Iranian cleric blames quakes on promiscuous women

[Connavar]

Iran and their religious leaders....

They tell woman that going to soccer games isnt safe for them.

I wouldnt listen to those kind of people no matter their religion.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

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

Definitions of ignorant:

* adjective: lacking information or knowledge
* adjective: lacking basic knowledge

Sorry, but someone who believes that earthquakes can be caused by God's wrath on promiscuous women is ignorant of the truth. And in this case deliberately so, so I'm not deriding them. I didn't say they were "stupid", that would imply that they lacked intelligence. I fully respect the right of people to believe that the Earth is flat and that we are being ruled by alien reptiles in disguise, but only if they have a free choice to do so.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

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.

I'm in the UK, but actually, as regards Tony Blair's House of Commons speech, that was me, and yes I was ignorant of the truth, and very certainly in hindsight, deliberately so. Am I stupid, no. Was I a fool to believe politicians do not lie, I increasingly believe so. But is this at all relevant to this discussion, I don't think so. I, at least live in a country with a free press, an opposition to the current government in power, and an unrestricted Internet, and I can find out the truth for myself without a knock on the door from the police. I do not have to believe what I am force-fed by a dictatorial regime, but can practise any religion I choose without persecution. My ancestors fought for those rights, often with their own lives. I have laws and punishments that are fair and just and don't treat women as second class citizens.

I agree with TTBRAHWTMG, my country is far from perfect, but it is a damn sight better than it could be... We've had our religious eccentrics in the past, and we got rid of them... Charles I, Cromwell ...what about having the Pope back in charge? No, I'll stick with the lying politicians thank you very much!

[Dave]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

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?

In such cases, these should be questions of morals, not of religion. It turns on whether you think that religious people and religious leaders can hold a moral high ground. Religions are conservative by nature, and that is a brake on excessively liberal reforms, but just because something has always been done that way does not make it right. For example, the Church had no problem with Slavery.

[Dave]

Can we remember to refute the post itself and not attack individual members here. We are not against a good argument but this thread has the potential to get out of hand and will be closed if that occurs.

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

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

I don't believe in ignoring things. Too many evils are brushed under the carpet that way.


One point that occurred to me after posting earlier, is the relationship of this promiscuous women=quakes idea and the issue of belief. As far as I'm concerned, a person is free to believe the Earth is a jam-jar carried in the back of a recycling lorry if he so wishes. (Though I still reserve my right to ridicule him and his belief.) But there is more at stake, here, surely. This cleric is blaming a certain section of society for causing life-threatening catastrophes and for risking more such catastrophes. Two things arise from that 'belief' being followed.

First, why should anyone worry about taking steps to protect the population from earthquakes by relocating cities, building quake-proof housing, investing in quake-detection technology? After all, these things aren't necessary if all that needs to be done is keep women pure and covered. Therefore, more people -- more of his flock, his co-religionists -- are likely to die as and when the next quake hits.

Second, if a woman chooses to go outside with her hair partly uncovered, what is likely to be the reaction of those who fear her appearance will incur the wrath of God on everyone? Do I think she will be ignored and left alone? Do I think she will be asked politely to cover herself and if she chooses not to, will be allowed to continue unmolested? No and no. This woman is at risk. After all, if someone can prevent an earthquake destroying his village by the simple expedient of beating her up or worse -- her life against the lives of many others -- it makes sense for him to do it.

To put this another way, what if a wild-eyed BNP supporter claimed that volcanic eruptions were caused because we had too many Muslim/Arab/black/yellow/polka-dotted people living in England, and that the way to prevent such eruptions killing us all would be to ensure we had fewer of such people living here? Should we ignore such a person and let him rant and collect more and more of the delusional around him? Do we wait for the killings to start before doing something? Or do we laugh at him now, make it clear he is (at best) misguided (at worst a rabble-rousing charlatan), show his beliefs up for the idiocy they are, and do our best to ensure no one is harmed by his message?

[Ursa major]

There are Polka-dotted People in the UK?!

We're all doomed...!


*cough*


Sorry, because as The Judge points out, this sort of thing is not a joke for some people, and because some amongst the ignorant are, if only by the law of averages, likely to be violent.

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

There are Polka-dotted People in the UK?!

Of course. One-legged people who like Czech dancing. Very dangerous.

[Ursa major]

No doubt some extreme party or other will soon be telling them to hop off, and in double quick time....

[skeptical]

Just a note about earthquake frequency. An earlier post suggested these are increasing. Sorry. That is just an urban myth. In fact, since seismographs were universal (about 100 years) overall there has been a slight decrease in earthquakes.

Twentieth Century Earthquakes - Confronting an Urban Legend

There are about 20 serious earthquakes per year. Of which one can be called massive. Nothing at all unusual about that.

[j. d. worthington]

D. A.: I wasn't picking out Moslems for my comment, save for this one case (as he was the one in the story in question). As can be seen from my comments on the Westboro Baptist Church elsewhere, I hold anyone, from any religion (or any secular philosophy, for the matter of that) who spouts such bilge, to be contemptible at best.

Nor can I agree with letting such comments slide. Were it simply a private citizen, I would challenge them, but I wouldn't be too concerned. On the other hand, when you have someone in authority who is listened to, and whose opinions are taken seriously by any percentage of the population... that's a different matter. Then it becomes frankly dangerous. We have seen, time and again, what happens when such beliefs are not challenged, ridiculed, mocked, and derided and proven to be the hollow maunderings of someone who is either an idiot him- or herself, or is venal and calculating enough to think that their followers are such, and (themselves knowing better) sell them such vicious, hateful nonsense that ensures some group becomes a scapegoat for whatever ills may be occurring at the time. History teaches us where this leads, and no, it should never be tolerated, not for a single instant.

While I have quoted the man before on this subject, I think this is an appropriate instance to do so again; from H. L. Mencken, three quotes:

The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.
True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge.

We are living in an age when sectarian violence is once more on the rise; when "ministers" spouting hatred and violence are "tolerated" rather than booted off the premises or ridiculed; when women are once more being murdered in the name of protecting the community against witchcraft. A time when the right-wing politicians (religious and otherwise) are completely rewriting history in order to support their own political agendas, and denying fact as interpretation. The more we allow such things to continue without challenge, without completely eviscerating them by use of reason, scientific knowledge, education, compassion, a desire for genuine justice, and an attempt to provide the basic liberties and freedoms (and respect) to all members of a society, the more we ourselves contribute to the spread of ignorance, superstition, foolishness, the decay of critical thinking, and the corruption of those liberties and safeguards.

No. Toleration only works when both parties are willing to tolerate the other. The war between such people and the rest of us was begun by them; let any derision they receive fall squarely where it belongs: on their own heads.

[Devil's Advocate]

@TTBRAHWTMG,

Firstly, thanks for compliment. I rather like my name, too. May I ask just what your name means? It's certainly unique.

As regards separation of church and state, as I said before, I do agree with the idea. I wasn't attacking the democratic system, nor democratic nations. Nor, for that matter, you. If it came off like that, I apologise. And, yes, 'nonsense' was probably not the best word to use.

What I was trying to express skepticism for, is the notion that this separation is truly implemented. I think religion most definitely plays a part in government. The same-sex marriage example you gave: what reason could there be for not allowing gay marriages? Religion seems to me to be the most significant reason. There certainly isn't any logical or scientific reason for why the Defense of Marriage Act should define marriage exlusively as a union between a man and woman, and yet it is the reason gay marriage is not allowed in 45 of the 50 US states. Sure, religion is not 'officially' a reason for rationale behind most laws (unlike in this part of the world) but I would argue it still plays a role, even if unofficially. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I feel.

Who has greater religious freedom? A Muslim in Canada or even the U.S. bible belt, or a Jew in Iran or Saudi Arabia?

Well, I wouldn't exactly use Iran and Saudi for comparison with US and Canada; the former are hardly models for Islamic theocracy. Forget about Jews, I'm a Muslim and even I wouldn't want to live there.

But if you compare a Muslim in the "bible belt" versus, say, a Jew here in Dubai, I would most certainly argue that they're equal. There are plenty of Christians and Hindus and whatever-elses here, and they're not exactly persecuted or derided or treated any less because of their faith. I don't imagine it will be any different for Jews. (I'm not personally aware of any Jews here, but that's likely a result of (a) the fact that I don't bother asking people their religion of choice; and (b) Jewish people, themselves, likely not comfortable with the idea of living in an Arab and Muslim country.)

[Devil's Advocate]

@J.D.,
I know you weren't singling out Muslims. I've read enough of your posts to know you're not like that. Just yesterday I was reading this thread where you had an extended and very eloquently and passionately stated debate with someone regarding J.K. Rowling's standing in the annals of literature*. I know you're a thoughtful and intelligent individual, and I most certainly hold you in high regard. I feel I have to say that, because I don't want you to think that I think of you (or anyone else here, for that matter) as anti-Muslim. I know you're not.

I assure you, I'm not some super-sensitive Muslim who flies off the handle if someone criticises a cleric or something. As it so happens, I am very critical of clerics, myself, and firmly believe that one of the most significant causes for my country (Pakistan) being in the perpetual mess it is in (as regards to problems in society with intolerance, uber-conservatism, and the biggest concern: the Taliban and their associated groups) is in large part due to the misinformation (whether inadvertant or deliberate) disseminated from clerics.

As for the argument regarding tolerating people like the cleric, I think you misunderstand me. Or perhaps I just wasn't clear. I'm afraid that can occasionally happen, since I'm not nearly as eloquent as some of you in expressing my thoughts. I shall address you, Ursa and The Judge here, since all three of you expressed similar concerns.

I am not advocating that oppression, hateful ideologies, misogyny, paranoia or superstition should be tolerated. We should always do our best to stop them from spreading. And that's why I argued in favour of ignoring people like the cleric. What people with propaganda want, above all else, is to have their ideologies heard, listened to, spread, repeated, and -- ultimately -- believed.

For example, when Osama Bin Laden comes out with his latest, greatest videotape encouraging people to destoy America/Israel/UK/whoever-else-he-has-a-grudge-against, what he wants is for his message to be heard. He wants his videotape to be broadcast globally. The fact that you ridicule his comments after showing the tape, that is inconsequential. I promise you, OBL doesn't care. Because he still got what he wants, the tape has been broadcast. Now he knows that for all of us who argue that his tape is bull, there will be at least some who listen to it and think, "Gee, I think he has a point." Even if only one out of every thousand people think that, then he succeeds in spreading his hate. Same with this Iranian cleric. Before, it was only a handful of his own followers who heard his theories. Now, BBC has spread that view to millions.

So that is the context in which I said we should ignore them. Don't broadcast Osama's latest message; don't tell the world about the cleric. Osama sends CNN a tape? Burn it. I know, I know - freedom of information. While I'm generally in favour of that, in such scenarios, I am fully in favour of censorship. Freedom be damned; it's more important to prevent hateful messages from spreading. And by broadcasting the messages on news stations, we are inadvertantly helping spread the message of hate, inspite of our best intentions.

Hence, we should ignore them. It doesn't matter what message of hate a radical preaches, when he is standing in a vast desert, shouting to the sands. If no one can hear him, we win.


* - Did I use that correctly? It seems off, for some reason...

[Moonbat]

it's more important to prevent hateful messages from spreading

what if it is the hate of hatred?

It is interesting that today there are two other stories relating to the West's ongoing attack on Islamic values.

1. Belgium is banning the veil, although really they are banning things that cover the face so as to make identification impossible (or difficult) will this include motorcycle helmets being worn in public, or scarfs wrapped up round the mouth, or even large comedy shades and moustaches?

2. South Park creators are being threatened (or according to the threatener, being warned about what will happen in reality) for depicting the prophet Mohammed in a bear suit. It's very clever because it is in an episode where all religious figures are being depicted (including a drug taking bhudda) but for obvious reasons Mohammed isn't being drawn normally he is hidden away in a bear suit (probably a reference to the school teacher that was arrested for letting her class name a teddy bear Mohammed). It is the 200th episode of South Park

So just days after an Iranian Cleric is ridiculed in the west for suggesting Earthquakes are a form of punishment from God for adultery (due to women showing their hair) Belguim is banning religious dress and South Park is mocking the prophet Mohammed. What an intolerate bunch of Islamaphobes we are.

[GrownUp]

I sort of think that ignoring racists and bigots disempowers them. But when racists and bigots are already in power then, well it's like when any corrupt or dangerous person is in power. Talking about them is the first part of protest. It's true in China, it should be true in Iran and Afganistan?

Particularly as it is not just women who are in danger. Any macho religious society has great rafts of people in danger. Kids, mostly. People attacked as witches lately are often children. When people are part of a structure based on power and misogyny, doesn't child abuse often follow? My last statement is anecdotal, I know.

In this country (U.K.) abused children do have non-secular support systems. Abused kids have a greater likelihood to grow up to work in the sex industry, don't they? Statistics do show this is true in the American midwest, and there is a society which, though strongly religious, has a nominal division between church and state.

Clerics in Iran and Afganistan have political power. The evangelical movement in Nigerian politics is growing rapidly. Surely we can't just say 'ignore it'? People will get hurt.

Nigerian witch-children:
Children are targets of Nigerian witch hunt | World news | The Observer

Afganistan dancing boys:
The dancing boys of Afghanistan | World news | The Guardian

[dustinzgirl]

I find this whole article ironic because Iran has massive amounts of forced human trafficking and sex slavery.

Also, please don't anyone think that what the cleric is saying represents the entire religion. I've read the Qu'ran and I didn't see anything about earthquakes caused by naked women. Of course I read the English version so there might have been something lost in translation.