Covering up women

[Timberline]

I wasn’t aware judicial robes, police uniforms, military uniforms,,,, were dress codes enforced by private enterprise, my mistake.

DK- You won't see a judge wearing judicial robes while running a marathon. Or hiking. Or working on the roof of a house for Habitat for Humanity on a hot day.

Military uniforms, too, vary with the task at hand. You won't see soldiers wearing t-shirts at a formal dinner, nor will you see them wearing dress uniforms while jogging 10 miles in basic training. One "uniform" does not fit all occasions.

Since dress codes are employed around the world in every culture I don’t see where Westerns get off telling Islamic people how to dress. I am not free to walk into a 5 star French Restaurant in my underwear

I have no problem with dress codes in general. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" makes sense in a restaurant for hygenic reasons. A business may demand a suit and tie for aesthetic reasons.

I see two unique problems with traditional Islamic dress. 1. It's so extreme as to be unhealthy and activity-limiting, and 2. It's discriminatory.

The issue is not so much the idea of a dress code itself, but its results: putting certain activities off-limits to one group of people (women) but not to others. That's discrimination, and I don't think "Europe running rough shod over Islamic nations for centuries" should make discrimination in those same nations morally acceptable. If discrimination wasn't moral in South Africa, then it shouldn't be in Saudi Arabia.

Muslims could immediately silence many critics, like me, simply by adopting a non-discriminatory dress code, i.e. the same parts of the body must be covered for both men and women. If Muslim men had to go a month in summer with only their faces and hands exposed at all times in public, I think they'd discover just how uncomfortable, limiting, and impractical that often is. When it comes to clothing, "one size fits all" doesn't work. One style of clothing does not fit all occasions or activities.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NC
Abrahamic monotheism is conservativeOriginally posted by Mendeh
Correction: Conservative Abrahamic monotheism is conservative. The Church of England, and Reform Judaism, is quite, dare I say it, liberal.
There is no need to correct a statement which was correct already. Liberal Abrahamic monotheism is an oxymoron. Why do you think they call it reformed Judaism? Reformed Judaism is nothing more than liberalized Judaism.
Originally posted by NC
Polytheism is liberal.
Originally posted by Mendeh
Wrong. The Egyptians listed homosexuality as one of the sins worthy of having your soul destroyed. The Romans hardly behaved like liberals; they went out and killed people until they agreed to do what the Romans told them to. The Athenians kept their women in the home almost all the time, kept slaves, and only adult male citizens could vote. The Spartans kept a Helot underclass controlled by treating them about as savagely as possible. The Aztec civilization was extremely authoritarian, and was very fond of human sacrifice. Don't even get me started on ancient China.

Polytheism liberal? Don't make me laugh.

Start laughing. I make a simple comparison between Abrahamic monotheism and polytheism, yet nothing is simple when talking to liberals. As an Abrahamic monotheist, I am very conservative with my gods. I only believe in ONE.

Originally posted by NC
Also, they tended to share the same liberal sexual attitudes.

Originally posted by Mendeh
Wrong. Please see Ancient Egypt, pre-Imperial Rome, ancient Athens, etc. None of these societies had liberal sexual attitudes. Quite the reverse. Egypt I've already spoken of; virginity was especially prized in Greece and Rome, and in Athens married women were barely let out the house, let alone allowed to cavort with men who weren't their husband. You've been watching too many crappy Hollywood movies about the ancient world.

And I might point out that the Greeks and Romans might have thought Mohammed marrying four different women, one of them actually pre-pubescant, smacks of a rather liberal sexual attitude, too.

Again, I make a simple comparison between the sexual attitudes of Abrahamic monotheism and polytheism, but you didn't get the point. I never said that ALL polytheists have orgies every other night. Abrahamic monotheists are conservative with their gods and their sexuality, whereas liberal polytheists, IN GENERAL, tend to be much more liberal with their gods and their sexuality. Either you get the point or you don't.

Originally posted by NC
Moreover, they tended to share the same hatred, enmity, and intolerance towards Abrahamic monotheism.

Originally posted by Mendeh
The Romans didn't just persecute Jews and Christians. They persecuted a lot of other cults, too; for example the Isis cult. They persecuted them because their teachings didn't fall in line with Roman thinking.

Yes, polytheists can be very intolerant people. Not only can they be intolerant of Abrahamic monotheists, but they also can be intolerant of other pagans as well. This isn't what you and most of the liberals try to portray to the masses in the modern world. You portray to the world that the Abrahamic monotheists are intolerant of polytheists. The truth is that the polytheists are the real bigots, but what happens is the Abrahamic monotheists wind up getting blamed in the end. The oppressors portray themselves as oppressed, and the oppressed are portrayed as oppressors. It's completely backwards.
Originally posted by Mendeh
I ask you, what does this have more in common with: Pakistan's blasphemy law, or, say, freedom of speech in the USA?
If you are intolerant of my speech, then I am going to be intolerant of your speech. If you are intolerant of my religion, then I am going to be intolerant of your religion. I am not going to be tolerant of everybody's speech and religion because not everybody in this world is tolerant of my speech and religion. In other words, the First Amendment is nonsense to me.

When one tolerates intolerance, they sign their own death warrant. If the Germans would have been intolerant of Hitler, right from the beginning, 6 million Jews wouldn't have lost their lives in death camps.

Originally posted by Mendeh
In short, Abrahamic monotheism has shown rather more intolerance of ancient polytheism than ancient polytheism has of Abrahamic monotheism. Just look at which is the victor in the world today. I don't see that many people worshipping Baal, Heracles or Isis; do you?

There is a fallacy here. Just because the Abrahamic God seems to be the victor in the world today, that doesn't mean that it's guilty of aggression against polytheism. Muhammad and his people were oppressed by the polytheists in Mecca, but they prevailed over their adversaries in the end. Just because Islam prevailed over the pagan Arabs doesn't mean that Islam was guilty of intolerance. The pagan Arabs were intolerant of Muhammad's monotheism, from the beginning, and so as a result, when Muhammad defeated the pagan Arabs of Mecca, the first thing he did was to destroy all of the idols in the Kaa'ba. Muhammad was intolerant of paganism, but he had good reason to be intolerant of paganism.
Originally posted by NC
Modern liberalism is nothing more than ancient paganism dressed up without the gods of the past.

Originally posted by Mendeh
Absolute rot. Being a liberal does not suppose anything about one's belief in a god or gods, or lack of belief in a god or gods.

I stand by my statement. Modern liberalism is nothing more than an ancient enemy dressed up in a new suit and tie. The clothes have changed, but the enemy is still the same. What is deceiving to most people in the world right now is that they don't recognize this wolf in sheeps clothing. Sheep tend to follow other sheep, and that is why the wolf is a sheep.

Modern liberalism merely substituted church religion for state religion. As is the case with Buddhism, belief in a god isn't a prerequisite for a religion to be a religion, so the same holds true for the new state religion. As was the case with the church hierarchy, the new state religion has its own high priests - liberal politicians. Also, they have their own sacred text - The Constitution. In other words, separation of church and state is actually misleading because what they did, in essence, was to substitute one religion for another.

Originally posted by Mendeh
Now I think what you may mean by liberalism is "things that intolerant reactionaries, like conservative Muslims, don't like". Unfortunately for you, that's not really anybody else's definition of the term.

I am not a conservative Muslim nor a liberal Muslim. I am simply a Muslim, which implies, by definition, that I am conservative with my gods and my sexuality. I am to the left of the Taliban and to the right of you and the rest of the liberals.

[Mendeh]

The justification for the veil and the burqa is that they protect women from lustful male gazes. This is both a sexist and incoherent practice for two reasons:

(1) If a man is pestering a woman, then who is at fault? Blatantly the man. In a truly just society where this was a problem, the rule ought to be be, "men mustn't look at women", not "women should hide under blankets whenever they go out in case a man happens to be passing by".

(2) It's taken for granted than men will be aroused by pretty much any female body-part; yet nobody assumes that women (or for that matter, some men) will be aroused by a nice, trim male physique. In a truly just society, everyone would be subject to the same laws of dress.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by dk
That's a very astute observation, and I think based on solid historical footing. Yet, in a more strict sense all the Abrahamic prophets are measured by history as reformers, builders, and ultimately peace makers, therefore rightfully critized by polytheists for war, injustices and corruption.

What is somewhat ironic is that the prophets challenged the status quo, which is usually something ascribed to liberals. Abraham challenged the idol worship of his people. Moses challenged the Pharoah and Jesus challenged the Pharisees. Likewise, Muhammad challenged the pagan Arabs. They were a conservative minority, challenging the liberal polytheists who were defending the status quo of their day. All of the prophets were looked upon as trouble makers.

Originally posted by dk
How do you respond to the criticism made by polytheist liberals, that dress codes are the mask of injustice?

Liberals are constantly looking for a victim, and if they can't find one, then they will invent one. Are ALL dress codes masks for injustice? As you have pointed out to the liberals here so many times, Muslims are not the only people who have dress codes. Why are they focusing so much attention on Islam? The reason is that the liberals have an agenda of their own, and sex is used as a weapon in their arsenal in order to undermine the Abrahamic religions.

They would love nothing more than to liberalize Islam and Muslims if they could, in the same way they have liberalized Christianity and Judaism. In fact, in the Muslim world, they already have done that to a large degree, especially back in the 60's and 70's. Actually, most of the so called fundamentalist movements in the Muslim world are right-wing reactionary movements to the liberalization process. In other words, the international liberals, who have been constantly trying to liberalize the Muslim world for the last 200 years, are the ones who are responsible for creating new fundamentalist movements every day. The international liberals helped to create people like Usama bin Laden, and then when he ordered his followers to attack America on 9/11, the first people that came running to the Muslim community after the attacks were the liberals in the US. The liberals are not the friends and protectors of Muslims and they never will be.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Muslims are not the only people who have dress codes. Why are they focusing so much attention on Islam?

The fact that some Muslims enforce their dress code with murder (http://news.indiainfo.com/2002/12/21/21jkbehead.html) may have something to do with it:

Woman beheaded in J&K for not wearing burqa
Saturday, December 21 2002 15:39 Hrs (IST)

Close on the heels of the killing of three girls ostensibly to enforce a diktat on wearing burqa, militants beheaded another woman in Rajouri district of Jammu and Kashmir on December 20 night, police said on December 21.

Does anyone know of any other dress code enforced in such a way?

[Mendeh]

NonContradiction wrote:
"Liberal Abrahamic monotheism is an oxymoron"

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are faiths derived from the monotheism of Abraham: they're not identical with it. You couldn't claim Islam is any more unadulterated Abrahamic monotheism than you could claim it of Christianity: both have added new material to what Abraham would have believed and practised. Judaism may be rather closer to the religion practised by Abraham, but even the most Orthodox Jew couldn't be strictly called an Abrahamic monotheist, since new material was being added to Judaism long after Abraham was dead: Abraham couldn't have known about the 10 Commandments or any of the Jewish law in Exodus; nor could he have celebrated Passover (for rather obvious reasons).

If Liberal Abrahamic monotheism is to be an oxymoron, then by the same logic Islam cannot be accurately called "Abrahamic monotheism"; it may be derived from the monotheism of Abraham, but it is not identical with it.

You either have to accept that it's possible to be a liberal Abrahamic monotheist, or you have to stop calling conservative Islam the one true "Abrahamic monotheism", since it isn't close to the monotheism that Abraham practised.


I said: Polytheism liberal? Don't make me laugh.
NonContradiction said: Start laughing.

The ethics of ancient religions, polytheist or not, cannot be termed "liberal" in the modern political sense of the word. No ancient culture believed in sexual equality. No ancient culture can truly be called democratic (not even Athens; only adult male citizens could vote, a minority of the population). No ancient culture was not, to some extent, racist. No ancient culture believed that humans should be as free as possible. None of these ideas were the philosophies of governments until quite recently. I repeat, you cannot call any ancient society "liberal" by our standards. Whether they were polytheist or monotheist makes utterly no difference: they weren't liberal in any modern sense of the term.

Abrahamic monotheists are conservative with their gods and their sexuality, whereas liberal polytheists, IN GENERAL, tend to be much more liberal with their gods and their sexuality. Either you get the point or you don't.

I do get your point, and it is factually inaccurate. You cannot just take the sexual mores of various societies and thereby decide how liberal or conservative they are. Athens was one of the most patriarchal, conservative and misogynistic societies in the ancient world. The fact that it was fairly usual for a (male) paedogogus to have sexual relations with his (male) student doesn't make that society liberal; rather it proves my point that a society's sexual behaviour has nothing to do with how liberal or conservative it is politically or ethically. We're talking about a society where a man couldn't even go into another man's house unless the head of that household was there with him at all times, in case he should come into contact with any of the women there.
At the height of the Roman empire the upper classes got up to all sorts of naughty things, but the government ruled with a fist of steel, and laws were harsher and more arbitrary than ever. Depending on the whim of the judge, a petty criminal could find himself being ripped apart by wild animals or "just" thrown in jail to rot.
In Egypt women were supposed to have the same legal rights as men (absolutely unheard of anywhere else at the time, especially in that particular society which you believe actually had an omniscient being on hand to give them their laws); but the evidence suggests that they still rarely were given that parity. And though Egyptian courts were some of the most impartial and fair in the ancient world, over 90% of the population were effectively serfs.

I repeat my point: whether a society is polytheistic or monotheistic in the ancient world makes no difference, it cannot in any modern sense of the term be called liberal.

If you are intolerant of my speech, then I am going to be intolerant of your speech. If you are intolerant of my religion, then I am going to be intolerant of your religion.

The fact that we disagree vehemently does not make either one of us intolerant of the other. I am not seeking to silence you. Acually we are having a debate, a debate that we could not have in, for example, Pakistan, where some of us on this thread could by now be tried for blasphemy. If found guilty, we could be slaughtered by the state. Now in Europe or the States, you can say whatever you like; you're not going to get your head cut off as a result. Where stagnation of thought occurs, testing and questioning become heresy because those who hold power are unable to rationally defend the system that they operate. That is the face of modern religious fundamentalism, ably modelled by various Islamic groups, right-wing Christian churches, and, lest we forget them, dangerous cults like Scientology and the Moonies.

There is a fallacy here. Just because the Abrahamic God seems to be the victor in the world today, that doesn't mean that it's guilty of aggression against polytheism. Muhammad and his people were oppressed by the polytheists in Mecca, but they prevailed over their adversaries in the end.
By, if I remember rightly, conquering them. Going in and murdering people until they agree to do what you tell them to. Technically, you can't actually get much more aggressive than that.

The pagan Arabs were intolerant of Muhammad's monotheism, from the beginning, and so as a result, when Muhammad defeated the pagan Arabs of Mecca, the first thing he did was to destroy all of the idols in the Kaa'ba. Muhammad was intolerant of paganism, but he had good reason to be intolerant of paganism.

Ahem. You rather seem to be arguing my point that ancient polytheistic societies were not, in any modern sense of the word, liberal.


I am not a conservative Muslim nor a liberal Muslim. I am simply a Muslim

The Taliban claim they're the only proper Muslims; the Sunni Muslims claim they're the only proper Muslims, the Shi'ite Muslims claim they're the only proper Muslims, and now, mercy me! if you're not claiming that you're the only proper Muslim, too. I'm sure I don't know what to think, now.

Edited several times to tone down strength of language.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Does anyone know of any other dress code enforced in such a way?

Why, the "enforced freedom" of liberals, who are FORCED to wear what they want. :boohoo:

:D

[dk]

dk: I wasn’t aware judicial robes, police uniforms, military uniforms,,,, were dress codes enforced by private enterprise, my mistake.
Timberline: DK- You won't see a judge wearing judicial robes while running a marathon. Or hiking. Or working on the roof of a house for Habitat for Humanity on a hot day.
Military uniforms, too, vary with the task at hand. You won't see soldiers wearing t-shirts at a formal dinner, nor will you see them wearing dress uniforms while jogging 10 miles in basic training. One "uniform" does not fit all occasions.
dk: hmmm, I agree, the issue isn’t about dress codes, but controlling how people act.


dk: Since dress codes are employed around the world in every culture I don’t see where Westerns get off telling Islamic people how to dress. I am not free to walk into a 5 star French Restaurant in my underwear
Timberline: I have no problem with dress codes in general. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" makes sense in a restaurant for hygenic reasons. A business may demand a suit and tie for aesthetic reasons.
I see two unique problems with traditional Islamic dress. 1. It's so extreme as to be unhealthy and activity-limiting, and 2. It's discriminatory.
The issue is not so much the idea of a dress code itself, but its results: putting certain activities off-limits to one group of people (women) but not to others. That's discrimination, and I don't think "Europe running rough shod over Islamic nations for centuries" should make discrimination in those same nations morally acceptable. If discrimination wasn't moral in South Africa, then it shouldn't be in Saudi Arabia.
Muslims could immediately silence many critics, like me, simply by adopting a non-discriminatory dress code, i.e. the same parts of the body must be covered for both men and women. If Muslim men had to go a month in summer with only their faces and hands exposed at all times in public, I think they'd discover just how uncomfortable, limiting, and impractical that often is. When it comes to clothing, "one size fits all" doesn't work. One style of clothing does not fit all occasions or activities.
dk: If sex discrimination were the underlying issue, then Western reforms would direct their persuasive arguments, constructive criticisms and reforms directly at sexual discrimination, not dress codes. This becomes problematic because whatever good intentions European and US social reformers have get waylaid by the obvious subterfuge. This raises more serious questions with respect to “sexual discrimination” that trumpet the possibility of an even more expansive malevolent agenda.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NC
"Liberal Abrahamic monotheism is an oxymoron"
Originally posted by Mendeh
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are faiths derived from the monotheism of Abraham: they're not identical with it. You couldn't claim Islam is any more unadulterated Abrahamic monotheism than you could claim it of Christianity: both have added new material to what Abraham would have believed and practised. Judaism may be rather closer to the religion practised by Abraham, but even the most Orthodox Jew couldn't be strictly called an Abrahamic monotheist, since new material was being added to Judaism long after Abraham was dead: Abraham couldn't have known about the 10 Commandments or any of the Jewish law in Exodus; nor could he have celebrated Passover (for rather obvious reasons).
You are really having a very difficult time here comparing Abrahamic monotheism with polytheism. You are going on and on about the Abrahamic religions, but look at my statement above. Where did I mention anything about the Abrahamic religions?

Let me try this once again. As an Abrahamic monotheist, my FREEDOM to worship more than one god is severly limited - sounds pretty conservative to me. As a polytheist, my FREEDOM to worship any god I so desire would be unlimited - sounds pretty liberal to me. If we make a simple comparison between Abrahamic monotheism and polytheism, I don't see how anyone could not conclude that Abrahamic monotheism, by definition, is MUCH more conservative than polytheism. In the former my freedom to worship is severly limited, and in the latter my freedom is unlimited. What is your problem? Are you going to admit that Abrahamic monotheism is conservative and polytheism is liberal, or do you want us to continue to go in circles here?

You are proving that liberals are not concerned with truth. They are more concerned with distorting the truth and arguing for the sake of arguing than they are anything else.

Originally posted by Mendeh
If Liberal Abrahamic monotheism is to be an oxymoron, then by the same logic Islam cannot be accurately called "Abrahamic monotheism"; it may be derived from the monotheism of Abraham, but it is not identical with it.

You either have to accept that it's possible to be a liberal Abrahamic monotheist, or you have to stop calling conservative Islam the one true "Abrahamic monotheism", since it isn't close to the monotheism that Abraham practised.

See above.

[dk]

dk: That's a very astute observation, and I think based on solid historical footing. Yet, in a more strict sense all the Abrahamic prophets are measured by history as reformers, builders, and ultimately peace makers, therefore rightfully critized by polytheists for war, injustices and corruption.
NonContradiction: What is somewhat ironic is that the prophets challenged the status quo, which is usually something ascribed to liberals. Abraham challenged the idol worship of his people. Moses challenged the Pharoah and Jesus challenged the Pharisees. Likewise, Muhammad challenged the pagan Arabs. They were a conservative minority, challenging the liberal polytheists who were defending the status quo of their day. All of the prophets were looked upon as trouble makers.
dk: I don’t think its fair to say Abraham challenged idol worship, and if he did the challenge fell on deaf ears. Rather, Abraham subscribed his household (descendants) to a blood oath, covenant…circumcision. A blood oath has two components a blessing (commitment) and a curse, like… I promise x, and to prove my commitment I cross my heart and hope to die if I break my promise. When Abrahamic peoples claim the covenant, they necessarily accept both the blessing and the curse.


dk: How do you respond to the criticism made by polytheist liberals, that dress codes are the mask of injustice?
NonContradiction: Liberals are constantly looking for a victim, and if they can't find one, then they will invent one. Are ALL dress codes masks for injustice? As you have pointed out to the liberals here so many times, Muslims are not the only people who have dress codes. Why are they focusing so much attention on Islam? The reason is that the liberals have an agenda of their own, and sex is used as a weapon in their arsenal in order to undermine the Abrahamic religions.
dk: I would simply say modern liberals (polytheists and monists) focus upon ego, then direct and commit themselves to the fullest and most generous development of personal ego. Where a theistic conservative aspires to acquire virtue and avoid vice, a polytheist liberal ranks virtue and vice in units of ego, the bigger the better. Therefore a polytheistic liberal believes evil stems from the guilt that stifles personal growth and experiences essential to a health ego (the bigger the better). Liberals also believe deviant antisocial behavior stems from a repressed ego. In a liberal world repressed people boil in their own guilt, and when enough steam builds up it leaks neurosis that often erupts into uncontrolled acts of violence. That’s how I interpret the post-modern liberal fixation on the garbs Arab women wear. US secular government schools spend vast resources on a pedagogy that systematically indoctrinates children to believe that any personal judgment that projects guilt upon self or others can not be tolerated, and everything else must be tolerated. Crazy ain’t it, but this explains why liberal social reformers view Arab Shariah dress codes as abject social repression and therefore intolerable. It explains the preoccupation in the US with big cars, big penises, big breasts, big buildings, big productions and gaudy outlandish conduct no matter how subversive, destructive and senseless.


NonContradiction: They would love nothing more than to liberalize Islam and Muslims if they could, in the same way they have liberalized Christianity and Judaism. In fact, in the Muslim world, they already have done that to a large degree, especially back in the 60's and 70's. Actually, most of the so called fundamentalist movements in the Muslim world are right-wing reactionary movements to the liberalization process. In other words, the international liberals, who have been constantly trying to liberalize the Muslim world for the last 200 years, are the ones who are responsible for creating new fundamentalist movements every day. The international liberals helped to create people like Usama bin Laden, and then when he ordered his followers to attack America on 9/11, the first people that came running to the Muslim community after the attacks were the liberals in the US. The liberals are not the friends and protectors of Muslims and they never will be.
dk: I think Moslems need to look past the apparent to grasp the divine. In the 15th and 16th Centuries the Nations of Islam in the cause of a holy war drove Western Europe into the Atlantic, and that lead to the Age of Discovery that marginalized the Great Islamic Empire. Today Europe and liberal polytheists in the US can’t produce enough healthy children to field an army, or maintain infrastructure, much less man the industrial complex. Liberal Europe has been forced by their own intellectual, spiritual and cultural infertility to court Moslem workers as a source of cheap labor. US liberals depend on a dwindling middle class, Hispanic wet backs and an oppressed minority to sustain themselves. The crunch the Arab world faces doesn’t come from liberals at all, and much less liberal Jews/Christians that won’t remain Jewish or Christian very long. The real crunch the Arab world faces stems from the new sources of renewable energy, because they will make Arab oil fields obsolete. Fanatics like bin Laden form a wedge that drive good Moslems, Jews and Christians apart and in doing so make endless secular wars the only possible future. I personally don’t give a rats ass about dress codes, but Moslem women need education, because the gifts of an educated mother are multiplied with each child. The same is true for Jewish and Christian mothers.

[Mendeh]

NonContradiction, I'm sorry but I stand by what I have said.

(1) You cannot call any ancient society liberal, in the modern sense of the term, no matter how many giant people they thought lived up in the sky.

(2) If you are an Abrahamic monotheist, you are not a Muslim, because Abraham did not follow Islam. If you are a Muslim, you follow a religion that is derived from Abrahamic monotheism.

(3) You are using "liberal" and "conservative" in two different senses, numerical and political, and you are failing to draw distinction between the two. In the strict numerical sense of the word, yes, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all conservative regarding the number of gods worshipped. However, that doesn't mean that modern Judaism, Christianity and Islam necessarily must be politically conservative.

If we make a simple comparison [regarding the number of gods worshipped] between Abrahamic monotheism and polytheism, I don't see how anyone could not conclude that Abrahamic monotheism, by definition, is MUCH more conservative than polytheism.

Of course you would conclude that if you only look at the number of gods worshipped, and that's precisely why I've been banging on for the last three posts about the importance of taking into account the whole religion when you're trying to decide how conservative or liberal it is. Because when you actually bother to look at their ethical beliefs and societal hierarchy, you see that actually ancient polytheistic societies weren't liberal at all, certainly not in the modern sense of the word.

What is your problem? Are you going to admit that Abrahamic monotheism is conservative and polytheism is liberal, or do you want us to continue to go in circles here?
No, because it isn't true. Modern religions derived from Abrahamic monotheism are not necessarily conservative, and no ancient polytheistic religion endorsed what may be called a liberal agenda: quite the reverse in fact.

You are proving that liberals are not concerned with truth. They are more concerned with distorting the truth and arguing for the sake of arguing than they are anything else.
Have you heard of the term, "projection"?

[cheetah]

Originally posted by dk
If sex discrimination were the underlying issue, then Western reforms would direct their persuasive arguments, constructive criticisms and reforms directly at sexual discrimination, not dress codes. This becomes problematic because whatever good intentions European and US social reformers have get waylaid by the obvious subterfuge. This raises more serious questions with respect to “sexual discrimination” that trumpet the possibility of an even more expansive malevolent agenda.

I think sex discrimination is the underlying issue, both in this thread and in general. They use the dress as an example of how sex discrimination is carried out, but are not against the dress per se. I am sure anyone who ever says something says, "Look how they HAVE to dress" or "how they are FORCED to dress" and are calling attention both to their feelings that the dress may not be comfortable, but primarily to the lack of choice in the dress. If women were forced to wear jeans and t-shirts everywhere, there might be a similar uproar about the forcing issue, though I agree, perhaps not as much because there would be a decreased sense of being physically harmed, but still some, because people would be affronted that women were unable to, say, wear gowns to fancy balls and restaurants.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Mendeh
The ethics of ancient religions, polytheist or not, cannot be termed "liberal" in the modern political sense of the word.
Why not? There is evidence to the contrary. Homosexuality is a political agenda in the modern world, and it appears as though there is a strong link to the ancient world of Greece.


In his introduction to Edward FitzGerald’s famous adaptation of Omar Khayyam’s ‘Rubáiyát’, the editor remarks that:

FitzGerald (1809-1883) found himself a homosexual in a society that, while it admired and respected a civilization [that of classical Athens] that gloried in, and boasted of, its homosexuality, itself found the behaviour so offensive as to be virtually unmentionable.

Despite some progress in this matter since the Victorian age, it still does not seem that the full extent and importance of male love in classical Athens and throughout all of ancient Greece is common knowledge today. Indeed that knowledge may be even rarer than it was in FitzGerald’s time, since classical studies are no longer presented in most schools, and in the universities the subject attracts only the few.

It is important in the beginning to define our vocabulary. The term ’homosexuality’ as it is used and understood today is not applicable to Greek antiquity for two reasons: First of all, most Greeks were bisexual. Second, passion and erotic love between two adult men, a model that has gained social tolerance in most civilized countries in the last decades, was generally considered unusual and held up to ridicule. Male love in Greece was love between a man and a youth.

Originally posted by Mendeh
No ancient culture believed in sexual equality. No ancient culture can truly be called democratic (not even Athens; only adult male citizens could vote, a minority of the population). No ancient culture was not, to some extent, racist. No ancient culture believed that humans should be as free as possible. None of these ideas were the philosophies of governments until quite recently. I repeat, you cannot call any ancient society "liberal" by our standards.

Yes, I can call an ancient society "liberal" by our standards. The fact that "boy love" was culturally accepted, and even encouraged in ancient Greece, indicates that they were far more liberal than we are in the modern world.

Second, the idea that modern liberals are tolerant, and that conservatives are racist, intolerant bigots is a lie. Liberals can be as racist and intolerant as anybody else. Have you ever heard of reverse discrimination? Also, totalitarianism and liberalism are NOT mutually exclusive. How many times have I mentioned The Reign of Terror? Are the liberals deaf, dumb, and blind?
Originally posted by NC
Abrahamic monotheists are conservative with their gods and their sexuality, whereas liberal polytheists, IN GENERAL, tend to be much more liberal with their gods and their sexuality. Either you get the point or you don't.

Originally posted by Mendeh
I do get your point, and it is factually inaccurate. You cannot just take the sexual mores of various societies and thereby decide how liberal or conservative they are.

Why not? You don't get my point.
Originally posted by Mendeh
Athens was one of the most patriarchal, conservative and misogynistic societies in the ancient world. The fact that it was fairly usual for a (male) paedogogus to have sexual relations with his (male) student doesn't make that society liberal;

As if being conservative and being misogynistic go hand in hand. Are you saying that liberals are the good guys and the conservatives are the bad guys? The fact that "boy love" was widely practised in pagan Greece supports my point that polytheists tend be liberal with their gods and their sexual attitudes.
Originally posted by Mendeh
We're talking about a society where a man couldn't even go into another man's house unless the head of that household was there with him at all times, in case he should come into contact with any of the women there.

So what? It still doesn't negate my point that polytheists tend to be liberal with their gods and their sexual attitudes. Ancient Greek civilization supports my point rather than negate it.


Originally posted by Mendeh
At the height of the Roman empire the upper classes got up to all sorts of naughty things,

It sure sounds pretty liberal to me. The examples you are bringing are supporting my point. Why can't you see that?


Originally posted by Mendeh
but the government ruled with a fist of steel, and laws were harsher and more arbitrary than ever.

So what? Have you ever heard of the Reign of Terror? They were liberals. Did you hear about what liberals did in Turkey, banning Muslim women from wearing hijab? I have already mentioned all of this before. You must be deaf.

Originally posted by Mendeh
Depending on the whim of the judge, a petty criminal could find himself being ripped apart by wild animals or "just" thrown in jail to rot.

I suppose you want to say that only conservatives would throw people to the lions. Liberals would never do that, would they?

Originally posted by Mendeh
I repeat my point: whether a society is polytheistic or monotheistic in the ancient world makes no difference, it cannot in any modern sense of the term be called liberal.

You can repeat your point all you want. It doesn't make it any truer. Ancient pagan Greek civilization was far more liberal with their gods and their sexual attitudes than we are today in the modern world. I don't even understand why you are arguing over this point. It's a no brainer.

Originally posted by Mendeh
By, if I remember rightly, conquering them. Going in and murdering people until they agree to do what you tell them to. Technically, you can't actually get much more aggressive than that.

When Muhammad defeated the pagan Arabs of Mecca, he did so without any bloodshed. They surrendered. He didn't kill them all, but rather he forgave most of them. Then he destroyed all of the idols in the Ka'aba. Do you have anything else ignorant to say?

Originally posted by Mendeh
Ahem. You rather seem to be arguing my point that ancient polytheistic societies were not, in any modern sense of the word, liberal.

See above.

Originally posted by Mendeh
I am not a conservative Muslim nor a liberal Muslim. I am simply a Muslim.

Originally posted by Mendeh
The Taliban claim they're the only proper Muslims; the Sunni Muslims claim they're the only proper Muslims, the Shi'ite Muslims claim they're the only proper Muslims, and now, mercy me! if you're not claiming that you're the only proper Muslim, too. I'm sure I don't know what to think, now.


You have a listening problem. I am not a Taliban Muslim, nor am I a Sunni Muslim, nor am I a Shi'ite Muslim, nor am I a Wahhabi Muslim or any other KIND of Muslim that you can think of. I am just a Muslim, nothing more or less than that. I have no qualifiers before the word Muslim.

[Dr Rick]

...is a political theory based upon the belief in the inherent goodness of humans and the supremacy of individual autonomy. It is the latter characteristic that most readily distinguishes liberalism from nationalism, socialism, and communism.

Liberalism favors civil and political liberties, protection from arbitrary authority, government by law with the consent of the governed, and places the burden of justification upon those who propose limits to freedom. The Romans and Greeks held the state and society supreme over individual autonomy. They worshipped many gods, and had orgies and sex with boys, but these activities had nothing to do with the political philosophy of liberalism, which didn't even exist until well into the last millineum. A promiscuous individual may or may not be a liberal; promiscuity, homsexuality, and/or bi-sexuality does not automatically make one a liberal. These are sexual practices and orientations, not political philosophies.

The Fundamental Liberal Principle holds that any restrictions on liberty must ultimately be justified as protecting and enhancing the sum of all liberties. As such, the presumption of state power, as in totalitarianism, is not compatible with liberalism.

The philosophy of liberalism is not consistent with Christianity and Islam, both of which presume authority predicated upon the precept that humanity is evil and must be redeemed. However, not everything that is in opposition to these religions is liberalism, and anything that limits the practices of these religions beyond that which is necessary to prevent oppression by religion is not liberalism, either.

See the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jean Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and Adam Smith for more on the fundamentals of liberalism and it corallary, social contract theory.


We now return to the ongoing denounciaions of the "lying, slandering, hypocritical, liberal, deaf, dumb, far-Leftist, blind, bigoted, Wahhabi, conservative, Nazi, Talibani, far-Rightists" by the "non-Sunni, non-Shia, non-Wahhabi, non-Taliban, conservative (but not too conservative), monotheistic, Abrahamic, non-any-KIND-of-Muslim" still in progress.

[Mendeh]

Me: The ethics of ancient religions, polytheist or not, cannot be termed "liberal" in the modern political sense of the word.

NC: Why not? There is evidence to the contrary. Homosexuality is a political agenda in the modern world, and it appears as though there is a strong link to the ancient world of Greece... The fact that "boy love" was culturally accepted, and even encouraged in ancient Greece, indicates that they were far more liberal than we are in the modern world.

Please see Dr. Rick's post. The definition of a liberal is one who values individual liberty. The definition of a liberal society is one which values individual liberty.

Acceptance of homosexuals is part of a liberal agenda in the modern world for the same reason as racial equality is: both homosexuals and racial minorities often find their individual liberty violated. It isn't unusual to be the target of physical abuse, or to be discriminated against in law ('mixed-race' marriage used to be illegal in many countries; in most countries, homosexual marriage still is). This is why liberals seek legal parity and social acceptance for homosexuals; because at present, they do not have it. Homosexuality is not of its nature 'liberal' any more than 'being black' is. If heterosexuals were the ones discriminated against, it would be 'heterosexual rights' which would seem to be a liberal issue.

This is why pederasty in ancient Athens doesn't indicate the existence of people who can be described as 'liberals' in the modern term; it was part of the status quo. Ancient Athens neither valued individual liberty (except for its adult male citizens, a minority of the population), nor had a government that valued individual liberty. It was not a liberal state. You cannot call it "liberal" by our standards.

NC: the idea that modern liberals are tolerant, and that conservatives are racist, intolerant bigots is a lie.
People who do not value the liberty of the individual are not liberals: people who oppress others are not liberals. If someone's actions do not seek to protect individual liberty, they are not acting liberally. It is part of the definition of "liberal" that one tolerates other's liberty to do as they please, as long as they aren't taking anyone else's liberty away in the process.

Me: The Taliban claim they're the only proper Muslims; the Sunni Muslims claim they're the only proper Muslims, the Shi'ite Muslims claim they're the only proper Muslims, and now, mercy me! if you're not claiming that you're the only proper Muslim, too. I'm sure I don't know what to think, now.

NC: You have a listening problem. I am not a Taliban Muslim, nor am I a Sunni Muslim, nor am I a Shi'ite Muslim, nor am I a Wahhabi Muslim or any other KIND of Muslim that you can think of. I am just a Muslim, nothing more or less than that. I have no qualifiers before the word Muslim.

Erm, Q.E.D., I think.

[Mendeh]

When Muhammad defeated the pagan Arabs of Mecca, he did so without any bloodshed. They surrendered. He didn't kill them all, but rather he forgave most of them. Then he destroyed all of the idols in the Ka'aba. Do you have anything else ignorant to say?

My apologies, you're right - that was very careless of me. I was thinking specifically of the spread of Islam by conquest after Mohammed's death, for example:

Invasion of Persia, 632 AD. Takes until 651 AD. 19 years of war.

Invasion of Syria, 632 AD. Takes until 655 AD. 23 years of war. After Damascus was taken, the citizens were told to depart in peace... then every single one of them were mown down by Calid's army.

[greyline]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
...(excellent definition of liberalism that only serves to prove that NC's usage of the term has made it meaningless)


NC would I be right in thinking you have a thing about homosexuality? Take it up with Allah; he made 'em that way.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by greyline
NC would I be right in thinking you have a thing about homosexuality?

It's not about sex or clothes. It's about the gods of the liberals, whether they are explicit or implied. Yes, everybody, including the liberals, have their sacred cows that they don't want to see gored.

America is a liberal state which has become a slave to the desires of the individual. The tail is wagging the dog, and the inmates are running the asylum. Meanwhile, the American people complain that they don't have any leadership in their country. It's obvious why that is.

To assume that man is born free is an assumption that liberals make. Therefore, any restriction of individual freedom must be rationally justified by the state. One could easily assume the opposite, namely, one could easily assume that man was born a slave. Actually, the latter, IMO, is closer to reality than the former. So the bottom line here is why is one assumption better than another? If they are all assumptions, then they can't be rationally justified.

[Farren]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
It's not about sex or clothes. It's about the gods of the liberals, whether they are explicit or implied. Yes, everybody, including the liberals, have their sacred cows that they don't want to see gored.

America is a liberal state which has become a slave to the desires of the individual. The tail is wagging the dog, and the inmates are running the asylum. Meanwhile, the American people complain that they don't have any leadership in their country. It's obvious why that is.

NC would you extend that claim to

Canada
UK
France
Germany
Italy
Spain
Portugal
Belgium
Denmark
The Netherlands
Sweden
Switzerland
Norway
Russia
Brazil
Japan
Australia
South Africa
New Zealand
Mexico
Thailand

and all of the other states where the particular values you tar as "liberal" on this thread are seen as normal, despite vastly differing cultural backgrounds?

Can't you consider for a moment that Islam, by the very fact that it demands a particular, uniform behaviour is an arbitrary value system and the ideas you call "liberal" just the absence of that value system?

Put another way: If you had to share space with two people on a desert island and one said "You must act like this", while the other said "do what you want", who would be projecting a set of values on you?

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Meanwhile, the American people complain that they don't have any leadership in their country. It's obvious why that is.

Americans have been complaining about their country since it was first conceived; the obvious reason why that is is that we can complain about it. We all know there is room for improvement in America; that was, is, and will always be the case as long as America is American. Complaints and criticisms are essential to change and improvement in any representative political system. Your freedom to complain about America is part of what makes America a great country.

The subjects of theocracies such as the one in Iran don't complain as much about their leadership; its obvious why that is.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Liberalism is a political theory based upon the belief in the inherent goodness of humans and the supremacy of individual autonomy.

How does one go about proving the supremacy of individual autonomy? This appears to be just an assumption that you are makiing which has no basis in reality.

Thomas Jefferson, following the footsteps of John Locke, posited that a man is born with certain "inalienable rights." He did this in order to provide some sort of rational justification for conducting a revolution against the British. Since the British were violating these "inalienable rights", according to Jefferson, the colonies would be well within their right to call for a revolution. The problem is that no one could prove that these "inalienable rights" even existed. I have no reason to believe that any human being is born with any inherent rights, whatsoever, and every reason to believe that whatever rights I may possess have been bestowed upon me by someone else. There is no such thing as an inherent right, as far as I can tell. Therefore, it appears as though classical liberalism is based upon baseless assumptions.

It is the latter characteristic that most readily distinguishes liberalism from nationalism, socialism, and communism.

If you are talking about the Jeffersonian inalienable rights of individuals to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then you are talking about classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is individualistic. If you are talking about modern liberalism, then you are talking about a horse of another color. Modern liberalism and classical liberalism are mutually exclusive, since modern liberals call for the state to restrict the freedom of individuals in order to administer what they believe to be social justice and equality. Socialism and communism are both offsprings of modern liberalism.

What is ironic is how modern liberals in America have been using the classical liberal agenda of individual liberty to advance their own agenda.

The classical liberals are commonly referred to as political conservatives, which makes it somewhat confusing. The truth is that classical liberals and modern liberals are all liberals, even though they may be on opposite sides of the fence.

Liberalism favors civil and political liberties, protection from arbitrary authority, governmient by law with the consent of the governed, and places the burden of justification upon those who propose limits to freedom. The Romans and Greeks held the state and society supreme over individual autonomy.

Which means that the Greeks and the Romans had more in common with the modern liberals than they did with the classical liberals.

They worshipped many gods, and had orgies and sex with boys, but these activities had nothing to do with the political philosophy of liberalism, which didn't even exist until well into the last millineum.

As a Muslim, I see a connection between the ancient world and the modern world. As I said before, the liberals have their own explicit or implicit gods, just as the Romans and the Greeks had their own gods.


A promiscuous individual may or may not be a liberal; promiscuity, homsexuality, and/or bi-sexuality does not automatically make one a liberal.

Promiscuity may not be a good indicator for you, but it's a pretty good one for me.

The Fundamental Liberal Principle holds that any restrictions on liberty must ultimately be justified as protecting and enhancing the sum of all liberties.

So the liberal state fails to protect children from pornography because it has become a slave to some individual wanting to get his cybersexual jollys. So the liberal state fails to protect our children from being killed by drunk drivers because it has become a slave to the desires of some individual who wants to drink. So the liberal state fails to protect our children from the drug culture because some individual wants to take drugs. It's amazing that in the liberal state one has to wait until one is 18 to be immature and irresponsible like the rest of the adults in the society.

As such, the presumption of state power, as in totalitarianism, is not compatible with liberalism.

Totalitarianism is not compatable with classical liberalism, however, it is compatable with modern liberalism.

The philosophy of liberalism is not consistent with Christianity and Islam,

Well, you have gotten something correct here, at least. Thank God Christianity and Islam are not consistent with the philosophy of liberalism. We would live in a very imbalanced world if we were all liberals.

See the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jean Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and Adam Smith for more on the fundamentals of liberalism and it corallary, social contract theory.

Most of the people you mention here were classical liberals, not modern liberals.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I have no reason to believe that any human being is born with any inherent rights, whatsoever, and every reason to believe that whatever rights I may possess have been bestowed upon me by someone else. There is no such thing as an inherent right, as far as I can tell. Therefore, it appears as though classical liberalism is based upon baseless assumptions.

"How does one go about proving that" whatever rights I may possess have been bestowed upon me by someone else.? "This appears to be just an assumption that you are makiing which has no basis in reality."

How does one go about proving that Allah spoke to Muhammad? There is no such thing as a god, as far as I can tell. Therefore, it appears as though classical Islam is based upon baseless assumptions.[/b][/quote]



What is ironic is how modern liberals in America have been using the classical liberal agenda of individual liberty to advance their own agenda.

What is ironic is how modern Muslims in America have been using their individual liberty to advance their own agenda.

The classical liberals are commonly referred to as political conservatives, which makes it somewhat confusing.

...it makes it especially confusing for the "non-Sunni, non-Shia, non-Wahhabi, non-Taliban, conservative (but not too conservative), monotheistic, Abrahamic, non-any-KIND-of-Muslim" arguing that everyone else is a "lying, slandering, hypocritical, liberal, deaf, dumb, far-Leftist, blind, bigoted, Wahhabi, conservative, Nazi, Talibani, far-Rightist."

Which means that the Greeks and the Romans had more in common with the modern liberals than they did with the classical liberals. As a Muslim, I see a connection between the ancient world and the modern world. As I said before, the liberals have their own explicit or implicit gods, just as the Romans and the Greeks had their own gods.

"You can repeat your point all you want. It doesn't make it any truer. Ancient pagan Greek civilization...with their gods and their sexual attitudes" had nothing to do with liberalism. "I don't even understand why you are arguing over this point. It's a no brainer."

Promiscuity may not be a good indicator for you, but it's a pretty good one for me...So the liberal state fails to protect children from pornography because it has become a slave

In other words, "I'll attribute to liberalism anything I want to since I can't justify Islam any other way."

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Mendeh
Please see Dr. Rick's post. The definition of a liberal is one who values individual liberty. The definition of a liberal society is one which values individual liberty.

Yes, I know about classical liberalism. Your job is to argue why I should accept the supremacy of the individual over the state. So far, I see no reason to do so and every reason NOT to do such a thing. When individuals start telling the state what to do, and what not to do, then the tail is wagging the dog. The state, IMO, should not be a slave of the individual. Individuals should not be allowed to buy the state - whose job it is to protect and promote the general welfare for all - for their own personal selfish reasons.

Perhaps the church was oppressive in the past, no doubt. However, I think that it's becoming painfully obvious that creating a state which is subservient to the desires of individuals wasn't the best solution. In some ways, the freedom of the individual from the church has been extremely beneficial. I doubt very seriously that scientific progress would have continued the way it has if the church had not been deposed. However, creating a state which is subservient to the desires of individuals creates other problems. They merely substituted one form of oppression with another form, but they keep singing the same old song that they are better off without the church. The church may have been bad, but that doesn't mean that a state which is subservient to the desires and whims of individuals is good. The individual, no doubt, needed to be liberated from the church, but it looks as though the state now needs to be liberated from the individual.

Homosexuality is not of its nature 'liberal' any more than 'being black' is.

Because you say it is so doesn't make it so. People can be liberal or conservative with their sexuality, but the same cannot be said about "blackness." Liberals have a mindset, much the same way many religious people do, that prevents them from understanding other points of view. It's amazing to me how liberals don't see how they distort reality to fit their own narrow view of the world. Sexuality and blackness are not analogous.

This is why pederasty in ancient Athens doesn't indicate the existence of people who can be described as 'liberals' in the modern term; it was part of the status quo. Ancient Athens neither valued individual liberty (except for its adult male citizens, a minority of the population), nor had a government that valued individual liberty. It was not a liberal state. You cannot call it "liberal" by our standards.

You completely twisted my statement. If you will recall, I said that polytheists tend to be liberal with their gods and sexuality. I was talking about gods and sexuality. From my statement, you infered that I was saying that the ancient Greeks were as liberal as we are today in every respect. Yes, obviously, if we compare the voting rights of women, or lack of rights, in Athens, with the voting rights of women today, we will find that we are far more liberal. I wasn't talking about voting rights. I was talking about gods and sexuality. They were far more liberal with their gods and their sexuality than we are today. I was talking apples and you started talking about oranges.


People who do not value the liberty of the individual are not liberals: people who oppress others are not liberals.

Hogwash....Some liberals oppress people. Do you want to tell me that they aren't true liberals? To make the state subservient to individuals is oppression, which is what liberals do.


If someone's actions do not seek to protect individual liberty, they are not acting liberally. It is part of the definition of "liberal" that one tolerates other's liberty to do as they please, as long as they aren't taking anyone else's liberty away in the process.

More liberal hogwash. To make the state subservient to the desires of competing individuals means that the state will wind up preferring some individuals over others, which is exactly what is happening today. Liberalism is oppressive, just like the church was oppressive. They have merely substituted one form of oppression for another, yet they keep telling the choir to keep singing the praises of freedom.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
"How does one go about proving that" whatever rights I may possess have been bestowed upon me by someone else.? "This appears to be just an assumption that you are makiing which has no basis in reality."

No, it does have a basis. I can go to the Constitution and read where it says that I have a right to bear arms. Was that an inalienable or alienable right? Why are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or property, as John Locke would say) inalienable rights, and the right to bear arms is not? How do you decide which right is alienable and which one is inalienable?

How does one go about proving that Allah spoke to Muhammad? There is no such thing as a god, as far as I can tell. Therefore, it appears as though classical Islam is based upon baseless assumptions.

I would rather take the Quran over your baseless assumptions any day of the week.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
"You can repeat your point all you want. It doesn't make it any truer. Ancient pagan Greek civilization...with their gods and their sexual attitudes" had nothing to do with liberalism. "I don't even understand why you are arguing over this point. It's a no brainer."

In ancient Greek paganism, individuals worshipped gods. In modern day liberalism, individuals became gods. They are all pagans.

[Donnmathan]

And there is something particularly wrong with pagans? Though I might point out that statement doesn't work in reverse - some pagans are quite anti-liberal.

[dk]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
No, it does have a basis. I can go to the Constitution and read where it says that I have a right to bear arms. Was that an inalienable or alienable right? Why are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or property, as John Locke would say) inalienable rights, and the right to bear arms is not? How do you decide which right is alienable and which one is inalienable? Despite Ricks rather bold, but unsupportable, statement there’s no class or philosophical school of thought that connects Locke and Hobbes (much less Reaussue, Kant etc…). except the general theme of Diesm. Deism was a loose knit hodgepodge of ideas that emerged to fill the intellectual vacuum left by the Reformation, inspired by an odd alignment of necessity, political/economic realities, Bacon’s empiricism, and Descartes rationalism. Still Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence was not hostile monotheism. Here’s a few heavenly excerpts from the DOI to support the point...

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights
appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions
with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence
we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I would rather take the Quran over your baseless assumptions any day of the week.

[Mendeh]

Your job is to argue why I should accept the supremacy of the individual over the state.
Ultimately, there are only individuals. States, like money and the time of day, only exist as a result of communication between humans (individuals). On the other hand, individuals are physical beings who exist despite anyone else's opinions on the matter. They are aware; they think, feel, hurt, laugh; live. A state is not an entity, it is the communication going on in a group of people. Ultimately, there are only individuals who communicate with each other.

that doesn't mean that a state which is subservient to the desires and whims of individuals is good.
Other individuals should not be subservient to the desires and whims of other individuals. A society that believes in the equality of all has a state to protect against this happening.

People can be liberal or conservative with their sexuality, but the same cannot be said about "blackness."
Wrong. One's sexuality, like race, is a matter about which one does not get to choose. Could you choose, right now, only to be aroused by men and not at all by women? No. Could a lesbian choose only to be aroused by men and not at all by women? No. Could a gay man choose only to be aroused by women and not at all by men? No. Your sexuality is exactly like your skin colour in that it is something which you have no control over.

I was talking about gods and sexuality. They were far more liberal with their gods and their sexuality than we are today.
NO. Tolerance of homosexuals and bisexuals is only a liberal issue because at present they are discriminated against. There is nothing intrinsically liberal about being homosexual or bisexual, any more than there is anything intrinsically liberal about being black. Likewise, religious freedom is only a liberal issue because at present, not everyone has it. There is nothing intrinsically liberal about being polytheist, atheist, agnostic or pantheist.

You are using "liberal" in the numerative sense and then trying to convict "liberals" (in the political sense of the word) as a result. This is a huge error of reasoning in your argument; a great gaping non-sequitur, and you're not going to get away with it. It does not follow that people who worship more gods (liberal in the numerative sense) and permit more sexual permutations (liberal in the numerative sense) are therefore going to be more liberal in the political sense.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Most of the people you mention here [John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jean Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and Adam Smith] were classical liberals.

and

Originally posted by dk
there’s no class or philosophical school of thought that connects Locke and Hobbes (much less Reaussue, Kant etc…). except the general theme of Diesm

In keeping with their past performances, NC continuosly redefines liberalism to mean whatever he hopes it might mean, and dk just posts incoherently.

[greyline]

How fortunate that in an Islamic world where the state controlled the individual, NC, as a male, would be one of the ones in charge. And free to marry four wives.

It's bound to colour one's thinking.

"All humans are created equal, but men are more equal than others."

(What happens to the 75% of Muslim men for whom there are no women left to marry?)

[Arctish]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by greyline
[B]How fortunate that in an Islamic world where the state controlled the individual, NC, as a male, would be one of the ones in charge. And free to marry four wives.

And how interesting that using NC's current definition of liberal, by allowing men to have multiple spouses Islam and Mormonism are two of the most sexually liberal religions in the world. ;)

[greyline]

Originally posted by Gemma
And how interesting that using NC's current definition of liberal, by allowing men to have multiple spouses Islam and Mormonism are two of the most sexually liberal religions in the world. ;)


I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation.

Yes, I'm sure there must be.

[dk]

Originally posted by Donnmathan
And there is something particularly wrong with pagans? Though I might point out that statement doesn't work in reverse - some pagans are quite anti-liberal. Pagans are polytheistic, and historically associated with anti-theistic secularism, which in the context of a post modern context means liberalism or the "New Left".

[Donnmathan]

Point taken, dk.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Mendeh
Ultimately, there are only individuals. States, like money and the time of day, only exist as a result of communication between humans (individuals). On the other hand, individuals are physical beings who exist despite anyone else's opinions on the matter. They are aware; they think, feel, hurt, laugh; live. A state is not an entity, it is the communication going on in a group of people. Ultimately, there are only individuals who communicate with each other.

I think that we all understand that Congress is made up of individuals. That's not the issue. As a Muslim, I am a servant, who has the liberty to say and do many things. As a liberal, you are a free man, who has certain restrictions upon your freedom.

Rosseau said that men were born free, yet everywhere they are in chains. Liberals can make the assumption that men are born free, but how are they going to support that statement? It's just a baseless assumption.
Other individuals should not be subservient to the desires and whims of other individuals. A society that believes in the equality of all has a state to protect against this happening.
In a liberal state, it's impossible to prevent some people from lording over others.
Wrong. One's sexuality, like race, is a matter about which one does not get to choose. Could you choose, right now, only to be aroused by men and not at all by women? No. Could a lesbian choose only to be aroused by men and not at all by women? No. Could a gay man choose only to be aroused by women and not at all by men? No. Your sexuality is exactly like your skin colour in that it is something which you have no control over.
I can have control over my sexual desire, but I can't control the color of my skin. Why are you having a tough time with this idea?
NO. Tolerance of homosexuals and bisexuals is only a liberal issue because at present they are discriminated against. There is nothing intrinsically liberal about being homosexual or bisexual, any more than there is anything intrinsically liberal about being black.
So why do you assume that we are born inherently free? How do you decide what is intrinsically liberal and what is not?

Likewise, religious freedom is only a liberal issue because at present, not everyone has it. There is nothing intrinsically liberal about being polytheist, atheist, agnostic or pantheist.

You are using "liberal" in the numerative sense and then trying to convict "liberals" (in the political sense of the word) as a result. This is a huge error of reasoning in your argument; a great gaping non-sequitur, and you're not going to get away with it. It does not follow that people who worship more gods (liberal in the numerative sense) and permit more sexual permutations (liberal in the numerative sense) are therefore going to be more liberal in the political sense.

I am not saying that the number 3 is a more liberal number than two. The polygamy of Islam is more liberal than the monogamy of Christianity, and the homosexuality of some liberals is more liberal than the polygamy of Islam. It should be clear.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I can have control over my sexual desire, but I can't control the color of my skin. Why are you having a tough time with this idea?

False. We have direct control over our actions, not our desires, certainly not our sexual orientation.

And have you seen michael Jackson lately?

[Mendeh]

As a Muslim, I am a servant, who has the liberty to say and do many things. As a liberal, you are a free man, who has certain restrictions upon your freedom.

A servant is someone who performs services for someone in order to earn a living. Is that really how you see your relationship to Allah: someone whose obedience to is bought in return for rewards?

Surely you should rather follow Allah (rather than serve him), because you believe it is the right thing to do. Muslims should not serve Allah out of contract - service in return for reward, but rather follow him because they, as free beings, choose to act in the way that they are persuaded is correct. There is no compulsion in Islam, remember?

Freedom is absence of compulsion. If there is no compulsion in Islam, then Allah wants you to consider yourself as free, using the Koran to provoke and challenge your thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and thereby grow as a human being. Viewing yourself as bound, serf-like to it is to degrade it, a god-given tool of enlightenment and growth, to a ball and chain under whose yoke you enslave yourself.

Liberals can make the assumption that men are born free, but how are they going to support that statement? It's just a baseless assumption.
No, I think you're wrong. A baby, born, has no prejudices or inhibitions; those are given her by the society in which she lives and, like chains, limit her. That's not an assumption; it's reality, as you'd know if you'd had to help in a baby's potty-training, or had tried to persuade her not to keep tearing the head off her teddy-bear. Another example: toddlers often play with their genitals because it feels nice, and then get taught by their parents that it's bad, wrong, sinful pleasure. Another example: I knew a little girl who used to shout out proudly when she'd 'gone poo-poo' in her potty, to the great embarrassment of her parents... by the age of five, her parents had managed to make her so repressed that she physically couldn't take a shit in any house but her own.
Likewise, babies are not naturally inclined to follow rules; they have to be persuaded to follow them. To "Don't touch that, it's very hot!", the guaranteed response is "aaaaaaaaow, it huuurts!!!"
It's blatantly obvious that babies are born free, and end up in chains. It's probably inevitable that they'll end up in some chains; the trick is to avoid the needless ones.

In a liberal state, it's impossible to prevent some people from lording over others.
Quite the contrary. Liberalism concerns itself with individual freedom: in a liberal state, any behaviour that infringes another's individual freedom is wrong.

I said: Your sexuality is exactly like your skin colour in that it is something which you have no control over.

NC said: I can have control over my sexual desire, but I can't control the color of my skin. Why are you having a tough time with this idea?

But that's not what I said. I said sexuality - sexual orientation - not sexual desire. Of course you can suppress your sexual desire. But you can't change your sexual orientation. Your sexual orientation, exactly like your skin colour, is something over which you have no control.

How do you decide what is intrinsically liberal and what is not?
Er, the adjective "liberal" refers to a person, body or action whose motivation is the protection of individual freedom. One's sexual orientation is what gender one is attracted to. I fail to see what the gender one finds attractive has to do with the protection of individual freedom.

I am not saying that the number 3 is a more liberal number than two. The polygamy of Islam is more liberal than the monogamy of Christianity, and the homosexuality of some liberals is more liberal than the polygamy of Islam. It should be clear.
No. What decides the degree of individual freedom is a marriage's terms, not the number of partners in it. A polygamous marriage, with restrictive terms designed to limit individual freedom, cannot be described as liberal. A monogamous marriage, with less restrictive terms designed to protect individual freedom, would be more liberal than that polygamous marraige. The number of people within a marriage says nothing about the degree to which the marriage is designed to protect individual freedom. Hence polygamous marriage is not of itself more liberal than monogamous marriage.

And as for homosexuality being of itself liberal, how can it be said of a person's sexuality - any sexuality - that it is "designed to protect individual freedom"? Sexuality, like skin colour, is not decided by the Dioxyribonucleic Acid Popular Liberation Front!

[greyline]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The polygamy of Islam is more liberal than the monogamy of Christianity, and the homosexuality of some liberals is more liberal than the polygamy of Islam. It should be clear. \


Uh-oh, now we're into doublethink. The fallback of all good religious doctrine.

[dk]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
and

In keeping with their past performances, NC continuosly redefines liberalism to mean whatever he hopes it might mean, and dk just posts incoherently. Be honest now Dr. Rick, liberals change their positions and rational so often its hard to keep score. NC has a point. The truth is liberalism is a hodgepodge of theories that snake through history adapting its colors like a chamelion.

[greyline]

Originally posted by dk
Be honest now Dr. Rick, liberals change their positions and rational so often its hard to keep score. NC has a point. The truth is liberalism is a hodgepodge of theories that snake through history adapting its colors like a chamelion.

That's because all "liberals" (per NC's silly definition) are not alike. If one liberal disagrees with another, are you going to say that "liberalism" has inherent contradictions, or are you going to accept that different people have different ideas?

Still very worried about those 75% Muslim men with no wives...

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by greyline
Still very worried about those 75% Muslim men with no wives...

No worries; if they don't make the cut here on Earth to become husbands, they can still score big time in the everafter as martyrs...

[dk]

oops double post sorry

[dk]

Originally posted by greyline
That's because all "liberals" (per NC's silly definition) are not alike. If one liberal disagrees with another, are you going to say that "liberalism" has inherent contradictions, or are you going to accept that different people have different ideas?
Still very worried about those 75% Muslim men with no wives...

Everyone disagrees with with one another from time to time whether he or she belongs to a liberal or conservative club. In this discussion NC disagrees with Rick, who says…I paraphrase… liberals favor civil and political liberties underscored by his later statement…and I quote ”The Fundamental Liberal Principle holds that any restrictions on liberty must ultimately be justified as protecting and enhancing the sum of all liberties.’ The idea of limiting one liberty to enhance another makes no sense at all. In fact slavery was justified under just such a credo. The white man’s property rights were elevated above a black man’s right to liberty, so it became a natural good for white men to hold Black Men in a state of slavery. Would Dr. Rick call slavery justified because it ultimately enhances the sum of all liberities? Answer: I doubt it. Locke said that government were formed to protect life, liberty and property, and in that order by necessity. Hobbes didn’t think mankind was naturally good, but gave up his liberty to government because he was naturally poor, violent and nasty. Hobbes advocated for a supreme athority, and if not in a monarchy then legeslature with supreme authority. There simply is not a single coherrent theme to liberalism, not in its roots, applications or judgments. Individuals aren't autonomous but social so individual autonomy degerates into individual dependency upon an all powerful state that has the final say in all matters under dispute between two (so called) autonomous parties.

[greyline]

Originally posted by dk
[quote]There simply is not a single coherrent theme to liberalism, not in its roots, applications or judgments.

And as I said before - so what? You seem to think this is a weakness. Why does it matter? Humans are individuals and there's no reason why they all have to be brought into line.

Unless of course they are following stolid religious doctrine.

The whole point of freedom is that you can be who you want, do what you want, and think what you like, as long as you don't harm others. As a basic doctrine for government (as well as personal behaviour) I don't see what's wrong with that.

Still wondering about those 75% Muslim men who can't find wives...

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NC
As a Muslim, I am a servant, who has the liberty to say and do many things. As a liberal, you are a free man, who has certain restrictions upon your freedom.

Originally posted by Mendeh
A servant is someone who performs services for someone in order to earn a living. Is that really how you see your relationship to Allah: someone whose obedience to is bought in return for rewards?

Surely you should rather follow Allah (rather than serve him), because you believe it is the right thing to do. Muslims should not serve Allah out of contract - service in return for reward, but rather follow him because they, as free beings, choose to act in the way that they are persuaded is correct. There is no compulsion in Islam, remember?

Freedom is absence of compulsion. If there is no compulsion in Islam, then Allah wants you to consider yourself as free, using the Koran to provoke and challenge your thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and thereby grow as a human being. Viewing yourself as bound, serf-like to it is to degrade it, a god-given tool of enlightenment and growth, to a ball and chain under whose yoke you enslave yourself.


The problem with liberals is that they think there is only one way to look at the world, and if anybody else dares to look at things a different way, they simply can't understand.

I think that you completely misunderstood my point. However, if one has to explain a joke, it ceases to be funny. Similarly, the same holds true for the point that I am making here.

Liberals cannot understand why anybody like me, living in the land of freedom, would want to give up all of that to be a Muslim. To them, I must be crazy. To me, I see them as being crazy for not seeing what is wrong with liberalism. One merely needs to look at the most liberal state in the union, California, in order to see very clearly what is wrong with liberalism.

Liberals cannot understand the beauty of a Lord/servant relationship. Their self-centered egos prohibit them from seeing the fallacies of liberalism

[greyline]

Liberals cannot understand the beauty of a Lord/servant relationship. Their self-centered egos prohibit them from seeing the fallacies of liberalism

Or maybe they just see the fallacies of this particular Lord.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by dk
The idea of limiting one liberty to enhance another makes no sense at all. In fact slavery was justified under just such a credo.

There is no viable political philosophy that doesn't acknowledge limiting and balancing individual freedoms with others and with state powers; that is why you are not 'free' to needlessly yell "fire" in a crowded US theatre.

Liberlism does not justify slavery; the implication that it does makes no sense at all. Justifications for slavery and commands for slaves to obey their masters can be found in Christianity and Islam, not liberalism.

The foundations of liberalism were not all laid by liberals, just as the foundations of Christianity were not all made by Christians. Hobbes's contribution to liberalism was his views on social contract theory.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by greyline
Or maybe they just see the fallacies of this particular Lord.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are fallacies of this particular Lord. It doesn't follow that liberalism isn't without its own fallacies, and it doesn't follow that liberalism is better.

Liberals sing the same old song that if we didn't have religion we wouldn't have religious wars, but what these simple-minded people fail to realize is that people would just fight about something else other than religion.

[dk]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
There is no viable political philosophy that doesn't acknowledge limiting and balancing individual freedoms with others and with state powers; that is why you are not 'free' to needlessly yell "fire" in a crowded US theatre.

Liberlism does not justify slavery; the implication that it does makes no sense at all. Justifications for slavery and commands for slaves to obey their masters can be found in Christianity and Islam, not liberalism.

The foundations of liberalism were not all laid by liberals, just as the foundations of Christianity were not all made by Christians. Hobbes's contribution to liberalism was his views on social contract theory.
Ohhh, how liberal of you to change your tune. So its not liberty exactly that makes a liberals, now its freedom. I postulate... my liberty ends where the freedom of others begins. Liberty is an exercises of power over some matter, whereas freedom limits any expansive exercise of authority hence limits the power exercised by governments or individuals. What a conservative understands by a just government requires a tension between freedom and liberty, at all levels of government and society. Liberals use a divide an conquer subversive strategy to use the law (government power) as a weapon that pits worker against employer, man against women, child against parent, labor against corporation, white against black etc... in a high stakes game refereed by a supreme liberal pedagogy (judicial legislators) that alone have the authority to resolve disputes, select winners and roll the di of fate.

Christians follow Jesus Christ who said, I paraphrase… "render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar, and truth will set you free". Naturally Liberal bemoan truth as the subject of a liberal pedagogy. In fact "freedom of cloths" is front issue, and so is women's rights. What liberals really mean, is be like me.

[Dr Rick]

liberty and freedom are pretty much similar terms; just like dk and incoherency are...

[MollyMac]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
liberty and freedom are pretty much similar terms; just like dk and incoherency are...
Sorry but I can't help it...:notworthy

[dk]

Originally posted by MollyMac
Sorry but I can't help it...:notworthy Hi Molly, I missed you with all my heart. really.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
There is no viable political philosophy that doesn't acknowledge limiting and balancing individual freedoms with others and with state powers; that is why you are not 'free' to needlessly yell "fire" in a crowded US theatre.

The problem is, Dr. Rick, that liberals cannot agree upon where to draw the line. For example, among classical liberals, from which capitalism flourished, strong property rights were paramount as an individual liberty. As a matter of fact, Life, Liberty, and Property - according to John Locke - became Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness in America. Other liberals believed that the state had a responsibility to limit the property rights of some individuals in order to provide health, education, and welfare to poor and disadvantaged individuals. Here is where we have the tension among liberals.

Libertarians and Randians are most certainly liberals because of their belief in strong property rights. Democratic socialists are also liberals who believe that the state has a responsibility towards poor and disadvantaged individuals. I am not redefining liberalism to mean whatever I want it to mean. I am merely underscoring the difficulty that liberals have in drawing the line. The democratic socialists and capitalists are competing with each other to use the coercive power of the state in order to implement their agendas. Meanwhile, the rest of the people in the world suffer.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
or maybe by dk
Blah blah blah.

I cannot make sense out of the posts from either of these people. They do not answer questions in a meaningful manner, they do not pose questions in a meaningful manner, and they use rhetoric and dogma like the get paid for it. They digress and obfuscate with abandon. The goofy inconsistent use of the word "liberal" is by itself enough to drain all potential meaning from their posts.

They apparently fail to realize that their approach and tactics hurt their cause. Fundamentalism, whether of the dk or the nc variety, is flawed beyond redemption and leads to ridiculusly absurd world-views. Fundamentalism cannot stand before the light of reason. This sad train wreck confirms that notion.

[/rant]

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I cannot make sense out of the posts from either of these people. They do not answer questions in a meaningful manner, they do not pose questions in a meaningful manner, and they use rhetoric and dogma like the get paid for it. They digress and obfuscate with abandon. The goofy inconsistent use of the word "liberal" is by itself enough to drain all potential meaning from their posts.


If you can't make sense out of the posts, that is because liberalism doesn't make sense. The difficulty in defining liberalism results from the fact that any definition of liberalism must include the two warring factions that I have mentoned. Each faction claims that the other is denying individual liberty. Why don't the liberals blame themselves for their own incoherence?
Originally posted by Nowhere357
They apparently fail to realize that their approach and tactics hurt their cause. Fundamentalism, whether of the dk or the nc variety, is flawed beyond redemption and leads to ridiculusly absurd world-views. Fundamentalism cannot stand before the light of reason. This sad train wreck confirms that notion.

In true blue liberal style, they blame others for their own stupidity and incoherence. It's much easier for them to label their opponents as "fundamentalists" than it is for them to accept the truth about liberalism.

[The Other Michael]

Let's get back to attacking arguments and not individuals.

thanks,
Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
If you can't make sense out of the posts, that is because liberalism doesn't make sense.
Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
_____________________________

It looks to me like 2c is the relevant definition. I fail to see how belief in progress and protection of civil liberties "doesn't make sense".

The difficulty in defining liberalism results from the fact that any definition of liberalism must include the two warring factions that I have mentoned.
No difficulty in defining the word, and no mention of warring factions.

Do you oppose progress? Do you oppose the protection of civil liberties?

Each faction claims that the other is denying individual liberty.
I suppose the slave-owner would object to the liberation of slaves on the grounds that it denies his liberty to own slaves. Or the rapist may feel that laws against rape deny his individual liberty to commit rape. Would you side with the slave-owner and the rapist, or can you see that they are violating individual liberty?

Why don't the liberals blame themselves for their own incoherence?
Which incoherence would that be, again? What is incoherent about progress, what is incoherent about protecting civil liberties?

It's much easier for them to label their opponents as "fundamentalists" than it is for them to accept the truth about liberalism.
Interesting double standard. You are so liberal with the application of the term liberal that the word has lost any meaning. Hurts your position, it does. Afaics, you have stated no truth about liberalism. You are inconsistent in the way you use the word, so your points are not understandable.

Start by either accepting the given definition, or by providing your own. Any other response merely compounds the confusion.

Btw I fit in no pre-labeled box. Some of my opinions or ideas are liberal, some are conservative, some are neither. So every time you slap the label "liberal" on me, I understand that you don't know what you are talking about. Think on that.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
_____________________________

It looks to me like 2c is the relevant definition. I fail to see how belief in progress and protection of civil liberties "doesn't make sense".

Why 2c rather than 2b? 2b sure sounds like the classical liberals and capitalists I referred to before, whereas 2c sure sounds like the democratic socialists. In case you didn't know, these two parties are political opponents.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
No difficulty in defining the word, and no mention of warring factions.

Perhaps you need to review the definition again. Unless you can tell me why I should exclude 2b, then you have no argument.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Do you oppose progress? Do you oppose the protection of civil liberties?

Do you oppose strong property rights as definition 2b indicated?

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I suppose the slave-owner would object to the liberation of slaves on the grounds that it denies his liberty to own slaves. Or the rapist may feel that laws against rape deny his individual liberty to commit rape. Would you side with the slave-owner and the rapist, or can you see that they are violating individual liberty?

We are not talking about rape and the racism of slavery. Would you call the libertarians advocates of rape?


Originally posted by Nowhere357
Interesting double standard. You are so liberal with the application of the term liberal that the word has lost any meaning. Hurts your position, it does. Afaics, you have stated no truth about liberalism. You are inconsistent in the way you use the word, so your points are not understandable.

The word has no meaning to you because you prefer to be obtuse.

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
Why 2c rather than 2b?
Because 2b refers to an economic theory. 2c refers to political philosophy. Generally, in my experience, the word "liberal" refers to politics. The context of this thread is exploring a political issue, as opposed to exploring an economic issue.

2b sure sounds like the classical liberals and capitalists I referred to before,
I don't know what "classical liberals" is supposed to mean. Capitalists can be liberal or conservative. So whatever meaning you are trying to impart has been lost under that broad brush you wield.

whereas 2c sure sounds like the democratic socialists.
Both democrats and republicans - as well as other political parties - can hold a liberal political philosophy. Republicans are more likely to be conservative, and democrats are more likely to be liberal, but the terms ARE NOT synonomous. I don't know what you mean by "democratic socialists". Again, your meaning is lost because of your broad brush.

In case you didn't know, these two parties are political opponents.
I did not know that "classical liberals" (whatever that is) and "democratic socialists" (whatever they are) are political opponents. Given that 2b means the former and 2c means the latter, then I must say you are wrong, because the definitions are not mutually exclusive. I am sure that many people believe in open competition and the self-regulating market, at the same time they believe in progress and protection of political and civil liberties. Can't you see that you over generalize, which inhibits communication?

Perhaps you need to review the definition again. Unless you can tell me why I should exclude 2b, then you have no argument.
What? My "argument" is trying to find out what you are talking about!

Do you oppose strong property rights as definition 2b indicated?
You answer a question with a question? Anyway, I don't see how 2b opposes property rights. On the contrary.

Here is the question you skipped: Do you oppose progress? Do you oppose the protection of civil liberties?

We are not talking about rape and the racism of slavery. Would you call the libertarians advocates of rape?
Answer a question with a question again? Anyway, I see no reason why libertarians (a political party which advocates freedom with responsibility) would advocate rape. On the contrary.

Here is the question you skipped: Would you side with the slave-owner and the rapist, or can you see that they are violating individual liberty?

The word has no meaning to you because you prefer to be obtuse.
All animosity aside, here's how it seems to me: when a word is brought into a debate, I assume my definition and see if the posts make sense. If they don't, I try to figure out what the person means when they use the word. I am comfortable using a dictionary, and I try to avoid arguing from different defintions.

You have been told many times that there is a problem with the way you have been using certain words. Your use of political labels is all over the map. Your meaning is unclear.

Now, if you find 2b useful, then say so and let's move on. When you say "liberal" I'll think "a person who supports a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard" and maybe then I can understand what you are trying to say! Or provide your own definition if that helps. The important thing is that we agree on what we mean by the word.

[greyline]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
[B]Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are fallacies of this particular Lord. It doesn't follow that liberalism isn't without its own fallacies, and it doesn't follow that liberalism is better.

The Muslim world isn't exactly ship-shape. Ultimately we are all human, and any doctrine we choose to follow was written by humans with their own failings.

You have mentioned elsewhere the disputes between the various subdivisions of "liberals", as defined by you and whatever that means. Personally I think that kind of disagreement is healthy, beneficial and productive, and extremely important in the social evolution of mankind. The fact that we *can* debate the issues and make changes is vital.

If we all simply followed an unchanging text written thousands of years ago, we would stagnate as a race - socially and spiritually.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by greyline
If we all simply followed an unchanging text written thousands of years ago, we would stagnate as a race - socially and spiritually.

It's a fallacy to think that modern texts are better than ancient texts simply because they are modern. New isn't necessarily better than old.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
It's a fallacy to think that modern texts are better than ancient texts simply because they are modern. New isn't necessarily better than old.
It's a fallacy to think that old texts are better than new texts simply because they are ancient. Old isn't necessarily better than new.

greyline's point still stands: If we all simply followed an unchanging text written thousands of years ago, we would stagnate as a race - socially and spiritually.

[dk]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
It's a fallacy to think that old texts are better than new texts simply because they are ancient. Old isn't necessarily better than new.

greyline's point still stands: If we all simply followed an unchanging text written thousands of years ago, we would stagnate as a race - socially and spiritually.

The wheel and the arch were good ideas (yesterday and today) because they empower people to overcome obstacles, whereas ritual cannibalism and human sacrifice were bad ideas that ruined scores of advanced cultures and civilizations. The oldest texts are valuable simply because of their age and rarity. Texts like the Koran and Bible are valuable because the ancient people that preserved them, have been preserved by them. Ironcially, new ideas become the best ideas when all the old books with old ideas have been burned and/or forgotten.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
It's a fallacy to think that old texts are better than new texts simply because they are ancient. Old isn't necessarily better than new.

You are not refuting my point by this statement. You are merely stating that the reverse is true, also. It certainly appears as though the modern liberals wouldn't have any problem if the ancient texts were to be somehow mysteriously destroyed, because they believe that the best texts are the modern texts.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Because 2b refers to an economic theory. 2c refers to political philosophy. Generally, in my experience, the word "liberal" refers to politics. The context of this thread is exploring a political issue, as opposed to exploring an economic issue.

Classical liberalism is a politico-economic theory, since one of John Locke's unalienable rights was Property.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I don't know what "classical liberals" is supposed to mean.

Well, here is our problem right here. You don't know what you are talking about, yet you are going to argue. This is so typical of modern liberals - the secular fundies.

[greyline]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
It's a fallacy to think that modern texts are better than ancient texts simply because they are modern. New isn't necessarily better than old.

It's the "unchanging" part that I have a problem with. If you see the function of the human race as primarily a master/slave relationship with God, then I can see how this wouldn't concern you. God is meant to be unchanging, after all. (Give or take a few biblical contradictions.)

I don't believe the human race has a function, as such, but if we are to create meaningful lives as individuals and societies then we need to grow on many levels. In general terms this is what has happened since we stopped allowing our societies to be governed by staid holy books that don't allow for humanity's growth. You may decry the state of America and the promiscuous degenerate Western world, but by my value system (and allowing for an unfortunate but brief blip with Bush's reign) things are better than they've ever been.

Except that I can't marry four men, which is a damn shame.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by greyline
It's the "unchanging" part that I have a problem with.
As a conservative, I am skeptical of new ideas. When those new ideas fail miserably, then I file them away as "liberal ideas."

Conservatives are not necessarily "stuck in the mud" traditionalists as liberals would like to portray us. I am not closed-minded, nor am I dogmatic about what I believe. My position has always been that if someone has something better, then let him put it on the table. Conservatives are people who are reluctant to abandon what they know has worked in the past for what may, or may not work, in the future. A conservative sees no need to reinvent the idea of the wheel, or abandon it, since the old idea works fine.

Moreover, it's important to note that the founding fathers of America wanted to make it very difficult to amend the Constitution. Anybody can rationalize anything, and so they didn't want the Constitution to be constantly changing. They wanted it to be stable.
Originally posted by greyline
If you see the function of the human race as primarily a master/slave relationship with God, then I can see how this wouldn't concern you.

I would prefer to use the term lord/servant rather than master/slave for obvious reasons - slavery has a very bad connotation in the West. In Western civilization, classical liberals serve themselves, and so they are their own lords. As a result, they have made the liberal state subservient to themselves, along with the lower class. The classical liberal state then becomes the best government that money can buy. Modern liberals, on the other hand, believe that the state should not be subservient to the upper class, but rather to themselves and the lower class. Hence, the welfare state of the modern liberals. This is where the great tension and conflict occurs in the West, while the rest of the world is used as pawns in a high stakes poker game. People's lives literally hang in the balance. The problems in the M.E.(Middle East), today, have their origins in the West rather than the M.E.

As a Muslim, I don't believe that the state should be subservient to classical or modern liberals, or anybody else except Allah. In Islam, the ruled and the rulers are all servants of the same Lord. Allah has ordained Zakat, which is an annual 2.5% tax on the wealth of the upperclass, to be distributed to the lower classes. At the same time, Islam has strictly prohibted the taking of interest on loans.

One of the primary ways that liberal Western states have been able to exploit third world countries is by the World Bank and the IMF making loans with interest. When third world countries have difficulty repaying those loans, they are forced to do what they are told to do if they want those loans restructured. Often, this involves selling off precious natural resources in those countries in order to restructure those loans. The taking of interest on loans was at one time forbidden in the Muslim world, as well as in Europe during the Scholastic period. The liberals changed all of that. Yes, all of this goes on so that Americans can ride in their gas-guzzling SUV's and watch their pornography on cable TV, totally oblivious to the pain and suffering of others in the world. If there is a God in heaven, there is no doubt in my mind that the liberals will be in hell.

Originally posted by greyline
[I don't believe the human race has a function, as such, but if we are to create meaningful lives as individuals and societies then we need to grow on many levels. In general terms this is what has happened since we stopped allowing our societies to be governed by staid holy books that don't allow for humanity's growth.

Where has all of this growth occured for humanity? Perhaps the liberal West has grown and prospered, but at what price and at whose expense? It's the modern liberal states of the West that have exploited third world countries, so don't tell me about how great liberalism has been for the rest of the world. Freedom and prosperity may be good for you, if you happen to be fortunate enough to be born in a liberal Western state, but it's not so good for you if you happen to be born in a country where the World Bank and IMF are sucking it dry.

Originally posted by greyline
You may decry the state of America and the promiscuous degenerate Western world, but by my value system (and allowing for an unfortunate but brief blip with Bush's reign) things are better than they've ever been.

See above.

Originally posted by greyline
Except that I can't marry four men, which is a damn shame.

I am assuming that you are a woman, but I never know with the liberals. Does Australia have laws against polygamy?

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
You are not refuting my point by this statement.
And you are not refuting my point with your statement. However, my point was sufficient to show that your point was irrelevant.

Classical liberalism is a politico-economic theory, since one of John Locke's unalienable rights was Property.
Will all classical liberals please raise their hand?

Well, here is our problem right here. You don't know what you are talking about, yet you are going to argue. This is so typical of modern liberals - the secular fundies.
I know what meaning I give the phrase. And I know that you use political labels indiscriminantly. Hence my question. So, modern liberals typically don't know what they're talking about? This from a guy who apparently thinks ancient texts of myth and legend have more relevance to life then modern texts of knowledge.

Here is the question you skipped: Do you oppose progress? Do you oppose the protection of civil liberties?

Here is the question you skipped: Would you side with the slave-owner and the rapist, or can you see that they are violating individual liberty?

As a conservative, I am skeptical of new ideas. When those new ideas fail miserably, then I file them away as "liberal ideas."
As a freethinker, I am skeptical of tyrannical religions. When they routinely violate civil liberties with archaic theology, I file them away as "stupid and wrong".

I would prefer to use the term lord/servant rather than master/slave for obvious reasons - slavery has a very bad connotation in the West.
A pile of shit still smells bad, no matter what you call it.

In Western civilization, classical liberals serve themselves, and so they are their own lords.
You don't know what you are talking about. I'll bet a smily you can't support your statement.

As a Muslim, I don't believe that the state should be subservient to classical or modern liberals, or anybody else except Allah. In Islam, the ruled and the rulers are all servants of the same Lord.
This is why Islam is able to routinely violate civil rights. Which is why seperation of church and state has such obvious value.

I am assuming that you are a woman, but I never know with the liberals.
Hehe. Homosexuals are liberals. Like a typical fundy, you really do not wish to be understood, apparently. Your world-view cannot stand before the light of reason - I understand your need to continue hiding from meaningful discourse.

[Nowhere357]

Here (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) is a little test from the The Political Compass.

"There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left' , established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?
On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook. "
____________________________

Anyway, I scored as a left-leaning libertarian, just to the right of the Dalai Lama. Pretty much diametrically opposed to our current president.

Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

I don't know how accurate the reading is, though. I guess it's fairly close.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357

There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left' , established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?

This is nothing new. I have already covered this before, but like most of what I write, it seems to go over your head. Modern liberals keep reinventing themselves, bringing back the same old garbage with a different face. Then they talk about how the world has become so complicated that we can't make meaningful distinctions between liberals and conservatives anymore. Hogwash.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I have already covered this before, but like most of what I write, it seems to go over your head. Why, yes it does. Your wisdom is far too profound for a simple folk like myself. I guess I'll muddle on in my simple-minded way, advocating freedom and responsibility, without your valuable insights to help guide me.

Or maybe you have no valuable insights to offer. Hard to tell, due to your over-generalizations, as has been explained to you over and over. Oh well.

Here is a tip you will doubtless ignore: try stating your point without using the word "liberal". Bet you can't.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
And I know that you use political labels indiscriminantly.How would you know? You still don't know the difference between a classical liberal and a modern liberal. Originally posted by Nowhere357
Hence my question. So, modern liberals typically don't know what they're talking about?
That's correct.Originally posted by Nowhere357
This from a guy who apparently thinks ancient texts of myth and legend have more relevance to life then modern texts of knowledge.

There is a lot more wisdom in the ancient texts than there are in the modern texts, but I don't expect arrogant fools, like yourself, to see it.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Here is the question you skipped: [b]Do you oppose progress?

No, I don't oppose progress. I oppose morons who think that we should abandon the idea of the wheel simply because it's an ancient idea.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Do you oppose the protection of civil liberties?

I don't oppose the freedom of any individual. However, I don't believe that we are born free, anymore than I believe that we are all born rich and powerful. We are all born with nothing and will take nothing with us when we die. I don't expect you to understand what I am saying, here, given your track record so far.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
As a freethinker, I am skeptical of tyrannical religions.

As a conservative, I am skeptical of tyrannical liberal ideologies that have killed millions of people in the name of an idealistic utopia.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
When they routinely violate civil liberties with archaic theology, I file them away as "stupid and wrong".

When they routinely violate civil liberties with their grandiose liberal ideas, I file them away as "stupid and wrong"'.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
A pile of shit still smells bad, no matter what you call it.
I think that what you are smelling is called liberalism. I can assure that I have far much more contempt and disdain for liberalism than you, or anyone else here, has for the Abrahamic religions.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NC
I have already covered this before, but like most of what I write, it seems to go over your head. Originally posted by Nowhere357
Why, yes it does.Thanks for confirming that.
Originally posted by Nowhere357
Your wisdom is far too profound for a simple folk like myself.

Apparently so.

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
How would you know? You still don't know the difference between a classical liberal and a modern liberal.
I know how I use the words, and I know what the dictionary definitions are. The mystery is what you mean when you use the words.

There is a lot more wisdom in the ancient texts than there are in the modern texts, but I don't expect arrogant fools, like yourself, to see it.
Such as? Forcing women into subservience, for example? That kind of "wisdom"?

No, I don't oppose progress. I oppose morons who think that we should abandon the idea of the wheel simply because it's an ancient idea.
I agree. Shoot, even the Amish allow wheels. Thanks for answering the question, anyhow.

I don't oppose the freedom of any individual.
Then you support the rights of women to be treated as equals. Correct?
You support the rights of women to leave abusive husbands. Correct?
You support the rights of women to burn their burkas. Correct?
You support the rights of Muslims to skip their prayers. Correct?

However, I don't believe that we are born free, anymore than I believe that we are all born rich and powerful. We are all born with nothing and will take nothing with us when we die. I don't expect you to understand what I am saying, here, given your track record so far.
If we are not born free, then we are born slaves. And that is not the case in a modern democratic republic. I agree with the rest, though.

As a conservative, I am skeptical of tyrannical liberal ideologies that have killed millions of people in the name of an idealistic utopia.
Which ideologies would that be, exactly?

When they routinely violate civil liberties with their grandiose liberal ideas, I file them away as "stupid and wrong"'.
Which liberal ideas routinely violate civil liberties, exactly?

I can assure that I have far much more contempt and disdain for liberalism than you, or anyone else here, has for the Abrahamic religions.
Oh, I believe you. It's just you don't know what you're talking about, when you get slap-happy with political labels. Unless the pursuit of freedom and the opposition to tyranny offend you. I bet Saddam is pretty offended by that stuff, too.

So what was your score on that test? And you owe me a smily. I'll bet two smilies that you can't string three sentences in a row without the "L" word.

Btw, kicking someone when they self-deprecate says more about the kicker than the kickee. You failed that test of your reasonableness miserably.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NonCon
How would you know? You still don't know the difference between a classical liberal and a modern liberal.
Originally posted by Nowhere357
I know how I use the words, and I know what the dictionary definitions are. The mystery is what you mean when you use the words.

Good, then why don't you tell us the difference between a classical liberal and a modern liberal?
Originally posted by Nowhere357
There is a lot more wisdom in the ancient texts than there are in the modern texts, but I don't expect arrogant fools, like yourself, to see it.
Originally posted by Nowhere357
Such as? Forcing women into subservience, for example? That kind of "wisdom"?
We are all servants here; there are no lords. Liberals want to destroy the parent/child relationship by making children equal to their parents. They want to destroy the husband/wife relationship by making the wife equal to her husband. They want to destroy the individual/state relationship by making individuals equal to the state.

The end result isn't equality. The end result is children dictating to their parents what to do or not do. If the parents don't listen and obey the whims of their children, then they all wind up on the Jenny Jones show insulting each other. Yes, the parents need the boot camp as much as the kids do.

The end result isn't equality. The end result is women dictating to their husbands what to do or not do, and if they don't listen and obey, then there will be hell to pay.

The end result isn't equality. The end result is the individual dictating to the state to listen and obey their whims and desires. They want prostitution to be legal. They want drugs to be legal. They want same sex marriages to be legal. They want gambling to be legal. They want alcohol to be legal. They want pornography to be easily accessible at the push of a button, even if it pops up in the face of a five year old innocently surfing the web.

The end result isn't equality. The end result is the tail wagging the dog and the inmates running the asylum. This is what the liberals wanted to achieve when they attacked the lord/servant relationship. In their stupidity and ignorance, they destroyed all of the other human relationships. This is what Muslims, men and women, are looking at and saying that they don't want any part of. It's amazing how intelligent many people are in the West, yet they are being so stupid. They are ruining their society and they don't even realize it. When you destroy the parent/child relationship and the husband/wife relationship, you destroy the family. When you destroy the family, everything else will eventually collapse.

White women want their freedom, and white men want sex without commitment. As a result, the white population is dwindling because of their liberal lifestyle. Don't worry. Muslims are breeding like rabbits, so there is hope that the stupidity of liberalism will one day be history.
Originally posted by Nowhere357
Then you support the rights of women to be treated as equals. Correct?
Children are not equal to their parents, wives are not equal to their husbands, individuals are not equal to the state, and the state isn't equal to the Lord of all the worlds.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
You support the rights of women to leave abusive husbands. Correct?
What do you think?
Originally posted by Nowhere357
You support the rights of women to burn their burkas. Correct?

What do you think?.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
You support the rights of Muslims to skip their prayers. Correct?

What do you think?

Originally posted by Nowhere357
If we are not born free, then we are born slaves.

Nobody is born free. There is no freedom without independence. When a child is born, it's completely dependent upon its parents for survival. As long as children are dependent upon their parents, they aren't free.

Originally posted by NonCon
As a conservative, I am skeptical of tyrannical liberal ideologies that have killed millions of people in the name of an idealistic utopia.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Which ideologies would that be, exactly?

Which ones do you think? If you don't know, then I don't really care whether you know or not. As long as anybody else reading this thread has an idea of which ideologies I am talking about, then that is all that matters. Play dumb if you want to.

[three4jump]

Has someone actually read all 23 pages of this? If so, was it ever decided that women ought to be raped for not wearing burkas?

(Just testing my thread-killing abilitites here.)

[MollyMac]

OK NC,

I regret it already, but on a whim I actually bothered to read your last post and I found this:
Originally posted by NonContradiction
They want to destroy the husband/wife relationship by making the wife equal to her husband.
Every Muslim I’ve ever spoken to about the subject has told me that in Islam women are ‘truly equal (but different) to men’. Now you are stating quite emphatically that wives are not equal to their husbands. WHY THE FUCK NOT??? In what way are wives not equal to their husbands? You’d better explain yourself, man, because the way you’ve left things you sound like a fucking moron!!

The end result isn't equality. The end result is women dictating to their husbands what to do or not do, and if they don't listen and obey, then there will be hell to pay.
Whereas in muslim familes we find men dictating to their wives what to do or not do and if they don’t listen and obey, then there will be hell to pay. AND THAT’S ALL FUCKING RIGHT IS IT? WHY???
Originally posted by Nowhere357
You support the rights of women to leave abusive husbands. Correct?
NC response
What do you think?
Originally posted by Nowhere357
You support the rights of women to burn their burkas. Correct?
NC response
What do you think?
What’s up? Are you too cowardly to give straight answers to straight questions?

It’s obvious to me that you don’t support women’s rights to do anything that men don’t want them to do. Well my oh my aren’t just the best ambassador for Islam I’ve ever.
:rolleyes:

[dk]

MollyMac: Every Muslim I’ve ever spoken to about the subject has told me that in Islam women are ‘truly equal (but different) to men’. Now you are stating quite emphatically that wives are not equal to their husbands. WHY THE FUCK NOT??? In what way are wives not equal to their husbands? You’d better explain yourself, man, because the way you’ve left things you sound like a fucking moron!!
dk: A curious mixture of moral indignation and profanity. NC from a Muslim perspective clearly attacks the liberal concept of equality because it focuses on the autonomous individual, at the expense of the family unit. Equality fails in all its dimensions when it sets a husband against his wife, wife against her husband, children against their parents and parents against their children. You need to address the issue NC has brought to the table, else you forfeit as a no show.


NC: The end result isn't equality. The end result is women dictating to their husbands what to do or not do, and if they don't listen and obey, then there will be hell to pay.
MollyMac: Whereas in muslim familes we find men dictating to their wives what to do or not do and if they don’t listen and obey, then there will be hell to pay. AND THAT’S ALL FUCKING RIGHT IS IT? WHY???
dk: You’re letting NC off the hook by telling him what Muslim families do. In fact this could easily be construed as bigotry because you’ve lumped all Moslem families together and painted them black. Surely you understand profanity undermines your position, as human being and a women.


Nowhere357: You support the rights of women to leave abusive husbands. Correct?
dk: I won’t presume to answer for NC, but husbands and wives are not free to leave a marriage. This is true across the civilized world.


MollyMac: What’s up? Are you too cowardly to give straight answers to straight questions?
It’s obvious to me that you don’t support women’s rights to do anything that men don’t want them to do. Well my oh my aren’t just the best ambassador for Islam I’ve ever.
dk: Men and women aren’t equal or omnipitent. Its absurd to suggest women can do whatever her husbands says, and just as absurd to say husband can do whatever his wife wants. Again Molly you’re letting NC off the hook with these goofy questions. Please calm yourself, you’re coming off as bitter women ruled by her emotions, and that plays into all kinds of negative female stereotypes.

[Kalkin]

NC, your method of argument is becoming more and more nonsensical. You seem to define "liberal" as whatever you disagree with, which is useful for you because it lets you attack Stalin and pretend you're attacking the people you're debating. This is a blatant strawman, though... just because I describe myself as a liberal doesn't mean I defend everything anyone calling themselves a liberal has ever done any more than you defend all actions ever taken by anyone calling themselves a conservative. You call everyone ignorant because they can't define a "classic" vs a "modern" liberal, but that's because this is a division that only you see as sufficient in describing anything. Yes, there are many kinds of liberal, yes, the usual definition has changed, but that doesn't matter in determining that validity of the position of a specific liberal. How about, instead of calling all those who disagree with you on this thread "liberals" and attacking random flaws in what you see as this ideology, you actually respond to the arguments they're making and the positions they're defending - like civil liberties and equal rights?

-A liberal who doesn't believe two-thirds of what NC defines me as believing

[dk]

Originally posted by Kalkin
NC, your method of argument is becoming more and more nonsensical. You seem to define "liberal" as whatever you disagree with, which is useful for you because it lets you attack Stalin and pretend you're attacking the people you're debating. This is a blatant strawman, though... just because I describe myself as a liberal doesn't mean I defend everything anyone calling themselves a liberal has ever done any more than you defend all actions ever taken by anyone calling themselves a conservative. You call everyone ignorant because they can't define a "classic" vs a "modern" liberal, but that's because this is a division that only you see as sufficient in describing anything. Yes, there are many kinds of liberal, yes, the usual definition has changed, but that doesn't matter in determining that validity of the position of a specific liberal. How about, instead of calling all those who disagree with you on this thread "liberals" and attacking random flaws in what you see as this ideology, you actually respond to the arguments they're making and the positions they're defending - like civil liberties and equal rights?

-A liberal who doesn't believe two-thirds of what NC defines me as believing I don't disagree with your sentiment Kalkin. The problem is that liberals have been unable to say what a liberal might be, or how liberals believe women should be treated. Perhaps you can shed some light on this discussion.

1) How do liberals believe women should dress, and
2) Who should tell women how to dress?

[Kalkin]

MollyMac: Every Muslim I’ve ever spoken to about the subject has told me that in Islam women are ‘truly equal (but different) to men’. Now you are stating quite emphatically that wives are not equal to their husbands. WHY THE FUCK NOT??? In what way are wives not equal to their husbands? You’d better explain yourself, man, because the way you’ve left things you sound like a fucking moron!!
dk: A curious mixture of moral indignation and profanity. NC from a Muslim perspective clearly attacks the liberal concept of equality because it focuses on the autonomous individual, at the expense of the family unit. Equality fails in all its dimensions when it sets a husband against his wife, wife against her husband, children against their parents and parents against their children. You need to address the issue NC has brought to the table, else you forfeit as a no show.

Equality might fail if it set the husband against wife and children against parents, but first you need to explain how it does (maybe someone has on this thread, but I've been unable to read it all because I got too frustrated with the strawman attacks I described above). It seems to me that equality would in fact prevent conflict, because people would be induced to respect each other instead of trying to control each other. It's unequal families that would cause conflict, because the person in charge would inevitably try to force the others into doing things they didn't want to. I'm in a family in which my parents are equal, and it seems pretty stable to me...



NC: The end result isn't equality. The end result is women dictating to their husbands what to do or not do, and if they don't listen and obey, then there will be hell to pay.
MollyMac: Whereas in muslim familes we find men dictating to their wives what to do or not do and if they don’t listen and obey, then there will be hell to pay. AND THAT’S ALL FUCKING RIGHT IS IT? WHY???
dk: You’re letting NC off the hook by telling him what Muslim families do. In fact this could easily be construed as bigotry because you’ve lumped all Moslem families together and painted them black. Surely you understand profanity undermines your position, as human being and a women.

She's not necessarily saying all muslim families are bad, rather that NC's version of what a muslim family should be is bad. You haven't addressed her argument that there's no reason men controlling families is better than women controlling families, even assuming NC is right in saying that would be the result of equality.



Nowhere357: You support the rights of women to leave abusive husbands. Correct?
dk: I won’t presume to answer for NC, but husbands and wives are not free to leave a marriage. This is true across the civilized world.

... in the US at least, people are free to leave marriages if they fail, we have this thing called divorce. Do you defend trapping abused women in relationships they want to leave?



MollyMac: What’s up? Are you too cowardly to give straight answers to straight questions?
It’s obvious to me that you don’t support women’s rights to do anything that men don’t want them to do. Well my oh my aren’t just the best ambassador for Islam I’ve ever.
dk: Men and women aren’t equal or omnipitent. Its absurd to suggest women can do whatever her husbands says, and just as absurd to say husband can do whatever his wife wants.

Of course it's absurd to say that men and women are omnipotent and should do whatever their spouse wants. That, however, is not what anybody is saying. What people are saying is that men and women are equal, and just as husbands shouldn't have to do what their wife commands, neither should women have to do as their husbands command, because either would be unfair and oppressive.



dk: Again Molly you’re letting NC off the hook with these goofy questions. Please calm yourself, you’re coming off as bitter women ruled by her emotions, and that plays into all kinds of negative female stereotypes.

She's getting angry for pretty good reason, it seems to me; she's being told that she's part of a group which is not equal to another group and should be submissive to them.

[Kalkin]

Just saw your last post dk. I think most liberals, at least me, would say no one should tell a women how to dress, and there's no one way that 's best for them to dress (although some ways are more attractive;). Is there some way that's right for you to dress? Who should tell you how to dress?

[Mendeh]

Originally posted by dk
...how liberals believe women should be treated.

1) How do liberals believe women should dress, and
2) Who should tell women how to dress?

Most owners agree that women are best treated with formaldehyde. For optimum preservation, try to move her about as little as possible. However, she may gather dust if you keep her in a display case without periodically standing her outside to air.

You can dress up your woman in hundreds of different ways; you will find that all her clothes can easily be removed and reattached without significant wear-and-tear, and many different outfits and accessories are now available for purchase, including a chain to tie her to the kitchen sink.

I can't believe this is a real question.

* * *

The problem is that liberals have been unable to say what a liberal might be

No, there was an in-depth definition of "liberal" only a couple of pages back by Dr. Rick, and a dictionary definition somewhere as well.

Dr Rick wrote:
[Liberalism]is a political theory based upon the belief in the inherent goodness of humans and the supremacy of individual autonomy. It is the latter characteristic that most readily distinguishes liberalism from nationalism, socialism, and communism.

Liberalism favors civil and political liberties, protection from arbitrary authority, government by law with the consent of the governed, and places the burden of justification upon those who propose limits to freedom. The Romans and Greeks held the state and society supreme over individual autonomy. They worshipped many gods, and had orgies and sex with boys, but these activities had nothing to do with the political philosophy of liberalism, which didn't even exist until well into the last millineum. A promiscuous individual may or may not be a liberal; promiscuity, homsexuality, and/or bi-sexuality does not automatically make one a liberal. These are sexual practices and orientations, not political philosophies.

The Fundamental Liberal Principle holds that any restrictions on liberty must ultimately be justified as protecting and enhancing the sum of all liberties. As such, the presumption of state power, as in totalitarianism, is not compatible with liberalism.

The philosophy of liberalism is not consistent with Christianity and Islam, both of which presume authority predicated upon the precept that humanity is evil and must be redeemed. However, not everything that is in opposition to these religions is liberalism, and anything that limits the practices of these religions beyond that which is necessary to prevent oppression by religion is not liberalism, either.

See the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jean Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and Adam Smith for more on the fundamentals of liberalism and it corallary, social contract theory.

[greyline]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
As a Muslim, I don't believe that the state should be subservient to classical or modern liberals, or anybody else except Allah.

You mean, the state should be subservient to the ruling men's *interpretation* of Allah. Whatever the specific beliefs of the men in charge, everyone else has to be subservient to those beliefs. No questions asked. And since you used the word "should", you're going to need a police force to make sure the minions obey this "correct" interpretation of Allah. Anyone who has a different interpretation of Allah is wrong, and needs to change their beliefs. No debate allowed.


It's the modern liberal states of the West that have exploited third world countries, so don't tell me about how great liberalism has been for the rest of the world.

I didn't say anything about liberalism being great for the rest of the world. I said that freeing society from the oppression of staid holy books has improved human life.


I am assuming that you are a woman, but I never know with the liberals. Does Australia have laws against polygamy?

Yes it does, thereby oppressing Muslim men who live here. Fortunately, I'm free to *live* with four men if I want to, even if I can only legally marry one, thereby experiencing the sexual variety that Mohammed apparently believed only men crave.

[greyline]

Originally posted by dk
In fact this could easily be construed as bigotry because you’ve lumped all Moslem families together and painted them black. Surely you understand profanity undermines your position, as human being and a women.


Just like NC painted non-Muslims white...?

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by dk
...husbands and wives are not free to leave a marriage. This is true across the civilized world.

False.

Men and women aren’t equal...

False.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by dk
The problem is that liberals have been unable to say what a liberal might be, or how liberals believe women should be treated.

Women should be treated as equal to their male counterparts.

1) How do liberals believe women should dress,

Views differ in any seemingly or artificially homogenised group, but the ideal liberal view, from my perspective, is one in which women decide, for themselves, how they should and shouldn't dress.

and
2) Who should tell women how to dress?

No one except the woman herself. Full autonomy and agency.

[dk]

Kalkin: Equality might fail if it set the husband against wife and children against parents, but first you need to explain how it does (maybe someone has on this thread, but I've been unable to read it all because I got too frustrated with the strawman attacks I described above). It seems to me that equality would in fact prevent conflict, because people would be induced to respect each other instead of trying to control each other. It's unequal families that would cause conflict, because the person in charge would inevitably try to force the others into doing things they didn't want to. I'm in a family in which my parents are equal, and it seems pretty stable to me...
dk: All other things being equal in any relationship the person with the strongest will/most competitive drive tends to dominate. Equality doesn’t prevent conflict but guarantees it. I don’t doubt the mutual respect between your parents, but would argue that respect, trust and love transcend inequities to make equality a mute issue. I criticize radical feminism precisely because it intentionally confuses inequities with equality, and over the last 40 years we’ve seen the divorce rate sour in the US from 5% to 50%. There’s nothing equitable or equal about divorce.


Kalkin: She's not necessarily saying all muslim families are bad, rather that NC's version of what a muslim family should be is bad. You haven't addressed her argument that there's no reason men controlling families is better than women controlling families, even assuming NC is right in saying that would be the result of equality.
dk: Again, I think you’re confusing inequity with inequality. In the vast majority of healthy families husbands and wives love, trust and respect one another, in spite of themselves. There are a million ways for a husband and wife to undermine and betray one another. Husbands and wives need one another precisely because of their individual flaws. Personally I view equality as a distraction. Hypothetically speaking, if my wife were to get sick, she needs to know I'd be there for her and the kids, for better or worse, not because she’s my equal, but because I love and honor her, and visa versa. In marriage based on equality, when a husband or wife becomes unequal, the marriage ends in a divorce. Obviously a marriage based on equality starts on a faulty footing.


Kalkin: ... in the US at least, people are free to leave marriages if they fail, we have this thing called divorce. Do you defend trapping abused women in relationships they want to leave?
dk: No, people aren’t free to leave marriages when they fail. The dockets of family courts are choked with disputes over children, child support claims, custody battles and children traumatized by divorce. A person can have a marriage dissolved by a court but they are never truly free of the obligations they accrued.


Kalkin: Of course it's absurd to say that men and women are omnipotent and should do whatever their spouse wants. That, however, is not what anybody is saying. What people are saying is that men and women are equal, and just as husbands shouldn't have to do what their wife commands, neither should women have to do as their husbands command, because either would be unfair and oppressive.
dk: I challenge the premise. Women and men are certainly different in physical proportions, structure, emotional responses, intellectual talents and reproductive function. Equality isn’t the basis of a good marriage, because husbands and wives in the course of their life undergo unforeseeable changes. This whole idea of sexual equality seems to me fraught with ambiguity and inequities nobody has addressed.


Kalkin: She's getting angry for pretty good reason, it seems to me; she's being told that she's part of a group which is not equal to another group and should be submissive to them.
dk: My point is self evident, Molly needs to lighten up on the knee jerk emotional responses (profanity) and articulate her position on some rational basis.

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
Good, then why don't you tell us the difference between a classical liberal and a modern liberal?
You brought the phrase up. Plus I asked you first. I guess you really don't want to be understood?

Liberals...
You owe me two more smilies, for a total of three. But you did make it through two sentences! Pretty good, I guess.

Muslims are breeding like rabbits, so there is hope that the stupidity of liberalism will one day be history.
Quit beating around the bush, and say how you really feel!

We are all servants here; there are no lords.

The wisdom of Koran!

What do you think?
That you really don't want to be understood.

If you don't know, then I don't really care whether you know or not.
Then here's what you should do: refuse to define your words, write paragraph after paragraph of dogma and rhetoric, equivocate and obfuscate. Iow, carry on!

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by dk
I don't disagree with your sentiment Kalkin. The problem is that liberals have been unable to say what a liberal might be, or how liberals believe women should be treated. Perhaps you can shed some light on this discussion.

1) How do liberals believe women should dress, and
2) Who should tell women how to dress?
Originally posted by Kalkin
Just saw your last post dk. I think most liberals, at least me, would say no one should tell a women how to dress, and there's no one way that 's best for them to dress (although some ways are more attractive;). Is there some way that's right for you to dress? Who should tell you how to dress?
This is so typical of so many liberals. Ask them a couple of simple questions about where to draw the line and they don't take a stand. They vehemently argue with anyone who draws a line, but when it is asked of them to draw a line where they think it should be, they are a no show.

[dk]

dk: The problem is that liberals have been unable to say what a liberal might be, or how liberals believe women should be treated.
Luiseach: Women should be treated as equal to their male counterparts.
dk: Treated equal by whom? If I didn’t know better I'd say you were asking for an “eye for an eye”. A man can’t physically carry or deliver a child, so what compensation does a man need to pay a women for bearing his children. Can a women sign away the paternal rights of her child? Does a women have the power to kill her child? Does a man have the power to kill his child? All I see is a den of inequities that perpetuate a false notion of what it means to be a human being, a woman and a man.


dk: 1) How do liberals believe women should dress,
Luiseach: Views differ in any seemingly or artificially homogenised group, but the ideal liberal view, from my perspective, is one in which women decide, for themselves, how they should and shouldn't dress.
dk: That being the case, then your real gripe is with male fashion designers, not Moslem husbands.


dk: 2) Who should tell women how to dress?
Luiseach: No one except the woman herself. Full autonomy and agency.
dk: Well then where do liberals get off telling Moslem women how to dress?

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by dk
In marriage based on equality, when a husband or wife becomes unequal, the marriage ends in a divorce. Obviously a marriage based on equality starts on a faulty footing.

You're saying that equality leads to divorce, but only when the relationship between husband and wife undergoes a transformation that leads to inequality?

If this is what you're saying, then it makes absolutely no sense at all to say that equality leads to divorce, but rather that a change to inequality between the sexes can lead to divorce.

Women and men are certainly different in physical proportions, structure, emotional responses, intellectual talents and reproductive function.

Why should differences between two human beings have any bearing whatsoever on the issue of equal human rights?

Equality isn’t the basis of a good marriage...

Wrong. My husband and I are equal, and we have a fantastic relationship based on mutual respect and love. My parents are the same.

This whole idea of sexual equality seems to me fraught with ambiguity and inequities nobody has addressed.

Probably because there are no ambiguities and inequities involved in the concept of sexual equality.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by dk
Luiseach: Women should be treated as equal to their male counterparts.
dk: Treated equal by whom?

By everyone involved in society.

If I didn’t know better I'd say you were asking for an “eye for an eye”.

Clearly you've misread what I said, because I did not say anything remotely along the lines of 'eye for an eye.'

A man can’t physically carry or deliver a child, so what compensation does a man need to pay a women for bearing his children.

How is this question relevant to the discussion of equal rights?

How do the differences between male and female reproductive systems pertain to the question of human equality between men and women?

That being the case, then your real gripe is with male fashion designers, not Moslem husbands.

I have said nothing about having a 'gripe' with anyone, thank you, so again you seem to be misreading, or misunderstanding, what I am saying.

To reiterate, I am saying this: women should decide for themselves what they wear and don't wear.

Well then where do liberals get off telling Moslem women how to dress?

Which liberals are you talking about? Specifically? The liberals I know are concerned, not with telling Moslem women how to dress, but rather with preventing the dictation of what women should and shouldn't wear, what women can and cannot be, what women can and cannot say or do, etc., based on the fact that they are women. Men and women should be treated equally; their value as human beings is not contingent upon sexual difference. In other words, gender should not undermine the equal status of human beings.

[dk]

dk: In marriage based on equality, when a husband or wife becomes unequal, the marriage ends in a divorce. Obviously a marriage based on equality starts on a faulty footing.
Luiseach: You're saying that equality leads to divorce, but only when the relationship between husband and wife undergoes a transformation that leads to inequality?
If this is what you're saying, then it makes absolutely no sense at all to say that equality leads to divorce, but rather that a change to inequality between the sexes can lead to divorce.
dk: Actually I said, “a marriage based on equality starts on a faulty footing.” It is possible for a marriage that begins on shaky ground to right itself upon a solid foundation. However, a marriage like a building needs a solid footing to stand the test of time.


dk: Women and men are certainly different in physical proportions, structure, emotional responses, intellectual talents and reproductive function.
Luiseach: Why should differences between two human beings have any bearing whatsoever on the issue of equal human rights?
dk: I don’t know what you mean by human rights, can you be more specific.


dk: Equality isn’t the basis of a good marriage...
Luiseach: Wrong. My husband and I are equal, and we have a fantastic relationship based on mutual respect and love. My parents are the same.
dk: I think you’re confused, I’ve raised an issue you need to address. If the basis of your marriage and your parent’s marriage is equality, then if you or your mother get sick then your spouse or father has a good reason for a divorce. Is this what you want, for yourself or your mother? I doubt it.


dk: This whole idea of sexual equality seems to me fraught with ambiguity and inequities nobody has addressed.
Luiseach: Probably because there are no ambiguities and inequities involved in the concept of sexual equality.
dk: Then I can’t imagine why so many marriages end in divorce (50%), and why so many single mothers head of household (50%) hover on the poverty line. I can not think of anything more inequitable from a women’s perspective.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by dk
Actually I said, “a marriage based on equality starts on a faulty footing.” It is possible for a marriage that begins on shaky ground to right itself upon a solid foundation. However, a marriage like a building needs a solid footing to stand the test of time.

And you also said that the transformation to inequality from equality occurs before the breakdown of the marriage.

You're right that a marriage needs a solid footing, but this solid foundation is equality, not inequality.

Any healthy relationship requires full human equality for all participants.

I don’t know what you mean by human rights...

You're kidding, right?

...can you be more specific.

Oh, you mean this ----> http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

I think you’re confused, I’ve raised an issue you need to address. If the basis of your marriage and your parent’s marriage is equality, then if you or your mother get sick then your spouse or father has a good reason for a divorce. Is this what you want, for yourself or your mother? I doubt it.

I am not confused at all, thank you. Differences between human beings in terms of health have no bearing at all on the question of their equality, as human beings, to one another.

How, exactly, does the situation you describe relate to the issue of human equality between men and women?

Then I can’t imagine why so many marriages end in divorce (50%), and why so many single mothers head of household (50%) hover on the poverty line. I can not think of anything more inequitable from a women’s perspective.

Again, what has all this to do with the question at hand?

[Timberline]

This is so typical of so many liberals. Ask them a couple of simple questions about where to draw the line and they don't take a stand. They vehemently argue with anyone who draws a line, but when it is asked of them to draw a line where they think it should be, they are a no show.

Oh, for crying out loud...we're back to the "draw a line" bit. Well, NC, twenty-odd pages ago I told you where I draw the line. As I recall, you never responded. Here it is again:

People should dress in a manner that is practical for the activity they're engaged in. If they're doing field research in Antarctica, that probably means a parka, snow pants, and facemask. If they're doing an archaeological dig in a cave in Iran on a 120-degree day, that probably means a short-sleeve shirt and jeans. If they're running a marathon, that means shorts and a t-shirt. If they're in a business meeting, that means business attire.

Yes, a restaurant, a workplace, or society in general may wish to impose limits on freedom of dress, such as covering "private parts." That's fine, as long as the same "line" is drawn for everyone, i.e. all races and genders must cover the same parts. That way, people of all races and genders have the same opportunities to participate in the same activities and jobs, if they so choose. Simple enough.

Last time "drawing the line" came up, I asked you why you wanted to draw one line for men and another for women. As I recall, you never answered.

[dk]

You didn’t address the issues I brought up, except to mandate a police state where the government forces everyone in society (including women) to treat women equally. Your premise presents women as hopelessly dependent creatures. I disagree, but I see no hope of resolving such a fundamental difference, so I am content to agree to disagree.

(snip)

Luiseach: Which liberals are you talking about? Specifically? The liberals I know are concerned, not with telling Moslem women how to dress, but rather with preventing the dictation of what women should and shouldn't wear, what women can and cannot be, what women can and cannot say or do, etc., based on the fact that they are women. Men and women should be treated equally; their value as human beings is not contingent upon sexual difference. In other words, gender should not undermine the equal status of human beings.
dk: I’m confused. Ok, so (if I understand you) liberals don’t care what Moslem women wear. but what Moslem women can do, can be and cannot do and be. Ok, whose job is it to make everyone treat Moslem women equally?

[greyline]

dk, this discussion is going over your head.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by dk
You didn’t address the issues I brought up, except to mandate a police state where the government forces everyone in society (including women) to treat women equally.

Once again, you misread what I said. I said nothing about 'police states'.

Your premise presents women as hopelessly dependent creatures.

False.

I’m confused. Ok, so (if I understand you) liberals don’t care what Moslem women wear.

Correct.

...but what Moslem women can do, can be and cannot do and be.

False. Here is what I said:

LuiseachThe liberals I know are concerned, not with telling Moslem women how to dress, but rather with preventing the dictation of what women should and shouldn't wear, what women can and cannot be, what women can and cannot say or do, etc., based on the fact that they are women.. Men and women should be treated equally; their value as human beings is not contingent upon sexual difference. In other words, gender should not undermine the equal status of human beings.

Ok, whose job is it to make everyone treat Moslem women equally?

Everybody's job. The achievement of full human equality for all is the responsibility of the entire human race.

[dk]

dk
I think you’re confused, I’ve raised an issue you need to address. If the basis of your marriage and your parent’s marriage is equality, then if you or your mother get sick then your spouse or father has a good reason for a divorce. Is this what you want, for yourself or your mother? I doubt it.
Luiseach
I am not confused at all, thank you. Differences between human beings in terms of health have no bearing at all on the question of their equality, as human beings, to one another.
How, exactly, does the situation you describe relate to the issue of human equality between men and women?

I have no idea what you mean by equality. Please explain, I've always assumed equality meant "equal treatment under the law". It appears to me you believe society determines inequality, and therefore government must determine society. This is a problematic statement. It presumes upon an omnipotent and benevolent government the power and authority to social engineer society, to determine society. I personally don’t believe any government possesses the omnipotent foresight to engineer society. A government engineered society poses a threat to everyone’s freedom and liberty. If there’s a problem with Moslem dress codes then they might project upon Moslem women the flaws of Moslem men. However, I view Moslem dress codes as an immune response to the corrupt Western media, or a response to Western flaws we project upon women.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by MollyMac
OK NC,

I regret it already, but on a whim I actually bothered to read your last post and I found this:

Every Muslim I’ve ever spoken to about the subject has told me that in Islam women are ‘truly equal (but different) to men’. Now you are stating quite emphatically that wives are not equal to their husbands. WHY THE FUCK NOT??? In what way are wives not equal to their husbands? You’d better explain yourself, man, because the way you’ve left things you sound like a fucking moron!!

You must have been talking to Muslims who are afraid to tell it like it is because they are afraid that people like you are going to shout obscenities at them. If you will notice, I didn't say that women are not equal to men. I said that WIVES are not equal to their HUSBANDS. The husband/wife relationship isn't a partnership, anymore than the child/parent, or the individual/state relationship are. If women don't want to be wives, then that is their choice. They don't have to get married.

The agenda of equality, which you are obviously advocating here, is designed to undermine authority - the bedrock of society. The modern liberals have a problem with the authoritarian Abrahamic religions because they deem them to be paternalistic and sexist. The problem is modern liberalism, with its agenda of equality, simply doesn't work and isn't a suitable replacement for the Abrahamic religions. We always hear from liberals how great their personal marriages and families are, and that may be true in their particular instances, but the fact of the matter is that the agenda of equality isn't working very well in the society at large. The divorce rate is way too high, and there are way too many children that are completely out of control which means that they will probably become a burden upon society when they become adults.

What has the modern liberal agenda of equality done for the black community? Has it strengthened black families or weakened them? These same liberals who claim that they are fighting for black civil rights have no problem with the legalization of drugs, prostitution and alcohol, which is killing black families right now. The modern liberals don't truly care about the black communities. The truth is Jewish liberals used the black community as pawns to further their own political agenda in the White House back in the 60's.

Perhaps, you are sincere in your convictions. I cannot tell what is in your heart. One thing I do know is that the people you have decided to ally yourself with are clearly not your friends. The modern liberals are their own worst enemies.

[Kalkin]

Dk, I agree with Luiseach generally, just a few things I want to add. You make a good case that equality isn’t sufficient for a relationship and that true total equality in a relationship is impossible, but that doesn’t mean that general equality of treatment isn’t good. Obviously, no two people are going to behave identically, so equality in the most absolute sense is impossible. Equally obviously, two people being equal isn’t enough for a marriage; there must be trust, respect, love, etcetera. However, none of this is unique to relationships between men and women, and it's all irrelevant. There are significant physical and mental differences between me and you, I’m sure, but that doesn’t negate the fact that we deserve equal rights.

dk: All other things being equal in any relationship the person with the strongest will/most competitive drive tends to dominate.

Me: Perhaps, but not unique to male/female relationships, and irrelevant to the human rights of both people involved.

Dk: Equality doesn’t prevent conflict but guarantees it.

Me: I disagree, and I explained why. This is a pretty big claim, you need to provide better evidence, especially when you concede that my parents, for example, have a workable equal relationship.

Dk: I criticize radical feminism precisely because it intentionally confuses inequities with equality

Me: You only criticize radical feminism? I criticize some radical feminism too – it gets pretty wacky when you start getting radical enough (patriarchy is the root of all violence!). But I think denying women equality is attacking mainstream feminism. I’m not sure what your distinction between inequity and inequality is – are you saying inequity isn’t ok, but inequality is? I don’t think anyone is arguing that all people are identical, we’re only arguing that the inherent differences between men and women aren't substantial and attacking unequal treatment for one group – do you accept that treating women differently is bad?

dk: Again, I think you’re confusing inequity with inequality. In the vast majority of healthy families husbands and wives love, trust and respect one another, in spite of themselves. There are a million ways for a husband and wife to undermine and betray one another. Husbands and wives need one another precisely because of their individual flaws.

Me: Relationships vary, some don’t work, I don’t see what this has to do with anything. As none of this shows a specific difference in the roles of a wife and a husband, it can’t provide a reason why those roles should be different or why we should make an exception to respecting human dignity.

Dk: Personally I view equality as a distraction. Hypothetically speaking, if my wife were to get sick, she needs to know I'd be there for her and the kids, for better or worse, not because she’s my equal, but because I love and honor her, and visa versa.

Me: Again, none of this shows any necessary difference in the roles of wife and husband (probably because there is none). Sure, I shouldn’t get involved with someone just because I’m equal to her, that makes no sense, but why shouldn’t I treat her equally?

Dk: In marriage based on equality, when a husband or wife becomes unequal, the marriage ends in a divorce. Obviously a marriage based on equality starts on a faulty footing.

Me: First, I don’t see how this is different from an unequal marriage – if something major changes, it will end (unless you’re suggesting that women should be forced into remaining in marriages no matter what...). Second, so what? If a relationship goes bad, a divorce is good. Sure, they cause problems, but that’s better than being forced to live with someone your starting to hate.

dk: Women and men are certainly different in physical proportions, structure, emotional responses, intellectual talents and reproductive function. Equality isn’t the basis of a good marriage, because husbands and wives in the course of their life undergo unforeseeable changes. This whole idea of sexual equality seems to me fraught with ambiguity and inequities nobody has addressed.

Me: Men and women are physically different, yes – but this is irrelevant. Emotionally and intellectually different, in ways other than those determined by societal standards? I don’t think so, and even if it were true in general, it varies so widely in individual instances that equal rights should still be granted. The whole point of human rights is that they apply to all humans, and everyone should be treated equally unless they do something to lose that right. What's ambiguous about that?

dk: Treated equal by whom? If I didn’t know better I'd say you were asking for an “eye for an eye”.

Me: Treated equally means treated exactly the same way men are, by everybody, except of course in romantic/sexual relationships or medically. I don’t see what relevance the rest has to anything - if you're trying to show that the physical differences are important, you aren't succeeding, because even if minor differences in treatment are required in terms of child care that doesn't show any reason treatment should be different in politics, economics, society, or whatever. However, I'll answer your questions:

Dk: A man can’t physically carry or deliver a child, so what compensation does a man need to pay a women for bearing his children.

Me: If it’s his child, he’s just as responsible for it as she is – it’s made of his sperm and her egg. So?

Dk.Can a women sign away the paternal rights of her child?

Me: Yes, she can put it up for adoption. So?

Dk: Does a women have the power to kill her child? Does a man have the power to kill his child?

Me: Of course not, that’s murder (unless you mean abortion, in which case it’s not yet a child, but that’s an independent issue and lets not get sidetracked). So?

Dk: All I see is a den of inequities that perpetuate a false notion of what it means to be a human being, a woman and a man.

Me: I really don’t understand how asking for equal treatment is perpetuating an inequity, and as for a false notion of what it means to be a woman or man, there is no meaningful difference on an intellectual or moral level. Now, let me answer NC:

Me: I think most liberals, at least me, would say no one should tell a women how to dress, and there's no one way that 's best for them to dress (although some ways are more attractive). Is there some way that's right for you to dress? Who should tell you how to dress?

NC: This is so typical of so many liberals. Ask them a couple of simple questions about where to draw the line and they don't take a stand. They vehemently argue with anyone who draws a line, but when it is asked of them to draw a line where they think it should be, they are a no show.

Me: I answered dk’s questions pretty plainly; I don’t think there is a line to be drawn concerning correct and incorrect dress for women, and while some things may serve any given woman’s current purpose better than other things, she should be the one who makes the decision on what to wear. This is so typical of NC – ignore what someone else says and make an irrelevant attack on liberals elsewhere.:rolleyes:

[dk]

Originally posted by dk
Actually I said, “a marriage based on equality starts on a faulty footing.” It is possible for a marriage that begins on shaky ground to right itself upon a solid foundation. However, a marriage like a building needs a solid footing to stand the test of time.

(snip)
Oh, you mean this ----> http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
(snip)

The United Nations DoHR is problematic. For example the quota systems employed by the UN to elimnate the poor, ethnic and religious factions in India, Sub Saharan Africa and South America can only be catagorized as a crime against humanity. There record is suspect, and NGO defintions of family and children contentious amongst most of the world's population. The truth is most nations and people don't understand what human rights mean. What the UN DoHR means to who depends on how people feel at the time. In fact the UN DoHR means nothing because the UN lacks the power, will and authority to enforce them.

[Kalkin]

Ahh, more posts to address written while I was typing.

Dk: I have no idea what you mean by equality. Please explain, I've always assumed equality meant "equal treatment under the law". It appears to me you believe society determines inequality, and therefore government must determine society. This is a problematic statement. It presumes upon an omnipotent and benevolent government the power and authority to social engineer society, to determine society. I personally don’t believe any government possesses the omnipotent foresight to engineer society. A government engineered society poses a threat to everyone’s freedom and liberty. If there’s a problem with Moslem dress codes then they might project upon Moslem women the flaws of Moslem men. However, I view Moslem dress codes as an immune response to the corrupt Western media, or a response to Western flaws we project upon women.

Me: What I’m advocating, and what Luiseach is probably advocating, is not the government interfering to engineer society for women’s equality. It’s only the government interfering to protect women’s rights. I don’t think you believe forbidding murder is illegitimate government control; forbidding discrimination shouldn’t be either. The government of course can’t and shouldn’t try to force you to think women are your equals, but it should prevent you from doing anything to a woman you wouldn’t be allowed to do to a man.

NC: You must have been talking to Muslims who are afraid to tell it like it is because they are afraid that people like you are going to shout obscenities at them. If you will notice, I didn't say that women are not equal to men. I said that WIVES are not equal to their HUSBANDS. The husband/wife relationship isn't a partnership, anymore than the child/parent, or the individual/state relationship are. If women don't want to be wives, then that is their choice. They don't have to get married.

Me: Ah, but if you can’t prove any difference between women and men, you can’t justify any difference between husbands and wives – if this is really about a specific voluntary relationship and not about gender equality, why can’t a woman be a husband?

NC: The agenda of equality, which you are obviously advocating here, is designed to undermine authority - the bedrock of society. The modern liberals have a problem with the authoritarian Abrahamic religions because they deem them to be paternalistic and sexist. The problem is modern liberalism, with its agenda of equality, simply doesn't work and isn't a suitable replacement for the Abrahamic religions. We always hear from liberals how great their personal marriages and families are, and that may be true in their particular instances, but the fact of the matter is that the agenda of equality isn't working very well in the society at large. The divorce rate is way too high, and there are way too many children that are completely out of control which means that they will probably become a burden upon society when they become adults.
What has the modern liberal agenda of equality done for the black community? Has it strengthened black families or weakened them? These same liberals who claim that they are fighting for black civil rights have no problem with the legalization of drugs, prostitution and alcohol, which is killing black families right now. The modern liberals don't truly care about the black communities. The truth is Jewish liberals used the black community as pawns to further their own political agenda in the White House back in the 60's.
Perhaps, you are sincere in your convictions. I cannot tell what is in your heart. One thing I do know is that the people you have decided to ally yourself with are clearly not your friends. The modern liberals are their own worst enemies.

Me: Now we get to hear NC attack the “agenda of equality.” That is one liberal position I’m happy to support. It undermines authority? Good. Authority doesn’t have to be “the bedrock of society” – society’s where it isn’t tend to be much happier ones. NC is apparently arguing in favor of a theocracy. I can give lots of reasons why theocracies are bad – they brutally oppress people, eliminating dissent and restricting behavior so that living in one can be a nightmare, and are bad for everybody in them except the few at the top who claim God as a justification for doing whatever they want. What are NC’s reasons why equality is bad? Divorce – but nothing’s wrong with people leaving relationships that they don’t want to be in. Out-of-control children – no reason equality means bad parenting, and obviously they haven’t destroyed our society yet. The destruction of the black family – even assuming equality is the reason for the destruction of the black family as opposed to the remnants of oppression, I think you will find very few black people who would say that granting them equality under the law worsened their situation. Legalization of drugs and alcohol – well, our pro-equality society doesn’t seem to be near doing that yet, but anyway most of the problems caused by those are caused by their illegality. Lets look at the societies in this world run by democracies, and those run by theocracies. While I agree that the US and Western Europe have many problems, I think most people would agree with me when I say that people living in Iran and Saudi Arabia have it far worse. NC, I think you will have a hard time convincing anyone on this forum, including your friend dk, that tyranny is good and civil liberties are bad – which is at this point all you are using to justify your desire to control women.

[Kalkin]

Damn, my posts are long... I need to start quoting less.:(

[lpetrich]

NonContradiction:
Liberals want to destroy the parent/child relationship by making children equal to their parents.

How is that supposed to be the case, O NC?

They want to destroy the husband/wife relationship by making the wife equal to her husband.

How is that supposed to be the case, O NC?

They want to destroy the individual/state relationship by making individuals equal to the state.

How is that supposed to be the case, O NC?

The end result isn't equality. The end result is children dictating to their parents what to do or not do. ...

How is that supposed to be the case, O NC?

The end result isn't equality. The end result is women dictating to their husbands what to do or not do, and if they don't listen and obey, then there will be hell to pay.

How is that supposed to be the case, O NC?

And there are lots of egalitarian husband-wife relationships that work just fine.

The end result isn't equality. The end result is the individual dictating to the state to listen and obey their whims and desires.

How is that supposed to be the case, O NC?

Furthermore, the idea that the state should be the servant of the citizens, and not its master, has been around since Robert Locke and his social-contract theory of government. Furthermore, the US Constitution's Preamable contains a very clear statement of the social-contract theory of government.

NC clearly imagines society as a hierarchy of command, where if X does not command Y, then Y commands X. He is unable to accept that non-command relationships are possible.

They want prostitution to be legal.

Who, specifically?

They want drugs to be legal.

Who, specifically?

They want same sex marriages to be legal.

Who, specifically?

And how is that much different from polygamy -- either 4 wives in this world or 72 additional ones in the next world.

They want gambling to be legal.

Who, specifically?

They want alcohol to be legal.

Who, specifically?

Furthermore, alcohol has been legal in most non-Muslim parts of the world, meaning that alcohol consumption is a strange thing for a self-styled conservative to object to.

They want pornography to be easily accessible at the push of a button, even if it pops up in the face of a five year old innocently surfing the web.

Who, specifically?

The end result isn't equality. The end result is the tail wagging the dog and the inmates running the asylum. This is what the liberals wanted to achieve when they attacked the lord/servant relationship.

Or more honestly, the master-slave relationship.

I can imagine what NonContradiction would have said about the US antislavery movement in the early 19th cy -- that the abolition of slavery would mean that abolition of all the hierarchies that society depends on.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by dk
I have no idea what you mean by equality. Please explain, I've always assumed equality meant "equal treatment under the law".

I already provided a helpful link to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I trust that the link actually works?

It appears to me you believe society determines inequality...

Correct.

...and therefore government must determine society.

Non sequitur. And a false one at that.

This is a problematic statement.

It certainly is a problematic statement...but since I didn't make such a statement, I see no need to defend a position that I don't hold.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by dk
The United Nations DoHR is problematic.

How so? Which parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are problematic?

For example the quota systems employed by the UN to elimnate the poor, ethnic and religious factions in India, Sub Saharan Africa and South America can only be catagorized as a crime against humanity. There record is suspect, and NGO defintions of family and children contentious amongst most of the world's population.

What has this to do with the definition of human rights as per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

The truth is most nations and people don't understand what human rights mean.

And?

What the UN DoHR means to who depends on how people feel at the time.

False. The UDoHR's definition of human rights does not depend on 'how people feel at the time.' What time? What people?

In fact the UN DoHR means nothing because the UN lacks the power, will and authority to enforce them.

False. What the UDoHR says about universal human rights is indeed meaningful.

Why should difficulties in bringing about universal rights for all human beings as per the UDoHR render the document's definition of rights meaningless? This simply doesn't follow.

[lpetrich]

dk:
NC from a Muslim perspective clearly attacks the liberal concept of equality because it focuses on the autonomous individual, at the expense of the family unit.

So "the family unit" is supposed to be a giant unified collective that contains entire populations?

Equality fails in all its dimensions when it sets a husband against his wife, wife against her husband, children against their parents and parents against their children.

Only in dk's imagination.

dk:
I won’t presume to answer for NC, but husbands and wives are not free to leave a marriage. This is true across the civilized world.

Except that divorce is widely recognized. For example, in Islamic tradition, a man may divorce his wife by saying:

I divorce you!
I divorce you!
I divorce you!

However, women have no similar rights.

[lpetrich]

dk:
... It appears to me you believe society determines inequality, and therefore government must determine society. This is a problematic statement. It presumes upon an omnipotent and benevolent government the power and authority to social engineer society, to determine society. I personally don’t believe any government possesses the omnipotent foresight to engineer society. A government engineered society poses a threat to everyone’s freedom and liberty.

Such extreme measures are NOT necessary -- what Luiseach has in mind is more like law and order, more like the protection of life, liberty, and property.

Also, it seems to me that dk is here portraying "the state" as the villainous mirror image of his ideal society -- one rigidly controlled by self-styled know-it-alls who just so happen to agree with dk.

However, I view Moslem dress codes as an immune response to the corrupt Western media, or a response to Western flaws we project upon women.

???

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Kalkin
Me: Ah, but if you can’t prove any difference between women and men, you can’t justify any difference between husbands and wives – if this is really about a specific voluntary relationship and not about gender equality, why can’t a woman be a husband?
Oh boy, here we go. Why are liberals such a tedious bunch of people? I would never try to prove anything to you or any other liberal. Only a true blue liberal would ask why a woman can't be a husband.
Originally posted by Kalkin
Me: Now we get to hear NC attack the “agenda of equality.” That is one liberal position I’m happy to support. It undermines authority? Good. Authority doesn’t have to be “the bedrock of society” – society’s where it isn’t tend to be much happier ones.

Are you an anarchist?

Originally posted by Kalkin
NC is apparently arguing in favor of a theocracy. I can give lots of reasons why theocracies are bad – they brutally oppress people, eliminating dissent and restricting behavior so that living in one
can be a nightmare, and are bad for everybody in them except the few at the top who claim God as a justification for doing whatever they want.

I don't advocate a theocracy, so everything that follows here is a strawman.

Originally posted by Kalkin
What are NC’s reasons why equality is bad? Divorce – but nothing’s wrong with people leaving relationships that they don’t want to be in. Out-of-control children – no reason equality means bad parenting, and obviously they haven’t destroyed our society yet. The destruction of the black family – even assuming equality is the reason for the destruction of the black family as opposed to the remnants of oppression, I think you will find very few black people who would say that granting them equality under the law worsened their situation. Legalization of drugs and alcohol – well, our pro-equality society doesn’t seem to be near doing that yet, but anyway most of the problems caused by those are caused by their illegality. Lets look at the societies in this world run by democracies, and those run by theocracies. While I agree that the US and Western Europe have many problems, I think most people would agree with me when I say that people living in Iran and Saudi Arabia have it far worse. NC, I think you will have a hard time convincing anyone on this forum, including your friend dk, that tyranny is good and civil liberties are bad – which is at this point all you are using to justify your desire to control women.

You label me an advocate of tyranny, an enemy of freedom and democracy, because I oppose the modern liberal agenda of equality. How convenient. I have no desire to control women or anybody else. I have enough difficulty controlling myself, let alone other people. You can put your spin on what I say, but if what I say is true, it will prevail in the end, no matter what you say.

It's very convenient to use the scare tactic that I am some kind of fundamentalist lurking in the shadows waiting for the right moment to sieze the reigns of power in order to impose a theocracy upon the American people whether they like it or not. Dream on!

[lpetrich]

NonContradiction:
The husband/wife relationship isn't a partnership, anymore than the child/parent, or the individual/state relationship are.

WRONG. The husband-wife relationship is a relationship between two adult human beings who often have similar positions in society. Except, perhaps, to some man who wants a harem.

If women don't want to be wives, then that is their choice. They don't have to get married.

But if they decide to "live together" then the religious police ought to beat them up, right?

The agenda of equality, which you are obviously advocating here, is designed to undermine authority - the bedrock of society.

NC confesses that he believes that a society ought to have a hierarchy of command.

The divorce rate is way too high, ...

This from someone whose religion teaches that a man has a right to divorce his wife by saying

I divorce you!
I divorce you!
I divorce you!

while women have no comparable rights.

What has the modern liberal agenda of equality done for the black community?

It's gotten rid of Jim Crow laws.

Has it strengthened black families or weakened them?

NC seems to have a totalitarian, collectivist view of families.

These same liberals who claim that they are fighting for black civil rights have no problem with the legalization of drugs, prostitution and alcohol, which is killing black families right now.

Alcohol is ALREADY legal -- and it has been in most times and places outside of Islam.

And do families exist apart from individuals?

The modern liberals don't truly care about the black communities. The truth is Jewish liberals used the black community as pawns to further their own political agenda in the White House back in the 60's.

WHAT political agenda?

[Goober]

Well, I finally finished reading all of this thread. I feel like I'm going to cry :eek:

NonContradiction's postion: Muslims should be able to force whatever rules they want upon members of their society. Anyone who doesn't like that is a 'liberal' and can fuck off and go somewhere else.

Thank the IPU that people like him aren't running the country.

I wonder what he would say if all countries became Muslim theocracies. 'If you don't like it you can leave, we'll fire you into the sun or put you on the moon or something'.

[dk]

I don’t know what measure liberals use to evaluate a marriage as sufficient or insufficient, but to me equality implies tit for tat, one for ME and one for YOU. A man might treat everyone bad, but treat his wife like a queen. Should this man learn to treat his wife bad, to be equitable? answer: No! Some people live for their career, and threat their spouse and children like yesterday’s news. Is this equitable? answer: No! Aniti-Islamic Liberals labor under the misconception that equality solves problems and make everyone happy, YET THERE IS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. I’ve known families to spend themselves into bankruptcy court to keep up with the Jones (be equal with the Jones). I’ve seen couples commit tag adultery to get even. Many parents compete for the affection of their own children. I really have no idea why liberals put so much emphasis on equality, and haven’t a clue what it means to make a women equal. Hypothetically speaking, were I to treat my wife like one of the boys she would not be a happy camper, and I certainly would be unhappy with a wife that treated me like one of the girls.

Let me state what I mean more positively… Men and women that project malevolent perceptions, attitudes and desires upon women that demean, dehumanize and objectify women are sexists.

[dk]

Originally posted by lpetrich
Such extreme measures are NOT necessary -- what Luiseach has in mind is more like law and order, more like the protection of life, liberty, and property.

Also, it seems to me that dk is here portraying "the state" as the villainous mirror image of his ideal society -- one rigidly controlled by self-styled know-it-alls who just so happen to agree with dk.

dk
However, I view Moslem dress codes as an immune response to the corrupt Western media, or a response to Western flaws we project upon women.

Originally posted by lpetrich ??? [/B]

I'm all for law and order, and the protection of life liberty and property. If we are to protect life, then it brings up these questions...
Can a women kill her child?
Can a man kill his child?
Can a mother sign sign away a father's paternity rights?
Can a man sign away his own paternity rights?
Can a man sign away a mothers maternity rights?
These are the big questions that strike at the heart of the Right to Life. Liberals answer... yes... to 1 and 3, ...no... on 2 and 5, and on 4 they say hell no. I'm not arguing about abortion, I'm simply pointing out that a woman can indiscriminately kill her child without informing the father. This is not equality, but inequity. The position from a standpoint of Locke’s life, liberty and property becomes untenable.

By the way I am suspicious of government for good reason, and a strong advocate of the principle of subsidiarity.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Goober
NonContradiction's postion: Muslims should be able to force whatever rules they want upon members of their society. Anyone who doesn't like that is a 'liberal' and can fuck off and go somewhere else.

This is typical of the lying liberals. They are the ones who are competing with the conservatives in America to impose their agenda upon the American people, not Muslims. How many Muslims are in the White House? We are more numerous than the Jewish community in America, but how many Muslims are in the White House compared to Jewish liberals?

Your job is to keep the liberal myth alive, and my job is to point out to people what liars the liberals are. As Muslims in America, we are going to go head to head with the liberals on an individual basis, since all of this liberal nonsense is about individual liberty, which translates into nothing more than self-gratification of the self-centered, ego-centric whiners, commonly referred to as liberals.

Originally posted by Goober
Thank the IPU that people like him aren't running the country.

We are far from running the country, and I doubt that we ever will be running the country because there are plenty of liberals running around producing their own version of "Red Scare" starring the Muslims instead of the Communists.

Originally posted by Goober
I wonder what he would say if all countries became Muslim theocracies. 'If you don't like it you can leave, we'll fire you into the sun or put you on the moon or something'.

I don't believe in theocracies, whether they are Christian or Muslim, but that isn't going to stop the liberals from saying that I do. It fits their agenda to spread this kind of propaganda, but that's okay. It merely underscores what liars they really are because they have to result to propaganda rather than the truth to make their point.

[NonContradiction]

There has been much said about my usage of the word liberal, so let me be clear. The confusion arises because of what it means to be conservative in America is nothing more than defending the classical liberal tradition that the US was founded upon over 200 years ago, in addition to the "Old Left" reinventing itself.

I quote from David Horowitz, "The Politics of Bad Faith":

It was during the French Revolution that the Left created the socialist and communist movements, whose agendas were to complete the transformation the revolution had begun. The efforts of these radicals culminated in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, whose leaders saw themselves as the direct heirs of Robespierre and the Jacobins, and whose goal was an Egalitarian(emphasis mine) state. But now the empires that socialists built have crashed ingloriously to earth. The catastrophe of the Soviet system has ended for all but the most obdurate the idea that a social plan can replace the market and produce abundance, or that government can abolish private property without also abolishing political freedom.

One might conclude from these facts that the Left is now no more than a historical curiosity, and the intellectual tradition that sustained it for two hundred years is at an end. But if history were a rational process, mankind would have learned these lessons long ago, and rejected the socialist fallacies that have caused such epic grief.

It could also be argued that there has never been a true Right in America, a party committed to monarchy, with religious attachments to "blood and soil." Indeed, as a frontier nation, America has been so future-oriented that, until recently, an American conservatism seemed a contradiction in terms. The contemporary conservative movement emerged only in the 1950's, launching its first presidential bid with the candidacy of Barry Goldwater in 1964. Yet, barely twenty-five years later, the end of Communism has already put the future of this movement in question. Many argued that American conservatism was so much a coalition of convenience - the marriage of disparate philosophies united only by anti-Communist passion - that it would not outlive its ideological adversary.

The liberals in America have severed ties to their historical communist and socialist brothers and sisters, for obvious reasons, but the fact remains that the "New Left" is nothing more than the "Old Left" with a new face lift. This, coupled with the fact that American conservatism seems to be a contradiction in terms, is what is causing the confusion.

[Kalkin]

Ok, I think I see how this thread got to 25 pages, and this is probably going to be my last post, but I have to respond to NC:


NC: Oh boy, here we go. Why are liberals such a tedious bunch of people? I would never try to prove anything to you or any other liberal. Only a true blue liberal would ask why a woman can't be a husband.

Me: Obviously, a woman can't be a husband because that's a term for a married man. I was just using the question to point out the absurdity of saying descriminating against wives isn't descriminating against women.

NC: Are you an anarchist?

Me: No, I'm not an anarchist - but I do tend to think that unnecessary heirarchies are bad, while you are apparently arguing that heirarchy in and of itself is good.

NC: I don't advocate a theocracy, so everything that follows here is a strawman.

Me: At the point where your only reason why gender heirarchies are good is that they preserve heirarchy in society, you have no justification for rejecting any heirarchy - authority is apparently always a good thing. You do advocate religious restriction of what women wear, correct? Even if you personally don't believe in say, religious restriction of what people say (suppression of dissent), the exact same justifications apply.

NC: You label me an advocate of tyranny, an enemy of freedom and democracy, because I oppose the modern liberal agenda of equality. How convenient.

Me: Um, if you oppose granting equal rights to everybody on the grounds that authority is crucial to society, what exactly are you advocating if not some kind of authoritarian government?

NC: I have no desire to control women or anybody else. I have enough difficulty controlling myself, let alone other people. You can put your spin on what I say, but if what I say is true, it will prevail in the end, no matter what you say.

Me: You really have no desire to control the actions of women or anyone else? Then you should agree with me that they have the right to control themselves. However, I think you do believe that their dress should be controlled.

NC: It's very convenient to use the scare tactic that I am some kind of fundamentalist lurking in the shadows waiting for the right moment to sieze the reigns of power in order to impose a theocracy upon the American people whether they like it or not. Dream on!

Me: I think you meet nearly any definition of a fundamentalist it's possible to create.

[MollyMac]

Originally posted by dk
You need to address the issue NC has brought to the table, else you forfeit as a no show.
Nice try. But NC didn’t ‘bring an issue to the table’, he simply made a series utterly crass and unsubstantiated assertions which I challenged him to explain. How reassuringly predictable that you should leap to his defence and take it upon yourself to do his explaining for him while taking advantage of the opportunity to patronise me.
Originally posted by dk
Surely you understand profanity undermines your position, as human being and a women.
What you clearly don’t understand, what you are manifestly incapable of understanding, is that as a human being and a woman, I am roused to anger by people making crass and unsubstantiated assertions that wives are not, and should not be, equal to their husbands. Furthermore, I reserve the right to express that anger as and when I see fit. You don’t like women expressing anger about blatant sexism? So what’s new?
Originally posted by dk
Molly you’re letting NC off the hook with these goofy questions.
So (1) why are women not equal to their husbands? (2) why is men dictating to their wives all right? (3) Why don’t you give a straight answer? are ‘goofy questions’ are they? Your concern about my ‘letting NC off the hook’ is touching but you are free to challenge him yourself in any way you see fit. So far, all you have done in this thread is fight his corner for him.
Originally posted by dk
Please calm yourself, you’re coming off as bitter women ruled by her emotions, and that plays into all kinds of negative female stereotypes.

Why thank you! Throughout history not a single battle against male oppression has been won by women smiling and asking nicely. Every feminist heroine from the suffragettes to the campaigners for equal pay has been dismissed by their myopic and bigoted opponents as ‘bitter women ruled by their emotions’. What more can I say? You’ve made my day!
http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/lookaround.gif

[Nowhere357]

dk
Can a women kill her child?
No.

Can a man kill his child?
No.

Can a mother sign sign away a father's paternity rights?
No.

Can a man sign away his own paternity rights?
Yes. That would be adoption.

Can a man sign away a mothers maternity rights?
No.

I'm assuming "can" means "should" as in "should a woman be allowed to kill her child".

Also I'm ignoring confusions such as if either parent has mental illness, is a no-show, etc.

And most important, I'm using definitions 2a and 4a given below. The question of abortion is well-explored elsewhere, but clearly the day before birth we have an unborn child, while the day after conception we have only a clump of cells. Somewhere between those extremes is where the line is correctly drawn. A fetus is not of necessity a child, given the way you phrased the questions. Clearly, a 12 yr old is a child, yet the mother should not kill him, so the answer to the first question MUST be no.

SO I hope you see that your template for liberal reaction to the right-to-life question was inaccurate. Life, liberty and property and not been shown to be untenable.

Suspision of government is a good thing. I'd like to hear your definition of "subsidiarity" before I commit an opinion on that. The dictionary definition sounds reasonable.

I want to say that although I disagree with your conclusions, I think you are trying to state your views in a way that can be understood. Unlike, say, nc, whose position has reduced to a temper tantrum: I hate liberals, liberals are liars, ad nauseum.
_________________________________

Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: child
Function: noun
1 a : an unborn or recently born person
b dialect : a female infant
2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
3 usually childe /'chI(&)ld/ archaic : a youth of noble birth
4 a : a son or daughter of human parents
b : DESCENDANT
5 : one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
6 : PRODUCT, RESULT <barbed wire... is truly a child of the plains -- W. P. Webb>

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction ... is what is causing the confusion. Unless the confusion is caused by your indisciminate use of political labels as a substitution for meaningful dialog.

I'm curious - when the jihad recruiters show up at your door, will you let them in?

[dk]

Can a women kill her child?
answer: yes, wherever abortion is legal.
Can a man kill his child?
answer: absolutely not.
Can a mother sign away a father's paternity rights?
answer: yes, the mother fills in the name of the father on the birth certificate.
Can a man sign away his own paternity rights?
answer. no, not without the consent of the mother.
Can a mother sign away the child’s paternity rights?
answer: yes. sperm donors.
Can a man sign away the child’s maternityrights?
answer: no, not without the consent of the mother.

Since I asked the question, you should have asked me which definition. For child I used “1 a : an unborn or recently born person Your definition uses the term “person”, -- © Merriam-Webster also says, “1 : Person: HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes.” ibid.

[Luiseach]

Ack...double post...

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by MollyMac
Throughout history not a single battle against male oppression has been won by women smiling and asking nicely. Every feminist heroine from the suffragettes to the campaigners for equal pay has been dismissed by their myopic and bigoted opponents as ‘bitter women ruled by their emotions’.

Excellent points, MollyMac.

Deference rarely leads to difference. ;)

[Arctish]

The arguements dk presents remind me of some of the opinions I heard in the 1970's when the Women's Liberation Movement was underway. At that time a certain school of thought held that since men and women are not identical they cannot be truly equal in all respects and in all situations. Of course men are not themselves identical so the idea that " all men are created equal" is undermined by this argument and therefore " equal protection under the law" becomes pointless and irrational.
dk seems to be arguing that since true equality in the most objective sense is impossible trying to achieve it through societal pressures and government legislation is folly. This reminds me of an old joke I once heard:
A scientist and an engineer ( both heterosexual males), are placed in a room with a beautiful woman. They are told they may approach the woman but every time they move toward her they may only travel half of the distance between themselves and the woman. The scientist leaves the room because he realises he can never actually REACH the woman. The engineer stays because he knows he can get close enough for all practical purposes.
We may not be able to achieve true objective equality between men and women, dk, but we can get close enough for all practical purposes by regarding them as human beings first and foremost and by upholding the principle that in a just society, all human beings are equal.
p.s. equality in a marriage means treating your wife with the same respect, regard, tenderness, affection, tolerance, etc. with which she treats you. If you haven't tried this already you should. I think you'll like it and I know she will! ;)

[dk]

Originally posted by MollyMac
[B]Nice try. But NC didn’t ‘bring an issue to the table’, he simply made a series utterly crass and unsubstantiated assertions which I challenged him to explain. How reassuringly predictable that you should leap to his defence and take it upon yourself to do his explaining for him while taking advantage of the opportunity to patronise me.
NC asked what right Western Europeans and North American powers have to tell Moslem women how to dress. Nobody has been able to give a straight answer.
Originally posted by MollyMac
What you clearly don’t understand, what you are manifestly incapable of understanding, is that as a human being and a woman, I am roused to anger by people making crass and unsubstantiated assertions that wives are not, and should not be, equal to their husbands. Furthermore, I reserve the right to express that anger as and when I see fit. You don’t like women expressing anger about blatant sexism? So what’s new?
That's your prerogative, and goes a long way to explain why many good Moslem people see Western culture as an eminent threat to civilization.
Originally posted by MollyMac
So (1) why are women not equal to their husbands? (2) why is men dictating to their wives all right? (3) Why don’t you give a straight answer? are ‘goofy questions’ are they? Your concern about my ‘letting NC off the hook’ is touching but you are free to challenge him yourself in any way you see fit. So far, all you have done in this thread is fight his corner for him.
Why are women not equal to their husbands?
Answer: Many Moslems believe women are served by their traditional role in the family, and they have an obligation to protect their families from the pornography, obscenity, perversion, violence, decadence, subterfuge and other corrupt influences that dominate Western culture. They view liberals as an offense deceptive people with no respect for God, family, children, truth or civilization.
2) Men and women are obliged in an Islamic nation to keep the family safe from usurpers. Your obscenities and fanaticism negate any pretense of reason and good will you might intend. What a good Moslems sees as obscene, perverse and corrupt you think is normal, a protected human right.
3) I have answered your questions forthright, except those questions that embody a false premise like, "How often do you beat your dog?"
You may not realize it but NC may be reaching out to understand the rift between Islam and Western liberalism, but you can help yourself, you bitterly attack him from a platform of hatred.
Originally posted by MollyMac
Why thank you! Throughout history not a single battle against male oppression has been won by women smiling and asking nicely. Every feminist heroine from the suffragettes to the campaigners for equal pay has been dismissed by their myopic and bigoted opponents as ‘bitter women ruled by their emotions’. What more can I say? You’ve made my day!
I'll be sure to tell the single mothers head of household (50%) living on the poverty line about the victory feminists heroines won for them. Then I'll tell the women sexually assaulted on college campuses (25%) about the bigoted opponents liberals slay behind every bush. Then I'll tell the mother's of dead gang bangers about equal pay. Then I'll tell the mothers of crack babies, fetal alcohol syndrome and other developmentally disabled children for "whom the bell tolls" how the war for equality was won. Moslem women aren't hidden from the light of day, they hide from the corruption and perversion liberals project under the guise of freedom and liberty. Many good Moslems see post modern liberalism, especally modern feminists, as people that have sold thier souls.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by MollyMac

What you clearly don’t understand, what you are manifestly incapable of understanding, is that as a human being and a woman, I am roused to anger by people making crass and unsubstantiated assertions that wives are not, and should not be, equal to their husbands. Furthermore, I reserve the right to express that anger as and when I see fit. You don’t like women expressing anger about blatant sexism? So what’s new?

Get angry all you want Molly, do you think that I care? You have become so blinded by your anger that you can't see the forest through the trees.

To say that the husband/wife relationship isn't equal can NOT be construed to mean that men are better than women, which is what sexism implies. If I say that the child/parent relationship isn't equal, it doesn't imply that parents are better than children, nor does it imply discrimination. It simply means that the parent is an authority figure, whereas the child isn't. If I say that the individual/state relationship isn't equal, does that imply that the state is better than the individual. The reality is that, in most cases, the citizens of any given state tend to be better than the state. So where is the discrimination?

You, and the rest of your liberal friends, can't stand to have a husband as an authority figure in your life, and if that is what you want, then good for you Molly, but who are you to say that Islam is wrong for making the husband an authority figure?.
Originally posted by MollyMac
So (1) why are women not equal to their husbands? (2) why is men dictating to their wives all right? (3) Why don’t you give a straight answer? are ‘goofy questions’ are they? Your concern about my ‘letting NC off the hook’ is touching but you are free to challenge him yourself in any way you see fit. So far, all you have done in this thread is fight his corner for him.

The Quran said that men are guardians and protectors of women. It didn't say that men are LORDS over women. Why don't you learn how to read Molly. You love to use the word "dictate" because it fits your bigoted view of Islam, doesn't it. Liberals are liars.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Gemma
We may not be able to achieve true objective equality between men and women, dk, but we can get close enough for all practical purposes by regarding them as human beings first and foremost and by upholding the principle that in a just society, all human beings are equal.

Are saying that if parents are an authority figure in the lives of their children that, therefore, children are not being treated as human beings? If husbands and fathers are authority figures in the lives of their wives and children, does that imply discrimination and abuse? If you are not an anarchist, then you must believe that some sort of authority is necessary. The minute you declare the state to be an authority figure, why doesn't that constitute discrimination against the individual using your logic? Why is it wrong for the husband to be an authority figure, but it's not wrong for the state to be an authority figure?

Originally posted by Gemma
p.s. equality in a marriage means treating your wife with the same respect, regard, tenderness, affection, tolerance, etc. with which she treats you. If you haven't tried this already you should. I think you'll like it and I know she will! ;)

The husband should treat his wife and children better than they treat him. In other words, I don't believe in equal treatment. I believe in better treatment, not just equal. However, all of this isn't the issue. The issue is one of authority.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Kalkin
Me: Obviously, a woman can't be a husband because that's a term for a married man. I was just using the question to point out the absurdity of saying descriminating against wives isn't descriminating against women.

You have failed to argue why it's wrong for a husband to be an authority figure. If it's wrong for a husband to be an authority figure, then why isn't it wrong for a father to be an authority figure? Or perhaps you think it's wrong for a father to be an authority figure?
Originally posted by Kalkin
Me: No, I'm not an anarchist - but I do tend to think that unnecessary heirarchies are bad, while you are apparently arguing that heirarchy in and of itself is good.

Who are you to say what hierarchies are unnecessary or necessary? If some hierarchies are necessary, which is what you seem to be implying, then why are those hierarchies not discriminatory also? Why is a husband, as an authority figure, discriminatory, whereas a state, for example, isn't?

Lastly, no one is arguing that hierarchies are good in and of themselves. Since 1400 years ago, Muslims have established a society where fathers and husbands are respected as authority figures. Now you and the rest of your "free-thinking" buddies are telling us that we shouldn't do A,B,C, and that we should do X,Y,Z. The problem is we are looking at the typical Western liberal family disintegrating. 70% of the homes in the black community are headed by a single parent. What has the liberal agenda done to strengthen the black man as a father and husband? If anything, the liberal agenda in America has made the black community more dependent than ever before. I thought being free means that we are supposed to be more independent? Why should we abandon our religion and follow your liberal agenda when your track record, quite frankly, stinks? Why are liberals so blind to their own failures? They are like the ostrich that sticks his head in the sand and then thinks that nobody can see him. Why should I leave my religion for a failure you call liberalism?

[Kalkin]

Really last post this time. This thread is just going in circles, but I'll try to get my point across one more time.

You have failed to argue why it's wrong for a husband to be an authority figure.

I and many other people have pointed out that it's wrong for a husband to be an authority figure because women have a right to be treated as well as men are - see many earlier posts on this thread.

If it's wrong for a husband to be an authority figure, then why isn't it wrong for a father to be an authority figure? Or perhaps you think it's wrong for a father to be an authority figure?

You're missing the point here. The problem is not with authority figures in general, but with men having authority over women. Parents should have authority over children because children, being young and inexperienced, don't know how to behave in a safe and responsible manner. The same is not true for women, therefore they have rights. The state should control individuals to some extent because its a necessary mechanism to keep order and preserve individuals' rights from being destroyed by criminals. The same is not true of the husbands controlling wives, therefore husbands shouldn't have any more authority over wives than wives have over husbands.

Who are you to say what hierarchies are unnecessary or necessary?

A reasonably intelligent person who can make logical arguments as to what is and is not a necessary heirarchy, backed up by nearly all modern thinkers.

If some hierarchies are necessary, which is what you seem to be implying, then why are those hierarchies not discriminatory also?

Perhaps parental authority is discriminatory, but it is not unfair, because it is justified discrimination. Discrimination is bad when there's no overriding reason why its necessary. We shouldn't discriminate against black people, but we should discriminate against criminals.

Why is a husband, as an authority figure, discriminatory, whereas a state, for example, isn't?

Giving husbands authority over wives discriminates against women, which is not justifiable. Giving the state authority over individuals doesn't discriminate against any sub-group, and as long as that authority is limited, it actually makes individuals free-er by protecting their rights from abuse by other individuals.

Lastly, no one is arguing that hierarchies are good in and of themselves.

At the point where you can't establish any way in which women deserve to be on the lower end of a heirarchy, which you haven't, your only justification for this heirarchy is that heirarchies are good in general. You attack the "liberal agenda of equality" in general. While you claim not to want a theocracy, the idea of equality is key to the idea of democracy - everybody gets an equal share of power. Since you fail to show any reason why equality for women specifically is bad (and will continue to fail - there's no difference between women and men in any area that matters for their rights, which would be the intellectual and moral, not physical arenas), you are reduced to attacking any form of equality.

Since 1400 years ago, Muslims have established a society where fathers and husbands are respected as authority figures.

And from the end of the Roman Empire to the 19th century, Europe established a society where hereditary nobles were respected as authority figures. The mere age of a societal system doesn't prove its worth.

Now you and the rest of your "free-thinking" buddies are telling us that we shouldn't do A,B,C, and that we should do X,Y,Z.

Yes, and unlike you, we are providing many good reasons why our letters are better than your letters.

The problem is we are looking at the typical Western liberal family disintegrating. 70% of the homes in the black community are headed by a single parent. What has the liberal agenda done to strengthen the black man as a father and husband? If anything, the liberal agenda in America has made the black community more dependent than ever before.

I responded to your arguments about the black family in a previous post. I'll do so again. First, most people would agree that the current problems with the black family stem from the legacy of oppression, not the "liberal agenda of equality." Second, very few black people would agree with you that their situation is worse now than during the era of segregation, before they were helped by that awful "liberal agenda of equality." Third, even if liberalism is responsible for the decline of the black family or the family in general, that's not as bad as oppressing half of the human race.

I thought being free means that we are supposed to be more independent? Why should we abandon our religion and follow your liberal agenda when your track record, quite frankly, stinks? Why are liberals so blind to their own failures? They are like the ostrich that sticks his head in the sand and then thinks that nobody can see him.

Western society has its failures. Whether those are due to the triumph of liberalism or its failure to completely triumph is debatable. Even if they were due entirely to liberalism, however, liberal societies are much more pleasant places to live than highly religious ones - although I'm sure you'd disagree, I think the current tide of immigration to the US, and the popularity of reform in the ultimate conservative Islamic society, Iran, would support my argument. Historically, liberal democracy, in the sense of democracy granting equal rights to all, is by far the best system of government, avoiding war, genocide, civil strife, etcetera far better than its alternatives. I refer you to the work of R. J. Rummel:

That is, democracy is a general cure for political or collective violence of any kind--it is a method of nonviolence. This is truly a democratic peace.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

And before you claim that you're in favor of democracy, I want to point out that your position attacks it in multiple ways:
-Attacking the agenda of equality as a whole, although the concept is key to democracy as I explained above.
-Suggesting religious laws replace popular secular ones.
-Disenfranchising women by suggesting they be submissive to their husbands.
-Defending traditional Islamic systems at all costs; the caliphate was not a democracy.
-Attacking seperation of church and state and freedom of expression, two key principles of successful democracies.

Why should I leave my religion for a failure you call liberalism?

No one is asking you to give up your religion. We're just asking you to change your fundamentalist interpretation of its doctrines. Equality for women is perfectly consistent with Islam - I know several Muslim feminists.

[edited to clarify a couple things]

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by dk
NC asked what right Western Europeans and North American powers have to tell Moslem women how to dress. Nobody has been able to give a straight answer.
The only ones telling Muslim women how to dress are the Muslims! Certainly it's not the Western Europeans and North American powers. It's complicated, but basically if you want a straight answer, you have to ask a straight question.

The issue is not how they dress, but their right to choose.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
The issue is not how they dress, but their right to choose.

I guess that the mindset of the Muslims is "If they can't choose to be born, they sure as hell can't choose what to wear." :mad:

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by dk
NC asked what right Western Europeans and North American powers have to tell Moslem women how to dress. Nobody has been able to give a straight answer.

Several posters have indeed provided several very good responses to this question.

Here's my answer:

Luiseach
The liberals I know are concerned, not with telling Moslem women how to dress, but rather with preventing the dictation of what women should and shouldn't wear, what women can and cannot be, what women can and cannot say or do, etc., based on the fact that they are women.

N.B. As far as I'm aware, this is the third time I've posted this same response to the question.

Many good Moslems see post modern liberalism, especally modern feminists, as people that have sold thier souls. (underlining added for emphasis)

How very......unsurprising.
;)

[lpetrich]

NonContradiction:
You have failed to argue why it's wrong for a husband to be an authority figure. If it's wrong for a husband to be an authority figure, then why isn't it wrong for a father to be an authority figure? Or perhaps you think it's wrong for a father to be an authority figure?

Let's put it another way, O NC. Why can't wives and mothers be authority figures? Seriously.

Or are men supposed to own harems?

Since 1400 years ago, Muslims have established a society where fathers and husbands are respected as authority figures.

More like women being men's property and being kept in submission.

What has the liberal agenda done to strengthen the black man as a father and husband?

So black men are supposed to own harems?

If anything, the liberal agenda in America has made the black community more dependent than ever before.

It's hard to be much more dependent than being a slave, however.

[lpetrich]

NonContradiction:
The Quran said that men are guardians and protectors of women. It didn't say that men are LORDS over women.

Pure hairsplitting.

Why don't you learn how to read Molly. You love to use the word "dictate" because it fits your bigoted view of Islam, doesn't it. Liberals are liars.

I take it that you don't enjoy the thought of your harem running away.

[lpetrich]

dk:
NC asked what right Western Europeans and North American powers have to tell Moslem women how to dress. Nobody has been able to give a straight answer.

They are not doing that at all. They are merely keeping Koran-bangers from making women dress like ghosts.

That's your prerogative, and goes a long way to explain why many good Moslem people see Western culture as an eminent threat to civilization.

First dk does Orthodox Jewish evangelism, and now he does Muslim Fundamentalist evangelism.

Why are women not equal to their husbands?
Answer: Many Moslems believe women are served by their traditional role in the family, and they have an obligation to protect their families from the pornography, obscenity, perversion, violence, decadence, subterfuge and other corrupt influences that dominate Western culture. They view liberals as an offense deceptive people with no respect for God, family, children, truth or civilization.

All that dk can think of is Ann Coulter rhetoric, it seems.

And as to "violence" and "subterfuge", the Islamic world has been absolutely full of that sort of thing.

Men and women are obliged in an Islamic nation to keep the family safe from usurpers. Your obscenities and fanaticism negate any pretense of reason and good will you might intend. What a good Moslems sees as obscene, perverse and corrupt you think is normal, a protected human right.

Safe from usurpers? Whatever that's supposed to be.

And how is MollyMac supposed to be worse than an Islamist terrorist? It's not like she talks about how hijacking an airliner and crashing it into the Grand Mosque in Mecca will enable her to lead a sybaritic existence in the next world where she will have an absolutely gorgeous wardrobe and other such goodies.

Moslem women aren't hidden from the light of day, they hide from the corruption and perversion liberals project under the guise of freedom and liberty.

And they are hidden even in supposedly-saintly Islamic societies -- meaning that they are really hidden from the light of day.

Many good Moslems see post modern liberalism, especally modern feminists, as people that have sold thier souls.

Where are the records of these transactions? And who is the buyer of those souls?

[lpetrich]

NonContradiction:
I don't advocate a theocracy, so everything that follows here is a strawman.

However, NC does not say what he dislikes about theocracy.

You label me an advocate of tyranny, an enemy of freedom and democracy, because I oppose the modern liberal agenda of equality.

How does one avoid tyranny when one has inegalitarianism?

I have no desire to control women or anybody else.

But that's what you think that husbands ought to do, right?

It's very convenient to use the scare tactic that I am some kind of fundamentalist lurking in the shadows waiting for the right moment to sieze the reigns of power in order to impose a theocracy upon the American people whether they like it or not.

Then please explain to us what you would prefer -- and especially what is to happen to non-Muslims in your ideal society.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
To say that the husband/wife relationship isn't equal can NOT be construed to mean that men are better than women, which is what sexism implies.

The idea that the husband/wife relationship 'isn't equal' certainly can be construed to mean that 'men are better than women.'

Inequality in any human relationship - man/woman, man/man, woman/woman - suggests a binarism in which one of the participants is positioned to be less than the other.

Inequality in human relationships devalues those subjects who are considered to be 'unequal' to other subjects.

If I say that the child/parent relationship isn't equal, it doesn't imply that parents are better than children, nor does it imply discrimination. It simply means that the parent is an authority figure, whereas the child isn't. If I say that the individual/state relationship isn't equal, does that imply that the state is better than the individual. The reality is that, in most cases, the citizens of any given state tend to be better than the state. So where is the discrimination?

The analogy you are drawing between man/woman on the one hand, and parent/child or state/individual on the other, is false.

You, and the rest of your liberal friends, can't stand to have a husband as an authority figure in your life, and if that is what you want, then good for you Molly, but who are you to say that Islam is wrong for making the husband an authority figure?.
(emphasis added)

Who, exactly, does anyone have to be before he/she can voice valid criticisms of the way many women are treated within the parameters of any ideological system?

The Quran said that men are guardians and protectors of women. It didn't say that men are LORDS over women.

It would be a lovely world indeed in which men would actually fulfill their supposed duty to be the 'guardians and protectors of women,' inside and outside of Islam. If this was really the way the world wags - and it certainly does not wag this way - then there would be no need for either a feminist movement, or a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or Amnesty International, or any organisation/document/effort to bring about true equality for all human beings.

Liberals are liars.

This is a sweeping statement. Do you have any evidence for it?

[lpetrich]

NonContradiction:
We are more numerous than the Jewish community in America, but how many Muslims are in the White House compared to Jewish liberals?

How many "Jewish liberals" are there likely to be in the current White House? I'd be surprised if there were any at all.

However, the Jews there are likely to be jingoistic Zionists, much like the Religious-Right lobbies that the Administration courts.

Your job is to keep the liberal myth alive, and my job is to point out to people what liars the liberals are.

As Muslims in America, we are going to go head to head with the liberals on an individual basis, since all of this liberal nonsense is about individual liberty, which translates into nothing more than self-gratification of the self-centered, ego-centric whiners, commonly referred to as liberals.

This from someone whose religion teaches that the Next World will have plenty of opportunity for self-gratification. Let's see:

No extremes of climate.
Lots of water and gardens.
Tasty bird meats and luscious fruit to eat.
Non-spoiling milk, non-intoxicating wine, and non-crystallizing honey to eat and drink.
Nice pillowed couches to recline on while eating such delectable food.
Lots of cute servant boys.
Lots of lovely ladies to make love to.

Is that a life of dutiful, self-flagellating self-sacrifice? Complete with a LOT of self-pity.

We are far from running the country, and I doubt that we ever will be running the country because there are plenty of liberals running around producing their own version of "Red Scare" starring the Muslims instead of the Communists.

The biggest anti-Muslims in the US are some of the more political Christian Fundies, like Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son.

[lpetrich]

NonContradiction:
The confusion arises because of what it means to be conservative in America is nothing more than defending the classical liberal tradition that the US was founded upon over 200 years ago, ...

I don't see how yahoos like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter represent "classical liberalism".

[dk]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
The only ones telling Muslim women how to dress are the Muslims! Certainly it's not the Western Europeans and North American powers. It's complicated, but basically if you want a straight answer, you have to ask a straight question.

The issue is not how they dress, but their right to choose. This thread is about Muslim dress codes, and who has the authority to enact and enforce dress codes. I've taken the position that the Western liberals front a subversive and expansive agenda under the auspices of dress code reform. I don't want to put words in your mouth but it sounds as if you've conceded that Moslems can dress themselves, without any help from the Western Europe and North America.

[Goober]

This is typical of the lying liberals. They are the ones who are competing with the conservatives in America to impose their agenda upon the American people, not Muslims. How many Muslims are in the White House? We are more numerous than the Jewish community in America, but how many Muslims are in the White House compared to Jewish liberals?

Your job is to keep the liberal myth alive, and my job is to point out to people what liars the liberals are. As Muslims in America, we are going to go head to head with the liberals on an individual basis, since all of this liberal nonsense is about individual liberty, which translates into nothing more than self-gratification of the self-centered, ego-centric whiners, commonly referred to as liberals.

Oh NonCoherent, I mean NonContradiction, what are you talking about?

Let's start with your blatant hipocrasy, shall we?

It's my belief that people should be able to choose between a liberal state and a conservative state. It appears as though we have lost that choice, and as a result, we have lost a degree of freedom. What good is freedom if we only have one choice?

Now, America is a liberal state. You obviously want it to be a 'conservative' state. Now, you whine on and on about liberals supposedly imposing their agenda upon other countries, but have no problems imposing your agenda on america, as you are arguing that women should be forced to cover up. You tell all 'liberals' in 'conservative' states that they can go somewhere else if they don't like it, but the thought that if you don't like 'liberal' policy in america, then you can move to a 'conservative' state doesn't seem to occur to you.

Also, please name a 'conservative' state. Is Pakistan conservative? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Funny how you want to live in the prosperous, free, liberal United States instead of any of these countries, isn't it?

You just don't get it, do you? In a liberal country, people are free to be self-centered, ego-centric whiners if they wish. They are free to post ad-hom attacks on internet boards about how all liberals are self-centered, ego-centric whiners if they wish. And they are free to follow the the religion of Islam, or Chrisianity, or IPUism, or nothing at all if they want, provided they don't interfer with anyone else's right to do otherwise. In a liberal country, 'liberals', christians, athiests, muslims can all coexist. But you are so wrapped up in your own little world-view that you can't see that this is the case. You want to 'go head to head with the liberals'. You want to make America your own country, and kick all the 'liberals' out. You want to ruin America and any other liberal country by instituting your own agenda, which is why I am extremely glad it is not down to you.

I don't believe in theocracies, whether they are Christian or Muslim, but that isn't going to stop the liberals from saying that I do. It fits their agenda to spread this kind of propaganda, but that's okay. It merely underscores what liars they really are because they have to result to propaganda rather than the truth to make their point.

You believe that women should be covered up, and you think that this should be forced upon them, instead of letting them decide for themselves how they should dress. Such legislation would be based upon islamic law. You support establishing this particular islamic law. I assume you feel a similar way about other islamic laws, you seem to have implied as much earlier in this thread. A country governed by islamic law would be a muslim theocracy. Hence, you support a theocracy. Clear?

Edited to actually make it work this time.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by dk
I don't want to put words in your mouth but it sounds as if you've conceded that Moslems can dress themselves, without any help from the Western Europe and North America.
Is it okay with you if women burn their burkas if they wish?
Is it okay with you if women leave abusive husbands?
Is it okay with you if Muslim men skip their prayers if they wish?

Btw is it okay with you if Muslim women join their men in public prayer?

It's incredible to me that freedom is such a dificult concept for you. Does the thought of free women scare you? Why? Good God, it's like we're talking to people from the dark ages.

[dk]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
(see below)
Btw is it okay with you if Muslim women join their men in public prayer?

It's incredible to me that freedom is such a difficult concept for you. Does the thought of free women scare you? Why? Good God, it's like we're talking to people from the dark ages.
That’s because people often use subterfuge as a weapon to disparage others with lies, and in doing so they make freedom impossible. Anyone that paints men or women on the sole basis of prayer, faith, tradition and religion as inhuman (subhuman) presumes upon reason and freedom. If the Muslim religion appears oppressive to post modern secularists that claim to possess the power of reason, then it is by reason and example, not religious slurs, that secularists can best educate Moslem people. To be honest you folks have done nothing but slander Moslem men, Moslem traditions and Moslem families, and in doing so have forfeit the argument.
Nowhere357: Is it okay with you if women burn their burkas if they wish?
dk: While I generally frown upon the wanton destruction of property, whether Muslim women wear or burn their burkas doesn’t concern me.
Nowhere357: Is it okay with you if women leave abusive husbands?
dk: I seriously question the omnipotence of anyone that categorically accuses all Muslim Husbands of being abusive. Short of omnipotence such a broad slander can only be construed as hate mongering.
Nowhere357: Is it okay with you if Muslim men skip their prayers if they wish?
Btw is it okay with you if Muslim women join their men in public prayer?
dk: I believe in freedom of religion. Further, I construe faith and reason as essential elements of any healthy peaceful society. How Muslim men and women pray and dress is none of my concern. Further, I can conceive of no possible world where a just government or a just person would disparage men or women for practicing their religion within the bounds of reason and good will.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Goober
Now, America is a liberal state. You obviously want it to be a 'conservative' state.

Thanks for letting me know that America is a liberal state. Where have I said that I want America to be a conservative state? I don't believe that a conservative government could ever be imposed upon a liberal society. This point falls on deaf ears because the liberals want to scare people about Muslims. We are the modern day version of the "Red Scare", and the liberals are the new McCarthyites.

The liberal strategy has been to liberalize society in order to get rid of any laws in the society which might be considered to be conservative. Same sex unions will be commonplace all over the world in the near future as societies becomes more and more liberal. It's simply impossible to impose conservative laws upon a liberal society.

Originally posted by Goober
Now, you whine on and on about liberals supposedly imposing their agenda upon other countries, but have no problems imposing your agenda on america, as you are arguing that women should be forced to cover up.

This is what is so hypocritical about liberals. How many Muslims are in the government trying to impose their agenda upon non-Muslims? How many liberals are in the government trying to impose their agenda upon conservatives?

Second, I have never argued that ALL WOMEN should dress according to the Quran. I have argued that MUSLIM women should dress according to the Quran. Liberals are the ones who have been arguing that ALL WOMEN should be free to dress whatever way they want to. If I am not telling non-Muslim women how to do dress, then what gives liberals the right to tell MUSLIM women that they can dress whatever they want to? Liberals say that Muslim women SHOULD be free to dress whatever they want to, but who are they to say that Muslim women should be free to dress whatever way they want to?

The truth is that not ALL women are free to dress whatever they want to. Non-Muslim women would not be allowed to wear a bikini to work in an office environment. An employer, according to the norms of society, has a right to have a dress code. The employer doesn't have a right to impose that dress code on ALL women, only the women working for the employer. Similarly, the Quran has a dress code for MUSLIM women, which it doesn't seek to impose upon ALL women.

You are like a woman who believes that she has a civil right to dress whatever way she wants to, even at her employer's office. Just because she works for an employer doesn't mean that she is a slave, and so, therefore, she should be able to dress whatever way she wants to. If the employer denys her this right, then she can take him to court to FORCE him to recognize her civil right to dress whatever way she wants to. Liberals absolutely refuse to acknowledge the fact that they use force as much as anybody else in this world.

[MollyMac]

Posted by NonContradiction
You must have been talking to Muslims who are afraid to tell it like it is because they are afraid that people like you are going to shout obscenities at them. If you will notice, I didn't say that women are not equal to men. I said that WIVES are not equal to their HUSBANDS.
No, actually the muslims I’ve been talking to quote stuff like this:

Resources for and about Muslim Women (http://www.jannah.org/sisters/marriage.html)
Islam brought women from the position of chattel in marriage to that of equal partners.
However, I know this is crap and in a strange kind of way I respect you for acknowledging it is too. ;)
posted by NC
The Quran said that men are guardians and protectors of women. It didn't say that men are LORDS over women. Why don't you learn how to read Molly. You love to use the word "dictate" because it fits your bigoted view of Islam, doesn't it. Liberals are liars.
Actually, NC, I borrowed the word ‘dictate’ from none other than your good self.

You said this:
The end result isn't equality. The end result is women dictating to their husbands what to do or not do, and if they don't listen and obey, then there will be hell to pay.
And I responded with this:
Whereas in muslim familes we find men dictating to their wives what to do or not do and if they don't listen and obey, then there will be hell to pay.
So perhaps it is you who should learn how to read – starting with your own posts. And clearly it is you who loves the word ‘dictate’ because it fits your bigoted view of western society, doesn’t it? I’m tempted to follow your own example and add here that ‘muslims are liars’ but as I don’t share your predilection for gratuitous and unsubstantiated insults, I won’t. It will only lead to another of dk’s highly selective attacks, anyway.

On the other hand, you did say this...
If women don't want to be wives, then that is their choice. They don't have to get married.
..which you and I both know is bullshit. Muslim women don’t have to marry but at what price? I know ‘liberal’ and ‘leftist’ sources are too painful for you so I found one where all the main players are loyal muslims like yourself.

Fighting arranged marriage abuse (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/392619.stm)
At dusk in the northern English city of Bradford, a woman dressed in typical Muslim dress and trousers and made unrecognisable by a scarf pulled over her face scurries along the road, looking nervously over her shoulder.She hurries into one of the small, terraced houses to attend a meeting of Our Voice, a self-help group set up to help women in the area campaign against abusive husbands and the increasing number of forced marriages among the Muslim community. "We are not against arranged marriages, you must understand," says one. Another says: "You must write that we are not against Islam."

(From a police officer) "We had 300 calls for help last year, mostly from women who were trying to avoid a forced marriage or who were trying to escape a husband who was foisted on them. I have dealt with over a thousand cases in three years and the number is increasing."

If the girls escape without police protection, they risk being traced by the local bounty hunters who are employed by families to track down wayward daughters and wives.

One of these, a man who calls himself Ahmed, said: "I use shopkeepers and taxi hunters to help find the girls. They usually know where they are and what they're up to."

He prefers to call himself a "community mediator".

"For example, I once found a girl and her father told me that he would kill her when she got home. I told him I would tell the police if he dared and I kept the girl hidden. "I have met many parents who are prepared to kill their daughters if they go astray and, although I do my best, many of the cases I have been involved in have ended tragically."
Yes I can read, and I did read Dr Siddiqi’s quote:
"They do it because they see their fathers do it and then there are the imams who come to Britain from rural Pakistan, chosen for their piety rather than their scholarship, and they encourage this kind of attitude, bred in the culture of the subcontinent and not by the Koran."
My emphasis.

It's strange that loyal practising muslims – imams even - can behave in this abominable way, in spite of what it says in the Qu'ran, - and even stranger that they actually believe they are justified in their heinous activities by the Qu'ran – isn't it?
posted by NC
You, and the rest of your liberal friends, can't stand to have a husband as an authority figure in your life, and if that is what you want, then good for you Molly
Seems like me and my liberal friends are not the only ones, doesn’t it?
Get angry all you want Molly, do you think that I care?
Of course I don’t think you care. Nothing you have posted so far has suggested you give a hoot about women’s feelings – quite the opposite in fact. Given the evidence in the link I've just posted, you are clearly not the only muslim male who doesn't.
You have become so blinded by your anger that you can't see the forest through the trees.
Anger doesn’t blind me and neither does your slinging mindless insults at me.

[MollyMac]

posted by dk NC asked what right Western Europeans and North American powers have to tell Moslem women how to dress. Nobody has been able to give a straight answer.
Please quote even one source which proves that ANYONE outside of Islam is telling Moslem women how to dress.

I said this:
I am roused to anger by people making crass and unsubstantiated assertions that wives are not, and should not be, equal to their husbands. Furthermore, I reserve the right to express that anger as and when I see fit.
And you responded with this:
That's your prerogative, and goes a long way to explain why many good Moslem people see Western culture as an eminent threat to civilization.
Naturally I’m flattered by your supposition that the anger of a middle-aged Anglo-Greek mother of two about male chauvinism would arouse such fear and forboding in Muslims – but I’m not convinced that too many of them would agree with you.;)

BTW, thanks for bothering to reply to the three questions you had previously described as 'goofy' but they were directed at NC, not you.
posted by dk
You may not realize it but NC may be reaching out to understand the rift between Islam and Western liberalism....
What can I say but...
http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/laugh.gif http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/laugh.gif http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/laugh.gif

Find me one post where NC has demonstrated that he “may be reaching out to understand” ANYTHING!
...but you can help yourself, you bitterly attack him from a platform of hatred.
The words ‘pot’ and ‘kettle’ spring to mind…NC has bitterly attacked and insulted everyone who has argued with him and you haven’t done so badly yourself. I have no more attacked NC, that you have attacked me – rather less in fact. Dk, read these words very carefully and try to understand them: Just because I express an opinion that you don’t like doesn’t mean that I speak from a platform of hatred – all it means is that I have an opinion that you don’t like. Is that clear enough for you? Would you perhaps be happier if women stayed out of this discussion altogether? :banghead:
posted by dk

I'll be sure to tell the single mothers head of household (50%) living on the poverty line about the victory feminists heroines won for them. Then I'll tell the women sexually assaulted on college campuses (25%) about the bigoted opponents liberals slay behind every bush. Then I'll tell the mother's of dead gang bangers about equal pay. Then I'll tell the mothers of crack babies, fetal alcohol syndrome and other developmentally disabled children for "whom the bell tolls" how the war for equality was won. Moslem women aren't hidden from the light of day, they hide from the corruption and perversion liberals project under the guise of freedom and liberty. Many good Moslems see post modern liberalism, especally modern feminists, as people that have sold thier souls.
What exactly is the point of this trollish behaviour, dk? Are you seriously suggesting that women fighting for their basic human rights has been a monumental waste of time and we should have just stayed in the kitchen where we belong? As a straw man it fails spectacularly. Better luck next time.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by MollyMac
No, actually the muslims I’ve been talking to quote stuff like this:

Resources for and about Muslim Women (http://www.jannah.org/sisters/marriage.html)

Islam brought women from the position of chattel in marriage to that of equal partners.

However, I know this is crap and in a strange kind of way I respect you for acknowledging it is too. ;)

This just goes to show you, Molly, how much tremendous pressure Muslims are under to conform to the liberal agenda around them. The societal pressure upon them is tremendous. Nobody wants to be called a bigot, a homophobe, sexist, racist, or whatever. Nobody wants to be hated, including me, and so they compromise their beliefs in a moment of weakness.

Originally posted by NonCon

The Quran said that men are guardians and protectors of women. It didn't say that men are LORDS over women. Why don't you learn how to read Molly. You love to use the word "dictate" because it fits your bigoted view of Islam, doesn't it. Liberals are liars.

Originally posted by MollyMac
Actually, NC, I borrowed the word ‘dictate’ from none other than your good self.

The truth is, Molly, when a wife dominates her husband, she will become a dictator, whereas the reverse isn't always true. She will lose respect for him that, as a man, he would allow her to dominate him and not stand up for himself. Meanwhile, the man loses respect for himself and so everybody becomes the loser here, the husband and the wife.

When a husband dictates to his wife, we all feel sorry for the wife because of the abuse she must endure. When a wife dictates to her husband, no one feels sorry for him. We all look at him as a whimp and wonder why takes that garbage from his wife. It's quite possible for a husband to dominate his wfe without being a dictator. Most men that I know are not attracted to domineering, overbearing women, and the same can be said about women. In any husband/wife relationship, one will dominate the other. If the wife dominates the husband, forget about the marriage, and forget about the children ever growing up with any healthy role models.

Originally posted by MollyMac
It's strange that loyal practising muslims – imams even - can behave in this abominable way, in spite of what it says in the Qu'ran, - and even stranger that they actually believe they are justified in their heinous activities by the Qu'ran – isn't it?

Not any stranger than it is for Christians to have their wackos like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, or the ku Klux Klan and Nazis. Not any stranger than it is for Muslims to have their Talibans, Usama bin Ladens, and Wahhabis. Not any stranger than it is for the liberals to have their secularists who banned Muslim women, by force, from wearing the hijab in Turkey. Yes, you liberals have your wackos, too.

Originally posted by MollyMac
Anger doesn’t blind me and neither does your slinging mindless insults at me.

It's ironic that you accuse me of mindless insults when it was you who got angry and hurled obscenities at me. Oppressors always portray themselves as oppressed.

[dk]

Originally posted by MollyMac
No, actually the muslims I’ve been talking to quote stuff like this:


..which you and I both know is bullshit. Muslim women don’t have to marry but at what price? I know ‘liberal’ and ‘leftist’ sources are too painful for you so I found one where all the main players are loyal muslims like yourself.




I'm not sure what this has to do with Muslim dress codes. Are you acknowledging the issue isn't "freedom of clothing" but polygamy, arranged marriages, British immigration policy and divorce?

[MollyMac]

It doesn't have anything to do with muslim dress codes. It is a response to NCs comments on husband-wife relationships? All the things you mentioned are 'issues'. Why are you wasting time with posts like that?

[MollyMac]

NC, nobody is arguing that the woman should dominate the husband but this:
In any husband/wife relationship, one will dominate the other. is demonstrably untrue. I know of no successful marriage where one partner dominated the other but I do know of a great many failed ones where this happened - and by 'failed' I mean either one partner leaving the other or else staying and leading a life of abject misery. All the successful marriages I've seen - and I define 'success' by BOTH partners being relatively content with their situation - have been based on equality. Different roles, perhaps, but not one person dominating the other.
Not any stranger than it is for Christians to have their wackos like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, or the ku Klux Klan and Nazis. Not any stranger than it is for Muslims to have their Talibans, Usama bin Ladens, and Wahhabis. Not any stranger than it is for the liberals to have their secularists who banned Muslim women, by force, from wearing the hijab in Turkey. Yes, you liberals have your wackos, too.
For once I am in agreement with you - but then I have not sought to defend any of these Christian or Turkish secularist wackos. The latter can hardly be described as liberal, can they?
It's ironic that you accuse me of mindless insults when it was you who got angry and hurled obscenities at me. Oppressors always portray themselves as oppressed.
What, objecting to insults means I'm an 'oppressor' now? How so? :confused:

[dk]

MollyMac: Please quote even one source which proves that ANYONE outside of Islam is telling Moslem women how to dress.
dk: Sure Molly,
Schools' bid for headscarf ban widens French divide
15-06-2003
London, The Observer:
Two sisters and their cousin were expelled from their school in a small town called Creil, just outside Paris, 14 years ago, for wearing Islamic headscarves in class. Fundamentalist groups staged demonstrations, television crews invaded the town and even the King of Morocco stepped in, telling the girls they should agree to take off their veils.
(snip)
For many young Muslims the headscarf earns them the respect of their peers, liberates them from inaccessible consumerism and represents a revolt against the banalisation of female flesh.
Anissa, 20, said: 'A woman is a precious jewel, yet they try to make us believe that her freedom consists of posing naked to help sell yoghurts.' --- http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977738,00.html

and
August 15, 2003 -- FRANCE'S Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has just appointed a commit- tee to draft a law to ban the Islamist hijab (headgear) in state-owned establishments, including schools and hospitals. (snip) ---http://www.nypost.com (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/taheri.htm)
dk: and by the way I expect you to recant now that I’ve provided proof, and there are hundreds of articles .
MollyMac: I am roused to anger by people making crass and unsubstantiated assertions that wives are not, and should not be, equal to their husbands. Furthermore, I reserve the right to express that anger as and when I see fit.
dk: That's your prerogative, and goes a long way to explain why many good Moslem people see Western culture as an eminent threat to civilization.
MollyMac: Naturally I’m flattered by your supposition that the anger of a middle-aged Anglo-Greek mother of two about male chauvinism would arouse such fear and forboding in Muslims – but I’m not convinced that too many of them would agree with you.
dk: How many Muslims is too many?


dk: You may not realize it but NC may be reaching out to understand the rift between Islam and Western liberalism....
MollyMac: What can I say but...
Find me one post where NC has demonstrated that he “may be reaching out to understand” ANYTHING!
dk: I assume that everyone on this board seeks to understand the views of others, and to be understood. Just a thought.


dk: I'll be sure to tell the single mothers head of household (50%) living on the poverty line about the victory feminists heroines won for them. Then I'll tell the women sexually assaulted on college campuses (25%) about the bigoted opponents liberals slay behind every bush. Then I'll tell the mother's of dead gang bangers about equal pay. Then I'll tell the mothers of crack babies, fetal alcohol syndrome and other developmentally disabled children for "whom the bell tolls" how the war for equality was won. Moslem women aren't hidden from the light of day, they hide from the corruption and perversion liberals project under the guise of freedom and liberty. Many good Moslems see post modern liberalism, especally modern feminists, as people that have sold thier souls.
MollyMac: What exactly is the point of this trollish behaviour, dk? Are you seriously suggesting that women fighting for their basic human rights has been a monumental waste of time and we should have just stayed in the kitchen where we belong? As a straw man it fails spectacularly. Better luck next time.
dk: What am I saying, exactly… that feminism is fraught with problems, contradictions, ambiguity and inequities.

[MollyMac]

posted by dk
and by the way I expect you to recant now that I’ve provided proof, and there are hundreds of articles .
I recant. I had forgotten that this sort of thing was happening in France and, indeed, in Turkey as NC pointed out.

Let's just look at your original statement that drew my erroneous response:

NC asked what right Western Europeans and North American powers have to tell Moslem women how to dress. Nobody has been able to give a straight answer.

Actually he didn't - this was you putting words in his mouth. Well played! But to give a straight answer to the question: nobody has any right to tell muslim women or anyone else how to dress - this point has argued over and over again in this thread and, IIRC, only you and NC have argued against it. Fortunately, most western democracies respect the right of women to wear what they want (and don't bother with all that bloody nonsense about dress codes in restaurants etc. that's not the point as you well know) whereas Islamic societies do not - which, as far as this thread is concerned, brings us full circle.
How many Muslims is too many?
Well, one would be a good start...:)
I assume that everyone on this board seeks to understand the views of others,
It's a fair assumption to bring to a board like this but it only takes a cursory reading to realise that this is not the case with some posters and NC is one of them.
What am I saying, exactly… that feminism is fraught with problems, contradictions, ambiguity and inequities.
I don't disagree with that but it doesn't relate to what you actually posted, which in turn was a non sequitur.

[dk]

Originally posted by MollyMac
It doesn't have anything to do with muslim dress codes. It is a response to NCs comments on husband-wife relationships? All the things you mentioned are 'issues'. Why are you wasting time with posts like that?

What is "It"?

[dk]

MollyMac: Let's just look at your original statement that drew my erroneous response:
dk: NC asked what right Western Europeans and North American powers have to tell Moslem women how to dress. Nobody has been able to give a straight answer.
MollyMac: Actually he didn't - this was you putting words in his mouth. Well played! But to give a straight answer to the question: nobody has any right to tell muslim women or anyone else how to dress - this point has argued over and over again in this thread and, IIRC, only you and NC have argued against it. Fortunately, most western democracies respect the right of women to wear what they want (and don't bother with all that bloody nonsense about dress codes in restaurants etc. that's not the point as you well know) whereas Islamic societies do not - which, as far as this thread is concerned, brings us full circle.
dk: Let me put it this way, multicultural secular democracies have a problem with Moslems. The question is whether NATO countries and the Soviet Union should change how they understand multicultural secularism, to accomadate religion, or if NATO can (should) try to change how Moslems understand themselves. The post 9/11 political reality imposes these questions upon us all, and we all (ideologically speaking) lack canned answers.

[MollyMac]

posted by dk
I'm not sure what this has to do with Muslim dress codes.

posted by MollyMac
It doesn't have anything to do with muslim dress codes.
posted by dk
What is "It"?
The "it" in my sentence refers to the same thing as the "this" in yours. Are you feeling all right?

http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/sad/533.gif

[MollyMac]

The question is whether NATO countries and the Soviet Union should change how they understand multicultural secularism...
The Soviet Union? Now I know you're not feeling all right. I'd go and have a lie down if I were you.

[dk]

Originally posted by dk
dk: Let me put it this way, multicultural secular democracies have a problem with Moslems. The question is whether NATO countries and the Soviet Union should change how they understand multicultural secularism, to accomadate religion, or if NATO can (should) try to change how Moslems understand themselves. The post 9/11 political reality imposes these questions upon us all, and we all (ideologically speaking) lack canned answers.

I want to emphasize the "it", because I think we both use this pronoun to transcends our narrow perspective to access a larger truth.

[MollyMac]

Whatever http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/sleep/schla01.gif

[dk]

Originally posted by MollyMac
The Soviet Union? Now I know you're not feeling all right. I'd go and have a lie down if I were you. Hey, that was a slip for sure, but I was thinking of Chetznia in the broader context of the Soviet breakup.

[Nowhere357]

dk
That’s because people often use subterfuge as a weapon to disparage others with lies, and in doing so they make freedom impossible.
This is why freedom is a difficult concept? So because people lie, therefore we should be slaves? What the hell are you talking about?

Anyone that paints men or women on the sole basis of prayer, faith, tradition and religion as inhuman (subhuman) presumes upon reason and freedom.
I agree up to the point where tradition and religion violates human rights. We've been consistent on this point, but it seems to continue to evade you.

If the Muslim religion appears oppressive to post modern secularists that claim to possess the power of reason, then it is by reason and example, not religious slurs, that secularists can best educate Moslem people.
The Muslim religion appears oppressive because it is oppressive. That has been adequately supported in this depressing thread. I agree, slurs aren't much help. Pass that along to nc, would you?

To be honest you folks have done nothing but slander Moslem men, Moslem traditions and Moslem families, and in doing so have forfeit the argument.
But that would not be honest. Shame on you. Btw, this argument was won by the "liberals" about 20 pages ago - you all are just spinning wheels.

While I generally frown upon the wanton destruction of property, whether Muslim women wear or burn their burkas doesn’t concern me.
Good to hear. That's how I feel, and most of the others you've been talking to, I dare say. Now we have to get their oppressors on board. :)

I seriously question the omnipotence of anyone that categorically accuses all Muslim Husbands of being abusive. Short of omnipotence such a broad slander can only be construed as hate mongering.
The question was stand-alone. It applies to all of us. All I asked is "Is it okay with you if women leave abusive husbands?" and the question applies to Christians and Jews as well as Muslims and everyone else. How can you interpret that as slander against Muslims - unless Muslims violate the rights of women? And then it's not slander anyway!

I believe in freedom of religion. Further, I construe faith and reason as essential elements of any healthy peaceful society.
I agree. There is no reason to think "faith" requires dogmatic belief in oppressive theology, though.

How Muslim men and women pray and dress is none of my concern.
Same here. How Muslim theocracies violate human rights IS our concern, however. Will this point ever register?

Further, I can conceive of no possible world where a just government or a just person would disparage men or women for practicing their religion within the bounds of reason and good will.
Do you think we should turn a blind eye to tyranny, just because it's performed under the banner of theocracy?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Kalkin
Really last post this time. This thread is just going in circles, but I'll try to get my point across one more time.
This thread is going in circles because I have to keep correcting the mistakes, many of which appear to be intentional.
Originally posted by Kalkin
I and many other people have pointed out that it's wrong for a husband to be an authority figure because women have a right to be treated as well as men are - see many earlier posts on this thread.
As I have said before, this statement doesn't reflect my position. I believe that husbands and fathers should treat their wives and children better than their wives and children treat them in return. The issue isn't one of treatment. The issue is whether or not it's right or wrong for the husband to be an authority figure. Therefore, you haven't really given a good reason why it's wrong.
Originally posted by NonCon
If it's wrong for a husband to be an authority figure, then why isn't it wrong for a father to be an authority figure? Or perhaps you think it's wrong for a father to be an authority figure?
Originally posted by Kalkin
You're missing the point here. The problem is not with authority figures in general, but with men having authority over women. Parents should have authority over children because children, being young and inexperienced, don't know how to behave in a safe and responsible manner. The same is not true for women, therefore they have rights.
This is a non-sequitor. It's quite possible that the reason for a husband to be an authority figure is different from the reason why a parent should have authority over a child. Certainly, a wife isn't a child and I don't think that she should ever be treated like a child.
Originally posted by Kalkin
The state should control individuals to some extent because its a necessary mechanism to keep order and preserve individuals' rights from being destroyed by criminals. The same is not true of the husbands controlling wives, therefore husbands shouldn't have any more authority over wives than wives have over husbands.
This is another non-sequitor. It's interesting to note that the reason you give for state authority over individuals is compleletly different from the reason you give for parental authority over children. As I have said, the reason for a husband to have authority over his wife may be completely different from the reasons for parental authority or state authority.
Originally posted by NonCon
Who are you to say what hierarchies are unnecessary or necessary?
Originally posted by Kalkin
A reasonably intelligent person who can make logical arguments as to what is and is not a necessary heirarchy, backed up by nearly all modern thinkers.
You are really side-stepping the question here. Moreover, when is the last time nearly all modern thinkers agreed upon something?
Originally posted by Kalkin
Perhaps parental authority is discriminatory, but it is not unfair, because it is justified discrimination. Discrimination is bad when there's no overriding reason why its necessary. We shouldn't discriminate against black people, but we should discriminate against criminals.
So why MUST a husband's authority be unfair?
Originally posted by Kalkin
Giving husbands authority over wives discriminates against women, which is not justifiable. Giving the state authority over individuals doesn't discriminate against any sub-group, and as long as that authority is limited, it actually makes individuals free-er by protecting their rights from abuse by other individuals.
It seems to me that you are confusing authority with discrimination. You say that we should discriminate against criminals, but not against black people. However, the state is in authority over everyone, not just criminals. Simply because someone is in authority over someone else doesn't imply discrimination.

You are long on assertions and short on support. You have failed to argue why a husband's authority must be equivalent to discrimination.

Originally posted by Kalkin
At the point where you can't establish any way in which women deserve to be on the lower end of a heirarchy, which you haven't, your only justification for this heirarchy is that heirarchies are good in general.

Again, I spend most of time correcting mistakes. I NEVER said that women deserve to be at the lower end of the lierarchy. Children are at the lower end, not mothers. Mothers have authority over their children.

Originally posted by Kalkin
You attack the "liberal agenda of equality" in general. While you claim not to want a theocracy, the idea of equality is key to the idea of democracy - everybody gets an equal share of power.

Let's say that there is a society where %80 of the people are bad and 20% are good. Why would the %20 want an equal share of power with the other %80? It's a hopeless situation for them. I think that it would make more sense for the %20 to request independence from the other %80.

Originally posted by Kalkin
Since 1400 years ago, Muslims have established a society where fathers and husbands are respected as authority figures.

Originally posted by Kalkin
And from the end of the Roman Empire to the 19th century, Europe established a society where hereditary nobles were respected as authority figures. The mere age of a societal system doesn't prove its worth.

Yes, that is very true. Liberals challenged the social hierarchy of the feudal society and believed that they had a better replacement. The point is that the liberals had to rationally justify why the people should have abandoned the feudal society for a liberal society.

Now, the question becomes, why should Muslims abandon a Muslim society for a liberal society? The argument that liberals used against a feudal society simply WONT work against a Muslim society because the feudal society and the Muslim society are two completely different societies. Unless the liberals can provide us with solid reasons for us abandoning a Muslim society, then we have no reason to do so.

The typical position of most liberals has been to treat the Muslim society in the same manner that they treated the feudal society, and that is what most Muslims find to be deeply insulting and offensive. When the feudal society was wallowing in the Dark Ages, the Muslim society was flourishing. As long as liberals, in their arrogance and ignorance, want to disparage the Muslim society in the same way that they have disparaged the feudal society, Muslims will never listen to them.

Now that the feudal society is history and the liberal society has been established, Muslims can now make comparisons between a Muslim society and a liberal society. We see a lot of things that disturb us very much about the liberal soceity, but we also see the good. Our job is to take the good from the liberal society and leave the bad. The structure of the liberal society is rotten to the core and eventually it will collapse and self-destruct just like the feudal society did before it.

[Nowhere357]

Doesn't nc's entire "men have authority over women" position fall apart when we consider the possibility of matriarchy? Other than the Koran (or the Bible for that matter) are there any logical arguments for patriarchy?

I don't think so. So nc's entire argument on this point reduce to "because the Bible (whoops, Koran) say's so, that's why".

[dk]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Doesn't nc's entire "men have authority over women" position fall apart when we consider the possibility of matriarchy? Other than the Koran (or the Bible for that matter) are there any logical arguments for patriarchy?

I don't think so. So nc's entire argument on this point reduce to "because the Bible (whoops, Koran) say's so, that's why". I don't know of a single civilization based on a matriarchy. Please name a few.

[Kalkin]

I'm a fool, I'm never going to get off this thread, but I can't let NC get away with some of the bullsh*t he's spouting.:(

As I have said before, this statement doesn't reflect my position. I believe that husbands and fathers should treat their wives and children better than their wives and children treat them in return. The issue isn't one of treatment. The issue is whether or not it's right or wrong for the husband to be an authority figure. Therefore, you haven't really given a good reason why it's wrong.

I've given lots of reasons, which you haven't refuted, why authority for the sake of authority is wrong. I like how you haven't touched any of my points about how your position is anti-democratic, making religion instead of people the ruler and disempowering half the populace, and why that's bad.
While I've conceded that some instances of authority are justified, you haven't given any reason why this is one of them.

And, do you really believe that if husbands have authority over their wives, that will result in better treatment for women? Since when did taking away someone's ability to assert their rights make others treat them better?

[snip]

You write about how your reasons for justifying husbandly authority are different from my reasons for justifying parental and state authority. Ok, then give those reasons. Until you do, your differentiation of this case of authority from those cases I've admitted are legitimate only serves to reinforce my point that this case of authority, patriarchy, is bad.

You are really side-stepping the question here

How am I sidestepping the question? You asked who was I to be saying what authority was justified and what wasn't, and I responded that I was a person making logical arguments. Is some kind of degree in sexism required, to be qualified to state that it's bad?

Moreover, when is the last time nearly all modern thinkers agreed upon something?

That time when nearly all agreed that sexism, racism, and other forms of oppression were bad.:p An argument from authority, but you're the one who brought it up. So, can you name me a respectable modern philosopher who believes in patriarchy? Obviously, religious figures aren't enough - beliefs based on the word of God will become relevant when you can prove unequivically that your version of God exists.

So why MUST a husband's authority be unfair?

I answered that question in the paragraph you were responding to, as well as many other places. A husband's authority is unfair because it's not justified, and it's unfair for any group of people to control another group without good reason.

It seems to me that you are confusing authority with discrimination. You say that we should discriminate against criminals, but not against black people. However, the state is in authority over everyone, not just criminals. Simply because someone is in authority over someone else doesn't imply discrimination.

You are long on assertions and short on support. You have failed to argue why a husband's authority must be equivalent to discrimination.

It's not the concept of authority in itself that is discriminatory. It's the concept of seperating groups of people and having one be in authority over the other that is discriminatory. You are doing that with men and women, and unlike criminals and children, there is nothing about women which makes it acceptable to force them to be subordinate. "Discrimination: Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit" - dictionary.com

You are apparently agreeing that discrimination is usually bad...

Again, I spend most of time correcting mistakes. I NEVER said that women deserve to be at the lower end of the hierarchy. Children are at the lower end, not mothers. Mothers have authority over their children.

A non-sequitor. The fact that another group has even less power doesn't mean that putting women below men is ok - if murderers were treated worse than slaves, that didn't mean that slaves were treated well or fairly.

Let's say that there is a society where %80 of the people are bad and 20% are good. Why would the %20 want an equal share of power with the other %80? It's a hopeless situation for them. I think that it would make more sense for the %20 to request independence from the other %80.

Another non-sequitor. This analogy might be at all relevant if you could show that women were "bad" and men were "good" - but then of course you can't. In a more appropriate analogy, if the 20% were blond-haired and the 80% were black-haired, and that was the only difference, would it be ok if the 20% put themselves in a position of authority over the 80%? Would it be democratic? Obviously not.

Yes, that is very true. Liberals challenged the social hierarchy of the feudal society and believed that they had a better replacement. The point is that the liberals had to rationally justify why the people should have abandoned the feudal society for a liberal society.

Just as I, and many others, have rationally justified why you should abandon your advocacy of a patriarchal society.

Now, the question becomes, why should Muslims abandon a Muslim society for a liberal society? The argument that liberals used against a feudal society simply WONT work against a Muslim society because the feudal society and the Muslim society are two completely different societies. Unless the liberals can provide us with solid reasons for us abandoning a Muslim society, then we have no reason to do so.

Actually, no liberal would suggest Muslims abandon everything Islamic. However, you should abandon the parts of your society that are similar to the bad parts of feudal society - such as theocracy and sexism. The liberal problem with many current Muslim societies is that they are in too many ways similar to feudal society, and need to be reformed.

The typical position of most liberals has been to treat the Muslim society in the same manner that they treated the feudal society, and that is what most Muslims find to be deeply insulting and offensive.

I don't think Islam is necessarily feudal. I do think that sexism is feudal and evil. If you find that insulting because it happens to be one of the principles of your society, I don't care. Slaveholders in the 18th century would probably have found it deeply insulting and offensive that I thought part of their society was evil.

When the feudal society was wallowing in the Dark Ages, the Muslim society was flourishing.

And now, Muslim society, instead of being the most tolerant and scientific society as it was in its golden age, is clinging to medieval relics such as sexism. Perhaps the refusal of many Muslim countries to reform is the reason that they have so little comparitive power in the modern world?

As long as liberals, in their arrogance and ignorance, want to disparage the Muslim society in the same way that they have disparaged the feudal society, Muslims will never listen to them.

:boohoo: As long as fundamentalist Muslims, in their arrogance and ignorance, continue to hold their societies back with sexism and theocracy, Islamic nations will continue to be poor and weak and oppressive. Fortunately, many Muslims are willing to listen to people who point out the flaws in their societies, or are able to discover those flaws for themselves, and reform will, with luck, eventually triumph.

Now that the feudal society is history and the liberal society has been established, Muslims can now make comparisons between a Muslim society and a liberal society. We see a lot of things that disturb us very much about the liberal soceity, but we also see the good. Our job is to take the good from the liberal society and leave the bad.

Yes, exactly. Your job is to make comparisons, take the good and leave the bad. I'm glad you admit that, because equality for women is clearly one of the most important goods. If you want to reject consumerism or corporate oligarchy, go ahead. Don't, however, reject the idea of universal human rights; that's one of the clearest goods to come out of liberal societies - many of the problems with modern liberal society result from it's failure to put those ideas fully into practice.

The structure of the liberal society is rotten to the core and eventually it will collapse and self-destruct just like the feudal society did before it.

Perhaps true. But, as you just stated, you don't need to convert entirely to the current version of liberal society. All you need to do is grant equality to women.

As Nowhere357 pointed out, the linchpin of your whole argument must be some reason why men have to be the ones in charge of families. You have failed to present one, instead either defending authority as inherently good (wrong), or attacking other failings of liberal society (irrelevant). Until you can prove women are in some way inferior to men, which you have shied away from attempting as it's clearly impossible, you will never be able to prove men should be in charge.:banghead:

[dk]

dk: That’s because people often use subterfuge as a weapon to disparage others with lies, and in doing so they make freedom impossible.
Nowhere357: This is why freedom is a difficult concept? So because people lie, therefore we should be slaves? What the hell are you talking about?
dk: Subterfuge makes freedom a difficult concept. For example freedom became a very difficult concept for emancipated slaves to grasp under the policy of “separate but equal” set in place by the Supreme Court in Plessy verses Ferguson. Dig it.


dk: Anyone that paints men or women on the sole basis of prayer, faith, tradition and religion as inhuman (subhuman) presumes upon reason and freedom.
Nowhere357: I agree up to the point where tradition and religion violates human rights. We've been consistent on this point, but it seems to continue to evade you.
dk: We’ve already been down the law and order gambit, and a women’s liberty supersedes the right to life of her unborn child.


dk: If the Muslim religion appears oppressive to post modern secularists that claim to possess the power of reason, then it is by reason and example, not religious slurs, that secularists can best educate Moslem people.
Nowhere357: The Muslim religion appears oppressive because it is oppressive. That has been adequately supported in this depressing thread. I agree, slurs aren't much help. Pass that along to nc, would you?
dk: and the earth appears flat because it is flat. .


dk: To be honest you folks have done nothing but slander Moslem men, Moslem traditions and Moslem families, and in doing so have forfeit the argument.
Nowhere357: But that would not be honest. Shame on you. Btw, this argument was won by the "liberals" about 20 pages ago - you all are just spinning wheels.
dk: If you claim the power of reason then you’re obliged to defend your position by a reasonable argument. NC defends his position on the basis of history and tradition. Mind you, I didn’t say you lost the argument, you forfeited the argument by regressing into mindless slurs. I’ll concede many Moslem homes are oppressive, but by and large Moslems have very strong families compared to NATO nations where most families are abusive, violent, broken, impoverished or amputee. For example women clearly take the brunt of the abuse in US families. Its simply not reasonable to force Good Muslims to become like liberals given the dysfunctional state of liberal homes.

(snipped prattle)

Nowhere357: Same here. How Muslim theocracies violate human rights IS our concern, however. Will this point ever register?
dk: First not every Muslim nation is a theocracy, and second Western Europe has waged war, genocide and land grabs against Islamic people for 15 or 20 generations, so Muslim theocracies also have human rights concerns. By the way dozens of Muslims died in 9/11, and a few were from Muslim theocracies.


dk: Further, I can conceive of no possible world where a just government or a just person would disparage men or women for practicing their religion within the bounds of reason and good will.
Nowhere357: Do you think we should turn a blind eye to tyranny, just because it's performed under the banner of theocracy?
dk: Oh please, “Will you walk into my parlor, said the spider to the fly”.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Doesn't nc's entire "men have authority over women" position fall apart when we consider the possibility of matriarchy? Other than the Koran (or the Bible for that matter) are there any logical arguments for patriarchy?

How many times do I have to say this. LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY! The issue is NOT about men having authority over women. The issue IS about husbands having authority over their wives. HUSBANDS HAVING AUTHORITY OVER THEIR WIVES. Is this clear to everybody, or do I have to repeat it again for the hard of hearing here? I am talking about the institution of marriage and family, and who should be the HEAD of the household.

The liberals say that there should be no head of household, but rather a partnership at the head. I don't believe that partnerships in marriage, as they are in business, work very well. Ask any business consultant whether or not he thinks that partnerships in business are a good idea. Most of them fail for obvious reasons. Surprise! Look at the failure rate of marriages in liberal societies.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The liberals say that there should be no head of household, but rather a partnership at the head. I don't believe that partnerships in marriage, as they are in business, work very well. Ask any business consultant whether or not he thinks that partnerships in business are a good idea. Most of them fail for obvious reasons. Surprise! Look at the failure rate of marriages in liberal societies.

Look at the number of women slaughtered in fucked up Islamic theocracies for 'adultery.'

[lpetrich]

NonContradiction:
The issue IS about husbands having authority over their wives. HUSBANDS HAVING AUTHORITY OVER THEIR WIVES. ...

Why is that supposed to be necessary? Are men supposed to have one-woman harems?

The liberals say that there should be no head of household, but rather a partnership at the head. I don't believe that partnerships in marriage, as they are in business, work very well. ...

1. Why is that supposed to be a relevent analogy? Marriages and businesses have different goals.

2. Large numbers of people have successful egalitarian marriages and relationships, and I'm not sure that NC is correct about business partnerships either.

[lpetrich]

dk:
I’ll concede many Moslem homes are oppressive, but by and large Moslems have very strong families compared to NATO nations where most families are abusive, violent, broken, impoverished or amputee.

I'm baffled at that claim -- is there one shred of evidence for it? And why doesn't dk convert to Islam and move to one of these alleged Islamic utopias?

For example women clearly take the brunt of the abuse in US families. Its simply not reasonable to force Good Muslims to become like liberals given the dysfunctional state of liberal homes.

Except that the same happens in "Good Muslim" homes also -- and is sanctioned by the Koran itself, which says that men ought not to beat their wives with sticks that are too thick.

By the way dozens of Muslims died in 9/11, and a few were from Muslim theocracies.

"Allah will know his own", some Islamists might say.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
How many times do I have to say this. LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY! The issue is NOT about men having authority over women. The issue IS about husbands having authority over their wives. HUSBANDS HAVING AUTHORITY OVER THEIR WIVES. Is this clear to everybody, or do I have to repeat it again for the hard of hearing here? I am talking about the institution of marriage and family, and who should be the HEAD of the household.

Many of us do not agree with the DEMOTION of women, and the PROMOTION of men, within a marital relationship.

This inequality between married men and married women cannot be justified.

The distinction that you are drawing between the status of men and women on the one hand, and the status of husbands and wives on the other, is an artificial one, an unjustifiable dichotomy which is, nonetheless, being used in order to provide support for the argument that husbands should have authority over their wives.

The argument just doesn't work.

Marriages do NOT require a 'head'...marriages, like other committed relationships, should be an equal partnership. There is no need for an authority figure in a marriage - male OR female - none at all.

A more egalitarian view of marriage is required if the full personhood of men and women is to be achieved and maintained.

Trust, friendship, love, physical affection, compatibility, commitment, fidelity, honesty, communication, mutual respect, and an acknowledgement and nourishment of EACH partner's full humanity, agency, and dignity...these are some of the necessary conditions for an egalitarian and successful marriage.

No distinction should be made between a husband and a wife in terms of their access to full human equality.

The liberals say that there should be no head of household, but rather a partnership at the head. I don't believe that partnerships in marriage, as they are in business, work very well. Ask any business consultant whether or not he thinks that partnerships in business are a good idea. Most of them fail for obvious reasons. Surprise! Look at the failure rate of marriages in liberal societies.

Marriage is not a business. Once again, you've drawn yet another false analogy.

Where's your evidence that connects divorce with the lack of an authoritarian male within a marital partnership?

[Nowhere357]

dk
I don't know of a single civilization based on a matriarchy. Please name a few.
Albania, 4500bc (http://www.shqiponja.de/english/albania/early.htm), for example, and of course the Amazons.

Afaik, there is no evidence that elevates matriarchal societies above myth and legend. But as Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy) says:

Regardless of actual historical fact, many cultures have myths about a time when women were dominant. Bamberger (1974) examines several of these myths from South American cultures, and concludes that, by portraying the women from this period as evil, they often serve to keep modern-day women under control.

But none of this affects my point - unless you mean that in addition to saying "because the Bible/Koran says so" as the reason for male dominion over female, one can also say "because that's how it's always been done".

But that won't work. Females lead families, and even countries. And all that is necessary for my point is the possibility of matriarchy.

I note you provide no arguments for assuming that male dominance is superior to female dominance. I predict there are none.

Subterfuge makes freedom a difficult concept. For example freedom became a very difficult concept for emancipated slaves to grasp under the policy of “separate but equal” set in place by the Supreme Court in Plessy verses Ferguson. Dig it.
Yes, removing their chains was so confusing for them. What a crock. That emancipation occured in steps - is still occuring - in no way makes freedom a difficult concept.

We’ve already been down the law and order gambit, and a women’s liberty supersedes the right to life of her unborn child.
You shift the goal posts. I said we only object to tradition and religion when they violate human rights. Your point is without merit anyway - women have no right to a late-term abortion, afaik. And they shouldn't (health issues aside). The trick is 'simply' to prevent all unwanted pregnancies. That women can abort cell clumps or partially formed fetus' in no way indicate that they are violating human rights.

You said "Anyone that paints men or women on the sole basis of prayer, faith, tradition and religion as inhuman (subhuman) presumes upon reason and freedom." Again, the issue is when tradition and religion violate human rights. No amount of double-speak will change this.

and the earth appears flat because it is flat.
Back at you. The belief that men have dominion over women is as primitive as believing in a flat earth. Made sense once, time to move into the 21st century.

If you claim the power of reason then you’re obliged to defend your position by a reasonable argument.
It's your claim that "you folks have done nothing but slander Moslem men, Moslem traditions and Moslem families" so the burden's on you. Of course that is a COMPLETELY unsupportable position.

Mind you, I didn’t say you lost the argument, you forfeited the argument by regressing into mindless slurs.
I have done no such thing. If you are interested in mindless slurs, try readng nc's posts. I have not forfeited the argument, and I have not regressed into mindless slurs. Shame on you.

I’ll concede many Moslem homes are oppressive, but by and large Moslems have very strong families compared to NATO nations where most families are abusive, violent, broken, impoverished or amputee. For example women clearly take the brunt of the abuse in US families. Its simply not reasonable to force Good Muslims to become like liberals given the dysfunctional state of liberal homes.
Strawman. The issue is freedom of women, not forcing Musims to become liberals. The Amish are extremely conservative, and yet just as free as any other American. Again, you come up dry.

You admit many Muslim homes are oppressive. Why do you think that is?

First not every Muslim nation is a theocracy,
So? How is that support for the Islamic violations of human rights?

and second Western Europe has waged war, genocide and land grabs against Islamic people for 15 or 20 generations
So? How is that support for the Islamic violations of human rights?

so Muslim theocracies also have human rights concerns. By the way dozens of Muslims died in 9/11, and a few were from Muslim theocracies.
So? How is that support for the Islamic violations of human rights?

Oh please, “Will you walk into my parlor, said the spider to the fly”.
Strange 'answer' to a straight forward question. Here it is again:

Do you think we should turn a blind eye to tyranny, just because it's performed under the banner of theocracy?

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
How many times do I have to say this. LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY! The issue is NOT about men having authority over women. The issue IS about husbands having authority over their wives. HUSBANDS HAVING AUTHORITY OVER THEIR WIVES. Is this clear to everybody, or do I have to repeat it again for the hard of hearing here? I am talking about the institution of marriage and family, and who should be the HEAD of the household.
Um, husbands are men. Wives are women. Unless you advocate that when forming a marriage, a head of household must be selected, and that head may be male OR FEMALE, then your position is men having authority over women.

In addition, the issue is Islamic abuse of women. This abuse exists outside of marriage also.

Surprise! Look at the failure rate of marriages in liberal societies.
Islam forbids women the option of divorce. What a surprise that their divorce rate is lower. :rolleyes:

[lpetrich]

NonContradiction:
Look at the failure rate of marriages in liberal societies.

Luiseach:
Where's your evidence that connects divorce with the lack of an authoritarian male within a marital partnership?

Furthermore, since NC's religion teaches that a man has a right to divorce his wife by telling her:

I divorce you!
I divorce you!
I divorce you!

he has forfeited any right to complain about divorce.

[lpetrich]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
... Islam forbids women the option of divorce. What a surprise that their divorce rate is lower. :rolleyes: I don't know if that's a fair statement or not, but it is usually much more difficult for Muslim women to get divorces than Muslim men -- who can tell their wives:

I divorce you!
I divorce you!
I divorce you!

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Luiseach
Many of us do not agree with the DEMOTION of women, and the PROMOTION of men, within a marital relationship.

This inequality between married men and married women cannot be justified.

No one is demoting women and promoting men. If you believe that marriage should be an equal partnership, and that is what you want, then that is fine for you. When you start slandering Islam and Muslims as being sexist because they don't agree with you, then you have gone to far.

It's interesting to note the similarities between the homosexual agenda and the feminist agenda. In same sex marriages, who is the husband and who is the wife? We all know the answer to that one. So what is the difference between what the feminists are advocating here and what the homosexuals are advocating? I don't see any difference because both of them are advocating an equal partnership in marriage. If it weren't for the feminist agenda, the homosexuals wouldn't even have an agenda.

Originally posted by Luiseach
The distinction that you are drawing between the status of men and women on the one hand, and the status of husbands and wives on the other, is an artificial one, an unjustifiable dichotomy which is, nonetheless, being used in order to provide support for the argument that husbands should have authority over their wives.

It may be an artificial distinction to you, but to many people it's not. The traditional family of having the man as head of the household works better in my opinion. You are free to disagree, but you are not free to force your agenda down other people's throat by insulting them with labels like sexist and bigot. That's not very tolerant of you, as liberals, is it? Liberals have not shown that their ideas of marriage and family work better than the traditional ideas so I feel under no obligation to accept their ideas.

Originally posted by Luiseach
Marriages do NOT require a 'head'...marriages, like other committed relationships, should be an equal partnership. There is no need for an authority figure in a marriage - male OR female - none at all.

So you say, but that doesn't make it true because you say so.

Originally posted by Luiseach
A more egalitarian view of marriage is required if the full personhood of men and women is to be achieved and maintained.


So you say, but that doesn't make it true because you say so.


Originally posted by Luiseach
Trust, friendship, love, physical affection, compatibility, commitment, fidelity, honesty, communication, mutual respect, and an acknowledgement and nourishment of EACH partner's full humanity, agency, and dignity...these are some of the necessary conditions for an egalitarian and successful marriage.


Why can't you have trust, friendship, love, physical affection, compatability, fidelity, honesty, etc... in a marriage with the man as head of household?

Originally posted by Luiseach
Marriage is not a business. Once again, you've drawn yet another false analogy.

It's actually a very good analogy. There are financial issues to worry about, just like in a business, There are responsibilities in the family unit, just like in a business. As a matter of fact, if you are a family living on a farm, then you are a business! It's a good analogy and most certainly it's not a false analogy.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Um, husbands are men. Wives are women.
Unless it's a homosexual marriage. What is going on there?
Originally posted by Nowhere357
Unless you advocate that when forming a marriage, a head of household must be selected, and that head may be male OR FEMALE, then your position is men having authority over women.

Now, that would be an interesting concept if couples had to select who would be the head of household. I wonder how many men would go along with the idea of the woman being the head of household if they were forced to choose?

The truth is that most marriages are not equal partnerships, even if the two parties initially set out to make it that way.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
...slandering Islam and Muslims as being sexist because they don't agree with you...

Where is your evidence for this?

It's interesting to note the similarities between the homosexual agenda and the feminist agenda. In same sex marriages, who is the husband and who is the wife? We all know the answer to that one. So what is the difference between what the feminists are advocating here and what the homosexuals are advocating? I don't see any difference because both of them are advocating an equal partnership in marriage. If it weren't for the feminist agenda, the homosexuals wouldn't even have an agenda.

Yes, it certainly is an interesting point to make. Your comparison between feminism and the effort to secure equal rights for same-sex marriage couples strengthens the argument in favour of marriages based on equality.

Of course there are overlaps between feminism (which is a struggle to acquire full human rights for women), and advocates of equal rights for homosexual people (who also struggle to acquire their full human rights).

There is a similarity between the two movements...it's called the struggle for EQUALITY.

...insulting them with labels like sexist and bigot.

Evidence for this, please?

That's not very tolerant of you, as liberals, is it? Liberals have not shown that their ideas of marriage and family work better than the traditional ideas so I feel under no obligation to accept their ideas.

You have yet to present any evidence whatsoever to support your claim that so-called 'liberal marriages' - in which ideally there is full equality - are less workable than marriages based on inequality.

Why can't you have trust, friendship, love, physical affection, compatability, fidelity, honesty, etc... in a marriage with the man as head of household?

Because making the man the head of the household creates a state of inequality, that's why.

Inequality in a marriage precludes the full realisation of all of the qualities of a good relationship that I listed, not least of which include the following: '...mutual respect, and an acknowledgement and nourishment of EACH partner's full humanity, agency, and dignity.'

It's actually a very good analogy. There are financial issues to worry about, just like in a business, There are responsibilities in the family unit, just like in a business. As a matter of fact, if you are a family living on a farm, then you are a business! It's a good analogy and most certainly it's not a false analogy.

It is a false analogy because there are more salient differences between a marriage and a business than there are salient similarities.

[dk]

I’m going to take issue with this historical account NC.

NonContradiction: Yes, that is very true. Liberals challenged the social hierarchy of the feudal society and believed that they had a better replacement. The point is that the liberals had to rationally justify why the people should have abandoned the feudal society for a liberal society.
dk: Liberals never challenged the hierarchy, they became the hierarchy i.e. enlightened despots. Feudal society was a Western European phenomena, and ended for two reasons, 1) The Crusades awoke Western Europe from the isolation of feudal life in the 11th Century. The roads and routes the Western European armies traveled to the Middle East became the trade routes and backbone of Medieval Europe. 2) After laying waste to all military opponents in England William the Conqueror bypassed the Feudal Lords and required an oath of loyalty to the King from his subjects. He also conducted a census and collected taxes directly. William the Conquer became the model that ended the Feudal System. I don’t think one can accurately call William a liberal in any sense of the word.


NonContradiction: Now, the question becomes, why should Muslims abandon a Muslim society for a liberal society? The argument that liberals used against a feudal society simply WONT work against a Muslim society because the feudal society and the Muslim society are two completely different societies. Unless the liberals can provide us with solid reasons for us abandoning a Muslim society, then we have no reason to do so.
dk: Moslem governments for the most part are inept, unresponsive and corrupt. Moslems blame Israel, World Bank, unfair trade practices, World monetary system and liberalism for their second class status in the national community, but where the rubber meets the road Moslem nations lack competent moral leadership. Nations prosper and grow by solving problems with life affirming solutions. In some respects Moslem nations have learned all the wrong lessons from their liberal contemporaries.


NonContradiction: The typical position of most liberals has been to treat the Muslim society in the same manner that they treated the feudal society, and that is what most Muslims find to be deeply insulting and offensive. When the feudal society was wallowing in the Dark Ages, the Muslim society was flourishing. As long as liberals, in their arrogance and ignorance, want to disparage the Muslim society in the same way that they have disparaged the feudal society, Muslims will never listen to them.
dk: I agree.


NonContradiction: Now that the feudal society is history and the liberal society has been established, Muslims can now make comparisons between a Muslim society and a liberal society. We see a lot of things that disturb us very much about the liberal society, but we also see the good. Our job is to take the good from the liberal society and leave the bad. The structure of the liberal society is rotten to the core and eventually it will collapse and self-destruct just like the feudal society did before it.
dk: The saving grace for the US and Europe is freedom. Freedom is the whipping post that motivates people to learn from their mistakes and their betters. Liberals supplant freedom with a welfare state and dependency. Liberals chase their tails. They are sustained by great reserves of good will that they squander without recompense, and they create 10 new problems for every cure.

[dk]

dk: I’ll concede many Moslem homes are oppressive, but by and large Moslems have very strong families compared to NATO nations where most families are abusive, violent, broken, impoverished or amputee.
lpetrich: I'm baffled at that claim -- is there one shred of evidence for it? And why doesn't dk convert to Islam and move to one of these alleged Islamic utopias?
dk: I'd start with Old Europe. Germany, France and Italy can’t produce enough healthy children to field an army, maintain infrastructure or run their industrial complex. As the baby boomers retire over the next 20 years Old Europe will have no choice but to import cheap labor from Muslim nations to keep their heads above water. The birth rates, deficit government spending, cost of education, rising healthcare costs, geriatric demographic and aging infrastructure all point to an economic and social crisis of epic proportions. That brings us to the US. In the US 1/3 of children are born to unmarried mothers, and 50% of those unmarried mothers hover on the poverty line. 50% of US families are broken by divorce. The safety net in the US has expanded a 100 fold over the last 40 years, and one in twenty children are government property, parentis loco. The US youthful appetite for illegal drugs fuels revolution and terrorism via drug cartels across South and Central America. The US public schools are policed by armed guards, drug sniffing dogs, surveillance cameras, no tolerance policies and metal detectors. US federal and state courthouses and more generally all public venues have been refitted with security measures. The cost of family services, health care and education in the US continues to spiral up and up, out of control. In short the US has been very successful at destroying the nuclear family, but very unsuccessful at raising healthy children absent healthy nuclear families. In summary, where Europe stagnates and atrophies with inequities, the US boils with inequity.


dk: For example women clearly take the brunt of the abuse in US families. Its simply not reasonable to force Good Muslims to become like liberals given the dysfunctional state of liberal homes.
lpetrich: Except that the same happens in "Good Muslim" homes also -- and is sanctioned by the Koran itself, which says that men ought not to beat their wives with sticks that are too thick.
dk: Everybody has problems, nations that solve problems with life affirming solutions grow and prosper. Nations that encounter an “insoluble problem” are forced to redirect increasingly sparse resources to solve the “insoluble problem”, until the “insoluble problem” breaks the back of productive people. In my opinion the aging baby boomers, spiraling costs of healthcare & education and MDR microbes converge upon liberal ideologues that have only two answers, 1) welfare state (dependency) 2) abortion, infanticide, eugenics and euthanasia (death).


dk: By the way dozens of Muslims died in 9/11, and a few were from Muslim theocracies.
lpetrich: "Allah will know his own", some Islamists might say.
dk: In God We Trust.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Luiseach
...slandering Islam and Muslims as being sexist because they don't agree with you...

Originally posted by Luiseach
Where is your evidence for this?

Nowhere357
The Muslim religion appears oppressive because it is oppressive.

Kalkin
And now, Muslim society, instead of being the most tolerant and scientific society as it was in its golden age, is clinging to medieval relics such as sexism.

I would have to go back and review the thread to see what you have said. I am not sure. However, be that as it may, when you listen to people slander someone, and you don't say anything when you easily could, then it implies that you condone what they are saying.

Simply because I defend the traditional family, with the man as head of household, doesn't imply sexism as the radical liberals would like everybody to think, nor does it imply oppression of women.

The liberal agenda of equality is not about equality at all. If it was about equality, then they would be advocating EQUAL treatment for traditional family roles as well as alternative lifestyles. This is not what they are advocating. They have, instead, decided that they are going to attack the traditional family, by calling it oppressive and sexist, thereby demoting it, while at the same time promoting alternative lifestyles. I am not going to let the liberals get away with this. I will resist this movement until I have breathed my last breath.

Originally posted by Luiseach
Of course there are overlaps between feminism (which is a struggle to acquire full human rights for women), and advocates of equal rights for homosexual people (who also struggle to acquire their full human rights).

There is a similarity between the two movements...it's called the struggle for EQUALITY.

It's not a struggle for EQUALITY, as you say it is, it's a struggle for INEQUALITY, which translates into the traditional family, with the man as head of household, being marginalized.

[dk]

dk: I don't know of a single civilization based on a matriarchy. Please name a few.
Nowhere357: Albania, 4500bc, for example, and of course the Amazons.
Afaik, there is no evidence that elevates matriarchal societies above myth and legend. But as Wikipedia says:
dk: I’m surprised you didn’t mention Zena the Warrior Princess as historical evidence. You need to produce a historical source, not a fictional source.


Nowhere357: Regardless of actual historical fact, many cultures have myths about a time when women were dominant. Bamberger (1974) examines several of these myths from South American cultures, and concludes that, by portraying the women from this period as evil, they often serve to keep modern-day women under control.
dk: You’re making me laugh. In fact there have been several matriarchal cultures but zero matriarchal civilizations.


Nowhere357: But none of this affects my point - unless you mean that in addition to saying "because the Bible/Koran says so" as the reason for male dominion over female, one can also say "because that's how it's always been done".
dk: Absent a matriarchal civilization, you labor under an abyss of historical evidence.


Nowhere357: But that won't work. Females lead families, and even countries. And all that is necessary for my point is the possibility of matriarchy.
I note you provide no arguments for assuming that male dominance is superior to female dominance. I predict there are none.
dk: I concur… Cleopatra, Catherine the Great, Queen Elizabeth, Joanne of Arc,,, etc.. to name a few. History bulges with a plethora of great female leaders, but an abyss of matriarchal civilizations.


dk: Subterfuge makes freedom a difficult concept. For example freedom became a very difficult concept for emancipated slaves to grasp under the policy of “separate but equal” set in place by the Supreme Court in Plessy verses Ferguson. Dig it.
Nowhere357: Yes, removing their chains was so confusing for them. What a crock. That emancipation occured in steps - is still occuring - in no way makes freedom a difficult concept.
dk: You affirm my point, the concept of freedom obscured by a mask of subterfuge becomes difficult. Who was it that said, “The truth will set you free.”? Was that Hume, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Schelling, Spencer, Bentham,,, can you remember?


dk: We’ve already been down the law and order gambit, and a women’s liberty supersedes the right to life of her unborn child.
Nowhere357: You shift the goal posts. I said we only object to tradition and religion when they violate human rights. Your point is without merit anyway - women have no right to a late-term abortion, afaik. And they shouldn't (health issues aside). The trick is 'simply' to prevent all unwanted pregnancies. That women can abort cell clumps or partially formed fetus' in no way indicate that they are violating human rights.
You said "Anyone that paints men or women on the sole basis of prayer, faith, tradition and religion as inhuman (subhuman) presumes upon reason and freedom." Again, the issue is when tradition and religion violate human rights. No amount of double-speak will change this.
dk: I said a lot of things, and you have yet to ground human rights upon a solid (or even a coherent) foundation. The UN UNDOHR has been undermined by NGOs and the UN itself lacks the will, power and authority to delineate their own charter. Locke offered a coherent basis but over the last 100 years Locke’s philosophical musings have been eroded by abortion, in vitro fertilization, mass sterilization, organ transplants and more general biotechnology. My statements stands, universal human rights in the post modern world don’t exist, and most people on the planet have no concept of human rights.


dk: and the earth appears flat because it is flat.
Nowhere357: Back at you. The belief that men have dominion over women is as primitive as believing in a flat earth. Made sense once, time to move into the 21st century.
dk: Come nowhere, liberals claim the power of reason, in the words of Descartes, “I think therefore I am”. If you can’t present a reasonable argument then you forfeit.


dk: If you claim the power of reason then you’re obliged to defend your position by a reasonable argument.
Nowhere357: It's your claim that "you folks have done nothing but slander Moslem men, Moslem traditions and Moslem families" so the burden's on you. Of course that is a COMPLETELY unsupportable position.
dk: You folks, I have no idea who “you folks”, might be. My arguments are base on the tension between faith and reason, freedom and liberty, science verses politics, and I ground all my arguments upon 2 elemental premises, First, nations grow and prosper by solving problems presented by time with life affirming solutions and Second, when a nation encounters an insoluble problem, whether slow or spry, they become ruined.


dk: Mind you, I didn’t say you lost the argument, you forfeited the argument by regressing into mindless slurs.
Nowhere357: I have done no such thing. If you are interested in mindless slurs, try readng nc's posts. I have not forfeited the argument, and I have not regressed into mindless slurs. Shame on you.
dk: You certainly haven’t grounded your argument in reason, and taking the pulpit to proclaim Moslem families as oppressive by Western standards does not constitute a reasoned argument.


dk: I’ll concede many Moslem homes are oppressive, but by and large Moslems have very strong families compared to NATO nations where most families are abusive, violent, broken, impoverished or amputee. For example women clearly take the brunt of the abuse in US families. Its simply not reasonable to force Good Muslims to become like liberals given the dysfunctional state of liberal homes.
Nowhere357: Strawman. The issue is freedom of women, not forcing Musims to become liberals. The Amish are extremely conservative, and yet just as free as any other American. Again, you come up dry.
dk: Nowhere, its ludicrous to present under the guise of reason an argument that… “frees women by throwing them from the frying pan into the fire.” If you claim the power of reason, you need to make a reasonable argument, or you forfeit.


Nowhere357: You admit many Muslim homes are oppressive. Why do you think that is?
dk: Human beings are flawed creatures that often misunderstand themselves and others, so all human institutions reflect human flaws and therefore tend to be inequitable. For example, you mistake inequity for inequality, therefore inappropriately substitute one for the other.


dk: First not every Muslim nation is a theocracy,
Nowhere357: So? How is that support for the Islamic violations of human rights?
dk: This demonstrates a misnomer, and is important because you portray all Moslem Nations as a theocracies, just as you portray all Moslem families as oppressive. I want you to see the pattern of prejudice, so you can present a reasoned argument.

(snip)

dk: Oh please, “Will you walk into my parlor, said the spider to the fly”.
Nowhere357: Strange 'answer' to a straight forward question. Here it is again:
Do you think we should turn a blind eye to tyranny, just because it's performed under the banner of theocracy?
dk: Liberals claim the power of reason. Moslems claim the power of tradition. Absent a reasoned argument, given the history, the lack of a reasoned argument backed up by a reliable track record makes liberals analogous to the spider. Liberals spin a web to entice the fly (Moslems) to be consumed, consumed by a materialistic economy and a materialistic culture hostile to their traditions and faith.

[Fluffy]

I recently read an article from a Muslim man who use to think like NC and DK and came to realize the irony that only in America can Muslim women fully exercise their Koran given rights.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Kalkin
I've given lots of reasons, which you haven't refuted, why authority for the sake of authority is wrong.


Authority for the sake of authority is nonsense, but this is nothing more than a straw-woman because I have never advocated such a thing.

Originally posted by Kalkin
I like how you haven't touched any of my points about how your position is anti-democratic, making religion instead of people the ruler and disempowering half the populace, and why that's bad.


Am I supposed to accept that democracy is good simply because you say it is? What you think is evil, I think is good. I think that it's good that Islam is NOT a partnership, like a democracy is. The traditions of Islam have been preserved by Muslims and Muslims have been preserved by them. These traditions should not be up for popular vote. Either you accept them or you don't, but nobody has the right, especially the liberals, to slander these traditions. My how intolerant the so called "tolerant" liberals can be!

The liberals can critcize these traditions all they want, that's fine, but when they say that they are sexist and oppressive, then they have crossed a line. It's NOT sexist for people to say that they believe that the man should be head of the household. It IS sexist for men to look at women with contempt. Only liberals could equate the two. I can bring you women who believe that the man should be the head of the household. Does that make those women sexist, too?

Originally posted by Kalkin
While I've conceded that some instances of authority are justified, you haven't given any reason why this is one of them.


I don't believe that partnerships work very well, especially in marriage. The idea of equality, more often than not, based on what I have seen, results in women dominating men. How many emasculated men are there in this society? I don't know exactly how many of them are out here, but I can assure you that one is too many. Emasculated men suffer in silence while loud-mouthed feminists cry about how oppressed they are.

When a husband and wife dance together, who traditionally leads and who follows? The idea that they should both lead, because this dance is an equal partnership, is absurd. The idea that the wife should lead the man is equally absurd. The traditional way is the best way as far as I am concerned.

Originally posted by Kalkin
And, do you really believe that if husbands have authority over their wives, that will result in better treatment for women?


Absolutely! I think when men feel better about themselves, instead of feeling emasculated by feminazis, they will treat women better.

The liberals have forced their agenda upon people by threatening to verbally abuse people with names like sexist, homophobe, or bigot if they dare to oppose them. I don't care what they call me anymore.

Originally posted by Kalkin
Since when did taking away someone's ability to assert their rights make others treat them better?

I believe that a man has a right to be the head of his household. You want to take that right away from him, yet you call men like me sexists.

Originally posted by Kalkin
How am I sidestepping the question? You asked who was I to be saying what authority was justified and what wasn't, and I responded that I was a person making logical arguments.
So make your argument. So far most of the people here have just been making assertions without any supporting evidence. There is plenty of evidence that the traditional family, with the man as head of household, works. Where is the evidence that alternative lifestyles work better than the traditional family? Liberals attack the traditional family as being sexist and oppressive, but what is the alternative? Does the alternative work better? Liberals, in their stupidity, want to abandon the wheel simply because it's an ancient idea. It never occurs to them that maybe the old way is the best way in many instances.

Originally posted by Kalkin
I answered that question in the paragraph you were responding to, as well as many other places. A husband's authority is unfair because it's not justified,

I say it is justified. It's justified because it has been proven to work in the past. How are men and women going to dance together if no one is going lead or follow because they have an equality agenda?

Originally posted by Kalkin
Just as I, and many others, have rationally justified why you should abandon your advocacy of a patriarchal society.

You want me to abandon the traditional family, with the father as head of household, which has been proven to work in the past, for some alternative lifestyle that has demonstrated itself to be a failure. That is stupidity.

Originally posted by Kalkin
I don't think Islam is necessarily feudal. I do think that sexism is feudal and evil. If you find that insulting because it happens to be one of the principles of your society, I don't care.

I think that sexism is feudal and evil, too. However, you have failed miserably to prove that the traitional family, which has been proven to work in the past, is evil. I believe that your feminist agenda is sexist. It's sexist because it robs men of their right to be head of their households. Pot, kettle, black.

Originally posted by Kalkin
And now, Muslim society, instead of being the most tolerant and scientific society as it was in its golden age, is clinging to medieval relics such as sexism. Perhaps the refusal of many Muslim countries to reform is the reason that they have so little comparitive power in the modern world?


If Islam is making the Muslims backwards now, then how do you explain that they had a golden age and made significant contributions to human civilization? If Islam is sexist now, according to you, then surely it must have been sexist back then during their golden age.


Originally posted by Kalkin
As long as fundamentalist Muslims, in their arrogance and ignorance, continue to hold their societies back with sexism and theocracy, Islamic nations will continue to be poor and weak and oppressive. Fortunately, many Muslims are willing to listen to people who point out the flaws in their societies, or are able to discover those flaws for themselves, and reform will, with luck, eventually triumph.

Yes, if we just cast away the traditional family and throw it in the garbage can, like you people have done, then we will progress? Things are bad enough in the Muslim world right now without trying to fix what isn't broken.

Originally posted by Kalkin
Yes, exactly. Your job is to make comparisons, take the good and leave the bad. I'm glad you admit that, because equality for women is clearly one of the most important goods.

Throwing the traditional family in the garbage can in the name of equality is very evil. Something is way off with your judgement if you see that as a good thing.

Originally posted by Kalkin
Perhaps true. But, as you just stated, you don't need to convert entirely to the current version of liberal society. All you need to do is grant equality to women.

To grant equality to women at the expense of the traditional family isn't a good trade off.

Originally posted by Kalkin
As Nowhere357 pointed out, the linchpin of your whole argument must be some reason why men have to be the ones in charge of families.

How about the fact that the traditional family works better than anything else we know of? Why isn't that a good enough reason for you?

Originally posted by Kalkin
Until you can prove women are in some way inferior to men, which you have shied away from attempting as it's clearly impossible, you will never be able to prove men should be in charge.:banghead:

Why do I have to prove that women are inferior??? That is stupidity. All we have to do is compare the traditional family with alternative lifestyles.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I would have to go back and review the thread to see what you have said. I am not sure.

So you are accusing me of saying something for which you have no evidence.

However, be that as it may, when you listen to people slander someone, and you don't say anything when you easily could, then it implies that you condone what they are saying.

Because you have no evidence to support your accusations, you are now accusing me and other users of, what, exactly?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Luiseach
So you are accusing me of saying something for which you have no evidence.
So many people have hurled so many insults at Islam that I would need a computer to keep track of it all. If you are one of the FEW here who haven't gang-piled on Islam, then I apologize.
Originally posted by NC
However, be that as it may, when you listen to people slander someone, and you don't say anything when you easily could, then it implies that you condone what they are saying.
Originally posted by Luiseach
Because you have no evidence to support your accusations, you are now accusing me and other users of, what, exactly?
I think that my post speaks for itself. No explanation needed.

[Fluffy]

NC, I work and my husband stays at home with the kids - it’s a true partnership since I can make a heck of a lot more money than he can and, quite frankly, he’s a lot better with the kids than I am. He prefers to stay at home and I enjoy going out to work (most of the time). But in your ideal world NC, my homebody husband would be forced (socially and possible by law) to go out and financially support his family even though I’m better suited for it intellectually and personally.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
It's not a struggle for EQUALITY, as you say it is, it's a struggle for INEQUALITY, which translates into the traditional family, with the man as head of household, being marginalized.
How is this different from claiming that freeing slaves violates the rights of slaveowners? They both ignore the violations of equal rights.

I will resist this movement until I have breathed my last breath.
Far too often, this is the only way to make progress. People get addicted to their feelings of superiority, and refuse - period - to let go.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I think that my post speaks for itself. No explanation needed.

Originally posted by NonContradiction
However, be that as it may, when you listen to people slander someone, and you don't say anything when you easily could, then it implies that you condone what they are saying.

Again, where is the supporting evidence?

[MollyMac]

posted by NC
How about the fact that the traditional family works better than anything else we know of?
NC, sorry if you've already said this and I missed it but what do you mean when you say the traditional family "works"? By what criteria do judge how well or otherwise a family functions? Presumably, you would not regard Fluffy's family as 'traditional' - are you going to tell her that her family doesn't work? If so, why?

[Nowhere357]

dk
I’m surprised you didn’t mention Zena the Warrior Princess as historical evidence. You need to produce a historical source, not a fictional source.
Now don't be dissing Zena.

And my source was not fictional. Anyway, my point does not require that matriarchies have existed. And btw, the Bible and the Koran are based on myth and legend. The difference is that matriarchal societies violate no natural law.

You’re making me laugh. In fact there have been several matriarchal cultures but zero matriarchal civilizations.
Did you forget what we are talking about? Since you agree women can rule just as men can rule, then you must produce an argument for why men should be head of household. Other than "because the holy book says so" or "because it's always done that way".

Absent a matriarchal civilization, you labor under an abyss of historical evidence.
False. Absent a coherent argument, you are reduced to "because it's always been that way". That argument has no value. If it should be that way, then of course you have rational reasons. What are they? Again, I predict you have no rational reasons.

I concur… Cleopatra, Catherine the Great, Queen Elizabeth, Joanne of Arc,,, etc.. to name a few. History bulges with a plethora of great female leaders, but an abyss of matriarchal civilizations.
Proving women can rule. Now, what rational reasons are there for male dominance?

You affirm my point, the concept of freedom obscured by a mask of subterfuge becomes difficult.
Freedom is an easy concept. No amount of double-speak will change that.

Who was it that said, “The truth will set you free.”?
Wasn't that from a figure in a book of myth and legend?

I said a lot of things, and you have yet to ground human rights upon a solid (or even a coherent) foundation.
Here we see the "mask of subterfuge" in action.

You have yet to ground male dominance upon a solid - or even coherant - foundation.

The foundation for human rights is very solid and very easy to see. Do as you will, unless that infringes on the rights of others. The view from "the liberals" has been very consistent on this point in this thread. What part of that foundation confuses you? The part where you lose the right to dominate women?

Or the part where a clump of cells is not a human being?

My statements stands, universal human rights in the post modern world don’t exist, and most people on the planet have no concept of human rights.
Your statement falls, universal human rights in the modern world exist. Uncover your eyes and pull your fingers out of your ears. Your mask of subterfuge won't fly here.

If you can’t present a reasonable argument then you forfeit.
I said "The belief that men have dominion over women is as primitive as believing in a flat earth." If you believe that men should have dominion over women, then the burden is on you.

If you can’t present a reasonable argument then you forfeit. So, do you have an argument?

You folks, I have no idea who “you folks”, might be.
That was YOUR quote. So you have no idea what you're talking about! Or you subterfuge mask is slipping! Page 26, about halfway, I'd link it if I knew how. Here's your entire paragraph though:

"That’s because people often use subterfuge as a weapon to disparage others with lies, and in doing so they make freedom impossible. Anyone that paints men or women on the sole basis of prayer, faith, tradition and religion as inhuman (subhuman) presumes upon reason and freedom. If the Muslim religion appears oppressive to post modern secularists that claim to possess the power of reason, then it is by reason and example, not religious slurs, that secularists can best educate Moslem people. To be honest you folks have done nothing but slander Moslem men, Moslem traditions and Moslem families, and in doing so have forfeit the argument. "

My arguments are base on the tension between faith and reason, freedom and liberty, science verses politics, and I ground all my arguments upon 2 elemental premises, First, nations grow and prosper by solving problems presented by time with life affirming solutions and Second, when a nation encounters an insoluble problem, whether slow or spry, they become ruined.
Faith and reason may be opposed, but freedom and liberty are not, science and politics are not.

And how does any of this support the violation of human rights?

You certainly haven’t grounded your argument in reason, and taking the pulpit to proclaim Moslem families as oppressive by Western standards does not constitute a reasoned argument.
Sure I have. The reason is they violate human rights.

Dude, you claim men should dominate women. Provide some reasoning.

Nowhere, its ludicrous to present under the guise of reason an argument that… “frees women by throwing them from the frying pan into the fire.” If you claim the power of reason, you need to make a reasonable argument, or you forfeit.
dk, its ludicrous to present under the guise of reason an argument that women should submit to abuse. Period. Provide a reasonable argument, or concede.

Human beings are flawed creatures that often misunderstand themselves and others, so all human institutions reflect human flaws and therefore tend to be inequitable.
If this is supposed to excuse Muslims for having oppressive homes, why does it not also apply to western domestic problems? Double standard?

For example, you mistake inequity for inequality, therefore inappropriately substitute one for the other.
No I don't. Equality for women IS equity. Do you buy these subterfuge masks by the gross?

This demonstrates a misnomer, and is important because you portray all Moslem Nations as a theocracies, just as you portray all Moslem families as oppressive. I want you to see the pattern of prejudice, so you can present a reasoned argument.
I've never claimed that all nations with Muslims are theocracies, and I've never claimed that all Muslim families are oppressive. There is no pattern of prejudice for you to point out. My question stands: How is that (not every Muslim nation is a theocracy) support for the Islamic violations of human rights?

I take your snip as concession that "and second Western Europe has waged war, genocide and land grabs against Islamic people for 15 or 20 generations" does not support Islamic violation of human rights, and that "so Muslim theocracies also have human rights concerns. By the way dozens of Muslims died in 9/11, and a few were from Muslim theocracies." does not supprt the Islamic violation of human rights. I wonder why you snip instead of admit. Is this part of the operating instruction for subterfuge mask operation?

Liberals claim the power of reason. Moslems claim the power of tradition. Absent a reasoned argument, given the history, the lack of a reasoned argument backed up by a reliable track record makes liberals analogous to the spider. Liberals spin a web to entice the fly (Moslems) to be consumed, consumed by a materialistic economy and a materialistic culture hostile to their traditions and faith.
Ah. Your reason for claiming that women should submit to men is "because that's how we've always done it!". Excuse me please, but that is a stupid argument. I'm sorry - really - that western society is not perfect. That is IN NO WAY an excuse to continue abusing women. That tradition demands something does not make that thing right. That tradition violates human rights makes that tradition wrong.

You have lost this argument, barring the introduction of reasonable arguments for the continued domination of women by men.

Don't bother replying without said arguments.

[Fluffy]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impossible Family Dynamics Of Islam

By: Nonie Darwish
Marriage and divorce laws in Islam have a profound effect on the family unit and consequently on Muslim society as a whole. I personally lived in and witnessed many Muslim families and saw the impossible family dynamics resulting from these laws. I realized that a woman finding herself happy and secure in a Muslim marriage happens rarely and only through extraordinary good luck. I will explain why this is so.
The family unit is comprised of a father, mother and children. This is the nucleus that societies are made up of. The source of all loyalty in the family is the loyalty between the husband and wife. The healthy relationships extending out beyond the marriage depend to a large extent on what kind of bond the couple has. The way religion regulates the holy relationship between a man and the woman in matrimony is crucial in forming the secondary relationships in the family unit and what kind of extended family dynamics are built on it. The husband and wife relationship will ultimately shape the kind of society that is the end result. Religions bring rules and codes of behavior that stabilize this unit for the benefit of society.

The Judeo-Christian religion stresses one man / one woman in marriage where the nucleus of loyalty is clear between a husband and wife. Genesis 2:24 says "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Note the singular form of the word 'wife.'

Islam on the other hand allows women only one husband but men up to four wives, and that changes the dynamics of everything. That right of the man, even though many Muslim men choose not to exercise it for many reasons, has a devastating impact on the healthy function and the structure of loyalties of the Muslim family. There are chronic social ills and tragedies stemming from this single right, accorded to men by Allah, and demonstrated in practice by the prophet Mohamed.

The husband according to Islamic law has the right to divide his loyalty between four women and his children from all of them. Islam asks men to be fair and just among the wives and to treat them all equally. In practice, when the inevitable conflicts of marriage occur, many Muslim men resort to a second wife (or threat thereof) as their 'solution' instead of working out the problem with the first.

Men do not even have to use their rights for the damage to happen. By allowing Men to be 'loyal' to up to four wives, the stage is set for women always to distrust their husbands in the Muslim world. That distrust extends also to other women since any of them could shamelessly become an eligible 'bachelorette' for the husband. If the husband stays married only to his first wife, then it is a sign of his generosity and good graces. She should thank her lucky stars and be eternally grateful to him and his whole family, as she becomes the envy of other women. However, in the back of her mind she is always in fear. A Muslim wife cannot demand her husband's loyalty to herself alone, and she is threatened by single women in a way that no Christian wife is threatened by her husband's mistress.

Under Islamic law, a second wife (and third and fourth) is legally equal to the first in every way, including inheritance. This is very different from an affair in the Christian West where the mistress has no rights and is discouraged by religion and society from any advances to or from a married man. A single Muslim woman with an eye on a married man often can say: "He is a man and can use his rights and our marriage will still be blessed by God, just as that of the first wife. It is his right as a man to have both of us!"

Thus relationships among women in Muslim countries also become strained and hostile. There are little relationships between women outside the family or clan. There is constant fear of envy and the evil eye as well. As a child I often heard women begging their husbands after a fight not to marry another woman. "Go ahead and have affairs" they say, "but please never marry another." They are afraid of another wife and children who will be regarded as equal by law and society.

Muslim women, when their husbands earn more money, have to worry about him being able to afford a second wife. I remember hearing a Muslim woman advising her friend: "spend your husband's money as fast as you can before there is extra for another wife!" Muslim men very often keep the first wife in the dark about the second wife and often his own family and some of his close friends know about it and cover up for him. Women in the Islamic world frequently discover, after the husband's death, another wife and children they never knew existed, with whom they now have to share the inheritance as equals! Divorce in Islam is accomplished by the husband repeating the phrase "I divorce you!" three times. That's it! It almost harkens back to a pre-literate, tribal era.

When I was a child, we had neighbors who were very distinguished physicians, both husband and wife, with two teenage sons. One day the wife came to my mother crying because she had discovered that her husband had been married for years to one of his young attractive patients and already had a child with her. When she confronted him with her discovery, his response was "What do you want? I am within my rights." She begged him to divorce the other woman. He refused. She told him "then you have to divorce me", thinking he would back down. He called her bluff; the next day he divorced his wife of 20 years!

Women, on the other hand, have no equivalent right to divorce their husbands. I remember being 21 and having a new woman friend aged 23. She was like me, living with her parents and she confided in me that she had been married to a man 5 years earlier and when she asked him for divorce because she was unhappy he refused. He then retaliated by sending her back to her family and married another woman with whom he had a couple of children. He could divorce her in a minute if he wanted, but she had to go through years of court procedures with no success and finally her family had to bribe him with a hefty amount of money to divorce her.

In addition, Muslim men have the right to marry non-Muslim women.
Muslim women have no right but to marry Muslim men. That causes a gap of availability of men to Muslim women. The result is a larger number of unmarried Muslim women who have fewer and fewer population of Muslim men to choose from. On the other hand, Muslim men often find it easier to marry a non-Muslim foreigner, with whom he does not have to give a dowry, follow strict family courtship rules and no wife family to bother him and look after her interests.

Muslim Women have to juggle this impossible web of harm and deceit as a result of men's religious right to have more than one wife and easy divorce. All these laws skewed towards Muslim men leave women in a very weak position, but that injustice does not come free of cost to men, and has a devastating impact on every aspect of Muslim society. The issue is not just that it is unfair to women; it is much worse than that and has many unintended, damaging consequences to the healthy upbringing of children.

Women's loyalty to their husbands is completely undermined, and many Muslim women shift their loyalty to their first born son and their own family. The son becomes her man and her defender, very often against his own father. Frequently a wife's father or brother will settle disputes with her husband. The unit of loyalty in the Muslim world is then transferred from Husband and Wife to Mother and son, mother and her family, husband and other wives, and husband and his own family who cover up for his second, third or fourth marriage.

Thus the whole social structure is disrupted. Women in the Middle East often go by their son's name such as Om Mohamed, meaning "Mother of Mohamed" or Om Ali, "Mother of Ali". That becomes their identity. It is not 'Mrs. Husband' but 'Mother of Son'. In the Muslim world the relationships between Mother and daughter-in-law are especially very strained and bizarre. Very often a Muslim mother-in-law, who herself transferred her loyalty to her son, suddenly becomes very powerful and very threatened by the marriage of her sons. Mothers often choose the son's wife. Wife has to please mother-in-law and often serve her more than mother-in-law's own daughters.

This is one way to guarantee husband's blessings and influence him not to marry another woman. Very often Mother-in-law might encourage the son to marry another woman if the daughter in law is not obedient enough. If this all seems confusing, that's the whole point! It's a disaster!!

Muslim weddings are not a very holy event. There is the traditional virginity check of the bride among the less educated classes, the exchange of the dowry between the groom and father of the bride and the belly dancers that lead the bride and groom to the bedroom. As a teenager I saw in an old Hollywood movie a church wedding ceremony. I was very touched by the marriage vows, especially when the Husband promises to love, honor and cherish his one wife only, "till death do us part". I thought, "That must be very civilizing to men". That scene struck me deeply and I wept over the beauty of the words that are the basis of the Judeo-Christian family.

It was very comforting and calming and formed a great foundation to society. Even though I was a very young teenager, I asked my mother after the movie "How come we don't have weddings like that?" Her answer missed the point: "We do have very glamorous weddings too", as if the issue was glamour or romance. I nagged her, without even comprehending why: "No we don't have weddings like that!" I now look back at my innocent mind that was seeking comfort from the impossible family dynamics created by Islam.

In my opinion one of the greatest contributions of Judaism and Christianity to humanity and the order of things in Western civilization is the idea of one man, one woman joined in holy matrimony, which resulted in a far superior society and stable social order. Even though Islam is supposedly rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the commandments and exhortations for monogamy seem to have been completely lost in the desert culture of Mecca.

I remember as a child secretly telling myself "I want a Christian wedding" and when I grew up, I did; I married a Christian. Mind you, the ceremony was simple and modest, and my husband and I had to flee to the USA. We were fortunate not to be denounced to the authorities by the ordinary visa office clerk, who, like everyone else in the society, considered it her business to enforce the religious virtue of every other citizen.

There is a large number of Muslim women married to Christians in the West. Many of them live in fear of being exposed in the old country. According to Islam these women are no longer Muslims. Without the USA many Muslim women would have been killed in their own countries for marrying a non-Muslim. In Islam a man's honor resides in the virginity of the women in his family. Arabic movies always show unmarried women being killed because they are no longer virgins, even if they were raped.

That is the singular lesson of life that every Muslim girl grows up with. I do very much value a conservative attitude in the bringing up of both girls and boys to wait until marriage, and I did apply that to myself and the upbringing of my children. Traditional Christianity and Judaism value the same thing. However, Islam took this to the extreme level of killing girls that loose their virginity, like getting rid of a used tissue! It does not matter how or why it happened. That could be looked into later.

I personally knew of a couple of instances of such 'honor killing'. To cite one example, my family once had a new maid who was about 17 or 18 years old. My mother noticed the unthinkable, that the girl came to us pregnant. She did not have it in her heart to send the girl back to her family since she was certain to be fatally harmed. When my mother asked the girl who the man was, she told my mother it was her previous boss whose wife threw her out when she discovered her husband's obvious rape! When the girl was getting close to delivery my mother sent her to some government facility for her delivery. A few months later my mother learned from the agent that brought her to us that the girl's family took care of the family disgrace and said something to the effect that the girl had been killed! I will never forget this girl's face and I still weep over her. That story is still imprinted in my memory, thanks to the "Religion of Peace."

While Islam murders girls who have premarital sex, regardless of circumstances, it glorifies sex in the bringing up of boys. The Islamic culture gives freedom to boys to have sex prior to marriage and to indulge in many sins not allowed to girls. I often wondered who the girls are that Muslim boys go with? These must be the ones that Islam will take to Hell. The Muslim culture is full of contradictions that my young mind could not comprehend growing up. Everything seemed to revolve around sex. The sexual aspect of anything is number one; Clothes, a look by a woman, a laugh, a smile, etc. I felt that I am always looked upon as a sexual object, a piece of meat that has to always be on guard not to tempt men.

Western women who marry Muslim men, discover after the marriage ends and after it's too late, the sad situation they are left with. In Islam, the father has the right to the children after a certain age. Very often these men take their children and go back to their home country to be wed to the new wife without even thinking twice. We all heard of the horror stories and they are all true.

Even after death, in the Paradise of Islam women are given the short end of the stick. The idea of Heaven is a carnal man's dream and a woman's nightmare. A woman in Islam's Heaven is supposed to be servicing men's sensual desires together with about 70 other virgins! The maximum on earth is four at a time but heaven becomes extra generous to Muslim men. Heaven is a giant brothel! Is that what Muslim women are looking forward to after death? Thanks, but no thanks!

I believe that the Arab/Muslim world has lost its moral equilibrium and has a long road for reformation. Arabs/Muslims have to truly re-examine their divorce and family laws to create a better context for married couples to have a happier and healthier life.

(Ms. Darwish is an American of Arab/Muslim origin and a former editor and translator. Her e-mail is noniedarwish@hotmail.com)

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Fluffy
NC, I work and my husband stays at home with the kids - it’s a true partnership since I can make a heck of a lot more money than he can and, quite frankly, he’s a lot better with the kids than I am. He prefers to stay at home and I enjoy going out to work (most of the time). But in your ideal world NC, my homebody husband would be forced (socially and possible by law) to go out and financially support his family even though I’m better suited for it intellectually and personally.

If that is the way that you and your hubby want to live, then that is fine for you. That isn't the issue here. The issue here is where do liberals get off telling people like me that a traditional family is sexist and oppressive.

It's really ironic that you mention "in my ideal world, your homebody husband would be forced...." Yes, it is very ironic, since in the REAL world that I live in now, I am being labeled a sexist bigot because I believe in a traditional family with the husband as head of household.

According to the logic of most liberals here, a gay marriage would be better than a traditional marriage where the man is head of household. At least in a traditional marriage, the husband and wife can procreate.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
How is this different from claiming that freeing slaves violates the rights of slaveowners? They both ignore the violations of equal rights.

Slaves were property and children and wives were not. Islam encouraged the freeing of slaves, and in many instances, Muhammad bought the freedom of many slaves. The slave holders were compensated for their slaves, which I think was a fair thing to do. Therefore, the freeing of slaves by compensating the slave-holders didn't violate the rights of any slave-holders.

[dk]

Nowhere357: And my source was not fictional. Anyway, my point does not require that matriarchies have existed. And btw, the Bible and the Koran are based on myth and legend. The difference is that matriarchal societies violate no natural law.
dk: Ritual cannibalism and human sacrifice also existed as the backbone of some very technological and sophisticated civilizations. Perhaps pigs could fly if they had wings, but I wouldn’t bet on it.


Nowhere357: Did you forget what we are talking about? Since you agree women can rule just as men can rule, then you must produce an argument for why men should be head of household. Other than "because the holy book says so" or "because it's always done that way".
dk: I haven’t argued that men should be head of household, you must be talking about someone else. I’ve clearly stated my position. Moslem husbands are traditionally the head of household, as were American and European men in the 1950s. I have argued that a peer to peer relationship between a husband and wife destabilizes the family unit. In 1950 the US family was a monogamous patriarch, and the divorce rate was under 5%. Today families in the US have become peer to peer as a result of social engineering through public schools and media. The divorce rate is now 50%, and unacceptably high. The meta-analysis is simple and straightforward, in a peer to peer relationship every contentious event or issue leads to a war-of-wills with one winner and one looser. The party that acquiesces most often becomes a looser, and subservient. People don’t like being losers, so overtime the grind turns a loving marriage into a minefield of winners, losers, hurt feelings and bitterness. Peer to peer relationships lack the capacity to resolve a contentious issue because both parties have equal status. To resolve a contentious issue the matter must be escalated to binding arbitration, which in marriage means a marriage counselor, divorce court, or the police (violence). All human institutions have a designated authority figure, for example we don’t have co-CEOs, co-Prime Ministers, co-Chief Justices, co-principles, or co-bosses. Even schools have Principals, and universities have Presidents. We do have co-workers that are peer to peer, but when a contentious issue erupts the coworkers have a boss or administrator who settles the dispute without turning coworkers into winners and losers.

(snip) prattle

Nowhere357: I said "The belief that men have dominion over women is as primitive as believing in a flat earth." If you believe that men should have dominion over women, then the burden is on you.
dk: The burden of proof always falls on the person presenting the grievance, and in this cases its liberals presenting a grievance against the traditional Muslim family. You keep screaming unfair, but offer no reason other than women are equal to men. The point is mute, because women and men are biologically unequal. The grievance must be made on the basis of inequity and injustice backed up by a reasonable argument grounded upon something tangible other than multicultural democratic principles. Why? answer: because Moslem Nations aren’t democracies or multicultural.

Since you insist upon using equality and inequity interchangeably you’ve now opened another can of worms i.e. social engineering. The US clearly flattened the nuclear family with the Welfare state and educational indoctrination turning the family unit into a two headed monster and public schools into parentis loco. This has been especially harmful to the black family that these programs targeted. The result has been nothing short of a cultural catastrophe for poor black people that were herded into the welfare trap then caged in sky ghettos e.g. in Chicago Cabrini Greene, and the Robert Taylor Homes. What happened to inner city black people caged by the Welfare State wasn’t progressive or intentional, it was a warning about the dire consequences that follow from a collision between science and politics.


Nowhere357: Faith and reason may be opposed, but freedom and liberty are not, science and politics are not.
dk: My liberty ends where the freedom of others begins. The French Revolution, Imperialism, NAZI Germany, Welfare State, and Communism are all examples of social experiments gone wrong. I now argue that democracy was adopted by Europe because it gave the nation-states the ability to wage total warfare, and Napoleon invented total warfare i.e. conscript armies and commandeer industry under the social contract.

(snip) prattle

Nowhere357: Dude, you claim men should dominate women. Provide some reasoning.
dk: Not me, I postulate that all functional human institutions require a single head, and since the nuclear family has been flattened (peer to peer) by the Great Society it has become dysfunctional. The evidence is overwhelming. If you want to discuss it further, I recommend you open another thread.

(snip) prattle

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Fluffy

Impossible Family Dynamics Of Islam

By: Nonie Darwish


That was a fascinating read, Fluffy.

It was interesting to read about the subject from a woman's point of view.

[dk]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
If that is the way that you and your hubby want to live, then that is fine for you. That isn't the issue here. The issue here is where do liberals get off telling people like me that a traditional family is sexist and oppressive.

It's really ironic that you mention "in my ideal world,

(snip)

At least in a traditional marriage, the husband and wife can procreate.

Fluffy this is not an ideal world. The average family income for single mothers is $19,xxx /year and 1/3 of all children are raised by single mothers head of household. --- http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/trends/es1.pdf

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by MollyMac
NC, sorry if you've already said this and I missed it but what do you mean when you say the traditional family "works"?

I said that the traditional family HAS WORKED in the past. I don't have any statistics how well it's working now. I don't even have any statistics on what percentage of families are traditional or non-traditional. I don't think that traditional or non-traditional is even on the census count, so I don't know how anyone would know this sort of information. It probably would be a good question to put on the census.

By what criteria do judge how well or otherwise a family functions?

One could examine the statistics of criminals in the society and what type of family background they came from. I am sure that there are other criteria. Children from abusive homes tend to have more emotional problems later on in life.

Presumably, you would not regard Fluffy's family as 'traditional' - are you going to tell her that her family doesn't work? If so, why?

Fluffy's family may be non-traditional, and it may be a wonderful family, but one cannot draw conclusions about traditional families vs. non-traditional families based upon one example.

In general, we can say that contemporary gender relations have become much more liberal than they were. The statistics show that we have a family crisis in America which is only getting worse. The black community in America is crying out for strong, black, role models, but the liberal agenda, which emasculates men, isn't helping the situation. Not to mention the fact that the liberal welfare state has created even more dependence of black single mothers on welfare.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Luiseach
That was a fascinating read, Fluffy.

It was interesting to read about the subject from a woman's point of view.

That article wasn't even good propaganda.

We all heard of the horror stories and they are all true.

How does she know that ALL of the horror stories are true? Is she omniscient? I give it one star as far as propaganda goes.

[Kalkin]

Responding to NC's post replying to me:

Authority for the sake of authority is nonsense, but this is nothing more than a straw-woman because I have never advocated such a thing.

Incorrect. The only time you have come remotely close to providing a reason why men must dominate women is when you argued that equality is inherently bad and authority is inherently good. Plus, you attack democracy in your next paragraph.

Am I supposed to accept that democracy is good simply because you say it is? What you think is evil, I think is good. I think that it's good that Islam is NOT a partnership, like a democracy is. The traditions of Islam have been preserved by Muslims and Muslims have been preserved by them. These traditions should not be up for popular vote. Either you accept them or you don't, but nobody has the right, especially the liberals, to slander these traditions. My how intolerant the so called "tolerant" liberals can be!

No, you're not supposed to accept that democracy is good because I say it is. You're supposed to accept that democracy is good because of the many reasons, never refuted by you, which I put in an earlier post, and because you yourself earlier denied that you were attacking democracy! Here's the quotes:

Me:
Western society has its failures. Whether those are due to the triumph of liberalism or its failure to completely triumph is debatable. Even if they were due entirely to liberalism, however, liberal societies are much more pleasant places to live than highly religious ones - although I'm sure you'd disagree, I think the current tide of immigration to the US, and the popularity of reform in the ultimate conservative Islamic society, Iran, would support my argument. Historically, liberal democracy, in the sense of democracy granting equal rights to all, is by far the best system of government, avoiding war, genocide, civil strife, etcetera far better than its alternatives. I refer you to the work of R. J. Rummel: "That is, democracy is a general cure for political or collective violence of any kind--it is a method of nonviolence. This is truly a democratic peace."
- http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html


And you, back on p. 25:

You label me an advocate of tyranny, an enemy of freedom and democracy, because I oppose the modern liberal agenda of equality. How convenient. I have no desire to control women or anybody else. I have enough difficulty controlling myself, let alone other people. You can put your spin on what I say, but if what I say is true, it will prevail in the end, no matter what you say.

It's very convenient to use the scare tactic that I am some kind of fundamentalist lurking in the shadows waiting for the right moment to sieze the reigns of power in order to impose a theocracy upon the American people whether they like it or not. Dream on!


I'm glad, however, that you have now conceded the obvious: putting religious laws above popular ones and disempowering half of the population is anti-democratic.

The liberals can criticize these traditions all they want, that's fine, but when they say that they are sexist and oppressive, then they have crossed a line. It's NOT sexist for people to say that they believe that the man should be head of the household. It IS sexist for men to look at women with contempt. Only liberals could equate the two. I can bring you women who believe that the man should be the head of the household. Does that make those women sexist, too?

Sexism is discrimination against women. Saying that wives should be subordinate to husbands simply because they're women is discriminating against women. Therefore, these traditions are sexist. Your differentiation between holding women in contempt and merely holding women as subordinate doesn't make sense - would it be racist for me to hate black people, but not racist for me simply to think that they should obey me?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kalkin
While I've conceded that some instances of authority are justified, you haven't given any reason why this is one of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't believe that partnerships work very well, especially in marriage.

"I don't believe" is not an argument. Why can't partnerships work well? Many people on this thread have cited their own marriages as examples of partnerships that do work. You have failed to explain why a partnership couldn't work.

The idea of equality, more often than not, based on what I have seen, results in women dominating men. How many emasculated men are there in this society? I don't know exactly how many of them are out here, but I can assure you that one is too many. Emasculated men suffer in silence while loud-mouthed feminists cry about how oppressed they are.

You're making another unsubstantiated assertion. How exactly does equality lead to women dominating men? You admit that you haven't heard emasculated men complaining... you probably only see these men as emasculated because they are not dominant and don't conform to your sexist views of how a marriage should work.

Also, why exactly is it better for a man to dominate a marriage than a woman to dominate a marriage? As you haven't provided any distinction between men and women, your belief that it's wrong for women to dominate marriages only further proves that it is equally wrong for men to dominate marriages.

When a husband and wife dance together, who traditionally leads and who follows? The idea that they should both lead, because this dance is an equal partnership, is absurd.

So? This is dancing, not marriage. As you have failed to prove that marriages can't be equal, this analogy doesn't apply. And besides, there are several varieties of dance in which no one leads...

The idea that the wife should lead the man is equally absurd.

Why? WHY? WHY? No matter how many times we demand one, you can't give any difference between men and women that would make women dominating any more absurd than men dominating. This is why arguing with you is so frustrating, NC; you provide lots of verbiage and elaborate rhetoric, but can't give even one simple justification for your core assumptions.

The traditional way is the best way as far as I am concerned.

Here we have yet another irrelevant statement of personal belief. You like the traditional way, but you can't support it logically. You conceded earlier that the mere age of a social system doesn't prove it's worth (many historical examples show that false), so if the traditional way is sexist, it should be abandoned.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kalkin
And, do you really believe that if husbands have authority over their wives, that will result in better treatment for women?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely! I think when men feel better about themselves, instead of feeling emasculated by feminazis, they will treat women better.

Yes, you believe that, but since when does making someone less powerful make them treated better? History tells us that when classes of people have less power, they are treated worse. Can you provide a counterexample?

You say that when men feel better about themselves, they will treat women better. However, there's no reason for a man to feel bad about himself simply because his wife is equal to him. That might be how you would feel, but not all men are sexists.

The liberals have forced their agenda upon people by threatening to verbally abuse people with names like sexist, homophobe, or bigot if they dare to oppose them. I don't care what they call me anymore.

We call you sexist because you are. Sexism is discrimination against women, and you are arguing for descrimination against women. See the definition of descrimination I provided in my last post - you are suggesting that all wives, simply because the are female, should be subordinate regardless of individual circumstances.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kalkin
Since when did taking away someone's ability to assert their rights make others treat them better?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that a man has a right to be the head of his household. You want to take that right away from him, yet you call men like me sexists.

You didn't answer my question. Also, no one has a right to control others - even in circumstances where control is justified, it's not a right. That goes against the very concept of rights as protecting individual life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Women's right as humans not to be controlled will always trump anyone's right to control them, until you can prove that that control is necessary because women are somehow inferior.

So make your argument. So far most of the people here have just been making assertions without any supporting evidence. There is plenty of evidence that the traditional family, with the man as head of household, works. Where is the evidence that alternative lifestyles work better than the traditional family? Liberals attack the traditional family as being sexist and oppressive, but what is the alternative? Does the alternative work better?

The evidence on the traditional family shows that while it does somewhat fulfill its basic social function of stabilizing reproduction, it also abuses women. Take a glance at the article Fluffy posted - while it may overgeneralize about Islam, it certainly shows that the traditional patriarchal Islamic marriage isn't too happy for the women involved.

Using the phrase "alternative lifestyles" in this context is a little wierd, because it's usually applied to things far less mainstream than equal heterosexual marriages. Those work fine - I know many happy equal marriages, and they're the norm in America, at least in the region I live. They certainly succeed in giving women more rights.

The only evidence you've ever given to show that equal marriages fail is divorce statistics. However, first, equal marriage isn't equivalent to easy divorce; those are two independent facts about marriages in Western societies. Second, all that a larger number of divorces proves is that people are getting out of unhappy marriages, not that more marriages are unhappy. One of the many problems with traditional Muslim marriages is that the people they victimize, women, can't easily escape them without their husbands' consent.

Liberals, in their stupidity, want to abandon the wheel simply because it's an ancient idea. It never occurs to them that maybe the old way is the best way in many instances.

Liberals don't want to abandon the wheel - any liberal will agree that some old ideas are good ones. However, the fact that an idea is old doesn't necessarily make it valuable - slavery, war, and leeching as a medical treatment are all very old. Patriarchy is an old idea, but not a good one.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kalkin
A husband's authority is unfair because it's not justified,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I say it is justified. It's justified because it has been proven to work in the past. How are men and women going to dance together if no one is going lead or follow because they have an equality agenda?

It's not proven to work in that past, and it's age alone can't justify it - see above. At least you do concede that if authority isn't justified, it's unfair and wrong. So, until you can prove that women are intellectually or morally inferior to men, patriarchal authority is unjustified, is unfair, and should be rejected.

You want me to abandon the traditional family, with the father as head of household, which has been proven to work in the past, for some alternative lifestyle that has demonstrated itself to be a failure. That is stupidity.

No, it's not stupid. You make no new arguments here, so see above.

I think that sexism is feudal and evil, too. However, you have failed miserably to prove that the traditional family, which has been proven to work in the past, is evil.

Good, good, you agree that sexism is evil. Therefore, as I have proven that the traditional family is indeed sexist, it is clearly evil whether it's worked to some degree in the past or not.

I believe that your feminist agenda is sexist. It's sexist because it robs men of their right to be head of their households. Pot, kettle, black.

You misunderstand the definition of sexism. Claiming that husbands have a right to dominate wives simply because husbands are men and wives are women is in itself sexist - it's discriminating against wives based on their sex. Denying this so-called right is not sexist.

If Islam is making the Muslims backwards now, then how do you explain that they had a golden age and made significant contributions to human civilization? If Islam is sexist now, according to you, then surely it must have been sexist back then during their golden age.

First, I'm not claiming Islam is sexist. I'm claiming your interpretation of its doctrines as requiring women to be subordinate is sexist - I'm not qualified to judge how correct your interpretation is.

However, I do agree that the Islamic world was sexist to some degree during its golden age. But, just as the centuries after Mohammed's death were its golden age because it was more civilized than its neighbors, in that era Islam was the least sexist society in Western Eurasia, because Europe and so on were far worse. Since then, though, Europe and other areas have progressed while Islam has stagnated - both in general and in the area of women's rights.

Yes, if we just cast away the traditional family and throw it in the garbage can, like you people have done, then we will progress? Things are bad enough in the Muslim world right now without trying to fix what isn't broken.

I don't know that the family structure is the only thing that's broken in the Muslim world right now, but it is clearly one of the things that's broken.

Throwing the traditional family in the garbage can in the name of equality is very evil. Something is way off with your judgement if you see that as a good thing.

More assertions with no warrants. If the traditional family is sexist, replacing it is a good thing. If my judgement is wrong, refute my arguments - give me some reason women are less than men.

To grant equality to women at the expense of the traditional family isn't a good trade off.

Actually, it is a good trade off. Since "at the expense of the traditional family" means only "at the expense of the sexual inequality in the traditional family," - I'm not advocating eliminating the family - if I can show that equality for women is a good thing, which I have, then it should be implemented.

Not, of course, that you will win this, but even if you do win that equality would somehow destroy the whole concept of the family, you haven't given any reason why that would be worse than the oppression of half of the human race, especially if you add the fact that, as I showed above, your position destroys democracy as well.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kalkin
As Nowhere357 pointed out, the linchpin of your whole argument must be some reason why men have to be the ones in charge of families.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How about the fact that the traditional family works better than anything else we know of? Why isn't that a good enough reason for you?

Because the only change anyone in this thread is advocating in the traditional family is the granting of equality to women. If you want to prove that it is just to preserve that aspect of the traditional family, you need to show that there's a reason it's required. The only possible reason for sexual inequality to be required in marriage is if there's some essential difference between the sexes. As there isn't, granting equality to women would only do good.

Why do I have to prove that women are inferior??? That is stupidity. All we have to do is compare the traditional family with alternative lifestyles.

Let me try to explain this again. It's pretty damn obvious that if you want to discriminate against some group of people, you absolutely must give some characteristic that makes that group deserve the discrimination. Until you can at least suggest a way in which women are inferior, your arguments defending the traditional family can't be relevant because preserving the dominance of one group over another in-every-relevant-way identical group can't be a key part of the traditional family. Your comparison of the traditional family to Western families will only become evidence for your argument about patriarchy if you can prove that the key difference is granting equality to women, and you can only do that if you can prove that there is something different about women which means they don't deserve equality.

I'm really having a hard time believing that anyone could try to argue women must be treated differently without arguing that there is a relevant difference inherent in women.
:banghead: :( :banghead: :( :banghead:

[edited to add: In fact, I don't think I'm even going to bother responding to anything you say until you can provide some way in which women are intellectually or morally different from men, because until you do, everything you post will be irrelevant.]

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by dk
I haven’t argued that men should be head of household, you must be talking about someone else. I’ve clearly stated my position.
Originally posted by dk
Not me, I postulate that all functional human institutions require a single head, and since the nuclear family has been flattened (peer to peer) by the Great Society it has become dysfunctional.

I am confused here dk. Do you believe that the man should be head of household or not?

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
That article wasn't even good propaganda.

It was a very interesting perspective to consider, though.

What makes you think it's propaganda?

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Kalkin
Why can't partnerships work well? Many people on this thread have cited their own marriages as examples of partnerships that do work.

Kalkin, whilst reading your post, I saw that you would probably agree with me that marriages based on an equal partnership can be successful without the need to forfeit the full human rights of either partner involved.

You say that when men feel better about themselves, they will treat women better. However, there's no reason for a man to feel bad about himself simply because his wife is equal to him.

I agree with you that there is no reason for a man to feel 'bad' because his wife has equal status. My mother and father have had what I would call a traditional marriage, but they have always seen one another, and treated one another, as equals. Or does their equality make their marriage 'liberal'? I'm not sure.

Traditional or liberal, all I know is that both of them are very happy.

Same thing goes for me and my husband. I married a man who loves me as a woman and as his equal. And I cherish him as a man and my equal in every sense. Our differences have not led towards inequality, but rather towards a strong, compatible and affectionate relationship. We value the differences we see in the other...indeed, I would argue that these differences have provided at least some of the basis for our equality and happiness.

People don't have to be identical in every way before they can be considered equal, after all.

From my perspective, I will never understand why anybody would even want inequality in a marriage (or any committed relationship).

A marriage should be based on love, respect, friendship, fidelity and commitment...not power politics.

So, anyway, all of that anecdotal stuff is there to illustrate my agreement with you on the following point:

Because the only change anyone in this thread is advocating in the traditional family is the granting of equality to women.

[dk]

Originally posted by Kalkin
In fact, I don't think I'm even going to bother responding to anything you say until you can provide some way in which women are intellectually or morally different from men, because until you do, everything you post will be irrelevant.

Feminists appeal to the international community to enforce norms across all religious, cultural and national boundaries. Therefore at the very least the burden falls upon feminists to quantify the necessary reforms in terms of social, political, economic and human cost, peril benefit. feasibility
The enforcement of feminists norms has destabilized entire regions leading to a collapse of the social, political and economic infrastructure and law & order. In fact that’s exactly what occurred across Sub Saharan Africa as the international community (World Bank, G8, WHO and UN) intervened to normalize birth control, abortion and sterilization quotas in the 1980-90s. You need to address these issues Kalkin. Surely you wouldn't wish upon the people of North Africa the horrors that have been visited upon Sub Saharan Africa.

[NonContradiction]

Contemporary (or second wave) feminism has aptly been described as "Marxism without economics," since feminists replace class with gender as the key social construct. Of course, what society constructs can be deconstructed. This is the feminist project: to abolish gender difference by transforming its institutional source — the patriarchal family. Certain streams of the Gay Rights movement have taken this analysis one step further. The problem is not just sexism but heterosexism, and the solution is to dismantle not just the patriarchal family but the heterosexual family as such.
— F.L. Morton & Rainer Knopff in
The Charter Revolution & The Court Party (p. 75)

Liberalism is a pig with lipstick on it. Equality sounds like a wonderful idea to most people, and that is how it is marketed to the masses - How could anyone oppose equality? As the liberals say, only someone who is a bigoted racist or sexist would ever oppose equality.

However, when one digs beneath the surface, one sees the real agenda. One cannot deny the historical and ideological links between Marxism and feminism, and similarly, one cannot deny the links between feminism and the Gay Rights movement. EQUALITY, since it looks and sounds so wonderful, is the lipstick on this pig.

There are two possibilities here:

1) Many people here don't really know about the hidden agenda of equality that liberals are forwarding, and so they need enligtening or..

2) Many people here do know about the hidden agenda of equality, but refuse to admit that it's destructive and evil. They refuse to acknowledge the pain and suffering that Marxists ideologies have caused millions upon millions of people, not only in the East, but in the West as well.

Since many people here are highly educated, much more than I am, in fact, I think that it's safe for me to assume that many of the people here fall under the 2nd category.

[Nowhere357]

dk
Ritual cannibalism and human sacrifice also existed as the backbone of some very technological and sophisticated civilizations. Perhaps pigs could fly if they had wings, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Yes, it's appropriate to associate the notion that men should dominate women with the notion of cannibalism and human sacrifice. All are primitive, immoral and destructive. :)

I haven’t argued that men should be head of household, ...
I have argued that a peer to peer relationship between a husband and wife destabilizes the family unit.
And when asked if women could head, you said no. So your argument of necessity reduces to men should be head.

<snip a complete lack of reasoning for supporting male dominance of women>

The lack of evidence for your position is overwhelming. You have lost the argument. Women should be granted equal rights. Men should not dominate women.

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
Slaves were property and children and wives were not.
Exactly.

Islam encouraged the freeing of slaves, and in many instances, Muhammad bought the freedom of many slaves. The slave holders were compensated for their slaves, which I think was a fair thing to do.
To the credit of Mohammed.

Therefore, the freeing of slaves by compensating the slave-holders didn't violate the rights of any slave-holders.
Women should receive equal rights, with no compensation necessary because they were not slaves. But otherwise, what compensation would convice you to extend equal rights to women?

Basically you admit you are a bigot towards women, because western society is not perfect. Do you really expect to earn respect and support with such a view?

And you never answered my question: when the jihad recruiters come knocking, will you invite them if?

I'm concerned about the day you stop posting. Are you willing to use the freedom given you by this country to plot attacks on civilians?

After all, they're nothing but liberals who should be removed from earth, correct?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Yes, it's appropriate to associate the notion that men should dominate women with the notion of cannibalism and human sacrifice. All are primitive, immoral and destructive. :)

I would just like to point out here how the liberals put their own spin on practically everything. You use the word dominate, others have used words like subordinate, dictate, discriminate, subjugate, control, etc. The list goes on.

The issue here is about having a head of household. Having a head of household doesn't translate into subjugation, dictatorship and control.

If anything, the feminist liberals are the control freaks. It's amazing how they project what they are on others.

[dk]

Originally posted by NonContradiction

I am confused here dk. Do you believe that the man should be head of household or not?

I see several practical concerns that need to be addressed. The first and foremost being viability.

1) can a family unit function with two heads?
2) what is the cost/benefit/risk?

Male/Female inequalities certainly exist, and where the inequalities lead to inequity, justice requires remedy. There's a lot of evidence that the family unit in Europe and N. America has become dysfunction, a two headed monster. If an egalitarian family isn't practical then feminist reforms need to take another avenue. I don't dispute that women are subjected to inequities. This raises the question...How can society remedy inequity without rendering the family unit dysfunctional?

Obviously rendering the family unit dysfunctional as a remedy for sexual inequity serves the interests of no one. Absent a functional family unit the entire society, culture, nation and civilization are placed in a state of eminent peril, like bleeding a patient to cure a fever. I leave the question of family headship open i.e. a secondary consideration that needlessly complicates the primary issue.

[dk]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Yes, it's appropriate to associate the notion that men should dominate women with the notion of cannibalism and human sacrifice. All are primitive, immoral and destructive. :)

That's a statement, now you need to support it.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
And when asked if women could head, you said no. So your argument of necessity reduces to men should be head.

My argument leaves the issue of headship open. Broken and amputated families are evidence of family dysfunction. I've presented evidence and a meta-analysis to support my statement. You've provided nothing.

(snip)

[dk]

Originally posted by Kalkin
Why can't partnerships work well? Many people on this thread have cited their own marriages as examples of partnerships that do work.
Partnerships do work well, but partnership and headship are two sides of the same coin. All human institutions require headship. The quarterback on a football team calls the plays. A playmaker on a basketball team runs the offense. A chairman is designated for all committees to call a meeting to order. Even legislative bodies have designated leaders to provide headship for a multitude of political parties. All human institution require headship, and this doesn’t deprive anyone of equality or partnership. A two headed family isn’t a partnership but dysfunctional. A football team, basketball team, committee,,, etc… all human institutions require headship, else they are dysfunctional. You have defined headship in a family as an inequity. This is absurd because without headship the family unit becomes dysfunctional. A dysfunctional family serves no one's interests, least of all children and women who are clearly the most vulnerable members of a family.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Women should receive equal rights.

In most everything, women should have equal rights. A woman has a right to live in honor and dignity, without being treated unjustly, as well as any man does. That does not translate into saying that a woman should be equal partner in the headship of the house. It's a non-sequitor.

Basically, most people here have argued that a marriage should be an equal partnership, but they haven't done a very good job of supporting that belief. On the other hand, I think that dk has put forward an excellent argument against having an equal partnership. I think that liberals are coming up short here because of the fact that it's very difficult to defend Marxist/feminist equality which doesn't have a very good track record. Their arguments are reduced to, "It should just be this way."

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Basically you admit you are a bigot towards women,

This is highly offensive and insulting.


Originally posted by Nowhere357
And you never answered my question: when the jihad recruiters come knocking, will you invite them if?

The Jehovah Witness' have knocked on my door, but no jihad recruiters so far.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I'm concerned about the day you stop posting. Are you willing to use the freedom given you by this country to plot attacks on civilians?

One doesn't kill bad ideas with guns and suicide bombers. One kills bad ideas by using reasoned dialogue. The liberals simply don't have an argument, other than, "This is the way it should be."

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
The issue here is about having a head of household. Having a head of household doesn't translate into subjugation, dictatorship and control.
Husband: As head of household, here is my wish: do x.
Wife: With respect, I think we should do y. Here are my reasons: (lists reasons).
H: After due consideration, I still say: do x.
W: And if I don't?

Well, nc, and if she doesn't? Then what?

This is highly offensive and insulting.
But is it true? Do you support the right of women to head families?

The Jehovah Witness' have knocked on my door, but no jihad recruiters so far.

When they show, do you invite them in?

The liberals simply don't have an argument, other than, "This is the way it should be."
The fundies have no argument other than "because that's how we've always done it; the holy book tells us so."

[Soundsurfr]

There's a lot of evidence that the family unit in Europe and N. America has become dysfunction, a two headed monster.

Post it, please. This sounds more like a biased opinion than the objective conclusion of a body of evidence.


All human institutions require headship

Unsupported argument. The family requires headship. Why? Because all human institutions require headship. You haven't proven that all human institutions require headship by citing a basketball team and a legislature. There are plenty of human institutions with shared headship. You'll need to provide some data that singular headship outperforms shared headship under conditions similar to those of a family situation. Haven't seen any on this board yet.

By the way, do you think all human institutions require male headship?

This is absurd because without headship the family unit becomes dysfunctional.

Unsupported assertion. You say it's dysfunctional, others say it isn't. Isn't that where this whole discussion began?
I notice several people have posted their own successful experiences with equality in headship. My parents, my wife's parents and my own marriage are also first hand examples of successful family units with no defined "headship". I can also point to many of my friends and extended family members as well. Do you expect us to accept some sort of vague assertion as evidence of the contrary?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by dk
This is absurd because without headship the family unit becomes dysfunctional.Originally posted by Soundsurfr
Unsupported assertion. You say it's dysfunctional, others say it isn't. Isn't that where this whole discussion began?
I notice several people have posted their own successful experiences with equality in headship. My parents, my wife's parents and my own marriage are also first hand examples of successful family units with no defined "headship". I can also point to many of my friends and extended family members as well. Do you expect us to accept some sort of vague assertion as evidence of the contrary?

dk has already posted quited a bit of evidence that the American family has become dysfunctional. Nobody has disputed that evidence. The best anybody has been able to do is post anecdotal evidence that equal partnerships work in marriage. It's ironic that liberals chastise Christians for using anecdotal evidence, and now, it seems, they are doing the same thing.

[dk]

dk: There's a lot of evidence that the family unit in Europe and N. America has become dysfunction, a two headed monster.
First the US
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/reports/projections/Image111.gif
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/reports/projections/Image112.gif
Source: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/reports/projections/ch04.html
Second Europe
There is a trend for falling marriage rates and increased marital breakdown across Europe. This trend started in northern Europe, but has since spread throughout western and most of southern Europe. The majority of countries are now reporting a drop in the number of marriages. However, there is some variation across the European Union (EU). Denmark had the highest marriage rate at 6.6 marriages per 1,000 people in 2001, while Sweden had the lowest rate of 4.0. The marriage rate in the United Kingdom in 2000 was around the EU average at 5.1 per 1,000 people.

There are differing divorce rates across the EU mainly due to religious, social, cultural and legal differences. In 2001 countries in northern and western Europe typically had the highest divorce rates, while the Irish Republic and countries in southern Europe had the lowest divorce rates. Belgium had the highest divorce rate, at 2.9 divorces per 1,000 people in 2001, while Italy and the Irish Republic had the lowest rates, at 0.7 per 1,000 people each in 2000. The rate in the United Kingdom, at 2.6 in 2000, was above the EU average of 1.9 per 1,000 people. --- http://www.nationalstatistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Product.asp?vlnk=9792&More=Y

dk: All human institutions require headship
Soundsurfr: Unsupported argument. The family requires headship. Why? Because all human institutions require headship. You haven't proven that all human institutions require headship by citing a basketball team and a legislature. There are plenty of human institutions with shared headship. You'll need to provide some data that singular headship outperforms shared headship under conditions similar to those of a family situation. Haven't seen any on this board yet.
dk: If you can name a few human institutions without headship, then I’ll retract my statement. Space prohibits me from listing my all human institutions. I suppose one might argue anarchists lack headship, but then anarchy and chaos aren’t institutions.


dk: This is absurd because without headship the family unit becomes dysfunctional.
Soundsurfr: Unsupported assertion. You say it's dysfunctional, others say it isn't. Isn't that where this whole discussion began?
I notice several people have posted their own successful experiences with equality in headship. My parents, my wife's parents and my own marriage are also first hand examples of successful family units with no defined "headship". I can also point to many of my friends and extended family members as well. Do you expect us to accept some sort of vague assertion as evidence of the contrary?
dk: I provided evidence to support my assertion. Every family is unique so individual testaments don’t constitute evidence. In NATO nations there’s a broad trend of unacceptably high divorce rates, unsustainable low birth rates, lower marriage rates, and in the US unacceptable high rates of single mother head of household families hovering at the poverty line. I’ve already given a meta-analysis, but I’ll briefly restate it. In an egalitarian family there are two heads of equal status. When a contentious issue or event occurs the ensuing dispute can only be settled by two methods…
1) a war-of-wills that ends with one winner, and one looser.
2) appeal to binding arbitration like a marriage counselor, divorce court, or police.

In the 1950s the divorce rate was under 5%. Today half of all marriages in the US disintegrate in a minefield littered with winners (dominant), losers(subservient), betrayal and bitterness. Liberals put a happy face on the unacceptably high divorce rate with... conflict resolution techniques, semantic gymnastics and "lesser of two evil" rationalizations, nonetheless divorce rates have soured as the Welfare State and Feminism have leveled the nuclear family. The facts speak for themselves.

[frostymama]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Husband: As head of household, here is my wish: do x.
Wife: With respect, I think we should do y. Here are my reasons: (lists reasons).
H: After due consideration, I still say: do x.
W: And if I don't?

Well, nc, and if she doesn't? Then what


I can tell you what happens. 9 times out of 10 he will get his wish. The woman in a submissive relationship has little (if any) power in the relationship. In some cases she has never had any power over her life and submission is almost second nature.

I say this as the product of a submissive marriage and (unfortunately) as a submisive wife.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Basically you admit you are a bigot towards women,
Originally posted by NC
This is highly offensive and insulting.
Originally posted by Nowhere357
But is it true? Do you support the right of women to head families?


This is really what I don't like about liberals, and it causes me to like them less and less every time they do it. They clearly intend to offend somebody, but instead of apologizing, they say, "But is it true?"

Second, your question contains the presupposition that the right of women to head families exists, and that it's simply question of supporting it or not. You haven't successfully argued that the headship of a household should be an equal partnership. If anything, we have every reason to believe that it doesn't, regardless of how much anecdotal evidence anyone here can produce.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
The fundies have no argument other than "because that's how we've always done it; the holy book tells us so."

We have our tradition, which the liberals would like to destroy indiscriminately. I can't rationally justify everything in my tradition, and I wouldn't even attempt to do so. That isn't the point. The point is why should I abandon my tradition to join you, and the rest of the Marxist/feminist liberals, on some Crusade against tradition, especially when I am looking at millions of people who have suffered because of your failed ideologies?

You give me no reason to leave my tradition. All you can do is condemn my tradition, but you have no suitable replacement for tradition. Face it. Liberalism is a pig with lipstick on it.

[lpetrich]

The curious thing about dk's graphs is that they do NOT show a really big jump -- they show a jump by a factor of 2, and then a leveling off. This suggests that society has reached some new equilibrium.

And though NonContradiction had made Coulterian attempts to link liberalism with Communism, in practice it has had as much inequality as he could possibly desire -- and as much personality cultism of single leaders as he and dk could possibly desire.

[dk]

Originally posted by lpetrich
The curious thing about dk's graphs is that they do NOT show a really big jump -- they show a jump by a factor of 2, and then a leveling off. This suggests that society has reached some new equilibrium.

And though NonContradiction had made Coulterian attempts to link liberalism with Communism, in practice it has had as much inequality as he could possibly desire -- and as much personality cultism of single leaders as he and dk could possibly desire. In the US the divorce rate per marriage was 5% in the 1950s, and today it hovers around 50%. I'll let you confirm the numbers. You are correct the divorce ratio averages the number of divorces across the entire population, so doesn't reflect the falling marriage rate. By the way the trend in the divorce rate around 1940-45 reflects the War War II, as opposed to the slow rise that began in the 1960s as Feminism and the Welfare state leveled the Nucler Family.

The caption explaines..."Divorce rates are another important determinant of child support populations. As shown in Figure 4.4, divorce rates, after almost tripling from 1960 to 1980, have actually declined. From its peak in 1979 of 22.8 divorces per 1,000 married women, the divorce rate dropped 17 percent to 19.5 divorces per 1,000 married women in 1996. Still, the annual number of divorces remains at or near record levels, and divorce rates are still very high by long-term standards. " - ibid

I've supported the assertion... the egalitarian family is dysfunctional. Let me ask a question,
"Was it worth it girls, and why?"

[Fluffy]

NC and DK what does being the “head” in a marriage imply anyway. In my marriage, my husband and I “switch” heads depending on aptitude and inclination. If the car breaks down, the computer crashes, or the kids are fighting, I “submit” to my husband’s authority over this because he knows a lot more about cars and computers. As for the kids, all he has to do is give them one look and they stop fighting (they walk all over me) . When it comes to finances, money, insurance, health insurance, mortgage or anything to do with carpentry - he submits to my dominance in that area. We don’t pigeon hole each other by virtue of our sex.

I have a feeling what DK and NC really want to say is that men are and will always be physically stronger than women and by that virtue alone have the natural “ god given right” to dominate women. The only thing that protects us western women from men’s natural desire to kill, rape, pillage and dominate is the rule of law, other men (i.e. the police) and the court system.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Husband: As head of household, here is my wish: do x.
Wife: With respect, I think we should do y. Here are my reasons: (lists reasons).
H: After due consideration, I still say: do x.
W: And if I don't?

Well, nc, and if she doesn't? Then what?

It's interesting to note that you portrayed the husband as just stating a wish with no rational support, whereas you portrayed the wife differently. Bias doesn't bother liberals because the destructive, evil Marxist/feminist agenda of equality is all that matters. If truth is a casualty in the struggle, so be it.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Fluffy
The only thing that protects us western women from men’s natural desire to kill, rape, pillage and dominate is the rule of law, other men (i.e. the police) and the court system.

I didn't know that men have a "natural desire" to kill, rape, pillage, and dominate. What about the men that are protecting you? Do they have this "natural desire" too? Are they just suppressing it?

You have a very distorted view of men if you think that we all have a "natural desire" to run around kiliing and raping women.

[dk]

Fluffy: NC and DK what does being the “head” in a marriage imply anyway. In my marriage, my husband and I “switch” heads depending on aptitude and inclination. If the car breaks down, the computer crashes, or the kids are fighting, I “submit” to my husband’s authority over this because he knows a lot more about cars and computers. As for the kids, all he has to do is give them one look and they stop fighting (they walk all over me) . When it comes to finances, money, insurance, health insurance, mortgage or anything to do with carpentry - he submits to my dominance in that area. We don’t pigeon hole each other by virtue of our sex.
I can’t speak for NC, but for me headship is a job, like any other job. The responsibility for the families welfare and prosperity falls upon the headship. If anything happens that puts the household in jeopardy it becomes my job to see that the situation/issue gets resolved. When the bills are being paid, everybody is healthy, kids are doing well and the household performs as advertised the job is easy, and there’s literally nothing to it. When a crisis occurs the available options need to be presented, the risks/impacts evaluated and the most suitable course plotted in the household’s best interest. I say the households best interest because a Headship/Father/Husband’s personal interests/wants are his personal problem… …and ditto for my wife’s personal interests or any particular child’s personal interest. Most of the time headship requires my personal sacrifice/commitment or to ask someone else to make a personal sacrifice/commitment for the sake of the household. Because a Father/Husband holds headship doesn’t make them boss of a wife or child. If I’m going to be late for supper for a personal reason, I don’t tell my wife, I ask. If I’m going to be late for supper for household business, then I tell my wife. I need to be informed about any issue that puts the household in jeopardy, and I’m happy, happy and happiest when someone brings an issue up with a solution in hand. That’s the job.
Fluffy: I have a feeling what DK and NC really want to say is that men are and will always be physically stronger than women and by that virtue alone have the natural “ god given right” to dominate women. The only thing that protects us western women from men’s natural desire to kill, rape, pillage and dominate is the rule of law, other men (i.e. the police) and the court system.
No, I accept women and children have reserves of strength that surpass me, this isn’t a competition. I wouldn’t ask my wife to walk 10 blocks in a snow storm to pick up groceries, and she wouldn’t ask me to do kids chore unless there’s some larger issue afoot. In any good marriage/family people must learn how to work together as friends and confidents, and headship is just another necessary job.

[Zalasta]

I apologize for butting in the conversation, but I felt as though something keeps not being said. I might have missed it in this huge thread, however I did read it completely over the past few days.
Originally posted by dk
In the US the divorce rate per marriage was 5% in the 1950s, and today it hovers around 50%. I'll let you confirm the numbers. You are correct the divorce ratio averages the number of divorces across the entire population, so doesn't reflect the falling marriage rate. By the way the trend in the divorce rate around 1940-45 reflects the War War II, as opposed to the slow rise that began in the 1960s as Feminism and the Welfare state leveled the Nucler Family.
A high divorce ratio or births outside of a marriage do not show that marriages are dysfunctional, in fact those two statistics are in fact a very bad indication of a dysfunctional marriage by themselves. Admittidly a dysfunctional family might result in divorce (altough it may not), the reverse is not true. Not all divorces are because of a dysfunctional family, nor does not divorcing indicate a non-dysfunctional family. Suppose we enact a law against divorces and apply a death penalty against it, the divorce rate would likely drop significantly, but does it actually make families more functional? Probably not.

Second, correlation doesn't imply causation. We're also seeing a very large increase in our technological capabilities, medical expertise, life expectancy and many other things that have improved since 1960, is this also caused by feminism?

You still haven't shown that the amount of dysfunctional versus functional familities have increased since 1960, nor that the alleged correlation between this and feminism is in fact causal.

Regards

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by dk
... the egalitarian family is dysfunctional.

Absolutely wrong, dk. This generalisation is falsified by the fact of my example, as well as those of other people.

Let me ask a question,
"Was it worth it girls, and why?"

Do you mean the inroads in equality made possible by feminism?

Darn right it was worth it.

No doubt about it.

My husband can attest to the benefits of emancipation in his girl.

[Luiseach]

Hi Zalasta:

Welcome to the discussion!

Originally posted by Zalasta
A high divorce ratio or births outside of a marriage do not show that marriages are dysfunctional, in fact those two statistics are in fact a very bad indication of a dysfunctional marriage by themselves. Admittidly a dysfunctional family might result in divorce (altough it may not), the reverse is not true. Not all divorces are because of a dysfunctional family, nor does not divorcing indicate a non-dysfunctional family. Suppose we enact a law against divorces and apply a death penalty against it, the divorce rate would likely drop significantly, but does it actually make families more functional? Probably not.

Excellent point to make.

Second, correlation doesn't imply causation. We're also seeing a very large increase in our technological capabilities, medical expertise, life expectancy and many other things that have improved since 1960, is this also caused by feminism?

I agree with you that the correlation between the feminist movement and higher divorce rates doesn't suggest causation.

You still haven't shown that the amount of dysfunctional versus functional familities have increased since 1960, nor that the alleged correlation between this and feminism is in fact causal.

Great contribution!

[dk]

dk: In the US the divorce rate per marriage was 5% in the 1950s, and today it hovers around 50%. I'll let you confirm the numbers. You are correct the divorce ratio averages the number of divorces across the entire population, so doesn't reflect the falling marriage rate. By the way the trend in the divorce rate around 1940-45 reflects the War War II, as opposed to the slow rise that began in the 1960s as Feminism and the Welfare state leveled the Nucler Family.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zalasta: A high divorce ratio or births outside of a marriage do not show that marriages are dysfunctional, in fact those two statistics are in fact a very bad indication of a dysfunctional marriage by themselves. Admittidly a dysfunctional family might result in divorce (altough it may not), the reverse is not true. Not all divorces are because of a dysfunctional family, nor does not divorcing indicate a non-dysfunctional family. Suppose we enact a law against divorces and apply a death penalty against it, the divorce rate would likely drop significantly, but does it actually make families more functional? Probably not.
dk: I find it impossible to bridge the gap between divorce and functional. While a married couple can be part of a dysfunctional family, it remains clear that divorce breaks a family apart, hence the members suffer an objective harm. It is equally clear that many dysfunctional families reconcile their differences to become whole and functional.


Zalasta: Second, correlation doesn't imply causation. We're also seeing a very large increase in our technological capabilities, medical expertise, life expectancy and many other things that have improved since 1960, is this also caused by feminism?
dk: The data I provided and the meta-analysis implies causation. This is your opportunity of offer an alternative explanation and contradictory evidence, and you have offered nothing.


Zalasta: You still haven't shown that the amount of dysfunctional versus functional familities has increased since 1960, nor that the alleged correlation between this and feminism is in fact causal.
dk: The trend of divorce(up), child support and unwed mothers(up) have followed the same trends for 40 years, hence the data support an underlying cause. The Moynihan Report (1965) showed a direct causal relationship between welfare and the disintegration of the black family. The Feminists supported no fault divorce which quintessentially leveled marriage by making men and women peers in the eyes of the court. In the absence of contradictory evidence and an alternate meta-analysis your statement is unsubstantial and unsubstantiated.

[dk]

dk: ... the egalitarian family is dysfunctional.
Luiseach: Absolutely wrong, dk. This generalisation is falsified by the fact of my example, as well as those of other people.
dk: I provided very specific evidence and a meta-analysis to support this statement. You on the other hand make a statement but fail to support it with any evidence or explanation. Are you a dogmatist?


dk: Let me ask a question,
"Was it worth it girls, and why?"


Luiseach: Do you mean the inroads in equality made possible by feminism?
Darn right it was worth it.
No doubt about it.
My husband can attest to the benefits of emancipation in his girl.
dk: Well bring him a board. Lets hear from your man. Or do you speak for him in all things?

[Soundsurfr]

dk: If you can name a few human institutions without headship, then I’ll retract my statement. Space prohibits me from listing my all human institutions. I suppose one might argue anarchists lack headship, but then anarchy and chaos aren’t institutions.

Soundsurfr: I said shared headship. A family unit with the husband and wife sharing headship is still headship. If you like, I'll name a few human instutitions with shared headship. I suspect you will not retract your statement, tho.

dk: This is absurd because without headship the family unit becomes dysfunctional.
Soundsurfr: Unsupported assertion. You say it's dysfunctional, others say it isn't.

dk: I provided evidence to support my assertion.

No, you provided evidence that there are higher divorce rates in certain societies compared to others. (Want an interesting factoid? The country with the highest divorce rate on Earth by a factor of 3 is Maldives, with an annual divorce rate of 10.97 per thousand compared to 4.34 per thousand in the US. The majority of the population in Maldives is Sunni Muslim. So what?) You did not provide correlative data that relates divorce rates to family headship, nor did you establish that families with patriarchal headship are less *dysfunctional* than others. If I've missed that, please point to it.

dk: Every family is unique so individual testaments don’t constitute evidence. In NATO nations there’s a broad trend of unacceptably high divorce rates, unsustainable low birth rates, lower marriage rates, and in the US unacceptable high rates of single mother head of household families hovering at the poverty line.

Soundsurfr: So "hovering at the poverty line" is dysfunctional? Even if we didn't draw our poverty lines at twice the level of any other country, what can you say about non-Nato nations specifically with regard to unacceptable poverty rates? You think low birth rates and low marriage rates are evidence of dysfunction? I'm sorry, but anyone who believes that the major problems our world faces have anything to do with shrinking birth rates, is laboring under a rather severe delusion.
Let's talk about unchecked population growth, ever-increasing national debt and famine in non-NATO nations - specifically Middle Eastern and North African nations:

**************************************************

Average number of children per woman (total fertility rate)
in the Middle East and North Africa, 1990:(Source: Population Reference Bureau)

Morocco - 4.8 Egypt - 4.7 Saudi Arabia - 7.2
Algeria - 6.1 Sudan - 6.4 Iraq - 7.3
Tunsia - 4.1 Yemen - 7.4 Iran - 6.3
Libya - 5.5 Oman - 7.2 Afghanistan - 7.1
Turkey - 3.6 Cyprus - 2.4 Lebanon - 3.7
Jordan - 5.9 Kuwait - 3.7 Syria - 6.8

Some countries in the region, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, and Oman
chief among them, already depend heavily on imports to feed their
burgeoning populations. It's not likely the situation will improve.

Food shortages are not the only trouble prospect for the Middle
East. Water is also in short supply.
**************************************************

So here we have a situation where Muslim women, who have no say in the decision of when and whether they will have children and no recourse for divorce due to social constraints, give birth to their 6th, 7th and 8th children while they themselves are in failing health and neither they nor their husbands have the resources to properly feed, clothe and house their families. This is the opposite of dk's "dysfunctional" NATO family.

You see, while the righteous critics of Western society point to the more regrettable statistics that we face in the West, the implication is that they have a better system to offer. Where exactly would that be? Perhaps there's less divorce in Saudi Arabia than there is in any western state. But at least the divorced women here can seek equal opportunity employment, vote and drive cars. (Thanks, of course, to the liberals.)

dk: I’ve already given a meta-analysis, but I’ll briefly restate it. In an egalitarian family there are two heads of equal status. When a contentious issue or event occurs the ensuing dispute can only be settled by two methods…
1) a war-of-wills that ends with one winner, and one looser.
2) appeal to binding arbitration like a marriage counselor, divorce court, or police.


You are wrong. This is a gross and ridiculous generalization. In an egalitarian family where there are two heads of equal status and there is mutual respect based on love and commitment, contentious issues are settled through communication and compromise. The war of wills that ends with one winner and one loser is YOUR model. Except that there is no outward war because the loser may never even get a chance to speak.


dk: In the 1950s the divorce rate was under 5%. Today half of all marriages in the US disintegrate in a minefield littered with winners (dominant), losers(subservient), betrayal and bitterness. Liberals put a happy face on the unacceptably high divorce rate with... conflict resolution techniques, semantic gymnastics and "lesser of two evil" rationalizations, nonetheless divorce rates have soured as the Welfare State and Feminism have leveled the nuclear family. The facts speak for themselves.

Soundsurfr: The high divorce rate is regrettable, but the facts do not speak for themselves. Your opinions speak for themselves. You may arbitrarily ascribe Feminism and the Welfare State as the sources of US problems, but those assertions are not facts. The US Christian right has been singing the same song as you for years, railing against homosexuality and feminism, advocating for the patriarchal family institution, blah, blah, blah. You know where the highest levels of divorce are in the United States? In the Bible belt. The lowest? In the "Liberal" Northeast. (U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Reports, February 2002)

[Soundsurfr]

Dk: Well bring him a board. Lets hear from your man. Or do you speak for him in all things?

You don't couch your sexist attitude very well, Dk. But that aside, are you looking to hear testimony from the husband of a very successful and independent woman who shares equal headship in a household with three children? I'll be happy to oblige.

[NonContradiction]

The big issue for me here isn't about equality, and that is why I don't want to get mired into a discussion about it. The big issue is about the hidden agenda behind the idea of equality. Once we wipe the lipstick off of this pig, then we are going to see the issue for what it's worth.


http://www.newtotalitarians.com/FrankfurtSchool.html



The Frankfurt School theorized that the 'authoritarian personality' is a product of the patriarchal family. This idea is in turn directly connected to Frederich Engels' 'The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State,' which promotes matriarchy. Furthermore, it was Karl Marx who wrote about the radical notion of a 'community of women' in the Communist manifesto. And it was Karl Marx who wrote disparagingly about the idea that the family was the basic unit of society in 'The German Ideology' of 1845.
'The Authoritarian personality,' studied by the Frankfurt School in the 1940s and 1950s in America, prepared the way for the subsequent warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Herbert Marcuse and his band of social revolutionaries under the guise of 'women's liberation' and the New Left movement in the 1960s. The evidence that psychological techniques for changing personality is intended to mean emasculation of the American male is provided by Abraham Maslow, founder of Third Force Humanist Psychology and a promoter of the psychotherapeutic classroom, who wrote that, '...the next step in personal evolution is a transcendence of both masculinity and femininity to general humanness.' The Marxist revolutionaries knew exactly what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have succeeded in accomplishing much of their agenda.

****************************************************


Toleration had never been an end in itself for the Frankfurt School, and yet the non-authoritarian (utopian) personality, insofar as it was defined, was posited as a person with a non-dogmatic tolerance for diversity [22]. This thought is dominant in today's power elite of the Boomer generation, the New Totalitarians.
One of the basic tenets of Critical Theory was the necessity to break down the contemporary family. The Institute scholars preached that [23] "...Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change." The 'generation gap' of the 1960s and the 'gender gap' of the 1990s are two aspects of the attempt by the elite Boomers (taking a page out of 'cultural Marxism') to transform American culture into their 'Marxist' utopia.
The transformation of American culture envisioned by the 'cultural Marxists' is based on matriarchal theory. That is, they propose transforming American culture into a female-dominated one. This is a direct throwback to Wilhelm Reich, a Frankfurt School member who considered matriarchal theory in psychoanalytic terms. In 1933, he wrote in The Mass Psychology of Fascism that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of 'natural society.'
Eric Fromm, another charter member of the Institute, was also one of the most active advocates of matriarchal theory. Fromm was especially taken with the idea that all love and altruistic feelings were ultimately derived from the maternal love necessitated by the extended period of human pregnancy and postnatal care. "Love was thus not dependent on sexuality, as Freud had supposed. In fact, sex was more often tied to hatred and destruction. Masculinity and femininity [24] were not reflections of 'essential' sexual differences, as the romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined." This dogma was the precedent for today's radical feminist pronouncements appearing in nearly every major newspaper and TV program, including the television newscasts. For these current day radicals, male and female roles result from cultural indoctrination in America -- an indoctrination carried out by the male patriarchy to the detriment of women. Nature plays no role in this matter.

[dk]

dk: If you can name a few human institutions without headship, then I’ll retract my statement. Space prohibits me from listing all human institutions. I suppose one might argue anarchists lack headship, but then anarchy and chaos aren’t institutions.
Soundsurfr: I said shared headship. A family unit with the husband and wife sharing headship is still headship. If you like, I'll name a few human institutions with shared headship. I suspect you will not retract your statement, tho.
dk: Ok, please defined shared headship, and then name a few institutions.

(snip) prattle
(snip)
I have no idea what overpopulation has to do with Muslim Families?
(snip)
If you want to change the subject please start another thread..
(snip)
(snip) prattle

[dk]

Originally posted by Soundsurfr
Dk: Well bring him a board. Lets hear from your man. Or do you speak for him in all things?

You don't couch your sexist attitude very well, Dk. But that aside, are you looking to hear testimony from the husband of a very successful and independent woman who shares equal headship in a household with three children? I'll be happy to oblige. [/B]

I assume you speak for your husband, nothing more. Tell me, how does your husband assert himself on some contentious issue, or would that be stricktly against house rules?

[MollyMac]

Originally posted by dk
I assume you speak for your husband, nothing more. Tell me, how does your husband assert himself on some contentious issue, or would that be stricktly against house rules?
Erm...I think you've slightly misunderstood, darling. Are you having another of your strange turns?

[Nowhere357]

Husband: As head of household, here is my wish: do x.
Wife: With respect, I think we should do y. Here are my reasons: (lists reasons).
H: After due consideration, I still say: do x.
W: And if I don't?

Well, nc, and if she doesn't? Then what?

NonContradiction
It's interesting to note that you portrayed the husband as just stating a wish with no rational support, whereas you portrayed the wife differently. Bias doesn't bother liberals because the destructive, evil Marxist/feminist agenda of equality is all that matters. If truth is a casualty in the struggle, so be it.
It's even more interesting to note that you don't answer the question.

Husband: As head of household, here is my wish: do x. Here are my reasons: (lists reasons).
Wife: With respect, I think we should do y. Here are my reasons: (lists reasons).
H: After due consideration, I still say: do x.
W: And if I don't?

Well, nc, and if she doesn't? Then what?

[dk]

Originally posted by MollyMac
Erm...I think you've slightly misunderstood, darling. Are you having another of your strange turns? Please feel free to elaborate, do you speak for your man?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Husband: As head of household, here is my wish: do x.
Wife: With respect, I think we should do y. Here are my reasons: (lists reasons).
H: After due consideration, I still say: do x.
W: And if I don't?

Well, nc, and if she doesn't? Then what?
Originally posted by NC
It's interesting to note that you portrayed the husband as just stating a wish with no rational support, whereas you portrayed the wife differently. Bias doesn't bother liberals because the destructive, evil Marxist/feminist agenda of equality is all that matters. If truth is a casualty in the struggle, so be it.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
It's even more interesting to note that you don't answer the question.

Husband: As head of household, here is my wish: do x. Here are my reasons: (lists reasons).
Wife: With respect, I think we should do y. Here are my reasons: (lists reasons).
H: After due consideration, I still say: do x.
W: And if I don't?

Well, nc, and if she doesn't? Then what?

Thanks for amending your scenario so that it doesn't look like the head of household is a tyrannical despot.

Here is the way I look at it. There can only be one head of household because of the same scenario you present. Now, if the husband does whatever he thinks is best to do, in all matters, big or small, then the wife is going to feel like her opinion doesn't count. One must assess the risk/reward of each matter. If there is a major issue, having a major impact on the family, then the head of household needs to make that decision and will assume full responsibility of any failure. On the other hand, if the issue at hand isn't a major earth-shaking decision, then the head of household can be flexible, even if he thinks that it's a terrible decision. All parties, husbands and wives, need to be able to make decisions and learn from their failures. If the man is always making the decision, then how is his wife ever going to grow and learn from her failures? The same can be said about the children in the household. They need to make their own decisions and learn from their failures also.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Luiseach
dk: ... the egalitarian family is dysfunctional.
Originally posted by Luiseach
Absolutely wrong, dk. This generalisation is falsified by the fact of my example, as well as those of other people.

Your example, and everybody else's example here, doesn't mean anything. What do you expect the liberals to say? Do you think that they are going to say that we are right, Marxist-feminism is a terribly destructive idea? It's all ANECDOTAL evidence. It means nothing.

[Kalkin]

NC:

You're making even less sense than you were before. You've apparently given up arguing the specific issue of women's rights with me, instead attacking the "feminist-Marxist" agenda. This is ridiculous.

Yes, some feminists are Marxists. Yes, they share some ideas - both are considered leftist ideologies. However, that doesn't make them equivalent. Do you defend the actions of the 9/11 hijackers? Their ideological roots were a lot closer to yours than Stalin's were to mine. The fact that I agree with Marxists in some areas, such as the general desirability of equality, doesn't make me a Marxist - I don't advocate economic equality. You, after all, probably agree with them in some areas - you don't advocate human extinction, do you? A true Marxist would consider the term "liberal" an insult. By claiming that liberalism and Marxism are mutually supporting ideologies, you only show your ignorance of both.

And, you've still failed to show any difference between men and women.

DK:

You actually respond to my important arguments. Thank you. You say:


Feminists appeal to the international community to enforce norms across all religious, cultural and national boundaries. Therefore at the very least the burden falls upon feminists to quantify the necessary reforms in terms of social, political, economic and human
1. cost,
2. peril
3. benefit.
4. feasibility

Ok, I'll be happy to do so:

Cost: Whatever political or economic pressure it takes to get societies to reform. That would vary depending on local conditions. While this might mean we should temporarily give up on enforcing women's rights in some areas (for example, if it would require war), it doesn't affect whether women's rights are good in general.

Peril: Any bad things that could happen if we succeed in granting women rights. However, there's no risk of bad things happening as the result of granting women rights if there's no significant inherent difference between men and women. This is what I was saying earlier; if men and women are for relevant purposes identical, then there can be no bad effects from treating them identically. Even if you were right that households require one head, until you can prove a difference between men and women, there will be no reason the decision on who is the head of the household shouldn't be left to individual circumstances. You must prove that difference, or saying men must be in charge makes no more sense than saying right-handed people must be in charge.

Benefit: Ending discrimination against half of the human race is sufficient, and there's more. Letting women be full members in society not only helps them, but also strengthens the economy, reinforces democracy, and reduces population growth, among other things. Even if you were right that the family would be weakened by making women equal, I think all these things are more important than reducing divorce rates.

Feasibility: Marital partnerships work - many people on this thread have offered empirical examples. Husbands and wives can compromise and defer to each other in certain areas just as happens with any equal partnership between two people of the same sex. Even if they sometimes result in argument or divorce, they're clearly possible, so we must evaluate their benefits. As for whether it's possible to reform patriarchal societies, see Cost.

The enforcement of feminists norms has destabilized entire regions leading to a collapse of the social, political and economic infrastructure and law & order. In fact that’s exactly what occurred across Sub Saharan Africa as the international community (World Bank, G8, WHO and UN) intervened to normalize birth control, abortion and sterilization quotas in the 1980-90s. You need to address these issues Kalkin. Surely you wouldn't wish upon the people of North Africa the horrors that have been visited upon Sub Saharan Africa.

Really, all the problems in sub-Saharan Africa come from women's rights? I don't believe that, and I don't think anyone else does either except for you. How is AIDS the result of equal marriages? It's spread in areas where safe sex, another area often associated with women's rights, isn't practiced. How are dictatorships the result of equal marriages? I think they're generally seen as the legacy of centuries of colonial oppression. Even if the World Bank and IMF are responsible for many countries' depressions, as I've heard people argue, that doesn't show international intervention to support women's rights is bad. The World Bank is attacked for ignoring human rights issues far more often than it is attacked for worrying too much about them.

Any of the awful impacts you will claim are results of women's rights promotion will have more probable alternate explanations. In fact, as I said above, until you can show some kind of intellectual or moral difference between men and women, none of those impacts could possibly be the result of granting women rights, any more than they could be the result of redheads having rights. (And the stuff I've seen you mention so far, like abortion and childbirth, is all physical and irrelevant. If women are mental equals of men, they should have equal power in marriages, because decision-making power is an intellectual thing. Some sort of compromise can always be found to get around physical differences.):D

No reason for the smile, I just wanted to use one, and I haven't had occasion to yet on this thread.;)

[MollyMac]

posted by NC
Your example, and everybody else's example here, doesn't mean anything. What do you expect the liberals to say? Do you think that they are going to say that we are right, Marxist-feminism is a terribly destructive idea? It's all ANECDOTAL evidence. It means nothing.
People's real life experiences mean nothing?

[Soundsurfr]

Originally posted by dk
I assume you speak for your husband, nothing more. Tell me, how does your husband assert himself on some contentious issue, or would that be stricktly against house rules?

No, dk, I think you misunderstood me. I am the husband.

Now, your question is what?

[NonContradiction]

The liberals here are going to have to do better than just presenting anecdotal evidence for their claim that Marxist-feminism is the best thing to come along since sliced bread. Dk has presented evidence that the liberal agenda has weakend the family structure, particularly in the black communities where strong families are so desperately needed. Either you need to refute the evidence, or you need to present some NON-anecdotal evidence that indicates non-traditional families are better than traditional families. Put up or shut up, and until you do, you forfeit the argument. We are already into 30 pages on this thread because the liberals refuse to admit that their ideologies have been nothing but failures all over the world, incuding the Muslim world.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Kalkin
Feasibility: Marital partnerships work - many people on this thread have offered empirical examples.

Empirical examples? They have offered nothing but anecdotal evidence. What do you expect them to say? Do you expect the liberals here to say that feminism has been a disaster? I am not going to let you get away with this garbage.

an·ec·dot·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nk-dtl)
adj.
also an·ec·dot·ic (-dtk) or an·ec·dot·i·cal (--kl) Of, characterized by, or full of anecdotes.
Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis: “There are anecdotal reports of children poisoned by hot dogs roasted over a fire of the [oleander] stems” (C. Claiborne Ray).

People having a biased view, offering their examples of how great equal partnerships in marriage can be, doesn't constitute evidence.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by MollyMac
People's real life experiences mean nothing?

People offering their personal experiences, as they are here, doesn't constitute evidence of anything. What do you expect the liberals here to say?

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by dk
In the 1950s the divorce rate was under 5%. Today half of all marriages in the US disintegrate in a minefield littered with winners (dominant), losers(subservient), betrayal and bitterness. Liberals put a happy face on the unacceptably high divorce rate with... conflict resolution techniques, semantic gymnastics and "lesser of two evil" rationalizations, nonetheless divorce rates have soured as the Welfare State and Feminism have leveled the nuclear family. The facts speak for themselves.

Prior to 1950, the planet was subjected to two world wars, the Titanic, two nuclear weapons strikes, the Great Depression, the Black Plaque, the Crusades, slavery, the jitterbug, a US Civil War, and Jesus getting crucified.

Since the Marxist-feminist-Wahabi-leftist-Taliban-whatever-label NC-wants-to-use-movement, none of these have ever recurred, and we now have the internet, a lunar-landing, the Porsche 911 turbo- Carrera, and ESPN.

The facts speak for themselves.

[dk]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Prior to 1950, the planet was subjected to two world wars, the Titanic, two nuclear weapons strikes, the Great Depression, the Black Plaque, the Crusades, slavery, the jitterbug, a US Civil War, and Jesus getting crucified.

Since the Marxist-feminist-Wahabi-leftist-Taliban-whatever-label NC-wants-to-use-movement, none of these have ever recurred, and we now have the internet, a lunar-landing, the Porsche 911 turbo- Carrera, and ESPN.

The facts speak for themselves. I love you Dr. Rick

[dk]

Originally posted by Soundsurfr
No, dk, I think you misunderstood me. I am the husband.

Now, your question is what? So when a contentious issue arises how do you assert yourself?

[lpetrich]

NonContradiction:
The liberals here are going to have to do better than just presenting anecdotal evidence for their claim that Marxist-feminism is the best thing to come along since sliced bread.

I wonder what NC would consider acceptable evidence, especially since our society is much more open about various societal problems than some others are. Would some serious, systematic study that shows that women are mentally healthier in marriages where they are the equals of their husbands rather than under the thumbs of their husbands?

Has anyone ever done anything like such a study? I'm sure that that question might have been addressed somewhere in the social-science literature.

And I wonder what NC would say if Allah himself showed him that egalitarian marriage is not only feasible, but the best for both sexes.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by lpetrich
Would some serious, systematic study that shows that women are mentally healthier in marriages where they are the equals of their husbands rather than under the thumbs of their husbands?

I am sure that a woman would probably be happier in a marriage where she is an equal partner to her husband, rather than in a marriage where her husband has her under his thumb. However, that isn't the issue. The issue is whether a partnership marriage is better than a marriage where the husband is non-controlling, non-tyrannical and head of household.

Being head of household doesn't imply despotism, and for liberals to constantly portray a man who is head of household as a dictator merely shows their own bias.

I don't deny that some men in traditional marriages have been abusive towards their wives. The feminist movement probably wouldn't have taken off like it did back in the 60's if there were no problems. I take issue with the liberal approach, which has been to attack the traditional marriage rather than fixing the problem of abuse. Eradicate the abuse in a traditional marriage rather than eradicating the traditional marriage, itself. It's analogous to throwing the baby out with the bathwater because they can't distinguish between the baby and the bathwater. The husband being head of household doesn't translate, necessarily, into abuse and oppression.