Some women deserve rape says Australian religious leader

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Leonis: quote: Originally posted by Iron Greasel: quote: Originally posted by Bungleau: The issue is that in his sermon, he referenced a recent rape case in Oz... blaming the woman (women?) and referring to the sentence handed down to the rapists. So while he was talking about it in general, he was also talking in specifics.

But if the rape had aleady happened, there is no way whatsoever that his sermon could have in any way affected it. What he is doing is still completely theoretical philosophical discussion. [/QUOTE]And, see above post. These guys grew up listening to this dickhead spew his f***ing filth, under the guise of their religious leader. He IS responsible. He HAS contributed to their values and ideals. He was not just justifying in hindsight their actions, he was justifying the fact that he has taught them these ideals from infanthood. [/QUOTE]Agreed. He's dictating social values of acceptable behaviour, and as a leader of a society is effective in these values becoming commonplace.

"The woman deserved it" is such a heinous idea to perpetuate it's beyond sickening.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: quote: Originally posted by Iron Greasel: quote: Originally posted by Bungleau: The issue is that in his sermon, he referenced a recent rape case in Oz... blaming the woman (women?) and referring to the sentence handed down to the rapists. So while he was talking about it in general, he was also talking in specifics.

But if the rape had aleady happened, there is no way whatsoever that his sermon could have in any way affected it. What he is doing is still completely theoretical philosophical discussion. [/QUOTE]But what he was saying (from the pulpit, as it were) about the rapists and the victim was tantamount to saying that the victim was responsible and should be punished for being attacked, thus effectively giving the go ahead to all muslim males to rape any woman who doesn't wear the tradtional head to toe garment and have a male family member accompanying her in public because they wouldn't be considered wrong, she would be at fault for being there and 'inviting' the attack.

I tend to agree with those who pointed out that this is just another way of saying 'hey I'm male and can't control my baser urges, so someone else has to take the blame so I can do what I want without repercussions'.

Wonder what they'd say if a woman was attacking men wearing short sleeves or showing skin other than on their face? [img]tongue.gif[/img] Oh wait.. yah.. sorry.. I forgot...women don't get those 'basic urges'.... [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Oh wow this is such a great post. Oh my gosh. Kudos and salutations Amber. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Bungleau]

Originally posted by Iron Greasel: quote: Originally posted by Bungleau: The issue is that in his sermon, he referenced a recent rape case in Oz... blaming the woman (women?) and referring to the sentence handed down to the rapists. So while he was talking about it in general, he was also talking in specifics.

But if the rape had aleady happened, there is no way whatsoever that his sermon could have in any way affected it. What he is doing is still completely theoretical philosophical discussion. [/QUOTE]Okay... quoted from the sermon text:

But in the event of adultery, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time with women. Why? Because the woman possesses the weapon of seduction. She is the one who takes her clothes off, cuts them short, acts flirtatious, puts on make-up and powder, and goes on the streets dallying. She is the one wearing a short dress, lifting it up, lowering it down, then a look, then a smile, then a word, then a greeting, then a chat, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay Jail, then comes a merciless judge who gives you 65years.

Wikipedia has information on the details of the Sydney gang rapes, but in brief, the leader of the gang, Bilal Skaf, was sentenced to 55 years in prison, with 10 years tacked on for his role in one of the rapes this past July.

I don't know the details of the rapes. Some of our board members here lived in that area, perhaps during that time, and would be more knowledgeable than I. However, from the descriptions in Wikipedia, it was not a case of "a smile, then a word, then a greeting, then a chat, then a date, then a meeting".

By putting in the specifics of the 2000 rapes, he's saying those were the women's fault, and the guys were led on (weak creatures that they are). And that mean judge (who is also female) who tacked on ten more years... cruel womankind.

It's theoretical up to the point he gets specific.

[Iron Greasel]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: But what he was saying (from the pulpit, as it were) about the rapists and the victim was tantamount to saying that the victim was responsible and should be punished for being attacked, thus effectively giving the go ahead to all muslim males to rape any woman who doesn't wear the tradtional head to toe garment and have a male family member accompanying her in public because they wouldn't be considered wrong, she would be at fault for being there and 'inviting' the attack.

Yes, all males to rape any woman. He is not saying "go rape women". He's saying "raping women is OK". As long as he doesn't give out names or addresses of people he thinks should be raped, he's just being politically active. As far as I see it, anyway.

Originally posted by Leonis: These guys grew up listening to this dickhead spew his f***ing filth, under the guise of their religious leader. He IS responsible. He HAS contributed to their values and ideals. He was not just justifying in hindsight their actions, he was justifying the fact that he has taught them these ideals from infanthood.

But the people who he has preached to are still completely cabable of making their own desicions. They don't have to do what he says, they choose to do so. And if they were, indeed, unable to choose to not rape someone, that would make the cleric's point absolutely correct.

Originally posted by Yorick: "The woman deserved it" is such a heinous idea to perpetuate it's beyond sickening.

But that does not make it inherently wrong, and he has the right to voice it if he chooses to.

[Bungleau]

Originally posted by Iron Greasel: Yes, all males to rape any woman. He is not saying "go rape women". He's saying "raping women is OK". As long as he doesn't give out names or addresses of people he thinks should be raped, he's just being politically active. As far as I see it, anyway.

Sorry... I don't believe that encouraging someone to commit a crime is legal. If he said "killing eight-year-olds is okay", would that also be "just being politically active"? He's saying "go ahead and rape... it's not your fault, but hers".

But the people who he has preached to are still completely cabable of making their own desicions. They don't have to do what he says, they choose to do so. And if they were, indeed, unable to choose to not rape someone, that would make the cleric's point absolutely correct.

Ermmm... I'm not sure which side you're arguing for here. If they are *unable* to choose not to rape someone, then they are more of an animal (and less a human) than my 18-month-old dog, who has already been trained not to leave the yard. He is physically able, but has been trained not to... and so he won't. So back to the "women are superior to men" argument that he's proposing.... you can now add that dogs are superior to men as well. And as a man, I resent that...

I have thoughts on your third point, but I can't find a way (yet!) to express them without being inflammatory. I may come back with them later.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Iron Greasel: But the people who he has preached to are still completely cabable of making their own desicions. They don't have to do what he says, they choose to do so. And if they were, indeed, unable to choose to not rape someone, that would make the cleric's point absolutely correct.

You're applying a western mindset to an Arabic Muslim mindset. Islam doesn't do apologetics, it does proclaimations, which means people are told what to think. There isn't the same latitude for personal decision-making that you find inherant in Protestant society.

As such, his declaration carries far more weight amongst people he is instructing, than the words of a Protestant minister does.

The prevalence of suicide bombers acting on the behest of spiritual leaders promising paradise, should be proof enough of the manipulable power of Clerical influence in Islamic society. What more do you need?

The fact is, any diatribe that takes away responsibility from men and apportions blame to women for rape is evil.

quote: Originally posted by Yorick: "The woman deserved it" is such a heinous idea to perpetuate it's beyond sickening.

But that does not make it inherently wrong, and he has the right to voice it if he chooses to. [/QUOTE]No he does not. If his words result in a crime it is illegal. Inciting mayhem and riots is a crime in most countries. Oh they're only words! Others are smashing down buildings and killing people right?!

It is inherantly wrong - by definition it wrongs women.

The attitude "she deserved it" needs to be permanently removed from the public vocabulary if we're ever going to see rape disappear from out society. A woman should be able to parade naked in front of a man and he should have enough self control to not force himself upon her if she doesn't want it.

Look at societies where women have wandered around topless and naked for generations. Aboriginal Australia, the Amazon rainforests, Pacific Islands etc... is every man raping every women they see? What a bogus suggestion!!

Anytime a man forces himself onto a woman it is his own fault. Self control of instincts is a primary part of being human.

[Timber Loftis]

Do any people out there agree that women should be more carefull in there dress and manner?

NO. The ability of men to exercise self control rests in THEMSELVES.

Does a person who looks weak deserve it when they get mugged or assaulted?

Does a rich person deserve to be robbed or cheated?

Do retarded kids deserve to be teased and picked on?

Etc.

Besides, the whole "women deserve it" thing is based in the fallacious assumption that rape is a crime of sex and lust. It is not. It is a crime of violence.

Look at societies where women have wandered around topless and naked for generations. Aboriginal Australia, the Amazon rainforests, Pacific Islands etc... is every man raping every women they see? What a bogus suggestion!!

Yorick makes an excellent point here. Making stupid rules like Muslims have regarding women takes the female body and makes it taboo and a sin for its very existence. Bare boobies abound in tribal societies and its no big deal because no one told them it should be.

[ 11-06-2006, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Iron Greasel]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Iron Greasel: But the people who he has preached to are still completely cabable of making their own desicions. They don't have to do what he says, they choose to do so. And if they were, indeed, unable to choose to not rape someone, that would make the cleric's point absolutely correct.

You're applying a western mindset to an Arabic Muslim mindset. Islam doesn't do apologetics, it does proclaimations, which means people are told what to think. There isn't the same latitude for personal decision-making that you find inherant in Protestant society.

As such, his declaration carries far more weight amongst people he is instructing, than the words of a Protestant minister does.

The prevalence of suicide bombers acting on the behest of spiritual leaders promising paradise, should be proof enough of the manipulable power of Clerical influence in Islamic society. What more do you need?
[/QUOTE]I really don't know enough muslims to say whether this is correct, so I'll just assume it is.

Originally posted by Yorick: "The woman deserved it" is such a heinous idea to perpetuate it's beyond sickening.

Posted by Iron Greasel: But that does not make it inherently wrong, and he has the right to voice it if he chooses to.

Posted by Yorick: No he does not. If his words result in a crime it is illegal. Inciting mayhem and riots is a crime in most countries. Oh they're only words! Others are smashing down buildings and killing people right?!

I understand that there might be gaps in my understanding of australian free speech laws, but isn't the whole point that anyone can say anything, ranging from "We should legalize dope" to "We should legalize rape" to "We should legalize murder", without being imprisoned?

Posted by Yorick: It is inherantly wrong - by definition it wrongs women.

I dindn't mean wrong as in "treat unjustly". I meant wrong as in "not correct" or "contrary to the truth".

I shall attempt to address the rest of your post later, for now I have no time.

[Harkoliar]

Originally posted by Iron Greasel: quote: Originally posted by Cloudbringer: But what he was saying (from the pulpit, as it were) about the rapists and the victim was tantamount to saying that the victim was responsible and should be punished for being attacked, thus effectively giving the go ahead to all muslim males to rape any woman who doesn't wear the tradtional head to toe garment and have a male family member accompanying her in public because they wouldn't be considered wrong, she would be at fault for being there and 'inviting' the attack.

Yes, all males to rape any woman. He is not saying "go rape women". He's saying "raping women is OK". As long as he doesn't give out names or addresses of people he thinks should be raped, he's just being politically active. As far as I see it, anyway.

Originally posted by Leonis: These guys grew up listening to this dickhead spew his f***ing filth, under the guise of their religious leader. He IS responsible. He HAS contributed to their values and ideals. He was not just justifying in hindsight their actions, he was justifying the fact that he has taught them these ideals from infanthood.

But the people who he has preached to are still completely cabable of making their own desicions. They don't have to do what he says, they choose to do so. And if they were, indeed, unable to choose to not rape someone, that would make the cleric's point absolutely correct.

Originally posted by Yorick: "The woman deserved it" is such a heinous idea to perpetuate it's beyond sickening.

But that does not make it inherently wrong, and he has the right to voice it if he chooses to. [/QUOTE]I must admit that is some twisted logic youve got there, while you may be inherently right, I would still consider it wrong simply because morality and logic dont go well in hand in this aspect.

[Bungleau]

Originally posted by Iron Greasel: I understand that there might be gaps in my understanding of australian free speech laws, but isn't the whole point that anyone can say anything, ranging from "We should legalize dope" to "We should legalize rape" to "We should legalize murder", without being imprisoned?

And your understanding of Australia's free speech laws may well be better than mine [img]smile.gif[/img]

There's a difference between "We should legalize rape" and "If you rape, it's her fault, so go ahead and rape".

The first is an open discussion, and is an opportunity for society as a whole to move forward. The second is incitement to go commit a crime, based on laws currently on the books.