At a time when American children are slipping behind on international measures of educational attainment, especially in the sciences; when global competition is intensifying ; and when the median incomes of Americans are stagnating and the ranks of the poor are increasing, these ideas, propagated by the so-called Conservative Movement, are moving us rapidly backwards. I guess that's Social Darwinism at work then. Survival of the fittest, y'know?

Castro, As for the topic, I was hoping to focus more on the Social Darwinism aspect and how some conservatives, while utterly rejecting the biological Darwinism, would spew the gibberish about wealth and intelligence. Isn't it obvious? Religion says you were created in god's image, that you have an indulgent parent watching over you as part of his Divine Plan. And it doesn't hurt that it promises everlasting life. Social Darwinism says you come from winners, that it's no accident that you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth. It both validates your existence and makes you feel less guilty. If it's merit that got your ancestors this far, obviously it's the lack of merit that keeps the unwashed masses downtrodden. Biological Darwinism, on the other hand, places a question mark over the whole in-god's-image bit, while not making the descendants-of-winners bit all that exclusive. Evolutionarily, we all come from winners, and tomorrow, new evolutionary pressures might make someone else a winner. Bugger that!

^Whoa, there Tonto! You've gone from arguing that Togane does not practice tribalism to doing so yourself. Hardly a ringing endorsement Togane would appreciate.

Hi Castro, In the absence of conclusive and verifiable scientific evidence showing homosexuality to be a natural phenomenon, we as muslims are obliged to follow the divine teachings of Islam that say it is a deviation. Ah. I believe I've forgotten that. I'm in the habit of taking people at their word. If someone says they can't help being a certain way, I tend to believe them unless strong evidence suggests otherwise. After all, I didn't choose to be heterosexual, it comes with the body, and I couldn't "turn it off" at will. Why should I assume differently of others? But at any rate, this talk of injecting hormones into gays implies that Dubai at least considers homosexuality to have a biological basis. If one could devise a pill or shot to "cure" homosexuality, would this have any effect on how gays are perceived/treated? Would it go from being a deviation to being a disorder? I believe that's what Ngonge is trying to purvey. The quandary would have been the discovery of such conclusive evidence. But there is none, so we're safe in our knowledge in the Quran. There's ample 'research' out there on this issue, none of which by the way, shows with any comfortable degree of certainty that it is natural. I agree. Certainly some research suggests it is so, but I've never been concerned enough to look into it, living as I do in the great US of A, where gay bashing amounts to yelling "fag!" at a guy in drag prancing down Main Street. We should all do what makes us comfortable with ourselves, our religion and our neighbors. Amen.

You have evidence they are guilty of the crime? From the same article: Experts, citing allegations the nurses were tortured to confess and evidence from AIDS experts that they were not present when the outbreak began, say Tripoli is using the medics as scapegoats to deflect blame from Libyan officials.

Rahima, calling Togane tribalistic is amazingly inaccurate. By all standards, he's the least tribalistic Somali alive. Yes, he insults many tribes (mine included), but sometimes "constructive criticism" falls on deaf ears. How many people do you know who's constructive criticisms are noticed, much less heeded? The very fact that his views get aired, favorably or unfavorably, is a step in the right direction. "A poem begins with a lump in the throat." Robert Frost

^ All I will need to find is one person who is more illiterate than me and your claim is proven false. *Raises hand in resignation*

Hello Ngonge, Not sure if the question is to ME directly or a general one. I am assuming it’s a general one for to ask me such a direct question serves no purpose here (and just for the record, no I don’t follow all commandments, though I’d love to of course). Sorry for the impertinence, I was directing the question at you. You wrote, Originally posted by NGONGE: It’s not about nature, Bees, Dogs or Homosexuals. It’s all about the wrath of GOD and if you think (nay believe) that such a GOD exists. If you do, then you would drop everything and follow the commandments. If you don’t, then you would carry on as you are without the burden of guilt and doubt. I personally don’t think the middle ground here is advisable. There is no point in living a life of self hate and worry or living life as a hypocrite that believes in GOD but refuses to accept some of his commandments. I'm trying to understand why someone would NOT live a life of "self-hate and worry" if, say, they were devout Muslims and also gay at the same time. Even if they never slept with members of the same sex, human nature would dictate that they agonize about it. To be a really religious person sometimes seems to require a great deal of guilt and a sense of worthlessness. So that's why I asked you if you followed all commandments religuously, so to speak. Otherwise this "rant" devolves into "Obey god when you can". Not exactly a rousing battle-cry. It's easy for you to say, drop everything and follow the commandments but hard in practice. Who has never lied? Gossiped? Envied another? Who has never missed a prayer? It's easy to visualize god forgiving all of those sins, but when it comes to homosexuality, oooh boy. Let's lock them up, or beat them up or kill them or shoot hormones into them. Note this part isn't aimed at you, just commenting on a general attitude among many here.

Ngonge, It’s all about the wrath of GOD and if you think (nay believe) that such a GOD exists. If you do, then you would drop everything and follow the commandments. Do you follow all religious commandments? I didn't know it was possible.

Yoonis, so far your analysis is not very "unbiased", I would say. I'll say. After reading the little bio, I scrolled up to see if I missed a halo or little white wings on picture. Notice how every negative comment is preceded by "critics say", but the sycophantic trite parts are presented as facts?

Oh come on, folks. Let's not let SOL degenerate into a school playground. What's with the petty name calling? My question: What is the big frigging deal? You look at a woman, you notice she's hot. You move on. Why 1) Dwell on it, and 2) Pathologize it?

“It wasn’t just a homosexual act. Now we’re dealing with a kind of marriage. There was a ritual involved.†Oh the horror...

Castro, So if plan B is a contraceptive, then why would conservatives be against it? Many conservatives are against contraceptives. The Catholic Church still frowns on birth control, and actually recently claimed that condoms don't protect against STDs, a ridiculously irresponsible claim in light of HIV/AIDS. The truth is that those against Plan B don't give a fig about babies. If they did, they would throw all their support behind something that reduces the need for abortions.

Liibaan makes some good points there. The West is very condenscending to those not as technological advanced, and they assume that, if they can make better guns, they can also make superior societies. It's cultural suicide to let them determine our values. On the other hand, Khayr's rejectionism is hard to take seriously. If he's wondering if the earth is actually round, how could he be expected to objectively analyze other kafir claims?

We shouldn't be hijacking Nur's interesting thread, but Jawahiir made some good points I want to discuss. The question I asked Castro: in light of the fact that both men and women seem to have a biological tendency to want to have children with more than one partner (euphemism, I know), why is only the men's imperative recognized from an Islamic perspective? *If you are questioning the whole premise, and you think women really just want one partner: ask yourself why FGM? Why male jealousy? Why is female virginity so prized that women must be sequestered in patriarchal societies until they can be safely transfered to a husband? Why the physiological indicators that show men expect their mates to cheat on them and compensate accordingly? I pointed out that men have been given two weapons against committing what Islam considers to be a major sin: women are told to dress modestly so as to limit temptations, and men are allowed 4 wives (plus concubines, but for most Somali men this is irrelevant, so forget them). 1. Jawahiir pointed out that men are instructed to dress modestly as well. True. I won't quibble on this point for the sake of brevity So this will take care of the temptation front. 2. Now, what about the fulfillment front? Jawahir wrote: we are speaking of women who are Muslims, practising women of the faith. I hope so at least we are. And such a woman would no doubt prefer to belong to a monogamous relationship that meets her needs and hopefully goes beyond them! Need I point out that that is circular reasoning? [1]Islam limited women to 1 husband despite evidence of biological preference for more*. [2] Answer: well a good Muslim woman will be happy with that. [3] What is the definition of a good Muslim woman? Why, the one who follows Islamic precepts without question, of course. [4] But it's the basis of Islamic precepts we are discussing! A good Muslim man is also one who is happy with whatever laws regulate his relationships with women. He just has a better chance of being happy and/or not committing sin because his needs are met!

If the world made sense, men would ride side-saddle.

Nur, I apologize. I insinuated that you fabricated the scenario, and that's just insulting and rather stoopid. I was going to over a possible excuse, but I just took Castro's refresher course and I'm no damiin. Stoopid, but not a damiin!

Good heavens, Castro, no wonder some are questioning your Somalinimo... On a related note, I wonder if Somalia will ever have a Truth and Reconciliation Committee akin to S. Africa's. "I'm sorry I killed all of Farax's relatives. If his grandfather hadn't participated in a raid on my great-grandfather's village 70 years ago, then I wouldn't have done it. I'm sorry if I caused you pain, Farax." "I accept Abdi's apology. I too regret my grandfather's raid on his ancestral village. Had my grandfather wiped out the whole village as intended, Farax wouldn't have lived to kill my family. I'm sorry my grandfather didn't follow through, Abdi." Hugs all around.

Khayr, Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you are a flat-earther. You've been giving off this vibe. Is it a concidence that that this discovery that the earth is 'ROUND' was made in the 'Renaissance Period' wherein, Secularity was given birth to. Not at all. Many scientific advancements (cures for diseases, the theory of evolution, etc) were made around that time for one obvious reason: the loosening of the anti-intellectual grip of the Church. The same goes for Islamic discoveries; the bulk of them occured during times of secular tolerance, when the findings of pagans (Indians, Greeks, Chinese) were not being heavily censored.

1. *Ask the individual to SMILE. 2. *Ask him or her to RAISE BOTH ARMS. 3. *Ask the person to SPEAK A SIMPLE SENTENCE (Coherently) ( i.e. . . It is sunny out today). I think social interactions are going to be a little strange if we are supposed to do this with everyone we meet. Or do we do it only after we see them stumble? The icy streets of London/Toronto/Minneapolis might make that time-consuming this winter...

"The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt within the heart." Said by Helen Keller, a woman our old grandfathers would not consider interesting if they were measuring beauty by assessing her nose, or waist or eyes.

^ CW, I'm surprised anyone is taking all this seriously. Nur is essentially trying to create a situation in which the sistas will concede that polygamy is the lesser evil, so to speak. His first post emphasized the emotions of the Farax: I am seriously thinking about marrying the new love, but she made it clear after I proposed that she is not willing to marry a married man, I will never leave my wife for another, and my wife will never accept another woman, and I can not live without the new love, I wish this never happened, but its here to stay and is intensifying, is there a way out? your kind advice please? But virtually everyone saw this as being sheer selfishness on the part of Farax, wanting to have his cake and eat it too sort of thing. He was duly advised to forget the new chick and work on his marriage. So Nur updated us: Faarax is extremely good person and loyal to his wife, the relationship hit a rock after a problem surfaced between them that its impossible to solve and can not be shared on this forum, Faarax believes he can solve that problem by the next marriage if the Halimo 1, agrees, which she does not, Halimo 1 is more concerned about herself although she aknowledges that she is part of the problem, the price of Divorce with Halimo 1 is very high, and is real risk if Faarax takes the step, Farax is emotionally at a point of no return, the stakes are quite high as the new love is intrasigent also for a polygamous relationship, kids are also pawns for this emotional Disneyland, a divorce will expose the kids to a multiple risks, staying together unhappy for the sake of kids alone is taxing to Faraxs and Halimos mental health. Now it turns out that marriage to the new Halimo is not about Faarax fulfilling his desire for a new wife, it's actually about solving a problem in the first marriage! This problem that cannot be shared, are we supposed to think it's some sort of anatomical problem with Halimo 1? What kind of problem can a marriage suffer from, such that it requires another person to get involved? Not infertility, because there are kids already. Does Faarax want more? The whole thing just seems a little too contrived if you ask me. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the kids disappeared on the next update.

Man, I love that song--even Madonna's version--and I've heard some of the "interpretations". But damned if I'm going to read a Ph.D disertation on it. Honestly, the Boomer generation...

There's no recorded history of Somalia. Not even now is it being recorded. I was thinking that.

Femme, in neither of these cases is Islam being used as an excuse to oppress women. The situation in Turkey is fubar as far as women go. The law is always going to be playing catch up to a societal code that is so misogynistic it makes Somalia look like it's ruled by Amazons. It's the same in India. The Hindu culture is extremely anti-women in many instances, and Islam could hardly be to blame for some of the sh!t that goes on there. The Muslim Indians pretty much act like the other Indians culturally, and they have a hard time getting rid of the anti-women baggage of Hindu culture. They've had more success with eliminating caste discriminations, though.