Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have never heard of women suicide bombers? Huh.
Oh right! Lots of women compared to men...
Again, when it comes to history and in particular the history of war, women are simply not featured like men have been. Not by a very long shot, and of course this is not any kind of compliment toward men. Exceptions don't make the rule in any case, and to mistake the rule by way of the exceptions, including extremism, is a very poor level of understanding with respect to these dynamics. Poor understanding of the simple fundamentals that really should not only be considered but fully appreciated. Or we don't make the progress as a human race that we should. Must.
The broader question might also be whether it is the extremists who impose the ridiculous requirements on women, up to and including preventing them from being educated, or is it the mainstream? Including even the religious mainstream females?
Extremism is all too many times the "tip of the iceberg" that floats above the rest. Is supported and/or enabled by the rest one way or another...
Quite true.
Overtly "keep women barefooted and pregnant" types may not be mainstream, but the Bible reflects a patriarchal mindset and this has been reflected in the mainstream church all along. To this day, women are often under-represented or even excluded in church leadership, for example.
Point being, relative to law/logical reasoning, fighting against (or refusal to accept) those who are religious is shooting ourselves in the foot, essentially threatening our right not to profess any religion or belief. Hence the point it’s not defending atheism; it’s being on the offensive, particularly relative to this thread.
The problem is that simply refuting an argument, or pointing to data that shows the theists are wrong is seen as fighting by them.
People have had opposing views throughout history, why should religion be protected from rational 'assault'?
...and, not all things are good for our society and the people in our society, even if they aren't breaking the law.
end.
As quoted by Learnme, a good point.
Quote:
The latter, and then of course as we choose our elected representatives, we put our trust in them to judge as we hope they will. In line with our personal judgements along these lines. To enact and uphold laws in keeping with our government brokered interests, but we all know this going back to that Civics 100 class..
What is good or bad for the society can very well be a belief. If we want to live in free society, and not a religious monarchy, we can express that opinion freely and without fear and get organized to protest and change or make laws that align with our beliefs as in the good quote above. Until then we learn to live with our beliefs and respect the rights of others to hold their beliefs
Like many, you tend to look at these issues from a micro level, but the problems occur more at the macro level...
Take the warm-hearted bake sale at the local church for example. Cakes are baked and sold for purposes of providing money to the church. Nothing wrong with that, but where does the money go? No doubt at the more macro level it goes toward doing some good, but at the more macro level it can also go toward causes one might argue are not so good. Again having nothing to do with what a person is feeling, thinking or doing at the individual level. That's the point here far as I'm concerned...
True. When i contribute annually to the charities I believe in i know all the money does not go towards food and shelter for the homeless, or for conservation of trails and meadows. It also pays fat salaries and perks for CEOs. I still give and am glad these organizations exist.
At the individual level i pay taxes knowing a big chunk goes to the public schools where my children do not go any more. At the macro level i believe in good public education regardless. The alternative is not something i would wish to live in.
The broader question might also be whether it is the extremists who impose the ridiculous requirements on women, up to and including preventing them from being educated, or is it the mainstream? Including even the religious mainstream females?
Extremism is all too many times the "tip of the iceberg" that floats above the rest. Is supported and/or enabled by the rest one way or another...
Possibly. But we can see evidence of free democratic societies that are muslim majorities elect women leaders and prime ministers. Muslims live as minorities in secular countries and are good citizens and contribute positivelly to economy and serve in military and die for their country, like in the US. THE islamic extremists believe western ideas corrupt societies and strct adherence to What they believe as true religion is what is good for everyone. They are willing to give their life for their belief and fly planes into buildings. They are a danger to everone including to their own societies.
What is good or bad for the society can very well be a belief. If we want to live in free society, and not a religious monarchy, we can express that opinion freely and without fear and get organized to protest and change or make laws that align with our beliefs as in the good quote above. Until then we learn to live with our beliefs and respect the rights of others to hold their beliefs
Nobody here is suggesting that we move away from our system of democracy.
But again, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
The American way of life has not simply been shaped by elected officials. Many of our true leaders where never elected: Susan B. Anthony, Clara Barton, Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, Booker T. Washington, Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez, Eleanor Roosevelt, Andrew Carnegie, Mark Twain, Rosa Parks, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, John Muir, and many more.
In fact, many elected officials have been the bane of our culture.
These unelected leaders for change did not say what you said -- that "I am only responsible for my own acts and responses". They led the response to inequities by their acts and responses and led others to follow them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
