Slapping.

Didge wrote:Also for Zack to read

Violence Against Women and the Role of Religion

Rev. Dr. Marie Fortune and Rabbi Cindy Enger

    Because religion is a personal and institutional reality in the lives of the majority of the population in the U.S., it is no surprise that religious teaching and affiliation provide a significant context for many women as they address experiences of victimization.   Through texts, traditions, teachings, and doctrine, religious communities and institutions convey values and belief systems to their members.   In addition, members often have direct support or counseling relationships with religious leaders who may provide guidance or instruction.   Religious texts and teachings can serve as resources to assist those who have experienced abuse in finding safety and in the process of healing.   Yet, religion also can be misused to excuse or condone abusive behavior.   In the context of violence against women, religious teachings and communities will play a role; they will never be neutral.

    At the outset, it is important to acknowledge the tremendous diversity of beliefs, teachings, and traditions that exist among the many religions of the world.   Within pluralistic societies such as North America, we need to be aware of Roman Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Orthodox Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Native American or First Nations beliefs and practices, as well as many others.   In addition, within any one particular religion, there may exist various denominations, movements or traditions, with their own distinct institutions, cultures and teachings.   A comprehensive exploration of the relationship between religion and violence against women is beyond the scope of this article. 1

    Yet, there are some basic issues and questions, which confront religiously identified women who have experienced abuse.   It is our intention to address some of these areas of concern.   Stated simply, the reality is that regardless of the particular religious affiliation, alongside the trauma of violence, a majority of women will be dealing with some aspect of religious beliefs and teachings which will serve either as a resource or a roadblock (Fortune, 1987).

    The task for both religious and secular leadership is twofold: 1) to recognize that religious beliefs, texts, and teachings can serve both as roadblocks and as resources for victims of violence and 2) to deepen our examination of religious texts and teachings and explore new interpretations so that we minimize the roadblocks and maximize the resources for women.   No woman should ever be forced to choose between safety and her religious community or tradition.   She should be able to access the resources of both community-based advocacy and shelter and faith-based support and counsel.   For her to do so, she needs these two resources to work collaboratively so that they can provide consistent advocacy and support for victims and survivors and participate in the process of holding perpetrators accountable.

Deconstructing and Reconstructing: What to do with Religious Traditions?
    Among the many world religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam for example, incorporate beliefs and practices as well as cultures that vary greatly in their impact on women who are victims of violence.   We will use these three major world religions common in North America to illustrate the challenges that religion presents for victims of sexual and domestic violence.

Christianity as Roadblock and Resource.   Both the Hebrew Bible and Christian Scriptures contain story after story of violence against women: e.g. Dinah (Genesis 34), Tamar (2 Samuel 13), the Levite's concubine (Judges 19), Jephthah's daughter (Judges 11), Vashti (Esther 1), Suzannah (Daniel 13), and probably the persistent widow in Luke's Gospel (Luke 18) 2 .   Later Christian texts also condone male violence against women and the domination of women.   For example, the right of chastisement was the enforcer of women's subordination in marriage.   In the "Rules of Marriage" compiled by Friar Cherubino in the 15 th century (Bussert, 1986) we find the careful instruction to a husband to first reprimand his wife; "And if this still doesn't work . . . take up a stick and beat her soundly . . . for it is better to punish the body and correct the soul than to damage the soul and spare the body" (p. 13).

    Unfortunately, this doctrine has been viewed as consistent with scriptural passages interpreted to confirm male dominance over women: "Wives be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord.   For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior.   Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands" (Ephesians 5.22-24 NRSV).   Either by its silence or its instruction, the church has too often communicated to battered women that they should stay in abusive relationships, try to be better wives, and "forgive and forget."   To batterers, it has communicated that their efforts to control their wives or girlfriends are justified because women are to be subject to men in all things.   They have been permitted to "discipline" their wives and their children all for the "good of the family."   Christian history is filled with examples of church leaders justifying abuse of women by men.   Church fathers like Martin Luther unapologetically described their own physical violence towards their wives (Smith, 1911).

    In dealing with domestic violence, however, the Christian scriptural justifications for women remaining in abusive relationships (subordination in marriage, e.g. Ephesians 5:20; prohibition of divorce, e.g. Malachi 2:13-16) must be considered in the fuller context of ethics, theology, and doctrine.   Prooftexting (the selective use of a text, usually out of context, to support one's position) is a common ploy by those who seek to simply justify their actions.   It is not difficult to prooftext a man's prerogative to dominate and control a woman within patriarchal western religious traditions.   But it nonetheless does not represent the whole story.

    For example, in Jesus' ministry, he teaches: "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy.   I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly" (John 10:10, NRSV).   Victimization is never God's will but rather fullness of life.   Jesus understood his ministry "to proclaim release to the captives . . ." (Luke 4:18 quoting Isaiah 61, NRSV).   He told the story of the Good Samaritan to emphasize our responsibility to stop and care for the victim.   These are fundamental teachings through which other passages must be interpreted in Christianity.

Judaism as Roadblock and Resource.   Both the family and the home have been central to Jewish religious and cultural life.   Shalom bayit (peace in the home) is an important Jewish value; it refers to an ideal state--a harmonious home in which all who dwell within are nurtured and respected.   Yet the concept of shalom bayit has been misused by some who place on women the sole responsibility for maintaining peace in the home and even has been used to pressure women to remain in or return to homes in which they have been the victims of abuse.   Shalom bayit as a value and ideal to be worked towards should not be confused with the "myth of the perfect Jewish family," in which abuse as well as other problems have been covered up and seen as sources of shame.

    In addition, although shalom bayit is an important Jewish value, it does not have priority over taking action to save a life.   Judaism recognizes all human beings, male and female, as created b'tzelem elohim (in the image of God) (see Genesis 1:27).   Pikuach nefesh (taking action to save a life) is of the utmost importance in Jewish tradition.   The Talmud teaches that "a person who saves a life is as one who has saved an entire world" (Talmud, Sanhedrin 37a).   Judaism serves as a resource for women who have experienced abuse when pikuach nefesh is taught and remembered to be a sacred obligation, taking precedence over shalom bayit, particularly when the home is not a place of peace, but rather a place in which violence is being perpetrated.

Islam as Roadblock and Resource.   Within Islam, we also find texts and interpretations of texts that have been used by abusive men to justify their behavior.   According to Muslim scholar and activist Sharifa Alkhateeb (1999):

The most abused verse is ayah 34 of Surah four:   "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah gave more to the one than the other, and because they support them from their means.   So devout women are extremely careful and attentive in guarding what cannot be seen in that which Allah is extremely careful and attentive in guarding.   Concerning women whose rebellious disloyalty (nusbooz) you fear, admonish them, then refuse to share their beds, then hit them; but if they become obedient, do not seek means of annoyance against them.   For Allah is Most High, Great" (pp. 54-55).

Alkhateeb (1999) argues that this passage instructs Muslim men to financially and physically protect women (given their greater physical strength) and instructs Muslim women to guard their fidelity in obedience to Allah.   She points out that to translate the word "to hit" contradicts the explicit teachings of the Prophet:

Some translators assert that it is incorrect to translate the word "hit" at all, based on the Prophet's lifelong abhorrence of hitting -- found in the hadith collections of Abu Daud, Nasa'I, Ibn Hibban, and Bayhaqi, and in his instruction in his last sermon where he restricted striking to a light tap ( gbayr mubarrih - without causing pain) only if the wife has become guilty of nusbooz , obvious immoral conduct (p. 55).

Then Alkhateeb (1999) concludes:

The wording of this verse emphasizes the woman's obedience to Allah's desires, and not to those of another human being, but those who misinterpret this verse would assign men the duty of being eternal surveillance police over their wives. . . In short, this verse has been used as a tool of control and abuse completely opposed to the Islamic foundation of marriage and family (p. 55).

    In contrast, Alkhateeb (1999) points out that in the Qur'an, the marital relationship specifically is mandated to be one of "mutual kindness and mercy (30:21; 9:71)" (p. 53).   Muslim women keep their own names when they marry and have a right to a marriage contract in which they can specify their expectations of fair treatment.

No human being has ultimate authority over women. . . . Islam actually requires kindness, politeness, consideration, gentleness, respect and general goodness to women. . . . The current unjust practices to women represent ignorance of the religion rather than an example of the religion (Alkhateeb, 2003, pp. 7-.

In other words, the resources are many to challenge the roadblocks.

Transforming Roadblocks into Resources.   Early in the development of religious responses to sexual and domestic violence, Bussert (1986) clearly stated the agenda: "We need . . . to begin articulating a faith that will provide women with resources for strength rather than resources for endurance.   We must articulate a theology of empowerment rather than a theology of passive endurance" (p. 65).   This needed approach requires a critique (or deconstruction) of the roadblocks that have been created by patriarchal interpretations of religious teachings, and the development (or reconstruction) of useful resources that empower victims and survivors to address their experiences.

    Although Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all state as a core value the preservation of marriage and the family, an underlying purpose behind the application of texts and teachings on marriage and family often has been the preservation of male control of women and children within a patriarchal system.   At times, this has come at the expense of women's safety.   Thus we have seen centuries of "religion in service to patriarchy" rather than serving as a challenge to the dominant social norms which have perpetuated violence against women.


http://www.vawnet.org/applied-research-papers/print-document.php?doc_id=411

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

I am sure there are atheists, but not many, as how many atheists are in jail for domestic violence

Then compare that to how many are religious

Utterly fucking pathetic and just demonstrates your complete lack of understanding.

How many abusers end up in Jail?

You seem to be excusing domestic abuse, just as long as the numbers are down. Ask the abused wife of an atheist and see if she gives a shit about statistics. And you have the audacity to call Islam backward? Lol!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:Also for Zack to read

Violence Against Women and the Role of Religion

Rev. Dr. Marie Fortune and Rabbi Cindy Enger

    Because religion is a personal and institutional reality in the lives of the majority of the population in the U.S., it is no surprise that religious teaching and affiliation provide a significant context for many women as they address experiences of victimization.   Through texts, traditions, teachings, and doctrine, religious communities and institutions convey values and belief systems to their members.   In addition, members often have direct support or counseling relationships with religious leaders who may provide guidance or instruction.   Religious texts and teachings can serve as resources to assist those who have experienced abuse in finding safety and in the process of healing.   Yet, religion also can be misused to excuse or condone abusive behavior.   In the context of violence against women, religious teachings and communities will play a role; they will never be neutral.

    At the outset, it is important to acknowledge the tremendous diversity of beliefs, teachings, and traditions that exist among the many religions of the world.   Within pluralistic societies such as North America, we need to be aware of Roman Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Orthodox Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Native American or First Nations beliefs and practices, as well as many others.   In addition, within any one particular religion, there may exist various denominations, movements or traditions, with their own distinct institutions, cultures and teachings.   A comprehensive exploration of the relationship between religion and violence against women is beyond the scope of this article. 1

    Yet, there are some basic issues and questions, which confront religiously identified women who have experienced abuse.   It is our intention to address some of these areas of concern.   Stated simply, the reality is that regardless of the particular religious affiliation, alongside the trauma of violence, a majority of women will be dealing with some aspect of religious beliefs and teachings which will serve either as a resource or a roadblock (Fortune, 1987).

    The task for both religious and secular leadership is twofold: 1) to recognize that religious beliefs, texts, and teachings can serve both as roadblocks and as resources for victims of violence and 2) to deepen our examination of religious texts and teachings and explore new interpretations so that we minimize the roadblocks and maximize the resources for women.   No woman should ever be forced to choose between safety and her religious community or tradition.   She should be able to access the resources of both community-based advocacy and shelter and faith-based support and counsel.   For her to do so, she needs these two resources to work collaboratively so that they can provide consistent advocacy and support for victims and survivors and participate in the process of holding perpetrators accountable.

Deconstructing and Reconstructing: What to do with Religious Traditions?
    Among the many world religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam for example, incorporate beliefs and practices as well as cultures that vary greatly in their impact on women who are victims of violence.   We will use these three major world religions common in North America to illustrate the challenges that religion presents for victims of sexual and domestic violence.

Christianity as Roadblock and Resource.   Both the Hebrew Bible and Christian Scriptures contain story after story of violence against women: e.g. Dinah (Genesis 34), Tamar (2 Samuel 13), the Levite's concubine (Judges 19), Jephthah's daughter (Judges 11), Vashti (Esther 1), Suzannah (Daniel 13), and probably the persistent widow in Luke's Gospel (Luke 18) 2 .   Later Christian texts also condone male violence against women and the domination of women.   For example, the right of chastisement was the enforcer of women's subordination in marriage.   In the "Rules of Marriage" compiled by Friar Cherubino in the 15 th century (Bussert, 1986) we find the careful instruction to a husband to first reprimand his wife; "And if this still doesn't work . . . take up a stick and beat her soundly . . . for it is better to punish the body and correct the soul than to damage the soul and spare the body" (p. 13).

    Unfortunately, this doctrine has been viewed as consistent with scriptural passages interpreted to confirm male dominance over women: "Wives be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord.   For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior.   Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands" (Ephesians 5.22-24 NRSV).   Either by its silence or its instruction, the church has too often communicated to battered women that they should stay in abusive relationships, try to be better wives, and "forgive and forget."   To batterers, it has communicated that their efforts to control their wives or girlfriends are justified because women are to be subject to men in all things.   They have been permitted to "discipline" their wives and their children all for the "good of the family."   Christian history is filled with examples of church leaders justifying abuse of women by men.   Church fathers like Martin Luther unapologetically described their own physical violence towards their wives (Smith, 1911).

    In dealing with domestic violence, however, the Christian scriptural justifications for women remaining in abusive relationships (subordination in marriage, e.g. Ephesians 5:20; prohibition of divorce, e.g. Malachi 2:13-16) must be considered in the fuller context of ethics, theology, and doctrine.   Prooftexting (the selective use of a text, usually out of context, to support one's position) is a common ploy by those who seek to simply justify their actions.   It is not difficult to prooftext a man's prerogative to dominate and control a woman within patriarchal western religious traditions.   But it nonetheless does not represent the whole story.

    For example, in Jesus' ministry, he teaches: "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy.   I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly" (John 10:10, NRSV).   Victimization is never God's will but rather fullness of life.   Jesus understood his ministry "to proclaim release to the captives . . ." (Luke 4:18 quoting Isaiah 61, NRSV).   He told the story of the Good Samaritan to emphasize our responsibility to stop and care for the victim.   These are fundamental teachings through which other passages must be interpreted in Christianity.

Judaism as Roadblock and Resource.   Both the family and the home have been central to Jewish religious and cultural life.   Shalom bayit (peace in the home) is an important Jewish value; it refers to an ideal state--a harmonious home in which all who dwell within are nurtured and respected.   Yet the concept of shalom bayit has been misused by some who place on women the sole responsibility for maintaining peace in the home and even has been used to pressure women to remain in or return to homes in which they have been the victims of abuse.   Shalom bayit as a value and ideal to be worked towards should not be confused with the "myth of the perfect Jewish family," in which abuse as well as other problems have been covered up and seen as sources of shame.

    In addition, although shalom bayit is an important Jewish value, it does not have priority over taking action to save a life.   Judaism recognizes all human beings, male and female, as created b'tzelem elohim (in the image of God) (see Genesis 1:27).   Pikuach nefesh (taking action to save a life) is of the utmost importance in Jewish tradition.   The Talmud teaches that "a person who saves a life is as one who has saved an entire world" (Talmud, Sanhedrin 37a).   Judaism serves as a resource for women who have experienced abuse when pikuach nefesh is taught and remembered to be a sacred obligation, taking precedence over shalom bayit, particularly when the home is not a place of peace, but rather a place in which violence is being perpetrated.

Islam as Roadblock and Resource.   Within Islam, we also find texts and interpretations of texts that have been used by abusive men to justify their behavior.   According to Muslim scholar and activist Sharifa Alkhateeb (1999):

The most abused verse is ayah 34 of Surah four:   "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah gave more to the one than the other, and because they support them from their means.   So devout women are extremely careful and attentive in guarding what cannot be seen in that which Allah is extremely careful and attentive in guarding.   Concerning women whose rebellious disloyalty (nusbooz) you fear, admonish them, then refuse to share their beds, then hit them; but if they become obedient, do not seek means of annoyance against them.   For Allah is Most High, Great" (pp. 54-55).

Alkhateeb (1999) argues that this passage instructs Muslim men to financially and physically protect women (given their greater physical strength) and instructs Muslim women to guard their fidelity in obedience to Allah.   She points out that to translate the word "to hit" contradicts the explicit teachings of the Prophet:

Some translators assert that it is incorrect to translate the word "hit" at all, based on the Prophet's lifelong abhorrence of hitting -- found in the hadith collections of Abu Daud, Nasa'I, Ibn Hibban, and Bayhaqi, and in his instruction in his last sermon where he restricted striking to a light tap ( gbayr mubarrih - without causing pain) only if the wife has become guilty of nusbooz , obvious immoral conduct (p. 55).

Then Alkhateeb (1999) concludes:

The wording of this verse emphasizes the woman's obedience to Allah's desires, and not to those of another human being, but those who misinterpret this verse would assign men the duty of being eternal surveillance police over their wives. . . In short, this verse has been used as a tool of control and abuse completely opposed to the Islamic foundation of marriage and family (p. 55).

    In contrast, Alkhateeb (1999) points out that in the Qur'an, the marital relationship specifically is mandated to be one of "mutual kindness and mercy (30:21; 9:71)" (p. 53).   Muslim women keep their own names when they marry and have a right to a marriage contract in which they can specify their expectations of fair treatment.

No human being has ultimate authority over women. . . . Islam actually requires kindness, politeness, consideration, gentleness, respect and general goodness to women. . . . The current unjust practices to women represent ignorance of the religion rather than an example of the religion (Alkhateeb, 2003, pp. 7-.

In other words, the resources are many to challenge the roadblocks.

Transforming Roadblocks into Resources.   Early in the development of religious responses to sexual and domestic violence, Bussert (1986) clearly stated the agenda: "We need . . . to begin articulating a faith that will provide women with resources for strength rather than resources for endurance.   We must articulate a theology of empowerment rather than a theology of passive endurance" (p. 65).   This needed approach requires a critique (or deconstruction) of the roadblocks that have been created by patriarchal interpretations of religious teachings, and the development (or reconstruction) of useful resources that empower victims and survivors to address their experiences.

    Although Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all state as a core value the preservation of marriage and the family, an underlying purpose behind the application of texts and teachings on marriage and family often has been the preservation of male control of women and children within a patriarchal system.   At times, this has come at the expense of women's safety.   Thus we have seen centuries of "religion in service to patriarchy" rather than serving as a challenge to the dominant social norms which have perpetuated violence against women.


http://www.vawnet.org/applied-research-papers/print-document.php?doc_id=411

You know I do not read long C&P's. And stop trying to excuse atheists of domestic violence.

Raggamuffin wrote:Are there statistics to show that there are hardly any atheists in jail?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Lol! Wikipedia is your source?

Code:

|first1=

Code:

|last1=

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You know I do not read long C&P's. And stop trying to excuse atheists of domestic violence.

So now you invent lies lol

I stated I am sure there is some atheists abusers

I need to see your evidence to how bad that is all how small it is

Over to you little one

So easy to get the Muslim all worked up ha ha

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Lol! Wikipedia is your source?

Yes, do you want all the sources that it uses at the bottom of the page to make you look an even bigger imbecile?  lol

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

So now you invent lies lol

I stated I am sure there is some atheists abusers

I need to see your evidence to how bad that is all how small it is

Over to you little one

So easy to get the Muslim all worked up ha ha

Bigotry, my "ha ha". And you I'm worked up? HA HA!

You did excuse domestic abuse by atheists based on population. Utterly pathetic and indefensible, for the reasons I explained above. You are one of the "weak men", I was referring to.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Yes, do you want all the sources that it uses at the bottom of the page to make you look an even bigger imbecile?  lol

Lol! Now you're being abusive to me.

I told you that you are a weak man.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't agree that only weak people are religious.

Anyway, this thread seems to have turned into yet another rant about Islam, and it will probably go on the same way for several more pages before it fades away.

aspca4ever wrote:

I'll be waiting,

aspca4ever wrote:Learning from the 'MASTER ABUSER'...   you do it so well.

I'm running low on my popcorn...I'll need to replenish!  Stand by; I'd hate to miss more of your Superior Debating Skills!  

Raggamuffin wrote:Eddie thought specsaver was Bee though.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It was a reference to his over use of the word.   He chucks it around like a chimp chucking peanuts, along with accusations of other posters' immaturity.   It was no actual pop at you.

It certainly looked like a pop at me.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Eddie thought specsaver was Bee though.

Still could be, but I really think its Joy

Both were that abusive to people

Raggamuffin wrote:Interestingly, JD accused Horatio of being me at first.

Just thought I'd throw that in.

aspca4ever wrote:

Didge wrote:

Still could be, but I really think its Joy

Both were that abusive to people

Trying to be a proper / obedient servant; seems I'm failing in following your every method for proper debating...however shall I improve to your skill set???  
Please, don't leave me wanting more - I'll feel so sad that I've failed to achieve your level in obnoxiousness and ability to attack and defame!  
HELP ME - WHAT DO I NEED TO DO --- Please MASTER, be so kind as to teach me/us what we lack?  

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Lol! Wikipedia is your source?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Eddie thought specsaver was Bee though.

Still could be, but I really think its Joy

Both were that abusive to people

HoratioTarr wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Lol! Wikipedia is your source?

Good 'ol Wiki

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


Still could be, but I really think its Joy

Both were that abusive to people

you really don't have any self awareness, do you?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:ethnicity, religious involvement, and domestic violence.
Ellison CG1, Trinitapoli JA, Anderson KL, Johnson BR.
Author information
1University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Abstract
The authors explored the relationship between religious involvement and intimate partner violence by analyzing data from the first wave of the National Survey of Families and Households. They found that: (a) religious involvement is correlated with reduced levels of domestic violence; (b) levels of domestic violence vary by race/ethnicity; (c) the effects of religious involvement on domestic violence vary by race/ethnicity; and (d) religious involvement, specifically church attendance, protects against domestic violence, and this protective effect is stronger for African American men and women and for Hispanic men, groups that, for a variety of reasons, experience elevated risk for this type of violence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17951587

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:ethnicity, religious involvement, and domestic violence.
Ellison CG1, Trinitapoli JA, Anderson KL, Johnson BR.
Author information
1University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Abstract
The authors explored the relationship between religious involvement and intimate partner violence by analyzing data from the first wave of the National Survey of Families and Households. They found that: (a) religious involvement is correlated with reduced levels of domestic violence; (b) levels of domestic violence vary by race/ethnicity; (c) the effects of religious involvement on domestic violence vary by race/ethnicity; and (d) religious involvement, specifically church attendance, protects against domestic violence, and this protective effect is stronger for African American men and women and for Hispanic men, groups that, for a variety of reasons, experience elevated risk for this type of violence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17951587

So that is Christians in America, then are you in fact making this a racial issue then?

Still does not discount the fact many more will be religious especially where literal belief is concerned

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

So that is Christians in America, then are you in fact making this a racial issue then?

Still does not discount the fact many more will be religious especially where literal belief is concerned

You clearly have problems with comprehension and excusing domestic violence committed by athletics. Your attitude is quite frankly, vile.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You clearly have problems with comprehension and excusing domestic violence committed by athletics. Your attitude is quite frankly, vile.

Or more like you cannot show anything to prove your stance

Again pout up or shut up my boy

Again I have not excused anything but asked you to back your claims

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Or more like you cannot show anything to prove your stance

Again put up or shut up my boy

Again I have not excused anything but asked you to back your claims

Lol! I don't pout.


Catholic Archbishop Blames Disobedient Wives For Domestic Violence
- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/01/catholic-archbishop-blames-disobedient-wives-for-domestic-violence/?ref_widget=gr_popular&ref_blog=grails&ref_post=atheist#sthash.yZXMe347.dpuf

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! I don't pout.


Catholic Archbishop Blames Disobedient Wives For Domestic Violence
- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/01/catholic-archbishop-blames-disobedient-wives-for-domestic-violence/?ref_widget=gr_popular&ref_blog=grails&ref_post=atheist#sthash.yZXMe347.dpuf

That is not anything on atheists?


ha ha ha ha

We know about Christians and Jews doing the same and covering up domestic violence and even more so as seen in Muslim countries

Again put up or shut up

The above just further emphasize my point on religious teachings

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

That is not anything on atheists?


ha ha ha ha

We know about Christians and Jews doing the same and covering up domestic violence and even more so as seen in Muslim countries

Again put up or shut up

The above just further emphasize my point on religious teachings

Already given you a study about atheists. Which of course, you've ignored.

Already put up. You just can't stop whining, princess.

• 3.1Social views
  
  
• 3.2Religion
  
  
• 3.3Custom and tradition
  
  
• 3.4Relation to forced and child marriage
  
  
• 3.5HIV/AIDS
  
  
• 3.6Legislation
  
  
• 3.7Ability to leave an abusive relationship
  
  
• 3.8Individual versus family unit rights
  
  
• 3.9Immigration policies
  
  
• 3.10Alcohol abuse
  
  
• 3.11Immigrant communities
  
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence
  
  
  

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Already given you a study about atheists. Which of course, you've ignored.

Already put up. You just can't stop whining, princess.

No I said stats and that was not a study of atheists and you certainly did not read it did you?

So no put up or shut up little noy

Anyway what you need to read


Religion and Men's Violence Against Women


https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_PBICAAAQBAJ&pg=PA450&lpg=PA450&dq=domestic+violence+covered+up+by+religious+institutions&source=bl&ots=jTTLTlxMG9&sig=hEztxZTcLzV_7X6v6nyQfp_BcoM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwio_Lmc05XLAhVGQBQKHUC7CNcQ6AEIRzAH#v=onepage&q=domestic%20violence%20covered%20up%20by%20religious%20institutions&f=false

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

No I said stats and that was not a study of atheists and you certainly did not read it did you?

So no put up or shut up little noy

Anyway what you need to read


Religion and Men's Violence Against Women


https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_PBICAAAQBAJ&pg=PA450&lpg=PA450&dq=domestic+violence+covered+up+by+religious+institutions&source=bl&ots=jTTLTlxMG9&sig=hEztxZTcLzV_7X6v6nyQfp_BcoM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwio_Lmc05XLAhVGQBQKHUC7CNcQ6AEIRzAH#v=onepage&q=domestic%20violence%20covered%20up%20by%20religious%20institutions&f=false

Do you not think they used stats in the research paper?

Serious question Didge: what is your level of education? School, college, undergraduate, postgraduate, doctorate? Just interested.

Or more like you cannot show anything to prove your stance
Again put up or shut up my boy

Didge putting his feet into his large orfice >>> Again I have not excused anything but asked you to back your claims
No I said stats and that was not a study of atheists and you certainly did not read it did you?
So no put up or shut up little noy
Anyway what you need to read

aspca4ever wrote:

Or more like you cannot show anything to prove your stance
Again put up or shut up my boy

Didge putting his feet into his large orfice >>> Again I have not excused anything but asked you to back your claims
No I said stats and that was not a study of atheists and you certainly did not read it did you?
So no put up or shut up little noy
Anyway what you need to read

And yet you've just regurgitated more info that has already been posted    prior to where you've jumped in and couldn't have YO MOMMA get you caught up!  

Oh...my-my; I'm beginning to see a pattern - the method to your madness!  

If you can't insult/defame/ridicule/attack/troll each and every member that disagrees with or challenges your every mental dribble then I'm failing in my education to DEBATE THE DIDGE WAY ???  
Amazing...wasn't there an age limit that was expected prior to allowing you and your dirty shorts into this community?  Never mind, your lower aptitude for adult discussion has proven your 'wee-little boy age'...surely there should be a verification process provide at the onset for joining!

'SECURITY'... this minor child needs escorted to the entrance and shown the door!  

aspca4ever wrote:
Naughty - Naughty, little child; you still haven't been able to read the thread from beginning to the point that you stormed into the topic and started your pissing match and dirtying your wee-little shorts...I'd well imagine that you've got quite a stench surrounding your back side by now!  
Shouldn't you run home and have mommy change you?  That might improve your stinking attitude - or at least improve the aroma around here

aspca4ever wrote:

Or more like you cannot show anything to prove your stance
Again put up or shut up my boy

Didge putting his feet into his large orfice >>> Again I have not excused anything but asked you to back your claims
No I said stats and that was not a study of atheists and you certainly did not read it did you?
So no put up or shut up little noy
Anyway what you need to read

And yet you've just regurgitated more info that has already been posted    prior to where you've jumped in and couldn't have YO MOMMA get you caught up!  

Oh...my-my; I'm beginning to see a pattern - the method to your madness!  

If you can't insult/defame/ridicule/attack/troll each and every member that disagrees with or challenges your every mental dribble then I'm failing in my education to DEBATE THE DIDGE WAY ???  
Amazing...wasn't there an age limit that was expected prior to allowing you and your dirty shorts into this community?  Never mind, your lower aptitude for adult discussion has proven your 'wee-little boy age'...surely there should be a verification process provide at the onset for joining!

'SECURITY'... this minor child needs escorted to the entrance and shown the door!  

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It certainly looked like a pop at me.

No, it wasn't.   

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

So that is Christians in America, then are you in fact making this a racial issue then?

Still does not discount the fact many more will be religious especially where literal belief is concerned

You clearly have problems with comprehension and excusing domestic violence committed by athletics. Your attitude is quite frankly, vile.

aspca4ever wrote:

Didge

Please grow up Joy you are not fooling anyone and as you never made any point on anything I posted, It shows you are nothing more than here to shit stir

 Oh, hail and bow down to the AUTHORITY on proper debate decorum >>>

Didge continued rants >>> Not until you act with some maturity and stop shit stirring and ganging up on posters
Can you not fight your own battles you need to jump on others to belittle people
That really shows how pathetic you are and childish

So many voices in his wee-little head:
First I'm Bee, then Beekeeper, then Wolfman, then back to Bee, now to 'JOY';     So many authors/former members names and so little time...but do carry on with your proving how we ADULTS should behave --- it's so very entertaining from such a wee-immature little boy!  

eddie wrote:

aspca4ever wrote:

 Oh, hail and bow down to the AUTHORITY on proper debate decorum >>>


So many voices in his wee-little head:
First I'm Bee, then Beekeeper, then Wolfman, then back to Bee, now to 'JOY';     So many authors/former members names and so little time...but do carry on with your proving how we ADULTS should behave --- it's so very entertaining from such a wee-immature little boy!  

Do Americans use the term "wee" for little?

Seems you have a bit of a grudge against didge yet you hardly know him apparently?

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:

aspca4ever wrote:

 Oh, hail and bow down to the AUTHORITY on proper debate decorum >>>


So many voices in his wee-little head:
First I'm Bee, then Beekeeper, then Wolfman, then back to Bee, now to 'JOY';     So many authors/former members names and so little time...but do carry on with your proving how we ADULTS should behave --- it's so very entertaining from such a wee-immature little boy!  

Do Americans use the term "wee" for little?

Seems you have a bit of a grudge against didge yet you hardly know him apparently?

Its a term Joy often used, he easily gives away who he is lol

He was upset because I did not back his abuse of Rags