Iranian cleric blames quakes on promiscuous women

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by Moonbat

If earthquakes are acts of God punishing humans for their sins then why were there Earthquakes before Humans?

Because the Wolly Mammoth didn't wear hijab, either...

[Grimward]

Why haven't we evolved from walking on two feet to being able to float through the air, and communicate telepathically across vast distances?

Because the curriculum requires us to be able to distinguish cause and effect between fashion preferences and natural phenomena first?

With you on ignoring them, though, so the rest of this post will give this "story" all the attention it deserves.....

NONE

[GOLLUM]

Originally Posted by Allegra

Oooooh if only we can have that sort of power I'll risk going around naked!

Indeed...you could join Mahler and Sibelius in the Jacuzzi.....

[Moonbat]

Because the Wolly Mammoth didn't wear hijab, either...

but male Mammoths were able to resist the sight of a long haired female Mammoth flounting her enormous thighs and decidedly plump rump.

[Allegra]

Originally Posted by GOLLUM

Indeed...you could join Mahler and Sibelius in the Jacuzzi.....

Can't imagine the consequences....

Uh-ha! But I thought you were talking about music playing in your other post!

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by Moonbat

but male Mammoths were able to resist the sight of a long haired female Mammoth flounting her enormous thighs and decidedly plump rump.

Not if they were like Sir Mix-a-lot.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Moonbat

Also its interesting that (apparently) the number of natural disasters are increasing, with the past decade being the most disastrous in modern history.

I wonder if that is really true, and if so why?

Certainly, there must be better detection and reporting of phenomena, and since the world's population has increased there is more likelihood of such phenomena happening in populated areas, but could that explain such a rise completely?

We could be partially responsible for freakish weather due to our industrial activities. Altering water courses, and building settlements on flood plains, fault lines and at the foot of caldera wouldn't help either. But could there be wilder explanations, like setting off underground nuclear explosions?

And the educated cleric does not believe his diatribe, only the ignorant followers to whom he preaches.

[Devil's Advocate]

Again, I don't think it's fair to deride such people with generalisations, particularly negative ones like "ignorant".

Everyone and their brother now knows that the Bush administration misled the American people about Iraq. But at the time, there were plenty of people who did believe that Iraq had WMDs, and that Saddam posed a significant threat to US. Were these people "ignorant", too? Were they stupid? Were they fools? No, they weren't.

It is natural for people to believe the claims of those that are viewed to be knowledgeable, or experts, particularly those in power. Americans assumed Iraq was a threat because they were told so by their government, an entity that most would trust to be well-informed, have access to reliable intel, and -- above all -- be honest with their people.

The people who believe in this cleric likely hold him in similar regard, at least when it comes to religious matters. Dismissing them as "ignorant" is unfair, in my opinion.

[TTBRAHWTMG]

The only real value in stories like this is that it should strengthen the case for separation of church and state. Be free to believe what you want, but keep those beliefs out of governance. Oops...not quite possible in a theocracy, is it?

[Devil's Advocate]

And it's possible in a democracy?? Please. Give me a break. That's self-congratulatory nonsense.

I agree with the principle; however, it's hard to actually put into practice. What happens in situations where laws and policies put into place by governments conflict with the people's religious beliefs?

That's when debates like abortion get heated. Oh, wait, US and UK have separation of church and state, don't they? I must have been imagining things then.

[Moonbat]

there were plenty of people who did believe that Iraq had WMDs, and that Saddam posed a significant threat to US

Equating the lies told by the Bush administration regarding WMDs in Iraq to the lies told by this iranian Cleric that there is a causal link between promiscuity and earthquakes is a bit of a stretch.

I can see that this isn't your point, your point is that people will believe those in power or posistions of authority when they tell lies, but ignorance is a subjective term. I'm sure many religious believers consider intelligent atheistic people ignorant on the subject of faith. Surely those that do believe the statement made about dress sense leading to Earthquakes can be considered ignorant on the subject of earthquakes.

[Devil's Advocate]

Not really. Ignorance implies that they are clueless about the subject at hand. Atheists are not necessarily ignorant about religion. I know people who are quite well-read on theology and are atheists; they are not ignorant, they just don't believe in it enough to be a part of it.

Similarly, even the people who believe the cleric are not necessarily ignorant about earthquakes. There might very well be people who are knowledgeable enough to know the science behind earthquakes, but they still might believe that the process itself is a result of God's wrath. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Anyway, we now seem to be going against what I myself advised earlier. We should be ignoring such proclamations from radicals, since attention and a wide audience is what they want. So what do you say we end this? Surely, the cleric's words aren't worth such extended discussion.

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Devil's Advocate. I love your name, and the term could usually be used to describe me. I was basically in agreement with your posts in this thread until the post regarding separation of church and state, and I believe it deserves a response. I fear I am risking taking this thread way off topic, and should really begin a new one, but I will leave that decision to the moderators.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

And it's possible in a democracy?? Please. Give me a break. That's self-congratulatory nonsense.

Self-congratulatory nonsense? I'll begrudingly grant self-congratulatory, but nonsense? Look at fact. First off, I don't know why you felt a need to attack democracy from my post. Separation of church of state is possible in many forms of government and not only democracy. Democracy is not the antonym for Theocracy. Secondly, evidence shows that freedom of religion IS possible and even the norm in a democracy, and is usually protected by the rule of law. Look at Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Virtually every religion and deity is worshiped in modern democracies. Just look at the variety of places of worship in Canada (and yes, even in the US and the UK). Sure there are regions of these countries that still persecute minority religions, or even subsets of their own religion, but these are illegal and only provide more evidence for the importance of separation of church and state.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

What happens in situations where laws and policies put into place by governments conflict with the people's religious beliefs?

You used abortion as an example. In case you have not yet realized somehow, I'm Canadian by the way, and regardless of my personal or religious beliefs on the issue, it is legal for a woman to opt for abortion. The same is true in the U.S., where 75% of the population still considers themselves Christian. Why stop at abortion, why not homosexuality? In Canada, again, where the population is still dominantly Christian, same-sex marriage is legal. In the U.S., same-sex marriages are also currently granted by five of the 50 states, one federal district, and one Indian tribe, and when was the last time you heard of someone being jailed or executed for homosexuality?

Don't take the bashing of theocracy as bashing Muslims, either. Atleast here in Canada, Islam is a great and respected religion...and the Vatican is just as much a theocracy as the Islamic ones such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen.

So, you ask what happens when laws conflict with beliefs? In short, the laws are upheld, while the disenchanted rally, protest, and argue in an effort to have the laws changed. The few religious extremists will grow frustrated that the government does not turn purely on their religious beliefs, and some of those will even get violent. Those that do, get punished or imprisoned, if and when they break the laws.

How are minority religions treated? You mentioned that you are Muslim, and this thread started with Islamic clerics within a theocracy, so, I'll focus there. Here in Canada, where Muslims still are only 2% of our population, every effort is made to modify the laws to accomodate the religious beliefs while not allowing non-believers to be negatively impacted. For example, the wearing of the hijab is permitted in schools and places of work. Islamic holidays and dietary restrictions are also respected, even providing access to halal foods wherever possible. It is difficult to allow observance of Islamic rules against usury due to negative impact on lenders, but Muslims are allowed to set up their own borrowing groups. It is only when Muslim groups tried to introduce movement towards the rule of Sharia law for Muslims in Canada that they were met with rigorous opposition, but much of that was from liberal Muslims and women's interest groups.

I am sure that you can provide examples of racism and prejudice, even institutional, within democracies...but that does not negate the fact that separation of church and state provides the greatest OPPORTUNITY for freedom of religion. Who has greater religious freedom? A Muslim in Canada or even the U.S. bible belt, or a Jew in Iran or Saudi Arabia?

As far as defending democracy, I leave it to Churchill's famous words...
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

Bottom line...let the clerics blame quakes on promiscuous women to their congregation, let the southern pastor tell their congregation that the debauchery of New Orleans caused Katrina...just make sure that they have to keep their preaching to their churches and mosques, and please help ensure they are banned from the parliament buildings, congresses, municipal halls, and especially our best defense, (fingers crossed) the public education systems.

[GrownUp]

It's celery that causes earthquakes. Celery is yeuchly. Bleaugh -> earthquake. Actually true.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I have a better suggestion: ignore them. Trust me, they hate that more than anything else.

I can't agree with you here: folk of this type (whatever their beliefs) are either oppressing others or inciting oppression. And while there's not much we can do about this behaviour in other countries, folk of this type operate in our own countries and expect respect for their behaviour (respect which our stupid government in the UK thinks ought to be codified in our law).