taught us how to lie or steal. but all these are common reactions in-built in us for survival purposes.
we lie sometimes to prevent ourselves from being exposed. sometimes, this is so because we have to protect or defend ourselves against other people with bad intentions who are out to get us. we do not tell the truth simply to expose ourselves and our weaknesses so that our opponents can destroy us completely and easily. occasionally, we tell white lies in order to protect our love one's feelings, or to be sensitive towards their emotions.
there are many reasons why we steal things. one of them could be because some people are too poor to an extent whereby they have to steal in order to save somebody's life. imagine your wife is dying of a strange disease, and the doctor said that there's only one type of medication that could cure her illness. and this medication could be found in the pharmacy and it was really expensive. now, if you just got retrenched, and your savings could not even afford getting your wife a proper treatment of that drug, what would you do? your friends ran away when you started borrowing money from them. your relatives only contributed a little bit but not enough to buy that drug. faced with little options, you could either choose to let your wife die, or do your best no matter what to get her cured by stealing that drug.
i could give many examples still... but, my point is that morality is subjective and it cannot be subjected to a fixed law, such as THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. because our ultimate intention is to do things according to our conscience and our moral principles. the christians do not realise that besides having the potential to "sin", we humans also have the potential to do good as well. even though a deed may seem immoral in someone's eyes, sometimes, it is that little bit of evil that could eventually bring about the greater good for the greater number.
Religion thrive in the absolutes.
I believe that many things are relative in their own ways. -
uhh.. no, i didnt leave it out intentionally. i felt both of them were rather subjective and open to (mis)interpretation. As in the legal system changes from time to time, what was considered criminal before, has been legalized. You seem to be suggesting keeping a balance between both... So how do you keep up with the changes?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Mr Song, did you purposefully leave out the "and" word? I said follow their own code of conduct as well the nominal law as per country.
If someone were to murder my loved ones, but the murderer exploits the loopholes within the legal system to escape incarceration, would u still find the murderer a good or bad person? -
ic... so my question would be disconcerting to you because it proposes a dichotomy.Originally posted by frederikan:as a free thinker, i basically practice ethics wherever i go, and try to be as moral as i can being a person of conscience.
atheists do have code of conducts but they are rational beings who constantly question everything and practice critical thinking, before making important decisions.
i believe as free thinkers, we are free from religious dogmas in a way that it gives us the ability to make the most out of life instead of thinking of how are we to spend our days in heaven after we die.
as a psychology undergrad, i learned that it is our innate nature that we humans have the potential to do good and to be moral depending on our upbringing. religious christians would argue that we are born sinners in that no one taught us how to lie or steal. but all these are common reactions in-built in us for survival purposes.
we lie sometimes to prevent ourselves from being exposed. sometimes, this is so because we have to protect or defend ourselves against other people with bad intentions who are out to get us. we do not tell the truth simply to expose ourselves and our weaknesses so that our opponents can destroy us completely and easily. occasionally, we tell white lies in order to protect our love one's feelings, or to be sensitive towards their emotions.
there are many reasons why we steal things. one of them could be because some people are too poor to an extent whereby they have to steal in order to save somebody's life. imagine your wife is dying of a strange disease, and the doctor said that there's only one type of medication that could cure her illness. and this medication could be found in the pharmacy and it was really expensive. now, if you just got retrenched, and your savings could not even afford getting your wife a proper treatment of that drug, what would you do? your friends ran away when you started borrowing money from them. your relatives only contributed a little bit but not enough to buy that drug. faced with little options, you could either choose to let your wife die, or do your best no matter what to get her cured by stealing that drug.
i could give many examples still... but, my point is that morality is subjective and it cannot be subjected to a fixed law, such as THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. because our ultimate intention is to do things according to our conscience and our moral principles. the christians do not realise that besides having the potential to "sin", we humans also have the potential to do good as well. even though a deed may seem immoral in someone's eyes, sometimes, it is that little bit of evil that could eventually bring about the greater good for the greater number.
Religion thrive in the absolutes.
I believe that many things are relative in their own ways.
Well, i'm a Christian and i take the view that there are absolutes in life. I appreciate that story you raised, having done an ethics module previously and explored such issues.
If i interpret your stand correctly, it is that the ends do justify the means? But my question then is where would you draw the line? Because whatever wrongdoing done toward me is not necessarily considered so in your perspective, so what this guy did (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/08/2084826.htm), he believed he was doing this for the greater good, what would your response be?
In some cultures they love their neighbours, in other cultures, they eat them, both on the basis that what they're doing is justified, practised as part of their culture. How would you respond to that? -
okay, when i raised the issue that a little evil could be done for the greater good, i do not literally mean simply doing an evil thing. there is a utilitarian meaning in it. what i meant was that that "evil deed" to that individual is working against his personal values, not conscience, even though others may think that it is right. because good and evil are subjective, what may seem evil, may not be bad, what may seem good, may not be socially or morally acceptable. there's a huge difference between good and evil, and morality and immorality. however, there are certain things that are amoral or neither good nor evil.Originally posted by IvanSong:ic... so my question would be disconcerting to you because it proposes a dichotomy.
Well, i'm a Christian and i take the view that there are absolutes in life. I appreciate that story you raised, having done an ethics module previously and explored such issues.
If i interpret your stand correctly, it is that the ends do justify the means? But my question then is where would you draw the line? Because whatever wrongdoing done toward me is not necessarily considered so in your perspective, so what this guy did (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/08/2084826.htm), he believed he was doing this for the greater good, what would your response be?
In some cultures they love their neighbours, in other cultures, they eat them, both on the basis that what they're doing is justified, practised as part of their culture. How would you respond to that?
morality is conscience based, while goodness or evilness is perceptual. doing things that work against one's conscience (if he has one) is definitely something which is socially unacceptable. for your example, i would say that eating another individual is amoral, depending on their own cultures. because to me, what seems to be true to one person may not be true to another. similarly, if one finds eating humans a gross and immoral act, an immoral act need not necessarily be eating humans. so, culture and traditions are amoral, but the acts are subjected to be viewed as moral or immoral, rather than good or evil.
well, the bible calls it the law of moses when the ten commandments were written on stone tablets. honestly, those are "laws" that are compiled into a set of moral codes for people to follow, excluding the one on worshipping God and only God alone due to the jealous God that the people are dealing with, are socially acceptable moral values. however, the issue that thou shalt not kill, steal, or lie, still depends on situations and the law of justice in court would eventually decide upon the penalty of such acts. killing is bad, and we all know that, but it could be just someone or anyone putting up a physical defense to prevent himself from being killed or murdered by another psycho nutcase. as a result, if he managed to kill the psychopath in the process of his self-defense, how would God judge this? this is still not up to people to decide but God. but where is God? if the people do not decide upon the action, then what makes one think that God would decide through the scriptures written by men in the bronze ages? surely, it is still men who decide upon the action and act accordingly to the men-written scriptures to pass penalties or judgments, all in the authority of the church.
well, at least to me, the civil or federal law does not allow murder, genocide, or stoning of infidels , homosexuals, adulterers, or simply people who do not have the same faith as you do. unlike the laws that are written in the bible which reflects the ancient times of bigotry, prejudice, and male-chauvinism. just imagine the damage it would cause to the minds of young children being passed a bible of the old testament.
i need not say further, but i leave the decision to those who still want to have faith and believe in something that is potentially harmful.
in sum, where do i draw the line? i follow the laws of the universe as well as the set of laws that governs a country and try to be a good citizen as much as possible. whereas morals are concerned, i develop my own principles and values that i know would not contradict my naturally given conscience, because what contradicts the conscience is definitely a warning sign of an imminent danger ahead. -
Just curious, what kind of laws of the universe that teach you to be good?Originally posted by frederikan:okay, when i raised the issue that a little evil could be done for the greater good, i do not literally mean simply doing an evil thing. there is a utilitarian meaning in it. what i meant was that that "evil deed" to that individual is working against his personal values, not conscience, even though others may think that it is right. because good and evil are subjective, what may seem evil, may not be bad, what may seem good, may not be socially or morally acceptable. there's a huge difference between good and evil, and morality and immorality. however, there are certain things that are amoral or neither good nor evil.
morality is conscience based, while goodness or evilness is perceptual. doing things that work against one's conscience (if he has one) is definitely something which is socially unacceptable. for your example, i would say that eating another individual is amoral, depending on their own cultures. because to me, what seems to be true to one person may not be true to another. similarly, if one finds eating humans a gross and immoral act, an immoral act need not necessarily be eating humans. so, culture and traditions are amoral, but the acts are subjected to be viewed as moral or immoral, rather than good or evil.
well, the bible calls it the law of moses when the ten commandments were written on stone tablets. honestly, those are "laws" that are compiled into a set of moral codes for people to follow, excluding the one on worshipping God and only God alone due to the jealous God that the people are dealing with, are socially acceptable moral values. however, the issue that thou shalt not kill, steal, or lie, still depends on situations and the law of justice in court would eventually decide upon the penalty of such acts. killing is bad, and we all know that, but it could be just someone or anyone putting up a physical defense to prevent himself from being killed or murdered by another psycho nutcase. as a result, if he managed to kill the psychopath in the process of his self-defense, how would God judge this? this is still not up to people to decide but God. but where is God? if the people do not decide upon the action, then what makes one think that God would decide through the scriptures written by men in the bronze ages? surely, it is still men who decide upon the action and act accordingly to the men-written scriptures to pass penalties or judgments, all in the authority of the church.
well, at least to me, the civil or federal law does not allow murder, genocide, or stoning of infidels , homosexuals, adulterers, or simply people who do not have the same faith as you do. unlike the laws that are written in the bible which reflects the ancient times of bigotry, prejudice, and male-chauvinism. just imagine the damage it would cause to the minds of young children being passed a bible of the old testament.
i need not say further, but i leave the decision to those who still want to have faith and believe in something that is potentially harmful.
in sum, where do i draw the line? i follow the laws of the universe as well as the set of laws that governs a country and try to be a good citizen as much as possible. whereas morals are concerned, i develop my own principles and values that i know would not contradict my naturally given conscience, because what contradicts the conscience is definitely a warning sign of an imminent danger ahead.
Appreciate your sincere comments ... so you have compartmentalized morality, conscience, good and evil. But i think there is a fluid interaction between these factors that you cannot address one without the other. Could you operationalize these terms further?
If not, about conscience, i believe like you do, that it is inherent and "naturally given" and of course, i would subscribe the giver as God, since we've been made in His image.
From the atheist POV, how would that conscience come about, since we're supposedly animals (or very closely related to them)? It is this conscience which made me ask the question in the 1st place, how do we differentiate good and bad? How do we determine the "ought tos" and the "should nots" in life? Why is there even a conscience in us in the 1st place?
For me, Christianity cannot be defined without the person of Jesus, whom He said he was the way to God, and if you know him, you would know how God is like. As such, I dont think that upon careful study, the bible would make anyone a bigot or male chauvinist. Modern christianity likes to posit the faith as something based upon love, good feelings and subtle humanism, but i take the view that true christianity cannot do without a God who hates sin, and a God who loves. That said, i've read the bible since young, and i don't think i'm "damaged" in any sense. But really, i've seen people who have grown up with the bible and richer because of it, people who have grown up without it and lead great lives too, but i think this issue far transcends our personal experience of it.
Another reason why i asked this was that atheists often suggested that since there was evil in the world, then God cannot exist, because he is supposedly good.
But if good and evil are subjective, then the problem of evil doesnt exist in an atheistic universe. Since everything is relative, there is no God, then there is absolute moral standard and nothing is wrong. The torture of little children is also not wrong, it might be painful, but it is not wrong (or as you mentioned earlier, the eating of human beings is amoral). It is morally wrong in a theistic universe, and therefore, there is a problem of evil of perhaps the psychological or emotional sort, but philosophically, the answer to the problem of evil is you don't have an absolute standard of good by which to measure evil in an atheist's universe. You can only have that in a theistic universe. -
Mr Talk Cock and Sing Song Ivan, kindly note that you are purposefully twisting my words: I did not mention anything about keeping a balance between the law and personal moral values.Originally posted by IvanSong:uhh.. no, i didnt leave it out intentionally. i felt both of them were rather subjective and open to (mis)interpretation. As in the legal system changes from time to time, what was considered criminal before, has been legalized. You seem to be suggesting keeping a balance between both... So how do you keep up with the changes?
If someone were to murder my loved ones, but the murderer exploits the loopholes within the legal system to escape incarceration, would u still find the murderer a good or bad person?
If someone were to murder my loved ones with good cause, for example, my loved ones are Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein, I might even give him/her a medal. -
Sadly, the conversation with you has degenerated faster than i expected, such that you're resorting to name calling and mocking surnames.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Mr Talk Cock and Sing Song Ivan, kindly note that you are purposefully twisting my words: I did not mention anything about keeping a balance between the law and personal moral values.
If someone were to murder my loved ones with good cause, for example, my loved ones are Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein, I might even give him/her a medal.
I really wonder who's doing the twisting here... i said "seem to be suggesting" ... the last time i checked it means that i'm uncertain about your stand and inviting clarification. At which point did I say "you are suggesting", as in the way you have clearly alleged that i am "purposefully twisting" your words.
Civility's not quite your forte isn't it? Doesn't matter, i wont continue a conversation with someone who systematically avoids the question and corrupts attempts at making civil discussion.
You can hang around as a source of humour though.