Judge: Muslim "Cultural Differences" Valid Excuse For Rape

[djAdvocate]

Apr 10, 2013 21:40:09 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Apr 10, 2013 19:48:37 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

This guy has a sentence of 14 years, with a minimum of 11 years.  He won't be eligible for parole for 7 years and will be deported back to his home country when his sentence has been served.  All he's won is a right to appeal and it looks like the appeal has been denied.  That's all.  Another non-event nothing.   Link:

The Christian Post

A judge granted the appeal.  The appeal should have been denied.  A real no brainer.

And dj- what the heck does "anti-muslim sentiment" have to do with anything? 

i was talking about reporting bias.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 10, 2013 21:53:58 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Apr 10, 2013 20:21:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not really known for their love of Islam. 

Good... the more, the merrier... 

i am all for religious skepticism, bro.  religious hatred?  that is another matter.

[Spellbound454]

Australia is a pretty sophisticated country......I wouldn't think they would allow that for a second.

We have had a bit of a problem here with Muslim men thinking they can abuse white girls because they are perceived to have loose morals.

They are being caught and punished.

If anyone thought they could apply local immigrant principals here....they are very wrong.

[TonyTiger]

Apr 11, 2013 1:10:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 10, 2013 21:53:58 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Good... the more, the merrier... 

i am all for religious skepticism, bro.  religious hatred?  that is another matter.

I agree. The institutionalized hatred, bias and discrimination embedded within Islam, directed against those who do not subscribe to their belief-system (and related global political perspective), is, indeed, difficult to countenance. The more folks who understand this and deal with that belief-system with their eyes wide-open rather than pretending to love it in equal measure alongside other belief systems, the merrier... 

[workpublic]

[djAdvocate]

Apr 11, 2013 6:52:13 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Apr 11, 2013 1:10:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i am all for religious skepticism, bro.  religious hatred?  that is another matter.

I agree. The institutionalized hatred, bias and discrimination embedded within Islam, directed against those who do not subscribe to their belief-system (and related global political perspective), is, indeed, difficult to countenance. The more folks who understand this and deal with that belief-system with their eyes wide-open rather than pretending to love it in equal measure alongside other belief systems, the merrier... 

so long as you are against the institutionalized condescension, bigotry and hatred in ALL religions, we will get along fine.

[mmhmm]

I'm with dj.  If we're going to point the accusing finger in just one direction, we're mired in hypocrisy.

[swamp]

OK, so I finally read the link.

I'm not seeing the big deal.   The judge ruled the defendant could not present his defense regarding his mental status and an appeals court said the trial judge erred.   The appeals court was right.  You have a right to present your mindset when your mental state is an element of the crime. 

Then, once the defendant has presented his pile of crap of a defense, the jury has a right to reject the defendant's defense.

[mmhmm]

I didn't see a problem, either, swamp.  It looked to me like it went down exactly as it should have gone down.

[TonyTiger]

Apr 11, 2013 13:24:44 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I'm with dj.  If we're going to point the accusing finger in just one direction, we're mired in hypocrisy.

I'm good with that.

Find me a collection of passages, equal in size to those readily accessible within Islam, in which the Founder of Christianity or the Founder of Buddhism, for example, is quoted as saying that it's OK to kill in the name of the Deity, or to advance the Cause of The Faith - I'd really be curious to see such a collection.

(oh, and, BTW... in the case of Christianity, DO remember that - although that belief-system inherited the OLD Testament, just as did its parent (Judaism) and its parallel development (Islam) - the Teachings and Words of that Founder cannot be found in the Old... only in the New Testament)

I'm not talking about how various Teachings and Words of the Old Testament were disingenuously interpreted by the fallible men who followed those Founders in space and time... I'm talking about the BASELINE... the Teachings and Words themselves.

I don't think you're going to have a lot of success finding - within the Teachings and Words of either Christianity or Buddhism - analogies to the explicit exhortations to and permissions for Violence and War, and the attendant formalized and institutionalized hatreds and bigotry and intolerance and bias and discrimination that one finds, in the Teachings and Words of Islam. That latter belief-system requires far less imagination, in order to interpret them as encouraging and permitting War and bias and discrimination (the practice of Dhimmitude, for example).

An "Inconvenient Truth" that those who desire to be Tolerant above all other things are apt to neglect in their calculations.

It is these differences in Teachings and Words which set Islam apart as a POLITICAL system as well as a belief-system; one which has been darkening the skies for decades, since they (most of the Islamic countries on the map today) got out from under the heel of European and Turkish colonialism.

Indoctrinating one's followers to Love Thy Neighbor and Turn the Other Cheek isn't quite as war-enabling and politically-appealing as having a Die-for-the-Cause-and-Go-Straight-to-Paradise playing card... 

It's OK to outline perceived differences, as these might impact upon immediate politics or in comparing cultures and societies based upon such belief-systems, so long as one doesn't go overboard, and begin touting one or the other as more right than or superior to some other.

It's entirely fair to criticize other belief-systems like Christianity or Buddhism in a political context, but, given that Turn-the-Other-Cheek bit...it's rather like comparing a parking ticket to being charged with assault and battery.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 11, 2013 14:17:28 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Apr 11, 2013 13:24:44 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I'm with dj.  If we're going to point the accusing finger in just one direction, we're mired in hypocrisy.

I'm good with that.

It's entirely fair to criticize other belief-systems like Christianity or Buddhism in a political context, but, given that Turn-the-Other-Cheek bit...it's rather like comparing a parking ticket to being charged with assault and battery.

it has nothing to do with what the prophets say, Tony.  it is all in how the FOLLOWERS of those prophets apply it.  you can get Mother Theresa, or you can get the Spanish Inquisition.  you can get Ghandi, or you can get the Tamil Tigers.  just because a handful of people make the worst of a religion doesn't make the religion itself the enemy of peace.  there is plenty of nasty crap in every religious text i have ever read.  if i chose to focus on the nasty crap, it would make me a nasty, crappy fellow. 

but since we are on the subject, what do you think of this?  correct, or rubbish:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_in_Islamic_philosophy

[djAdvocate]

incidentally, i think that several of your points are factually wrong.  but i will let others here handle that.  i know where it leads, and i want to finish the day liking you as much as i do right now. 

[EVT1]

Apr 10, 2013 19:48:37 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

This guy has a sentence of 14 years, with a minimum of 11 years.  He won't be eligible for parole for 7 years and will be deported back to his home country when his sentence has been served.  All he's won is a right to appeal and it looks like the appeal has been denied.  That's all.  Another non-event nothing.   Link:

The Christian Post

Knew it would be bullshit judging by the title.  Apparently frontpage is about as respectable as an angry blog. 

[TonyTiger]

Apr 11, 2013 14:30:49 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 11, 2013 14:17:28 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

I'm good with that.

It's entirely fair to criticize other belief-systems like Christianity or Buddhism in a political context, but, given that Turn-the-Other-Cheek bit...it's rather like comparing a parking ticket to being charged with assault and battery.

it has nothing to do with what the prophets say, Tony.  it is all in how the FOLLOWERS of those prophets apply it...

----------

Yes and No.

How the followers of System A or B interpret and apply their dogma does, indeed, factor into the equation... hugely.

However, the nature of the Baseline being applied sets the tone and parameters for interpretation across time and space; the more destructive the Founder's Baseline, the more chance of repetitive mischief.

Consider it a primary factor in the 'recidivism' equation...  ...a moral and peacekeeping weakness in System B, which is unknown to System A or C et al.

Practitioners of System B can indulge in various forms of warfare and violence and write it off as sanctioned by their Deity and their Founder.

Practitioners of System A or C can indulge in just as much warfare or violence - heck, even more - but they do so OUTSIDE the parameters laid down by their Deity and their Founder.

And, because the A and C folk have 'transgressed' in doing so, they are (collectively) prone to popular movements to bring their Practice back into line with their Officially Sanctioned Parameters. 

This is a realignment and re-centering and reforming mechanism built into Systems A and C which are largely and sadly lacking in System B.

Broadly speaking, this is both logical, and a truism.

Recognizing those systematic differences and both the short- and long-term effects of those differences - in a political and warfare and violence context - are an important part of present-day political life in our global village.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 11, 2013 15:48:42 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Apr 11, 2013 14:30:49 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it has nothing to do with what the prophets say, Tony.  it is all in how the FOLLOWERS of those prophets apply it...

----------

Yes and No.

How the followers of System A or B interpret and apply their dogma does, indeed, factor into the equation... hugely.

However, the nature of the Baseline being applied sets the tone and parameters for interpretation across time and space; the more destructive the Founder's Baseline, the more chance of repetitive mischief..

i think people are pretty much the same, everywhere.  but let me just cut to the quick:

do you know any Muslims, Tony?

edit: if you prefer, just respond to this: correct, or rubbish:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_in_Islamic_philosophy

[Tennesseer]

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 10, 2013 22:14:40 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Oh, give it up, paul!  The judge granted the appeal and the appeal was denied!  All your hyperbole about the doom that's a'comin' is just that:  hyperbole.  Nothing more.  Just gobbledygook that you didn't even bother to research before dragging it in here like a puppy with a bedroom slipper stolen from under the damned bed!  There is no way on earth anybody can come up with "a valid excuse for rape" from a case that was tried, the perp was convicted and sentenced, the conviction was appealed, and the appeal was denied.  Your thread title and the OP are full of ... excrement, and you well know it.  Sadly, so does anybody with any modicum of sense, or any appreciation for honesty.

On what grounds was the appeal granted?  Is this the mentality / thought process that led to the decision not cause for concern?  I frankly think it is grounds to impeach / remove the judge from the bench however Aussies do such things.

[mmhmm]

Apr 12, 2013 1:15:34 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Apr 10, 2013 22:14:40 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Oh, give it up, paul!  The judge granted the appeal and the appeal was denied!  All your hyperbole about the doom that's a'comin' is just that:  hyperbole.  Nothing more.  Just gobbledygook that you didn't even bother to research before dragging it in here like a puppy with a bedroom slipper stolen from under the damned bed!  There is no way on earth anybody can come up with "a valid excuse for rape" from a case that was tried, the perp was convicted and sentenced, the conviction was appealed, and the appeal was denied.  Your thread title and the OP are full of ... excrement, and you well know it.  Sadly, so does anybody with any modicum of sense, or any appreciation for honesty.

On what grounds was the appeal granted?  Is this the mentality / thought process that led to the decision not cause for concern?  I frankly think it is grounds to impeach / remove the judge from the bench however Aussies do such things.

Read back, paul.  Swamp was kind enough to bring her expertise into play to explain it to you.  The judge did exactly what he should have done.  Fortunately, you're not the judge.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 12, 2013 1:19:40 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Apr 12, 2013 1:15:34 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

On what grounds was the appeal granted?  Is this the mentality / thought process that led to the decision not cause for concern?  I frankly think it is grounds to impeach / remove the judge from the bench however Aussies do such things.

Read back, paul.  Swamp was kind enough to bring her expertise into play to explain it to you.  The judge did exactly what he should have done.  Fortunately, you're not the judge.

mmhmm- Tony seems to be avoiding my link.  would you mind perusing it?  tyia.

[mmhmm]

I did read the link, Tony, and it coincides with what I learned of Islam.  If you read the Qu'ran, it's written in parables.  Like the Christian Bible, it contains inconsistencies.  Also, like the Bible, it contains inconsistencies, and various interpretations are found in the different sects, and amongst individuals.  The overall message is, to me, one of peace, as is the overall message of the Bible.  However, also like the Bible, it is used to excuse some pretty nasty behavior, at times.

The link you provided is short and simple and explains only that one aspect of the Qu'ran that is so often a sticking point ... that it is, indeed, a message of peace, caring, and love for mankind.  Those who follow it meticulously are not those who fly airplanes into buildings, any more than those who follow the Bible meticulously are those who blow up buildings.  Both the Bible and the Qu'ran are open to interpretation and both are often sullied by those who would use them to do their own dirty deeds.  There message is good.  Sometimes, the receiver is broken.

Some of the most gentle, loving, open people I've ever known are Muslims, just as some are Christians, Atheists, Jews, Buddhists, or Hindus.  It's how the message is applied that matters, and that comes down to individuals.  If one is going to be a jackarse, one will find some excuse why it's okay to be a jackarse.  We see that in people of all stripes.  The mode of worship doesn't make the jackarse.

[TonyTiger]

Apr 12, 2013 9:01:03 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

"I did read the link, Tony, and it coincides with what I learned of Islam..."

----------

Yes. I will be the very first to concede that there are, indeed, peaceful aspects and sentiments to be found within Islam, albeit mostly on their terms - my way or the highway.

I have never held that there are NOT peaceful aspects and sentiments and practices and believer-folk amongst them, nor even that they are in the majority.

I have merely held that the war- and violence-enabling aspects of that Founder's Teachings are far more susceptible to interpretation and manipulation for blood-letting than the Teaching of that Founder's counterparts.

====================

"...If you read the Qu'ran..."

----------

Yes. I went to my local Barnes & Noble outlet on September 12, 2001, and bought a reliable English-translated copy, and spent several weeks reading it cover to cover, and contemplating its content.

====================

"...it's written in parables..."

----------

Not to mention the haphazard chronological sequencing (or lack thereof) and the incessant mind-numbing repetitiveness (for the purpose of various passages being memorized by illiterate Bedouins, et al, no doubt) and the constant disconnected 'praise' and 'attribute-recital' chorus-lyrics at the end of most substantive blocs.

====================

"...Like the Christian Bible, it contains inconsistencies.  Also, like the Bible, it contains inconsistencies, and various interpretations are found in the different sects, and amongst individuals.  The overall message is, to me, one of peace, as is the overall message of the Bible.  However, also like the Bible, it is used to excuse some pretty nasty behavior, at times..."

----------

We are on the same page, or very close to it, as a conceptual position.

Where we differ is that I see that belief-system's Charter Documents and Charter Teachings as far more bloodthirsty and enabling of warfare and violence under a variety of predefined circumstances, and, it seems, you and various others either (a) do not see that same thing or (b) attempt to sweep such differences aside as unimportant while others think that those differences are critical to a realistic assessment.

====================

"...Some of the most gentle, loving, open people I've ever known are Muslims, just as some are Christians, Atheists, Jews, Buddhists, or Hindus.  It's how the message is applied that matters, and that comes down to individuals. If one is going to be a jackarse, one will find some excuse why it's okay to be a jackarse. We see that in people of all stripes. The mode of worship doesn't make the jackarse."

----------

That sounds really good, M, but you're still omitting one fact: Religion B says that it's actually OK to be a jackarse under various predefined circumstances, while Religion A speaks out against jackarse-ism under all circumstances. Guess which one is more prone or susceptible to actually triggering jackarse-ism? Hmmmmm... mebbe the one that actually permits and encourages it under various circumstances? Big surprise.

Good, loving, upstanding people who wish to extend Tolerance to all, at nearly any price, have a blind spot against such things, and will argue against its existence or impact until they're blue in the face, even though the evidence has been staring them in the face for 1400 years.

====================

"...The mode of worship doesn't make the jackarse"

----------

I totally agree. The foundation (charter teachings of its founder) upon which that mode is based, however, do, indeed, strongly influence jackarse-ism, and its frequency, intensity, popularity and recidivism.

[mmhmm]

Which translation did you read, Tony?  As to one religion "condoning jackarseism" and another denouncing it, as I said ... it depends on the interpretation given it by the reader.  A jackarse will find a biblical reason for being a jackarse if that's what he wants to do.

[TonyTiger]

Apr 12, 2013 14:59:36 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Which translation did you read, Tony?

----------

Honestly, M, I don';t remember any more. The book is sitting in the bottom of Box A or B on a shelf in my garage and hasn't seen the light of day for at least four years since we moved into our present house, if not longer. I can tell you that I spent an hour or more doing online research about the Islamic scholarship credentials and reputation and acceptance of several translation-authors before I settled on one to purchase. If memory serves (and I'm not sure that it does), it was a mainstream Sunni translation from a scholar rooted in one of the older schools in Damascus - but it's been 10-11 years since I've looked.

====================

"...As to one religion "condoning jackarseism" and another denouncing it, as I said ... it depends on the interpretation given it by the reader. A jackarse will find a biblical reason for being a jackarse if that's what he wants to do."

----------

The only real difference between us on this point is that I see the explicit Condoning or Denouncement as operative and keenly important to ease-of-triggering, recidivism, etc., while you do not, and I'm fairly certain that both of us are sufficiently confident of the rightness of our position so as to preclude a meaningful middle ground on this one, and, I'm guessing, we're both OK with that as well. 

[mmhmm]

I read Khan's 1975 translation, and read it with mentors (an Arab and an Englishman).  I found, in reading it, the mentorship was very helpful to me in understanding how different schools of thought gave meaning to the parables.  There were considerable differences, and those tend to show up in translations.

I don't think we're far apart, Tony.  I simply come at the study from a different perspective since I lived among these folks for many years.