Turkish girl, 16, 'buried alive by her father because she had friendships with boys'

[Peikko 1,575]

I do get the concept, but it's derived from a misunderstanding of what it is to have a period. I could get around it if the person involved had 1) some chance of not being 'spiritually unclean' by performing some ritual or prayer, 2) both males and females had a 'time' where they were unclean. But to prevent women from taking an active role in the spiritual life of a community because of a fundamental misunderderstaning of periods by the ancients is a travesty.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Peikko 1,575]

It's not Eurocentric btw. Christians belived something along these lines with the 'original sin' malarchy hence why no women are priests in the Catholic church.

[Nasturtium 500]

I do get the concept, but it's derived from a misunderstanding of what it is to have a period. I could get around it if the person involved had 1) some chance of not being 'spiritually unclean' by performing some ritual or prayer, 2) both males and females had a 'time' where they were unclean. But to prevent women from taking an active role in the spiritual life of a community because of a fundamental misunderderstaning of periods by the ancients is a travesty.

That's just it though-- you're still thinking the same thing. Being ritually unclean is not being spiritually unclean. it is not a problem with you, just a state of being. It prevents nothing that you just claimed it did. There were women prophets, leaders, judges, etc. Women did everything men did minus this one thing, which not just any man could do either. Being ritually unclean has to do with whether or not you could come into contact with consecrated things. If the high priest were to have sex with his wife, he too would be ritually unclean. if he were cut and issuing blood (the issue with a period is the blood, nothing more) he would be in the same deal. It's not the problem you think it is.

It's not Eurocentric btw. Christians belived something along these lines with the 'original sin' malarchy hence why no women are priests in the Catholic church.

Which is a completely EUROCENTRIC idea. You do realize the concept of Original sin being based on Eve is developed within the Roman structure, right?

[Peikko 1,575]

It's a state of being that makes no sense. It places a barrier between a woman and spiritual enlightenment. As you state, a man is unclean while he bleeds but all priests could get cut and bleed, but yet they can become priests. Women are ritually barred, not just during the time that she is having her period (while bleeding), but because she bleeds regularly, once a month during her fertile years. What about once she goes through menopause and stops bleeding? Do women have access to contact with consecrated things then? I bet the answer is no. It may not be a 'big problem' to you, but conceptually, it is a big problem and obviously leads to the sorts of situations where women have no come back - they are simply the sex of the unclean.

[Peikko 1,575]

That's just it though-- you're still thinking the same thing. Being ritually unclean is not being spiritually unclean. it is not a problem with you, just a state of being. It prevents nothing that you just claimed it did. There were women prophets, leaders, judges, etc. Women did everything men did minus this one thing, which not just any man could do either. Being ritually unclean has to do with whether or not you could come into contact with consecrated things. If the high priest were to have sex with his wife, he too would be ritually unclean. if he were cut and issuing blood (the issue with a period is the blood, nothing more) he would be in the same deal. It's not the problem you think it is.

Which is a completely EUROCENTRIC idea. You do realize the concept of Original sin being based on Eve is developed within the Roman structure, right?

Um, yes, that's why I said it. Your point was that Europeans don't get the 'concept' of unclean. Clearly, they do.

[Peikko 1,575]

At the end of the day, I like you, and I respect that you believe what you believe for the best possible reasons, but what you believe is inherently problematic because it renders women unable to attain the highest spiritual levels simply beacuse they bleed cyclically, rather than accidentally.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

There are too many people in the world. This is a fact. Would we rather the smart ones kill their own children?

At the end of the day, I like you, and I respect that you believe what you believe for the best possible reasons, but what you believe is inherently problematic because it renders women unable to attain the highest spiritual levels simply beacuse they bleed cyclically, rather than accidentally.

Horsesqueeze. How can you trust important stuff to living things that can bleed for FIVE DAYS...and NOT die??? No way.

[FortLaudy 10]

Wow quite a debate with a few side issues, very interesting to catch up.

Although I don't think that honor killing is an inherently Muslim problem - see the link on the story I posted about 6 pages ago

I do think it is safe to say that the case under discussion is an honor killing that happened within a Muslim family. The girl's name is Medina after all.

Original Post:

"Medine Memi"

'You named your daughter after the holy city of Medina but your mind is left over from the earlier Age of Ignorance.'

Medina is celebrated for containing the mosque of Muhammad and also as the city which gave refuge to him and his followers, and so ranks as the second holiest city of Islam, after Mecca (Makkah). Muhammad was buried in Medina, under the Green Dome, as were the first two Rashidun (Rightly Guided Caliphs), Abu Bakr and Umar, who were buried in an adjacent area in the mosque.[2]

I still say, we should mind our own business when it comes to domestic affairs of another country, Especially any predominantly Muslim country. There is no doubt in my mind about this. The "west" is under terrorist attack by extremists for interferering and trying to impose our western societal ideals on the middle east. Period. When the interference stops, the attacks will stop.

There are too many people in the world. This is a fact. Would we rather the smart ones kill their own children?

Horsesqueeze. How can you trust important stuff to living things that can bleed for FIVE DAYS...and NOT die??? No way.

[Peikko 1,575]

I have one final question regarding the role of women in a theocracy where women have no access to the most powerful positions within that society. Would the systematic cultural suppression of women have been possible had women had access to the priesthood?

[Nasturtium 500]

It's a state of being that makes no sense. It places a barrier between a woman and spiritual enlightenment. As you state, a man is unclean while he bleeds but all priests could get cut and bleed, but yet they can become priests. Women are ritually barred, not just during the time that she is having her period (while bleeding), but because she bleeds regularly, once a month during her fertile years. What about once she goes through menopause and stops bleeding? Do women have access to contact with consecrated things then? I bet the answer is no. It may not be a 'big problem' to you, but conceptually, it is a big problem and obviously leads to the sorts of situations where women have no come back - they are simply the sex of the unclean.

How does it being a state of being not make sense? Women and men pass in and out of it. it has nothing to do with spirituality which you cannot seem to seperate from it. Only Levites, and certain levites at that, had access to certain things. Just because a man wanted to do something didn't mean he could. Women and men could enter the temple equally.

Um, yes, that's why I said it. Your point was that Europeans don't get the 'concept' of unclean. Clearly, they do.

Clearly they/you do not. This has nothing to do with the concept. it's like bringing up yetis in a discussion about human evolution. Just because some idiot in a basement filled with tinfoil linked them, doesn't make it so.

[Nasturtium 500]

At the end of the day, I like you, and I respect that you believe what you believe for the best possible reasons, but what you believe is inherently problematic because it renders women unable to attain the highest spiritual levels simply beacuse they bleed cyclically, rather than accidentally.

Nope, spirituality isn't inherently linked to being able to make offerings which I do not have the stomach to make in a temple which doesn't as of the moment exist. The tradition is that women are inherently higher than men in the first palce, not that I take stock in that either. i think it's completely individual.

[Peikko 1,575]

How does it being a state of being not make sense? Women and men pass in and out of it. it has nothing to do with spirituality which you cannot seem to seperate from it. Only Levites, and certain levites at that, had access to certain things. Just because a man wanted to do something didn't mean he could. Women and men could enter the temple equally.

Are you saying that women should not feel deprived because they can never become priests because some men couldn't become priests either?

[FortLaudy 10]

I have one final question regarding the role of women in a theocracy where women have no access to the most powerful positions within that society. Would the systematic cultural suppression of women have been possible had women had access to the priesthood?

Probably not. I do think a whole lot of it had to do with the sheer number of kids women had back then... being constantly knocked up and carrying or caring for a child sure took a lot of time and effort away from being able to be in positions of authority. Men had all the time in the world, unfortunately

[Nasturtium 500]

I have one final question regarding the role of women in a theocracy where women have no access to the most powerful positions within that society. Would the systematic cultural suppression of women have been possible had women had access to the priesthood?

But, only a fraction of men could have access to this priesthood... so... does this question have relevence? Women weren't prevented from anything else and had a religious equal footing. What about all those men who couldn't do this either?

BTW, did you ever read the book through? I wondered if you have found it useful yet!

(back to Caprica and Eric Stoltz )

Are you saying that women should not feel deprived because they can never become priests because some men couldn't become priests either?

No, but I don't know why anyone would want to be a priest. I certainly wouldn't want to be a priest. I'd rather be a prophetess if I could choose a religious occupation, and there were plenty of those. I'm nosey though, so it suits me.

[Peikko 1,575]

How does it being a state of being not make sense? Women and men pass in and out of it. it has nothing to do with spirituality which you cannot seem to seperate from it. Only Levites, and certain levites at that, had access to certain things. Just because a man wanted to do something didn't mean he could. Women and men could enter the temple equally.

Clearly they/you do not. This has nothing to do with the concept. it's like bringing up yetis in a discussion about human evolution. Just because some idiot in a basement filled with tinfoil linked them, doesn't make it so.

It is a concept. Just because you believe it, doesn't make it true. Being 'unclean' isn't inherent to being human. Having a period or bleeding in some way is as you rightly put it a state of being but your religion ascribes a meaning to that state, which is a concept. I do not ascribe anything to it.