The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Endemic patriachal inequality and injustice within our government and judicial system

Endemic patriachal inequality and injustice within our government and judicial system

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Pericles: "Not that you care a fig about proper usage of the English language, or the clear expression of ideas."

Quite so, Pericles. I wonder if it's a feature of the fundamentalist Christian mind? Not only are linguistic imprecision and malapropism features of their mode of argumentation, but I think it's also integral to their understanding of what they read.

For example, Philo made the outrageous (and probably defamatory) claim that "In NSW we have women Judges and they are extremely biased in favour of criminals and extremely condemnatory of the law and those who uphold the law."

When asked to provide evidence, Philo refers us to one case concerning a female magistrate, that in no way supports his contention. However, this doesn't prevent Boazy from sticking his oar in and obfuscating Philo's error with a supposedly "tribal" anecdote that is somehow relevant in Boazy's mind, but which has no logical connection that I can fathom.

Philo then attempts to back-pedal, saying "I never claimed all women Judges in NSW are biased in favour of criminals. But we do have women who are soft on criminals, especially the stated." So now we have Philo claiming he didn't mean what he actually wrote, and amending his egregious assertion so that it's somewhat less offensive - but stll unsupported by any actual evidence for what he is asserting.

I suppose it's unsurprising that these fundies present what passes for their arguments in tortured English, given that they are woefully credulous in what they accept as "evidence" for their religious beliefs, both linguistically and materially. Most of their theological evidence derives from interpretations of what somebody said or wrote a very long time ago, and which has been translated several times since.

If this is what they regard as infallible truth, then it's little wonder that their arguments invariably fail on all levels, including logic, evidence and the manner in which they are expressed.

One question for Boazy: can you name one matriarchy, past or present, that has actually existed? (Hint: matriarchy is not the same as matriliny).
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 1 October 2007 7:32:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ... I can relate one people group 'described' as matriarchal on the doco which I viewed. It was a group of Chinese where the males were traditionally off fighting..soldiering..and came back only occassionaly. This resulted in the women
a) In charge of..owning the property
b) Temporary/multiple husbands/boyfriends.

Patriarchal Inequality in Heaven/Paradise.

One thing about the Christian idea of heaven, is that there is 'no marriage' there. All are equal... male and female.

I find it fascinating how in Islam.. even the terminology of 'paradise' is understood in 'male' terms.

For example.. in Islam Q & A some scholar quotes a verse which is gender neutral
http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=10053&ln=eng

Verily, the dwellers of Paradise, that Day, will be busy in joyful things” [Yaa-Seen 36:55]

Note...the word "dwellers".....

He then goes on to interpet

they said, (it means) THEY will be busy deflowering virgins. Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said, according to a report narrated from him, that “busy in joyful things” means listening to stringed instruments. Abu Haatim said: he misheard the phrase iftidaad al-abkaar (deflowering virgins) and thought it was samaa’ al-awtaar (listening to stringed instruments). In fact the correct phrase is iftidaad al-abkaar (deflowering virgins). (Ibn Katheer, 3/564)

Now..note the world 'they' which is connected to 'dwellers' and it is given a specific gender.. "males"?

The next verse.. 33:36 says "They..(the blokes) and their wives.. will be in pleasant shade"

So..putting this together.. we have the blokes getting laid continuously -deflowering virgins.. while the wives.. (who are still wives) sit in the shade and look on.....

I don't think I'm wrongly understanding this.. but am open to well sourced correction.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 1 October 2007 11:13:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are so fond of doing this Boaz, I wonder how you ever have any time left over for normal life. Or even if you have time left over for normal life...

Where did you dig up this site?

The author - as I am sure you already know - is presented as a hard-line, Saudi-based Islamist, who writes books with titles like "Weakness of Faith", and is well known around the traps as having links to Hamas and Al-Qaida.

Would you think it appropriate if all commentary on Christianity were to refer to the works of, say, Pat Robertson and his acolytes? Here is one of them, Randall Terry, in full flight:

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."

Mind you, it is well within the bounds of possibility that this is, in fact, reflective of your own sentiments, Boaz.

In which case there is no surprise at all in the fact that you choose to quote from the works of people of a similar disposition, from amongst your enemies.

>>I don't think I'm wrongly understanding this.. but am open to well sourced correction<<

I suspect that when you choose to quote from a hard-line fanatic, Boaz, you will get exactly what you expect to find. There is as little point in "refuting" your interpretation as there is in "refuting" the words of your friend Mr Terry.

Incidentally, does it ever occur to you that if you were to take the item you quote from literally, they would quickly run out of virgins? So clearly, the underlying concept is about as literal as sitting on a cloud playing a harp. It is m-e-t-a-p-h-o-r, Boaz, nothing more and nothing less.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 1 October 2007 2:43:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan,
I could state many such cases of injustice attributed to such. But the said person has a history of taking defamation action. The quote was already in the public domain.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 1 October 2007 7:10:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we grant Philo the benefit of his back-pedal with respect to Ms O'Shane, perhaps it would be useful if he would provide some examples and evidence of other "women Judges.. (who) ..are extremely biased in favour of criminals and extremely condemnatory of the law and those who uphold the law".

Or will he hide behind defamation laws again to reinforce what appears to be nothing more than a gratuitous slur on women Judges in NSW, on the basis of one case for which Philo will not (or cannot) provide any evidence that actually supports his claim?

I can see why he'd be worried about defamation laws - this is just malicious gossip of the worst order. Shame on you, Philo.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 1 October 2007 7:40:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles.. that was a most interesting post.

You see.. here is where you went astray.

1/ The author of that interpretation.. no matter who he is.. was actually quoting Ibn Qathr.. a very notable Muslim scholar who was way before any of the questionable organizations you mentioned :)

2/ I noticed he was Saudi..yes.. I did not sus him out to the extent you did.. but in this case it isn't relevant. The opinions..were not his .. get it ?

3/ His opinions.. backed up by.. highly esteemed scholars.. have nothing to do with terror.. they have to do with paradise. Though..I suppose if you stretch it a bit we could apply it in this way "Suicide bombers who are yearning for sex in the shade with virgins while their wives happily watch... will be more prone to blow themselves up"
Yep..that thought did occur to me. But that wasn't why I posted it...
It just blows my mind.. that such a view of paradise could be.... and that people are sucked in by it... I've been dialogging with some Muslims in other venues..and the issue of paradise is one issue which cropped up.

Don't you find it rather 'patriarchal and unequal' how the idea of paradise is explained ? and don't you think this could explain some attitudes which are 'endemic' in society ?

PS.. I'm quite happy for you to post 'whacko' "Christian" opinion.. its a free country. People can always read the Bible and get the real story.

Remember how I'm always saying "Do for others as you would have them do for you"..... well.. I certainly don't expect a free ride in all this.
blessings...
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 1 October 2007 8:34:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy