posted October 26, 2006 03:18 PM            

THE nation's most senior Muslim cleric has blamed immodestly dressed women who don't wear Islamic headdress for being preyed on by men and likened them to abandoned "meat" that attracts voracious animals.

In a Ramadan sermon that has outraged Muslim women leaders, Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali also alluded to the infamous Sydney gang rapes, suggesting the attackers were not entirely to blame.

While not specifically referring to the rapes, brutal attacks on four women for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and immodest dress ... "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years".

"But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he asked.

The leader of the 2000 rapes in Sydney's southwest, Bilal Skaf, a Muslim, was initially sentenced to 55 years' jail, but later had the sentence reduced on appeal.

In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

"The uncovered meat is the problem."

The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

He said women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men.

"It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."

Muslim community leaders were yesterday outraged and offended by Sheik Hilali's remarks, insisting the cleric was no longer worthy of his title as Australia's mufti.

Young Muslim adviser Iktimal Hage-Ali - who does not wear a hijab - said the Islamic headdress was not a "tool" worn to prevent rape and sexual harassment. "It's a symbol that readily identifies you as being Muslim, but just because you don't wear the headscarf doesn't mean that you're considered fresh meat for sale," the former member of John Howard's Muslim advisory board told The Australian. "The onus should not be on the female to not attract attention, it should be on males to learn how to control themselves."

Australia's most prominent female Muslim leader, Aziza Abdel-Halim, said the hijab did not "detract or add to a person's moral standards", while Islamic Council of Victoria spokesman Waleed Ali said it was "ignorant and naive" for anyone to believe that a hijab could stop sexual assault.

"Anyone who is foolish enough to believe that there is a relationship between rape or unwelcome sexual interference and the failure to wear a hijab, clearly has no understanding of the nature of sexual crime," he said.

Ms Hage-Ali said she was "disgusted and offended" by Shiek Hilali's comments. "I find it very offensive that a man who considers himself as a mufti, a leader of Australia's Muslims, can give comment that lacks intelligence and common sense."

Yesterday, the mufti defended the sermon about "adultery and theft", a recorded copy of which has been obtained and translated by The Australian.

Sheik Hilali said he only meant to refer to prostitutes as "meat" and not any scantily dressed woman with no hijab, despite him not mentioning the word prostitute during the 17-minute talk.

He told The Australian the message he intended to convey was: "If a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame ... but a man should be able to control himself". He said if a woman is "covered and respectful" she "demands respect from a man". "But when she is cheap, she throws herself at the man and cheapens herself."

Sheik Hilali also insisted his references to the Sydney gang rapes were to illustrate that Skaf was guilty and worthy of receiving such a harsh sentence.

Waleed Ali said Sheik Hilali was "normalising immoral sexual behaviour" by comparing women to meat and men to animals and entirely blaming women for being victims.

"It's basically saying that the immoral response of men to women who are not fully covered is as natural and as inevitable as the response of an animal tempted by food," he said.

"But (unlike animals) men are people who have moral responsibilities and the capability in engaging in moral action."

Revelation of the mufti's comments comes after he criticised Mr Howard last month in The Australian for saying a minority of migrant men mistreated their women. Sheik Hilali said such a minority was found in all faiths. "Those who don't respect their women are not true Muslims."

"There's a small percentage found among all religions, but we don't recognise ours as Muslims."

Aziza Abdel-Halim said Sheik Hilali's remarks during Ramadan were inaccurate and upsetting to the Muslim community.

posted October 26, 2006 05:51 PM              

Hes a disgusting abomination on the name of Islam, and the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) would be ashamed that this man is a Muslim.

Also, as the article states, the Muslims organizations are disgusted with his comments and they represent an affront to the religion and the followers of the religion. Its offensive to non Muslims as well. Delusional people like Hilaly come up with this stuff out of their @$$, not from any religion. They have preconceived notions of chauvinism that then try to superimpose on Islam and call it part of the religion.

posted October 26, 2006 06:01 PM            

An immigrant from Africa has gone on trial on charges alleging he circumcised his 2-year-old daughter with a pair of scissors to avoid bringing shame on his family.

It appears to be a groundbreaking prosecution for a case of female genital mutilation in the U.S., said Taina Bien-Aime, executive director of Equality Now, a New York-based human rights group that focuses on violence and discrimination against women and girls around the world.

Khalid Adem could face 40 years in prison if convicted in Gwinnett County on the charges of aggravated battery and cruelty to children.

Prosecutor Marty First acknowledged that Adem, who was born in Ethiopia, is from a culture that practices female circumcision.

"But circumcision is just a nice way of saying mutilation," First told the jury in his opening statement Tuesday. "There is no doubt that she was mutilated. And this is not something you go to a doctor and do because no doctor will do it. He did this to his own baby."

The practice, a tradition in some African cultures, is widely condemned by human rights groups and has been outlawed in the United States since 1997.

Police have said that Adem used scissors to circumcise his daughter in their Duluth apartment in 2001. The child's mother said she didn't discover it until more than a year later.

"He did not do that. He never wanted it to happen," defense attorney W. Mark Hill told the jury. "He will tell you that. And that only leaves two people. The people who were primarily taking care of the child. The mother and the grandmother."

First said the girl told Gwinnett County authorities that her father cut her. The prosecutor quoted Adem as saying in late 2002 and early 2003 that if the girl were not circumcised, "it will be a shame to the family."

"He said he wanted (the girl) to have it done so that she will not be promiscuous," First added. He also said Adem implied he had already circumcised the girl.

Hill denied Adem ever made any of those statements and asked how the victim's mother could not have known for more than a year that the girl was circumcised.

posted October 27, 2006 01:56 PM            

Not only that but this story makes it clear that Muslim immigrants want to establish their own conclaves with their own laws in western nations.

My only response to that is assimilate or get out.

Sheik won't go 'while White House stands'
October 27, 2006 01:58pm

AUSTRALIA'S leading Muslim cleric, Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilaly, says he will only resign when the world is "clean of the White House".

After emerging from Friday prayers at Lakemba Mosque today, Sheik Hilaly was asked by a media pack whether he would quit over a speech in which he said scantily-dressed women invited rape.

"After we clean the world of the White House first," the sheik said.

Supporters of the sheik cheered and applauded loudly at the comments, which were directed firmly at US President George W Bush.

The sheik has previously described Mr Bush, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and Prime Minister John Howard as the axis of evil.

Despite calls from within the Islamic community for his resignation, Sheik Hilaly has been assured he has the support of grass-roots Muslims, a supporter said.

Other Muslim figures have called for him to stand down over a sermon last month in which he likened immodestly dressed women to uncovered meat.

Several thousand Muslims attended prayers at Lakemba Mosque today where British Imam Abdul Jalil Sajid gave the sermon in English in place of Sheik Hilaly.

Supporter and president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, Keysar Trad, says the sheik will not resign but is taking a break which will include a pilgrimage to Mecca.

"Reaction from the grass roots is that we appreciate all the hard work the mufti has put in for the community," Mr Trad said outside Lakemba Mosque, where more than 2,000 Muslims gathered for Friday prayers today.

"We're certainly not going to pass judgment on the basis of one comment in which we know his intentions were completely different.

"The grass roots are behind him."

But the Lebanese Muslim Association (LMA), which runs the Lakemba Mosque where the sheik preaches, says many of its members are embarrassed by his comments.

The LMA met last night and said it was satisfied with Sheik Hilaly's apology but is dismayed that he is not explaining himself publicly today.

"We wanted an explanation as to his thoughts on the matter," LMA President Tom Zrika said.

"The (LMA) board were satisfied with his apology last night, but some were priming for a retraction of his comments, but that's not going to happen.

"We've never, ever mentioned the word censure, we've never intended to terminate him or ban him in any way.

"There was an implied understanding following yesterday's discussion to take the necessary time off to recuperate and get back to health."

Mr Zrika said Sheik Hilaly is not speaking for all Muslims and the LMA hopes to meet with him again shortly to discuss his situation.

Mr Zrika fears the sheik's comments will cause a serious divisions within Muslims and a backlash from the wider Australian community.

He also asked Prime Minister John Howard and other politicians to stay out of the debate.

posted October 27, 2006 06:59 PM              

Besides, in Islam, there is literally very little importance placed on the religious scholars, imams, or even the majlis- as-shura (advisory and religious commentary councils). The Prophet Mohammad had said that a Muslim can go straight to heaven without ever setting foot in the mosque, or following any scholar. Because, as he said in his last sermon before his passing away, "I have completed your religion for you today"--there is no one after Mohammad who brought the true message of God (so Muslims believe).

Islam clearly outlines that the following are required to be a Muslim, and even an excellent Muslim that will go to heaven:
1. Say Shahada (I bear witness that there is no God but God and Mohammad is his messenger)
2. Accept the Quran as God's final word (and preferrably read it lol).
3. Obey the five pillars (shahada is already at 1., but also prayers, charity, fasting, and Hajj).

Quite literally thats IT.

There are several sects of Muslims that don't believe in anything after that--evne the Sunnah (Mohammads teachings or his way of life). But they are still accepted as Muslim.

All the four Golden caliphs after Mohammad were openly contradicted, attacked, or questioned, because there is just no 'head cleric' after Mohammad. The religion is based on self discipline, the imam leads the prayers, but sorry to say no one can give a 'fatwa' that is mandatory or obligatory to follow, after Mohammad, and hes been dead for 1400 years.

So as far as his 'importance', its nil in Islamic legal terms. And so far as his education, well wow thats also nil, surprise surprise. Now if he happens to be popular with other crazy people, then Im not surprised. Ive even heard some crazy white muslim converts go to exremism, out of ignorance, within a year or so after conversion. Crazy people exist in every time and every ethnicity and religion, and they use differnet propoganda to justify their hatred. If these people are using Islam to justify their bias then what can one say except that its a laughable plan.

posted October 29, 2006 02:25 PM            

quote:

---

Perhaps you missed this SG:
Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali is THE most senior Muslim cleric in Australia.

---

posted October 30, 2006 12:31 AM              

Absolute nonsense. Whats the relation between the two articles?

posted October 30, 2006 01:36 AM            

quote:

---

Adem, who was born in Ethiopia, is from a culture that practices female circumcision.

---

quote:

---

The practice, a tradition in some African cultures, is widely condemned by human rights groups and has been outlawed in the United States since 1997.

---

So I don't see the connection between the two articles, either.

Unless this is a horrible-things-said-to-or-about-and-or-done-to-females kind of string. Seriously, though, women have, very euphemistically speaking, gotten the fuzzy end of the lollipop far too many times throughout the course of history in many different cultures around the world. Makes one wonder.

posted October 30, 2006 03:30 AM              

quote:

---

Absolute nonsense. Whats the relation between the two articles?

---

posted October 30, 2006 03:49 AM              

The seed of misogyny that was implanted in the Christian psyche by the Bible was brought to its full flower by the fathers of the church. The hatred of women is found almost without exception in all the major Christian theologians throughout Christianity's early formative centuries.

St. Clement of Alexandria (c150-c215), the Greek Father of the Church, had such a contempt for women that he believed such a feeling must be universal. He wrote, in his book Paedagogus that in women, "the consciousness of their own nature must evoke feelings of shame." That women is clearly inferior to men, Clement has no doubt. As a form of exercise for this "weaker sex", he suggested that, "Women should also fetch from the pantry things that we need." [1]

Tertullian (c160-c225), the African Father of the Church, called women "the devil's gateway." His reasoning, based on the story of The Fall in Genesis, is theologically impeccable:

Do you not realize that Eve is you? The curse God pronounced on your sex weighs still on the world. Guilty, you must bear its hardships. You [women] are the devil's gateway, you desecrated that fatal tree, you first betrayed the law of God, you who softened up with your cajoling words the man against whom the devil could not prevail by force. The image of God, the man Adam, you broke him, it was child's play to you. You deserved death, and it was the son of God who had to die! [2]

The famous and influential theologian, Origen (c185-254) is well known for his hatred of sex and women. At the tender age of eighteen, he castrated himself in his quest to achieve Christian perfection. Origen's teaching weaved together the Christian hatred for women and abhorrence for the sexual act into one system. According to him, women are worse than animals because they are continuously full of lust. [3] Origen does not approve of the sexual act even in marriage and taught that although widowers can remarry, they are by no means crowned for this. [4]

St. Gregory of Nazianzum (329-389), the Bishop of Constantinople had this to say about women, "Fierce is the dragon and cunning the asp; But woman have the malice of both." The other St. Gregory (330-395), Bishop of Nyassa, taught that the sexual act was an outcome of the fall and that marriage is the outcome of sin. [5]

St. Ambrose (c339-397), a Doctor of the Church, and Bishop of Milan reminded believers that the way women was originally created confirms her second class status: "Remember that God took the rib out of Adam's body, not a part of his soul, to make her. She was not made in the image of God, like man." [6] Like all Christian misogynists, Ambrose glorified virginity. To him virginity was the Christian virtue. He advised that marriage was to be avoided like a burden. For those who do marry, he forbade intercourse for any other reason except the procreation of children. Naturally, Ambrose taught that old couples, in which the woman can no longer conceive, should not have sex at all. [7]

St. Jerome (c342-420), the well known Biblical scholar and translator of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate) have a simple view of women. To him "woman is the root of all evil." [8] Like all the early Christian theologians, Jerome glorified virginity and looked down on marriage. He reasoning, was also rooted in Genesis: "Eve in paradise was a virgin ... understand that virginity is natural and that marriage comes after the Fall." [9] The marital act to Jerome cannot be good because it only acts as a relief valve: "Thus it must be bad to touch a woman. If indulgences is nonetheless granted to the marital act, this is only to avoid something worse. But what value can be recognized in a good that is allowed only with a view of preventing something worse?" Jerome wrote that the only good thing about marriage is that "it produces virgins." [10]

St. John Chrysostom (c347-407), Doctor of the Church and Bishop of Constantinople, said that women are, in general, "weak and flighty." He neatly put together the twin theological ideas of anti-women and anti-sex in this passage: "It does not profit a man to marry. For what is a woman but an enemy of friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a domestic danger, delectable mischief, a fault in nature, painted with beautiful colors?" [11] To help believers overcome the temptation of women, Chrysostom devised the following description: "The whole of her body is nothing less than phlegm, blood, bile, rheum and the fluid of digested food ... If you consider what is stored up behind those lovely eyes, the angle of the nose, the mouth and the cheeks you will agree that the well-proportioned body is only a whitened sepulchre." [12]

In a way, the previous theologians we have seen merely prepared the ground for the misogynist par excellance, St. Augustine (354-450), Doctor of the Church and Bishop of Hippo. Augustine skilfully weaved the story of The Fall with the theology of the Original Sin. The main casualty of his theology was the position of woman in Christian society.

Augustine elevated the hatred of women and sex to a level unsurpassed before. To him, women's inferiority to men was so obvious [13] that he felt that he had to ask the question: "Why was woman created at all?" [14] His own answer to this question is a fine example of Christian misogyny:

I don't see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate? [15]

Thus, Augustine concluded that woman was created purely for procreation and for nothing else. Furthermore, it was sexual pleasure that carried the original sin from generation to generation. [16] Now sex between husband and wife, Augustine taught, for any other purpose except procreation is mortally sinful and should be avoided. Sex for procreation, while still sinful, is pardonable. [17]

Augustine also blamed women for the Fall. The expulsion of Adam and Eve from paradise, according to him, was purely the fault of Eve. He taught that Satan, in the form of the serpent, tempted Eve because she was more gullible than Adam: "[Satan turned to] the inferior of the human pair ... supposing that the man would not be so easily gullible, and could not be trapped by a false move on his own part, but only if he yielded to another's mistake." [18] Thus, concluded Augustine, it was the love of Eve that brought ruin to Adam.

Augustine had laid down a completely misogynous theology: women are created purely for procreation, yet the act of procreation itself, when a man come together with a woman, is sinful. The only use of a woman that Augustine was willing to concede necessarily involved sin! Furthermore, the blame for present state of mankind falls squarely on the woman, for it was Eve who allowed herself to be tempted by Satan.

As a misogynist, Augustine practiced what he preached. His friend Possidius described his conduct thus: "No woman ever set foot in his house, he never spoke to a woman except in the presence of a third person or outside the parlour, he made no exceptions, not even for his elder sister and his nieces, all three of them nuns." [19]

This theology of misogyny continued unabated into the "golden age" of theology, the thirteenth century. The Dominican theologian and Doctor of the Church, St. Albertus Magnus (c1200-1280), was a great despiser of women. His view of women can be aptly summarized by his own writing:

Woman is less qualified [than man] for moral behavior. For the woman contains more liquid than man, and it is a property of liquid to take things up easily and to hold unto them poorly. Liquids are easily moved, hence women are inconstant and curious. When a woman has relations with a man, she would like, as much as possible, to be lying with another man at the same time. Woman knows nothing about fidelity. Believe me, if you give her your trust, you will be disappointed. Trust an experience teacher. For this reason prudent men share their plans and actions least of all with their wives. Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one's guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil. If I could say what I know about women, the world would be astonished ... Woman is strictly speaking not cleverer but slyer (more cunning) than man. Cleverness sounds like something good, slyness sounds like something evil. Thus in evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good. [20]

The greatest scholastic theologian of all was the "Angelic Doctor", Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). In line with the position of his teacher, Albertus Magnus, Aquinas was equally convinced of woman's inherent inferiority to man. To him, woman is a product of environmental pollution. Women were not, he taught, "nature's first intention" which aims at perfection but "nature's second intention" which conforms to such things as "decay, deformity and the weakness of the age." Women are less intelligent than men. Men have "more perfect reason" and "stronger virtue" than women. The intellectual defects of women, according to Aquinas, is similar to those "evident in children and mentally ill persons." Women are also less resistant to sexual temptation than men "Because there is a higher water content in women, they are more easily seduced by sexual pleasure."

Thus the roots of Christian misogyny run deep and it continues unabated even in this present century.

posted October 30, 2006 10:24 AM              

Male Circumcision (Part 2) – Much More Than The Mutilation of Sexual Pleasure
By Jamie Glazov

THAT MALE CIRCUMCISION mutilates male sexual pleasure is a fact that has been thoroughly documented. It is unfortunate, therefore, that this anti-sexual savagery continues to be widely practiced in our own society.

Even more unfortunate is the fact that not only does male circumcision reduce male sexual pleasure, it also inflicts severe emotional and psychological damage upon its victims. Yet there is even more ignorance and indifference about this fact than about the anti-sexual component of male circumcision.

Don’t kid yourself: circumcision of the male foreskin, which is almost always inflicted without anesthesia, is extraordinarily painful and traumatic. Whether or not this violence is experienced by a newborn, a young child or an adolescent, the victim’s brain and emotional state is sharply and negatively affected.

Think about it: the penis is an organ that is connected to the operation of the brain and, aside from the overall objective of procreation, it is designed for the experience of sexual pleasure and the expression of love. So when it is mutilated with painful violence, the victim obviously suffers a permanent alteration of his normative brain development for the normal expression of sexual pleasure and love. All future experiences of genital pleasure involve, to certain degrees, the memory – even unconscious -- of severe pain.

Developmental neuropsychologist Dr. James Prescott has done extensive research into the neurological damage caused by circumcision. He has documented how the excruciating genital pain that is suffered, even "unconsciously," by a new-born male baby, has long-term, damaging consequences on his ability to separate the differences between pain and pleasure in love and intimate relationships. The brain system that has been designed for pleasure is, because of circumcision, encoded with pain. It is simply a fact that this reality disfigures subsequent experiences of pleasure -- and not just in the sexual context.

The blurring of pain and pleasure in the developing brain provides the foundation for many circumcised males to need pain in order to experience pleasure, or vice versa. It would not be unreasonable to argue, therefore, that much of the violence in a society could very well be rooted, in part, in the extent to which that society practices male circumcision.

Scientific studies have consistently shown that circumcision disrupts a child's behavioral development. Studies performed at the University of Colorado School of Medicine revealed that circumcision is followed by prolonged, distressed non-REM (rapid eye movement) sleep. Because of the infliction of unbearable pain on their neural pathways, circumcised babies withdrew into a type of semi-coma that lasted for days and sometimes even weeks.

Numerous studies have confirmed that children and adolescents who experienced circumcision were terribly frightened during the assault and exhibited behavior problems after their circumcisions. Among the symptoms were stuttering, obsessive compulsive reactions, ticks and aggressive behavior. Psychological trauma also included the development of night terrors, temper tantrums and rage. In many children, suicidal impulses developed. Fear of authority was also greatly increased.

Studies have also shown that that circumcision adversely alters the brain's perception centers. Moreover, circumcised boys have been shown to have lower pain thresholds than girls or intact boys.

Male circumcision has been shown to disrupt the mother-infant bond during the crucial period after birth.

But we know how crucial this bonding is, especially in terms of what we know about how developmental deprivation of affection in the maternal-infant relationship leads to future violent destructive behavior in the child-turned-adult.

Neuronal damage occurs in babies who are deprived of maternal affection. In other words, even if a mother gives her circumcised baby affection, there is evidence to suggest that this dynamic is often distorted because of the effect of the circumcision itself – in terms of how the baby is able to receive affection after being the victim of excruciating violent pain.

The point here is that circumcision prevents the normal sensory stimulation of the brain and emotional well-being, which is essential for normal human development and function.

Let us also keep in mind that, in many cases, circumcision literally destroys an individual’s life. Many boys, for instance, have been transformed into girls because their circumcisions went wrong.

It would be silly, of course, to suggest that all males who are circumcised are sociopaths or psychopaths. That is simply ridiculous and we know better. But that is not the point. The point is that, in terms of what medical science tells us about the genitalia’s relationship with who we are, perhaps we should begin to think twice about mutilating our baby boys.

posted October 30, 2006 02:38 PM            

jwhop, to me, was demonstrating how religion can focus on women and then use that focus to mutilate or demean women.

What is sad is how many women here only slighty acknowledged the torture itself, but instead jumped on the "this is just way to slap Islam AND Africans all at the same time".

It almost seemed that many of the females were more upset at the nerve that jwhop had for posting it and NOT for the brutal acts themselves.

I don't care if the cleric has one follower or one million- his words are disturbing and he is not the only Muslim leader to have said as much or in that specific context.

I have a hunch that if this came from a high up Protestant preacher, there would be an outpouring of hate from females here- specifically those females that are extremely liberal or not from this Country and hate our conservative religious figures.

posted October 30, 2006 03:19 PM              

It almost seemed that pidaua was more upset at the nerve that naiad had for posting the misogyny inherent in the christian religion and NOT for the brutal act of male mutiliation and consequences of christian misogyny themselves.

i don't care if christianity has one follower or one million- these words are disturbing and they are not the only christian leaders to have said as much or in that specific context.

i have a hunch that if someone who loved her country very much said she was the least bit distressed at seeing that country's foundations trampled into the ground, there would be an outpouring of hate -- specifically from those pseudo- feminist/patriotic persons who hate the truth and the freedom that America stands for, or once stood for.

But that is just my opinion - I am sure time will tell. Just look at how pidaua here went apesh1t over what naiad said.

posted October 30, 2006 03:35 PM            

I never went ape-**** , but I do adore how you, when losing an argument or someone shows how ridiculous your posts are, come back with insinuating the person is angry, hysterical, bitter, on and on. I have yet to read a real debate between you and another person that does not involve your pseudo enlightened BS, references to genocide or the posting of at least 10 articles, most of which you have probably not read- but they include your hot-button words.

The funny thing about you is that you almost spam this forum (which is your right) with one far-fetched article after another all pointing to some communistic dream world or how there is some larger conspiracy at work waiting to take over all of the innocent people in docile countries. If those people do not go along willingly, then we just commit genocide and still get our way. You bash on jwhop and yet when he has asked you very simple questions rather than providing an answer you side-step then any chance you get (such as asking you why you almost exclusively post from communistic websites- to which you made some lame retort that you read everything - the question was about posting NOT reading). Your logic revolves around articles after article putting down our country and our way of life.

So to make a comment about this Country and how I see it going down the tubes. Yes, I do, because we tolerate people like you to say all the biased, inaccurate BS you can find that makes our Country look like some evil entity that wants to take over the world. Now, again, you are entitled to that opinion and we do have a free society to say what we want. Sadly, the same rights given to all of us allow people like you to degrade our way of life on a regular basis.

And yes, while my post may be long, I am not hysterical, going ape-sh1t, angry, hostile or any of the other buzzwords you like to use when you know you haven't made a plausible point.

Carry on - I can't wait to hear what genocidal conspiracy theory you (or your communist website friends) are going to purpose next.

For the record, your opinion of me, my writing or my belief system doesn't carry any weight in my mind. Nice try, but you still have not shown me anything of substance that has been written by you and not copied and pasted from several other radical leftest websites.

PS.... are you now referring to yourself as a separate entity instead of using the term "me" LMAO.....

"It almost seemed that pidaua was more upset at the nerve that naiad had for posting the misogyny inherent in the christian religion and NOT for the brutal act of male mutiliation and consequences of christian misogyny themselves. "

posted October 30, 2006 03:56 PM              

you and jwhop did however, fail to give me a huge high five and pat on the back for posting an article from an extremely radical conservative publication and website. slipping even more than usual i see.

it bothers me not in the least to see the excruciating manner in which you misinterpret, misunderstand, misconstrue and misrepresent my posts. it's actually rather humorous.

quote:

---

i have a hunch that if someone who loved her country very much said she was the least bit distressed at seeing that country's foundations trampled into the ground, there would be an outpouring of hate -- specifically from those pseudo- feminist/patriotic persons who hate the truth and the freedom that America stands for, or once stood for.

---

however, i suppose this is the comment to which you mistakenly refer as about you and seeing this country going down the tubes....lol....my posts are all about the freedom that America once stood for...and it's posts like yours above that are from "the pseudo- feminist/patriotic persons who hate the truth and the freedom that America stands for, or once stood for."

posted October 30, 2006 04:00 PM            

Male Circumcision:

Circumcision is the removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis. The frenulum may also be removed at the same time, in a procedure called frenectomy. The word "circumcision" comes from Latin circum (meaning "around") and caedere (meaning "to cut"). The practice of circumcision predates recorded human history, with depictions found in stone-age cave drawings and Egyptian tombs.[1] The origins of the practice are lost in antiquity. Theories include that circumcision is a form of ritual sacrifice or offering, a sign of submission to a deity, a rite of passage to adulthood, a mark of defeat or slavery, or an attempt to alter esthetics or sexuality.[2] Circumcision of males is a religious requirement of the Muslim and Jewish faiths.[3][4] It is also practiced by the majority of Americans, South Koreans,[5] and Filipinos.[6]

Risks:

The American Medical Association quotes a complication rate of 0.2%–0.6%,[7] based on the studies of Gee[66] and Harkavy.[67] These same studies are quoted by the American Academy of Pediatrics.[44] The American Academy of Family Physicians quotes a range of anywhere between 0.1% and 35%.[68] The Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Canadian Paediatric Society bring the AMA results together with other studies with results ranging anywhere between 0.06% to 55%, and bring Williams & Kapila[69] citing that a 2%–10% seems reasonable.[45][65]

Medical Benefits:

HIV:

Research by the World Health Organization published in the US Public Library of Science Medicine journal in July, 2006, showed that men who had been circumcised had a significantly lower risk of infection with the AIDS virus, and calculated that if all men were circumcised over the next 10 years, some two million new infections could be avoided.[75]

The results of the first randomised controlled trials were published in November 2005, reporting that male circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved. Male circumcision may provide an important way of reducing the spread of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa, affording a 60% reduction in the rate of new HIV infection (from 2.1 per 100 to 0.85 per 100 in the intervention group).[42] Results of two further randomised trials to investigate the possible protective effect of circumcision against HIV infections will become available in 2007.

HPV
Several studies have shown that uncircumcised men are at greater risk of human papilloma virus (HPV) infection.[84][85] While most genital HPV strains are considered harmless, some can cause genital warts or cancer. One study found no statistically significant difference between men with foreskins for HPV infection than those who are circumcised, but did note a significantly higher incidence of HPV lesions and urethritis in uncircumcised men.[86]

Infectious and chronic conditions
Non-circumcised boys and men tend to have higher rates of various infections and inflammations of the foreskin than circumcised men.[91] The reasons are unclear, but several hypotheses have been suggested:

The foreskin may harbor bacteria and become infected if it is not cleaned properly.[92]
The foreskin may become inflamed if it is cleaned too often with soap.[93]
The forcible retraction of the foreskin in boys can lead to infections.[45]
There are less invasive treatments than circumcision for posthitis.[citation needed]

Female Circumcision

Most Human rights organizations in the West, Africa, and Asia consider female genital cutting rituals a violation of human rights. Among these groups and governments, they are regarded as unacceptable and illegal forms of body modification and mutilation of those believed to be too young or otherwise unable to give informed consent.

Mutilation:

The expression “female genital mutilation” (FGM) gained growing support in the late 1970s. The word “mutilation” not only establishes a clear linguistic distinction with male circumcision, but also, due to its strong negative connotations, emphasizes the gravity of the act. In 1990, this term was adopted at the third conference of the Inter African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children (IAC) in Addis Ababa. In 1991, the World Health Organization recommended that the United Nations adopt this terminology and subsequently, it has been widely used in UN documents.

The use of the word “mutilation” reinforces the idea that this practice is a violation of the human rights of girls and women, and thereby helps promote national and international advocacy towards its abandonment. At the community level, however, the term can be problematic. Local languages generally use the less judgmental “cutting” to describe the practice; parents understandably resent the suggestion that they are “mutilating” their daughters. In this spirit, in 1999, the UN called for tact and patience regarding activities in this area and drew attention to the risk of “demonizing” certain cultures, religions and communities. As a result, the term “cutting” has increasingly come to be used to avoid alienating communities.[1]

Clitoridectomy
Clitoridectomy means the partial or total removal of the external part of the clitoris. It was sometimes practiced in English-speaking nations well after the first half of the Twentieth Century, ostensibly to stop masturbation. [11]. Blue Cross Blue Shield paid for clitoridectomies in the U.S.A. until May 18, 1977 [12]. Clitoridectomy is still being practiced in isolated instances. It is, however, quite common in many countries of sub-Saharan Africa, east-Africa, Egypt, Sudan, and the Arabian Peninsula.

Infibulation:

Infibulation replaces the vulva with a wall of flesh from the pubis to the anus, except for a pencil-size opening at the inferior portion of the vulva to allow urine and menstrual blood to pass through. A reverse infibulation is where the opening is left in the anterior part of the vulva in front of the urethra. After excision, the labia are sewn together, and since the skin is abraded and raw after being cut, the two surfaces will join via the natural healing and scar-formation process to form a smooth surface. The girl's legs are tied together for around two weeks to prevent her from moving the wound. [13]

The sewn-together labia majora are slightly opened before sexual intercourse by the girl's husband — girls will often be married at 12–16 years old — or by his female relatives, whose responsibility it is to inspect the wound every few weeks and open it some more if necessary.

During childbirth, the enlargement is too small to allow vaginal delivery, and so the infibulation must be opened completely and restored after delivery. Once again, the legs are tied together to allow the wound to heal, and the procedure is repeated for each subsequent act of intercourse or childbirth. When childbirth takes place in a hospital, the surgeons may preserve the infibulation by enlarging the vagina with deep episiotomies. Afterwards, the patient may insist that her vagina be closed again so that her husband does not reject her.[13]

______________________

I can keep going on.. just type in female circumcision and male circumcision into any search engine and you'll the find the glaring differences.

The man in jwhops article used a pair of scissors and mutilated his daughter- stating that he did not want her to become promiscuous.

posted October 30, 2006 04:03 PM            

I still do not see a reasonable or logical issue in your article nor do I see how it applies to the depravity demonstrated by the father when he used scissors to cut off the clitoris of his daughter.

posted October 30, 2006 04:07 PM              

quote:

---

PS.... are you now referring to yourself as a separate entity instead of using the term "me" LMAO.....

"It almost seemed that pidaua was more upset at the nerve that naiad had for posting the misogyny inherent in the christian religion and NOT for the brutal act of male mutiliation and consequences of christian misogyny themselves. "

Once again, there ya go leading the attack on Christianity. You can't seem to allow any type of way of life that incorporates traditional values with American life. What happened Salome, did you have a bad experience with the Church? Did someone judge you harshly and therefore you have to put all of Christianity into a male dominated bubble?

---

to be sure, i shouldn't have expected you to see how meaningless your words are when they can be used in the exact same context by someone else about you. i didn't expect you to advertise it though.

and you seem even more confused than usual today pidaua...can you direct to me to other posts in which i've lead an attack on christianity?

and is it even an attack when all i've done is repeat the words of christian leaders? your pseudo-feminist rant against muslims doesn't apply to christianity?

compare ~

quote:

---

It almost seemed that many of the females were more upset at the nerve that jwhop had for posting it and NOT for the brutal acts themselves.

---

to

quote:

---

It almost seemed that pidaua was more upset at the nerve that naiad had for posting the misogyny inherent in the christian religion and NOT for the brutal act of male mutiliation and consequences of christian misogyny themselves.

---

an even more blatant display of hypocrisy than usual pidaua.