Can no one stop this???

[MMI]

How I wish we could.

However, we are dealing here with a paranoid nation stuck in mediaeval times with a bigoted judiciary and an unjust judicial system (I won't say corrupt ... oh, I just did), which seems to penalise victims rather than perpetrators. I'm not sure what we can do to help: I think if we try to intervene, they will tell us not to interfere with their internal affairs.

[Thorne]

How I wish we could.

However, we are dealing here with a paranoid nation stuck in mediaeval times with a bigoted judiciary and an unjust judicial system (I won't say corrupt ... oh, I just did), which seems to penalise victims rather than perpetrators. I'm not sure what we can do to help: I think if we try to intervene, they will tell us not to interfere with their internal affairs.

Actually, the system penalizes female victims rather than male perpetrators. In virtually any crime involving men and women, the women are automatically presumed guilty of something.

But let's face it: any religion/government which requires women to be covered from head to toe because a man might lose control if he sees some skin is just sick to start with. If the men have so little self-control, why not force them to wear steel chastity harnesses. Then it won't matter if they can't keep themselves under control.

Or here's a radical concept: PUNISH the men who lose control, until all of the men understand that they'd damned well better learn some self control!

Bah! All of these misogynists ought to be required to spend a year being treated just as they treat women. Let them see how it feels.

[DuncanONeil]

Problem may be the Muslim understanding of rape as it plays out in conjunction with Islamic restrictions of the validity of a woman's testimony in court. In court a woman's testimony is worth half a much as that of a man. (Qur'an 2:282) This has further been restricted to cases involving, in the words of one Muslim legal manual, property, or transactions dealing with property, such as sales. In cases of sexual misbehavior four male witnesses are required, and they must have seen the act take place. (Qur'an 24:13) It is believed that 75% of women in prison in Pakistan are in fact there for the crime of being a victim of rape.

Actually, the system penalizes female victims rather than male perpetrators. In virtually any crime involving men and women, the women are automatically presumed guilty of something.

But let's face it: any religion/government which requires women to be covered from head to toe because a man might lose control if he sees some skin is just sick to start with. If the men have so little self-control, why not force them to wear steel chastity harnesses. Then it won't matter if they can't keep themselves under control.

Or here's a radical concept: PUNISH the men who lose control, until all of the men understand that they'd damned well better learn some self control!

Bah! All of these misogynists ought to be required to spend a year being treated just as they treat women. Let them see how it feels.

[Thorne]

Problem may be the Muslim understanding of rape as it plays out in conjunction with Islamic restrictions of the validity of a woman's testimony in court. In court a woman's testimony is worth half a much as that of a man. (Qur'an 2:282) This has further been restricted to cases involving, in the words of one Muslim legal manual, property, or transactions dealing with property, such as sales. In cases of sexual misbehavior four male witnesses are required, and they must have seen the act take place. (Qur'an 24:13) It is believed that 75% of women in prison in Pakistan are in fact there for the crime of being a victim of rape.

And this is what happens when you let religion control civil law. Basing modern legal systems on 1400 year old (or 2000 year old, or 6000 year old) religious fantasies can only bring problems.

And this is the kind of thing the right wing religious nuts (c.f., Sarah Palin) want to bring to the US. Of course, they call it 'Christianity'.

[DuncanONeil]

Except that Christianity does not require the laws listed in the Bible be installed as the laws of the nation. In fact Christians require no law be that of the Bible, though there is the belief that the values and morals expressed by Christ should be closely held by the authors and arbiters of the laws that are created and ajudicated. That is not to say the laws should institute morality but that they should be protective. The most basic of laws, against theft and murder are rooted in morals and values. Morals and values transcend religion.

And this is what happens when you let religion control civil law. Basing modern legal systems on 1400 year old (or 2000 year old, or 6000 year old) religious fantasies can only bring problems.

And this is the kind of thing the right wing religious nuts (c.f., Sarah Palin) want to bring to the US. Of course, they call it 'Christianity'.

[Thorne]

The most basic of laws, against theft and murder are rooted in morals and values. Morals and values transcend religion.

Which is a very good reason for keeping religion, ANY religion, out of the legal process.

In fact Christians require no law be that of the Bible

A good thing, since Biblical law is capricious and archaic and downright scary! Slavery is legal, so is killing your enemies, and forget about women's rights!

though there is the belief that the values and morals expressed by Christ should be closely held by the authors and arbiters of the laws that are created and ajudicated.

And what of the "values and morals" of Muhammad, or Buddha, or any of literally hundreds of other revered demi-gods? Why should Christ be selected as the primary arbiter of "values and morals"?

[DuncanONeil]

Which is a very good reason for keeping religion, ANY religion, out of the legal process.

In the US the fight is to try to remove any inkling of the existence of christianity. But christians seek not inclusion in civil law of anyu of the requirements of the religion.

A good thing, since Biblical law is capricious and archaic and downright scary! Slavery is legal, so is killing your enemies, and forget about women's rights!

In the Bible the nature of the system to follow changes drastically between the two major sections. In that called the New Testament the nature of God and the mandates to the people is to be kind and helpful to all.
The other major religion in question with regard to laws also has a book divided in two sections. But a major difference is that the vengeful nature of the book actual can be seen to increase rather than ameliorate. So the choice is a benevolent system that does not seek to intrude, or one that essentially DEMANDS that its religious law must apply to all and that law is less than benevolent.

And what of the "values and morals" of Muhammad, or Buddha, or any of literally hundreds of other revered demi-gods? Why should Christ be selected as the primary arbiter of "values and morals"?

As I have said before, there are very few differences among the major religions of the world in their basic tenents. The language I use tends to be the one most familiar to me.