Family Values = Forcing Iraqi Women to Prostitute themselves to feed kids

[Bill]

I will never, never understand how people who claim to be christians can live with themselves and support a war, against an innocent country, that forces innocent women to become whores just so their kids can eat.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/15/iraq.prostitution/index.html

"Karima says when she sees her children with food on the table, she is able to convince herself that it's worth it. "Everything is for the children. They are the beauty in life and, without them, we cannot live."

But she says, "I would never allow my daughter to do this. I would rather marry her off at 13 than have her go through this."

Karima's last happy memory is of her late husband, when they were a family and able to shoulder the hardships of life in today's Iraq together.

Suha says as a young girl she dreamed of being a doctor, with her mom boasting about her potential in that career. Life couldn't have taken her further from that dream.

"It's not like we were born into this, nor was it ever in my blood," she says.

What she does for her family to survive now eats away at her. "I lay on my pillow and my brain is spinning, and it all comes back to me as if I am watching a movie."

[Southern Man]

Wow. These women grew up in an Islamic society where girls are not allowed to go to school, and the boys are trained to treat women as objects, and you blame Christianity for their inability to get honest work.

How do you justify your opinion?

And BTW I thought Saddam's World eliminated all this Islamic tradition as associated consequences. I guess that was a liberal lie as well.

[disrupter]

All these 'right to lifers' don't bat an eye as thousands of pregnant Iraqi women,
& thousands of Iraqi children are murdered by our reckless invasion of their nation.

Sick Hypocrites is what they really are.

They are just trying to win brownie points with god,
they don't give a shit about a single human life, born or unborn,
it is just another notch on their guns.

Religious Fundamentalists are the worshipers of death, the servants of satan.

They have discarded life in favor of death.

Wickedness hiding behind religion & frenetic waving flags.

Shameless.

[Bill]

How do you justify your opinion?

Pottery Barn rule - just like Powell said.

We broke it, we own it.

[Southern Man]

Pottery Barn rule - just like Powell said.

We broke it, we own it. As expected, you run from this debate as well.

[Linkster]

Ill take on this debate - could you (SM) please cite your sources for Iraqi women (or girls) not being allowed to go to school by their religion? As far as I remember they were much better educated than any child in the US, and as far as any "religion" forbidding teaching females I think you are probably confusing the political policy of the Taliban in Afghanistan (which was just a choice that political party made and used religion to enforce it) with what was going on in Iraq. Ive known many women from Iraq who were college graduates from their universities that knew a hell of a lot more than any woman Ive ever met in the mills we call schools in the US
And I should add that yes you are correct that Saddam had totally eliminated the extremist Islamists - until we took him down from power and they were able to flourish again.

[disrupter]

Guess 'Southern Man' is on the run from the debate once the facts are exposed.

Game, Set, Match, to Linkster.

Maybe he is too busy re-winning the civil war again?

[Southern Man]

Ill take on this debate - could you (SM) please cite your sources for Iraqi women (or girls) not being allowed to go to school by their religion? As far as I remember they were much better educated than any child in the US, and as far as any "religion" forbidding teaching females I think you are probably confusing the political policy of the Taliban in Afghanistan (which was just a choice that political party made and used religion to enforce it) with what was going on in Iraq. Ive known many women from Iraq who were college graduates from their universities that knew a hell of a lot more than any woman Ive ever met in the mills we call schools in the US
And I should add that yes you are correct that Saddam had totally eliminated the extremist Islamists - until we took him down from power and they were able to flourish again.
These days, however, the Iraqi government had to acknowledge that about 23 per cent of all school-aged children (6-15 years of age) are no longer attending school and are working to supplement family incomes. According to a 1995 survey by the United Nation Children’s Fund (UNICEF), only 87 per cent of Iraqi children did enrol in primary schools - down from 100 per cent before the Gulf war, while the numbers have been going down year by year. Of those who enrol, only 58 per cent finish primary school. Many are sent to work or to beg on the streets.
UNICEF estimates that more than 50 per cent of schools in the south and centre of Iraq are unfit for teaching and learning: "Schools are not being maintained and repaired and experience severe shortages of basic school supplies, classroom furniture, textbooks and teaching aids" (UNICEF, Iraq Donor Update, 11 July, 2001). Many teenagers endure very difficult conditions in schools, where walls are crumbling and desks falling apart. Not rarely, cardboard covers broken glass in the windows, library shelves are mostly bare and children sit on cracked floors to read (Financial Times, 1998). Paper and pencils are often unavailable and textbooks are generally outdated.

http://www.acttogether.org/Iraqiteenagers.htm

[Linkster]

First - that is a really old article and really should be updated to reflect todays numbers - however - it does reflect exactly what happened - the US imposed sanctions in 1990 through the UN which effectively closed down money to the school system (which BTW had been financed at a much higher rate than most developed nations including the US until that point)
http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1864.cfm

The US has backed out of their promise to reestablish education as a priority and has handed over the education system rebuild to the Iraqi government - but still insists on not giving them the money to rebuild the system like they promised.

I maintain my point though - that until the US stuck its nose into Iraqs' business (which was totally against the law and should have been deemed as such back in 1990) the Iraqis had probably one of the best education systems in the world - way better than the US propaganda mills

[Bill]

As expected, you run from this debate as well.

What part of "We are responsible NOW because we NOW own Iraq." don't you understand?

I care less about what other countries do to their people than I care about what we do to our people, because that's where my personal ethical responsibility lies.

[Southern Man]

First - that is a really old article and really should be updated to reflect todays numbers - however - it does reflect exactly what happened - the US imposed sanctions in 1990 through the UN which effectively closed down money to the school system (which BTW had been financed at a much higher rate than most developed nations including the US until that point)
http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1864.cfm

The US has backed out of their promise to reestablish education as a priority and has handed over the education system rebuild to the Iraqi government - but still insists on not giving them the money to rebuild the system like they promised.

I maintain my point though - that until the US stuck its nose into Iraqs' business (which was totally against the law and should have been deemed as such back in 1990) the Iraqis had probably one of the best education systems in the world - way better than the US propaganda mills

How liberal of you to blame the US on problems inherent with Islamic traditional values (from the same article): Increased social conservatism and the threat of gossip that would tarnish one’s reputation are a common complaint amongst Iraqi teenagers. Especially girls suffer in a climate where patriarchal values have been strengthened and where the state has abandoned its previous policies of social inclusion where women are concerned.

[Southern Man]

What part of "We are responsible NOW because we NOW own Iraq." don't you understand?

I care less about what other countries do to their people than I care about what we do to our people, because that's where my personal ethical responsibility lies. The debate is framed in post 2, not your straw man.

[Linkster]

How liberal of you to blame the US on problems inherent with Islamic traditional values (from the same article):

Liberal? Its just a fact - the US promised to do something and then a few months ago backed out of the agreement leaving the Iraqis to clean up our mess that we made - has nothing to do with liberallism or politics - has to do with asswipes that dont follow through on committments they make

[Betty Blowtorch]

The debate is framed in post 2, not your straw man.
So you want to focus the debate on the statement you made
in post #2:



Wow. These women grew up in an Islamic society where girls
are not allowed to go to school, and the boys are trained to
treat women as objects, and you blame Christianity for their
inability to get honest work.
Does anyone else notice the heartless, inhumane cruelty and
dishonesty of this statement?

The Bush-Cheney regime brought massive destruction, chaos,
genocide and civil war to the Iraqi people. Iraq's infrastructure
and economy have been decimated. Unemployment is rampant.
Most Iraqi men are having trouble finding decent jobs, let alone
the women.

And yet you want to blame Islam for the fact that women can't
find work and must prostitute themselves to feed their families?

These same women didn't have to prostitute themselves when
Saddam was in power, but only after the Bush gang brought
war and destruction to Iraq.

Under Saddam, Iraq was one of the most secular societies in
the Islamic world. You're falsely pretending that Iraq was a
fundamentalist Islamic society like the Taliban in Afghanistan,
which is not true.

If you had made the same type of hateful statements about
Jewish women prostituting themselves in the Warsaw ghetto
during World War II because of the way women are treated
in Jewish society, you would immediately be branded as an
anti-semitic Nazi nutcase.

[Southern Man]

Liberal? Its just a fact - the US promised to do something and then a few months ago backed out of the agreement leaving the Iraqis to clean up our mess that we made - has nothing to do with liberallism or politics - has to do with asswipes that dont follow through on committments they make
I haven't been following it that closely. What promises were broken due to Democrat partisanship?

[Southern Man]

....These same women didn't have to prostitute themselves when
Saddam was in power, but only after the Bush gang brought
war and destruction to Iraq.

Under Saddam, Iraq was one of the most secular societies in
the Islamic world. ......

The quotations that I cited are from an article written when Saddam was in power.

[Linkster]

Interesting how you totally disregard what I said a few posts ago about why that article cited what it did in 1995 - after the UN sanctions made it impossible for the education to be funded due to the US trumped up allegations that have been proven false since then - that article you cite says the exact same thing - and really has nothing to do with the original post here - this discussion is really about what is happening now - not in 1995 when 95% of the women in Iraq were still going to school - a higher number than in the US BTW

[Betty Blowtorch]

The quotations that I cited are from an article written
when Saddam was in power.
According to the article you cited, the educational system in Iraq
was good during the 1970's and 1980's (for girls as well as boys)
but deteriorated during the 1990's because of the sanctions.

Apparently you're backing off from your earlier claim that Iraqi
women are prostituting themselves because they've been denied
adequate schooling as a result of Islamic fundamentalism and its
treatment of women.

Now you're claiming that Iraqi women are prostituting themselves
because they were denied adequate schooling as a result of the
sanctions.

Apparently you're trying to come up with any other reason than
the real one: these women are trying to survive in a dangerous,
nightmarish war zone created by that great Christian crusader,
George W. Bush, and his genocidal quest for control of the
world's oil reserves. (The guy you voted for.)

You prefer to blame Islam, or the Iraqi school system, for what
has happened to these women, but that's like a rapist blaming
the rape victim, or a murderer blaming the murder victim, or a
Nazi blaming the Jews.

[Southern Man]

Interesting how you totally disregard what I said a few posts ago about why that article cited what it did in 1995 - after the UN sanctions made it impossible for the education to be funded due to the US trumped up allegations that have been proven false since then - that article you cite says the exact same thing - and really has nothing to do with the original post here - this discussion is really about what is happening now - not in 1995 when 95% of the women in Iraq were still going to school - a higher number than in the US BTW

I ignored since it is complete bullshit to blame the US for Saddam de-funding schools while building new palaces for himself. It is also irelavant to the point I am making, that Islamic culture is the cause of women's problems, again no fault of the US as you assert.

[Southern Man]

According to the article you cited, the educational system in Iraq
was good during the 1970's and 1980's (for girls as well as boys)
but deteriorated during the 1990's because of the sanctions.

Apparently you're backing off from your earlier claim that Iraqi
women are prostituting themselves because they've been denied
adequate schooling as a result of Islamic fundamentalism and its
treatment of women.

Now you're claiming that Iraqi women are prostituting themselves
because they were denied adequate schooling as a result of the
sanctions.

Apparently you're trying to come up with any other reason than
the real one: these women are trying to survive in a dangerous,
nightmarish war zone created by that great Christian crusader,
George W. Bush, and his genocidal quest for control of the
world's oil reserves. (The guy you voted for.)

You prefer to blame Islam, or the Iraqi school system, for what
has happened to these women, but that's like a rapist blaming
the rape victim, or a murderer blaming the murder victim, or a
Nazi blaming the Jews.

Addressed in post 19.

[Linkster]

I ignored since it is complete bullshit to blame the US for Saddam de-funding schools while building new palaces for himself. It is also irelavant to the point I am making, that Islamic culture is the cause of women's problems, again no fault of the US as you assert.

Thats fine if you like to base your opinions on falsehoods instead of real history - but then that is expected :thumbsup:

[Southern Man]

Thats fine if you like to base your opinions on falsehoods instead of real history - but then that is expected :thumbsup: Completely unsubstantiated remark on your part, as expected.

[Linkster]

SM - you are the one stating "facts" - not me - maybe you should substantiate your statements with historical references?? Im simply stating that I dont believe your last two statements and would love to see something in writing from a real hisotical source (not a media or opinion report) that supports these two "facts" :

"Saddam de-funding schools while building new palaces for himself....
that Islamic culture is the cause of women's problems"

[Southern Man]

SM - you are the one stating "facts" - not me - maybe you should substantiate your statements with historical references?? Im simply stating that I dont believe your last two statements and would love to see something in writing from a real hisotical source (not a media or opinion report) that supports these two "facts" :

"Saddam de-funding schools while building new palaces for himself....
that Islamic culture is the cause of women's problems"

When the staments are based on common sense I find no reason to google for you. Are you denying these facts? If so it would be a waste of my time and yours.

[Linkster]

Common sense doesnt define history - actual facts do - and no I wouldnt expect you to use Google as that would only give you what you wanted to find on some pundits website - I would suggest actually learning some history first so that you have an intelligible factual basis on which to root your beliefs - but then I know Im spinning my wheels when trying to have an intelligent factual discussion

[Southern Man]

Common sense doesnt define history - actual facts do - and no I wouldnt expect you to use Google as that would only give you what you wanted to find on some pundits website - I would suggest actually learning some history first so that you have an intelligible factual basis on which to root your beliefs - but then I know Im spinning my wheels when trying to have an intelligent factual discussion I know enough about history to refer to these simple, well known facts as common sense. Its not rocket science, either.

[Linkster]

OK lets do this the easy way - here is your two statements:

Saddam de-funding schools while building new palaces for himself...
Islamic culture is the cause of women's problems,.

Prove it

[Jennifer]

I still find the democrat hypocracy ludicrous. On the one hand they say our (women's) bodies are our own and we can murder unborn children all day long if we want too, but you won't let us have sex for money.

Now you are complaining because there's a society that IS allowing sex for money.


Are you sure you arn't the Religious Reich?

[Linkster]

Since Im not a democrat Ill reply to that one :) womens bodies are their own just as mens bodies are - and I dont consider removing an unwanted growth from a body a murder whether it be an fertilized embryo or a tumor - and certainly dont think that government ought to be sticking its nose into anything to do with medical issues or a persons body no matter what.

As far as sex for money - I would say again - the government has no business sticking its nose into what a citizen wants to do with their body

If some religious theocrats want to tell their true-believers what they should do - fine - although I find it rather silly that people still allow religions to dictate anything in life - but I guess they are raised on fairy tales so they have to perpetuate them

[Betty Blowtorch]

I still find the democrat hypocracy ludicrous. On the one hand
they say our (women's) bodies are our own and we can murder
unborn children all day long if we want too, but you won't
let us have sex for money.
I have no problem with you having sex for money.
How much do you charge?

[Jennifer]

I have no problem with you having sex for money.
How much do you charge?

Used to charge a lot. Street hookers don't get good money. :( I just got lucky in never getting caught. Got me through college at least. :)


Anyway, an unwanted growth is a tumor. A life is a unique set of DNA which meets the criteria of being Homosapian DNA. Since 50% of the DNA comes from the mother and 50% from the father, the combination of the DNA is unique from BOTH parents and thus, it is not a "growth." Furthermore, it is human (homosapian) DNA and thus it is not a parasite or some other infection.

[disrupter]

In a capitalist society a woman's body is her own & if she non-coercively chooses to rent that body that is her decision.

Do Right Wing Nuts worry about the innocent lives you have killed in war?

Time for an end to the perverse right wing hypocrisy.

Pragmatically, [gets ready for the flames on pragmaticism] the growing entity is harbored necessarily in a woman's body. Trying to force her to gestate & then bear a child she chooses not to is a far more destructive decision for her & society than letting women choose.
Why not make it easy for women to be pregnant or safely terminate children she is too young or ill prepared to give birth to?
If you don't want more abortions, make it easy for them to choose alternatives.
Use capitalism or humanitarianism rather than state dictated mandates.

Life is messy.
You can't handle it?
Die.

Return to your god of death & destruction.

[Linkster]

Jennifer - to get back to that discussion - are you saying that a tumor has no DNA in it? I would be willing to bet that it does - so by removing that tumor arent you killing that life if your definition of life is DNA? Im sure the DNA would show chains of both the mother and father (and actually a long line of descendents)
This is the reason that the argument that life begins with a combination of DNA occurs doesnt fly - because anything you remove from your body that contains DNA - from a nosebleed to a tumor has that exact same set of DNA and "life" as defined

[Jennifer]

A tumor has the DNA with very small differences of the host. It is not unique. No more then the DNA of your nose is unique from the DNA of your colon.


As for the "innocent lives" killed in Iraq. Yes, there were, are and will be a few. It's called a war. Do we raise the issue of all the innocents the democrats slaughtered in their day light bombing raids of churches and schools in Europe?

[disrupter]

That is an issue that should be raised, Jennifer.
Then it can be measured in light of the perils that were faced back then.

The day you can show me a jumbo jet on the pentagon 911 video is the day i will consider that terrorism in america is anything other than a sick, NSA sponsored fabrication used to manipulate small minds.

That aside, Iraq had ZIP to do with instigating 911, as even the talking heads will agree.

The Iraq war is a sick wanton adventure launched with immoral vitriol.
Anyone who supports it at this point is either a greedy profiteer, a traitor, or a fool of the brain damaged sort.

don't forget, Bin Laden wanted exactly this, a war to tie up the US in the middle east.
So you have at least one ally.

I am on America's side & not on Bin Laden & the cracked NeoNuts.

[Linkster]

So its OK to kill non-unique life - but not to kill unique life? Hmmm...so would it be ok if we killed just certain non-unique people but allowed the more unique people to live? I think a few people over history have done that and been called saviours and crusaders - but I dont want to get into that discussion since that involves religion and I dont like dealing in fairy tales

[Jennifer]

If it's okay to murder human life in the womb, why not make it okay to murder human life in a nursing home? Both are dependent on people to survive. One drags on the economy, the other potentially could be President of the United States one day.


BTW, until Disruptor stops with the non-sequitors, the ad hominem attacks, the flames and the strawman arguments, I'm not responding to any of his points. (Though I might accidentally, I'm aiming for no response.)

[Linkster]

Jennifer - and that explains exactly where we differ - you define human life as something before it has a thought process and I dont - until an organism actually has a "birth" it is not a human - merely another lump of tissue and dna - again - why I used the tumor scenario - so we just have to disagree :thumbsup:
I guess that if the government ever really had to regulate something like that - they would then get into the business of regulating what an individual can do with their body - and that would not be the role of a government that acts in the interests of its people - but in the interest of whomever controls their ideology

[Jennifer]

I define a human being that meets or exceeds the scientific definition of life, has human DNA and is not a part of a larger organism (like a lung or a nose.)

Unborn humans are a live, they have unique human DNA and are not organs or digits. They are progeny.


I was raised to define life as such:

An organism that ingests raw materials, converts it to another form, has waste products, has an intelligent design (DNA plans for instance to grow into a tree or a dog, etc) and can react to its environment.

Unborn babies even as just a fertilized cell can react to their environment. It may not be able to cope with the environment, but it reacts. It ingests raw materials from its environment for use in its intelligent design to become a bigger human and returns waste products to the environment.


However, if you would like to explain, exactly the difference between a baby a minute before it is born and a minute after, I'm all ears.

[Linkster]

I already did - rational thought process(my definition of life) doesnt start until after a being is born - but then are we going to start saying that hunters cannot shoot pregnant deer or that if a man uses paid sex he is murdering a "potential life" by wasting those sperm on contraceptive devices? Or I suppose we could go down the fairy tale (religion) path and say that a woman that uses a contraceptive or requires a man to use it is committing premeditated murder

[Jennifer]

You don't have any kids do you? An infant a moment after birth is no more rational then one in the womb.

Actually, they don't become rational for a few months after birth. So by your definition, if I blew up a maternal ward of a hospital, I could only be charged with the deaths of any adults or older children who happened to die there.


Furthermore, since many of the elderly cannot make rational thought anymore, they are no longer alive either and should be exterminated for the good of society too, right?


Demonstrating ridiculous arguments through the use of ridiculous arguments. So effective.

[disrupter]

life appears to be a natural outcome of physics & chemistry under certain conditions, human life no less so.

It is a continuum of conditions, probably with few identifiable demarcations. From seemingly inert physics to self-articulating & motivated organic materials.

It is only in the stereographic hyperbole of the mind that we equate humanity with 'special'. Sometimes this attributed [rightly or wrongly] to supernatural aspects, such as 'God's chosen species'.

I realize that this tweaked emotional association probably has import to our survival as a species, but i also realize to think rationally about it we have to at least dilute our emotions about it.

Get this in your head,
at some point the children of this species or other will probably progress to become our mental & perhaps physical superiors.
is pre-cursor 'special' enough to be special? *shrug*
Imagine living long into a future spanning biological progress & living as some kind of archaic, obsolete organism to be perhaps patronized, indulged rather than relished as portends of things to come. We are only the pinnacle for where we are in time & only so far as we can see in this universe. Most likely we are a mid step on a long climb. If we are a high point, so much the sadder. If we are the start of a plateau & am not sure what to think. sort of good, sort of not so good.

At this point i think our blind commitment to human survival may ultimately be self destructive, extinguishing.
We live in the context of a supporting biosphere,
we ignore that at our peril.

At some point we may have technologies that allow sustained existence far from the surface of this or similar planet, but until that time we must reasonably preserve this one.
You don't tear down the old house until the new one is built & tested.
Even then it is potentially useful as a backup or for additional capacity.

IMO there is no flying away to peterpan heaven as many extreme religious nuts believe. Even if there were some thoughtful god they might be hoping that we would learn to take reasonable care of the good fortune of a beneficial, critical biosphere, so he/they would have future generations of worshipers. And humblingly a better, more worthy, more advanced species.
Who are we to deprive the future of this, because of gross foolishness or arrogance? the eyes of the future look heavily upon us. Let us shine for all we are worth.

[Linkster]

Jennifer - I said rational thought process - Im not claiming that infants have rational thoughts - but they do have the capability - which they dont as fetuses
Heck I had kids so many years ago its a blank - but what I remember is that they couldnt even have rational thoughts when they were teens - and the teens I have working for me now have even less rational thought

[Southern Man]

OK lets do this the easy way - here is your two statements:


Prove it

1. During the oil-for-food debacle, Saddam was still building palaces, and schools were defunded. Are you denying this?
2. Islamic law treats women as second class citizens. Are you denying this as well?

[Linkster]

1. During the oil-for-food debacle, Saddam was still building palaces, and schools were defunded. Are you denying this?
2. Islamic law treats women as second class citizens. Are you denying this as well?

1.All of the palaces (the new ones anyway) were built between 1991 and 1995 - when the UN furthered the restrictions on construction materials in their embargos - the schools already existed and were not defunded - they continued to get funding at a smaller rate - but still had money. The only ones that didnt get money were the school buildings that had been destroyed by US bombing - they couldnt get the materials to rebuild.

2. Islamic "law" (actually its religion) has specific references to women - and they are based almost completely on Jewish and Christian laws that existed at the time in the old testament - most of those same "laws" still exist in all societies - the exception being that after a battle with the church, women in the US were finally allowed to vote and just 25 years ago the US finally added women as having equal rights to men to the constitution - against a lot of protest by men in congress. The catholic church still holds women as subservient to men and with no real rights - this is a religion problem - not a specific country -as it is spread across the world
You might look into some of the European laws that still exist against women and have nothing to do with religion (although they were based on it)

[Southern Man]

2. Islamic "law" (actually its religion) has specific references to women - and they are based almost completely on Jewish and Christian laws that existed at the time in the old testament - most of those same "laws" still exist in all societies - the exception being that after a battle with the church, women in the US were finally allowed to vote and just 25 years ago the US finally added women as having equal rights to men to the constitution - against a lot of protest by men in congress. The catholic church still holds women as subservient to men and with no real rights - this is a religion problem - not a specific country -as it is spread across the world
You might look into some of the European laws that still exist against women and have nothing to do with religion (although they were based on it)
Based on your view of history you do not deny that Islamic culture treats women as second class citizens. Therefore no schooling, therefore their current plight in Iraq.

[Linkster]

I didnt say that - I said that they treat them exactly the same way all of the world treats them - and in earlier posts I mentioned that they actually have a higher education than most US citizens including men

[Southern Man]

Obviously for the women we are discussing this is not the case. Nor is their plight the fault of the United States.

[Linkster]

So you didnt read the article?

"There is a huge population of women who were the victims of war who had to sell their bodies, their souls and they lost it all. It crushes us to see them, but we have to work on it and that's why we started our team of women activists."

[Southern Man]

"Victims of war" is an opinion of the writer. In reality they are victims of Islam.

[Linkster]

Never mind - obviously reality doesnt exist for you - just whatever mythical beliefs you have instead of facts - thats ok - you are welcome to your opinion

[Southern Man]

The reality is that Islam denigrates women. That's not the fault of the United States.

[Linkster]

The reality is that all religions denigrate women - the only one that isnt as bad as the rest is Islam - Catholics and most other Christian sects, Jews and on and on are terrible towards women

The only one I know of that doesnt is the Church of Reality

[Southern Man]

Complete unfounded bullshit.

[Moby]

Complete unfounded bullshit.
It wasn't very long ago when women were considered property, did NOT have the right to vote and soon they may not have the right to an abortion.

Read your history and you'll see women in the bible and in our society have been considered much less worthy then men.

[Southern Man]

It wasn't very long ago when women were considered property, did NOT have the right to vote and soon they may not have the right to an abortion.

Read your history and you'll see women in the bible and in our society have been considered much less worthy then men. I don't see many catholics or jews honor-killing the women in their families.

[Linkster]

I don't see many catholics or jews honor-killing the women in their families.

Obviously you havent studied the history of Christianity in the US - well back before it became the US in the New England territories

[Southern Man]

Maybe you can be more specific.