“Keys to a Successful Marriage”

A week or so ago, I wrote a post about how Muslims seem to be given a fairly hard time in Australia, and that the prevalence of fear and suspicion of Muslims in Australian society was proactively perpetrated by the Howard Government and by the mainstream media.

It is unfotunate, to say the least, when self-professed Islamic spokespersons come out and add fuel to the fire by expressing extreme views.

In an online report published today, an Islamic cleric from Melbourne has told followers it is permitted to force their wives to have sex with them and to hit them.

The lecture, titled “The Keys to a Successful Marriage” was delivered a few years ago but had recently been placed on the internet.

Samir Abu Hamza, who runs the Islamic Information and Services Network of Australasia in Coburg, said Islamic law permitted men to hit their disobedient wives as a last resort.

“You’ll beat them… but this is the last resort after you have advised them for a long, long time, then you smack them, you beat them.”

“You are not allowed to bruise them, you are not allowed to make them bleed.”

Hamza told followers women must respond to their husbands whenever they ask for it.

“Even if her husband was to ask her for a sexual relationship and she is preparing the bread on the stove she must leave it and come and respond to her husband,” he said.

He appeared to not understand what was wrong with a husband forcing himself onto his wife.

“Amazing, how can a person rape his wife?”

“In this country if the husband wants to sleep with his wife and she does not want to… it is known to be as rape.”

Hamza advised the congregation not to become too physical with the beatings.

“This is just to shape them up, shape up woman.”

Reports from News Limited said Hamza yesterday stood by his comments and blamed the controversy on a hidden Zionist agenda run by the media.

He reiterated his belief that a wife was allowed to be hit on the hand or leg.

“Of course, not on the head.”

 

Until such time, as more ‘moderate’ Muslims come out and start denouncing these views, then it seems any efforts to dis-assemble established stereotypes are destined to fail.

Advertisements

101 Responses

  1. Agree. Until mainstream muslims denounce this type of preaching then the suspicion of all of them will continue.

    Imagine the outcry if a Christian faith stated this.

    Religion MUST ALWAYS take a back seat to the rules of a country. Once you start allowing observance of practices that run contrary to the rules of the country you have segregation and division.

    Freedom of religion YES. Freedom to have your own laws outside those of the country NO. Until this is enfoced division will continue.

  2. I agree Shane.

    However isn’t it also illegal not to vote? Yet the Exclsuive Brethren somehow manage to get by this?

  3. A number of Christian sects already state this (an aside: and how would the word sects fare under internet censorship?). We have arranged marriages/forced marriages/underage marriages/coercion within marriage/plural marriage.

    An example being the children recently removed from a community in Houston where one of the ‘brides’ was 11 years old.

  4. I’ll tell you the keys to a successful marriage: Don’t marry anybody like the loopy, psychotic, paranoid, greedy, manipulate control freak like I did the first time round.

  5. Yes reb it is illegal to vote unless you have permission not to vote from the electoral commission.

    The exclusive brethren in my opinion are not a religion but rather a cult, they demand their members not vote for one reason alone and that is total domination and control of their congregation ( for want of a better word)

    I believe that no religion has a right to ban voting. After all if democracy falls so too will their freedom to practice their religion.

    Once again the overiding laws of the nation should prevail to all with no exception.

    I also think our interpretation of a religion for tax free status should be re written but that should be another thread.

  6. My belief in the key to a succesful union.

    Coming to love, not by finding the perfect person, but by finding perfection in the person we love.

  7. That’s a wonderful thought shane. Hubby and I are coming up to 34 years married and 38 years together.

  8. Shane @ 10.31

    I think Tom of Melbourne has found perfection in the person he loves!

    🙂

  9. Idiots espousing archaic ideals such as the preacher above do little service to their own.
    Such things only add fuel to the anti-Muslim momentum in Teh West. Not very clever to give your detractors more great reasons to demonise an entire culture.

    Don’t they realise that every time they endorse such behaviour they are contributing to the dwindling of those who would try to object to the bombing & invasions? & adding to the numbers of those who see Islam as a threat to Western Idealisms which must be crushed by force.

  10. Yes reb, the key to a successful union is suppression*. Marriage and other forms.

    *please presume a winking logo face has been inserted here, in order to avoid offense to union apologists.

  11. I personally think that people are just people what ever the religion. Any person Muslim, Christian or Gay knows that forcing a person via violent acts does not make for happiness.

    And it’s not just this idiot Muslim preacher, it is Christian preachers, it is the courts and society. Rape within marriage is a very recent idea. And recently gay rape has been taken seriously by the courts.

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/rape-within-marriage-no-less-a-crime/2007/09/09/1189276541976.html

    The law, in particular, has been slow to recognise that wives are not mere chattels of their husbands. It is hard to believe that only 16 years ago the High Court abolished a ruling that exempted any husband from being convicted of rape if his victim was his wife (although states such as South Australia had partially abolished spousal immunity as early as 1975).

    Remember that in all Common Law countries a woman could not be ‘raped’ if she was married to the person who raped her.

    And note the year of this article – 2007.

  12. “Even if her husband was to ask her for a sexual relationship and she is preparing the bread on the stove she must leave it and come and respond to her husband,” he said.

    See, there’s your problem right there. I’ve got two words for these people: multi tasking. If she would just learn to “respond to her husband: while preparing the bread, nobody gets inconvenienced. It’s what we here in the enlightened world call a win-win situation.

    (Do I need to insert a smiley face?)

  13. Until such time, as more ‘moderate’ Muslims come out and start denouncing these views, then it seems any efforts to dis-assemble established stereotypes are destined to fail.

    Sorry, Reb, no can do. Can’t subscribe to a philosophy that any stereo-typing is acceptable, nor that collective sin is ascribable to the many for the actions of the one or the few, which is unacceptable as part of the rule of law, and which is where scapegoating and collective responsibility and punishment have their roots. Samir Abu Hamza I am happy to denounce for the specific words he uttered. I’d be happier yet if some fellow Australians who happen also to be Muslims of a more moderate inclination did likewise, but your philosophy, which rehearses a stereo-type not just of Muslims but of collective responsibility, I can’t subscribe to at all, which philosophy is even negated by your call upon the other Other Muslim. My immediate experience of my friends who happen to be practitioners of the Muslim faith is as Ms Hassan states, and I am not sure why they, as individuals or part of a many and varied group, are being made especially responsible for policing the general laws on domestic violence or rape applicable to all Australians per your account.

  14. These issues don’t simply relate to the law.

    Laws move very slowly towards the standards that a civilised society accepts. Courts are hardly overloaded with progressive thinkers.

    The issue related to this speech isn’t whether it is 10 or 20 years since our laws reflected our own values, it is that the sentiment was expressed by someone that some would see as a leader in our community.

  15. The Law does not move as it is built on precidents. The only thing that can change the law is people = new rulings = new precidents.

  16. The Imam’s not doing his fellow believers any favours by coming-out with this sort of Neanderthal tosh.

    Love this bit: “Hamza told followers women must respond to their husbands whenever they ask for it…”
    When hubbie asks for it by beating you, I reckon the appropriate response is to call the coppers and press charges. A good stint in chokey works wonders with wife-beaters.

    This sort of thing definitely brings the faith into disrepute. Maybe the moderate Muslims oughta do what moderate Catholics do whenever George Pell opens his trap: Repudiate his ravings.

  17. “Until such time, as more ‘moderate’ Muslims come out and start denouncing these views”

    But more moderate Muslims DO and HAVE come out and condemned these views. I would suggest that these more moderate views receive far less media attention then the more controversial views because they are far less interesting as ‘news’

    I would also suggest that those who condemn moderate Muslims for failing to condem these comments are also demonstrating their own biases against ‘moderate’ Muslims by ignoring comments (little reported) that do exactly that.

    “oughta do what moderate Catholics do whenever George Pell opens his trap: Repudiate his ravings”

    Got any links to these ‘moderate’ catholics repudiating Pell?
    Also, read any further than reb’s link? If you had you would find any moderates that the media has bothered to ask have done exactly as certain posters here are demanding.

  18. All religions insist that women submit to men.

    This sort of thing definitely brings the faith into disrepute. Maybe the moderate Muslims oughta do what moderate Catholics do whenever George Pell opens his trap: Repudiate his ravings.

    Better still, repudiate religion.

  19. from the link that Legion gavce one of the bloggers suggest we read an article called ” Why the Peaceful Majority are Irrelevant”.

    So I looked it up and attach a link. Please note I simply read the article. I do not know who supports or is behind this website, so please no crucifixion if the site does not sit with your ideals. I simply refer you to a page I think it is interesting.

  20. Plus Rigels our very own former Governor General stated that if a priest was ‘seduced’ then it was because the young girl was wise beyond her years (such a neat description).

    But of course abuse of women and children is just a Muslim thing..or so the press keep suggesting.

  21. Funny, KL, back when I was educated as a Catholic, I do not recall ever once being taught that a woman should submit to a man, in fact, I was taught the opposite. Could you please link to some evidence to back your statement?

  22. What was the opposite that you were taught JoNM?

    Should be interesting, but I have no time, i have to go to work now.

    WOMEN AND RELIGIONS

    Another version of the Hebrew Exodus 22:18 law in Roman Catholic Church bibles is: `You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live.’ Thus, the horrific religious Exodus 22:18 was used as an authorisation by the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy to torture and murder women, remains non-rescinded and can still threaten the lives of millions of Catholic women…

    …In 2004, the Roman Catholic Church began moderating its disapproving of women having careers albeit, perhaps reluctantly. The Roman Catholic Church has always insisted the women’s place is in the home and nurturing many children. For centuries, this discriminatory policy kept millions of families in a state of poverty.

  23. shaneinqld, on January 22nd, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    N.B. news.com.au has changed/edited its story at the url I linked to earlier (a rather bad habit of news coms)…hence no Ms Hassan and a variety of Muslim moderates at the bottom of said story outlining moderate Islam’s position and the variety of Muslim action groups actively promoting womens’ rights which plays to Rigels thesis that its a media beat-up designed to whip the masses into a frenzy. Quite curious really, because those moderate action groups previously mentioned in the story may have been a handy reference point for women imperilled by rhetoric like that complained about, and for men looking for a more moderate path.

  24. I’m struggling to recall other religious leaders supporting either wife beating or rape.

    The rantings of George Pell are annoying and should be deplored, but they fall short of advocating this type of violence.

  25. OK, the bits edited from the main news.com.au page to squeeze in Kevie’s answering to the dogwhistle still appear on the Herald Sun site

    Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria executive director Joumanah El Matrah said Hamza’s interpretation was bigoted.

    “Even orthodox practitioners and imams do not consider any form of family violence acceptable,” she said.

    Islamic Council of Victoria vice-president Sherene Hassan said Islam did not condone domestic violence.

    “The Prophet Mohammed stated ‘The best of you is he who is kindest to his wife’,” Ms Hassan said.

    “The ICV has made a commitment to address this issue by organising a series of workshops early this year where imams and Muslim women will be invited to discuss topics such as these.”

  26. James..likewise I have Catholic family connections. The evidence is that women are refused contraceptives with the (excuse) reason being given that women must endlessly bear. And for fundamentalist Christians, a big no no is pain relief.

    Genesis 3:16: To the woman he said,”I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.Your desire will be for your husband,and he will rule over you.”

    Oh b**ger…the Curse of Eve.

  27. Legion

    I agree news and all of the others seem to have this manipulative agenda to cause frenzy.

    Thanks for the posting of the comments @12.46

  28. “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

    …and beat and rape you?? I don’t think it goes quite this far.

  29. Oh, I don’t care that the media scent blood and are playing to populist prejudices so much, Shane, but those two groups can provide assistance to some women (and men) on the matters.

    On the flipside, there is the fact that fundamentalists with a specific programme for rejecting modernity and innovation do present a problem.

    And flipping that, again, it only makes it more important that the moderate message, which was deleted, be heard. It’s far more important in practical terms than Kevin’s bleatings which replaced that info, imho.

  30. “It is unfotunate, to say the least, when self-professed Islamic spokespersons come out and add fuel to the fire by expressing extreme views.”

    What is unfortunate is well meaning individuals such as you, are in such denial. There is a problem with modern Islam and it is not “hateful” to say so. Failing to recognize that this language is hardly considered “extreme” in most Islamic communities around the world and becoming common in the West is something else you should come to terms with. Much like Christianity had to overcome its own demons, why is Islam somehow free from this criticism in 2009 or worse yet, such incidents still being trivialized? Wake up and start addressing the question of “why” and not “if” there is a problem. Been to Iran lately?

    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24946317-1243,00.html

  31. Tom, it’s a quote from the bible and a number of religions Jewish/Christian and Muslim chose to interpret the bible as they wish.

  32. Sparta of Phoenix, AZ USA, on January 22nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm

    Cool, Sparta. If you want to call the Salafi sect ‘modern Islam’ who am I to disagree, even if your statement is nonsensical?

  33. “Much like Christianity had to overcome its own demons,”

    “Had?” Don’t you mean “has?”

  34. This is nothing compared to a documentary I watched last night called The Most hated Family in America, consisting of Rev Fred Phelps and his extended family. Sparta, you might know of them.

    Based in Kansas, this group of religious fanatics believe that God hates America because it tolerates gays. The death of American soldiers is celebrated because these soldiers have died fighting for a country that tolerates gays. They picket the funerals and display signs such as “God loves dead soldiers”, “Thank God for bombs”, “Another soldier bound for hell”, “Thank God for 9/11” etc etc.

    Talk about weird bastards. I felt sick.

  35. Back to Keys to a Successful Marriage. I would say, None of the above. From old Auntie Min, I would suggest A sense of humor, plus respect, plus another dose of a sense of humor.

  36. This man is a dipsh8t first and his religion comes in second.

    That speech had as much to do with religion as a tapeworm in a rabbits arse…..

    But religion is trouble in any case all around the globe.

  37. reb, on January 22nd, 2009 at 1:07 pm

    It’s why I think reification, and lumping, is dangerous. Are we talking, say Reverend Fred’s Christ(ianity) or Justice Kirby’s Christ(ianity)?

  38. Min raises hand. Religion isn’t the problem. The problem is people using the excuse of religion for propaganda/abuse/wars/subjugation of others.

  39. Keys

    Tolerance of your partners differences. Forgiveness of little silly things rather than bottling them up.

  40. Min, there is much about the Catholic Church with which I disagree, contraception being one issue. The charge was that all religions (which by definition must include the Catholic Church) “insists” that women submit to men, in this context, sexually. I have never known the Catholic Church to ever insist such a thing in my lifetime. I am quite happy any organisation or person to be criticised where deserved. The implication of KL’s charge was that the Catholic Church, amongst all other religions, condoned rape in marriage. This is not true.

  41. James. Where is the 1st female Catholic Cardinal?

    It is only about 10 years since Catholic nuns have had to make subjugation when instructed to by a priest.

  42. I recant what I said about Kevin in the heat of being peeved with news.com.au…it’s a good message to reinforce…

    “Under no circumstances is sexual violence permissible or acceptable in Australia – under no circumstances,” he said.

    “Under no circumstances are other forms of violence, physical violence, acceptable towards women in Australia nor are they acceptable in my view to mainstream Muslim teachings.”

    “… Australia will not tolerate these sort of remarks. They don’t belong in modern Australia, and he should stand up, repudiate them and apologise.”

  43. Re: Under no circumstances are other forms of violence, physical violence, acceptable towards women in Australia nor are they acceptable in my view to mainstream Muslim teachings.”

    And also..to all teachings, Christian, Muslim or Calathumpian. And instead of the word ‘women’, let’s insert the word people so as to include men, young males, teenagers and children.

  44. Some years ago I travelled through several parts of the middle east. In one of the more moderate Islamic countries I was discussing the experience with a couple of young western women.

    They considered their experience to be akin to travelling back in time – to the middle ages. Fascinating they thought.

    I suppose it is in one sense. On the other hand cruel punishment, misogyny, superstition, religious zealotry… were quite probably quite mainstream in the middle ages. These days we find all this objectionable, it’s only fascinating if you don’t have to endure it for your entire life.

    I don’t find it appropriate to excuse violence and misogyny expressed locally, on the basis of the behaviour or rantings of some marginal sect leader – one that is usually half way around the world.

  45. Min, I am not going to spend an afternoon defending the indefensible. I no longer practice and there are many reasons for this, mostly to do with a distaste for hypocrisy and intolerance. Kittylitter accused the Catholic Church of condoning rape in marriage. That accusation is false and worse, disgraceful. It further adds to the kind of intolerance, misunderstanding that causes so many problems in the world. If people want to live their lives according to some doctrine, good luck to them. If enough of them do it that they begin to influence political decisions, well, that’s what you get with a democracy. We all have to put up with organised bodies influencing political decision making. Green groups, feminist groups, civil rights groups, law institutes, medical groups, trade unions whatever. You can argue their thinking, but you cannot argue with their right to think. And you (KL) do not get away with falsely accusing them of that which they are not guilty.

  46. Min, please provide the link that shows which priests advocated the rape and beating of nuns.

  47. Min, on January 22nd, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    Like your more generalised version muchly.

    James of North Melbourne, on January 22nd, 2009 at 1:56 pm

    Like the sentiment but respectfully disagree. And I’ll bounce of Min’s earlier comment in stating why. Organised religion, historically, has provided for the governance of peoples in the eras of law-givers, judges and kings; and pervaded both the public and private spheres. It has now been overtaken by other systems of governance in the era of the nation State, in the West at least (and in theory only, given the insufferable inability of modern nation States to ween themselves from religious carry-over and to entrench the State as being unambiguously secular), which leaves religion at a loose end in terms of relationships between it, the public sphere, and the private sphere. In that context, the problem both is and isn’t religion itself, in addition to people using the excuse of religion for propaganda/abuse/wars/subjugation of others.

    In my preferred model, the State would be entrenched as being wholly secular, with freedom of and freedom from religion being subsumed under a general freedom of conscience (like your ‘free to think’) in the private sphere and in the contestable public sphere (like your sectional interest groups); BUT, with that freedom from religion being given primacy at the level of the State, so that the widest possible range of choices is available to people as to how they choose to exercise their consciences for themselves, including choosing or not a religion and all of its practices which don’t offend fundamental, universal human rights (secularly sourced, not the God-given ones Obama is still banging on about) and the generic laws of the land.

  48. Geez, Legion, usually I enjoy trying to decipher your posts, but today I’m just too tired. All I reckon is that you shouldn’t accuse the Catholic Church, or any other organisation of condoning rape in marriage if the accusation is false.

  49. James

    I do agree with you on Catholocism. I was raised a catholic and also went to a catholic boarding school where we were never told anyhthing other than to love and respect all human beings. We were also told that many non catholics will get to heaven because of the way we lived our lives.

    However please remember James, the Catholic church has many skeletons in its closet with the Spanish Inquisition being 1 example of attrocities commited in the name of catholocism.

    I no longer practise any religion and hold it to be responsible for many atrocities over hundreds of years.

    While there may be writings many centuries old that are still in miniscule areas of religion, that does not mean they are used now or should be used now. Those who quote them in todays circumstances do so out of context.

  50. James of North Melbourne, on January 22nd, 2009 at 1:56 pm Said:
    Min, I am not going to spend an afternoon defending the indefensible.

    And nor do I expect you to. Hubby went to Our Lady’s Burwood (of perpetual suckers). Sorry to the others, it’s an in joke. Hubby isn’t keen on speaking of his experiences with the Nuns With Batons.

    Hugs MinXXX

  51. Min

    ROFLPMP at perpetual suckers.

    I too experienced the nuns with batons at St Lawrences primary school. However there were also the most beautiful and wonderful nuns as well. Good and bad in all.

  52. Tom of Melbourne, on January 22nd, 2009 at 2:01 pm Said:
    Min, please provide the link that shows which priests advocated the rape and beating of nuns.

    I should imagine that this is what you are talking about (please correct me if I’m wrong) Min, on January 22nd, 2009 at 1:36 pm Said:
    James. Where is the 1st female Catholic Cardinal?

    It is only about 10 years since Catholic nuns have had to make subjugation when instructed to by a priest.

    Tom, subjugation is a form of penance. However the beating and raping of nuns by priests isn’t unknown.

  53. “subjugation is a form of penance”

    I understand that Min, but your implication is that the subjugation of nuns was akin to the wife beating and rape excusing ranting of this deranged man.

    That’s the context.

  54. Tom, I rarely imply anything as I shoot straight from the hip (my ever expanding ones).

    And yes, the subjugation of women, be they wives or nuns whatever the excuse of which ever religion is wrong.

    That one might quote whatever from the bible including the Old Testament and new Testaments and use whatever excuse, however violence against women, children, teens, men is always going to be wrong.

    And to quote from you Tom: your implication is that the subjugation of nuns was akin to the wife beating and rape..

    I would say yes.

  55. Well Min – then I’d have to seriously disagree.

    The use of silly, traditional, non violent, willing, irrelevant, religious symbolism is not at all similar to the beating of a woman, or the rape of a woman.

    It is odd in the extreme to draw a parallel or similarity. One lot should be hounded out of an archaic, discriminatory practise; the others (the wife beaters and rapists) should be locked up.

  56. “The use of silly, traditional, non violent, willing, irrelevant, religious symbolism is not at all similar to the beating of a woman, or the rape of a woman.’

    No it isn’t. But the religious bloke whose comments prompted this thread didn’t condone rape either.

    Although I disagree with his comments about hitting women (at least he isn’t advocating all out beating as James is attempting to apply) I would suggest that his claims of a man’s right to hit a woman are no worse than many parents claims of the right to ‘smack’ a child. in fact his arguments sound very similar to those used by ‘smacking’ parents.

    Raise the subject of a parent’s right to smack a child and you will hear many parent advocating treating their children as this man suggest mens can treat their wives, basically that there is nothing wrong with a smack that doesn’t leave a mark.

  57. Tom..I honestly think that we are talking about the same thing but expressing it in different ways.

    “The use of silly, traditional, non violent, willing, irrelevant, religious symbolism is not at all similar to the beating of a woman, or the rape of a woman.”

    My thoughts are as per expressed previously and under the topic of Keys to a Success Marriage, that there is no violence that will contribute to a successful marriage.

    ~ that a number of people have used the excuse of religion, which includes Christian and Muslim in order to perpetrate violence upon another person (including women, boys and men).

    I think that I gotcha Tom, are you saying that one thing has criminal implications but that the other hasn’t? Very obviously all scenarios have criminal implications.

  58. Rigels, I have made no comment or implication regarding the words of the religious bloke who prompted this thread.

    I abhor violence in any form, including marriage, and I detest rape in any form, including marriage.

  59. Rigels, on January 22nd, 2009 at 4:05 pm Raise the subject of a parent’s right to smack a child and you will hear many parent advocating treating their children as this man suggest mens can treat their wives..

    You are spot on Rigels..after all what is the difference between smacking the wife around the ears compared which smacking the kids around the ears.

  60. Sorry, if I misinterpreted your comments Tom but they read to me as though the cleric was condoning rape in marriage, which he didn’t.

    I at no time suggested you condoned rape in any context.

  61. Or that you condoned violence either.

  62. I don’t think so Rigels.

    Requiring, coercing, intimidating, forcing a woman to engage in sexual intercourse against her will is regarded as rape.

    The arbitrary physical disciplining of woman by a husband is entirely at odds with (what I regard as) civilised behaviour. It carries the concept of ownership. It is not acceptable in our society.

    Parent’s responsibility for children is quite different, though I must add that I abhor physical violence towards children.

  63. Min, not that I necessarily condone smacking a child around the ears, perhaps one on the hand or bum, but the difference is that one’s wife understands reason (mostly) whereas a child needs to learn right from wrong. I don’t like to see a kid get smacked, but I dislike more seeing a kid being disrespectful to his/her parents. Unfortunately smacking has not been replaced with an effective form of discipline, and I think we will begin to see the consequences more and more over the next decade, if we’re not already.

  64. Rigels, I think you keep confusing Tom and myself.

    Tom is the union bashing, urban loving smart arse and I’m the bush bashing, outback loving, good looking, sensitive, articulate, knockabout…..smart arse.

  65. Tom @10.40am

    This is what happens when unions are subjugated.

    It never happened when the unions had a bit more teeth and were at least permitted to enter workplaces and check that employees were being paid correctly.

    Instead we now have a government body costing umteen millions set up by the previous government doing what unions did for free. And they can only act when an employee lodges a complaint.

    http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,24946911-31037,00.html

  66. Got my threads mixed up sorry Tom,

    I admitted I made a mistake and that he did advocate rape in marriage. As long as it causes no bruising or bleeding – a bit difficult to avoid when raping someone.

    “The arbitrary physical disciplining of woman by a husband is entirely at odds with (what I regard as) civilised behaviour. It carries the concept of ownership. It is not acceptable in our society”

    No. It isn’t acceptable.

    Now replace the words women with children and husbands with parents. However, the advocates of smacking children use very similar arguments in regards to ‘as long as it dosn’t leave a mark’ that it is acceptable.

    “but the difference is that one’s wife understands reason (mostly) whereas a child needs to learn right from wrong”

    Yes, children need to be taugh right from wrong but hitting a child is still not an acceptable response. There are other means of teaching children right from wrong – but they need to start in the cradle and are time consuming and require a little patience.

    “Unfortunately smacking has not been replaced with an effective form of discipline”

    The children in my large extended family know the difference between right and wrong and not one of them has required ‘smacking’ to teach them. There are plenty of alternative methods of discipline if parents were not too lazy to use them.

    “Smacking’ a child to teach them right from wrong is simply lazy parents method of discipline as it is easier than teaching their child and using non-violent forms of disipline.

    Sorry but anyone who advocates smacking a child is no better than a cleric advocating discipling a wife by use of violence.

  67. “Tom is the union bashing, urban loving smart arse and I’m the bush bashing, outback loving, good looking, sensitive, articulate, knockabout…..smart arse”

    Yeah I did sorry. No offence intended to either.

    I plead to a little confusion today as I just spent 3 days in hospital and still feeling a bit ‘fuzzy’

    Doesn’t matter as you’re both bustards 🙂 Yes, that was a u and yes I was only joking.

  68. Rigels

    Sorry but I refuse to place the smack of a child into the same category as rape or physical abuse.

    In my opinion there is disciline and abuse and the two are very different things. I know many of you do not condone the smacking of a child.

  69. “Sorry but I refuse to place the smack of a child into the same category as rape or physical abuse.”

    Smacking a child is itself physical abuse which makes you not much better than said cleric.

    “In my opinion there is disciline and abuse and the two are very different things”

    Yes, they are and discipline does not require physical abuse whether against a woman or a child. I repeat physical abuse of a child is the resort of a lazy parent. Discipline on the other hand can be achieved without the need for physical abuse.

  70. I agree Rigels. How many lazy parents do you see you repeat over and over: I’ll smack you if you do that again….and around the supermarket..I’ll smack you if you do this..and over and over and over. Until everyone is cringing.

    Smacking is the easy option, it’s parenting that is the tricky thing.

    With apologies, I am hearing impaired due to being smacked around the ears. I certainly do not blame my mother as this was a common form and an approved form of discipline.

    However, if you wish to smack your children, please do not do it around the ears. I do not know whether smacking taught me right from wrong, however it certainly made me hearing impaired.

  71. Wow !!!

    Makes me not much better than said cleric. Mmmm

  72. Min

    My grandmother called it getting boxed around the ears.

    I totally agree I was what they called “boxed” around the ears by my grandmother and I call that physical abuse as it was not discipline is was infliction of physical abuse bordering on damaging my hearing and may well have.

    As I stipulated there is discipline and there is abuse.

  73. LOL now the cleric is claiming his words were ‘taken out of context’ and he was speaking in a ‘metaphorical context’.

    Yeah, right.

    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/wifebeating-call-was-metaphoric-cleric-20090122-7nky.html

    “Makes me not much better than said cleric!!!”

    An advocate of violence is an advocate of violence no matter who they are advocating the violence against. One is no better than the other because the violence advocated is against children rather than women.

    Or were you like the good cleric only advocating violence in a metaphorical sense?

  74. Hello shane, I am not much happy about talking about it. My mother still refuses to acknowledge that I am hearing impaired.

    This was simple discipline..aka boxed around the ears.

    Needless to say none of my crew were ever smacked and they still turned out ok..just one serving his country via 2 tours of the Gulf and East Timor, eldest working with the disabled and youngest 2 years into her PhD in molecular bioscience.

    Perhaps I should have smacked them more???

  75. Rigels

    If you cannot determine the difference in the clerics words and mine, then I see no point in debating you by being compared to a radical cleric.

  76. Min

    Did you read my post? I was boxed around the ears myself by my grandmother.

    Naturally If there is no need to smack then why smack.

  77. Hello shane. Yes I did, so write to me. Likewise I am also hearing impaired. Conductive hearing loss.

  78. “If you cannot determine the difference in the clerics words and mine”

    There is no difference apart from the fact that you are advocating violence against victims who are in an even more vulnerable position in regards to defending themselves from violence.

    “then I see no point in debating you by being compared to a radical cleric.”

    If you don’t like having your opinions compared to those of “a radical cleric” then perhaps you should reassess the opinions which your appear to have in common with the cleric – an opinion that considers physical violence is acceptable. Your only point of difference with the cleric appears to be the acceptability of the victim.

  79. I watched the video report on Today Tonight. I thought i saw incredulous faces in the room. Certainly not my idea for a good marriage. It’s time for the moderates to voice an opinion. You know of course, that it is only the hardliners who ever get onto our TV screens.

    Then there are other marriages, like Nuns married to God and reports like this from BBC News: Vatican knew of widespread abuse. The article is about the rape and impregnation of Nuns by Catholic Priests in 23 countries around the world.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1234268.stm

    Really though, no Christian man would ever hit his wife, so we don’t need Womens Refuges funded by taxpayers, that are spread around the country. A waste of money?

    It;s good to be an idealist, but not always practical.
    There’s this one re OK to beat wife in Christianity. I don’t know, the world’s gone mad.
    http://books.google.com.au/books?id=qcCR5jai5fAC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=does+catholicism+allow+wife+beating&source=web&ots=St0_Sla9lv&sig=faH8e_DnqTVlATSMSZoGGyf3HiE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA296,M1

  80. Look, no-one’s trying to defend anything.

    The Imam is just another drop-kick of the cloth who shouldn’t have said what he did. It’s just plain offensive, particularly so when people look to him for some sort of moral leadership. I think we can all agree on that.

    But let’s not blow-it up into some sort of muslim-bashing exercise. His comments are a product of his damned ignorance, not his religion.

    He’s certainly not the first sky-pilot who’s come-out with something bloody stupid in the name of Da Lord and he won’t be the last. Pell, for example, seems to have made a career of it.

  81. Rigels, on January 22nd, 2009 at 5:35 pm

    Oh, I think we could distinguish things if we wanted to do that. We’d probably go zoological and animal sociology, drawing parallels between the animal kingdom, starting with nearish relatives among the apes, and see what several purposes ‘smacking the kids’ versus ‘smacking the missus’ versus all-in tribal warfare serves, there. One might expect similar behavioural analogues, running the gamut, for Darwin’s select progeny.

    Interestingly, perhaps, at another level, is the process order in which (physical) rebukes are said to be undertaken ideally at the margins in human contexts: first, dialogue; second, withdrawal of social and physical services and privileges; third, whack. The issue of capacity for dialogue, and a developed basis of reasoning to underpin it, would seem problematic for running a strict parallel between the formative child, presumptively lacking capacity, and the summative adult, with presumed capacity, when cast as recipient of rebuke. A problematic scenario which is bi-directional in relation to adult-child relationships, admittedly; even if no such problem pertains to genuine adult-adult relationships (and I’d be the last person to suggest that some adults like to play big daddy to an infantilised other, or that some persons do behave childishly despite being accorded adult status, or that all children and all adults have and retain an innate capacity for doing violence from early childhood onwards).

  82. And overall, merely at the spidie-tingle level, I’d be guessing that there are frictions among the various factions of Mohammedenism and other isms in Victoria which makes marginalising the ISSN a useful ploy at the moment, by dumping an old video onto the web for disapprobation, as part of some larger game, perhaps relating to political things local, perhaps relating to jostlings for positions overseas or supports for positions about overseas things.

  83. ISSN IISNA

  84. The teacher of rightchesness from the dead sea scrolls was forgotten about in the bible story. Yet Jesus is the main hero, in that time line The teacher was a lot more famous in the teachings of the ( so called bible before it was written) rights and wrongs.

    when you learn what you can from the scrolls in my view it shows religion before and in its early days and how they were divided and formed different religious groups based on fear and superiority over the non-believers. religion was formed to control.

  85. Miglo,

    “Rev Fred Phelps and his extended family. Sparta, you might know of them.”

    Why is it, this is the only “Christian Nut” ever trotted out when people try to make the “moral” equivalency argument with “modern Islam” (that one was for you Legion, glad to see somebody caught it)? Yea he is sick. I had a run in with his group while stationed at Fort Riley Kansas for a spell. Drove into Topeka one a day him and his “family” where out making the rounds around the state capital.

    Surely there must be more Christian loons out there? Must be thousands killing themselves and others in the name of his brand of Christianity; nope, only a phenomenon of one religion these days but apparently most here haven’t noticed. Where is the Crusade analogy, must be here somewhere?

    Oh, close enough, Shane mentions the “Inquisition”…..Come on guys, it’s 2009.

    The reluctance to face the very large elements of Islam who do subscribe to this idiots version is baffling. It is no coincidence either that some of the biggest critics of Islam happen to be women………

  86. Sparta

    I mentioned the Inquisition simply as a means of showing that all Religions have skeletons. So to champion the moral high ground should not be attempted by any religion as they have all had their nutters over time.

    I was raised by a strongly practising catholic family Sparta so have many more than the Inquisition to throw at you if you like and many more recent examples as well.

    I agree it is 2009 and like you I do share a genuine fear of the extreme elements of Islam. If I didn’t why did I refer to a writing about it regarding “Why The Peaceful Majority are Irrelevant”

    So please read my whole comments and avoid taking parts of it out of context.

  87. Shane,

    It wasn’t a personal shot mate, relax…..

    Really though, when the worse many can do (nobody in particular here) is point to hateful speech, or outdated mantra and make the comparison to another which advocates the murder of innocents by large segments of its flock, justify abuse of women etcetera, you have to wonder where some are coming from?

  88. shaneinqld, on January 23rd, 2009 at 8:59 am

    Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant

    Samir Abu Hamza does not speak for the Muslim majority

    The first article seems antithetical to its title…the solution always being that the peaceful majority are, and are always, never more relevant.

  89. Authorities tried to take the children in 2000 but with the financial support of a Catholic right-wing organisation the mother won a High Court case to block the order.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24951494-12377,00.html

  90. Legion

    It certainly does, what it is pointing out is that the silent majority are the ones that end up suffering. We have examples of this in many country towns in Australia.

    What concerns me is that most deadly conflicts currently under operation around the world involve Islam in some shape or form. If the majority of Muslims want peace ( and I tend to believe they do) then they need to stand up and be counted in many areas. Non Muslims are being killed or persecuted in many Muslim countries with their governments or their governments agents ( police, army) either in agreeance or turning a blind eye to the atrocities.

  91. I agree with all of you and with a smile
    (as i past the personal collection tray)

  92. ” I don’t like to see a kid get smacked, but I dislike more seeing a kid being disrespectful to his/her parents. Unfortunately smacking has not been replaced with an effective form of discipline, and I think we will begin to see the consequences more and more over the next decade, if we’re not already.”James of NM

    I think that that is a VERY generalised comment to make James & funnily enough such sentiment, more often than not, comes from those who have no children of their own. To lay the “degradation of society in coming years” at the feet of those who do not smack their children is patently false. I suggest that in fact the inverse is perhaps more likely true.
    To “lash out” as a form of disincentive is to teach that “lashing out” is a legitimate form of disincentive.

    Legion makes very good points…

    “…the process order in which (physical) rebukes are said to be undertaken ideally at the margins in human contexts: first, dialogue; second, withdrawal of social and physical services and privileges; third, whack. …”

    Whereby I’d suggest that if proper & CONSISTENT efforts are made to carry out the “first” & “second” then the necessity for a “whack” would occur seldom indeed.
    Of course every child is different so I don’t see much point in stipulating inflexible absolutes. However, “hitting” is commonly a case of loss of parental patience & self control, moreso than trying to infer that it is an effort to instruct with pain; IMHO this also teaches a child to have a lower threshold of patience & self control.

    Sparta, you have a tendency to see a MAJORITY of Islam as the barbaric, violent typecast. I reckon that in reality that particular group is in fact the MINORITY, & shouldn’t be used as a measuring stick for all other adherents.
    You have no trouble understanding this logic when it is applied to Christianity…ie you note above that “yes Phelps et al do exist, but they are fringedwellers & cannot be used to gain a reasonable perspective on the sum of Christians”. This sort of objectivity can be reasonably applied to all peoples, not selectively dropped when those under scrutiny happen to be your contemporarily demonised (by focus on the extremists only) “enemies”.

  93. Maybe this is the thread to post this, but is this the key to a successful marriage?

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=neCIg0BiXbE

  94. James

    LOL way toooo much info.

  95. We are just a bunch of naughty girls and boys!

    We need to be shown the way…

    http://player.video.news.com.au/news/#x1v952VtBqPeRj7y2fhuGyTYvOppCqsy

  96. aquanut, on January 23rd, 2009 at 9:40 am Said:
    I agree with all of you and with a smile
    (as i past the personal collection tray)

    Are you short for beer money aqua??

  97. Min
    the tray is empty still(tight bums), that poor scotch will go off if i dont reach it in time. Umm… its for the children.

  98. No probs Aqua, when the going gets tough you can always lob in here for a feed. Must most definitely choof as hubby has that wild eyed look = I am hungry = where is the food.

  99. shaneinqld, on January 23rd, 2009 at 9:36 am

    Still a ‘no can do’ from me, Shane, on that score. It’s about what I’m doing with my voice and my virtual vote….I’m not prepared to lump a variety of disparate conflicts over, more often than not, mundane matters and grievances into one monobloc, nor am I prepared to take a side for or against any of the parties to those conflicts other than to seek their all sitting down at a table and talking through their issues (which, strangely, doesn’t involve arming any of the parties or picking winners and losers apt for a smack based on their religion or systems of governance, whether for or against, again).

  100. leave him alone

  101. Leave him alone. He is right. Maybe if woman stopped wasting time gossiping and talking trash all day and backbiting their husbands, they would have more time to sleep with their husbands. Until you know the real fundamentals of islam then talk.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: