Teen dies from sharia lashes after being raped

[Tom62]

A 14-year-old Bangladeshi girl who was reportedly raped by a 40-year-old married cousin has died after being publicly lashed for allegedly having an affair with him, according to news reports out of the South Asian nation. The Daily Star says that the girl was raped Sunday by a 40-year-old relative and that a village arbitration on Monday ordered she be whipped 100 times. The paper writes she "fell unconscious after nearly 80 lashes" and died after being taken to a hospital.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... ng-raped/1

[LegendarySandwich]

But no, seriously, Islam is a religion of peace.

   Simply horrible.

[The Magic Pudding]

I could entertain the idea that the existence of hell is a good thing.  But only if guys like this spent eternity with a hot poker artfully inserted into a suitable orifice.

At least they can't hurt her any more.

[Thumpalumpacus]

But no, seriously, Islam is a religion of peace.

   Simply horrible.

You're right.  That city of 1.1 million is a fair representation of all 1.5 billion Muslims.

I'm guessing you didn't read the part where the perpetrators were arrested, too.

I wonder what religion the law-enforcement officers who arrested them were?  Care to make a guess?

[LegendarySandwich]

But no, seriously, Islam is a religion of peace.

   Simply horrible.

You're right.  That city of 1.1 million is a fair representation of all 1.5 billion Muslims.

I'm guessing you didn't read the part where the perpetrators were arrested, too.

I wonder what religion the law-enforcement officers who arrested them were?  Care to make a guess?

I'm not saying it's a religion of violence. But it's clearly not a peaceful religion, if you compare it to the world's other religions.

[Whitney]

But it's clearly not a peaceful religion, if you compare it to the world's other religions.

I'd throw Christanity and Judaism in the not peaceful boat too. You can't claim a religion of peace when the very foundation of that religion is a holy text filled without not only violent but inhuman actions that are dictated by god.  Thankfully, most believers ignore those parts.

[LegendarySandwich]

But it's clearly not a peaceful religion, if you compare it to the world's other religions.

I'd throw Christanity and Judaism in the not peaceful boat too. You can't claim a religion of peace when the very foundation of that religion is a holy text filled without not only violent but inhuman actions that are dictated by god.  Thankfully, most believers ignore those parts.

Which is all that really matters, as far as I'm concerned.

[Whitney]

Which is all that really matters, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree...ultimately how people act is all that maters (at least as long as they aren't trying to get me to believe in their religion).

[Ultima22689]

I say, if you can't beat em, join em. Let's start the Atheist Crusades! We'll spread our ideology across the globe like a wildfire. We'll dominate the minds of little children and raise them to be godless killing machines in the name of logic! We'll use our secret and all mighty SCIENCE! against the hordes of religious infidels! We'll destroy them all as we bash their heads in with the god delusion! We'll take all of their holy texts and recycle them to use as toilet paper! We'll deface their superstitious idols and replace them with the likes of Hawkins, Dawkins, Sagan and Patrick Stewart! MUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH!!!!!  


Yes, I am bored and do not actually mean any of these wild things.

[LegendarySandwich]

Yes, I am bored and do not actually mean any of these wild things.

Aw. I was just getting my Bloody Axe of Rational Thinking good 'n' shiny.  

[Thumpalumpacus]

But it's clearly not a peaceful religion, if you compare it to the world's other religions.

I'd throw Christanity and Judaism in the not peaceful boat too. You can't claim a religion of peace when the very foundation of that religion is a holy text filled without not only violent but inhuman actions that are dictated by god.  Thankfully, most believers ignore those parts.

Which is all that really matters, as far as I'm concerned.

There's a disconnect here.  The believers are not the religion, and religions cannot act, only believers can.  Yet you would call Islam a violent religion based on the acts of what has been shown to be a miniscule proportion of believers.  You're making the same category error you made in the other thread.

Do you use the same broad brush on atheists when you ponders the actions of Stalin or Mao?  Why or why not?

[LegendarySandwich]

There's a disconnect here.  The believers are not the religion, and religions cannot act, only believers can.

Then in that case, the believers are, for all practical purposes, the religion.

Yet you would call Islam a violent religion based on the acts of what has been shown to be a miniscule proportion of believers.

When did I ever say that? Me saying it is not a peaceful religion is not the same as me saying it is a violent one.

You're making the same category error you made in the other thread.

That reminds me to explain why I'm not wrong in that thread.

Do you use the same broad brush on atheists when you ponders the actions of Stalin or Mao?  Why or why not?

Atheism is not peaceful. Atheism is not violent. Islam is not a peaceful religion, comparatively; but I wouldn't call it a violent one.

[Existentialist]

Atheism is not peaceful. Atheism is not violent. Islam is not a peaceful religion, comparatively; but I wouldn't call it a violent one.

Violence and peace are opposites, so I don't know what you're trying to say there.

Personally I think religions are incidental to economic and social factors.  Religions don't drive people, they follow social needs.  A religious country that needs to go to war will tend to draw heavily on its religion to support its violence, likewise a religious country that needs to be at peace will emphasise the peaceful.  Religions are just a mirror for our human qualities.  Any atheist knows that.

It sounds to me like this killing of a girl was the result of a violent custom of an overly-powerful localised patriarchy with inadequate pluralistic safeguards.  It's a political failing rather than a religious one, we should be asking what needs to change in Bangladeshi politics to make this kind of atrocity impossible.  I can see the same thing happening in any place, even without the religion, which is run by authoritarian leadership.  

I see that Richard Dawkins has commented on this on his Foundation website saying, "What sort of justice?  Islamic justice, of course," which only goes to show what a shallow understanding this pompous individual has of the social and political structure of Bangladesh.  Personally I'd like to see this corporal and capital punishment abolished, but slamming religion is hitting the wrong target, and won't achieve anything.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There's a disconnect here.  The believers are not the religion, and religions cannot act, only believers can.

Then in that case, the believers are, for all practical purposes, the religion.

If you wish to continue making this mistake, have at it.  

Yet you would call Islam a violent religion based on the acts of what has been shown to be a miniscule proportion of believers.

When did I ever say that? Me saying it is not a peaceful religion is not the same as me saying it is a violent one.

It is your clear implication in your initial post in this thread.  Also, would explicate the difference between "not peaceful" and "violent"?  My hair-splitter is in the shop being sharpened, but from here, this look like a distinction without a difference, made to salvage a point which is better conceded.

You're making the same category error you made in the other thread.

That reminds me to explain why I'm not wrong in that thread.

That should be interesting.

Do you use the same broad brush on atheists when you ponders the actions of Stalin or Mao?  Why or why not?

Atheism is not peaceful. Atheism is not violent. Islam is not a peaceful religion, comparatively; but I wouldn't call it a violent one.

That whoosh you're hearing is the sound of the point flying past your head.

[LegendarySandwich]

If you wish to continue making this mistake, have at it.

Oh? Why is it a mistake?

It is your clear implication in your initial post in this thread.  Also, would explicate the difference between "not peaceful" and "violent"?  My hair-splitter is in the shop being sharpened, but from here, this look like a distinction without a difference, made to salvage a point which is better conceded.

You're right -- there is no difference.

That whoosh you're hearing is the sound of the point flying past your head.

I got the point. Atheism isn't a religion/ideology.