Women. Religion’s longest running victims.

I guess that's is what makes it my opinion. The idea that is the right thing to do is again JMHO, and apparently yours, but of course that isn't grounded in fact either.I'll have to leave this discussion as I'm off to my volunteer job which again, IMHO, is time better spent than splitting hairs here.

That's the second time you've been right in this thread. You should quit while you're ahead

I cudda sworn it was the third but who's counting.

This math is way too simple to model education spending. One problem with saving money by not educating people is that educated people generate a return on the money invested in educating them, while having large groups of uneducated people actually creates a drag and produces costs to society.When those things are taken into account, I doubt that you can make an economic justification for not educating any significant group of people, at least not a justification that works past the very short term.

I'm not trying to justify anything or model anything. I was responding to the statement that, "If societies can afford to educate men they can afford to educate women," in Message 38. That is far too simple a model of education spending; I pointed out one objection to it.

You did object. I am arguing that your objection is wrong. Not educating the second group does not save you any money. Doing so actually costs society.

I doubt that such a blanket statement is supportable. You can often save money by directed spending.

Unless you are prepared to defend the proposition that a "directed" spending plan that involves identifying education spending at birth based on one's genitals, it ought to be pretty clear that what you are trying to lump under "often" does not fit.Not educating something like 50% of the population has a cost. And you cannot possibly apportion those costs and make rational decisions about who to educate at birth. That's why we make those decisions about who gets scholarship and college entry at a much later point in life.

So you claim.But you're losing the plot. My original statement, the only point I'm trying to make, is that you can't pontificate what "prosperity" means to everybody. Maybe not educating women has a financial "cost" but maybe it also has a social benefit. The Saudis might say it does.How do you compare financial cost with social costs to come up with a one-size-fits-all "cost"?

You cannot do that if you simply adopt the position that every choice and outcome is equally viable.However I don't do that. I believe the choice of deciding not to educate large groups of people has already been demonstrated to be a costly one based on actual practice in this country. That was a choice schools in many parts of the South made for black people under the "separate but unequal" policy approved by the Supreme Court in Plessy vs. Ferguson. And the legacy of such policies are still evident 60 years later. The Saudi's do not escape such costs -- they simply discount them.Most western governments have already been through periods when women were shut out of education. We don't have to respect the choices others have made to repeat those errors. We may have to respect their sovereignty, but not their choices.

We're not just talking about "this country". The OP specifies "civilized and enlightened societies", including Muslim societies; it's not just about your narrow parochial view. Exactly. They don't place the same value on the same things as you do. That's what I've been saying. You can't decide unilaterally that they are "less preosperous"; only they can. Who asked you to respect anybody's choices?

jarA good beginning to freeing women would be to get people to read scriptures in a non-literal way. He shall rule over you has been used long enough to bludgeon women into second class citizens. Right?I take it from your troll and spam remark that you do not see the discrimination I do or you just don't care.That is quite normal for Christians. That is why in this modern age we have to deal with unjustified discrimination.Regards
DL

ringoHow can one have a better relationship with a God who is absentee and who has never even been seen?Is that like you using your other hand for a change and thinking it is someone else's hand?Regards
DLEdited by Greatest I am, : No reason given.

Ignorance is your forte it seems.The question was "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?"We have read scripture in a non-literal way (as did the Jews) for hundreds of years.We do not treat women as second class citizens.Perhaps before you hit & run, trool and make unfounded assertions it might be a good idea to at least try to determine the facts.Look up Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori.And so again... How should my religion "free" the women members?

Your opinion on God's existence is irrelevant. I said that people like the Taliban may think that they are "more prosperous" because they are obeying God by not educating women. Only their opinion on the existence of God is relevant to their ideas about obeying God.