girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...e_id=1811&ct=5

The grand payoff of faith.

[xoxoxoBruce]

She was Kurd and he was Sunni Iraqi. I thought the Kurds were the good guys but apparently they're just the different guys.

[Beestie]

Is there anything at all sadder than this.

[Spexxvet]

Aren't there some Christians out there who would like to stone a boy for loving another boy?

[Aliantha]

They don't use physical torture Spex. Christians are more humane. They use phsychological torture.

Edit: Left out an E

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

They don't use physical torture Spex. Christians are more humane. They use phsychological torture.

Edit: Left out an E

But they'd like to stone him.

[xoxoxoBruce]

What difference does it make.... they don't. You're condemning people for what you think they are thinking, unless your talking about Phelps and he's the only one that believes he is Christian.

[Elspode]

Hey...I would not feel so all alone. Everybody must get stoned. Or burned at the stake.

I almost posted that one too.
Ain't faith grand!
"It brings so much hope to us all"!

[xoxoxoBruce]

That one has nothing to do with religion. That's about fear and superstition of witches casting spells. But rkzenrage is so consumed with his hate, he can't understand the difference, even when it's stated in the article.

Religion is superstition.

[xoxoxoBruce]

You're pathetic, I feel truly sorry for you.

[DanaC]

This is as much tribal/communal as it is religious. This is a cultural matter, whereby males of a community believe they have the absolute right of life and death over the women and girls of the community. She was not stoned to death because she loved a boy....but because that boy belonged to a different sect/community.

There are numerous cultures which subscribe to the idea of honour killings and not all of them claim religious sanction.

This of course makes it harder to tackle. Cultures which have taken thousands of years to evolve and have retained ancient elements through several religious epochs are as difficult to move as mountains.

She was Kurd and he was Sunni Iraqi. I thought the Kurds were the good guys but apparently they're just the different guys

None of them are the 'good guys' and none of them are the 'bad guys'. There are traditionalist bastards in every group and there are compassionate fathers too. Her own family did this to her.

As an aside on 'honour killings'....during the days leading up to partition in India, when communalist violence was at its height, men from moslem, sikh and hindu communities burned their own women in their homes to prevent them being kidnapped or dishonoured by the enemy. Locked them in barns and doused them with kerosene. Mothers, wives, daughters and sisters. It went across the faiths. We see this as a primarily moslem phenomenon these days, but the reality is that honour killing is a different thing to sharia law. Sharia law is based on the qu'ran, honour killing is much, much older and exists in places beyond the reach of the Prophet.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

This is as much tribal/communal as it is religious. This is a cultural matter, whereby males of a community believe they have the absolute right of life and death over the women and girls of the community. She was not stoned to death because she loved a boy....but because that boy belonged to a different sect/community.

There are numerous cultures which subscribe to the idea of honour killings and not all of them claim religious sanction.

This of course makes it harder to tackle. Cultures which have taken thousands of years to evolve and have retained ancient elements through several religious epochs are as difficult to move as mountains.



None of them are the 'good guys' and none of them are the 'bad guys'. There are traditionalist bastards in every group and there are compassionate fathers too. Her own family did this to her.

As an aside on 'honour killings'....during the days leading up to partition in India, when communalist violence was at its height, men from moslem, sikh and hindu communities burned their own women in their homes to prevent them being kidnapped or dishonoured by the enemy. Locked them in barns and doused them with kerosene. Mothers, wives, daughters and sisters. It went across the faiths. We see this as a primarily moslem phenomenon these days, but the reality is that honour killing is a different thing to sharia law. Sharia law is based on the qu'ran, honour killing is much, much older and exists in places beyond the reach of the Prophet.

So what's the problem? I thought we wanted to let them have self determination in running their country. If they want to stone each other I say let them have at it. Just don't stone and bomb us.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

What difference does it make.... they don't. You're condemning people for what you think they are thinking,

They don't do it but it is fair, then, to condemn the book that states that is what should be done?