- #151
mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 7,774
- 13
Most religions claim that their books were written (or at least dictated) by God. anticipating the future is generally in god's job description
Most religions claim that their books were written (or at least dictated) by God. anticipating the future is generally in god's job descriptionwhen those religious books were written. But, how could the writers anticipate the today's culture?
because she volunteered as a soldier? that's a decision she made. but as far as i know, selective service registration is still not a requirement for women. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System#Exemption_of_womenFirst, I strongly suggest you might post your own point of view rather than just denying mine. I am only a single person, with no political or religious authority, and refuting me does nothing to advance your case.
But, I did not mean to say, or imply, that size is the criterion, but rather pervasiveness is.
With regards to the draft, however, you must get the facts correct. While some MOS's remain gender exclusive, compulsory service is not. My wife, among many women, has been subject to draft, should one occur, for the past two decades.
You're confusing selective service registration with a draft. There is no draft now. Congress has not authorized a draft since the seventies. Registration provides a registry of men who would be likely drafted to augment current active duty soldiers in the event of a re-authorization.because she volunteered as a soldier? that's a decision she made. but as far as i know, selective service registration is still not a requirement for women. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System#Exemption_of_women
as for my views? i think we'd be a lot better off if more people minded their own business instead of acting like religious busybodies. and yes, i do mean the atheists here. these busybodies could start by realizing that much of what they feel indignant about isn't even based on logic/science/anthropology, but the very religious culture they are a part of.
anywho... the person advancing a case here is the OP, Mammo, and anyone else that jumps on their bandwagon. my purpose here, rightfully, is simply to toss sticks into your spokes.
it doesn't matter that there isn't a draft right now. there could be at any time. that is the whole purpose of registration.You're confusing selective service registration with a draft. There is no draft now. Congress has not authorized a draft since the seventies. Registration provides a registry of men who would be likely drafted to augment current active duty soldiers in the event of a re-authorization.
don't think because i attack your arguments that i am attacking you.The question remains, is there any basis for persuading/forcing religions to be gender inclusive? I offered my opinions, partially supported by reasonable argument. You've offered ad hominem attacks. You might persuade me I'm wrong, but not without a reasoned argument.
And, I am a Deist not an Atheist.
And, of course, women can always choose not to work at a company where they are paid 65% of what men are, and they can choose not to work in an office where they are expected to have sex with the manager, but those behaviors generally rise to the level of strict scrutiny and wind up being prohibited by the equal protection clause. My argument is that the same applies to churches under certain circumstances. I freely admit that churches will often fall under only intermediate scrutiny or rational basis and thus must be judged on a cas by case basis or perhaps not at all.it doesn't matter that there isn't a draft right now. there could be at any time. that is the whole purpose of registration.
don't think because i attack your arguments that i am attacking you.
the fact remains that, both here and in britain, women can choose to not go to a church that isn't "gender inclusive". oddly enough, what you're proposing is that the government indirectly persuade/force WOMEN to only participate in government-approved religion. it seems awfully ironic to me.
And, of course, women can always choose not to work at a company where they are paid 65% of what men are, and they can choose not to work in an office where they are expected to have sex with the manager, but those behaviors generally rise to the level of strict scrutiny and wind up being prohibited by the equal protection clause. My argument is that the same applies to churches under certain circumstances. I freely admit that churches will often fall under only intermediate scrutiny or rational basis and thus must be judged on a case by case basis or perhaps not at all.it doesn't matter that there isn't a draft right now. there could be at any time. that is the whole purpose of registration.
don't think because i attack your arguments that i am attacking you.
the fact remains that, both here and in britain, women can choose to not go to a church that isn't "gender inclusive". oddly enough, what you're proposing is that the government indirectly persuade/force WOMEN to only participate in government-approved religion. it seems awfully ironic to me.
I actually agree, it's much like a private club, only the members who really follow the faith that should make a judgement on how it progresses, but even members don't exist in a vacuum, at some point they have to deal with the society they live in, and then their ministers by the same measure have to deal with them. Church politics, be it Islam, Christian, Jew, Shinto or Buddhist are very much up to the ecumenical councils therein. But most of these churches understand that morality and even church doctrine is not something that is set in stone, even those that are. Let's face it even Moses shattered the stone that the ten commandments were written on, to allow for a practical application of God's law, so should any religion evolve.Separation of Church and State was conceived of for a variety of reasons...only the members of a religious group should have a voice regarding Church policies.
We all have a freedom to choose...lot's of religions...or none at all...
i don't see what the comparison is here to your workplace. most of these women are not working for the church and depending on it for a paycheck. and if you really want to get down to it, you haven't established a rational basis to pay women the same rate as men. in fact, the capitalist marketplace seems to indicate that they are not very equal in this regard. so, until you establish that, you're actually arguing on a religious basis.And, of course, women can always choose not to work at a company where they are paid 65% of what men are, and they can choose not to work in an office where they are expected to have sex with the manager, but those behaviors generally rise to the level of strict scrutiny and wind up being prohibited by the equal protection clause. My argument is that the same applies to churches under certain circumstances. I freely admit that churches will often fall under only intermediate scrutiny or rational basis and thus must be judged on a case by case basis or perhaps not at all.
However, we differ, I think, on the point of whether a democratic society has the power to force religious institutions to comply with the law. I believe we do.
I do not propose anything that persuades/forces women to only participate in government approved religion. Would requiring that churches have fire exits marked with NFPA approved signage imply government approval of the religion? Would requiring that ministers pay income taxes imply government approval? Would requiring that all church school educators have child clearances imply government approval? I argue no. If you have a valid argument why it would be the other way, please present your argument.
This belief seems to be a recurring theme in the discussion here. I suppose if you believe that morality and doctrine are fluid, then it makes sense to modernize religion. But one of the prevalent ideas in many religions is that morality is an objective truth, and is independent of culture or changing ideas. Most of the churches that forbid female leaders hold to this idea.But most of these churches understand that morality and even church doctrine is not something that is set in stone, even those that are.
Not trying to get into a discussion on religion here, but I'm pretty sure that's not why Moses destroyed the tablets of the testimony...Let's face it even Moses shattered the stone that the ten commandments were written on, to allow for a practical application of God's law, so should any religion evolve.
God either done a really poor job or he self defined some constraints about what he could do:rofl:anticipating the future is generally in god's job description
Then it is useless.This belief seems to be a recurring theme in the discussion here. I suppose if you believe that morality and doctrine are fluid, then it makes sense to modernize religion. But one of the prevalent ideas in many religions is that morality is an objective truth, and is independent of culture or changing ideas. Most of the churches that forbid female leaders hold to this idea.
He saw the Jews worshipping false Idols and smashed the tablets.Not trying to get into a discussion on religion here, but I'm pretty sure that's not why Moses destroyed the tablets of the testimony...
I think we're now at the point of simply repeating ourselves rather than either debating or participating in a critical dialogue. I am unsubscribing this thread.i don't see what the comparison is here to your workplace. most of these women are not working for the church and depending on it for a paycheck. and if you really want to get down to it, you haven't established a rational basis to pay women the same rate as men. in fact, the capitalist marketplace seems to indicate that they are not very equal in this regard. so, until you establish that, you're actually arguing on a religious basis.
I don't believe that the government has the authority to legislate the manner in which social organizations choose to organize themselves. There is no law compeling social organzations to give equal oportunity to its members or for membership. Would you say that a synogogue should allow christians to be members? We do have laws against descrimination based on religion so why allow a church to descriminate against inclusion of persons of other religions in their membership?TVP45 said:However, we differ, I think, on the point of whether a democratic society has the power to force religious institutions to comply with the law. I believe we do.
Useless for what end? It seems that you may be defining some purpose arbitrarily, and then judging each religion according to its ability to accomplish your end. But different religions have different purposes, and usually the religious communities define these purposes. So saying "it is useless" doesn't mean much. If you start with the assumption that religions exist to agree with society's gender roles, and then throw away religions that don't do what you want them to do, then it defeats the very idea of religiosity. Adherants of religions are supposed to conform themselves to their respective religion's ideals, not the other way around.Then it is useless.
Yes...I'm not quite sure why you think this implies some sort of fluidity to morality. And if you wanted to argue to such an end in the context of Christian theology, there are far better (though ultimately flawed) arguments.He saw the Jews worshipping false Idols and smashed the tablets.
It seems you think religions exist comfortably in a vacuum too, but then you sound like the average religious apologist.Useless for what end? It seems that you may be defining some purpose arbitrarily, and then judging each religion according to its ability to accomplish your end. But different religions have different purposes, and usually the religious communities define these purposes. So saying "it is useless" doesn't mean much. If you start with the assumption that religions exist to agree with society's gender roles, and then throw away religions that don't do what you want them to do, then it defeats the very idea of religiosity. Adherants of religions are supposed to conform themselves to their respective religion's ideals, not the other way around.
All arguments against theology are flawed by default, thus is the starting point and ending point of apologetics in any religion.Yes...I'm not quite sure why you think this implies some sort of fluidity to morality. And if you wanted to argue to such an end in the context of Christian theology, there are far better (though ultimately flawed) arguments.
I hope you won't take this the wrong way. But from what I'm detecting, you don't seem to be giving any substantive argument, but rather are presuming your fluid view of morality to be accurate by default. It seems rather circular. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I'd like to understand your position on this.It seems you think religions exist comfortably in a vacuum too, but then you sound like the average religious apologist.
Stoning homosexuals and murderers is actually a good example, because this is still practiced in Islamic theocracies. May I ask: how do you define morality? To what authority do you appeal? If you believe that morality is not set in stone but simply changes with the times, then you really have no basis to say that these Islamic dictatorships are wrong to stone their gays, adulterers, and murderers.No matter how stupid or redundant is our faith we should follow it without question like sheep. Good job the Jews have a little more sense or they'd still be stoning people and executing homosexuals and murderers. But then unlike other religious people they understand what an eye for an eye actually was meant to accomplish, coming as it does straight out of Hamurabi's code of laws.
So morality is cast in stone by some invisible figure in the sky and can never change, is a better form of morality than say pluralism, or utilitarianism? Why exactly? I think I agree with Nietzsche on this one, religion is nothing more than group think and genuinely outdated. Any moral system that does not change and is inflexible is obviously not as valuable as one that can and does change with the society it is in, that is why we have state and church seperation, and why church morality is impractical. Unless you're going to make an argument for reintegration of church and state I don't see how such a moral code is worth all that much, particularly in countries like mine where only 46% of people believe in any God at all.I hope you won't take this the wrong way. But from what I'm detecting, you don't seem to be giving any substantive argument, but rather are presuming your fluid view of morality to be accurate by default. It seems rather circular. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I'd like to understand your position on this.
I define morality by using ethics to determine fundamental principles or if in fact they exist, why how do you do it? Stoning homosexuals to death is ignorant and barbaric, if that's the best you can do to defend it then that is a pretty lame moral code you have there, perhaps a paradigm shift with the 21st century and it's science may be in order for religion? is appealing to common standards of behaviour amongst men, any better than appealing to some mythical figure in the sky who's dogma is unreflecting, unchanging and seems anachronistic: yes I think so. I mean lets face it it was either written by men, or God is one utterly messed up person, perhaps he has multiple personality disorder to keep up with all the religions that are the one true faith?Stoning homosexuals and murderers is actually a good example, because this is still practiced in Islamic theocracies. May I ask: how do you define morality? To what authority do you appeal? If you believe that morality is not set in stone but simply changes with the times, then you really have no basis to say that these Islamic dictatorships are wrong to stone their gays, adulterers, and murderers.