That's the problem, isn't it Yukon Jack? One of these days they will invent a spell checker which will do both. That is a rather interesting spelling error, by the way (a Freudian slip, perhaps?).
Sharia Judge Says It Is OK for Husbands to Slap spendthrift Wives.
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
That's the problem, isn't it Yukon Jack? One of these days they will invent a spell checker which will do both. That is a rather interesting spelling error, by the way (a Freudian slip, perhaps?).
Wife beaters are wife beaters: scum. Wife beater enablers are just as bad, in my opinion. To be fair, I should be saying spouse beaters.
I agree, Niflmir. But it is also important to consider what is the official attitude towards wife beating. Christianity frowns upon it, most Churches say that it is wrong. Islam on the other hand, permits it, in many Islamic countries, it is legally and socially acceptable to beat one’s wife.
So wife beaters are wife beaters, but the official attitude makes a lot of difference.
It wasn't all that long ago the size of a paddle with which a British man could beat his wife was defined....
That is the enabling I mentioned. Official enabling at such a high level of social structure is disgusting and it is a small triumph to see that the women's rights movements have at least pushed it out into the open in Saudi Arabia. Of course, here in Canada, there are often friends or colleagues who enable spousal abuse and I believe that there are groups seeking ways to eliminate that.
Indeed. I just don't think that wife beating is something sanctioned by and encouraged by current North American Muslims.
Despite what some colonial-era Brit might say.
Quoting SirJosephPorter:
"That's the problem, isn't it Yukon Jack? One of these days they will invent a spell checker which will do both. That is a rather interesting spelling error, by the way (a Freudian slip, perhaps?)."
For those of us (mostly self-educated) shnooks who are not in your imaginery high plateau of intelligence and knowledge, the spell checker is an unnecessary nuisance. We think that the spell checker belongs to those who have minimal confidence in their own ability. No self-respecting person would, could or should hope for and rely on any device that might cover up his/her personal shortcomings. A self-respecting person would eliminate the necessity of a device such as a spell checker, by proof reading, with due diligence.
I have enough confidence to submit my posts without an electronic baby-sitter. And - if by chance I slip up - I am taking my lumps without bitching and complaining and blaming an inaminate entity for my own carelessness/stupidity. However rarely!
Your slip was definitely NOT Freudian, it was, as usual "FRAUDIAN".
"That's the problem, isn't it Yukon Jack? One of these days they will invent a spell checker which will do both. That is a rather interesting spelling error, by the way (a Freudian slip, perhaps?)."
For those of us (mostly self-educated) shnooks who are not in your imaginery high plateau of intelligence and knowledge, the spell checker is an unnecessary nuisance. We think that the spell checker belongs to those who have minimal confidence in their own ability. No self-respecting person would, could or should hope for and rely on any device that might cover up his/her personal shortcomings. A self-respecting person would eliminate the necessity of a device such as a spell checker, by proof reading, with due diligence.
I have enough confidence to submit my posts without an electronic baby-sitter. And - if by chance I slip up - I am taking my lumps without bitching and complaining and blaming an inaminate entity for my own carelessness/stupidity. However rarely!
Your slip was definitely NOT Freudian, it was, as usual "FRAUDIAN".
Just for curiousity:
DO atheists ever beat their wives?
Just on this thread alone, there have been thousands of words wasted on all religions, and male followers therof,on how they treat their womenfolks.
None have been mentioned about how the most immoral, cruel segment of society, the ATHEISTS treat their women.
Those who are first to jump to infanticide are most likely to jump to cruelty to women.
DO atheists ever beat their wives?
Just on this thread alone, there have been thousands of words wasted on all religions, and male followers therof,on how they treat their womenfolks.
None have been mentioned about how the most immoral, cruel segment of society, the ATHEISTS treat their women.
Those who are first to jump to infanticide are most likely to jump to cruelty to women.
This atheist never has, never will.
Someone did a study about people who kill kids and are cruel to women?
Someone did a study about people who kill kids and are cruel to women?
"Someone did a study about people who kill kids and are cruel to women?"
Maybe yes, maybe no, L Gilbert.
However, if one is insensitive and cruel enough to kill a seven month old fetus, he/she would be - logically - cruel enough to kill a baby that survived abortion. No???
Just ask the Messiah, Hussain Obama.
And if a live-born baby is nothing more than an inconvenience, what is to determine that a six-year-old with learning disabilities is worth granting life??
And if that is the case, why should a weak woman be more deserving of life - or decent treatment - than a strong man, who already determined that inconvenient babies are subject to culling, like that piece of human garbage, "DR" Mengelethaler did? Or, for that matter, SirJosephPorter?
I am fully confident that on morality reasons, alone, an athiest is FAR more likely to abuse his wife/kid than anyone with any religion.
Maybe yes, maybe no, L Gilbert.
However, if one is insensitive and cruel enough to kill a seven month old fetus, he/she would be - logically - cruel enough to kill a baby that survived abortion. No???
Just ask the Messiah, Hussain Obama.
And if a live-born baby is nothing more than an inconvenience, what is to determine that a six-year-old with learning disabilities is worth granting life??
And if that is the case, why should a weak woman be more deserving of life - or decent treatment - than a strong man, who already determined that inconvenient babies are subject to culling, like that piece of human garbage, "DR" Mengelethaler did? Or, for that matter, SirJosephPorter?
I am fully confident that on morality reasons, alone, an athiest is FAR more likely to abuse his wife/kid than anyone with any religion.
Carrying out one activity is no guarantee that a different activity is imminent. You may be right, but it is still opinion, not fact as far as I know.
McLaughlin: Christians’ acceptance of torture called sad, ironic
Saturday, May 9, 2009
By Nancy H. McLaughlin
Staff Writer
Just last year Frank Dew was among a group of people who asked the local General Assembly of Presbyterians to pass a resolution condemning the use of torture against suspected terrorists.
It included the lines,
“Whereas John Yoo, acting as a deputy at the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, argued that military interrogators could subject suspected terrorists to harsh treatment as long as it didn’t cause 'death, organ failure or permanent damage,” (see Newsweek, May 5, 2008, “Getting Away with Torture”)
But ended with a prayer,
“...we confess that in our efforts to secure ourselves as a nation, we have on occasion resorted to tactics which were cruel, inhumane, and degrading. O God, we pray for your forgiveness.”
They addressed the Salem Presbytery last October, just months before a survey in April among major Christian groups was being conducted on the same subject. Those survey results have horrified some people of faith.
The respected Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life conducted the survey. Asked whether torture can ever be justified, only 25 percent of those who attend a church service weekly said no. As in never.
Dew, the pastor of New Creation Presbyterian Church, was saddened by the results.
“The teachings of Jesus are clear that we are to love our enemies, so it’s particularly ironic to me when some folks claim to take the Bible literally … but justify torture,” Dew said. “It’s the tension between the nationalistic 'do whatever is necessary’ kind of approach and a putting of the teachings of Jesus first.”
Those who seldom or never attend services had virtually the same lev McLaughlin: Christians’ acceptance of torture called sad, ironic : News-Record.com : Greensboro & the Triad's most trusted source for local news and analysis
Really Yukon. Do you have any studies to back up what you say, or are you just blowing off steam against Atheists?
Sorry Yukon, now you are discussing abortion, which has nothing to do with wife beating. But you may be right in one thing, Atheists probably support abortion in greater proportion that do religious people.
But that has nothing to do with wife beating. If you want to discuss abortion, start a separate thread, but don’t confuse the issue here. One has nothing to do with the other.
I don’t have any statistics, I don’t know if anybody has carried out a survey among convicted wife beaters, but my guess is that an Atheist is less likely to beat his wife than a religious person.
I'd imagine atheists are no different than anyone else except they don't blame some religion or fictitious being for their actions.
"Really Yukon. Do you have any studies to back up what you say, or are you just blowing off steam against Atheists?"
OK, SirJosephPoretr, let us go digging and googling.
Care to bet that I will find just as many links to support my views as you could find supporting yours?
OK, SirJosephPoretr, let us go digging and googling.
Care to bet that I will find just as many links to support my views as you could find supporting yours?
Re #94.
Being cruel and heartless to a totally defenseless group of people will inevitably lead to the same insensitive cruel and heartless treatment of the next available defenseless group. Or the next after that. And the one after that.
When there is no higher moral authority, anything goes.
Personal convenience is paramount.
Being cruel and heartless to a totally defenseless group of people will inevitably lead to the same insensitive cruel and heartless treatment of the next available defenseless group. Or the next after that. And the one after that.
When there is no higher moral authority, anything goes.
Personal convenience is paramount.
Yup. I have no higher power, so anything goes as far as I am concerned. My choice is to go with enjoying my life and letting others do what they will with theirs. It's convenient for me that way. 
Anyway, as I said, if some atheist feels that slapping wife around is the thing to do, at least he doesn't have the scapegoat of gods, gremlins, or religion to pass the buck to.