Someone in the religious community just said publicly: If women get raped, it’s their own fault if they’re not dressed right. Two voices are suspiciously silent: The liberal media who spent months reporting on the supposed war on women, and the slut walk sluts [said with tongue firmly in cheek]. ‘What happened, and why are they silent’ you ask?
(Reuters) — Many Egyptian viewers were horrified when preacher Hisham el-Ashry recently popped up on primetime television to say women must cover up for their own protection and advocated the introduction of religious police.
[…]
“I was once asked: If I came to power, would I let Christian women remain unveiled? And I said: If they want to get raped on the streets, then they can,” Ashry told Nahar TV last week.
Introducing a Saudi-style anti-vice police force to enforce Islamic law was “not a bad thing”, he said, and added: “In order for Egypt to become fully Islamic, alcohol must be banned and all women must be covered.”
We know why, don’t we. Had this been spoken not by the religion of peace, but anyone else, it would be running 24/7.
Sifting Reality 
The “war on women” in the US is a self inflicted wound. Feminists have sold their souls to Uncle Sugar for free unrestrained f)$&ing and mountains of dead babies.
Sally
I too believe this is a self inflicted problem. The war is perpetrated from the left, they just don’t see it because their value system doesn’t allow for seeing it as a problem.
You know, when “our guy” in Missouri had the whole “legitimate rape” fiasco, many on our side were ready to be done with him. That’s what you call intellectual honesty.
Liberal decisions made on whether something is wrong or even in poor taste are determined by asking “Who said it?”.
C2C
You know something, you’re right. Who said it determines whether its OK, whether it gets coverage, or whether there is a demand they quit their job.
Chuck Hagel I believe had said some thing which made the homosexual crowd rather upset some years back, and now its no big deal because he’s an Obama appointee. Same with VP Biden, that man is a walking “if a Republican said it they’d be selling shoes by now” soundbite.
What?? A Muslim in Egypt is sexist and sounds like it?!! And he makes horrible sexist comments?? OH NO!
This is news? Are you suggesting that feminists are okay with Muslim sexism and oppressive language? Of course it is wrong, wherever it occurs and of course women and men who are responsible are opposed to it everywhere, including in the Mideast.
There are all manner of things that happen around the world that don’t get reported here in American media. The absence of reporting on it or talking about it is not evidence of support for the behavior.
It’s not about support. The point is that liberals and the media would rather not say anything bad about any Muslim. How many stories have there been about Christian “oppression” of women? “They don’t allow women to be leaders”, etc. This Muslim leader says this on television, and there’s no two week network news blitz? And the moment a high profile republican points out something that you say is obviously bad about Islam, he’ll be labeled an islamophobe. We’d hear about that.
AND it would be used to paint all republicans as islamaphobes. We’d have all kinds of democrats fighting over camera time to decry the intolerance of the right-wing nuts.
Dan
It’s not that I think feminists support the words of the Islamist but their lack of condemnation belies their claims about how offended they are. This comment is worse than anything any Republican has sad yet Republicans are ran through the ringer on a regular basis
John, in the past few years, Christians in the US and Uganda have worked to criminalize gay behavior in Uganda. That news didn’t make the US press on a large scale, either. Is that “silence” an indication that there is a cover up to protect Christians supporting criminalizing homosexuality? OR, is it simply an indication that we don’t talk about news in other parts of the world very much?
Of course reasonable people every oppose criminalizing gay behavior. Of course reasonable people everywhere oppose the oppression of women as happens in some other nations.
A focus on what is happening here is simply that: a focus on what is happening here. We are all concerned about oppression of gay folk and women wherever it occurs, but we especially focus on the more local. Beginning setting affairs straight at home should rightly come before nosing in elsewhere.
Now, having said that, I’d gladly support more news agencies and Christian organizations coming out against the oppression of gay folk, women, the poor… came out opposing oppression wherever and whoever it happens to. I would support being more informed on world news. If that’s your point, I fully support it.
But to single out liberals for failing to pay attention/give concern to news around the world when it’s something common to all of us is not reasonable or equitable. In my circles, at least, it is generally the more liberal who are most informed about world issues and problems.
And we’d “paint all conservatives as islamaphobes” for standing up against Muslim oppression of women? Don’t be ridiculous. That is an incredibly paranoid and insane sounding suggestion that has no basis in the real world.
Go ahead, STAND up to comments like this (wherever they occur, not just with Muslims) and see the incredible NON-judgmentalism that will come your way.
DO you stand up against these sorts of comments? I do, every liberal I know does. Will you all clearly reject such comments as wrong? Or is this all a feint to cover your own misogyny?
Actually their silence better indicates that they were more focused on covering for an inept president, then focused on reelecting him
Do YOU stand against these sorts of comments, John, whoever makes them?
I do. Every liberal I know does. Do you?
On top of that, how often have you decried the oppression of women or gay folk around the world on these pages? Have you taken a firm and loud stand against the criminalization of homosexuality in African nations?
Does your silence on the topic indicate some hidden agenda on your part?
I don’t know the extent of the African laws against homosexual behavior (and I’m guessing here that the laws are against behavior, not mere attraction—I could be wrong), but before Lawrence v Texas, we didn’t have the nonsensical push for homosexual marriage in this country. Perhaps the Africans have seen what happens when homosexual behavior is NOT criminalized in other countries and justifiably and reasonably want no part of it. If they are just looking to bash homosexuals simply for being homosexual, then of course I oppose such policy. Otherwise, I’ve no reason to be concerned. There are still sexual practices outlawed in this country and I’m sure those who run afoul feel oppressed.
As to islamic oppression of women in other countries, the difference is that such has been experienced in this country as well and those cases haven’t gotten the press that Sandra Fluke did over whining about contraceptives and then getting heat from Limbaugh. Pamela Geller, as one example, has reported on such cases as that of Fathima Rifqa Bary, and other “honor” killings or abuses of women by their muslim men in this country. And since it is the goal of islamists in the Middle East to spread sharia crapola the world over, one would think that those concerned about any wars on women might at least make mention of islamic misogyny.
People OUTLAW a sexual behavior – sending people to prison and in some cases, at least potentially killing them?! – for engaging in sex (and, indeed, in some cases, people have been imprisoned/punished for merely “appearing” gay – one recent case in Cameroon cited that the fellows in question was drinking Bailey’s Irish Creme liquor as evidence of his “homosexuality…”) and you think it’s no reason to be concerned?
Are you suggesting that it’s a wise idea to criminalize certain sexual behaviors??
John, here’s your chance to prove yourself of the reasonable conservative crowd and point out the insanity of such thinking. You could also demonstrate that you’re not amongst the crazies by clearing affirming that you disagree with the fellow in your post who suggested that women are “asking for” rape if they dress wrongly.
John, demonstrate that there are reasonable conservatives out there by your words and actions, not just by suggesting that they exist.
Isn’t it interesting that Dan the hard-core liberal is the one who determines what “reasonable” people will do. It’s the old “no true Scotsman” fallacy. I really get tired of Dan proclaiming what “reasonable” people will do or not do.
I would say that “reasonable” people would NOT support homosexual behavior, let alone support same-sex fake marriage. “Reasonable” people know intrinsically that homosexual behavior is an abuse of human sexuality.
Criminalizing homosexual behavior is not an unreasonable thing to do; as Marshall said, look what has happened to this country since decriminalizing it! The next sexual behaviors to be decriminalized will be polygamy and pedophilia. There are many activists groups already demanding this, and psychobabblers have stated that these behaviors are not really necessarily harmful.
Glenn…
I would say that “reasonable” people would NOT support homosexual behavior, let alone support same-sex fake marriage.
Why? What ration-based reason would you offer for the astounding notion of people committing together in marriage being a bad thing?
Glenn said with no support…
“Reasonable” people know intrinsically that homosexual behavior is an abuse of human sexuality.
Why? Says who? You can make claims all day long but with no rational support, you only come across as a religious bigot.
Glenn said with no rational support…
Criminalizing homosexual behavior is not an unreasonable thing to do; as Marshall said, look what has happened to this country since decriminalizing it!
OH MY WORD!!! People are committing to one another in loving, committed, faithful marriage relationships!! Egad! The HORROR!!!!
A rational defense with real world evidence is what people will need if you’d like to convince them your position is something other than emotionally-wracked, immature religious bigotry.
Glenn said with no support…
The next sexual behaviors to be decriminalized will be polygamy and pedophilia.
Cats and dogs living together! MASS HYSTERIA!! OHHNOOOOOO!!!!!
A rational defense with real world evidence is what people will need if you’d like to convince them your position is something other than emotionally-wracked, immature religious bigotry.
Dan,
Thank you very much; you PROVED my point. If YOU say it, it is therefore reasonable and rational. If I say it, it isn’t reasonable or rational. You say it with no support and it’s rational; I say it with biblical and medical support and it’s not rational.
Would you have a problem with a father and daughter “committing together in marriage”?
OH MY WORD!!! People are committing to one another in loving, committed, faithful marriage relationships!! Egad! The HORROR!!!!
So when the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination to God, and that marriage is the union of members of the opposite sex, that therefore becomes “emotionally-wracked, immature religious bigotry”!?!?!?!
To you, “real world” as you see it trumps true rational thought based on the Word of God. To you, “real world” must be the standard by which we measure sexual morality.
The fact that many activists groups are demanding the right of polygamy (and Canada is presently considering legalizing it), and the fact that activists are demanding pedophillia to be label just a “sexual orientation” for the possiblity of future legalization, and the fact that psychobabblers have stated that no harm comes to the child if the parents do not object – and that it can be good for children, are all my RATIONAL SUPPORT for my statement.
And I’ve never seen anyone mention a thing about cats and dogs living together.
Here’s a real world example. There’s a reason “marriage” exists. We’d prefer that a man and woman swear to stay together before they engage in the act that produces children. It’s better for chidden to grow up with the two people who create them. It’s better when people who can produce children (simply by expressing their love sexually) are responsible enough to promise before witnesses to stay together. Is it perfect? No. It’s just better than not promising.
Children are the most important aspect of the need for marriage to exist as a social institution.
To allow “any two people” to marry denies that children are important to the institution at all. And, by the way, would necessarily include a mother and her son, a sister and her brother. The reason for marriage would become “cuz I want it!”.
Reproduction is the reason for the number of people in a marriage. It takes two people to produce children. Not “any two people”. One man and one woman.
The problem with the “cuz I want it” doctrine of gay marriage is that it (if instituted) could just as well be applied to any number of any combination of sexes. It’s selfish. Marriage is not selfish. It’s a committment, not only to the other person in the marriage, but to the children who are likely to be the product of it.
Allowing gay marriage MUST negate the need of children to be protected by it.
Dan, is that real world enough? Is that just religious bigotry?
How can one support what is known intrinsically? The compatible and complimentary aspects of male and female make it obvious that each should be attracted to the other. It’s basic biology. No religious training required to understand this basic dynamic. One need only look and see. It is self-evident. Thus, reasonable people would not support sanctioning the union of two of the same gender. It makes no sense.
” What ration-based reason would you offer for the astounding notion of people committing together in marriage being a bad thing?”
I don’t think Glenn ever suggested such a thing. But of course, Glenn understands what the word “marriage” means. Two of the same gender cannot come together in marriage, but only pretend their desired union is the same as marriage. Dan supports that lie.
Homosexual behavior was not unique when it was restricted in years past. As I said, other forms of sexual behavior continue to be outlawed or restricted. Those who wish to engage in those other forms also feel they are being discriminated against, and by people like Dan, they are so much more so than by people like Glenn and myself. Glenn and I adhere to the proper definition of marriage. Dan is complicit in corrupting that definition to include only those alternatives of which he approves and of which he has determined is reasonable.
Now for an example of “unreasonable”, I offer Dan’s comment from January 11, 2013 at 9:43 AM, particularly the first paragraph. There is no doubt I made myself quite clear regarding the legal prohibition against homosexual behavior as opposed to outlawing mere homosexual attraction. I also referred negatively to bashing one for one’s “orientation”. Reasonable people will not then make comments that suggest those positions were not made clear. Reasonable people will not make comments that mix these specific do’s and don’t’s as if no distinction was made just to demonize someone who opposes homosexual behavior and the unreasonable quest for state and cultural sanctioning of it.
But hey! Wasn’t this a post on the so-called “war on women”?