Islam in the United States, with Mormons

[_Gadianton]

No, in fact, we could eliminate this message board entirely and my comments would stand as is. In fact, a great deal of the tension between you and others on this tiny little board, is merely a small part of the aftermath of bridge demolition with crtics from times past and places yonder.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I did? What cat?

The cat of death! Millions are now going to die because you released the cat of death. Look at what you have done! You've wrecked the church. You've spoiled the whole thing. The three fold mission of the church is ruined because of you. It's all on your head. Surely it's prophesied in the D&C somewhere.

Let us weep. We are going down to the terrestrial world.



Paul O

No, this is the cat of death:



His name is Tarzan. Backwards, that's Nazrat. Nazzers. Should he be released by the cute blonde girl, God help us. He will kill us all. Twice.

KA

[_Daniel Peterson]

We've gone after Dan Vogel a great deal. I get along fine with him.

I can criticize spiritedly, and still remain friendly with the person I criticize. I've done it. Many times.

I recall, years ago, responding to a paper at the Mormon History Association that I really didn't like. I faulted its logic, its selection of evidence, its thesis. Just about everything.

On the basis of that, a certain individual marched off immediately after the session to the leadership of the MHA, demanding that I never be permitted to speak to the group again.

I heard about his demand later, when I returned from having a pleasant lunch with the person to whose paper I had responded.

There is no need to make this into total war, as Scratch has done with me (or to make it into a matter of endless, petty, personal nastiness, as the smaller fry here do).

[_Paul Osborne]

smaller fry

Can I be a small fry? Please? Pretty please??



Paul O

[_Daniel Peterson]

Can I be a small fry? Please? Pretty please??

Perhaps in time you can, if you work really hard at it.

[_EAllusion]

No, that would be me in my tank top.

I'm sure you're quite cute in your tank top, baby!



But Islamic women let men control them like they are a baggage or, second class citizens. They still live in the dark ages. Islam is a religion of Dark Age and Satan delights in it.

Paul O

We're only a generation removed from a time when cohabitation was widely accepted as a valid defense against a rape charge. Given how ridiculously recent and not entirely complete the gains in equality for women in the Western world are compared against the backdrop of 2000 years of Christian thought, this seems extremely shortsighted even if it wasn't too generalized. And there are still large pockets of Christian populations that treat women as second class beings to one degree or another regardless of those feminist gains.

But since what spurred this was a reference to a girl wearing a tank top, this is an especially hypocritical post for a Mormon to make. The LDS Church leaders and its culture has placed significant emphasis on feminine modesty with modesty being narrowly defined as dressing in ways that are not sexually provocative to males within the norms of conservative LDS culture. It's in effect a pressured spiritual dress code. It's as if you are taunting someone to point it out. The main difference with the Islamic subcultures you are chastising are just in what their dress norms are, which is a relatively arbitrary line. The defenses of these cultural practices, especially towards women, generally offered by both groups are virtually identical.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Yes, it may well be that innocent lives are in Shades's hands. Radical Muslims are rapaciously murderous in light of the slightest alleged provocation.

Why fan the flames?

Sir,

This is a disappointing character flaw a free man should not possess.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Morrissey]

We're only a generation removed from a time when cohabitation was widely accepted as a valid defense against a rape charge. Given how ridiculously recent and not entirely complete the gains in equality for women in the Western world are compared against the backdrop of 2000 years of Christian thought, this seems extremely shortsighted even if it wasn't too generalized.

This is a very good point I had not considered. In a long historical sweep of time, this is true, and one should keep it in mind.

Having said that, I do not see that it in any way requires that we not speak out and rightly condemn the widespread practice in Islam to objectify and dehumanize women. Good people everywhere should, I think, stand up against using religion as a pretext to oppress. I am not one who thinks that because a particular belief is 'faith based' that it merits some kind of free pass or that is possesses some kind of privileged status. We have every right, and indeed I think a moral obligation, to oppose oppression wherever and however it manifests itself. I care not a whiff that the oppression is presumably an expression of God's will.

And there are still large pockets of Christian populations that treat women as second class beings to one degree or another regardless of those feminist gains.

Mormonism being a notable example.

But since what spurred this was a reference to a girl wearing a tank top, this is an especially hypocritical post for a Mormon to make. The LDS Church leaders and its culture has placed significant emphasis on feminine modesty with modesty being narrowly defined as dressing in ways that are not sexually provocative to males within the norms of conservative LDS culture. It's in effect a pressured spiritual dress code. It's as if you are taunting someone to point it out. The main difference with the Islamic subcultures you are chastising are just in what their dress norms are, which is a relatively arbitrary line. The defenses of these cultural practices, especially towards women, generally offered by both groups are virtually identical.

To me this does not imply that, therefore, we should go easy on Islam, rather it implies that we should condemn the LDS Church and all other religions that claim some kind of religion pretext for denying rights/opportunities and in more extreme cases, human dignity, to women.

I am NOT an Islam basher. I recognize that the world is full of billions of devout Muslims who are by most standards salt of the earth people. I am, however, a basher of iron age prejudices and religious-based oppression.

[_Morrissey]

Yes, it may well be that innocent lives are in Shades's hands. Radical Muslims are rapaciously murderous in light of the slightest alleged provocation.

Why fan the flames?

Sir,

This is a disappointing character flaw a free man should not possess.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Why fan the flames?

Because we live in a free society and will not (should not) allow those who despise freedom to dictate the extent to which we practice it. That's why.

I am not recommending that, as a society, we undertake wildly imprudent actions nor make overtly inflammatory statements within a diplomatic/political setting. Nor should we go out of our way to offend within our own interactions with others. Prudence, respect, sensitivity, etc. are usually always desirable virtues to follow.

But I'll be damned if I allow fear of irrational religious fanaticism to dictate what I think, say, or do within the context of free society and the free exchange of ideas.

[_Some Schmo]

You're mistaken, Gadianton, to imagine that this little pond here, and its strange goings-on -- as exemplified by Joey, Some Schmo, Polygamy Porter, Mercury, Scratch, solomarineris, and the like -- exhausts the world of "critics" or my interactions with critics.

I get along just fine with Margaret Toscano and Dan Vogel and Richard Abanes and Dennis Wright and many other critics of Mormonism and the Church. Of course, they're civil, decent people. That makes a big difference.

Are you saying I'm not civil? How would you know? You've never met me.