SeVeR

There aren't wealthy women taking on multiple husbands because it would be insulting for a man to be reliant on a woman. This ideal is still prevalent in our Western culture. I agree, the backwards culture keeps more of the population in poverty than is needed. The culture is almost entirely Islamic. I would never dream of defending Islam to beyond what it is, and that's a religion that deserves as much criticism as Christianity, but no more. Our backwards culture kept large swathes of Europe in poverty while Christianity was the ruling doctrine. You have to go a bit further back than the Victorian era to get a decent idea of Christianity's effect on Europe. The Victorian era was the time of Nietzsche and Darwin. You tell me that women dress that way in the Middle East at the point of a sword. I'll tell you !@#$%^&*. Living on a university gives me plenty of interaction with people from the Middle East, and the women choose to dress that way. In the same way Christian women chose and still choose to dress modestly, without jewelry, braided hair, or revealing clothes. Both religions tell women how to dress, because both see women as the tempter of men. Look at how Christian nun's dress and tell me that doesn't remind you of Islam. Islam made it a law, Christianity made it a social expectation. Looking like !@#$%^&* in Christian Europe was certainly not beneficial... can anyone say "witch-hunts"! You still haven't told me how polygamy causes women to be treated badly, and it's sidetracked the discussion a bit.

Yea kings indulged in mistresses, and they could get away with it because the king wanted it, the mistresses wanted it, and the wife didn't know but would be beheaded for objecting to it. It's polygamy without an official marriage. Gee, i wonder how an extra bit of paper would make my point less valid. Even so, polygamy still has nothing whatsoever to do with treating women badly! I'm not talking about a hypothetical case. I'm saying how polygamy benefits the survival of women in poor countries by allowing rich men to spread their wealth to those they can support. There's nothing hypothetical about it, it's a common sense fact, whether the intentions of the man are just or not. The man may be a perverted sexaholic, but if he can support three wives who all agree to marry him, then good! Speaking of hypothetical.... Another "hyp" word springs to mind. I'm agreeing with Astro alot lately, and i have to call into question your knowledge of the Islamic world. Your favorite punch-bag Iran has 40% of it's population below the poverty line: http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/eco_...ow-poverty-line Not all men can support a wife, and there are just as many women as men in the Islamic world. Not all of them can get jobs, and not all of those jobs pay enough to live on. Simply put, it's called 'spreading the wealth'. To re-iterate though, polygamy still has nothing whatsoever to do with treating women badly. Both religions show the same intolerance by stopping women from dressing how they want to dress. Luckily Christianity has declined enough in Western culture and the Bible is not taken literally (and enforced by the state) anymore.

Hoax! This is far more interesting: http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2346476

Caliphs, like kings of all the lands in the world, have always indugled in having multiple lovers/wives. Even so, that doesn't mean they're treated harshly... in any of the relevent cases. Polygamy has a use. Men who are rich enough to support multiple wives might as well do so in poor countries. Not all men in poor countries can support a woman, polygamists pick up the slack, and i think thats the right thing to do. Again, none of this means the women are treated harshly. Does a man with three wives treat them any different than if he had one? Polygamy isn't an argument. Again, nothing is wrong with polygamy if it benefits society. When you say walking blankets i assume you mean something like: "Timothy 2:9 - In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array". That's from the Bible. Muslims obviously take it a bit more seriously, but none of that means women are treated badly. With the sex-slaves argument, i guess you're talking about caliphs and sultans again, hardly "mainstream" as you'd put it. Rape: "Islam prohibits all expression of sexuality outside marriage, including flirting, kissing, and even holding hands. Therefore rape of anyone of any age, nationality, or religion by anyone of any age, nationality, or religion, is considered to be one of the most serious crimes, punishable, most often, by the death of the rapist. This is true no matter what the marital status of the victim and of the rapist." http://en.allexperts.com/q/Islam-947/Rape-Islam.htm Incredible... since the woman still AGREES to marry the man whether he has no wives or five wives. Plenty of evidence, but none of it's particularly relevent or accurate.

thanks, corrected.

I'm saying that both religions are KNOWN to possess sexist holy-books that have resulted in a belief of inferiority towards women. This is a fact, and is the only similarity i'm claiming. You can try to exagerate my claims with poorly written analogies, but what i'm claiming is a well-known fact. If you like analogies then: "fish and red-meat both contain alot of protein, but you don't see cows swimming in the ocean". Christianity is not the same as Islam, but they certainly do share a few similarities. Based on the similarity i'm claiming, do you have any evidence to the contrary? In other words, is one religion drastically more sexist than the other? A non-believer has a position of objectivity, by not belonging to a religion. He is free to evaluate all religions from a position without any bias. A Christian or a muslim starts with the !@#$%^&*umption that their religion is right and the other is wrong. A religionist is more likely to attribute positive attributes to their religion, and therefore surely, a lack of religion is what is important to understanding the differences between religions. Am i wrong? Very true, i'm glad you agree an understanding of these "terrorists" is needed. Unfortunately they get labelled by governments and the media as "insane", "evil", or "irrational", and that's the end of it.

America is as democratic and free as is needed to keep the people believing they are living in a democratic and free country. In other news, the American education system has been in decline for the last 50 years...

Hmm, well i don't know who's defending Islam. I'm saying both religions are as bad as eachother. In both religions subordination can be interpreted as "he has the right to beat you". Can't you see how telling a man that a woman is inferior to him would lead to the man beating the woman in some cases? Until you produce one scrap of evidence that the quran says "you can beat your wife", then i'm going to assume both religions are as sexist as each-other, and that this sexism is what leads to wife-beatings in both religions. The obvious intepretation? What about this intepretation makes it obvious? I mean, i know there has been alot of media attention for this word since 9/11... did you just suck all that up along with "Saddam = evil" and "atheists aren't patriotic"? I'm absolutely !@#$%^&*ing astounded. Yea i think thats true. TJ: I'm pretty sure it's not normal in Islam either. I've already explained how sexism in a holy-book can lead to the beating of women; in the same way "thou shalt not kill" leads to Christians killing abortion doctors, or the way homosexuals are treated. If you can't see how mild, carefully-written, disgust of a group of people within a holy book can manifest into full-blown hatred with a justification for violence, then it's probably because you don't want to understand it.

I don't think the Bible says anything about women being the boss of the home, and i don't think this is common in the history of Christianity either.... maybe post-war America/Western-Europe, but that's about it. But you're right, both books were written in more sexist times, and both books can thus be interpreted in sexist ways that can culminate in wife-beating. TJ: One case or 50 cases, it doesn't matter, Christianity has more than one case also. When you interpret the Bible or the Quran in a particular way you can justify it.

The point is that you can interpret the Quran in a sexist way in the same way you can interpret the Bible in a sexist way. It doesn't take much in either book to go from sexism to wife-beating. 1 Corinthians 11 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. 34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. Ephesians 5:22 - 24* 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing. 1 Timothy 2:9 - 15* 9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; What religion does that last quote remind you of? 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 1 Peter 3:1 -3 16. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Ecclesiastes 7:26 26 And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart [is] snares and nets, [and] her hands [as] bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.

Some Christian priests have raped choir boys. Does this make all Christians pedophiles? Do we have any evidence that Christianity drove them to pedophilia? No, and no. It's a well known fact that Christianity a few centuries ago wasn't so different to Islam today. Even so you're talking about one man's opinion. It's a pretty low blow to come out with lines like "And it's called a religion of peace", when your incrimination of Islam is both generalised and hypocritical.

...and that's why creationists will never be taken seriously by anyone outside their sphere of ignorance.

The crusades were carried out in the name of Christianity (ordered by the pope). Stalin's communist purges were not carried out in the name of atheism. Stalin could have been a muslim, a jew, or a !@#$%^&*ing monkey... his atheism didn't mean a thing. Next.

evolution has plenty of evidence to back up it's claims.

I wouldn't say lies. It's merely full of ridiculous and unsubstantiated theories that are written in such a way as to make proving it wrong near impossible. God magicked the world! Can we prove it wrong? No. Is it a theory worth anyone's consideration? No.

Wacko to Human Translation: I can't be bothered to read other people's opinions because i know the truth. To me, i can't debate. The hole in my head is filled by the Bible. God loves me and hates you. I have wisdom, understanding and discernment... that i prayed for. Use your short time on this Earth to worship a being that is invisible to your senses. God is timeless and thus already knew that mankind would sin and Jesus wuld have to be resurrected. He created our sin, but don't let that bother you. Just remember, drink some wine that represents this 2000 y/o dead guy's blood, and through some unscientific process you get to live forever, OK? Great, now give my church money or go to !@#$%^&*, OK? Awesome, now bend over.. The idea that so many of you are going to !@#$%^&* gives me great pleasure. My beliefs show me how much better i am than you. I can't ever admit this, but that's where the Wacko-Human Dictionary comes in. God will never know. I mean, there has to be plenty of Christians who don't even believe the resurrection as blindy as i do! I am so special and perfect. Makes the rest of my pathetic life seem so irrelevent... what a comfort.

I just want to understand why some people are gay. I don't think that shows any lack of respect. I think it's a very interesting subject as it addresses nature Vs nurture for the development of un-Darwinian sexuality. So for education's sake, i care.

A rather rash !@#$%^&*umption seeing as Iran won't even convert their own people to Shia Islam! What evidence do you have to back up your claim that Iran will inevitably try to convert neighboring countries to Shia Islam? Is your belief a symptom of America's media tactics, which paint a rather distasteful picture of Islam?

Don't get me wrong, i support the Kurdish cause for independence. I just think that when a group of Kurds attacks Turkey, then Turkey have a right to attack back. Also thanks for mentioning two more minority groups that are treated with respect in Iran (the first being the Jews). America would have us believe Iranians are racist, anti-semitic, m!@#$%^&* murderers.

Why should we attack Iran? I really don't care if Turkey goes into Iraq or not. They have a right to defend their borders, as do Iran.

drugs are as bad as un-protected sex is gratifying. you do it at your own risk.

i'm sure maddie would thank you.... from the bottom of her dirt filled gutter

She is to me.... she is to me.

Cute little blonde haired white girl. It could be that the media were suspicious of the McCann parents in this case and decided to make a big deal out of it for that reason. Or it could be that blonde haired little girls who go missing are always the source of media orgies. Americans who don't watch the news might be inadvetantly showing intelligence.