Ohio's Supreme Court backs the firing of a creationist science teacher

[Spider-Aziz]

I thought this was about the Ohio Supreme Court decision. How the hell did it become about the merits of Islam? Y'all can't stick on the same subject for s***. Come the f*** on, nouan.

I ask how one topic leads to another repeatedly, so I understand your
But things go, one thing leads to another, one person entering the discussion with the nerve striking point, and

I wonder how long before the debate starts.

You said it

 

[Breogan]

OK you two, we can bash one religion over another all day, many had their high and low points, judeo christian scripture has it's own barbaric text about how to control women and slaves etc.. Muslims also had their high points where they were the intellectual center of the world, excelling in science, mathematics, medicine, astronomy etc.. While christian nations fell into a dark age, terrified of concepts like the number zero because it somehow denied the ever presence of god, etc. Muslims fell to this kind of trap too though, the point being scientifically it can be a "trap" or a dead end - When "revelation replaces investigation".

That is why we keep creationism, religion / superstition of any kind, including cross branding preachers out of science class.

N.D.Tyson puts it best - [YT]6oxTMUTOz0w[/YT]

 

[Pink Ranger]

Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them." Quran 4:34

"Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of the body. Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives are to submit to their husbands in everything." Ephesians 5:22-24

 

[Spider-Who?]

"Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of the body. Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives are to submit to their husbands in everything." Ephesians 5:22-24

While the messages are similar, those two quotes are hardly equal. One is saying man is a superior being without question and promotes violence towards women. The other says that the husband is the leader, and therefore should be obeyed.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

It's badly translated, and wrongfully misinterpreted
And it doesn't/does not promote violence toward woman

 

[Thundercrack85]

And creationism (intelligent design is good to say, maybe better for disconnecting it from unbalanced belief) should be a concept discussed in science, cause unlike common belief, they are connected. If not for God creating this universe, there would be no science, there would be no elegant arrangement and structure to this world, instead the Big Bang would be like what the mouth and nose shoot while sneezing, scattered particles

I think perhaps some clarification might be useful. In America and Canada (and to a lesser extent Britain) when people say creationism, they generally mean the relatively recent idea of Protestant Young Earth creationism. Which outright rejects evolution (for both humans, and everything else), and claims the world is between 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

Intelligent design is basically the repackaging of Young Earth creationism, but making it look slightly science-y. People who promote intelligent design insist that it’s different from creationism. Even though it’s obviously just Young Earth creationism dressed up.

This is rather different from the creationism that most other religions have, and indeed, even most other Christians. For example Young Earth creationists also reject the Big Bang.

Depending on the poll, like 30-40% of Americans are Young Earth creationists.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

You're right, it's useful
Thanks

 

[nouan]

I thought this was about the Ohio Supreme Court decision. How the hell did it become about the merits of Islam? Y'all can't stick on the same subject for s***. Come the f*** on, nouan.

Hahaha, yes yes I know. Didn't mean to derail, just wanted to take a little stab. As final statement about islam, it's funny how everytime you criticize it, someone points out the things in the bible. Yes, I'm aware of those, I can still criticize islam too.
Second, you always need some scholar to tell you what the things in quran really mean. That's ****ed up. And third, "the translation is wrong! It doesn't say hit hard! Just hit softly, it's not beating a woman." Yeah. Nice. That's all.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Off-topic, but I noticed nouan referring to Malala Yousafzai as Afghan. She is actually Pakistani. I don't know why, but that bugged me enough to comment on. Perhaps because it's kinda dumb to cite someone as an example to back up an argument, when you can't even remember such a simple and critical detail like who they even are.

That's all. Carry on with your pointless Internet wars.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Scholars are better, not the ones needed
And that last point is not 'and', it's a last resort, and not damaging hard

 

[nouan]

I guess there is room for interpetation on that one, eh? So it's not wrong to hit woman hard or just push lightly, both are fine. Anyway, that laryngeal nerve, how is that intelligent desing?

 

[The Question]

Hahaha, yes yes I know. Didn't mean to derail, just wanted to take a little stab. As final statement about islam, it's funny how everytime you criticize it, someone points out the things in the bible. Yes, I'm aware of those, I can still criticize islam too.

1: The point is that Islam isn't anything special in this regard so there's no reason to single them out.

2: Islam isn't your culture. It isn't something that effects you or that you can influence or change in any way. And most Muslims living in the west aren't militant wife beaters, they're ordinary people who just go about their lives treating others decently who are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it. ****ting on another culture that are themselves more often than not victims in your society while giving your society a pass in comparison is pretty low.

Second, you always need some scholar to tell you what the things in quran really mean. That's ****ed up.

No it's not. It's acknowledging that westerners with no first hand experience with a culture should probably learn about the history and nuances of that culture from natives and from experts who have studied that culture before they judge it.

And third, "the translation is wrong! It doesn't say hit hard! Just hit softly, it's not beating a woman." Yeah. Nice. That's all.

I think that's a bad argument too, but the fact remains that wether or not that passage does condone domestic abuse, it's still not something that isn't present in every other religion and it's not something that effects the way most Muslims in the world live and think.

 

[nouan]

Off-topic, but I noticed nouan referring to Malala Yousafzai as Afghan. She is actually Pakistani. I don't know why, but that bugged me enough to comment on. Perhaps because it's kinda dumb to cite someone as an example to back up an argument, when you can't even remember such a simple and critical detail like who they even are.

That's all. Carry on with your pointless Internet wars.

Oh like it makes all the difference if she was from Afghanistan or Pakistan, that doesn't define who she is. Main point was that she is a girl living in a muslim country and got shot because she wanted to go to school.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Yeah it's not like nationality is a big deal in that part of the world.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Oh like it makes all the difference if she was from Afghanistan or Pakistan, that doesn't define who she is.

Is that a joke?

 

[BestGirl]

My God, this verse is badly translated. I don't know how to translate the original text, but this is badly translated.
The man is the caretaker, men are caretakers, because of certain qualities for each
And the first thing is not to give harsh talk, it's supposed to be elegant calm talk, sort of a preach
If this does not work, move to the next step
If not, then the last solution is not "Beat", it's hit, and it's not meant to be hard beating
You have to understand as well, the second part of this verse is if the man is right, and the woman does the hard errors, it's not a permanently fixed gender situation

Men are caretakers because of certain qualities of theirs? Yeah, nothing sexist about that. Furthermore, it is not okay for adults to hit other adults, unless it's in self-defense or to protect another person from being harmed. The fact that it's not hitting hard makes it even less logical. Would you stop doing something if someone lightly pushed you?

Is a woman entitled to hit or push a man if he's wrong and she's right?

 

[BestGirl]

While the messages are similar, those two quotes are hardly equal. One is saying man is a superior being without question and promotes violence towards women. The other says that the husband is the leader, and therefore should be obeyed.

Oh yeah, that makes it all better.

I don't understand why so many people take these texts seriously. They're so clearly the products of their time and place as opposed to some unchanging truth.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Men are caretakers because of certain qualities of theirs? Yeah, nothing sexist about that. Furthermore, it is not okay for adults to hit other adults, unless it's in self-defense or to protect another person from being harmed. The fact that it's not hitting hard makes it even less logical. Would you stop doing something if someone lightly pushed you?

You just tossed on of the most BS words in modern history, a product of this time, something breaking the encroachment of people

You know the biological difference, and you know about the emotional difference accompanying it, God created us in a certain way, and gave us rules to follow

And that point with hitting is only last resort, at certain point, after the very breaking limit, and there is a limit to how hard a man is allowed to strike the wife if she SHOWS disobedience

 

[Spider-Who?]

Oh yeah, that makes it all better.

Well, yeah, it kinda does, especially when you stop to consider what it's actually saying. One passage is telling a man that he has total control over the wife, not out of mere societal roles, but because Allah made man better, oh, and because of money, apparently. It also talks about how to punish the lesser woman; to hit her if he thinks theres disobedience. I welcome Spider-Aziz to talk more about this, if he'd like, but just in case not, below is a better translation with a link to see it in context.

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
http://quran.com/4/31-37

The passage you posted had absolutely no talk about man being in charge because a woman is inferior or spends the man's money. Nor did it make any mention of punishment of any kind for a disobedient (and therefor "unrighteous"?) woman. Let's look at the statements immediately preceding and following your example:

Ephesians 5:21
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Ephesians 5:25, 5:28
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her....In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

The verse you mentioned is a small part of a larger passage about the different roles that both genders play in a "healthy" family unit. It has nothing to do with one gender being superior to another, but each person filling different roles so that a family can work as a loving and cohesive unit. "Submit" doesn't mean to subject yourself to all the crazy whims of another person here. It simply means to accept the husband's leadership as the head of a family. Isn't a remark on inequality. Do you think your boss, or the moderators here, are better humans because they're in positions of authority? We as posters have to "submit" to them because if we don't our bosses/moderators can't do their jobs, which is to keep us employed or enjoying a forum, etc. That doesn't make them superior people, nor us inferior.

Furthermore, that passage also tells a husband to love his wife as Christ loved his church. In case you weren't aware, this love involved a hell of a lot of devotion and self sacrifice, which ended with Jesus willingly dying for everyone. In other words, the Bible says that a husband must love his wife so much that her needs must be above all other desires, callings, and responsibilities; even his own life.

You'll notice that passage also doesn't command the husband to control his wife, nor does it state that she is inferior and to beat her when she doesn't fall in line. The passage is all about both genders being selfless in different ways for the betterment of the family unit. The comparison to the Church and Christ in both are incredibly important, since it is telling both the husbands and the wives to use the immense love and devotion Jesus showed to others as a guide; it's nothing to do with abuse, inequality, oppression n or enslavement of a "lesser" gender, but has everything to do with compassion, selflessness, love and devotion of both parties.

I don't understand why so many people take these texts seriously. They're so clearly the products of their time and place as opposed to some unchanging truth.

Well, its not surprising that you don't understand - you obviously pick and chose what to read without actual thought as to what is being said (which isn't an insult at you; we all do similar things to justify our own thoughts). Yes, the Bible certainly is a product of it's time, but very little about the wants, needs, and fallibility that are the nature of being human has changed. The Bible, Torah, and yes, the Quran, have some insightful things to say in that regard. The fact that due to the style of writing and translation, one may have to consider the place/time/larger picture to accurately understand a meaning doesn't change that.

But meh, I've spent far too long on a simple post then I had any intention. We all have the equal right to believe what we want, but I think the world would be a better place if everyone stopped being so disingenuous about it all.

 

[The Question]

Xenophobes to the left of me, misogynists to the right, here I am stuck in the middle.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

If that second word is aimed at me, I don't make the rules, and they definitely don't lead to that
If it is shown in one of my angry posts, I'm sorry, it's not my intention, and it's not the picture I want to send, because it does not apply.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Well, yeah, it kinda does, especially when you stop to consider what it's actually saying. One passage is telling a man that he has total control over the wife, not out of mere societal roles, but because Allah made man better, oh, and because of money, apparently. It also talks about how to punish the lesser woman; to hit her if he thinks theres disobedience. I welcome Spider-Aziz to talk more about this, if he'd like, but just in case not, below is a better translation with a link to see it in context.

There is a difference between "Lead" and "Have total control", the former is the context of the verse
You know the physical differences between male and female, and emotional differences to come with them
The punishment inflicted on the disobedient woman is not paying her attention in communication, that is done only if the delivered words of the woman to top her shape "IF" she displays disobedience, if it works, then the disturbance ends there, if it doesn't, there comes a time when hitting is the alternative, and there is a limit to how hard the man is allowed to hit the woman. There is a difference between hitting and beating
The hitting rule does not apply (AT ALL) if the woman is in her period or pregnant, especially when pregnant

Translation can come as misguiding, cause the original words come in Arabic, that language rules and style has massive difference, even metaphors sometimes can work in a misguiding way translated in another language, like English
Some mistakes come from the one translating the text

 

[BestGirl]

You just tossed on of the most BS words in modern history, a product of this time, something breaking the encroachment of people

You know the biological difference, and you know about the emotional difference accompanying it, God created us in a certain way, and gave us rules to follow

And that point with hitting is only last resort, at certain point, after the very breaking limit, and there is a limit to how hard a man is allowed to strike the wife if she SHOWS disobedience

I'm not going to bother debating with you on this because I doubt I'll change your mind and you definitely won't be able to change mine. I'll just say again that adults hitting one another is not an acceptable way to solve a problem unless it's a way to prevent physical harm from happening to someone.

The verse you mentioned is a small part of a larger passage about the different roles that both genders play in a "healthy" family unit. It has nothing to do with one gender being superior to another, but each person filling different roles so that a family can work as a loving and cohesive unit. "Submit" doesn't mean to subject yourself to all the crazy whims of another person here. It simply means to accept the husband's leadership as the head of a family. Isn't a remark on inequality. Do you think your boss, or the moderators here, are better humans because they're in positions of authority? We as posters have to "submit" to them because if we don't our bosses/moderators can't do their jobs, which is to keep us employed or enjoying a forum, etc. That doesn't make them superior people, nor us inferior.

Furthermore, that passage also tells a husband to love his wife as Christ loved his church. In case you weren't aware, this love involved a hell of a lot of devotion and self sacrifice, which ended with Jesus willingly dying for everyone. In other words, the Bible says that a husband must love his wife so much that her needs must be above all other desires, callings, and responsibilities; even his own life.

You'll notice that passage also doesn't command the husband to control his wife, nor does it state that she is inferior and to beat her when she doesn't fall in line. The passage is all about both genders being selfless in different ways for the betterment of the family unit. The comparison to the Church and Christ in both are incredibly important, since it is telling both the husbands and the wives to use the immense love and devotion Jesus showed to others as a guide; it's nothing to do with abuse, inequality, oppression n or enslavement of a "lesser" gender, but has everything to do with compassion, selflessness, love and devotion of both parties.



Well, its not surprising that you don't understand - you obviously pick and chose what to read without actual thought as to what is being said (which isn't an insult at you; we all do similar things to justify our own thoughts). Yes, the Bible certainly is a product of it's time, but very little about the wants, needs, and fallibility that are the nature of being human has changed. The Bible, Torah, and yes, the Quran, have some insightful things to say in that regard. The fact that due to the style of writing and translation, one may have to consider the place/time/larger picture to accurately understand a meaning doesn't change that.

But meh, I've spent far too long on a simple post then I had any intention. We all have the equal right to believe what we want, but I think the world would be a better place if everyone stopped being so disingenuous about it all.

What planet do you live on where the husband is always the head of the family?

I'm not misunderstanding anything. Pretty it up with as many words as you want, but telling a wife she should submit to or obey her husband, while not making similar demands on the man, is deeply offensive and sexist.

I don't get why you're so insistently defending what this guy has said, anyway. Ephesians was either written by St. Paul or one of his followers. There's no reason to assume the author is any more intelligent than you or me.

Do you also agree with another passage from Ephesians? "So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed." (Eph 4:17-19)

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I agree with the firing by the way...

 

[nouan]

1: The point is that Islam isn't anything special in this regard so there's no reason to single them out.

It is in a sense that it's not just a spiritual doctrine. It has rules for everything secular too. Islam's goal is to convert the hole world to it's unequal doctrine.

2: Islam isn't your culture. It isn't something that effects you or that you can influence or change in any way.

And I hope it doesn't become my culture, or yours. Because it's not religion of peace. I got to give that to Jesus, guy was practically a hippie. You can't say the same about Islam.

And before anyone points out the passages in the quran about living in peace with others, know that those passages are from time when Muhammad's position was weak. So of course he was preaching of peace. But soon as he was stronger again, it was "off with the heads of heretics and anyone else who doesn't accept Allah." And the thing about quran is that the later "prophecies" of Muhammad always override the older texts when they are conflicting.