Quote# 35999

*upon hearing the news that a man killed his wife's lover*

The guy killed the wrong party.

*someone else said the murderer had no right to kill anyone*

Well, I don't know. Under feminist law not. But under the religious law of major religions his adulterous wife should be stoned to death or otherwise dispatched.

bobx23456, 'Penis found in drawer after killing' 44 Comments [3/9/2008 7:08:25 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: lisa marie

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom

Jake Steel

Yhea...most also says thou shall not kill. now given that is not only one of the 10 commandments but also part of federal law, guess which wins.

3/9/2008 7:15:39 AM


Those religious laws are just a tool made up by meek men who couldn't stand up to their wives.

3/9/2008 7:45:45 AM


I read the thread. Basically this sick piece of shit (and at least one other) advocate death for unfaithful wives but no punishment for unfaithful husbands due to...get this...an unfaithful wife MIGHT get pregnant by her lover and saddle her husband with supporting some other man's child. Men, on the other hand, don't have that potential (only STDs, which apparently are inconsequential) therefore they should not be punished, especially since their straying is the fault of the wife for withholding sex or using it manipulatively (yes, one these morons actually said so). And the Bible is cited as the justification for killing an unfaithful wife.

So what this comes down to is men can have adulterous affairs with impunity, but women should get the death penalty because GOD SAYS SO.

What I found most interesting, however, is that no one on the entire thread picked up that the news article referred to the perp as her EX-husband, she had her own place to live, and she had taken the surname of the victim. This was NOT the case of an unfaithful wife, but a woman who had left her husband, moved on, and made a new life for herself.

But, like fundies everywhere, these guys just ignored the inconvenient facts...

3/9/2008 7:51:48 AM

Mister Spak

Or they could kill you and everyone lives happily ever after

3/9/2008 8:24:05 AM

According to OT, he kill the right party(both they should die), and according to the NT, "the one who is free of sin, cast the first stone". And the law of not treating the adulterous wife as a shit, isn't a "feminist law", it's the nowadays law in our modern state, not in a "country" made up of beduine people(and even there, the husband couldn't take justice in his hands).

3/9/2008 8:40:00 AM


Truly, we are seeing the words of a man of wisdom.

3/9/2008 8:45:14 AM

Crazy Fundie

There's a man who never read his Bible. OT sez both parties should die.

EDIT: Oh, it's mens-rights.net. That explains how the weapons-grade stupidity of Bob's comment went unchallenged by other posters there.

3/9/2008 9:14:33 AM


Under moral law, no one gets killed.

And don't forget law that has any authority at all.

3/9/2008 9:14:49 AM


One more reason why theocracies are insane.

3/9/2008 9:33:27 AM

And even in most major religious laws(well, whatever you consider major), the adulterer is also done so. So, your assertion about the "wrong party" is ridiculous(and anyway, does it remind you anything at all the story of Jesus and the adultress?, so, at least one, in theory, NOPE).

3/9/2008 11:54:49 AM


And they have the gall to claim that atheists are immoral.

3/9/2008 11:58:10 AM

Sweet Violet, their reasoning is logically flaw too. One, STDs can be more threatening to the welfare of a woman than a man rearing a child which is not his(I've never heard that it caused death, apparently). And anyway, haven't they considered that the adulterous husband may have children by the other woman and so, the interest of the wife are also at stake?. Because he has to be responsible for the child he has potentially begotten. And the same reason applies to the adulterer. He can't make sure 100% that a hypothetical child is his and not the husband's. So, if at the end we're talking about an economical problem, an economical problem should rest and decide the degree of gravity, not a priori, but bearing in mind the circumstances of all parties.

3/9/2008 12:04:35 PM


What was the fifth commandment again?

3/9/2008 12:07:19 PM


I saw the address of the site where this quote came from. Men's rights? That's almost as inane as white rights or heterosexual rights.

3/9/2008 12:18:54 PM

Reverend Davidius

Your religious laws are out-dated and inhumane.

3/9/2008 1:19:56 PM


Thou shalt not kill.

Sound familiar?

3/9/2008 1:25:08 PM

One friend of mine wrote a caricature on the death penalty topic. It was a picture which went like this "no to death penalty............exceptions" followed by a long list. Well, with "thou shalt not kill" it works the same way. And even if the adulterous woman puts the cuckold man in a bad situation, death will get things worse, no better. No other than Thomas Moore explained that death penalty should only be applied to murder. Why?, because the disproportion of the punishment will make it lose its value regarding justice. Moreover, men do damage, even in an abstract economic level to the wife if they're adulterers. Why?, because a family is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT, not a natural one. That a person, man or woman, isn't the genetical biological father or mother of a child but takes care of him or her nonetheless, doesn't have any physical effect on the person . If it's a moral and economical damage, it should be treated in the same level as, for example, a fraud. Yes, sounds ridiculous but that's the way it is. You can't put adulterers of either sex on the same level as killers or torturers.

3/9/2008 2:18:43 PM


Christianity - a belief system created by man for the benefit of man.

3/9/2008 2:30:17 PM

Pavlov's Dog

Die in a fire.

3/9/2008 2:34:46 PM

Well, it's true that there should be an organisation that could catter for specific male problems. Problem is, most of the so-called mens' rights are more oriented to perpetuate the myth of male supremacy. I have too read the whole post and their argument is loose. It's understandable the reason why men are so obsessed with adultery but not justifiable. To say that man's adultery doesn't affect the woman is a fallacy. He too can have children with the other woman and it does affect the woman in the same way. Following their logic, people couldn't adopt children, or would collapse when children switching, etc............Genes and nurture are not the same and, honestly, the other father can't reclaim either the rights associated to the offspring resulting from that union, no more than a woman who has had an adulterous relationship with a married man. If for these guys the solution is finantial, it should be IN BOTH CASES. To ask for the wife's death penalty and not husband's is to legitimate the right of revenge and spite, not to use the positive right for the general welfare.

3/9/2008 4:06:43 PM



"the interest of the wife are also at stake"

But the wife is a woman, and therefore has no rights, interests, or value separate from her husband.

3/9/2008 4:29:27 PM


"Thou shall kill" Award?

3/9/2008 4:31:21 PM

Yes, that's the underlying assumption. It's just that they tried to rationalise the double standard. As if knowing that your other spouse has a child by another is more important for men than for women.

3/9/2008 4:49:53 PM

Blayze Kohime

Under religious law people would be stoned to death for talking back to their parents, using God's damn name in vain, or working on the sabbath.

In other words, by religious law, we should ALL be dead.

3/9/2008 5:10:57 PM

Septic Sceptic

The cowardice running through this mindset is astounding. Not just the quote, but the biblical law itself. What level of terror towards women must have been ingrained in the psychology of the bronze age men who put the Old Testament together, for them to make this rule? Hiding behind a deity and using it as shield against women who act on their own motivations and desires is just pathetic.

3/9/2008 5:18:19 PM

1 2 | top: comments page