Women. Religion’s longest running victims.

Do you read or just write? I had just said this. As I pointed out in my first post the societies where women are educated, (and not kept in their place as you put it), are the societies that have prospered.From that we can safely assume that God isn't about having us keep women "in their place".Do you like to pick an argument don't you.?

I'm not surprised that you feel that way. In the past you have expressed the idea that a church's right to hold racists views was so sacrosanct, that not only should I defend that right, I should not interfere by trying to convince the pastor that he was wrong.You also believe that a boss' right to tell racists jokes is so strong, that an employee should not reveal to others that he found his boss's funnies uncomfortable.While I don't believe in imposing beliefs on another culture, not imposing does not mean implementing some Star Trek like prime directive.Perhaps a personal example would help. I once traveled to Japan with a female engineer for the purpose of conducting a safety investigation on a product for import into the US. Because the investigation was primarily in the woman's field of practice, she was the lead engineer on the product. Let's call her M for short.Of course the initial discomfort level of our hosts with the arrangement was quite apparent. The firm whose product we were evaluating had no female employees involved in any technical aspect of their operation. Even the youngest of the engineers found taking technical direction from a woman quite uncomfortable. The older men, including the firm owner felt themselves free to hit on M in ways that would make most US firm owners fear being sued.And of course as the investigation continued, our hosts managed to get over their issue, because the alternative was losing money. It didn't hurt that Rita was more than competent; we would not have worked as effectively if Rita and I had switched roles for the benefit of the client. But I wasn't inclined to try it anyway. When some of the Japanese employees asked about how things were different in the US, we were quite frank.If I were working with people whose religious beliefs required otherwise, I would not shield them from the fact that my own daughter was educated and that my wife wasn't my servant. If it came up in a discussion I wouldn't withhold the fact that I believed that things ought to be that way.

No, I have always said you have the right to speak whatever you want to speak.And no, I don't believe that someone should not be able to say a person's comments are im your opinion, racist. I have said though that individuals do have a right be be racist.But what does anything you say have anything to do with what I said?

Actually your view is not as balanced as you suggest.Here is how you described such a right to complain about a judge telling one of his employees a racist joke."I see no rude behavior on the part of the judge, but exposing personal communications is almost always both wrong and rude behavior; such folks used to be called gossips."And here is your view of how much respect a church with racists views is due. So yeah, jar. You do seem to have a view of the prime directive that supports the rights of bad behavior over attempting to change bad behavior. Your current position is no surprise.The reason to support giving women equal rights is because the opposite is hurtful, and I don't have to respect or show tolerance for the opposite proposition.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, again not quite.Unless you are a member of the church in the example you really have no say in their policies.You do have the right in the US to free speech though. You can express your opinion that their policies are wrong but I see no right for you to tell them to change their policies.And of course you do not have to show respect for others positions but tolerance is another story.

Which is not the same thing as saying that I have no right to exert any influence on them to change.

Playing silly word games is really silly. Really. You speaking publicly is not an influence if they simply ignore you.But of course, all this is totally irrelevant to the topic as well.My question presented in Message 3 still remains and can be directed to you as well as the OP:

quote:

---

Not sure that I understand your point. How should my religion "free" the women members? Or is this simply more exaggeration, generalization, spam and trolling?

---

It was a difficult and bloody process trying to impose our belief system on the North American Indians. I expect it would be no easier at a greater distance and against a well-armed opponent.And of course it's a two-edged sword. The "enlightenment" that has caused us to liberate women in our culture has also caused us to respect other cultures more. We now look back on trying to assimilate the Indian cultures as a bad idea.

And I pointed out that your idea of "prospeirty" is entirely your own opinion. The Saudis are prosperous even by your definition but without equality for women. Most likely they think God has given them that prosperity in return for their "correct" treatment of women. Their reasoning is exactly the same as yours; only their conclusion is the opposite of yours. Non sequitur. I'm not a cheerleader. If you want somebody to chant, "Good answer! Good answer!" you'll have to look elsewhere.

MY ONE COMMENT in this thread. (Nor shall I defend myself, so you shall read my silence as my declaration that I DO NOT RECOGNIZE nor accept atheist moral-highground, just because they nominate themselves for that position. The implications of relative morality would mean an atheist doesn't have to get in line with any morals, for starters.) Begging-The-Question fallacy. I can't free women I am not imprisoning.It's like me saying:"Men, agnostics, atheists and humanists, free your women. It's time. Man up."Perhaps to make a better start, you must first prove I am imprisoning a woman, as a Christian? Nor should it be deemed fair for me to defend my faith simply because you nominated me. The burden of proof is not upon me to now defend simply because I am mentioned. No but rather you have to prove your claim. That's the problem, you've chosen a common-denominator, "religion" and put everyone under it as, "guilty-as-charged". Hardly moral if atheists are laughing at you thinking, "haha! I wasn't mentioned, and I am certainly sexist" Lol,"But it can be proved that women can be victimized by atheists, and not victimized by religious people, which means logically that the victimization is caused by the SIN of the ones actually committing it, whoever they are, not by "religion" itself. (unless you mean false-religion, in which case false-religion is designed to SUIT men, so that's another claim, but you have to show why the particular religion is clearly false. Do your own studying, instead of indolently including my TRUE faith.)My father/grandfather were sexist as atheists, I have not been as a Christian, because obviously overt sin can't be incorporated into the genuine Christian walk. The bible says we are to "esteem ourselves" as LESS than others. So not only do we "do equality" but we deem ourselves as worth less, and are servants to others and must "do to others as we would have them do to us".Haven't you ever read the bible? Or do you think we don't study anything it says and do it? Or do you just grant people their claim, when they say, "I am Christian" yet Christ Himself said, "you shall know them by their fruit", a bad tree brings forth bad fruit and a good tree brings forth good fruit. Since I study these things every day of my life and you don't know those teachings even exist, then I find it a bit galling to be told I am doing something I am not even doing.To say religion as a whole is evil, you must prove sexism in each religion if each religion is mutually exclusive. Some religions are not mutually exclusive or they over-lap. Christianity mutually excludes all other religions and ideologies, and can't therefore be judged by them.If Mohamad is beating his wife, that doesn't mean I am beating my wife. Perhaps then agnosts, atheists and humanists should ALL get a course in critical thinking? (of course I don't genuinely argue this BTQ).Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

People conflate two different issues, especially when it comes to Christians.1. Sexism.
2. Gender roles.For a woman to have a baby, and for God to see that as a role, isn't sexism because that's how He made the biology. For God to make a male with a role isn't sexism, for example, there are advantages for each sides, in that a man is expected to go to war but not a woman.If we look at Christian-cultures, the empirical evidence shows that women are happy according to the rules, if we look at the Amish for example, they are not violently aborting babies according to confused atheist morality that only deals with EFFECT rather than cause. But I have seen that those type of women have a quality that the Western-women did not have. It was proven in a TV-program, and what we saw was that the strong western feminist-nutcase jobs were actually just spoilt-brats obsessed with their rights, and brought up that way, having not actually experienced anything negative themselves, but the Amish females were everything they were created to be.Wise, intelligent, benevolent, gentle, humble, happy, had strong moral values, and their character was excellent.The girls from the west were loose, rude, would curse, argue, shout, overly-opinionated, and self-obsessed. Drink, etc.. and had no self-control.We can clearly see that the God-intended way trumps the bizarre morality of the secularists which basically makes you your own moral god and doesn't care what mess you make when you have pleased the rampant flesh beyond description. Drugs, alcohol, loose sex, abortion, cursing, loud personalities, violence, no respect for people, no respect for the one who made you or what God thinks. etc...it is clear that the omniscient-instructions are far wiser than the rights-obsessed secularists, who are happy for murderers to get out of prison and murder again, as long as the murderer has his rights, his TV, his playstation and his well-fed belly.Soon we shall see murderers and rapists not jailed, but instead they get a fine. Lol

Whoah there - you're running a whole bunch of steps together with this one.No one is going to argue that it's sexism for women to bear babies. They've got the uterus - the gig's definitely theirs. Nothing to do with sexism, I agree.How do you get from there to a position that men are expected to go to war, and women not ?You seem to be suggesting that because women give birth, there are a whole load of things that they shouldn't be doing in a society. Why ?

You asked earlier about how I understood prosperity. I said, "I simply meant a safer, healthier environment for everyone regardless of any belief system".That is not the case in Saudi. It works for those who have the "right" breeding and the "right"set of beliefs, and it works for those who serve them but not so well for everyone else.How many people from the rest of the world are clamoring to get into Saudi as compared to our own country? Prosperity isn't all about financial wealth. That wasn't my point. In this thread you have twisted what I have said according in order to from an argument. You ask what I meant by prosperity and then continue to contend that I mean something else by it.

Bit confused about this statemant followed by an immediate second post. But never mind. Can you please point me at this empirical evidence.

Right. Wrong.The ability to have a baby is an extra role that women have. There is no necessary give-and-take where they have to give up something else. That isn't clear at all. In fact, an argument could be made for the opposite.