Modernisation of Religion to be Equal to Women

[TVP45]

You do know that currently there are more women in the US (no data for other countries) than men right?

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-544.pdf

So really, if majority rules then we men should be the "second-class folks".

Whatta you mean, "we", XY person?

 

[Proton Soup]

No. To be absolutely clear, what I'm proposing is a political belief. It has nothing to do with a Deity or spirital values. It is straight out of Hobbes, with a twist of Locke.

it's not based on facts and it makes you feel good. i find it indistinguishable from buddhism.

 

[TVP45]

it's not based on facts and it makes you feel good. i find it indistinguishable from buddhism.

I'm not sure how to break this to you, but no political or religious belief is based on facts. But, I should hope I know how to distinguish between western liberalism and eastern spirituality. How do you know whether it makes me feel good?

 

[Proton Soup]

I'm not sure how to break this to you, but no political or religious belief is based on facts. But, I should hope I know how to distinguish between western liberalism and eastern spirituality. How do you know whether it makes me feel good?

i think you're confusing politics, getting what you want through governmental means, versus the actual things you want to accomplish.

 

[pellman]

I have a fundamental, God-given right to fall in love with any gender I please, no thanks to pious busy-bodies. Likewise with abortion. If you and the atheists don't like it, don't have it.

Rationalism is not a religious belief. It does not, and should not, have to grant equal time to religion in a free society.

What about my right to not be aborted?

Really, though, what caught my attention was this strange sentence: "I have a fundamental, God-given right to fall in love with any gender I please, no thanks to pious busy-bodies."

Actually, your "rights" are entirely thanks to pious busybodies. Namely due to their insistence that you have God-given rights. Without that basis your so-called rights are merely the result of legislation, that is, arbitrary. You can say then I desire that the gov't recognize certain rights--and count yourself very lucky if it does so--but you have no basis for ever saying the gov't ought to do such and such. There is no ought. There is only what the gov't decides to do and how you and I can influence it to the advantage of our respective interests.

I don't know if you are in the USA. I am. Our gov't was founded on the idea that there are certain rights which are prior to any law and that it is the purpose of law to defend those prior rights. We are still riding on the momentum generated by that wave 200 years ago and using the language they coined. Woe to us when we realize that the philosophical basis for legislating a "right" to abortion out of thin air, or, say, forcing a religious group to not distinguish women and men, reduces the weight of such "rights" to no more than a fad. When it is seen for the sham it is, we won't bother with talk of "rights" anymore.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps, because many churches like to take children at particularly young and impressionable ages and teach them (among other things) things that they are hardly capable of questioning even if they were allowed to, one might wonder exactly how much freedom many church-goers really have in choosing a way of life.

I recall the response of Frank Schaeffer in a recent NPR interview, when asked about this issue. He explains the nature of the indoctrination he underwent, and his journey following his struggles with his faith.

Interview here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97998654

The whole interview is worth the listen, but the relevant parts are at about 22-25 minutes in, and again at 28:45.

By your logic, we should also regulate what parents are allowed to tell their children.

Should we pass a law against teaching about Santa Claus? Should children be questioned about what their parents tell them to ensure that no one is corrupting their minds?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is exactly what I want. Read the thread carefully. The question was aked why I care if various churches exclude women and I replied that they participate aggressively in political life and, in doing so, seek to limit my freedoms.

First of all, I don't know of any churches that exclude women. Next, your freedoms are protected by the Constitution - not by removing the rights of others. If you think your freedoms are threatened, then it is matter of law and not religious beliefs. There are plenty of groups who would limit the rights of others but who are still protected by the first Ammendment. Are you suggesting that we should ban the KKK or the American Nazi Party? How about Republicans? I see the people who elected Bush as people who would limit my rights [as we have seen to be true]. So would it be okay to ban the Republican party? Also, shouldn't we pass a law against the hate radio that has corrupted so many minds and helped to bring this country to its knees? Maybe the government should interfere with all free speech that isn't politically correct.

From my point of view, they don't get a free pass just because they're religious; I don't see Methodists, for example, as being any different from Rotarians. If the Rotary Club tries to influence legistlation that limits my freedoms, I'm going to go have a talk with them. Likewise, if a church group tries to stick their big noses into my pants, I'm going to do all I can to criticize them, to challenge their tax status, etc. They're free to have any religious beliefs they want; they're just not free to force those on me.

You have every right to challenge the tax exempt status of any church that violates the separation of church and State. But you are suggesting that they don't have a right to their own beliefs and religious practices. Or, perhaps you are suggesting that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

In the case of abortion, are you suggesting that religious people don't have the right to defend what they see as human life - that they don't have the right to object to what they see as murder? You are entitled to rights but babies are not? Do you really accept the notion that a fetus is not a life at 89 days, but it is at 90 days? Does that really make any sense?

As for the role of women churches, it is mostly about the traditional family structure. Should this also be banned? Should we make a law stating that the teaching of traditional family values and roles ist verboten? And what about the women who value their church and their place in it. Do you wish to take away their rights as well? One point that may elude many here is that many women are perfectly happy with their place in their church. They are valued and respected and do not feel slighted by the defined roles for both sexes. Likewise, men gladly accept their role in church and in life. And I don't hear anyone complaining that within the traditional structure of a church, unlike women, men are expected to get a job and support their families while the wives stay at home. Should we ban the teaching of this sexist concept as well?

Does anyone know who is said to sit at the left hand of God? In Christian beliefs, the most revered person after Christ is a woman. A woman is believed to have been more "holy" than any other mortal. The point being that there is a difference between having defined roles, and having value.

 

[Moridin]

Moridin, snark doesn't become you.

I was dead serious. I also noticed that your reply did not attempt to refute the argument i posted. For clarification, my argument is presented syllogistically below.

1. P -> UoN
2. S -> ~UoN
3. ~(P&S)

Where,

P = Physics (validity of)
UoN = Uniformity of Nature
S = Supernaturalism

But I apologize as this argument is beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[Moridin]

As for the role of women [in] churches, it is mostly about the traditional family structure. Should this also be banned? Should we make a law stating that the teaching of traditional family values and roles ist verboten? And what about the women who value their church and their place in it. Do you wish to take away their rights as well? One point that may elude many here is that many women are perfectly happy with their place in their church. They are valued and respected and do not feel slighted by the defined roles for both sexes. Likewise, men gladly accept their role in church and in life. And I don't hear anyone complaining that within the traditional structure of a church, unlike women, men are expected to get a job and support their families while the wives stay at home. Should we ban the teaching of this sexist concept as well?

As for the role of slaves in the crop fields, it is mostly about the traditional worker structure. Should this also be banned? Should we make a law stating that the teaching of traditional worker values and roles ist verboten? And what about the slaves who value their work place and their place in it. Do you wish to take away their rights as well? One point that may elude many here is that many slaves are perfectly happy with their place in their work place. They are valued and respected and do not feel slighted by the defined roles for master and servant. Likewise, slave owners gladly accept their role in the fields and in life. And I don't hear anyone complaining that within the traditional structure of a field, unlike slaves, slave owners are expected to make sure their workers stay healthy and not die while the slaves stay at home. Should we ban the teaching of this racist concept as well?

Telling, is it not? Sorry, was a too good opportunity to pass on. Women are basically slaves to men, being subjugated at home and at the work place, getting less wages even in a progressive country like Sweden.

Does anyone know who is said to sit at the left hand of God? In Christian beliefs, the most revered person after Christ is a woman.

How does the Old Testament treat women again? Anyone?

 

[NeoDevin]

Do you really accept the notion that a fetus is not a life at 89 days, but it is at 90 days? Does that really make any sense?

That really makes perfect sense. The line has to be drawn somewhere, your argument here could be carried on until things like IUDs and birth control pill can be called murder as well (ie, if it's life at 89 days, why not 88? if it's life at 88 days, why not... if it's life at 1 day, why not at fertilization?) If you want to debate about where to put the line, that's fine, but your argument as you posted it is that you can't draw a line, which is just ridiculous (note that some people say the line should be drawn at fertilization, that's a different argument from you saying there can't be a line, also note that the line doesn't necessarily have to be a specific time, it could be based on the development of the fetus as measured by some test, which is slightly different in everyone).

For the rest of your post: The state can't stay completely out of the raising of children, or there would be no way to protect from abusive parents. Even if the parents are not doing it to intentionally hurt the child, (like say, people who deny their children vaccines or other important medical procedures) they can be found guilty of neglect or abuse. I would put forth that indoctrinating violent hatred (no, I'm not saying that all religion falls into this category) should be considered a form of child (mental/verbal) abuse, and the parents punished accordingly. This is another place where a line must be drawn somewhere, though I'm not sure where that line should be drawn, it is something that must be considered.

To clarify: I think we could all agree that it should be (and I'm pretty sure it is) considered abuse if a parent consistently told their child things like, "You're evil/worthless/garbage/stupid/whatever, and you deserve to be beaten!" Something a little less obvious might be: "Homosexuals are evil/worthless/garbage/stupid/whatever and they deserve to be beaten!" (or similarly, a homosexual parent telling their child the same about heteros). Should this be considered abuse? Before you answer that, consider how that child would feel if, at some point in their life, they realized they were attracted to someone of the same sex. I knew someone who committed suicide because of this very situation; to me, this would be abuse, plain and simple. Similar arguments can be made for teaching hatred of atheism (which is not necessarily a choice) and other religions (which is more likely to be a choice), though the argument gets a little weaker with each step. Teaching hatred of anything early in life can lead to serious mental hardship later on, especially if the child turns out to become the thing he was taught to hate, because all that hatred is suddenly directed at himself. This is why I would argue that teaching hatred to children should be considered abuse, and punished accordingly.

It could also be argued that impairing a child's ability to reason (eg. teaching ID, creationism, or other pseudoscience and pseudoscientific thinking as fact and logic) is abuse, though I can't bring myself to support this position, as it too easily opens the way for "legislating truth".

[/OffTopic] (if you want to continue this, please move the relevant posts to a new thread about state interference in parenting)

 

[NeoDevin]

Moridin: The difference is that slaves do not have a choice but to remain slaves, while (ignoring the childhood brainwashing argument) religious adherents can cease to be so at any time.

 

[Moridin]

Moridin: The difference is that slaves do not have a choice but to remain slaves, while (ignoring the childhood brainwashing argument) religious adherents can cease to be so at any time.

No they can't. If you believe that the omnipotent dictator of the universe is going to punish you with endless anguish, pain and suffering in hell, you literally won't be able to make the choice to leave their religion. Similarly, if I am your slave, and I believe that you are going to hunt me down, torture and then kill me and my family, I am literally psychologically unable to attempt to escape. This all is setting aside childhood brainwashing. With that, my argument becomes even stronger.

 

[Moridin]

What is the problem with legalizing truth if we can demonstrate it with clear evidence? We already do it by disallowing the teaching of racism and Holocaust denying, for instance.

 

[NeoDevin]

What is the problem with legalizing truth if we can demonstrate it with clear evidence? We already do it by disallowing the teaching of racism and Holocaust denying, for instance.

The problem is, that if the wrong person is in a position to legalize truth, they will do their best to by-pass or fool the "legal test" (see for example: teaching creationism in schools). They may succeed, they may fail, but either way, I don't think law is the way to decide truth.

 

[Gokul43201]

By your logic, we should also regulate what parents are allowed to tell their children.

What logic is that? I never said anything about regulating anything.

But hey, your idea sounds good!

 

[Gokul43201]

First of all, I don't know of any churches that exclude women.

The Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Southern Baptist Churches do not ordain women. That accounts for about 30% of all US Christians and about 80% of the World's Christians [1,2].

It would be interesting to learn how the other churches interpret the following verses of the book in a manner that allows female ordainment:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

Perhaps someday, I will find someone who explains this to me.

One point that may elude many here is that many women are perfectly happy with their place in their church. They are valued and respected and do not feel slighted by the defined roles for both sexes.

This (the willingness of the women to be subject to a specific action), by itself, does not justify the action. To cite an extreme example of this, a large fraction (possibly a majority, even) of women in the most repressed parts of the ME/N. Africa support the practice of female genital mutilation. There was a news story a few months ago, about a group of Saudi doctors going about the country, trying to educate women on the health effects of FGM in an attempt to reduce the prevalence of this attitude. To cite another example, polygamists often use this same defense: that the women that enter into polygamous relationships are happy to do so.

Well, you don't really have much choice but to be happy, do you ... if that is what your God demands of you?

Does anyone know who is said to sit at the left hand of God?

I don't. I can't remember coming across anything about this from my readings of the Bible. The right hand, yes; but not the left.

In Christian beliefs, the most revered person after Christ is a woman. A woman is believed to have been more "holy" than any other mortal.

Speaking from a purely practical point of view, it would seem like not a great idea to revile the person chosen by G to bear his son. And continuing to speak from a practical point of view, being born of a man would be a little extreme, and the virgin birth was not an uncommon idea among other religions at the time.

The point being that there is a difference between having defined roles, and having value.

Speaking of which, I've also wondered about the following passages that speak to the relative values of men and women:

And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above, if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female, ten shekels" (Leviticus 27:1-7)

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days. (Leviticus 12:1-5)

Perhaps I'll find a patient person to explain these things to me sometime.

1. See post #62
2. http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/1/20/no-female-bishops-for-proposed-new-province

 

[Moridin]

The problem is, that if the wrong person is in a position to legalize truth, they will do their best to by-pass or fool the "legal test" (see for example: teaching creationism in schools). They may succeed, they may fail, but either way, I don't think law is the way to decide truth.

Does not seem to be a problem is said person is forced to present evidence to justify his proposed legislation?

 

[BobG]

The problem is, that if the wrong person is in a position to legalize truth, they will do their best to by-pass or fool the "legal test" (see for example: teaching creationism in schools). They may succeed, they may fail, but either way, I don't think law is the way to decide truth.

Does not seem to be a problem is said person is forced to present evidence to justify his proposed legislation?

You have a lot more faith in government than I do if you want to trust it to start legislating truth. Only two weeks have passed and you've flushed every memory of the past administration from your head? Finding evidence for weapons of WMD, finding legal opinions supporting abuse of detainees, warrantless surveillance. An "effective" leader can find evidence for any policy he desires to follow.

For that matter, that administration was making some progress in eliminating scientists in government agencies when their conclusions didn't match what the administration had hoped to get.

 

[BobG]

Does anyone know who is said to sit at the left hand of God? In Christian beliefs, the most revered person after Christ is a woman. A woman is believed to have been more "holy" than any other mortal. The point being that there is a difference between having defined roles, and having value.

Once again, someone is applying the beliefs of one Christian religion and applying it across all Christian religions. Adding too many mortals to some superholy status was one of the reasons the Christian religion split. Ironically, the religion that gives Mary the most status is one that doesn't ordain women (at least at this time).

However, I agree with the rest of your post. I don't buy the argument that women in these religions were forced to accept that role or brainwashed into accepting that role. Aside from a few extreme groups that isolate their members from mainstream culture, it would be hard to prevent church members from obtaining enough information to make their own decisions about life.

 

[BobG]

It is exactly what I want. Read the thread carefully. The question was aked why I care if various churches exclude women and I replied that they participate aggressively in political life and, in doing so, seek to limit my freedoms. From my point of view, they don't get a free pass just because they're religious; I don't see Methodists, for example, as being any different from Rotarians. If the Rotary Club tries to influence legistlation that limits my freedoms, I'm going to go have a talk with them. Likewise, if a church group tries to stick their big noses into my pants, I'm going to do all I can to criticize them, to challenge their tax status, etc. They're free to have any religious beliefs they want; they're just not free to force those on me.

The question is whether we as a society have a legitimate and pressing reason to have women not be treated as second-class folks. If we decide we really need women as fully participating members of our country, then we have a right to force that on any group. Religious freedom in the US has two fundamental principles: right of expression and no establishment. Those two principles frequently conflict. Secular society has the right and responsibility to pass and enforce legistlation that affects religious practice from time to time.

I wouldn't dare put words in your mouth, but you see no conflict there?

 

[Gokul43201]

However, I agree with the rest of your post. I don't buy the argument that women in these religions were forced to accept that role or brainwashed into accepting that role.

What role, specifically?

Aside from a few extreme groups that isolate their members from mainstream culture, it would be hard to prevent church members from obtaining enough information to make their own decisions about life.

No need to isolate anyone when nearly 80% of the population follows your Religion, in one form or another. Heck, isolation may be a good idea in some cases. =(

 

[Proton Soup]

i'll give some opinions, and some things i'll just ignore, lest some mod throw a hissy fit and lock it. but overall, i'd like to say i have a fairly non-traditional viewpoint on some of these things, and think that much of the old law is practical and based on protecting people from physical harm/disease (eating pork, etc.).

The Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Southern Baptist Churches do not ordain women. That accounts for about 30% of all US Christians and about 80% of the World's Christians [1,2].

It would be interesting to learn how the other churches interpret the following verses of the book in a manner that allows female ordainment:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

Perhaps someday, I will find someone who explains this to me.

read genesis and the curse on Eve

This (the willingness of the women to be subject to a specific action), by itself, does not justify the action. To cite an extreme example of this, a large fraction (possibly a majority, even) of women in the most repressed parts of the ME/N. Africa support the practice of female genital mutilation. There was a news story a few months ago, about a group of Saudi doctors going about the country, trying to educate women on the health effects of FGM in an attempt to reduce the prevalence of this attitude. To cite another example, polygamists often use this same defense: that the women that enter into polygamous relationships are happy to do so.

FGM is an odd practice. for the most part, it seems to be a way of assuring virginity. pharaonic circumcision is like tamper-proof packaging, and a broken seal can be found with a simple inspection.

however, it seems that a woman can get her virginity back and marry again after a second procedure, which renders much of the practice moot.

Well, you don't really have much choice but to be happy, do you ... if that is what your God demands of you?

I don't. I can't remember coming across anything about this from my readings of the Bible. The right hand, yes; but not the left.

Speaking from a purely practical point of view, it would seem like not a great idea to revile the person chosen by G to bear his son. And continuing to speak from a practical point of view, being born of a man would be a little extreme, and the virgin birth was not an duncommon idea among other religions at the time.

Speaking of which, I've also wondered about the following passages that speak to the relative values of men and women:

And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above, if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female, ten shekels" (Leviticus 27:1-7)

probably relates to the relative earning potential of males vs. females.

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days. (Leviticus 12:1-5)

i suspect this is mostly about protecting the woman and telling her husband he can't have sex with her until she recovers from giving birth. males are bigger and warrant a longer recovery time. adding spiritual and ritualistic aspects to the law makes it more likely that people will actually adhere to it.

Perhaps I'll find a patient person to explain these things to me sometime.

1. See post #62
2. http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/1/20/no-female-bishops-for-proposed-new-province

 

[TVP45]

What about my right to not be aborted?

Really, though, what caught my attention was this strange sentence: "I have a fundamental, God-given right to fall in love with any gender I please, no thanks to pious busy-bodies."

Actually, your "rights" are entirely thanks to pious busybodies. Namely due to their insistence that you have God-given rights. Without that basis your so-called rights are merely the result of legislation, that is, arbitrary. You can say then I desire that the gov't recognize certain rights--and count yourself very lucky if it does so--but you have no basis for ever saying the gov't ought to do such and such. There is no ought. There is only what the gov't decides to do and how you and I can influence it to the advantage of our respective interests.

I don't know if you are in the USA. I am. Our gov't was founded on the idea that there are certain rights which are prior to any law and that it is the purpose of law to defend those prior rights. We are still riding on the momentum generated by that wave 200 years ago and using the language they coined. Woe to us when we realize that the philosophical basis for legislating a "right" to abortion out of thin air, or, say, forcing a religious group to not distinguish women and men, reduces the weight of such "rights" to no more than a fad. When it is seen for the sham it is, we won't bother with talk of "rights" anymore.

I'm not sure what prior rights you refer to. The US government is based on the US Constitution which acknowledges that citizens have unenumerated rights, but does not give them any philosophical or religious bases. We can easily trace our thread of rights from Runnymede to the Long Parliament to the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom to the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution to the Civil War and see little mention of prior rights save those "inalienable rights" Mr. Jefferson referred to. How do you see Hobbes as a religious figure?

 

[TVP45]

I wouldn't dare put words in your mouth, but you see no conflict there?

I do not. There is a clear divide between freedom of belief and freedom of action (establishment). That has been fairly clear throughout the Republic's history. For example, I have no problem at all if Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints want polygamy; at best that has only a slight impact on me and certainly seems like it doesn't clash with any of my rights. Now, if they want to force thirteen year old girls to be their wives, that does impact my rights (I believe in the original basis of "crimes against the crown"), and I would oppose that as strongly as I can. Along that vein, should they seek to influence public attitudes or law concerning sex with minors, I feel perfectly justified in contesting every action, every word, and every belief of theirs.

 

[Proton Soup]

I do not. There is a clear divide between freedom of belief and freedom of action (establishment). That has been fairly clear throughout the Republic's history. For example, I have no problem at all if Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints want polygamy; at best that has only a slight impact on me and certainly seems like it doesn't clash with any of my rights. Now, if they want to force thirteen year old girls to be their wives, that does impact my rights (I believe in the original basis of "crimes against the crown"), and I would oppose that as strongly as I can. Along that vein, should they seek to influence public attitudes or law concerning sex with minors, I feel perfectly justified in contesting every action, every word, and every belief of theirs.

at what age do you suppose one would marry when this republic was formed?

 

[TVP45]

at what age do you suppose one would marry when this republic was formed?

In Virginia, I don't suppose, I know. Twenty-one. With parental permission, and following examination by the Clerk of Courts to determine there was no coercion, sixteen to twenty. I don't know about other states and I rarely guess.

 

[Proton Soup]

In Virginia, I don't suppose, I know. Twenty-one. With parental permission, and following examination by the Clerk of Courts to determine there was no coercion, sixteen to twenty. I don't know about other states and I rarely guess.

so you agree that this attitude that a minor should not marry is a recent one?

 

[Moridin]

You have a lot more faith in government than I do if you want to trust it to start legislating truth. Only two weeks have passed and you've flushed every memory of the past administration from your head? Finding evidence for weapons of WMD, finding legal opinions supporting abuse of detainees, warrantless surveillance. An "effective" leader can find evidence for any policy he desires to follow.

For that matter, that administration was making some progress in eliminating scientists in government agencies when their conclusions didn't match what the administration had hoped to get.

I am personally a free market anarchist in principle so i don't actually trust the government per say and isn't the government already legalizing truth with Holocaust denial and creationism, for instance?

 

[Moridin]

I'm not sure what prior rights you refer to. The US government is based on the US Constitution which acknowledges that citizens have unenumerated rights, but does not give them any philosophical or religious bases. We can easily trace our thread of rights from Runnymede to the Long Parliament to the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom to the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution to the Civil War and see little mention of prior rights save those "inalienable rights" Mr. Jefferson referred to. How do you see Hobbes as a religious figure?

Also, I doubt that you can have any rights before you exist.

 

[NeoDevin]

I am personally a free market anarchist in principle so i don't actually trust the government per say and isn't the government already legalizing truth with Holocaust denial and creationism, for instance?

Holocaust denial is (usually) hate speech. The government does not currently regulate the teaching of creationism to children, or have a position on it's truth. What the government does have a position on is it's teaching as science, in publicly funded schools.