Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Didn't you hear. Slippery slopes have no merit.

I don't know. I try to avoid them when I'm driving.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The M.J. Fox ad speaks more directly to a relevant issue than any ad I have seen this season from the Rs. Whatever else you may say about it or think about the issue.

Bullshit. the ad is the equivalent of having a child of a man who jumped off the WTC say he feels Kerry is soft on terrorism.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I actually take the religious argument seriously............. It's a small number - not enough to create a huge demand for "harvesting" new embryos. So the researchers just need access to a modest number of embryos that are going to die anyway.

The choice is my mind is to have or not have these embryos die for naught. The rest of it is more emotion than logic.

how do you not have a religious problem with creating embryos that everyone knows will die?

[SlaveNoMore]

Australian muslim leader says rape victims deserve it. Whatta guy!!!

---
Muslim leader blames women for sex attacks
Richard Kerbaj
26oct06

THE nation's most senior Muslim cleric has blamed immodestly dressed women who don't wear Islamic headdress for being preyed on by men and likened them to abandoned "meat" that attracts voracious animals.

In a Ramadan sermon that has outraged Muslim women leaders, Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali also alluded to the infamous Sydney gang rapes, suggesting the attackers were not entirely to blame.

While not specifically referring to the rapes, brutal attacks on four women for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and immodest dress ... "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years".

"But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he asked.

The leader of the 2000 rapes in Sydney's southwest, Bilal Skaf, a Muslim, was initially sentenced to 55 years' jail, but later had the sentence reduced on appeal.

In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

"The uncovered meat is the problem."

The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

He said women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men.

"It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."

Muslim community leaders were yesterday outraged and offended by Sheik Hilali's remarks, insisting the cleric was no longer worthy of his title as Australia's mufti.

Young Muslim adviser Iktimal Hage-Ali - who does not wear a hijab - said the Islamic headdress was not a "tool" worn to prevent rape and sexual harassment. "It's a symbol that readily identifies you as being Muslim, but just because you don't wear the headscarf doesn't mean that you're considered fresh meat for sale," the former member of John Howard's Muslim advisory board told The Australian. "The onus should not be on the female to not attract attention, it should be on males to learn how to control themselves."

Australia's most prominent female Muslim leader, Aziza Abdel-Halim, said the hijab did not "detract or add to a person's moral standards", while Islamic Council of Victoria spokesman Waleed Ali said it was "ignorant and naive" for anyone to believe that a hijab could stop sexual assault.

"Anyone who is foolish enough to believe that there is a relationship between rape or unwelcome sexual interference and the failure to wear a hijab, clearly has no understanding of the nature of sexual crime," he said.

Ms Hage-Ali said she was "disgusted and offended" by Shiek Hilali's comments. "I find it very offensive that a man who considers himself as a mufti, a leader of Australia's Muslims, can give comment that lacks intelligence and common sense."

Yesterday, the mufti defended the sermon about "adultery and theft", a recorded copy of which has been obtained and translated by The Australian.

Sheik Hilali said he only meant to refer to prostitutes as "meat" and not any scantily dressed woman with no hijab, despite him not mentioning the word prostitute during the 17-minute talk.

He told The Australian the message he intended to convey was: "If a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame ... but a man should be able to control himself". He said if a woman is "covered and respectful" she "demands respect from a man". "But when she is cheap, she throws herself at the man and cheapens herself."

Sheik Hilali also insisted his references to the Sydney gang rapes were to illustrate that Skaf was guilty and worthy of receiving such a harsh sentence.

Waleed Ali said Sheik Hilali was "normalising immoral sexual behaviour" by comparing women to meat and men to animals and entirely blaming women for being victims.

"It's basically saying that the immoral response of men to women who are not fully covered is as natural and as inevitable as the response of an animal tempted by food," he said.

"But (unlike animals) men are people who have moral responsibilities and the capability in engaging in moral action."

Revelation of the mufti's comments comes after he criticised Mr Howard last month in The Australian for saying a minority of migrant men mistreated their women. Sheik Hilali said such a minority was found in all faiths. "Those who don't respect their women are not true Muslims."

"There's a small percentage found among all religions, but we don't recognise ours as Muslims."

Aziza Abdel-Halim said Sheik Hilali's remarks during Ramadan were inaccurate and upsetting to the Muslim community.

"They are below and beyond any comment (and) do not deserve any consideration

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Bullshit. the ad is the equivalent of having a child of a man who jumped off the WTC say he feels Kerry is soft on terrorism.

So you object to the David Beamer ads?

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
how do you not have a religious problem with creating embryos that everyone knows will die?

"Creating" being the operative word. I'm guessing he is fine with using one of the million or so currently in cold storage to create new, uncontaminated lines.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So you object to the David Beamer ads?

link please.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"Creating" being the operative word. I'm guessing he is fine with using one of the million or so currently in cold storage to create new, uncontaminated lines.

how did they get there?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"Creating" being the operative word. I'm guessing he is fine with using one of the million or so currently in cold storage to create new, uncontaminated lines.

Exactly - it's refreshing sometimes to see issues that cross party lines, and this is one that ought to.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
link please.

What, you can't google?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
What, you can't google?

the version I just saw, before seeing your link, was limited to supporting staying in Iraq. Your link doesn't open- so I don't know if it's different.

If the ad was tied to Republicans and telling people that a Dem candidate will result in more 9/11s, yes I object.

If the ad is ran to garner suport for staying in Iraq, I don't have a problem.

The Fox ad is for a candidate, not an issue.

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
how did they get there?

Penske ... when preparing for the Apocalypse.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
how did they get there?

I don't generally hear that much of a stink from the religious right about couples going to fertility clinics after trying to do their best to conceive a baby. I figured there'd be picketing outside fertility clinics soon after this issue started hitting the mainstream news. Human embryos get destroyed all the time. On purpose.

The argument against human embryonic stem cell research, as far as I understand it, is the destruction of human embryos. If it were slave's slippery slope/we're messing with stuff we don't understand argument, I'd give it a lot more credence.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I don't generally hear that much of a stink from the religious right about couples going to fertility clinics after trying to do their best to conceive a baby. I figured there'd be picketing outside fertility clinics soon after this issue started hitting the mainstream news. Human embryos get destroyed all the time. On purpose.

The argument against human embryonic stem cell research, as far as I understand it, is the destruction of human embryos. If it were slave's slippery slope/we're messing with stuff we don't understand argument, I'd give it a lot more credence.

2. They make a ton of embryos hoping one will catch and then when one does they throw the rest away. Been doing it for years. There is absolutely no reason that the ones that are being discarded shouldn't be used for research.

In addition, who knows what sort of results they will bring. No one knows what and when such research will get us. But cutting it off will insure we get nowhere.

I just find it difficult to imagine that you could exaggerate the administration's stupidity on this or exaggerate the potential negative raminifications of cutting off funding. Everyone that I know that works in Biotech thinks that Stem Cells are the holy grail of terminal disease research. That means saving lives. Cutting of funding equals killing people.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
2. They make a ton of embryos hoping one will catch and then when one does they throw the rest away. Been doing it for years. There is absolutely no reason that the ones that are being discarded shouldn't be used for research.

In addition, who knows what sort of results they will bring. No one knows what and when such research will get us. But cutting it off will insure we get nowhere.

I just find it difficult to imagine that you could exaggerate the administration's stupidity on this or exaggerate the potential negative raminifications of cutting off funding. Everyone that I know that works in Biotech thinks that Stem Cells are the holy grail of terminal disease research. That means saving lives. Cutting of funding equals killing people.

Devil's advocate here. You're a markets guy.

Why shouldn't this research be purely funded by the markets? Its not as if the Fed has banned the research - only government funding.

I'm rather surprised you of all people think this should be on the governments (ie. all taxpayers') dime