Iranian cleric: Promiscuous women cause quakes

In Iran, the Pat Robinsons of their world have been known to stone and beat the immodest.
Se the diff?

What is it?

[quote="Darryl1958, post:21, topic:195393"]
In Iran, the Pat Robinsons of their world have been known to stone and beat the immodest.
Se the diff?

[/quote]

I just read a news article a while back about a Muslim father in Turkey, I believe, who buried his daughter alive for having been unchaste. What was the unchaste action she performed? She talked to a boy :eek: . Having that kind of dishonor on his family was too much for the poor father, he had no choice but to avenge his family's honor by burying her alive. We know she was alive and conscious due to the amount of dirt in her lungs.

It reminds me of something Sam Harris said a while back, satirically, in response to a more liberal article claiming that we should try to understand and sympathize with the violent radicals, (I can't remember it perfectly, so I must paraphrase) "Many would ask us to sympathize with the poor middle-eastern women who have acid flung in their face simply for going to school. But you're right, (insert liberal's name here), we should try to put ourselves in the mindset of those poor Islamic men, forced to watch women, of all people, being educated. Who can blame these men for throwing hydrochloric acid in a woman's face, permanently destroying her features, when these men have had to endure something far worse, specifically, women being treated as equals. I certainly sympathize with these men more now."

V

Applaud, applaud! :clapping:

There must’ve been a heck of a lot of female immorality going on in Iran back in 2003 for something like this to happen. I’m glad to see they’ve cleaned up their act and are not threatened by earthquakes so long as women stay in their hijabs or chadors.

Oh. Wait a minute. Nevermind.

Stupid. :rolleyes:

Promiscuous women caused earthquakes? I thought it was because of Deepak Chopra meditating.

So many worries…

You mean all that rumbling was just Chopra ohm'ing?

Yeah, and thanks to our secular society, religious nuts like Pat Robinson are not allowed to do what they clearly do if they were in power. In a previous era, Christian ministers like him were calling for women to be burned for witchcraft and Jews killed for “poisoning the wells”. You might be surprised how little separates us from these foolish Imams.

Separation of Church and state is a great thing!

Cheers

Silly Muslim cleric, Trix are for kids ^^

I really favor the separation of church and state. Of course, it’s not a cure all for every social evil. Stalinist Russia had separation of church and state, as did Maoist China, and Pol-Pot’s Cambodia. Nobody under those regimes got burned at the stake as a witch, and yet millions died because of secular communist crimes against populations. In fact, no century beats the 20th in terms of mass exterminations, accomplished by secular regimes.

Maybe the mullah is onto something. Promiscuous women shake MY foundations!:thumbsup: So here’s my offer to the people of Iran: to further Islamic virtue and to safeguard the republic from quakes, I will take personal custody of ALL of the licentious women the imams see fit to banish from the country. In consideration for this personal sacrifice, I should like to be named on the Avenue of Martyrs or whatever they have over there. Maybe a flower covered tomb in a public square or my face on a big mural (you’ll have to photoshop the turban and beard). Yes sir, I will remove this terrible blight of sin for the people of Iran, and for the Prophet, (peace be upon him!)

I see a big difference between secularism and separation between Church and State. Secularism in effect assumes itself to be the new religion, and takes an interested in promoting and promulgating their secularism, which in effect becomes the new state religion.

Like any state religion in the past, secularism is not disinterested in other religion, but in facts seeks to root out and destroy all other opposing religions and modes of thought.

The American value of separation of church and state and secularism are not one and the same thing. Not having an official state religion is not the same as the state using its power to purge out all vestiges of religion from the state apparatus. Is simply allows the people themselves be the arbiters of societies values, and not the state.

Most Christian pastors in America tend not to stone women at least, or even making them wear scarlet letters.

I personally don’t think that Pat Robertson has been involved in subjecting women to these tortures, or even contemplates it. Some people seem to think the opposite however, and think that only the law is holding him back from doing such things.

I doubt that that is what most Christian pastors are all about, love the sinner, hate the sin and all that.

[quote="Darryl1958, post:32, topic:195393"]
I see a big difference between secularism and separation between Church and State. Secularism in effect assumes itself to be the new religion, and takes an interested in promoting and promulgating their secularism, which in effect becomes the new state religion.

Like any state religion in the past, secularism is not disinterested in other religion, but in facts seeks to root out and destroy all other opposing religions and modes of thought.

The American value of separation of church and state and secularism are not one and the same thing. Not having an official state religion is not the same as the state using its power to purge out all vestiges of religion from the state apparatus. Is simply allows the people themselves be the arbiters of societies values, and not the state.

[/quote]

Interesting point. In reflecting on this, it seems that secularism may be the new de facto religion of the U.S. It is the only religion taught in the public schools--the only religion the government is allowed to advocate.

That being the case, it may be that we find ourselves in violation of the first amendment, the government having effectively established a state religion.

A few more year’s of this administration and you may have an argument that would stand up in the courts. Well done. :thumbsup:

Uh…right. Secularity/Secularism by it’s very definition implies a removal from religion. That does not make it religious just because someone knows how to weave words in a certain way to make it sound like it is.

[quote="Prof_K, post:35, topic:195393"]
A few more year's of this administration and you may have an argument that would stand up in the courts. Well done. :thumbsup:

[/quote]

Actually I would argue that public schools are unconstitutional for the reason that they promote a particular religion--that of secularism. It constitutes a total worldview and belief system, in which other religions are simply dismissed as irrelevant. Secularism is at least as much of a religion as atheism, but more pervasive. It is the state religion of our times; to which we all must bow. It's rather like the state gods of ancient Rome. The authorities didn't care whether you actually believed in them or not, but you had to toss a little incense onto the censer just to prove your good citizenship. It was only the new Christian religion that seemed to have trouble with such a little gesture.

[quote="JimG, post:37, topic:195393"]
Actually I would argue that public schools are unconstitutional for the reason that they promote a particular religion--that of secularism. It constitutes a total worldview and belief system, in which other religions are simply dismissed as irrelevant. Secularism is at least as much of a religion as atheism, but more pervasive. It is the state religion of our times; to which we all must bow. It's rather like the state gods of ancient Rome. The authorities didn't care whether you actually believed in them or not, but you had to toss a little incense onto the censer just to prove your good citizenship. It was only the new Christian religion that seemed to have trouble with such a little gesture.

[/quote]

This argument does not make sense. So what is the alternative? Do we then follow the Christian religion in our schools? But doesn't that more explicitly violate separation of church and state?

The secularization of the government is one of the greatest accomplishments of humanity. Religion has no place in the government. I do not want a Lutheran pushing their view on me, and I am sure that Jew, Muslims and Protestants would not want the Catholic world view being pushed on them. Or maybe we should adopt the native american religions since, hey, this is their land after all.

your argument leads to the absurd conclusion that any school system is unconstitutional- you cannot have secular school and you cannot have religious schools.

[quote="csuliman, post:38, topic:195393"]
This argument does not make sense. So what is the alternative? Do we then follow the Christian religion in our schools? But doesn't that more explicitly violate separation of church and state?

The secularization of the government is one of the greatest accomplishments of humanity. Religion has no place in the government. I do not want a Lutheran pushing their view on me, and I am sure that Jew, Muslims and Protestants would not want the Catholic world view being pushed on them. Or maybe we should adopt the native american religions since, hey, this is their land after all.

your argument leads to the absurd conclusion that any school system is unconstitutional- you cannot have secular school and you cannot have religious schools.

[/quote]

I don't have the quote at hand but I think it was John Stuart Mill who said he would never turn the education of children over to the state. I think he was right. The best thing for schools would be for the government to keep out of it. The very first public schools in the U.S. tended to be essentially protestant schools; that was one reason for the establishment of the Catholic schools.

Rather than take parents' money through taxation to provide a uniform school system which supports only the government mandated religion--in this case, secularism--why not let parents keep the funds and select the schools of their choice? I am pro-choice on education.

Of if the government insists on funding schools, provide education funds to the student, not the school system, thereby making a free market in education.

[quote="JimG, post:39, topic:195393"]
I don't have the quote at hand but I think it was John Stuart Mill who said he would never turn the education of children over to the state. I think he was right. The best thing for schools would be for the government to keep out of it. The very first public schools in the U.S. tended to be essentially protestant schools; that was one reason for the establishment of the Catholic schools.

Rather than take parents' money through taxation to provide a uniform school system which supports only the government mandated religion--in this case, secularism--why not let parents keep the funds and select the schools of their choice? I am pro-choice on education.

Of if the government insists on funding schools, provide education funds to the student, not the school system, thereby making a free market in education.

[/quote]

Exactly. The mistake was for government to get into the business of educating our children in the first place. Religious indoctrination becomes disallowed as part of the education, but indoctrination into the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual popular culture of secularism becomes mandatory.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.