Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Islam and Christianity BOTH have sexist tenates in their dogma.

I can name ANY number of examples, but am at work so don't have the time....just use your google-fu skills to find them.

The fact that some followers of these faiths *choose* to not follow them does NOT mean that those sexist tenates do not exist...nor does it mean that in some "denominations" that they aren't contunued/practuced

This is the point. So why is it that the sexist tenets of Islam are more likely to be followed in the Middle-East than the Christian ones of America? Is it a question of belief? Are people from the Middle-East more devoutly religious, and greater believers in God and their religion than those from America? No. It's a question of cultural/social circumstance. Those people in America are more prone to being surrounded by the circumstances and atmosphere which allow them to sideline or minimise that aspect of their religion.

The religion itself is merely a label by which one justifies behaviours and beliefs instilled by society. If any society's beliefs/culture were diametrically opposed to the tenets of a given religion, that religion would not last five seconds, and would attract very few followers. Religion is little more ultimately than a mirror of society in most cases. It's why schisms often happen within religion.Society changes, religion fails to keep up, and is then displaced/modified/eliminated in favour of something that fits cultural needs better.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Islam and Christianity BOTH have sexist tenates in their dogma.

I can name ANY number of examples, but am at work so don't have the time....just use your google-fu skills to find them.

The fact that some followers of these faiths *choose* to not follow them does NOT mean that those sexist tenates do not exist...nor does it mean that in some "denominations" that they aren't contunued/practuced

Virtually all religions do. It mostly stems from the fact that the major modern world religions were codified in a time when sexism was the culturally accepted norm in pretty much the entire world.


On an interesting note, the women might not be as innocent as she claims she is.
There have been some rumours emerging in the Dutch press that the friend with whom she travelled to Qatar is registered on a site for paid sex. The details of her story also seemed to change every time she told it to Qatari police or Dutch embassy staff. That might give a bit more credence to the claim of the man that she consented and wanted to get paid afterwards.
In any case, the court decided to just leave it at extramarital sex and give the women a fine and the man 140 lashes with a whip (ouch, sharia is not just bad for women)

 Ketara wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Islam and Christianity BOTH have sexist tenates in their dogma.

I can name ANY number of examples, but am at work so don't have the time....just use your google-fu skills to find them.

The fact that some followers of these faiths *choose* to not follow them does NOT mean that those sexist tenates do not exist...nor does it mean that in some "denominations" that they aren't contunued/practuced

This is the point. So why is it that the sexist tenets of Islam are more likely to be followed in the Middle-East than the Christian ones of America? Is it a question of belief? No. It's a question of cultural/social circumstance. Those people in America are more prone to being surrounded by the circumstances and atmosphere which allow them to sideline or minimise that aspect of their religion.

The religion itself is merely a label by which one justifies behaviours and beliefs instilled by society. If any society's beliefs/culture were diametrically opposed to the tenets of a given religion, that religion would not last five seconds, and would attract very few followers. Religion is little more ultimately than a mirror of society in most cases.

You both make good valid points but I think an additional point needs to be made, that religion, particularly Islam, in the ME has a much stronger grip on the culture, society and politics than it does in the West. In the West we can live a secular society where we have the freedom to believe in the religion of our choice but we also have the freedom to live without being influenced by religion and to push back against some tenets of religion that we don't agree with. In the West society and culture was allowed to change even if some of those changes opposed some of the old tenets of major religions while we still allowed religious freedom for people like the Amish and Orthodox Jews. In the ME there are forces that actively work against allowing such changes to happen. How can there be social/cultura changes in KSA for more secularism/Westernism/equaltiy etc. when there's the Mutaween walking around enforcing Sharia Law? When does the ME have their version of the Enlightenment? Millions of Muslims can live and thrive in countries like the US and UK because we have an open evironment that promotes liberty and equality while still allowing religious freedom. The monarchies and theocracies in the ME don't allow that kind of environment to exist so they continue to perpetrate social values that violently clash against those of the West.

In the ME religion and society is a snake eating it's own tail. Both are two entwined and too invested in the status quo to allow for meaningful change to arise organically and that is keeping them trapped as a social anachronism that will continually butt heads with the West.

The west also was gripped by religion in former times. It still has a significant amount of influence in the USA even today.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The west also was gripped by religion in former times. It still has a significant amount of influence in the USA even today.

Religion still influences Western society just to a much lesser degree than it has in our past and the ME's present.

Part of the problem is also that it is hard to determine how much religion influences culture and how much culture influences religion.

In the US, there hasn't been that much change in how religious the country is during the past 10-15 years. During that time frame, the culture in the country has changed regarding the attitude towards homosexuality and same-sex marriage, and more religious institutions are teaching that it is okay to be in a same-sex marriage.

Did the culture change first, influencing some religions to follow suit? Did religion change first, influencing culture to follow suit?

Culture and religion is somewhat of a chicken/egg scenario, and it's hard to determine the cause of things because of that.

How can anyone let such a country host the world cup?

 Matthew wrote:
How can anyone let such a country host the world cup?

Everyone has their price. Especially FIFA officials.

Prestor Jon wrote:
You both make good valid points but I think an additional point needs to be made, that religion, particularly Islam, in the ME has a much stronger grip on the culture, society and politics than it does in the West. In the West we can live a secular society where we have the freedom to believe in the religion of our choice but we also have the freedom to live without being influenced by religion and to push back against some tenets of religion that we don't agree with. In the West society and culture was allowed to change even if some of those changes opposed some of the old tenets of major religions while we still allowed religious freedom for people like the Amish and Orthodox Jews.

Just to break you up there, I'd appreciate it if you could consider why and when that became the case. What had to happen first? The answer is, several hundred years of conflicts, schools of philosophical though, power struggles between various factions in which religion came up second fiddle.

Even a hundred years ago, if I'd been an Englishman who'd converted to Buddhism, I'd have been viewed as dangerously eccentric, and ostacised from polite and good Christian society (eg, most of society) in a myriad of ways. The freedom to live without being influenced by religion is an exceedingly contemporary thing in a corner of the world, and has only occurred here due to the unique way our governmental structure here in Britain has arisen.

In Europe more generally, religion has also had to contest with 'belief' in political principles such as socialism and capitalism. They're not religions, but they dictate both how we live our lives, view each other, and govern our countries just as much as any religion has. Indeed, one could argue that our belief in religion has in many ways, been superseded by our 'belief' in political structures, with their associated economic, moral, and philosophical beliefs. They pervade our cultures to an extent that most people do not even consider.

Is it so surprising, that in areas of the world without those associated developments of political structures/beliefs, that religion still substitutes the role of those things?

but we also have the freedom to live without being influenced by religion and to push back against some tenets of religion that we don't agree with. In the West society and culture was allowed to change even if some of those changes opposed some of the old tenets of major religions while we still allowed religious freedom for people like the Amish and Orthodox Jews. In the ME there are forces that actively work against allowing such changes to happen. How can there be social/cultura changes in KSA for more secularism/Westernism/equaltiy etc. when there's the Mutaween walking around enforcing Sharia Law?

How can there be social/cultural changes in favour of hardcore socialism or facism or Catholicism whilst liberals actively work against them in the West? It's all a matter of perspective, really, and what your personal priorities are. Unsurprisingly, there is no objectively right or wrong answer.

But coming from the social and cultural background that you do, you naturally prize the attributes of your society over the attributes of another society, where religion plays more of a functioning role in the social/cultural fabric of society.

When does the ME have their version of the Enlightenment? Millions of Muslims can live and thrive in countries like the US and UK because we have an open evironment that promotes liberty and equality while still allowing religious freedom. The monarchies and theocracies in the ME don't allow that kind of environment to exist so they continue to perpetrate social values that violently clash against those of the West.

In the ME religion and society is a snake eating it's own tail. Both are two entwined and too invested in the status quo to allow for meaningful change to arise organically and that is keeping them trapped as a social anachronism that will continually butt heads with the West.

The thing here, is that you view 'change' in a Western sense, whereby the culture you come from is the superior model to which all else must adapt. Why should only change to a Western model be meaningful? Why not a Russian model? Or a Chinese one? Or a Japanese one? In all of these, different items play different roles in the fabric of the society Confucianism is big in China for example, religion has always held a strong grip in Russia, and Japan is far more sexist and bent towards conformity than we are. Why is our model the best one, and why can't the Middle-East move towards one of those, or indeed, develop it's own model?

I don't say this to be contentious, but to try and demonstrate the inherent unconscious assumption of superiority that pervades the Western world, and indeed, always has done. The developments of intolerance towards sexism and homophobia are a statistical thirty year blip in a handful of countries out of hundreds of nations over thousands of years. I personally prefer the effects of that blip, and find it morally preferable. But then again, I would, because it's my culture, and everyone at heart thinks their culture is the best approach to things.

d-usa wrote:
Culture and religion is somewhat of a chicken/egg scenario, and it's hard to determine the cause of things because of that.

I think in past times it was. As religion has grown less attached to the societal/cultural fabric of the West however, it has grown quantifiably far less so. There simply aren't enough adherents to any given sect in Britain, for example, for them to impact upon the culture/society there. They're not united enough in action, and they do not control sufficient levers of power to do so.

The crazy thing is, that the only reason this even made headlines is because the women in question was Dutch.

This happens on a daily basis to women in the GCC area, just that most of these women are from 3rd world countries makes all the difference when it comes to news coverage.

Qatar is a terrible country, that literally still has slave labor. It's a blot on a modern world.

 Ketara wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
You both make good valid points but I think an additional point needs to be made, that religion, particularly Islam, in the ME has a much stronger grip on the culture, society and politics than it does in the West. In the West we can live a secular society where we have the freedom to believe in the religion of our choice but we also have the freedom to live without being influenced by religion and to push back against some tenets of religion that we don't agree with. In the West society and culture was allowed to change even if some of those changes opposed some of the old tenets of major religions while we still allowed religious freedom for people like the Amish and Orthodox Jews.

Just to break you up there, I'd appreciate it if you could consider why and when that became the case. What had to happen first? The answer is, several hundred years of conflicts, schools of philosophical though, power struggles between various factions in which religion came up second fiddle.

Even a hundred years ago, if I'd been an Englishman who'd converted to Buddhism, I'd have been viewed as dangerously eccentric, and ostacised from polite and good Christian society (eg, most of society) in a myriad of ways. The freedom to live without being influenced by religion is an exceedingly contemporary thing in a corner of the world, and has only occurred here due to the unique way our governmental structure here in Britain has arisen.

In Europe more generally, religion has also had to contest with 'belief' in political principles such as socialism and capitalism. They're not religions, but they dictate both how we live our lives, view each other, and govern our countries just as much as any religion has. Indeed, one could argue that our belief in religion has in many ways, been superseded by our 'belief' in political structures, with their associated economic, moral, and philosophical beliefs. They pervade our cultures to an extent that most people do not even consider.

Is it so surprising, that in areas of the world without those associated developments of political structures/beliefs, that religion still substitutes the role of those things?

but we also have the freedom to live without being influenced by religion and to push back against some tenets of religion that we don't agree with. In the West society and culture was allowed to change even if some of those changes opposed some of the old tenets of major religions while we still allowed religious freedom for people like the Amish and Orthodox Jews. In the ME there are forces that actively work against allowing such changes to happen. How can there be social/cultura changes in KSA for more secularism/Westernism/equaltiy etc. when there's the Mutaween walking around enforcing Sharia Law?

How can there be social/cultural changes in favour of hardcore socialism or facism or Catholicism whilst liberals actively work against them in the West? It's all a matter of perspective, really, and what your personal priorities are. Unsurprisingly, there is no objectively right or wrong answer.

But coming from the social and cultural background that you do, you naturally prize the attributes of your society over the attributes of another society, where religion plays more of a functioning role in the social/cultural fabric of society.

When does the ME have their version of the Enlightenment? Millions of Muslims can live and thrive in countries like the US and UK because we have an open evironment that promotes liberty and equality while still allowing religious freedom. The monarchies and theocracies in the ME don't allow that kind of environment to exist so they continue to perpetrate social values that violently clash against those of the West.

In the ME religion and society is a snake eating it's own tail. Both are two entwined and too invested in the status quo to allow for meaningful change to arise organically and that is keeping them trapped as a social anachronism that will continually butt heads with the West.

The thing here, is that you view 'change' in a Western sense, whereby the culture you come from is the superior model to which all else must adapt. Why should only change to a Western model be meaningful? Why not a Russian model? Or a Chinese one? Or a Japanese one? In all of these, different items play different roles in the fabric of the society Confucianism is big in China for example, religion has always held a strong grip in Russia, and Japan is far more sexist and bent towards conformity than we are. Why is our model the best one, and why can't the Middle-East move towards one of those, or indeed, develop it's own model?

I don't say this to be contentious, but to try and demonstrate the inherent unconscious assumption of superiority that pervades the Western world, and indeed, always has done. The developments of intolerance towards sexism and homophobia are a statistical thirty year blip in a handful of countries out of hundreds of nations over thousands of years. I personally prefer the effects of that blip, and find it morally preferable. But then again, I would, because it's my culture, and everyone at heart thinks their culture is the best approach to things.

d-usa wrote:
Culture and religion is somewhat of a chicken/egg scenario, and it's hard to determine the cause of things because of that.

I think in past times it was. As religion has grown less attached to the societal/cultural fabric of the West however, it has grown quantifiably far less so. There simply aren't enough adherents to any given sect in Britain, for example, for them to impact upon the culture/society there. They're not united enough in action, and they do not control sufficient levers of power to do so.

I'm not trying to be contentious either but I think there are objective benefits and subjective benefits to Wetern society versus the ME. While I have a personal preference for Western liberty I recognize that it's a personal preference colored by my own bias and upbringing. However I think there are ways in which Western society is objectively better. In the West you can choose to live under strict religious, you can choose to be Amish or Orthodox Jew or any other religion that has more stringent/repressive rules for men and women but you can also choose not to do that. The ability to have a choice is more beneficial than not having the ability to choose regardless of one's opinion of the choice that is made. I don't think everyone has to make the choices that I would make but I strongly believe that everyone should have the freedom to make their own choices. If somebody wants to be a Buddhist or a Southern Baptist or whatever that's great, everyone should be free to be themselves as long as they don't hurt others. In countries like KSA where the Mutaween will put you in jail for not being a "proper" Muslim there is no choice for people to behave differently.

The West has been able to separate church and state, religious and social values, with that separation comes more freedom and more options for people to be who they want to be. If people in the ME had the option to live however they wanted and 99% chose to live under Islamic monarchies and theocracies that enforced Sharia law, that's ok, that's their choice and it's not my place to impose my own arbitrary values on them. Unfortunately religion is still deeply intwined in politics, social values and cultural identity in the ME so people can't choose to move away from Islam without being ostracized and punished. That's objectively bad, for anyone living under those circumstances with any religion.

Ketera, you are forgetting while in the west the people have freedom and access to any information, large part of the ME are still illiterate, and information is controlled by dictators/government which use the Islam tenets to control the populace, also Iman's have huge influence in the ME.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Ketera, you are forgetting while in the west the people have freedom and access to any information, large part of the ME are still illiterate, and information is controlled by dictators/government which use the Islam tenets to control the populace, also Iman's have huge influence in the ME.

That may be true in backwards rural areas, but in most of of the Middle East, especially urban areas, people have access to the internet just like we do. The vast majority of the people there can also read, write and has had at least basic education and probably more. The ME really isn't all that backwards, especially countries in the Levant and the Gulf states.