Katie Couric - America needs a Muslim version of The Cosby Show

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

I think this would be a fantastic idea! There's definitely some good material to work with.

1) Daughters get their female circumcisions.

I just want to point out that female circumcision exposes more of the clitoris, making orgasms easier to achieve and far more intense. I am sure there is some good American/Christian reason that is bad though.

edit on 2-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)

Do you know that for a fact or through personal experience?

Who are you trying to kid?

books.google.com... D1HXm_2Umrwq_cZs&hl=en&ei=sqkgTZewHsiinAfvrcn2DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

In regions where a milder form of the rite is customary, a small girl or adolescent is deprived "only" of her clitoris. The rationale for this type of procedure is, among others, that she is not marriageable or a complete woman until this "pseudopenis" has been removed.



But in Sudan, and other countries along the Horn of Africa, such as Southern Egypt, Somalia and Djibouti for example, where the honor of a family is measured in greatest part by the chastity and modesty of its women, a far more drastic and far reaching mutilation is perpetrated on little girls. It is known as "Pharaonic Circumcision", and involves not only excision of the clitoris, but of the labia minora and the inner portions of the labia majora as well. The remaining skin of the labia majora is then fused with sutures, creating a seam down the middle, over the wound. The opening that is left for urination and menstruation ideally does not exceed the circumference of a matchstick. The resulting bridge of skin and scar tissue is known as "infibulation".



The rationale for infibulating girls is that such infibulation creates a chastity belt, which provides living proof to the prospective bridegroom and his family that the bride's virtue is intact. Yet another primary object of the entire procedure is to dampen the girl's sex drive. It is generally believed by those that practice it, that this can be achieved by removing her most sensitive sexual pans. (It doesn't always work out that way, because in Africa, as anywhere else in the world, the most sensitive parts of the sexual nervous system are in the brain. But more of that later.)

www.lightfoot-klein.com...

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

1) Daughters get their female circumcisions.

I just want to point out that female circumcision exposes more of the clitoris, making orgasms easier to achieve and far more intense. I am sure there is some good American/Christian reason that is bad though.

edit on 2-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)

THat is complete and utter rubbish. I do hope that you are using irony or sarcasm. Again only the fundamentalists can back up this nonsense.

reply to post by Sinnthia


For the misinformed, or for those who just buy into this practice as good.

Female Circumcision: Rite of Passage Or Violation of Rights?

Female circumcision, the partial or total cutting away of the external female genitalia, has been practiced for centuries in parts of Africa, generally as one element of a rite of passage preparing young girls for womanhood and marriage. Often performed without anesthetic under septic conditions by lay practitioners with little or no knowledge of human anatomy or medicine, female circumcision can cause death or permanent health problems as well as severe pain. Despite these grave risks, its practitioners look on it as an integral part of their cultural and ethnic identity, and some perceive it as a religious obligation.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Do you know that for a fact or through personal experience?

What a silly question. Why should you assume it would be either/or and not both?

Who are you trying to kid?

books.google.com... D1HXm_2Umrwq_cZs&hl=en&ei=sqkgTZewHsiinAfvrcn2DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

edit on 103131p://bSunday2010 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

Right, from the book "Female Genital Mutilation." Have any good books on Jews written by Hitler you source as well?

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


Also an extremely biased source. Do a little checking and you will find the exact same story for male circumcision. It is simply discussing the risks of dirty surgery in poor places. Any surgical anything in 3rd world countries in unsafe as all heck. I got mine done in a Hospital in the US so your source hardly applies.

Next.

reply to post by Sinnthia


Whatever credibility you have as an ATS memeber is about to be destroyed. Female circumcision by anyone seems to be barbaric. Many moslems have ceased this practice. Because I seek to repect Islam I assumed that you were not a fundamentalist but now I see that you are.

reply to post by Sinnthia


well, I seldom feel this emotional, about a subject, but you are being disingenuous, or think we are all stupid,

I don't have anything more to say to you.

Originally posted by tiger5
THat is complete and utter rubbish. I do hope that you are using irony or sarcasm. Again only the fundamentalists can back up this nonsense.

Not at all.
I suggest you ladies have a talk with a real Western doctor about the issue. This is getting off topic and only serving as an excuse to link to propoganda. Perhaps someone should start a thread on it.

Originally posted by tiger5
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

Whatever credibility you have as an ATS memeber is about to be destroyed. Female circumcision by anyone seems to be barbaric. Many moslems have ceased this practice. Because I seek to repect Islam I assumed that you were not a fundamentalist but now I see that you are.

If my credibility as an ATS member is about to be destroyed because of how something "seems" to you, then I think I am going to be ok. Ask your doctor about it, not books on genital mutilation. There is actually a difference.

Sinnthia
Now look what you made me do I now agree with stormdancer777. What is the world coming to?? People like you give Islam a bad name as an ignorant and backward religion. Yet your logical allyies are the Fundamentalist Xtians but even these fools do not go as far as you.

I hope you have the courage of your convictions and go ahead and have the same barbaric operation done to you with the same unsanitary conditions. I despair!

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

well, I seldom feel this emotional, about a subject, but you are being disingenuous, or think we are all stupid,

I don't have anything more to say to you.

edit on 103131p://bSunday2010 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

I hardly think everyone on ATS is stupid and I rarely get to speak about something I have so much personal experience with. Too bad it is off topic.

Originally posted by tiger5
Sinnthia
Now look what you made me do I now agree with stormdancer777. What is the world coming to?? People like you give Islam a bad name as an ignorant and backward religion.

I have no idea how I give Islam a bad name when I never said anything about Islam in the context of female circumcision. What does one have to do with the other? You seem to be making a connection I never put forth. I do apologize for the stormdancer thing though.

Yet your logical allyies are the Fundamentalist Xtians but even these fools do not go as far as you.

What?

I hope you have the courage of your convictions and go ahead and have the same barbaric operation done to you with the same unsanitary conditions. I despair!

Why does it need to be done under unsanitary conditions? I never once condoned anyone having any surgical procedure in anything less than the most healthy situations. What are you talking about? BTW - done!

edit on 2-1-2011 by tiger5 because: (no reason given)

K, seriously. You seem to think I am saying it is ok to cut someone open in unsanitary conditions. I never did. I would not do it. I would not suggest anyone else do it. I never suggested that female circumcision had anything to do with fundamental Islam. Female genital mutilation is something different. Crappy surgery is something different.

I am circumcised and had it done at a hospital. I would not suggest anyone do anything any more risky. In fact, I would not suggest anyone ever have any "elective" surgery as they all come with risks. I took the risk. I was rewarded quite nicely.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

 

Also an extremely biased source. Do a little checking and you will find the exact same story for male circumcision. It is simply discussing the risks of dirty surgery in poor places. Any surgical anything in 3rd world countries in unsafe as all heck. I got mine done in a Hospital in the US so your source hardly applies.

Next.

Glad to hear you enjoy your self mutilation. But does that make it right for those involuntarily receiving the procedure worldwide through a 'rite of passage'?

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
Glad to hear you enjoy your self mutilation.

What self mutilation? I do not have one instance of self mutilation on my body.

But does that make it right for those involuntarily receiving the procedure worldwide through a 'rite of passage'?

Did I ever suggest that anyone should ever be forced to have anything done to them ever or did I in fact suggest that people avoid elective surgery best they can?

All this talk of circumcision is making me feel a bit queasy, I couldnt do with out my roll neck, especially with the British winter been extra harsh this year.

reply to post by Sinnthia


OK Well perhaps there is need for another OP and thread. I just don't want Katie's comments to be derailed. I will contribute if you write it.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by FlyersFan
black Muslims

black Islam

May I ask why you added the "black" into the equation?
I read the article but did not watch the video so if that is where I missed it, forgive me.

edit on 31-12-2010 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)

The idea is too keep "islam" in peoples minds to keep the fear mongering carnival game going.

Islam == terrorist to the american public mentally.


Isn't Katie Couric a Bilderberg member?

reply to post by FlyersFan


You didn't need to say anything about fear. You are blowing this entire thing out of proportion and acting as though something that has not happened, has happened. If you're not motivated by any particular fear then you seem to be motivated by a general paranoia. The slogan of this website is 'Deny Ignorance,' and I intend to do so as long as other posters display paranoia and ignorance. As a great man once said, We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

I have already addressed your fear/paranoia/suspicion that the showbusiness industry in America will act on Ms. Couric's suggestion. This suggestion can be broken down into simple premises for ease of discussion.

RESPOND TO THESE VVVV

Which of these statements do you have an issue with?

1) Americans learn about the wider world through their television set [a fact demonstrated by several posts in this thread]
2) Television has trained Americans to alternately hate and fear various demographic groups [blacks, gays, Muslims, liberals, conservatives, et cetera].
3) This unreasoning fear/hate is bad for any democratic society and divides the People against themselves
4) Americans should not categorically fear Muslims
5) A TV sitcom that features an average Muslim-American family can erode the TV-driven negative stereotypes against all Muslims

RESPOND TO THESE ^^^^^

1) You do not deny that Americans learn about foreigners from the TV [it seems it would be difficult to make that claim].
2) You affirm that TV is a propaganda tool, but have said nothing about how it has been used to 'educate' Americans to think that Muslims are all religious fanatics of the worst kind.
3) You say nothing about whether it is good or bad for society to be divided against itself, avoiding the key issue.
4) You do not discuss the fourth premise in this thread but it is clear to me, a person who has seen you in many paranoid threads in the past, what your stance on this is (apparently discussing your proven and established position on the central issue of this thread is off topic and a personal insult, but it's not a personal insult when you tell me "Try not to think .. you'll only hurt yourself").
5) I don't think you even want the fifth premise to be true.

So please, tell me which of the five premises, extracted from Couric's comment, you find objectionable. Explain why.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


I really hope the OP replies to your thought provoking statements. You have really nailed the issue down and presented the ideas that make a debate and discussion worthwhile. Thank you. And yes, I starred your post.

I would just like to comment on a few of your statements.

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
2) Television has trained Americans to alternately hate and fear various demographic groups [blacks, gays, Muslims, liberals, conservatives, et cetera].

In addition to teaching Americans to hate and fear, TV has, at times, demonstrated the ability to teach us more positive lessons. It actually has the potential to bring us together. TV, like almost everything in the world, is not all good, or all bad.

5) A TV sitcom that features an average Muslim-American family can erode the TV-driven negative stereotypes against all Muslims

I do think many people who are so fervently against something like a Muslim sitcom (or any positive 'publicity' about Muslims) are not so much afraid of it for themselves (they won't watch it), but they are afraid that the negative views many have against Muslims will erode as the people sit in their living rooms and laugh and cry along with this sitcom family and get to know them.

I watched a little of "Little Mosque on the Prairie" and it seems totally benign. I simply can't understand anyone's resistance to something like that, when there's so much crap coming on TV every day. Why would this show raise such a stink, as opposed to some of the other shows that came out this fall to 'educate' and entertain us? The only answer that makes sense to me is #5.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Benign is a good word for it. I've never been a fan of Little Mosque on the Prairie, it has always felt like a middling kind of show to me. It is also one of those Canadian shows that feels so painfully self-aware that I cringe. That's just my hangup, though, not something wrong with the show.

I do like that one character, Baber. He`s exactly the type of character that Islamophobes in this thread are saying cannot be performed without arousing the genocidal ire of all Muslims.

From his wiki description:

A divorced college economics professor and the most conservative member of the Muslim community in Mercy, he acted as the imam prior to Amaar's arrival in the pilot episode; when Amaar briefly quits his job in Season 3, Baber again takes over as imam, and proves to be one of the reasons the community is so determined to get Amaar back. His conservatism often conflicts with the wishes of his teenage daughter Layla, although he loves her dearly (in fact the main reason he has custody of her is that when his ex-wife came to visit him after he moved to Mercy she saw that the only thing he had bothered to unpack was his daughter's picture on the wall). He wears a taqiyah and constantly rants and raves and complains about everything, to the point that most of his acquaintances consider him obnoxious. He once falsely claimed that he was on the American no-fly list to cover up his own fear of flying, resulting in Rayyan and Amaar taking him to the American consulate in Regina three separate times to help him clear his name. He calls most non-Muslims "imbeciles" and "infidels", although it is rather obvious that he is not any sort of dangerous fanatic but just a harmless crank.

p.s. I starred you because you actually watched the show!