Skip to main content

View Diary: Catholic priest: women bring sexual violence on themselves (295 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think only the 2nd paragraph was snark n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  You're right, Sorry about that. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alexandre

      It's only deeply embedded in some strains of Christianity, and has been since Paul. Others are coming along into the modern age. I don't know about other faiths.

      I do remember having a conversation with an immigrant from an Asian country (Malaysia?) in which she said that men where she came from were often annoyed at the presence of women in the mosque because they would "...have impure thoughts and would have to go out and wash all over again." That's just one data point, though.

      Moderation in most things.

      by billmosby on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 06:08:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is hope for Islam (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        billmosby

        I read recently that the Koran only mentions that Mohammed's wives need to be veiled. So the idea that all women need to be veiled comes from a second-tier source. Kind of like the Pauline women being subservient to men thing: the gospels take precedence over Paul's letters.

        This is off-topic, but I'm presently reading a very good book on Islam: No god but God. It's the first book sympathetic to Islam I've run across that treats Islam from a point of view that makes sense to a Christian or an atheist. The author claims that Islam is currently undergoing a process of reform (by individual Muslims deciding that they are going to interpret the religion for themselves). We don't get to hear such things because of the Islamophobia present in the mainstream media.

        •  It so happens that I'm kind of in the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Alexandre

          market for my next book to read while on my stationary bike, to go along with my 3rd re-reading of volume 5 of Durant's "The Story of Civilization", on the renaissance. I finished volume 5, "The Age of Faith" (medieval period) a month or so ago, and while I was at it read the Jerusalem Bible again for good measure. I like that version best because it has so much more in the way of explanation than most other versions, and it is a pretty recent translation.

          I'll see about getting a copy of No god but God, thanks for the tip.

          Moderation in most things.

          by billmosby on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 06:37:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm partial to the New Oxford Annotated Bible (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            billmosby, prgsvmama26

            which uses the NRSV translation. The commentary is totally liberal; in other words, it makes sense and is informative even if you are not a believer. It also contains the apocrypha. I think all Bibles should; Luther said that certain books are not canonical, but it didn't occur to him to actually remove them from the Bible. (That was a step taken by Calvinist printers, I believe.)

            I've never looked at the Jerusalem Bible.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site