Politics As Usual
 

A new thread. Just for you.

polygamy thread
 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by notcasesensitive
does your wife know about your marriage to fringey?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



some of them do, some don't.

a new thread!
 

AG is Wrong (again)
 

No, that is not the question. The question is whether the practices and beliefs of a religion are sexist/misogynistic or not.

a new thread!
 

Would you stop that! As I was saying, before you closed the thread:
You were missing my point. I said that Christianity, and in particular, the protestant work ethic, were responsbile for social conditions conducive to equal rights for women, and implied thereby that certain dogmatic turns in Islam had created a corresponding period of economic stagnation that has led to a generally worse position for women in Islamic countries (note this was not always the case - until the 13th or 14th century is was the Muslims who were clearly the innovators).

You responded by pointing out the Amish (by using the anachronistic device of suggesting they were calling on the phone - nice touch). This of course is beside the point; the Amish don't control the Western economy, and the fact that they have opted out of the modern western economy may correlate with a view of a woman's place in the world that might not comport with the views of, say, a modern moderate Muslim living in the US.

AG is Wrong (again)
 

Do you think that a "win" for us in Iraq depends upon their society becoming non-sexist?

I hate this between-the-batches confusion.

There is a huge cause-and-effect issue that is being skirted in this statement.

But, with the change in threads, I'm too lost to say more.

a new thread!
 

I agree with everything you said, but was simply trying to make the point that gross generalizations about Christianity and Islam are just that.

AG is Wrong (again)
 

I think there are many in the current US administration who would agree* that there isn't a true win in Iraq until their society becomes Christian, with a bias towards Baptist.

*which isn't to say NotMe agrees.

AG is Wrong (again)
 

In order to ensure I'm not on the business end of a Turing Test gone horribly, horribly awry, I need to know your basic principles first.

Is a religious-based rule that facially treats women differently from men sexist? If not, is it misogynistic? Must religiously-based rules be facially neutral with regard to sex to avoid your ire?

a new thread!
 

How 'bout this:

The average muslim woman is treated less well in life than is the average christian woman.

a new thread!
 

I actually live my life like an Amish on extended rumspringa.

a new thread!
 

That's probably true. The difficulty comes when you try to introduce the aspect of causation.

a new thread!
 

I was with you (sort of) until you got to the part about dogmatic turns in Islam "creat[ing]" a period of economic stagnation. Until about 1880, Islam prospered in regions of the world where the natural resources were, um, overlooked. They did not have an industrial revolution as a result. By the time the value of the Arabic resource in particular was recognized, it was exploited (in the good, capitalist sense) by external powers in conjunction with local warlords a manner hearkening back to African "cooperation" with the slave trade.

The dogmatic turns taken by Islam were a response to, not the cause of, those economic stagnations. Islamic thought, at its best, despises corruption. Petro-politics, at its best, requires it.

a new thread!
 

Do you think it's all that difficult? I do see Islam as a code that dissuades from outward, material and technical achievement far more so than christianity, and most of the learned commentary I've seen either supports this view, or at the least doesn't refute it. For this reason, there is an economic handicap to traditional Islamic culture. For THAT reason, and using the other principle of [poor guyz beat dere wives lots], I see causation.

a new thread!
 

What are you saying about Catholics?

a new thread!
 

women can't be priests

a new thread!
 

If both women are in Indonesia? If both women are in China? If both women are in Gaza? If both women are in the Phillipines?

You will win this argument in the hearts and minds of most Americans quite easily, because our vision of the life of the "average" Muslim woman is in Saudi Arabia, and the "average" Christian woman is in the U.S. Would I like to wake up tomorrow as a woman in Arkansas or in Saudi Arabia? The answer is easy, even for me, a moral relativist. But Christianity should not claim credit for the superiority of life for women in the U.S. Would the widespread growth of Christianity in Saudi Arabia in 611 A.D. have resulted in better conditions for women than we see today? I doubt it, unless you're thinking about salvation (praise Jebus!).

BTW, if Islam had prospered in a place with gradual exploitation of natural resources and concurrent growth like the U.S., such a nation would likely be a thing to behold. The devout Muslim's personal discipline/work ethic/business savvy is impressive, when properly applied. Those fuckers are up at dawn to pray. Oh, except there's the compound interest thing. Oh, well.

AG is Wrong (again)
 

Yes, unless it is legitimately based on an anatomical difference and doesn't put a woman in an inferior or disadvantageous position relative to men. I cannot think of any, but maybe there are some that I don't know about.

Except for those that are legitimately based on anatomical differences and don't put women in an inferior or disadvantageous position relative to men, yes.

a new thread!
 

I was refering to the first dogmatic shifts of the late middle ages that moved the center of rapid advancement in sciences and the arts from the Islamic world to Western Europe. I'm no scholar of 19th century Middle East, so I'll take your word on the worsening effect of the exploitation of oil, but the colonization of the Islamic world by Europe was long underway by that point already, and largely due to a period of stagnation on the part of the Islamic world. In the 12th Century, the Islamic culture was the most dynamic one in the West, and certainly controlled large areas that one would consider rich in non-oil resources (3/4 the Mediterranean, Spain and Portugal, and part of France, much of the souther portion of Eastern Europe, Turkey, Iraq, Iran and a substantial part of the Indian subcontinent). 500 years later empires were built out of small pieces of Islam's domains (Spain, France) that would eventually dominate and colonize much of the Islamic center. Islam, like the Amish, acheived a certain level of comfort and then stayed there while their neighbors passed them by. The Amish are lucky that we Baltimorons don't view Lancaster County, PA the same way Napoleon viewed Egypt.

a new thread!
 

I was addressing the "protestant work ethic" statement. Don't Catholics have a similar work ethic to protestants?

BTW - Some protestant sects don't allow women to be spiritural leaders.

a new thread!
 

Hunh? I fail to see how a society that managed to conquer as much of the known world as Alexander the Great, and whose achievements put the Christian West to shame for centuries, is inherently handicapped in relation to Christianity. If anything, it is handicapped in relation to secular modernity. In other words, your sources suck.

a new thread!
 

Good thing your science and math regimen didn't addle your pretty little head with any US history. Moron.

a new thread!
 

Setting aside the obvious issues with the treatment of women in the Catholic church that Hank already pointed out, I'm saying that it was not the Catholics who drove the mass expansion of Europe and North America's economies in the 17th and 18th centuries. Which isn't to say they didn't participate, but only that their participation was in reaction to an ethic that arose form protestant dogmas. Protestants started working hard because Luther and Calvin told them that was how to get into heaven. Catholics started working harder because a) a little bit of Calvin rubbed off and b) their protestant neighbors were getting rich, and the Catholics are no fools.

It's not a criticism of the Catholic religion, but there wasn't the dogmatic impetus that there was for early protestants.

ETA: See, Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

hoo-hahaha
 

Hey. let's keep the ad homily flames over on the fashion board. This place is for civilised political intercourse.

Kristol/Hume/Etc.
 

To continue the prior topic . . .

I've been trying to educate you people on this for a while now. There are many conservatives that have been anti-war and/or critical of Bush's handling of Iraq. Kristol is one of them. I find him to be a rational, principled guy, though his predictions are often wrong.

Brit Hume is the best journalist on TV these days. NotMe is right, it is very clear when he is acting in his "objective" reporters role and when he is acting as a pundit. - he even sits in different seats, depending on the role he is playing.

I think those of you who don't watch Fox News would like it. Yes there are conservative pundits on there, but it is clear who the pundits are. There are also liberal pundits as well - Juan Williams (NPR), Mara Liason (NPR), CC Collins (Time), Mort Kondrake (Roll Call) to name a few. Name another major news outlet with this kind of balance.

a new thread!
 

In but not of, sonny. Your vaunted golden age achievements were managed by cultures taken over by Islamics, and only in spite of Islam. In other words, your sources suck.

He Can't be Antisemetic, He's a DEM
 

http://www.wistv.com/global/story.as...Type=Printable

[Sen Hollins alleged antisemitic article]

a new thread!
 

A most poorly-aimed quip.

No Release of Oil Reserves
 

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...1507&printer=1

Not sure on whether I agree with this, but I think I do.

He Can't be Antisemetic, He's a DEM
 

I read that, and found nothing I could consider as anti-semitic.

Stoopid, yes, but not in a racist sort of way.

a new thread!
 

But when, Atticus?

Islam conquered as much of the known world as Alexander the Great, but it was done conquering by the end of the middle ages. A societal shift then came about (it may be improper to tie it directly to the religion, but it's hard not to with Islam because of the unity of religion and the state in many Islamic realms) that stopped innovation.

I don't think Islam is inherently handicapped. I'm just noting that something stopped the innovation and expansion.

Remember, the ancestors of the Amish used to be pretty clever at coming up with new stuff too, and then just -- stopped.

a new thread!
 

I'm rapidly getting the impression that, to you, everything good is definitionally the product of a culture, while everything bad is definitionally the product of a dogma.

In that context, your idiosyncratic use of "Islamics," which to date has managed to produce an easy "out" for you when you're called on your repeated failures to distinguish between Muslims and Islamicists, is starting to look more and more like a slur.

a new thread!
 

To be more accurate, Luther told them to work hard or they would go to Hell. There was no promise of Heaven in original Lutheran dogma. Calvin said that people were born in a state of grace or not. In other words, you were either going to Heaven or Hell at birth, and nothing you could do would change that.

It was the fine German and Scot burghers who decreed that it was by their hard work and apparent piety that the Elect could be identified on Earth. Hence, Max Weber actually made a big fucking mistake in attributing the work ethic to religious dogma. It was actually people once again manipulating religious dogma for economic reasons. Imagine that.

No Release of Oil Reserves
 

Any release would be outrageous. What part of "strategic" don't the dems understand? There is nothing to suggest that prices reflect a temporary shock. Demand for oil is high; production of oil is flat. Release from teh SPR will, at best, temporarily reduce those prices, only to see them bounce up again when the SPR is depleted (or we stop discharging from it). At that point, we'll be in a worse position to respond to a genuine shock, such as a blown up suez canal or something.

I love the Democratic position on gas prices:

"What are you doing Mr. president to keep gas prices low for working americans?"

Uh, trying to bring more domestic production into play, but being stymied by Democratic objections? Thanks, JFK. I know it's not your fault--you don't own any SUVs after all.

a new thread!
 

As long as we're both saying it's not an inherent handicap, I think we agree that the decline was gradual in relation to the rise of the West. The West was probably passing the Islamic world by about 1540 or so. But I still don't see how the military and administrative failures that led to the losses of Spain, etc. were related to any dogmatic shift, which is how I would see the religion "causing" the economic stagnation. I don't think the converse has had all that profound effect in the same regions. For example, the rise of a secular Turkish republic has probably been a good thing, but I wouldn't say Turkey is leaps-and-bounds better off under the republic than under the Ottoman Empire, economically speaking.

a new thread!
 

You seem to be saying that Max Weber made a big mistake in locating the source of the religious dogma in Luther and Calvin rather than in the subsequent beliefs of the fine German and Scot burghers. If they believed that the Elect could be identified by hard work and apparent piety, and then worked hard and were pious, doesn't that show their culture giving them an economic advantage. So the culture was influenced by the underlying economic realities, but what else is new? Would the Sioux have felt the same way about buffalo if they had lived in the Everglades?

No Release of Oil Reserves
 

If a portion of the electorate weren't stupid, politicians would not spend time trying to blame the opposition for high gas prices.

a new thread!
 

Actually what I was saying is that the burghers wanted the people to work hard and be pious (read: don't get all drunk and break things or be too sick to work six days a week), so to get them to act accordingly, they couched it in religious terms.

The culture was manipulated to bring about an economic advantage without having to provide real-world incentives, like a living wage, etc.

He Can't be Antisemetic, He's a DEM
 

I tend to agree, but there are those that will look at the three named people (Wolfowitz, Perle, Krauthammer - all jews) and think it was a subtle jab.