Happy Atheist Forum

'Cheating' Woman Stoned To Death
Tuesday October 28, 2008

QuoteA woman accused of adultery has been stoned to death by Islamists in Somalia.

The 23-year-old woman was buried up to her neck in front of hundreds of people in a square in Kismayu and stones were hurled at her head.

She was dragged out of the hole three times to see if she was dead.

When a relative and others surged forward to rescue her, guards opened fire and killed a child.

It is thought to be the first such public killing by the militants for about two years.

Witness Abdullahi Aden said: "A woman in green veil and black mask was brought in a car as we waited to watch the merciless act of stoning.

[Read The Rest Of The Article Here (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Somalia-Woman-23-Stoned-To-Death-For-Adultery-Guards-Kill-Child-As-Kismayu-Crowd-Rush-Forward/Article/200810415130630?f=rss)]

Oh I'm sure whatever Moslem's read this will try to jump through every whacky reasoning hoop there is but I'll tell you this ... you don't find these kind of crimes done in the name of atheism and yeah, if you think I'm claiming that the moral stance of most atheists is superior to that of most theists, you'd better bloody believe it!!!!!!

Kyu

OMG!!!!!

I can't breathe...

I can't even conceive of such a thing happening in this day and age, regardless the country or its inhabitants.  I guess that makes me naive.

"Religious tolerance" is a contradiction in terms. Christians burned women to death by the thousands during the burning time. Muslims stone women to death for being raped. Jews used to put people to death for working on Sunday.

Honor killings (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html), as they are called, are not rare. Neither is female circumcision (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/), or, as it's more accurately labeled, female genital mutilation.

It doesn't make you naive, rlrose328. It's a touchy subject that not a lot of people really understand. Once we start getting into it, it brings up all sorts of issues like cultural chauvinism and moral relativism. Who are we to say they're wrong? Are we justified to say that it's immoral when we do things they would consider just as immoral, if not more so? Our lives are determined by reason and what we call human rights. Their lives, in contrast, are determined by family honor and religious piety.

Don't get me wrong; I think it's terrible that a woman will be stoned for what we consider a small, personal issue in comparison to some other aspects of social life. But, it's more complex than just, "They are bad for doing that."

...I'm lazy today, or I would have written a book on the subject. For now, let me just say the following:

Don't be too quick to condemn something you have never had to deal with.

It all comes down to cultural differences. If you were born and lived in an environment where the value of human life, the "right" and "wrong" and the "good" and "bad" were radically different from your current views, you may have found your current views to be condemnable. For instance, NOT stoning a woman to death for "cheating"

A revolution is not the right way to reform anything (Here: if you tell people to stop doing something and protest and/or threaten when they go on about doing it, they will just continue on and not listen to you). Reforms have to happen through cooperation and that is only possible on a productive level through understanding.

I'm all hip to the cultural differences issue.

When I was 19, I worked as a typist for the welfare department.  This was in the early 80s, when Hmongs were coming to the central valley California by the droves.  They and other asian cultures have very different means of disciplining children... some involving burning coins and large pieces of wood.  The children's services folks were mortified when they were initially told that there is little we can do to stop them because it's "cultural" and we can't mess with their culture.

Now that I'm an adult, I say YES we can mess with their culture... when they're in our country as those people were.

As for this Islam issue... I understand they do things differently in their culture and they believe we are horrible awful people for letting our women have <gasp> RIGHTS </gasp>, but I do believe, and will continue to believe, that stoning someone to death is not right in any culture, in any land, in any way, shape, or form, for any crime... but particularly one involving intercourse.  ESPECIALLY if it's just one member of the rape/adultery, etc.  If she was stoned, the man should have been as well.

Does that make me intolerant of their beliefs?  I guess it does.  And I'm okay with that.  I also thought those people should have been told to stop burning their children with pennies, especially on their genitals, for some little minor offense like playing with a ball when they were told not to, but I guess that's just me.

I don't care what your culture is... killing a human, by stoning or any other means, for a crime such as adultery is just plain wrong.

Quote from: "rlrose328"I don't care what your culture is... killing a human, by stoning or any other means, for a crime such as adultery is just plain wrong.

Indeed it is - for me and you and them. But it is perfectly right for someone else.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "rlrose328"I don't care what your culture is... killing a human, by stoning or any other means, for a crime such as adultery is just plain wrong.

Indeed it is - for me and you and them. But it is perfectly right for someone else.

I respectfully disagree.

Quote from: "rlrose328"Now that I'm an adult, I say YES we can mess with their culture... when they're in our country as those people were.

Those people? You mean Muslims? You do realize that the subject of this article takes place in Somalia, which is in eastern Africa, and not from Afghanistan, which is in the middle east, right? That's like a Protestant in Ireland getting mad at a Catholic in South Korea because their car was set on fire. Lumping together folks with similar religious beliefs is what caused 9/11 (which is to what I'm assuming you are referring as them being "in our country as those people were"), as the radical Muslims saw the degradation of God's earth being caused, first and foremost, by the heathen Christians, specifically Americans. We are the scum of the earth, after all, right?    

That's what makes this topic, specifically, so interesting. Adultery, in a western, Judeo-Christian country, rarely amounts to anything more than embarrassment and possibly a break-up (occasionally a "crime of passion", but rarely). However, imagine this...

A town in which Islamic law is the highest law has an interesting and rather old-fashioned social system. In it, reputation and good-standing are paramount. One cannot be trusted in business without being a man of God, with an obedient wife, and respectful children. Were the wife to do something that would jeopardize the rest of the family (by disrespecting the patriarch), it would quite literally turn their lives into a living hell. The rest of the community would shun the man, causing him to lose business, becoming destitute. Others' children would taunt his children, forcing them into fights and getting into even more trouble. The repercussions are immense for one simple act of infidelity; something we, here, as I said, see more as inappropriate than life-or-death.

In no way do I condone this sort of system, but one cannot simply close one's eyes and wish it away. Conversely, telling someone, frankly, that they are wrong actually works to reinforce the behaviors or ideas in question. The only panacea in a situation like this is education; calmly, quietly, and without reproach, saying, "It doesn't have to be this way..."

Every religion has it's corrupt followers just as atheism has some crooked members too. You can't label everyone in any group. Do you really think all atheists are perfect? Evidence that says otherwise would be quite a number of serial killers.

"In no way do I condone this sort of system, but one cannot simply close one's eyes and wish it away. Conversely, telling someone, frankly, that they are wrong actually works to reinforce the behaviors or ideas in question. The only panacea in a situation like this is education; calmly, quietly, and without reproach, saying, "It doesn't have to be this way..."

Nicely stated.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"In no way do I condone this sort of system, but one cannot simply close one's eyes and wish it away. Conversely, telling someone, frankly, that they are wrong actually works to reinforce the behaviors or ideas in question. The only panacea in a situation like this is education; calmly, quietly, and without reproach, saying, "It doesn't have to be this way..."

Catwords are wise.  

Quote from: "Sophus"Every religion has it's corrupt followers just as atheism has some crooked members too. You can't label everyone in any group. Do you really think all atheists are perfect? Evidence that says otherwise would be quite a number of serial killers.

No one is claiming atheists (or atheism) are perfect but I defy anyone to point out (and justify) an example of any atheist killing or brutalising others in the name of their religious stance ... religion OTOH is replete with such things both historically and today.

The simple fact is that good people do good things, bad people do bad things but it takes religion or a similar ideology to make good people do bad things ... I have few doubts that those who stoned this woman to death would be upstanding members of their community, perhaps even lauded for their actions .

Kyu

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "rlrose328"Now that I'm an adult, I say YES we can mess with their culture... when they're in our country as those people were.

Those people? You mean Muslims?

No, I was referring the Hmongs, the subject of the paragraph above that quoted line.  And yes, I realize that the stoning took place in Somalia, not Afghanistan.  YOU realize, do you not, that speaking to me like that is condescending?

And I understand how their social system operates.  I don't agree with that.  I lived with a mom whose favorite line was "what would the neighbors think" and while that isn't as scary coming from her as it is in the real scenario you presented, it's a horrible way to live.  To always be scared of what others are thinking.  It's where we're headed in THIS country, with the Christian repression.

Like I said at the beginning... I'm naive.  I want everyone on earth to get along and to treat each other with respect and courtesy but not DEMAND that everyone bow to your will.  I KNOW it's not possible and that makes life hell for me.  Then I see a news report like this one and it really upsets me.  I don't CARE what their society/religion dictates... it's just wrong in my eyes.

This just smacks of "that's just the way things are" and I hate that concept.

Quote from: "Sophus"Every religion has it's corrupt followers just as atheism has some crooked members too. You can't label everyone in any group. Do you really think all atheists are perfect? Evidence that says otherwise would be quite a number of serial killers.

First, just wanted to say I love your tagline... that is one of my favorite songs!  :cool:   Seriously, though... on an atheist mailing list, I ran into a guy who refused to apologize for saying something horrible about my recently deceased (at the time) father because if he did, he'd have to admit he felt guilt and guilt is a Christian concept he chose to ignore.  

Finally, just because someone kills, and kills prolifically, doesn't mean they are atheist.  Jeffrey Dahmer was raised Christian.  Ted Bundy gave his only interview to James Dobson, Focus on the Family (ultrafundamentalist).  The BTK killer was Christian.  Robert Yates was 7th Day Adventist.  It seems everytime I read about mass killers, they were usually raised with heavy-duty religion.

Quote from: "rlrose328"No, I was referring the Hmongs, the subject of the paragraph above that quoted line.  And yes, I realize that the stoning took place in Somalia, not Afghanistan.  YOU realize, do you not, that speaking to me like that is condescending?

My apologies. I didn't intend on coming across that way, and I somehow missed the bit about the Hmongs (all the signatures in this thread run together with the posts above them... visually confusing). I suppose my internal reading voice sounds differently than it does to others.  :devil: ) there will be change. Until then, the best thing to do is exactly this: spread the word, talk about it, educate ourselves on the details and reasons.

Regardless of all this, it's a terrible thing to happen.  

Quote from: "Willravel""Religious tolerance" is a contradiction in terms. Christians burned women to death by the thousands during the burning time. Muslims stone women to death for being raped. Jews used to put people to death for working on Sunday.

Wrongo Boyo -- again, I see the same kind of stereotyping and painting of all faiths with a broad brush soaked with the blood of the worst examples of what religion has wrought. Now I'll be the first to admit that religion has been guilty of atrocious crimes, every type of crime imaginable.  But before you can really get into dissecting the problem, you have to break down 'religion'..  what religion, at what point in it's evolution, by what cultural/ethnic group, under what historical circumstances.. and ask, if the crimes were committed because the adherents of the faiths were (or believed they were) upholding some codified mandate (Levitical, Sharia, etc.).. and many, many more variables.. for you programmers, look at the 'built-in' problems of a faith, such as mandates to kill non-believers, as a 'global variable', and culture/region specific problems, 'local variables', such as 'Witch Burning' (a trans-generation memory and propensity, from the pre-Christian days of human sacrifice by fire, both in Europe, and memory from those tribes which migrated to Europe from Asia, S. Asia, and had a tribal memory of burnt offering..) , or in Arabia -- the dismembering as punishment .. cultural tendencies become sanctified in the new 'wrapper' of the new faith.  

But ask yourself, does this not also come down to a literal vs. metaphoric/symbolic interpretation of scripture??  Having studied Comparative Religion (I'm no professor though), it seems that the gist and spirit of all three Abrahamic faiths can either be:

a) wonderfully understood metaphorically, as if reading Tolkien .. it all makes sense.. the message, the compassion, etc. Great and inspiring stuff!

b) literally interpreted, Abrahamic faiths are a blueprint for fanaticism, confusion, oppression, cruelty, contradiction, fear, and ultimately psychosis.  Loving, but wrathful. Forgiving, but judgmental and punishing God.. which is it?  

I don't want to get long winded.. but my own faith, for example, is guilty of 'none of the above', and for this reason and example I take exception to the blanket condemnation of religion and your assertion that "Religious tolerance" is a contradiction in terms. Sikhs have never perpetrated  Crusades, nor pogroms. Indeed, we have suffered pogroms in India , by Muslims during 1947 Partition, also Hindus showing their gratitude in their own special way for Sikhs having saved India from Islamic conquest, and 1984 massacre of Sikhs by Indian Govt., Operation Blue Star, or the 'Sikh Holocaust', as we call it, and the subsequent riots by Hindus in Delhi after Sikh bodygaurds of Indira Gandhi assassinated her for her crimes against humanity.. Sikhs were targeted by mobs armed with fuel, torches, and burned alive, systematically, house-to-house.. so ironic and tragic.  In fact, more that one Sikh Guru (Leader) sacrificed himself for tolerance and human rights, in fact, I've never even seen the concept of 'Human Rights' before our Gurus introduced this.

For example, our beloved Siri Guru Tegh Bahadur Dev Sahib Ji is famous for sacrificing himself to save ANOTHER  faith, in this case, Hinduism.. nowhere in human history have I seen the Supreme Leader of one faith, sacrifice himself to save another faith ...
Subsequently being enormously inspired by Siri Guru Tegh Bahadur Dev Sahib Ji's example and lesson for mankind, Sikhs codified an even higher code of conduct, Rehat Maryada.. for hundreds of years since, all Sikh Khalsa (baptised Sikhs) are mandated to lay down their lives to protect the innocent, weak, persecuted. It matters not if they are Hindus, Jews, Muslims.. even Atheists ....This is not an option, but a directive. Most 'Codes of Conduct' simply proscribe behavior, and we do have this , but we also mandate action .. indifference or cowardice is not an option for Khalsa. This is why, respectfully, you cannot accurately .. although I can understand the impulse to... paint all religions with the same damning brush. You have never and will never see murderous Sikh mobs running wild in the streets .. it's unthinkable to us. You will never see Sikhs waging pogroms against another faith.. how can we forget Guru Tegh Bahadur?? You will never see Sikhs burning heretics, or crusading to impose our faith on others as 'God's Will'. You will see Sikhs giving their lives to protect non Sikhs.. the contrast is stark. Friend, I ask you to please reconsider your generalized statement that 'Religious Tolerance' is a contradiction in terms. Not Sikhs alone, but Jains are also without stain.. beautiful humanitarians.. and others.

Sat Nam, Waheguru!

Rather than requote karakara, I will just add my two cents to one of the religions that I've never been able to find an issue with, as far as it's benign nature goes. That is the Jain religion, as mentioned in the last post. I have a good friend who is a Jain, and I learned quite a bit from him regarding them.

Now, I still don't believe in a god or gods, but I find the tenets of some of that faith pretty amazing, albeit from a limited knowledge, gained from knowing only one family of Jains.

Quote from: "McQ"Rather than requote karakara, I will just add my two cents to one of the religions that I've never been able to find an issue with, as far as it's benign nature goes. That is the Jain religion, as mentioned in the last post. I have a good friend who is a Jain, and I learned quite a bit from him regarding them.

Now, I still don't believe in a god or gods, but I find the tenets of some of that faith pretty amazing, albeit from a limited knowledge, gained from knowing only one family of Jains.

Agreed. I've researched the Jains a bit, too, and I find them absolutely fascinating. And again, agreed; I still don't believe in a god or gods.   *highfive*

I like having Jains around.. they always help me get in touch with aspects of my own faith that mirror theirs, the difference being that Jains are pacifists, and Sikhs have learned most painfully that, at least for us, pacifism would be our death knell. We take tolerance so far, but when violence is perpetrated against us or against innocents, we do fight back with lethal force, and I do mean to the death. There are of course other differences, but the differences make life interesting, no??

Jains, God bless their kind and gentle souls, are wonderful ambassadors of God in their own way.. and the concept of being 'Ambassadors of God' is something that Sikhs take to heart and soul very seriously, as we ourselves try to live up to this mandate, the Sikh way. If you travel in India and find a community with a Jain population, don't be surprised to see a Jain-run animal hospital.. now, a bird with a broken wing is quite symbolic, metaphorically.. and tragic.. and Jains, by the Grace of God, set and heal the wounds of helpless animals.. as they do for people too.  In doing so, they manifest the spirit and love of God, and the Hope that is God. Isn't it a miracle that some unlucky, say, Dove, with a broken leg or wing.. easy prey for any cat or rat.. would chance upon a Jain, who, like an Angel, will rescue and nurture this valuable creation of God back to health..

OK -- you get the picture. They're fun people too.. hope you get to meet them. But in times of trouble, they better stick close to their Sikh dharmic brothers ;-)


Fateh!

I tried to debate with an Islamic lady on youtube. She'd posted a video response to a Pat Condell video. Most of it seemed to be about the fact that Pat was hugely intolerant. She also made a point that the UK, on the whole, is hugely intolerant to muslims. The fact that our government blocked planning permission on the largest mosque in Europe, for one.

I tried to reason with her but it seemed to be falling on deaf ears, so i tried another tactic. I asked her the following question:

"If the UK is so intolerant of your religion, then why are there no churches in Saudi Arabia?"

I never got a response unfortunately. I was sure that was a valid question though.

Quote from: "karadan"I tried to debate with an Islamic lady on youtube. She'd posted a video response to a Pat Condell video. Most of it seemed to be about the fact that Pat was hugely intolerant. She also made a point that the UK, on the whole, is hugely intolerant to muslims. The fact that our government blocked planning permission on the largest mosque in Europe, for one.

I tried to reason with her but it seemed to be falling on deaf ears, so i tried another tactic. I asked her the following question:

"If the UK is so intolerant of your religion, then why are there no churches in Saudi Arabia?"

I never got a response unfortunately. I was sure that was a valid question though.

Did you ask her what her definition of 'toleranance' is? The answer might be revealing. Also, I'd ask her if she is familiar with term
'Double Standard'.. being a Conservative White Male in the U.S., I have to deal with double-standards on many levels every day.. after a while, you just laugh it off.

Finally, you might offer her a copy of Dore Gold's book "Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports The New Global Terrorism. Or, send her some youtube links of stonings and amputations in Saudi Arabia..

Consider seriously that she gets all of her news from al Jazeera, it's more likely than not.

Sat Nam and good luck getting anywhere with her...

Quote from: "karakara"Consider seriously that she gets all of her news from al Jazeera, it's more likely than not.

I get all my news from the BBC, Al Jazeera, NPR and Jon Stewart. Something wrong with that?  

Quote from: "karakara"

Quote from: "karadan"I tried to debate with an Islamic lady on youtube. She'd posted a video response to a Pat Condell video. Most of it seemed to be about the fact that Pat was hugely intolerant. She also made a point that the UK, on the whole, is hugely intolerant to muslims. The fact that our government blocked planning permission on the largest mosque in Europe, for one.

I tried to reason with her but it seemed to be falling on deaf ears, so i tried another tactic. I asked her the following question:

"If the UK is so intolerant of your religion, then why are there no churches in Saudi Arabia?"

I never got a response unfortunately. I was sure that was a valid question though.

Did you ask her what her definition of 'toleranance' is? The answer might be revealing. Also, I'd ask her if she is familiar with term
'Double Standard'.. being a Conservative White Male in the U.S., I have to deal with double-standards on many levels every day.. after a while, you just laugh it off.

Finally, you might offer her a copy of Dore Gold's book "Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports The New Global Terrorism. Or, send her some youtube links of stonings and amputations in Saudi Arabia..

Consider seriously that she gets all of her news from al Jazeera, it's more likely than not.

Sat Nam and good luck getting anywhere with her...

Those are some very good points which i'll certainly put forward. I doubt i'll get a response as i think she was only interested in pushing her own agenda - not constructive debate.

Maybe i'll make a video response

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "karakara"Consider seriously that she gets all of her news from al Jazeera, it's more likely than not.

I get all my news from the BBC, Al Jazeera, NPR and Jon Stewart. Something wrong with that?  

Are you serious?? Assuming you are, at least it's good that you investigate multiple sources, in particular BBC and NPR do a fair job, especially in their verification and accuracy, but the bias that they project is in what they report, in what context, and what they don't report. I'm not familiar with Jon Stewart.

Seriously, back in the 1980s I served in the U.S. military in many capacities, as I speak fluent Russian and held a security clearance.. I was present at several debriefings of defectors .. uniformly, they were the products of state controlled propaganda news, Pravda, Izvestia, and military publications, and their world views reflected this.. I won't get into details, but it was as warped and twisted as you can imagine. You truthfully can't use the word 'objective' with al Jazeera .. it's not what they're about. http://www.stopaljazeera.org/ (http://www.stopaljazeera.org/)

Numerous media watchdog groups,  such as 'Accuracy in Media' http://www.aim.org/ (http://www.aim.org/) and others, can't even come up with a scale to measure the distortions and lies that al Jazeera propagates as 'news'..  so in essence, al Jazeera is not a source of News, as we define News in the West. It's difficult to define what al Jazeera is, unless you define it by their hatred.. dar al-Islam vs. dar al-Harb, that's what it's all about. I wonder what world view such a synthesis of 'news' produces?

Quote from: "karakara"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"so in essence, al Jazeera is not a source of News, as we define News in the West. It's difficult to define what al Jazeera is, unless you define it by their hatred.. dar al-Islam vs. dar al-Harb, that's what it's all about. I wonder what world view such a synthesis of 'news' produces?

Actually Al Jazeera (the western service) appears to be quite highly regarded by European liberals (and yes, it was news to me too).

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "karakara"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"so in essence, al Jazeera is not a source of News, as we define News in the West. It's difficult to define what al Jazeera is, unless you define it by their hatred.. dar al-Islam vs. dar al-Harb, that's what it's all about. I wonder what world view such a synthesis of 'news' produces?

Actually Al Jazeera (the western service) appears to be quite highly regarded by European liberals (and yes, it was news to me too).

Kyu

If 'European Liberals' regard al Jazeera "quite highly", then I rest my case ;-) What more evidence do I need???

Quote from: "karakara"If 'European Liberals' regard al Jazeera "quite highly", then I rest my case ;-) What more evidence do I need???

This European liberal has been living under the rock for a bit there... What wass it I was supposed to regard highly..? Al Jazeera? Is that not just another bought and biased television network like oh, so many others?

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "karakara"If 'European Liberals' regard al Jazeera "quite highly", then I rest my case ;-) What more evidence do I need???

This European liberal has been living under the rock for a bit there... What wass it I was supposed to regard highly..? Al Jazeera? Is that not just another bought and biased television network like oh, so many others?

Apparently not ... people that I know (and respect) consider the AJ Western News service pretty objective in fact The Independent did an article on it saying how keen the Al Jazeera service was to be seen as objective and unbiased. When you think about it, as a major Arabic voice in the west it would make sense that they'd want us to listen and, if so (given that the only people who would listen are the the liberal thinkers, the way to do it is to report stuff well.

That I've heard several people (that I respect) speak highly of the service has made up my mind to give them a chance, my problem is I really don't listen to that kind of things at all so its on my list of things to do.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Apparently not ... people that I know (and respect) consider the AJ Western News service pretty objective in fact The Independent did an article on it saying how keen the Al Jazeera service was to be seen as objective and unbiased. When you think about it, as a major Arabic voice in the west it would make sense that they'd want us to listen and, if so (given that the only people who would listen are the the liberal thinkers, the way to do it is to report stuff well.

That I've heard several people (that I respect) speak highly of the service has made up my mind to give them a chance, my problem is I really don't listen to that kind of things at all so its on my list of things to do.

Kyu

Bingo.

Al-Jazeera English (http://english.aljazeera.net/) is a respected news source which, being outside of the America's realm of influence, can report in ways the western media cannot. I don't go there to build my ideologies and construct opinions; I go there to get the "other side" of the news that, often enough, portrays America in less-than-flattering light. Whenever a news source critiques your own country, it's worth paying attention.

Quote from: "karakara"I'm not familiar with Jon Stewart.

The voice of our generation. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/)

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Apparently not ... people that I know (and respect) consider the AJ Western News service pretty objective in fact The Independent did an article on it saying how keen the Al Jazeera service was to be seen as objective and unbiased. When you think about it, as a major Arabic voice in the west it would make sense that they'd want us to listen and, if so (given that the only people who would listen are the the liberal thinkers, the way to do it is to report stuff well.

That I've heard several people (that I respect) speak highly of the service has made up my mind to give them a chance, my problem is I really don't listen to that kind of things at all so its on my list of things to do.

Kyu

Bingo.

Al-Jazeera English (http://english.aljazeera.net/) is a respected news source which, being outside of the America's realm of influence, can report in ways the western media cannot. I don't go there to build my ideologies and construct opinions; I go there to get the "other side" of the news that, often enough, portrays America in less-than-flattering light. Whenever a news source critiques your own country, it's worth paying attention.

Quote from: "karakara"I'm not familiar with Jon Stewart.

The voice of our generation. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/)

Believe what you want.. just because something is 'outside of America's realm of influence', whatever that means, doesn't 'ergo' make it legitimate.  Despite what 'credible friends' and your own sensibilities tell you, I strongly encourage you to investigate the objectivity and credibility of any al Jazeera branch.  I strongly urge all to resist buying into the :
"if it's anti-American, it has to be legit." equation. Think, man.

Quote from: "karakara"Believe what you want.. just because something is 'outside of America's realm of influence', whatever that means, doesn't 'ergo' make it legitimate.  Despite what 'credible friends' and your own sensibilities tell you, I strongly encourage you to investigate the objectivity and credibility of any al Jazeera branch.  I strongly urge all to resist buying into the :
"if it's anti-American, it has to be legit." equation. Think, man.

Some of my "credible friends" are tenured professors at one of the country's most revered and respected colleges of journalism, though I can't speak for Kyu. I tend to trust them when they tell me which news venues are good and which aren't. But, you're right. What do they know?

No one ever said, "If it's anti-American, it has to be legit." I'm not sure how you got that out of my suggestion that looking for critiques of the system you are in is, in its own right, a good thing. Try not to project your obvious anti-liberal views onto others and accuse them of being thoughtless.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "karakara"Believe what you want.. just because something is 'outside of America's realm of influence', whatever that means, doesn't 'ergo' make it legitimate.  Despite what 'credible friends' and your own sensibilities tell you, I strongly encourage you to investigate the objectivity and credibility of any al Jazeera branch.  I strongly urge all to resist buying into the :
"if it's anti-American, it has to be legit." equation. Think, man.

Some of my "credible friends" are tenured professors at one of the country's most revered and respected colleges of journalism, though I can't speak for Kyu. I tend to trust them when they tell me which news venues are good and which aren't. But, you're right. What do they know?

No one ever said, "If it's anti-American, it has to be legit." I'm not sure how you got that out of my suggestion that looking for critiques of the system you are in is, in its own right, a good thing. Try not to project your obvious anti-liberal views onto others and accuse them of being thoughtless.

College professors are some of the last people I'd look to for objectivity..  for the most part, most institutes of higher learning are staffed by liberals, ultra-liberals, and radicals. That's just the way it is. I'm not saying watch Fox News, just call a spade a spade, instead of Orwellian saying 'up is down, down is up'.. al Jazeera has no credibility as far as objectivity goes, I'll stick my neck out that far and defy anyone to cut it off.

Sat Nam, I'm not right-winger either.

Quote from: "karakara"College professors are some of the last people I'd look to for objectivity..  for the most part, most institutes of higher learning are staffed by liberals, ultra-liberals, and radicals. That's just the way it is. I'm not saying watch Fox News, just call a spade a spade, instead of Orwellian saying 'up is down, down is up'.. al Jazeera has no credibility as far as objectivity goes, I'll stick my neck out that far and defy anyone to cut it off.

Sat Nam, I'm not right-winger either.

I'm not willing to derail this thread any further into a defense of liberals or non-Western news sources. Just be aware that your fear of liberals and liberalism distorts your lens.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "karakara"College professors are some of the last people I'd look to for objectivity..  for the most part, most institutes of higher learning are staffed by liberals, ultra-liberals, and radicals. That's just the way it is. I'm not saying watch Fox News, just call a spade a spade, instead of Orwellian saying 'up is down, down is up'.. al Jazeera has no credibility as far as objectivity goes, I'll stick my neck out that far and defy anyone to cut it off.

Sat Nam, I'm not right-winger either.

I'm not willing to derail this thread any further into a defense of liberals or non-Western news sources. Just be aware that your fear of liberals and liberalism distorts your lens.

Yes, we certainly are off topic. I don't fear liberals or liberalism, I'm trust trying to be objective myself.  I call it like I see it friend, no self-censorship or 'political correctness'.