Another sad story of abuse of women in Islam has come to us out of Yemen. A 12 year old girl died from internal bleeding caused by intercourse three days after being married to an older man. I quote from the article, "Child brides are common in Yemen, where the United Nations estimates that one in three girls are married before age 18. Most are married off to older men with more than one wife, according to a study by Sanaa University." Certainly, Arab Islamic culture is not unique in having sex crazed men seeking ever more, and younger, women; if anything that's a global trend. What is unique is the degree to which it is entrenched, institutionalized, encouraged and even justified by the Koran.
It is known that Mohammad had four wives and widely accepted that he married he favorite wife, Aisha, at the age of six but held off consummating until she was nine. In Sura 2:223 (the Cow) Mohammad tells husbands that their wife is their "tilth" or field, to be entered and "plowed" as they please. Sura 65:4 (Divorce) outlines the procedures for divorcing your wife, with special instructions in case she has not yet reached puberty. There seems to be a doctrine that a Muslim man can do anything Mohammad did, hence why most Muslim countries allow up to four wives and taking young girls to wife is allowed and even encouraged, but you are not to consummate until "later" (wink) when they are grown up, like twelve. In addition, several verses refer to women as property. The degree to which the Koran dehumanizes women is truly appalling. Verses like 4:11 and 2:282 plainly say that a woman is worth half a man. 4:11 is where inheritance rules are laid down and women can only inherit half as much as a man. In 2:282 rules for witnesses are explained and also explained is that it takes two women to equal the mental faculties of a man.
Not wanting all of its misogynist credentials to come from sexual exploitation, Islam also threw in spousal abuse. Highlights from those six clips include in the second to last one at about 1:30 the cleric praying for spousal abuse, other juicy tidbits include viewing it as "therapeutic", not more than ten times, no causing bleeding, only a small stick, not in the face, not in front of children etc. Now the obvious counter-argument is that I found the six worst clerics and posted them, ignoring all of the moderates. To speak to that, I would like someone to come up with "moderate" clerics speaking differently on the issue. I actually kind think those were the moderates, given that they were advocating limits on wife beating not backed up by the Koran. Sura 4:34 (Women), a major verse on wife beating, has six main translations, five of the six say beat or scourge and the sixth dubiously inserts words to change the meaning to "beat them (lightly)"
While you can find strange inconsistencies in the lives of early leaders of other faiths, (Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's multiple wives come to mind) where this becomes salient is when trying to examine the status of women in Islam today. I can't conclusively prove the Koran is the cause of Muslim women's sad state today I think it's a good window. It could be a chicken and egg case, cultural attitudes bleeding over into the texts. What is clear is that the attitudes and practices in the Koran are a big part of the culture.
Now where this starts to get really interesting is when we take into account Islam's condemnation of the West as being decadent and morally corrupt. I agree, we are, For crying out loud, we defend the proliferation of Pornography in the West. Not only is pornography incredibly morally repugnant but its' highly caustic and destructive effect on society is almost impossible to overstate. I won't go into the whole terrorism vs. taking a moral stand in seeking change, we all have our preferred methods of changing the world for the better. In the West we have our fair share of sexual predators, the difference is we don't use scripture to legally protect it.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
To Bruce, at PETA
On Friday the VP of PETA came to BYU to debate about whether Vegetarianism should be a tenant of the LDS faith. I was questioned afterward as to how I would have responded. I am not going to take the time to outline PETA's case, I should be able to get to video of it soon and then I'll edit that in.
1. Vegetarianism not best nutritionally.
(U) PETA claims that Vegetarianism is by far the healthiest diet.
(L) If it isn't then a major tenant of PETA is invalidated.
(IL) If vegetarianism was then professional nutritionists wouldn't advise people to eat meat. I used to not eat meat for personal reasons but stopped because every nutritionist I have seen (quite a few) told me I should and I was suffering ill effects from it.
(!) PETA's position that no one should eat any meat is actually counter-nutritional.
2. Our bodies not meant to be Vegetarian.
(U) Following any human origin theory (Creationism, Evolution or genetically grown by aliens etc.) our bodies were designed to optimise survival. We have all purpose hands to make and use technology rather than claws and talons like animals do. We have enormous brain power to help us make shelter, tools, weapons etc. We have all kinds of natural instincts to help us, (procreation, fight or flight, security seeking) as well as ones that make us human (Love, altruism, guilt, compassion)
(L) Under Creationism our bodies were made this way by God and under Evolution by trial and error. On this Evolution theory, in the distant past, one branch of humans went for all meat, one for Vegetarianism and one for a hybrid. Under Alien Astronaut theory the SOB Anunnaki from the wandering planet Nibiru genetically made us this way so we would have miserable lives. (I am not making that up)
(IL) We have the teeth of omnivores, made for a diet of both meat and non-meat.
(!) If you believe in either of the two mainstream theories then forces far greater and wiser than us (God or Natural selection) want us to eat meat and vegetables. If you believe the third, don’t look now, but your tin foil hat is slipping.
3. Animal Cruelty.
(U) Lots of sad stuff needlessly happens to the animals we eat. Tons of bad stuff also needlessly happens to people. We need to decide how to spend our limited philanthropic resources.
(L) Human suffering is far more damaging to society than animal suffering as we see it and wonder if we will be next. Those living in the middle of it (pretty much anywhere in Africa) lose faith in humanity and lose their own humanity as they try to just survive.
(IL) While we should do something about the animals it is far more important to help other humans first. An animal just does not have the same worth as a human.
(!) Mass death, dehumanization and social decay.
4. Distribution, not food shortages the problem.
(U) PETA blamed world wide hunger on the meat industry, saying that there was not enough food production for meat eaters and the rest of the world. World hunger is wholly a distribution issue. Man-made famines are the norm in Africa and a lot of the time when there is a food supply problem men make it worse. Even in the Irish Potato Famine things would have been ok had not selfish distribution issues arisen. The most classic example of a man-made famine is Somalia in the early '90s. PETA even had the gall to blame this on the meat industry.
(L) Cross-apply my last argument about the destructiveness of human suffering and need to tackle human problems first.
(IL) As long as we refuse to acknowledge what the problem is we won't find a solution. All the food in the world is useless unless distributed.
(!) PETA's claim that food shortages are the problem when it's distribution prolongs the problem and delays the solution.
5. Even if the problem is shortages, US Agriculture policy the problem, not production capability.
(U) US agricultural polices have a great effect on production in the rest of the world.
(L) We can have a large impact by changing US policy.
(IL) We are hurting farming industry in developing countries. World wide food production is not at it's peak. With a policy change we could make more food.
(!) We should change farm policy if it really is a food shortage problem. A policy change could take effect overnight while slow conversion to Vegetarianism will take several years.
6. Even if mass Vegetarianism does increase food production eventually without policy changes the gains will be obliterated by governments keeping the prices up for their economies.
(U) We are not at production capacity now because of farm policies.
(L) If we free up more capability by vegetarianism the forces that keep us short of full production now will simply adjust.
(IL) We will have spent years wasting our efforts all while more needless deaths have occurred because we didn't look at what the real problem.
(!) Death, Famine, Dehumanization, disillusion with vegetarianism.
In closing, given a choice between telling people that world hunger is caused by a lack of production capability and leading them to think Vegetarianism will fix the problem when it won't and discussing the real problems to find real solutions that would save lives which is more ethical?
1. Vegetarianism not best nutritionally.
(U) PETA claims that Vegetarianism is by far the healthiest diet.
(L) If it isn't then a major tenant of PETA is invalidated.
(IL) If vegetarianism was then professional nutritionists wouldn't advise people to eat meat. I used to not eat meat for personal reasons but stopped because every nutritionist I have seen (quite a few) told me I should and I was suffering ill effects from it.
(!) PETA's position that no one should eat any meat is actually counter-nutritional.
2. Our bodies not meant to be Vegetarian.
(U) Following any human origin theory (Creationism, Evolution or genetically grown by aliens etc.) our bodies were designed to optimise survival. We have all purpose hands to make and use technology rather than claws and talons like animals do. We have enormous brain power to help us make shelter, tools, weapons etc. We have all kinds of natural instincts to help us, (procreation, fight or flight, security seeking) as well as ones that make us human (Love, altruism, guilt, compassion)
(L) Under Creationism our bodies were made this way by God and under Evolution by trial and error. On this Evolution theory, in the distant past, one branch of humans went for all meat, one for Vegetarianism and one for a hybrid. Under Alien Astronaut theory the SOB Anunnaki from the wandering planet Nibiru genetically made us this way so we would have miserable lives. (I am not making that up)
(IL) We have the teeth of omnivores, made for a diet of both meat and non-meat.
(!) If you believe in either of the two mainstream theories then forces far greater and wiser than us (God or Natural selection) want us to eat meat and vegetables. If you believe the third, don’t look now, but your tin foil hat is slipping.
3. Animal Cruelty.
(U) Lots of sad stuff needlessly happens to the animals we eat. Tons of bad stuff also needlessly happens to people. We need to decide how to spend our limited philanthropic resources.
(L) Human suffering is far more damaging to society than animal suffering as we see it and wonder if we will be next. Those living in the middle of it (pretty much anywhere in Africa) lose faith in humanity and lose their own humanity as they try to just survive.
(IL) While we should do something about the animals it is far more important to help other humans first. An animal just does not have the same worth as a human.
(!) Mass death, dehumanization and social decay.
4. Distribution, not food shortages the problem.
(U) PETA blamed world wide hunger on the meat industry, saying that there was not enough food production for meat eaters and the rest of the world. World hunger is wholly a distribution issue. Man-made famines are the norm in Africa and a lot of the time when there is a food supply problem men make it worse. Even in the Irish Potato Famine things would have been ok had not selfish distribution issues arisen. The most classic example of a man-made famine is Somalia in the early '90s. PETA even had the gall to blame this on the meat industry.
(L) Cross-apply my last argument about the destructiveness of human suffering and need to tackle human problems first.
(IL) As long as we refuse to acknowledge what the problem is we won't find a solution. All the food in the world is useless unless distributed.
(!) PETA's claim that food shortages are the problem when it's distribution prolongs the problem and delays the solution.
5. Even if the problem is shortages, US Agriculture policy the problem, not production capability.
(U) US agricultural polices have a great effect on production in the rest of the world.
(L) We can have a large impact by changing US policy.
(IL) We are hurting farming industry in developing countries. World wide food production is not at it's peak. With a policy change we could make more food.
(!) We should change farm policy if it really is a food shortage problem. A policy change could take effect overnight while slow conversion to Vegetarianism will take several years.
6. Even if mass Vegetarianism does increase food production eventually without policy changes the gains will be obliterated by governments keeping the prices up for their economies.
(U) We are not at production capacity now because of farm policies.
(L) If we free up more capability by vegetarianism the forces that keep us short of full production now will simply adjust.
(IL) We will have spent years wasting our efforts all while more needless deaths have occurred because we didn't look at what the real problem.
(!) Death, Famine, Dehumanization, disillusion with vegetarianism.
In closing, given a choice between telling people that world hunger is caused by a lack of production capability and leading them to think Vegetarianism will fix the problem when it won't and discussing the real problems to find real solutions that would save lives which is more ethical?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
