Killing Female Babies in India
BAGHPAT, INDIA - Six years ago, Sandhya Sharma lived in a mountain village in Himachal Pradesh, the land of snowy mountains that is nestled in the western Himalayan range.
Sharma, 26, had never left her village before she was brought here, to the Indo-Gangetic plains of Uttar Pradesh, India's most densely populated state, married to a man whose language and culture were unknown to her.
Sharma talked about the deep isolation she felt immediately after her marriage.
"At first I never spoke to people. When I did, no one would understand me, so I cried a lot," said Sharma as she gently fussed over her year-old twins.
Such set-ups are neither marriages of convenience, nor of choice. But in the northwestern states of Haryana, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh, such arrangements are on the rise. It's a trend that seems strange in a culture where language, caste and regional identity are so deeply and separately treasured. But take one look at the 2001 national census and the numbers offer an explanation – they reflect the sad saga of the killing of baby girls and aborting female fetuses in India.
As the Indian population has grown, the country's ratio between girls to boys has declined. With a national average of 927 girls for every 1,000 boys, the ratio for children from infancy to age 6 is 798 girls to 1,000 boys in Punjab, 819 girls in Haryana and 916 in Uttar Pradesh, according to the 2001 census of India.
Over 27 per cent of India's 593 districts have an adult population ratio of under 900 females for every, 1,000 males, indicating a long-standing practice of female infanticide and feticide.
That means thousands of men can't find brides in their areas, a shortage that is felt particularly in states where the practice of female infanticide, and now feticide, is practised and accepted.
The British medical journal The Lancet recently estimated that 500,000 female fetuses are aborted each year in India solely because of their gender.
It's hard to tell whether marriages of majboori or helpless compulsion are a rising trend. The stories, to date, are anecdotal, and research on them is limited. But social workers documenting the impact of female infanticide and feticide on society insist that such marriages are on the rise.
"They are importing women from all over," said Davinder Singh Dhamo, who runs the Navodya Lok Chetna Kalyan Samiti, a non-governmental organization that has worked hard to advocate for the rights of girls, and that has fought against ultrasound clinics that are aiding the feticide business.
"In every village there are a few women who have come from far-flung areas – from Assam, from Bihar, and Jharkhand, for example."
Loneliness and culture shock shape the experiences of many of the women who've been traded casually by their families, poor mountain dwellers or impoverished rural folk for whom the spectre of dowry and the lifelong financial burdens it promises ease the crime of selling or sending their daughters far, far away.
Beyond the interstate marriages fixed through personal ties and word-of-mouth, is the more sinister trade in trafficking women, which analysts say, is on the rise. Dhamo has a vault full of horrific tales about women sold off through auctions. Among them is the tale of Sonia, a young woman from Banaras who was sold for $1,000 before a sea of curious faces.
The business in trafficking women for marriages wouldn't be thriving quite so much if female feticide and infanticide were under control. In April, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh termed female feticide "a national shame."
"The practice (of female feticide) is rising and it's all about money," said Sabu George, a researcher and activist who has worked in this area for several years.
"There are increasing numbers of doctors getting involved in this profession. Let us wait for the 2011 census and we will see."
More marriages of a forced nature are taking place every day, according to George, who fears that failure to implement laws against feticide will only add to this small but growing population of unnatural unions.
Several decades ago, men from villages in these parts trekked across India in search of brides. Almost all such marriages were second marriages, borne of desperation – a widower's desire to remarry after being spurned by a village girl on account of his age.
That was the fate of Tanjala, 35, from Bihar, who was married 20 years ago to Lal Mohammad, now 60, in Ibrahimpur, in Uttar Pradesh. Her friend and village mate, Sameema, 32, also from Bihar, was married to a man 28 years her senior when she was just 17.
"It was hard for my husband to find a young woman willing to marry him so they looked outside the state," said Tanjala.
"It was so difficult when we first came," said Sameema, whispering so that other women in the village would not hear her. "People would call us names and abuse us under their breath."
The Truth about Anti-Feminists
I recently tangled with the Anti-Feminist movement and came away with several conclusions.
I decided to go to Anti-Feminist websites and make a list of what their major complaints against feminists were.
After awhile it became clear that there was one major theme mentioned on almost all the websites that bash feminists.
Spousal and child support.
You see what has happened is these are men who got a woman pregnant (possibly by refusing to wear a condom), and maybe even married her before or after the pregnancy. Either way, their relationship fells apart and now these men are paying for child support (and spousal support if they married/divorced them too).
After they are separated and now paying for diapers and baby food these men become very angry and bitter about their depleted wallets.
So who do they blame?
Feminists for fighting for the right to child/spousal support. As if being a single mother isn't hard enough these "deadbeat dads" want to renege on their financial obligations and because the law is deducting from the pay-cheques there isn't a lot they can do about it.
So the vast majority of anti-feminists are simply deadbeat dads. That is it. Such a simple truth when you think about it.
And they shall suffer the consequences of their 5 minutes of pleasure just for the sake of what... not wearing a condom?
These losers have only one person they should really be blaming: Themselves.
I decided to go to Anti-Feminist websites and make a list of what their major complaints against feminists were.
After awhile it became clear that there was one major theme mentioned on almost all the websites that bash feminists.
Spousal and child support.
You see what has happened is these are men who got a woman pregnant (possibly by refusing to wear a condom), and maybe even married her before or after the pregnancy. Either way, their relationship fells apart and now these men are paying for child support (and spousal support if they married/divorced them too).
After they are separated and now paying for diapers and baby food these men become very angry and bitter about their depleted wallets.
So who do they blame?
Feminists for fighting for the right to child/spousal support. As if being a single mother isn't hard enough these "deadbeat dads" want to renege on their financial obligations and because the law is deducting from the pay-cheques there isn't a lot they can do about it.
So the vast majority of anti-feminists are simply deadbeat dads. That is it. Such a simple truth when you think about it.
And they shall suffer the consequences of their 5 minutes of pleasure just for the sake of what... not wearing a condom?
These losers have only one person they should really be blaming: Themselves.
The Truth about Misogyny, from the horse's mouth...
Ever wondered what causes misogyny and sexist behaviours?
Well, here is an excellent article about it: The Origins & Causes of Misogyny.
Written by a man who asserts that it is years of bitterness against females that leads to feelings of misogyny, in combination with other factors such as parental misogyny and more.
The male author however asserts at the same time that women need to be treating men with more sensitivity in order to prevent this kind of bitterness. Treating men like insensitive jerks is actually causing them to turn into insensitive jerks.
"However at the same time women need to learn that men are not insensitive jerks. Rather, they are HIGHLY sensitive jerks and need to be treated more gently and fairly. It may take more time and effort on the part of women, but if more women took the time to reject men in such a way it doesn't feel like a rejection then we'd have a lot less bitter men walking around."
He stresses that both men and women need to learn more about how the opposite sex thinks, women need to learn how to reject men with sensitivity, and men need to learn how to deal with rejection so that the man doesn't end up feeling bitterness.
The article therefore asserts that women are partially to blame for sexism due to our mistreatment of men. Perhaps he is correct. There is a ring of truth to that, even though we may not want to admit it.
Relationships are a two way street and we need to think twice about how we treat men, whether we are treating them fairly, especially if we expect them to treat us fairly too.
Well, here is an excellent article about it: The Origins & Causes of Misogyny.
Written by a man who asserts that it is years of bitterness against females that leads to feelings of misogyny, in combination with other factors such as parental misogyny and more.
The male author however asserts at the same time that women need to be treating men with more sensitivity in order to prevent this kind of bitterness. Treating men like insensitive jerks is actually causing them to turn into insensitive jerks.
"However at the same time women need to learn that men are not insensitive jerks. Rather, they are HIGHLY sensitive jerks and need to be treated more gently and fairly. It may take more time and effort on the part of women, but if more women took the time to reject men in such a way it doesn't feel like a rejection then we'd have a lot less bitter men walking around."
He stresses that both men and women need to learn more about how the opposite sex thinks, women need to learn how to reject men with sensitivity, and men need to learn how to deal with rejection so that the man doesn't end up feeling bitterness.
The article therefore asserts that women are partially to blame for sexism due to our mistreatment of men. Perhaps he is correct. There is a ring of truth to that, even though we may not want to admit it.
Relationships are a two way street and we need to think twice about how we treat men, whether we are treating them fairly, especially if we expect them to treat us fairly too.
Finally the Truth about Rape Victim in Saudi Arabia
Justice and Truth: Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has pardoned the victim of a gang rape, whose sentencing to 200 lashes caused an international outcry.
Justice Minister Abdullah bin Mohammad al-Sheikh said the king had the right to issue pardons if it was in the "public interest". The Saudi monarch usually issues pardons to mark the Muslim Eid al-Adha festival which begins on Wednesday this week.
The 19-year-old Shi'ite woman was abducted and raped along with a male companion by seven men last year in a case that has drawn criticism from around the world.
Ruling according to Saudi Arabia's strict reading of Islamic law, a court originally sentenced the woman to 90 lashes for being alone with an unrelated man and the rapists to prison terms of up to five years.
The Supreme Judicial Council last month increased the sentence to 200 lashes for the woman and six months in prison and ordered the rapists to serve between two years and nine years in prison.
President George W. Bush said earlier this month that King Abdullah "knows our position loud and clear" on the case, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said last month he hoped the ruling would be changed.
Fawziya al-Oyouni, a women's rights activist, welcomed the change but said it was not enough.
"We don't want to rely simply on pardons. We need harsher sentences for the guilty parties and we want to feel safe," she said, citing another rape case in the Eastern Province this month.
Is this a sign that rape victims in Saudi Arabia might finally be treated equitably? Maybe. Give it time and the truth will eventually shine like a beacon of light to the rest of the Middle East.
MORE DETAILS:
She was only 19 and a new bride when it happened.
Seven men held her at knifepoint and, for a number of hours, she was subjected to a horrific gang rape.
But when she later went to the authorities, they sentenced her to 90 lashes.
She complained in the media, so the punishment was increased to 200 lashes and imprisonment.
Her lawyer has been suspended for speaking out against it.
Too outlandish to be true? Well, these are the bare facts of the so- called "Qatif girl" case, which has become a cause celebre among Western liberals and in Saudi Arabia, the West's most important Middle Eastern ally.
Earlier this week, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, declared that what had happened was, indeed, an "outrage".
But he did not mean that the rape victim had suffered a gross injustice.
No, only that criticism of his country was a foreign conspiracy.
The plight of the anonymous victim has served to cast an embarrassing light on one of the world's most authoritarian and oppressive regimes.
Specifically, it has exposed the power of a judicial system based on the Sharia law of the extreme Wahhabi sect of Sunni Islam and its appalling treatment of women and persecution of religious minorities.
International pressure to clear the young woman is growing.
Now, as one Saudi judge who might well hear her latest appeal declares that she should have been sentenced to death, the victim's voice has been heard in public for the first time.
The pressure group Human Rights Watch has just released a transcript of an interview which the Qatif girl gave to one of its workers.
Her account reveals the horrific details of the original ordeal and how, having gone to the police, she was abused and demonised by the Saudi judicial system.
The attack took place in February last year and had its roots in a typical Saudi teenage arrangement which in the West would seem odd, but is a way of getting round the strict Islamic sex segregation laws.
Forbidden from approaching young women directly, young men make contact by publicly displaying their own mobile phone numbers on cards as they pass in the street or by dropping the cards through open car windows.
Others make contact using their phone's Bluetooth technology, which allows users to send messages to nearby mobile phones without knowing the telephone number.
"I had a relationship with someone on the phone," recalled the Qatif girl.
"It started when we were both 16. I had never seen him before, I just knew his voice. Then he started to threaten me and I got afraid.
"He threatened to tell my family about the relationship. Because of the threats and fear, I agreed to give him a photo of myself."
But when the girl wed another young man she became worried about the photo she had given to her "ex-boyfriend".
"I asked him for the photo back but he refused. He said: 'I'll give you the photo on the condition that you come out with me in my car.'
"I told him we could meet at a souk [market] near my neighbourhood in Qatif."
She recalled: "He started to drive me home, and when were about to turn the corner to my house, another car stopped right in front of our car.
"Two people got out of their car and stood on either side of our car. The man on my side had a knife.
"They tried to open our door. I told the individual with me not to open the door, but he did. He let them come in. I screamed."
The ordeal had begun.
"One of the men brought a knife to my throat. They told me not to speak. They pushed both of us to the back of the car and started driving. We drove a lot, but I didn't see anything since my head was forced down.
"They took us to an area with lots of palm trees. No one was there. If you kill someone there, no one would know about it."
First, they took the girl's male companion from the car.
He was the victim of homosexual rape a number of times during the course of the evening.
"I was so afraid," the girl said.
"Then they forced me out of the car. They pushed me really hard. I yelled out: 'Where are you taking me? I'm like your sister.'"
They took her to a building. Then two men came in and stripped her.
"The first man with the knife raped me. I was destroyed. I tried to force them off but I couldn't. Another man came in and did the same thing to me. I didn't even feel anything after that."
For two hours the girl begged the two men to take her home.
"I told them that it was late and that my family would be asking about me.
Then I saw a third man come into the room. There was a lot of violence.
After the third man came in, a fourth came. He slapped me and tried to choke me.
"The fifth and sixth ones were the most abusive. The fifth one took a photo of me like this. After the seventh one, I couldn't feel my body any more. I didn't know what to do. When a very fat man was on top of me I could no longer breathe."
Before she was eventually taken home by the gang, she was raped again by all seven attackers.
"They took my mobile and saw my husband's picture in my wallet.
"When I got out of the car [at her home], I couldn't even walk. I rang the doorbell and my mother opened the door. She said: 'You look tired.'
"She thought I was with my husband.
"I went to the hospital the next day. I didn't eat for one week after that, just drank water. I didn't tell anyone, but I would see the rapists faces in my sleep."
However, the story began to leak out.
"The criminals started talking about it in my neighbourhood. They thought my husband would divorce me. They wanted to ruin my reputation. Slowly, my husband started to know what had happened."
But he stood by her, outraged at what the men had done and the fact they were going unpunished.
"Two of the criminals were walking round our neighbourhood, right in front of me," her husband said.
He complained to the police on four occasions before anything was done.
Human rights activists are sure the authorities' reluctance to investigate and their subsequent actions have much to do with the fact that the woman was from Saudi's Shi'ite minority, while the accused are from the majority Sunni Muslims.
When her attackers were finally called to account, the girl had to go to court, where she received a hostile reception.
"At the first session, the judges said to me: 'What kind of relationship did you have with this individual [the man she originally agreed to meet]? Why did you leave the house? Do you know these men?'
"They asked me to describe the situation. They yelled at me. They were insulting. The judge refused to allow my husband in the room with me.
"One judge told me I was a liar because I didn't remember the dates well. They kept saying: 'Why did you leave the house? Why didn't you tell your husband where you were going?'"
The second session, in October last year, proved to be even more shocking.
Four of the attackers - the three others were not found - were given sentences of between one and five years and between 80 and 1,000 lashes.
They were convicted only of kidnapping because the prosecution could not prove rape even though the video images taken on the mobile phone during the attack were presented to the judges.
"I thought these people shouldn't even live," said their victim.
"I thought they would get a minimum of 20 years."
Then the senior judge turned to her and her male companion on the night of the gang rape.
"He said: 'You get 90 lashes. You should thank God you're not in prison.'
"I asked him why and he said: "You know why. Because mingling begets evil.' "
She had been convicted under the khalwa - Sharia law which forbids any woman from being alone in the company of a male to whom she is not related.
"Don't you have any dignity?" her husband demanded of the judges. It was no good. And worse was to follow. The girl grew suicidal. Her own brother blamed her for the attack and his family's "shame".
"He hit me and tried to kill me," she said.
But she was not prepared to accept her unjust punishment.
With the backing of the leading Saudi human rights lawyer, Abdul Rahman al-Laham, she made the facts public, even giving an interview to an Arab TV channel. But far from embarrassing the authorities, this merely seemed to enrage them.
On November 14, the General Court of Qatif struck back, increasing her sentence to 200 lashes and six months in prison.
(Flogging is usually carried out in batches by a prison official who has to hold a copy of the Koran under his whip arm, which prevents it from being raised very high).
The rapists' sentences were also increased to between two and 11 years each.
An official at the court said that her sentence was raised because of "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media".
Judge Sa'd al-Muhanna also banned her lawyer, Abdul Rahman al-Laham, from the courtroom and from representing her in future for allegedly raising his voice in court.
His licence to practise has been suspended and his passport seized.
He faces a further hearing before a Ministry of Justice disciplinary committee in Riyadh next week for appearing regularly on television and talking about the case.
Overnight, though, the Qatif girl's case became a matter of international interest.
How on earth could the Saudi authorities justify such behaviour?
US presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton became involved. But far from retreating, the Saudi authorities dug their heels in.
Official statements posted on the Ministry of Justice website in the past fortnight have alleged that the girl admitted adultery and was already undressed in the car when she was attacked by the rapists.
One statement went so far as to say that it was her own fault: "The main reason the crime took place was because the woman and her companion, who exposed her to this heinous crime, did not follow the law."
The ministry chastised the media for providing an "unjustified defence" of the woman.
A representative of the ministry also appeared on television blaming her for the attack.
He strongly hinted that she had engaged in adultery.
Earlier this week a Saudi newspaper published an interview with Judge Dr Ibrahim bin Salih al-Khudairi of the Riyadh Appeals Court, in which he said that he would have sentenced her to death.
The Appeals Court, and possibly Judge al-Khudairi, will consider the appeal that the Qatif girl said she intends to file.
Impartial? Hardly.
"How is this woman going to get a fair hearing?" asks Farida Deif, of Human Rights Watch.
"The Ministry of Justice has been highly defamatory of her and suggestive that she committed adultery and it was, therefore, her own fault.
"Yes, she broke the law on mingling, but the court should have shown some discretion given that she was brutally gang-raped.
"But this is a country with no written penal law, in which the judges are religious scholars with very little formal legal training."
Thanks to the internet and satellite television however, the Qatif girl's case has caused many Saudis to question the fairness of their own judicial system.
Legal reforms have been announced recently.
But life in the kingdom is still dominated by the religious police who work for the Commission For The Propagation Of Virtue And The Prevention Of Vice to enforce a strict Islamic lifestyle.
They are the untouchables.
Indeed, only on Thursday it was reported that charges against two religious policemen had been dropped. They had been investigated following the death of a man in custody.
The man had been arrested for allegedly drinking alcohol and there was evidence that he had been kicked in the head - but not sufficient to pursue the case, a judge decided.
It echoes a similar case in the summer in which three other members of the religious police had charges dropped after the death of another suspect in custody.
The victim's alleged crime was, like that of the Qatif girl, being alone with an unrelated member of the opposite sex.
The Saudi foreign minister has said that the judicial system will review the Qatif girl's case.
In the meantime, as she awaits her fate, she remains under virtual house arrest, unable to communicate with the outside world; her traumatised family's phones are tapped by the religious police and they are followed when they leave the house.
Meanwhile, the girl is still tormented by thoughts of suicide. But then, in the medieval world of Saudi law she has only herself to blame.
See Also:
International Women's Day
Feminists = Good Lovers?
Feminists are not the ideal wives or lovers right? So we've been told for years.
But that assumption would be false. Feminism can improve the quality of heterosexual relationships, according to Laurie Rudman and Julie Phelan, from Rutgers University in the USA. They've published a study (The Interpersonal Power of Feminism: Is feminism good for romantic relationships?) that shows that we have unflattering stereotypes of feminists, that depict feminists as unattractive and sexually unappealing.
But are feminists ugly and sexually unattractive? Are they horrible sex partners and wives? False, their study concludes.
So what is the real truth? Misogynists have been spreading these lies for years, spreading it as a combination of urban myths and hearsay.
Your wife dumped you for her lesbian lover and got married in Canada? Don't get angry. She was probably a lesbian long before she married you and only married you to have kids (or keep up appearances).
Think feminists are ugly or sexually unappealing? Think twice. Take a look at Gloria Steinem (former Playboy Bunny and feminist activist) and Dorothy Pitman Hughes (renowned black feminist). Pretty hot looking I think.
And think the authors of this study are probably ugly too? Wrong. I checked them out. One hot redhead and one sexy brunette.
Think your girlfriend has too much self-respect to marry you? Maybe she's just not interested in marriage just yet.
Women have dedicated years of writing in magazines in trying to understand men and what men want in their sex lives, but how much writing is dedicated to helping men actually understand women? Comparatively little.
But I'm willing to bet there are lots of men out there who would be interested in getting the inside scoop for what women really find romantic.
But that assumption would be false. Feminism can improve the quality of heterosexual relationships, according to Laurie Rudman and Julie Phelan, from Rutgers University in the USA. They've published a study (The Interpersonal Power of Feminism: Is feminism good for romantic relationships?) that shows that we have unflattering stereotypes of feminists, that depict feminists as unattractive and sexually unappealing.
But are feminists ugly and sexually unattractive? Are they horrible sex partners and wives? False, their study concludes.
Most people believe that feminists can't be romantic, but Rudman and Phelan have discovered this to be false. They carried out a laboratory survey of 242 American undergraduates and an online survey including 289 older adults, and determined that couples with feminists are more likely to have had longer relationships and greater life experience. They looked at men's and women's perception of their own feminism and its link to relationship health, measured by a combination of overall relationship quality, agreement about gender equality, relationship stability and sexual satisfaction.
They also found that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women. Men with feminist partners have more stable relationships and better sex lives. According to the results feminism does not predict poor romantic results, but in fact actually boosts the amount of "spark" in the relationship and adds to healthier and more romantic results.
The two authors also tested whether feminist stereotypical beliefs were valid and asked participants a series of questions to determine whether feminists really are more likely to report themselves as being single, lesbian, or sexually unattractive, compared with non-feminist women. Instead Rudman and Phelan found no support for this hypothesis amongst their study participants. In fact, feminist women were more likely to be in a romantic heterosexual relationship than non-feminist women. The authors concluded that feminist stereotypes are wildly inaccurate, and that the stereotypes are unfounded.
In other words the idea that feminists would make poor lovers is just plain a lie.So what is the real truth? Misogynists have been spreading these lies for years, spreading it as a combination of urban myths and hearsay.
Your wife dumped you for her lesbian lover and got married in Canada? Don't get angry. She was probably a lesbian long before she married you and only married you to have kids (or keep up appearances).
Think feminists are ugly or sexually unappealing? Think twice. Take a look at Gloria Steinem (former Playboy Bunny and feminist activist) and Dorothy Pitman Hughes (renowned black feminist). Pretty hot looking I think.
And think the authors of this study are probably ugly too? Wrong. I checked them out. One hot redhead and one sexy brunette.
Think your girlfriend has too much self-respect to marry you? Maybe she's just not interested in marriage just yet.
Women have dedicated years of writing in magazines in trying to understand men and what men want in their sex lives, but how much writing is dedicated to helping men actually understand women? Comparatively little.
But I'm willing to bet there are lots of men out there who would be interested in getting the inside scoop for what women really find romantic.
Jesus said...
By Suzanne MacNevin
Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." (John 14:6)
Jesus said a lot of things. 99% of it is pure rhetoric. Rhetoric is a technique of persuasion in which basically you make statements that appeal to the listener (or in the bible's case, the reader) and will be generally accepted because it cannot be unproven... because the sentence itself is largely meaningless and open to interpretation (and likely contains a metaphor, a simile or more).
We cannot simply say that "Jesus was a liar." (like most politicians) because that in itself cannot be proven. Maybe Jesus REALLY is the way, the truth and life. Or maybe he was just speaking in riddles.
Until the recent re-discovery of Jesus's tomb in Israel it was never actually proven that Jesus ever existed. Now it has been proven... along with the body of his wife Mary Magdalene and his son. So Jesus was a real person. He was convicted of blasphemy, being a false prophet/etc and died for it. (Whether or not his soul went anywhere after his death is really a matter of faith.)
The interesting thing to me is that now the truth about Mary Magdalene has finally been proven: She was Jesus's wife, and more-so, she bore him at least one son (and possibly more), this opens up the field of feminism to reinterpretations of the Bible and looking for how Jesus treated his wife and gives us more insight into how Jesus felt about women (and equality for women).
For a long time Jesus has actually had a pretty bad reputation with regards to women. There were no female disciples and in one instance in the bible he scolded a woman who wanted to take part in their discussions and essentially told her to go back to the kitchen and stop being disrespectful to males present.
Was Jesus a sexist bigot?
Or has the above story been misinterpreted? Perhaps Jesus was far more liberal.
Again we come back to the issue of rhetoric. So much of what Jesus said is open to interpretation. Anything he said can be used to support different arguments.
For example, Jesus never actually says anything against slavery. And yet we know that during his day and age there were slaves of many different colours living in that part of the world. Jesus never brings up these issues of colour or slavery. Instead he just maintains the status quo. Was Jesus pro-slavery or against it? We will never know.
Rhetoric is not truth, truth is not fact, and rhetoric is so far removed from fact that it practically the opposite in meaning.
Even if we do sit down and re-read the bible hoping to find new meanings we will always instead find either what we are looking for... or what we're expecting to find but are nevertheless unhappy with.
In Corinthians St. Paul says that women must cover their heads (lest they be considered harlots), that men can divorce their wives but wives cannot divorce their husbands, circumcision is nothing and its the keeping of god's commandments that is important, and homosexuals cannot go to heaven.
Please note that the Book of Corinthians is actually a letter from St. Paul. Jesus himself didn't write the letter. It is not Jesus's words, they are St. Paul's letter. Jesus was illiterate and was long dead by the time the letter was written and it would be hundreds of years before that letter became part of what we now call "the bible".
"Bible Thumpers" (and I do not use the term lightly) like to quote phrases from the bible constantly as if everything in the bible is a FACT (or at very least the truth), and that these so-called "facts" are god-given facts, as if god himself wrote the bible.
The only parts of the bible actually attributed wholly to god is the Ten Commandments. Thats it. Everything else is a combination of mythology and written letters from one prophet to another.
If Christians today simply ignored the bible and paid more attention to the Ten Commandments (perhaps even becoming "Commandment Thumpers") I would be so much more pleased with Christianity as a whole.
Jesus said a lot of things that cannot be proven, but I think we can all find SOME truth in the following:
The Ten Commandments
Respect your wife as you would your mother and father.
Do not beat your wife with a "rule of thumb" (like the bible says you can).
If you're going to commit adultery and don't want to be stoned to death... get a divorce first.
After all its probably best to be honest that your marriage has failed and end it ASAP so that both of you can stop living a lie.
"God Bless Us, Every One." - Tiny Tim (from Charles Dicken's "A Christmas Carol".)
Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." (John 14:6)
Jesus said a lot of things. 99% of it is pure rhetoric. Rhetoric is a technique of persuasion in which basically you make statements that appeal to the listener (or in the bible's case, the reader) and will be generally accepted because it cannot be unproven... because the sentence itself is largely meaningless and open to interpretation (and likely contains a metaphor, a simile or more).
We cannot simply say that "Jesus was a liar." (like most politicians) because that in itself cannot be proven. Maybe Jesus REALLY is the way, the truth and life. Or maybe he was just speaking in riddles.
Until the recent re-discovery of Jesus's tomb in Israel it was never actually proven that Jesus ever existed. Now it has been proven... along with the body of his wife Mary Magdalene and his son. So Jesus was a real person. He was convicted of blasphemy, being a false prophet/etc and died for it. (Whether or not his soul went anywhere after his death is really a matter of faith.)
The interesting thing to me is that now the truth about Mary Magdalene has finally been proven: She was Jesus's wife, and more-so, she bore him at least one son (and possibly more), this opens up the field of feminism to reinterpretations of the Bible and looking for how Jesus treated his wife and gives us more insight into how Jesus felt about women (and equality for women).
For a long time Jesus has actually had a pretty bad reputation with regards to women. There were no female disciples and in one instance in the bible he scolded a woman who wanted to take part in their discussions and essentially told her to go back to the kitchen and stop being disrespectful to males present.
Was Jesus a sexist bigot?
Or has the above story been misinterpreted? Perhaps Jesus was far more liberal.
Again we come back to the issue of rhetoric. So much of what Jesus said is open to interpretation. Anything he said can be used to support different arguments.
For example, Jesus never actually says anything against slavery. And yet we know that during his day and age there were slaves of many different colours living in that part of the world. Jesus never brings up these issues of colour or slavery. Instead he just maintains the status quo. Was Jesus pro-slavery or against it? We will never know.
Rhetoric is not truth, truth is not fact, and rhetoric is so far removed from fact that it practically the opposite in meaning.
Even if we do sit down and re-read the bible hoping to find new meanings we will always instead find either what we are looking for... or what we're expecting to find but are nevertheless unhappy with.
In Corinthians St. Paul says that women must cover their heads (lest they be considered harlots), that men can divorce their wives but wives cannot divorce their husbands, circumcision is nothing and its the keeping of god's commandments that is important, and homosexuals cannot go to heaven.
Please note that the Book of Corinthians is actually a letter from St. Paul. Jesus himself didn't write the letter. It is not Jesus's words, they are St. Paul's letter. Jesus was illiterate and was long dead by the time the letter was written and it would be hundreds of years before that letter became part of what we now call "the bible".
"Bible Thumpers" (and I do not use the term lightly) like to quote phrases from the bible constantly as if everything in the bible is a FACT (or at very least the truth), and that these so-called "facts" are god-given facts, as if god himself wrote the bible.
The only parts of the bible actually attributed wholly to god is the Ten Commandments. Thats it. Everything else is a combination of mythology and written letters from one prophet to another.
If Christians today simply ignored the bible and paid more attention to the Ten Commandments (perhaps even becoming "Commandment Thumpers") I would be so much more pleased with Christianity as a whole.
Jesus said a lot of things that cannot be proven, but I think we can all find SOME truth in the following:
The Ten Commandments
- You shall have no other Gods but me.
- You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.
- You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
- You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.
- Respect your father and mother.
- You must not kill.
- You must not commit adultery.
- You must not steal.
- You must not give false evidence against your neighbour.
- You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbour.
Respect your wife as you would your mother and father.
Do not beat your wife with a "rule of thumb" (like the bible says you can).
If you're going to commit adultery and don't want to be stoned to death... get a divorce first.
After all its probably best to be honest that your marriage has failed and end it ASAP so that both of you can stop living a lie.
"God Bless Us, Every One." - Tiny Tim (from Charles Dicken's "A Christmas Carol".)
Feminists Censoring Feminists
Censorship in the name of Copyright...
This really burns my boat. We're all on the same side here. Feminists should be fighting side by side not squabbling over copyright concerns.
I'm speaking of course the "Queens of the Stone Age" feminist article I posted on here.
I didn't ask the author's permission to post the article because I had no way of CONTACTING the author.
Well apparently the author (Laura Miller) noticed and contacted Blogspot and demanded it removed...
Totally unnecessary from my perspective. We're both feminists supporting a cause.
But apparently Laura Miller supports feminism only when she's getting paid for it.
So is she really a crusading feminist? Or just a money-grubbing author who cares only about her pocketbook?
My answer is the latter.
So my question for the REAL feminists out there is: Do you really care about copyright when your writing helps to support a cause?
I am in pursuit of FEMINIST TRUTH. I'm more than happy to remove an article by someone who turns out to be a liar and not a real feminist.
So Laura Miller, now that I've exposed you as a phoney, are you going to continue complaining?
This really burns my boat. We're all on the same side here. Feminists should be fighting side by side not squabbling over copyright concerns.
I'm speaking of course the "Queens of the Stone Age" feminist article I posted on here.
I didn't ask the author's permission to post the article because I had no way of CONTACTING the author.
Well apparently the author (Laura Miller) noticed and contacted Blogspot and demanded it removed...
Totally unnecessary from my perspective. We're both feminists supporting a cause.
But apparently Laura Miller supports feminism only when she's getting paid for it.
So is she really a crusading feminist? Or just a money-grubbing author who cares only about her pocketbook?
My answer is the latter.
So my question for the REAL feminists out there is: Do you really care about copyright when your writing helps to support a cause?
I am in pursuit of FEMINIST TRUTH. I'm more than happy to remove an article by someone who turns out to be a liar and not a real feminist.
So Laura Miller, now that I've exposed you as a phoney, are you going to continue complaining?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)