Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Daily Beast: Saudi Arabia's Religious Police Outlaw 'Tempting Eyes'


AsburySkinsFan

Recommended Posts

Good grief, our "allies" are the very people we say we are against! Freaking Taliban in Saudi Arabia!!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/19/saudi-arabia-s-religious-police-outlaw-tempting-eyes.html

It’s a safe bet that Sheikh Motlab al Nabet, spokesman of Saudi Arabia’s religious police, isn’t a fan of Cole Porter. “The lure of you” is precisely why Nabet announced yesterday that the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice will cover any women’s eyes that are deemed “tempting.” “The men of the committee will interfere to force women to cover their eyes, especially the tempting ones” he said. “[We] have the right to do so.”

What are “tempting” eyes? One Saudi journalist mused on condition of anonymity that they are “uncovered eyes with a nice shape and makeup. Or even without makeup, if they are beautiful, the woman will be in trouble.” The Orwellian-named committee did not provide a definition of tempting, but if they happen to rely on Merriam-Webster, then it means “having an appeal.” What is an appeal? According to the dictionary, it is “arousing a sympathetic response.” And what is sympathetic? “Showing empathy,” according to Merriam-Webster.

rest at link

1321713023374.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eyes are tempting because it's what the men can see. If tomorrow they dressed every Saudi women up as Micky Mouse men would notice something else, the way they want for instance. Men are attracted to women and no matter where you set the bar in terms of dress code they'll continue to find something about them alluring.

How pathetic and weak willed are Saudi men that they need to constantly make themselves feel superior by blaming women?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A significant portion of our foreign policy history has about as much to do with morality, admirable principles, and integrity in living up to professed positive national values, as Fat Al has to do with work ethic.

Regardless of the propaganda the State Department tries to sell us. The part that ticks me off is that we sell this oppressive regime billions in weapons and we pretend they're different than the other monsters of the world...the only difference is that they're rich with oil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A significant portion of our foreign policy history has about as much to do with morality, admirable principles, and integrity in living up to professed positive national values, as Fat Al has to do with work ethic.

What are you talking about? Have you ever seen Fat Al work on a slab of ribs?

I need to read the quran so I can get a glimpse at the perspective the region is coming from. Laws like this seem more than medieval and I'd be surprised if the quran is even as strict on women as a lot of the regimes in the mideast are. I don't recall reading of a period in history where women weren't even allowed to have exposed eyes but maybe I am just limited in my reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you talking about? Have you ever seen Fat Al work on a slab of ribs?

I need to read the quran so I can get a glimpse at the perspective the region is coming from. Laws like this seem more than medieval and I'd be surprised if the quran is even as strict on women as a lot of the regimes in the mideast are. I don't recall reading of a period in history where women weren't even allowed to have exposed eyes but maybe I am just limited in my reading.

The Middle East is now where Europe was during the Dark Ages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you talking about? Have you ever seen Fat Al work on a slab of ribs?

I need to read the quran so I can get a glimpse at the perspective the region is coming from. Laws like this seem more than medieval and I'd be surprised if the quran is even as strict on women as a lot of the regimes in the mideast are. I don't recall reading of a period in history where women weren't even allowed to have exposed eyes but maybe I am just limited in my reading.

True, the worthless tub-o-lard does apply himself with fervor to stuffing his maw. :ols:

I think many informed people note that much of the the attitude towards women reflects a "stuck in influences of the past" dynamic as compared to many Western societies (who aren't perfect in such matters even now of course) than it reflects inherent aspects of Islam. Just as there were historical times (quite recent regarding some issues) when women were very much oppressed by more Christian/Buddhist/etc. influenced cultures.

I go with the premise that much of the restrictive nature of Islamic nations is the result of geo-economic-political developmental stages over time, specific to their region and circumstances, than an inherently demanded component of the Muslim religion.

Whatever, it need to cease, wherever it exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you talking about? Have you ever seen Fat Al work on a slab of ribs?

I need to read the quran so I can get a glimpse at the perspective the region is coming from. Laws like this seem more than medieval and I'd be surprised if the quran is even as strict on women as a lot of the regimes in the mideast are. I don't recall reading of a period in history where women weren't even allowed to have exposed eyes but maybe I am just limited in my reading.

I attended Jumuah Prayer (basically their Sunday service--but on Friday) for an entire year. Just as an observer. I'd sit in the back and than afterward I'd sit down with Imam and just talk. Great opportunity, great experience. I see things like this and I wonder how views and readings of a single book, can be so differing. But I guess the same holds true for all religions in some way. Orthodox Jews in Israel throwing rocks and spitting on women. Mormon fundamentalists who still push for polygamy. Christians in Africa using the Bible to try to get laws for the executions of homosexuals. So on and so forth. I think in the end, like those other religions, the sane folk will win out. There will still be nuts and extremists, but the population on the whole will reject them. I think you're already seeing it with the Arab Spring--where the people don't want Sharia Law or anything like that; instead they want jobs and a rise in living conditions. Unfortunately it's going to take more time and a probably a lot more blood, sweat and tears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole presentation is well worth a watch.

Interesting that a scientist is answering Postmodern relative morality, but he didn't establish that science could provide the answer.

---------- Post added November-19th-2011 at 04:28 PM ----------

Anything we can do to lessen our association with them? Nahhh.....

Yep and it doesn't have anything to do with burning MORE fossil fuels....there is a hint in this post, but we lack the imagination and desire to change our way of life unless it has an immediate gain for our own self gratification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that a scientist is answering Postmodern relative morality, but he didn't establish that science could provide the answer.

Did you watch the entire thing? He's not as much concerned with the three sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) as much as with dealing in facts (which by itself is THE fundamental concept of science). Factual rights and wrongs, which is very much a part of the scientific method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of the propaganda the State Department tries to sell us. The part that ticks me off is that we sell this oppressive regime billions in weapons and we pretend they're different than the other monsters of the world...the only difference is that they're rich with oil.

What tends to be forgotten is that SA, like most middle eastern nations is fragmented between moderates and conservative extremists. The monarchy itself is relatively moderate but does not have the power to upset the extremists. Even kings can be replaced. I'm sure the extremists can find someone in the royal line that is more sympathetic to their views. SA is one of those places where we can slowly influence them to adopt more moderate positions peacefully through cooperation.

And those "Saudi" hijackers on 9/11?.... They were recruited because they hated the Saudi government. Acting in any way to distance ourselves from SA is exactly what those hijackers would have wanted.

On the subject of the OP.... It's pure stupidity and just one of a million examples of why extremists of any ideology, in any nation including our own, should be shunned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep and it doesn't have anything to do with burning MORE fossil fuels....there is a hint in this post, but we lack the imagination and desire to change our way of life unless it has an immediate gain for our own self gratification.

This is a non-answer. We're going to be burning fossil fuels for decades to come, even if we invent cold fusion tomorrow (building enough fusion plants to get completely off of fossil fuels would take a very long time). Would you rather buy more of our oil from Canada or remain just as dependent on unstable, autocratic Middle Eastern regimes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you watch the entire thing? He's not as much concerned with the three sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) as much as with dealing in facts (which by itself is THE fundamental concept of science). Factual rights and wrongs, which is very much a part of the scientific method.

Yes, I watched the whole thing, but facts alone will only bring you to a Utilitarian morality, but I am glad that someone other than the folks in the church are challenging the Postmodern moral relativity narrative.

On the subject of the OP.... It's pure stupidity and just one of a million examples of why extremists of any ideology, in any nation including our own, should be shunned.

Yep 100 times yep, and it makes me mad because our government stands as a champion of human rights and chastises China, and North Korea for their abuses and yet we openly embrace and some might say bow down to the Saudis. Queue the Barack pic

---------- Post added November-19th-2011 at 06:12 PM ----------

This is a non-answer. We're going to be burning fossil fuels for decades to come, even if we invent cold fusion tomorrow (building enough fusion plants to get completely off of fossil fuels would take a very long time). Would you rather buy more of our oil from Canada or remain just as dependent on unstable, autocratic Middle Eastern regimes?

Let's put it this way, if in the early 1900's the horse breeding industry was as strong as the oil industry is today we'd still be riding on horseback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...