Re: [Death To Religion] dear ravi, you are soooo wrong
It's sad that nothing I am going to say to you will
make any difference in your thoughts. I have known
many, many women like you -- women born and raised in
a culture of subjugation, who don't know anything
else. They think their treatment is not just the way
things are, but worse, that it's the way it should be,
that it's right. It's similar to the Stockholm
Syndrome in which the captive begins to sympathize,
and even defend and justify the actions of her
captors. But I won't be able to make you understand
that: those who haven't seen the ocean don't know the
sound of the waves.
Just listen to you:
if you cannot equalize between even
> just 2 wives then marry only oneIf the *man* can't equalize????? What of the woman?
> the idea of marring more than one incase he wife is
> sick, or anything makes the marraige just failing,
> instead of divorcing her in anycase she remains a
> wife and the man can marry another one
Abrahamic religions preach that the woman is not the
equal of the man; that she is inferior to him. You
were raised in such a religion, and therefore you
think it's right. But it is not. A marriage is a
partnership between equals. Men and women, if not
equal in their bodies, are equal in their hearts and
minds. Men are no better than women; and women no
better than men. Why is the man granted the right to
multiply his devotion by dividing it among two or more
women, but the woman is not granted the same right?
Is because she can't lift 150 kilos? Does that make
her heart less than a man's?
If one wife becomes sick, the man can seek a second?
How is that "equalizing" between the two wives? A
marriage is a life bond between hearts and minds,
between more than just friends, between soulmates. It
is not a matter of convenience for one partner or the
other. If the man gets sick, can the woman seek a
second husband without having to divorce her first
one? Men are the heart of marriage and of
civilization; but women -- women are the soul of it.
You have been taught that the soul is inferior to the
> hw gave her the complete right to leave the man sheWhich is to say that her half of the partnership had
> is marrying incaseshe doesn't want to leave with
> him, even if the man was forcing her to , all she
> have to do is not asking for money she should take
> after divorce
no value and his half had all the value. If the
woman's part has no value, what could entice a man to
take it on? It devalues the woman to nothing more
than a beggar -- "Please sir, marry me even though I
am worthless. If I leave, my leaving will be of no
consequence, and I will depart as worthless as I came.
Only in my marriage to you will I have value."
Surely even you can't believe that nonsense. You have
value, your life has value. Divorce devalues both
partners equally; it works an equal hardship on both.
Both deserve to retain what value they can from a
I know all this will make no difference to you -- you
don't know the sound of the waves. You believe the
order of these things is right. Sadly, you are wrong,
but at least I tried to get through to you. If you,
as a religious person are here on an atheist list, it
can only be for two reasons: either you are
questioning you beliefs or you are seeking to convert
the infidels. I can only hope you are questioning
your beliefs; the other reason is as hopeless as
coaxing birds not to fly.
ps: look up a sight called Islam Unveiled by people
who questioned their beliefs and found a better way.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software