Ameneh Bahrami's face was burnt off, blinding her forever, when Majid Mohavedi poured a bucket of acid on her after she declined his marriage proposal in 2004. For 7 years she had been seeking a qisa, available in Iran through Sharia Law, which would allow her have the same damage inflicted upon him for what he had done to her---"an eye for an eye," etc. As this case gained international attention in the past 7 years, Mohavedi's fate was postponed in April of 2009, and was due to be carried out in May of this year. It was again postponed, but today, Ameneh Bahrami pardoned the man.
Religion is the real catalyst in this story, and it has been again swept under the rug yet again. As women in this world still presently suffer the violent misogyny brought on by the prospective works of poorly written fiction, one has to wonder if true progress for women is even possible in a world where religion is relevant. These lies produced thousands of years ago were written by MEN for MEN and they still perpetuate a MALE DOMINATED WORLD today.
Eradicate religion so that Women can attain equality in the world.
Sharia Law is an extreme form of Islam in which women have the lowest level of rights possible. It is an interpretation of the Koran by those who wish to follow it that way. Islam is definitely one of the religions that is more sexist than most, considering that women have to conceal themselves in public. But, how does this reflect on all religions? I am a Christian, in the Bible it explains that God created "Man" in his image, by man he actually meant humans in general. In the story of creation, the reason that he took a rib from adam to create eve, and not a bone from his foot or head, was to show that Adam and Eve were equal. For Example, in the Bible, a woman named Deborah became a judge and the LEADER of Israel. Sexism? I think not.
“eve,”created less than “adam,” is blamed concerning “the serpent” and “god” condemns women to horrible pain during childbirth and complete submission to men (gen. 3:12-3:17). They’re the property of men (ex. 20:17), unclean for 33 days after birthing a girl (lev. 12:1-5) and burned for disobeying their fathers (21:9). Raped virgins must marry their rapists, but rapists only pay fathers “50 shekels of silver (deut. 22:28-29)”. Sexist “jesus” likens “heaven” to virgins looking for a bridegroom (math. Ch. 25). Women are created in the image of MAN and inferior (I cor. 11:3-11:9). “deborah” is one of 7 female “prophets” as opposed to 48 males in the tanakh and the only female judge found there---ONE RESPECTED WOMAN still blamed for the fall.
My opponent has brought up a few points related to the Old Testament and also a point about Jesus being sexist. Firstly, Jesus was not sexist, he actually treats women differently then most men did at that time. He actually treated them with respect, which was partially unheard of at the time. A prime example is the woman at the well, when he asked her if he could drink from the well, she was in disbelief that he, a man, would even acknowledge her. An even better would be the adulteress brought to Jesus by the religious leaders, instead of condemning her as they had. He admonished her to stay away. Also, submission to a woman's husband means under the will of God, for example, coming with him to Church, otherwise she is not obligated.
This debate is not about the fictional character of “jesus.” As there is no physical evidence for its existence, points concerning it as a PERSON are moot. The christian cult that acts on its behalf oppresses women, and THAT is what needs to go. All monotheistic religious texts were written by MEN so that MEN can have their way. When a young boy is raped by a catholic priest, we don’t say that “jesus” did it, we acknowledge that a christian did it, just as we don’t say the character of “muhammad” poured acid on Ameneh Bahrami’s face. Without the contexts set up by religious authority in the world, these actions would not thrive. Women would have much better chance at equality once no MAN could use religion as an excuse.
Notice how pro mentions Jesus and then when I defend him, Pro completely avoids that subject and reinstates their round 1 argument. I cannot defend Islam because there is sexism in it. Christianity though, The New Testament is not sexist as I showed in my round 2 argument, it is the new covenant brought to us by Jesus, the Old Testament was made when times were different. Here is some proof that the Bible is not sexist. Jesus openly identified himself to the women at the well, he did not do this for a man. John 4:25-26'The woman said to him: "I know that Messiah is coming, who is called Christ. Whenever that one arrives, he will declare all things to us openly." Jesus said to her: "I who am speaking to you am he."
Reasons for voting decision: Horrible debate. Neither side cited sources for justification, and so on. I award Con points of conduct (Pro was rather rude in regards with his 'eve' argument) and 'spelling and grammar'. However, Con did note the inaccuraccies in Pro's arguments, so I found his arguments more convincing.
Reasons for voting decision: Pro does not actually ever support their claim that it would be necessary to eliminate "religion" in order for society to move forward. Showing that there is sexism in two religions is hardly enough to show that sexism is a necessary part of religion itself. In fact, there are many pagan religions that are matriarchal. With that being said, Con got caught up in this terrible debate and got distracted. Pro made a lot of loaded irrelevant statements and so Con gets the conduct.
Reasons for voting decision: Pros case had nothing to do with the title of his resolution, but Con seems to accept the premise. However Con then continues to make arguments that were irrelevant to the accepted premise of the debate.
Reasons for voting decision: Strange debate. Pro argued religion is the cause of inequality. Con argued some religions are OK. Both sides therefore support women's rights. No argument was made for or against the topic, but since both sides accepted the topic was true, the side that was supposed to be affirming woman's rights wins. Advice to con: don't attack the method, attack the principle behind the motion. Pro loses conduct for not making an argument.
Reasons for voting decision: Pro fails to establish their case that all religion is inspired by men and is intrinsically misogynistic, nor that it's destruction would ensure female equality or even that such a goal is desirable. Their examples are restricted solely to Iranian Islam (which is self-contradictory because the misogynistic act was illegal and a punishment was handed down) and Christianity. This is not sufficient to establish the BOP and Con's arguments are ignored.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.