Pope Jumps Into Politics and Science.

[mvanwink5]

Sorry, I did misunderstand what you were saying. Yes, I understand that there is a difference in what others consider to be ethical, but to me that is an obvious point. And yes, it is a fundamental problem likely to be decided in the end by either military and economics, but education is a far cheaper and less painful route.

The lady in the youtube was courageous in making explicit the violence of institutionalized Islam, and yes there will be some that will consider such violence as a-ok, and her statements to be blasphemous.

Could you help me and clearly state what you are saying as I admit sometimes I am a bit thick.

[Betruger]

. . .any systematic injustice is indefensible, no matter how small.

I agree but people judging groups across time often make the mistake of failure to note, the role of the Rule of Law in social development around the world. Without Rule of Law, women are always oppressed because the alternative to Rule of Law is Might Makes Right, and women are not as strong as men. It's surprising how many oddities of history are explained by this simple observation. We have egalitarian conditions (for the most part, but still much to improve) only because our law permits and promotes the liberation of women.

Rule of Law made by men. Law is theory, practical reality is something else. In fact, MMR is pretty much exactly how most cases of misogynistic injustice happens. Within supposedly society ruled by fair law.

"Western culture is not innocent of misogyny"
I'm not intending to single any one statement out for special reason, but to challenge all thoughts about a 'culture' or groups. So, please forgive me for singling this one out. For freedom to work, each individual is responsible for their own actions. To indict a person because he/she is Muslim, etc goes against this. Politics and Gubermant is all about groups and group warfare. There are no such things as black rights, women rights, Gay rights, etc. There are individual rights. That is the key and salient concept behind the 'American' phenomena.

What is important is not what religion person X has but whether individual rights are violated or not violated by person X. Failure to analyze in those terms is a giant step backwards into no man's land of group warfare. It is the only way to cut the Gordian knot of never ending total war. There is no such thing, then, as 'social injustice,' that is a totally BS term.

As I see it, obfuscating this key idea is the biggest threat, not threat to one 'culture' or another.

Yup. It's definitely a mix of nature and nurture. And the same general dynamic is at work with terrorism: it's a strategic error to make it a war on "terror". Terror is subjective - viz classic "one man's insurgent, is another's... " as with the origins of the USA. The media and politicians (as good as one and the same in this case) and the public were all too PC and dilettante to call it for what it is: an ideological, or at least cultural, dead-end. There's no reasonable compromise with Islamists.

[GIThruster]

But humans are so smart that they can dream up religions which conflict with the natural ideas of injustice. This idea of a God and spirituality is, i'll wager, above the mental capacities of most monkeys. Even if it is not, how would they communicate such ideas to others so as to enforce compliance?

. . .But where do these ideas come from that this should not be done? As has been pointed out above, the Western world has been pretty misogynistic over the Centuries, and it has only been a comparatively recent phenomena in which we have desisted.

What principle or philosophy informs us that we should treat women as equals? Surely you don't think this idea is universal? It wasn't even universal in our own culture until recently.

I think historically it is easy to trace the notion of equality to Christianity, for instance in the New Testament statements of things like treating women as "joint heirs in the grace of Christ". The details of this are to be found in the documents of the Women's Suffrage movement, beginning in Scandinavia and spreading like wild fire across all the West. There are earlier presages of this however. Even in truly patriarchal societies like ancient Israel, we find the law is written that Men and Women are equal under the law (which we never find in practice in Islam) and that polygamy while acceptable (because of the economic advantages in a subsistence level culture) monogamy is the goal to attain to. People don't note because ancient Israel's kings were not obedient to their specific instructions on this issue, but the Kings were required by Moses' Law, to be monogamous. Despite this, Solomon had more than 1,000 wives and concubines so the intention of the law is easily lost. Moses is indeed saying this is the better way, without saying so.

This is how Jewish and Christian dealings with culture always are. When they come against a cultural practice that needs to change, like slavery; they don't condemn and fix it directly. Rather, they plant the principles of the better way to make the replacement and wait for that to grow on its own. There is no "social gospel". There is no commission to reform cultures. The commission in Christianity is to reform people, and those people inevitably make their way to reforming culture because it eventually becomes obvious, there are injustices to cope with. This is not however, the primary function of true religion. It is a culturally reforming function to be sure, but making better cultures is completely secondary to the tasks of making better people, and learning to appreciate God for exactly who and What He is--the Author of all Goodness.

[Diogenes]

Sorry, I did misunderstand what you were saying. Yes, I understand that there is a difference in what others consider to be ethical, but to me that is an obvious point. And yes, it is a fundamental problem likely to be decided in the end by either military and economics, but education is a far cheaper and less painful route.

There are all sorts of less painful ideas which won't work. Neville Chamberlain thought his idea was less painful, but unfortunately it never would have worked. It was only the painful idea which worked. This is generally the case in life.


I am not dismissing your idea, i'm just saying I cannot envision a manner in which it could attain the results that I think you are seeking. To re-educate Muslims, you have to teach them that what their religion says is wrong, and I just don't see this lesson getting embraced.

Could you help me and clearly state what you are saying as I admit sometimes I am a bit thick.

I wish. I have long lamented the fact that no matter how clearly I try to phrase my thinking, the meaning invariably escapes whomever it is I am trying to persuade. I am constantly reminded of Karl Popper's admonition:

"Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood."

I sometimes think I am dyslexic but don't realize it, because all my carefully worded ideas seem to come out as gibberish by the time they get to the other side of the internet.

[Diogenes]

But humans are so smart that they can dream up religions which conflict with the natural ideas of injustice. This idea of a God and spirituality is, i'll wager, above the mental capacities of most monkeys. Even if it is not, how would they communicate such ideas to others so as to enforce compliance?

. . .But where do these ideas come from that this should not be done? As has been pointed out above, the Western world has been pretty misogynistic over the Centuries, and it has only been a comparatively recent phenomena in which we have desisted.

What principle or philosophy informs us that we should treat women as equals? Surely you don't think this idea is universal? It wasn't even universal in our own culture until recently.

I think historically it is easy to trace the notion of equality to Christianity, for instance in the New Testament statements of things like treating women as "joint heirs in the grace of Christ". The details of this are to be found in the documents of the Women's Suffrage movement, beginning in Scandinavia and spreading like wild fire across all the West. There are earlier presages of this however. Even in truly patriarchal societies like ancient Israel, we find the law is written that Men and Women are equal under the law (which we never find in practice in Islam) and that polygamy while acceptable (because of the economic advantages in a subsistence level culture) monogamy is the goal to attain to. People don't note because ancient Israel's kings were not obedient to their specific instructions on this issue, but the Kings were required by Moses' Law, to be monogamous. Despite this, Solomon had more than 1,000 wives and concubines so the intention of the law is easily lost. Moses is indeed saying this is the better way, without saying so.

This is how Jewish and Christian dealings with culture always are. When they come against a cultural practice that needs to change, like slavery; they don't condemn and fix it directly. Rather, they plant the principles of the better way to make the replacement and wait for that to grow on its own. There is no "social gospel". There is no commission to reform cultures. The commission in Christianity is to reform people, and those people inevitably make their way to reforming culture because it eventually becomes obvious, there are injustices to cope with. This is not however, the primary function of true religion. It is a culturally reforming function to be sure, but making better cultures is completely secondary to the tasks of making better people, and learning to appreciate God for exactly who and What He is--the Author of all Goodness.

I think the Immune system of the Muslim beast makes this idea unworkable with them. It is a highly aggressive immune system and it instantly attacks foreign invaders, and by this I mean ideas which are alien and contradictory to Islam.

[GIThruster]

I think the Immune system of the Muslim beast makes this idea unworkable with them. It is a highly aggressive immune system and it instantly attacks foreign invaders, and by this I mean ideas which are alien and contradictory to Islam.

It is for sure, a very hard nut to crack when someone holds religious beliefs that anything or anyone who would dare contradict those beliefs, is the enemy of you and God. Islam is a very clever trap. And make no mistake, these folks have always had their philosophers and theologians. They're smart. They often think rationally. It is in this, that one can have some hope they'll learn the errors of this religion. Anything that teaches one to hate, murder, rob, rape and revile; probably not such a good thing!

I'm very impressed with approaches like this, though I would note that like Billy Graham, I don't think anyone has ever been argued into the Kingdom of God. I think though, given a person is open to truth, that a rational approach can go a long way to providing the kinds of answers anyone serious about their spiritual life will want and need.

http://blessings.buzz/2014/12/25/video- ... n-beliefs/