Sexism or Racism?

TO CHRISTIE:

Thank you for responding to my post.

Take care, Tom.

Thomas Baum:
I find your comments heartfelt and I'm not out of harmony with them. My comment was in answer to the question. Sincerely, Christie

TO JEFF P:

I would like to make another comment about "predestination" and that is since God, being God, knew that not all people would repent that is why God came up with His Plan for the Salvation of ALL HUMANITY.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TO CHRISTIE:

Jesus invited us to, "Proclaim the Good News", did He not?

The angels at the birth of Jesus said two things, first they said, "This is Good News for ALL PEOPLE", did they not? And they also said, "Peace to whomever God's favor rests", this might not be an exact quote but close enough.

If the "Good News" is not for everyone, then it is not "Good News", it is not even the good enough news as some people are rooting for, as in, 'as long as I get to the good place' actually that would be horrible news.

Christianity is God laying in our lap the awesome responsibility of carrying on the work that Jesus began and that He gave to us, to do our part whatever it may be.

As in, "Come follow Me".

As in, "Take up your cross and follow Me"

As in, "There is work to be done while it is still day".

God's Plan is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be with Him in His Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

Christianity is more than knowing God's Name, even the demons know God's Name.

We are called to be active participants in the unfolding Plan of God, just as it says, "Faith without works is DEAD".

Jesus taught LOVE, not tolerance.

So many people that call themselves "christian" have conveniently torn out page one of the bible as in, "Let Us make man in Our Image and Likeness, and God created man, male and female, He created them", well, God hasn't torn it out.

Take care, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom, as I already mentioned [the new heavens and the new earth].

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Both “isms” are entrenched in not only America, but in every country on the planet. People feel the “ism” that targets them individually. The reason the world is entrenched in sexism and racism is because its ruler is both sexist and racist.

( Revelation 12:9) 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.

(2 Corinthians 4:3,4) 3 If, now, the good news we declare is in fact veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, 4 among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.

(John 8:44) 44 YOU are from YOUR father the Devil, and YOU wish to do the desires of YOUR father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of [the lie].

True religion addresses both racism and sexism. A mark of true religion is that its members have a deep respect for the Bible. They accept it as the Word of God and believe what it says. (John 17:17; 2Timothy 3:16, 17) They treat God's Word as being more important than human ideas or customs. (Matthew 15:1-3, 7-9) They try to live by the Bible in their everyday life. So they do not preach one thing and then practice another.—Titus 1:15,16.

The most outstanding mark of true Christians is that they have real love among themselves. (John 13:34,35)
34 I am giving YOU a new commandment, that YOU love one another; just as I have loved YOU, that YOU also love one another. 35 By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves.”

They are not taught to think that they are better than people of other races or skin color. Neither are they taught to hate people from other countries.
(Acts 10:34, 35)
34 At this Peter opened his mouth and said: “For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, 35 but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.

True Christians do not share in wars. They treat one another as brothers and sisters.—1 1 1 John 4:20,21.
20 If anyone makes the statement: “I love God,” and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar. For he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving God, whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from him, that the one who loves God should be loving his brother also.

Jesus' disciples are no part of this wicked world. (John 17:16) 16 “They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.”

They do not get involved in the world's political affairs and social controversies.

In the near future, Satan and his followers will be removed from earth by Christ Jesus. (John 12:31) 31 Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
Very soon now, Jesus will manifest his rulership over our troubled earth.
Using symbolic language, Revelation 19:11-16 describes Jesus Christ as a king seated upon a white horse and coming to judge and carry on war in righteousness. He will use his great power to destroy the wicked. Jesus and his Father will preserve those, who strive to follow the example Jesus set while on earth, through the upcoming “war of the great day of God the Almighty”—often called Armageddon—so that they can live forever as earthly subjects of God’s heavenly Kingdom.—Revelation 7:9, 14; 16:14, 16; 21:3,4.
During his reign of peace, Jesus will cure sickness and bring an end to death. Jesus will be used by God to resurrect billions, giving them an opportunity to live forever on earth. (John 5:28, 29) It is important that we continue to take in Bible knowledge and become better acquainted with Jesus Christ.

TO JEFF P:

Thank you very much for responding to my comment.

I would like to make some other comments about what you wrote.

One, when you wrote, "(and the somewhat Presbyterian take on the predistination of heavenly events.)", you see I do believe in predestination but sometimes, I think how I think of it, is completely different than how some others think of it. My take of predestination is that God knows everything even before it happens but nevertheless we still have total free will and not even God can interfere with that or it wouldn't be free.

Also, when I say that I have been chosen by God, not only do I mean it but also that I had no idea that I was chosen until I found out.

You also wrote, "As regards God only looking to hearts and all, your argument would be with fellow religionists who would disagree with you, not with me", I don't look at it as an "argument would be with fellow religionists".

First off because I am not here to argue but to speak.

Second, because even tho I may sound like a "religionists" on these posts, I don't consider myself one at all in fact I don't consider "Christianity" a religion but many "christians" do.

Third, I use these postings and I also use bible studies to try and do the "job" God chose me for and there are many both here and in various bible studies that to say the least, disagree.

Take care, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas, I did sincerely read what you'd written.

As to whether or not it was completely off of your topic, I'll leave that for others to judge. I thought the response was quite appropriate-- with the claim of the knowledge and the means to religious purity (ie, having a good "heart" that God approves of), the certainty of your truth, and your apocalyptic language about the new heavens and earth (and the somewhat Presbyterian take on the predistination of heavenly events.)

I'm sorry if the response offended you, but you might consider that your pious certainty is just as disingenuous to me.

As regards God only looking to hearts and all, your argument would be with fellow religionists who would disagree with you, not with me. We can't be all correct, but we can all be wrong. I do appreciate your attempt to improve upon the religion (and I would choose your version over what's in the Bible,) but it's not really very scriptural (ie Mark 16:16: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned..") That's more of an internal housekeeping matter.

For what it's worth, it seems to me that you do have a "good heart."
Peace, Jeff

TO JEFF P:

Maybe you should read what I wrote.

I am not saying for you to believe or not believe what I wrote but you should at least read it and then you might be able to see that the reply you gave is completely incompatable with what I wrote.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Baum:

In all due respect, let me play out another possible scenario:

After I die, I'm taken to those pearly gates. Someone up there takes me to meet the Big Guy, because I didn't make the cut. I'm about to spend the rest of eternity in burning hell, and I'm given some opportunity for some last words prior to the cast-down.

He'll say something like, "You know Jeff, I just didnt' know you down there. You might have done some good stuff, but you didn't believe the way I wanted you to believe and you didn't hold faithfully to the prescribed rituals nor continue to spread the good news like I commissioned. You were just one of those that fell into the shallow soil and were choked by the weeds."

I guess my reply would be then, "well, Great One, You're correct: I couldn't continue to believe nor trust your respresentatives, your authorities, nor did I glean any universal "truth" from those who proclaimed it. There was no unifying "holy spirit" that led to any "full understanding" among your professing people, and quite frankly, in the realms of "values" religious politics and a dismal history of church-led human abuse I wasn't impressed enough to follow that lead. Your televangelists were generally all losers, hypocritical, and preyed on the ignorance of the most vulnerable. The purposeful exclusion of the rest of the "believing" world, different from Christianity, was doomed "...since before creation." That just didn't seem like a worthy endeavor to follow or to advocate....

As I went through life, I was impressed that the general message of the church was that "the world" was fallen, sinful, and if not worth caring for, at least to be considered only a temporary vehicle before some holier version came to replace it. The scientific method and enlightenment values were "demonized" by your followers to a large degree. So, honestly, I don't think I ever knew you either...sorry we didn't have a genuine chance to meet."

God would then look at me, shrug the shoulders, and ask me, "well, at least what did you think of the ...isms question on On Faith?"

I'd have to reply, "well generally I'd have to describe myself as having one primary ism: optim-ism. I had hoped for and trusted that the human species could grow and improve. But look where optimism landed me...

And then I'll be cast into the lake of fire forever. The End.

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

Islam's reliance on "pretty wingie thingies" and "demons of the demented" for authenication is coming to a fast close. As it does, Mecca will no longer be a shrine to these fictional characters and will simply become a historical tourist attraction. Maybe Disney will construct another Disney World there featuring roller coaster-chariot rides to the fictional heavens, a water park at the Grand Mosque along with a Hall of Religious Embellished Characters featuring talking figures of Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed and his eleven wives.

Hmmm, Mohammed's figure would be saying something like:

"I was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" aka "pretty wingie thingies" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers. "

Not necessarily. I am using it in this case to explain a theological pov.

Dear GaryD -

Am I to understand that you take the fable of Adam and Eve to be literally true and not as a metaphor?

CCNL - regardless of what your national geographic article said, humans and their direct ancestors back to homo habilis and beyond have been walking upright for a few million years and have never lived in trees (other than to perhaps climb them for self-defense against predators).

Cro-magnon or early modern homo sapiens goes back at least 100,000 years and never lived in trees, unless it was to occupy an arboreal (tree) stand -but that's pretty doubtful.

While gorillas are too heavy, brachiators like the chimps and orangutans (true tree dwellers) tend to travel on all fours when earthbound. None of my immediate relatives fell out of a tree - don't know about yours.

But back to the question at hand -

Of course, as our close relatives, males are dominent in either of these primate species by instinct, and male chimps in particular are extremely territorial. Outsiders and boundries transgressors are often brutally murdered.

Among humans, religious mythology can be used to justify anything, whether it be sexism or racism, and it often has been thus used - even when both common sense and common interests would indicates otherwise.

"In Eden prior to the fall there was no subordination."

Ever hear of Lilith? She was, according to Jewish tradition, Adam's first wife. She refused to be subordinate to Adam. So, Yahweh turned her into a demon, and created the more submissive Eve.

TO JIHADIST AND THE REST OF HUMANITY:

You wrote, "I would probably be in a hissy fit if it was the Pope who said that and seek to align with other irate Muslims around the world to array a street rise and ruckus as an expression of our shock and dismay and discontent and displeasure and what have you.

So, for you my friend, when you said that about the Prophet, I'll let it pass."

Actually, what I said about Mohammad was that I do not hold it against him that he was deceived by satan.

I have met satan and yes he is real and as Jesus told us, satan is the prince of this world but satan has been defeated, but satan will continue to be the prince of this world until God exerts His Authority that God let us give away and God won back and all of it is part of God's Plan that He has had since before creation.

satan, by the way, is not incarnate nor is satan a country, but satan is real and is not nice at all.

God's Plan is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be with Him in His Kingdom.

For those of you out there that get upset over pronouns, God is not a He, a She or an It but is a Being of LOVE and He is a Trinity.

For those of you out there that belong to a religion of any kind, please read: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

For those of you out there that do not belong to any religion, please read: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

The two above sentences are true whether anyone believes or not and I don't know how to put it any simpler, in other words, some will be trying to hide behind their religion.

Someone calling themself a "Christian" does not mean that they are one.

Just as it says, "In those days, people will be saying, 'Lord, Lord' and Jesus will say, 'I do not know you'".

As I have previously stated, it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

God chose me, I have said YES, I am a messenger, God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable.

Take care, be ready, the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth] will arrive with the dawning of the seventh day but the night of the sixth day will precede it.

God has had His Plan since before creation and His Plan is unfolding before our very eyes.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

J-
one comment I forgot to mention.

I think I might be in agreement; religion generally has nothing meaningful or relevant or "believable" to say about sexism, racism, or almost any other negative "ism," simply because the texts are loaded with them from front to back.

How can a religion claim any changing authority or claim to be some driving force behind elimination of those issues?

Any equality or justice of the "isms" have come about by people realizing, in a purely secular sense, that the situation is wrong, and must be changed. This despite holy texts telling us otherwise.

Jihadist:

Culturally, where do you think then that masculinity is supported and propogated, and under what authority, as "the dominant sex?"

Are there cultures where this isn't true, and if so, what are the differences, especially in the religious context?

Do you think in general religions are supportive, and have been, of the equality of sexes?

Finally, I'd like to ask you a question I've been meaning to ask you: what would it take for you to change your mind about the truthfulness or the falsity of a supernatural realm? How would you be convinced you're wrong?

If you ask me, I have some personal answers that would definitely change my mind regarding the reality of the gods. I would and am willing to go wherever the journey takes me.

I ask these questions in complete sincerity. And I ask because, over the last few months, I've seen you become more defensive and angry at the "non believers" and I wonder why (aside from those who regularly attack you, and you know who I'm talking about.)

I'd be willing to bet, however, that you would be less received in my conservative Christian town with the name of "jihadist" than up the road in Austin, Texas, where there's a little variety of thought. Consider that, before you post about non-believers.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia,

Hello.

Always glad to see you in any threads. Thanks for reminding me how small the Vatican really is in one of Daisy Khan's threads. I do keep forgetting that fact when seeing how grand and imposing it is when there as a tourist.

As for discussion on sexism and racism, men have More Important Things to think about here, such as There Is No God. This is more important than racism and sexism.

After all, God and religion is responsible for our racism and sexism, not man and men. After all, God made us into two sexes and of different ethnic groups. Surely it is not in God's plan and Intelligent Design that one gender and one ethnic group is to be superior over the other and all others? Why would God do that if God don't want us to be sexist and racist?

Oh, if only there is no God and no religion. There will no racism and sexism. It is all so very logical and so very obvious, and religionists just can't see that at all.

So, should we women have to summon our masculine side to get some men to be in touch with their feminine side and for gender and ethnic sensitisation?

Don't ask me why and when that notion of men to be in touch with their feminine side comes about. Some men may cringe to even contemplate it.

Racism and sexism can be worst during depressions, economic hard times or wars. It can be worst among lower income groups competing for jobs. It do boil down to competition for rights, opportunities and access in the workplace, in education, in politics, in businesses. In all instances, it is the male gender of the main ethnic group that is the most advantaged.

....and after WW II, Rosie the Riveter has to leave the workplace and go back to their roles as housewives or homemakers so men can get back the jobs taken on by women during the war.

Does religion really has anything to do with this racism and sexism?

------------------------------------------------

....and by the way Concerned the Christian Now Liberated,

What is this? In touch with your feminine side on this question? No man would bring up sexism in corporations here. Equal pay? Glass ceiling? So sixties and so seventies and so eighties.

Gender empathy doth transcends race and religion for women.

If, say, you are a woman who was about to be raped by a Muslim man, and I happened to be nearby, I would whack the Muslim man and be on your side, never mind you are a Crossanized Christian of Reality and all that.

Come pussycat. Can we make you and "honorary woman" if you are a man?

Saudi Arabia designated Queen Elizabeth II as an "honorary man" when she visited that kingdom years ago. Just to get around the sexist gender thing they have there.

So, as a woman or as an "honorary woman" (if you are a man), I'd love to have tea and cucumber sandwiches with you. Or ladies' lunch. Or orchid gardening. Or Tupperware parties. Or knitting. Or watch chick flicks like "Beaches". Or to form a Jane Austen Book Club. Or to see Tina Turner live before we die.

So, what do you say sister Concy Christy Libby? Oh, you macho honcho, you.

S, "BTW, never once did I suggest that males ought to be given the right to behave like irresponsible little boys (read: be sexually promiscous and contribute to the emotional pain of women and social chaos) or oppressive machos."
~~~GOOD TO CLARIFY~~~~

"What is wrong with suggesting that we get the balance right in man-women relationships? There was no suggestion about pre-emptive attack on women's sexuality. Men and women have their strengths and shadow sides. It is important to know how each one gender manifest their weaknesses and strengths..........We need to assess the situation, look for the causes and seek solutions - urgently."
~~~TRUE STATEMENT~~~THE KEY IS TO ACT~~~

"Some human beings do tend to abuse power and the gender makes no difference.....We ought to take responsibility for our less than ideal actions and do something about it, even as we demand better behaviour from men."
~~~WISE COUNCIL~~~~

"It is not a power struggle; it is a mutual pact."
~~~~THIS IS THE HEART (CENTER) OF A HAPPY RELATIONSHIP~~~~

Jihadist, "On women:

- thou shalt have no vagina envy

- thou shalt not ask, "What do women want?"

- thou shalt not tell women what to wear, what to think and what to do with their live

- thou shalt not think women mean "yes" when they say, "No!"

Meeeeooow.....brrrr......

We need one female feline in this manimal kingdom."
~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is cute~

Paganplace :
Aha, Soja! You've spoken upon the unspoken, here:

"Men who abused their power positions have had to learn after the advent of feminism and emancipation that women are capable of abusing power too, and many women are capable of using their sexuality as a weapon of power with men. Men who have not mastered their sexual instinct remain helpless slaves to women who are past masters at manipulating men with their sex appeal."

That women have a magic power to treat men like men have treated women... thus must be 'pre-emptively' suppressed.

March 30, 2008 7:35 PM

----------------

Hi PaganPlace!

It would have been better if you had read all the three posts of mine and read them to the very end (without taking it out of context) before posting your response.

My suggestion was that men and women must sit down together and discuss their needs and responsibilities and come to an agreement about dealing with each other in constructive and mutually uplifting ways.

Don't forget that in the long ago past we had matriarchal societies too. (My paternal grandmother was a matriarch, so I know what a family where the female has power feels like.) There are plenty of families where the females wear the pants. Until a century ago societies have been predominantly patriarchal. Feminism and female emancipation is after all not older than a century.

Now we are at a turning point because we are able to assess the long term results of sexual emancipation for women. BTW, never once did I suggest that males ought to be given the right to behave like irresponsible little boys (read: be sexually promiscous and contribute to the emotional pain of women and social chaos) or oppressive machos. What is wrong with suggesting that we get the balance right in man-women relationships? There was no suggestion about pre-emptive attack on women's sexuality. Men and women have their strengths and shadow sides. It is important to know how each one gender manifest their weaknesses and strengths. We are talking in terms of what is necessary for the welfare of children, for the happiness of the weak and vulnerable in society. I see far too many STDs, teenage mothers, single parent families and lonely middle aged and elderly women for my liking. We need to assess the situation, look for the causes and seek solutions - urgently.

Some human beings do tend to abuse power and the gender makes no difference. It is a fact of life that one must take into consideration in order to deal with problems realistically. As a woman myself, I do not believe that women always behave like angels. We ought to take responsibility for our less than ideal actions and do something about it, even as we demand better behaviour from men. It is not a power struggle; it is a mutual pact.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated,

Ahhhh pussycat! You've been busy in this and that thread. So, this catty kitty cat.....

You : Putting an end to religious sexism and racism: "Deflaw" it all!!!!

Moi : You wish. Dream on. And the reality is - it's a sexist and racist world. Your Singularity knows that there will still be secular sexism and racism. Even been to China, Japan, South Korea and Cuba?

Deflaw male chauvinism!

You : And there would be no Mecca or Vatican or Jerusalem holy places or Mormon Tabernacle save for nice museums to visit!!!!!"

Moi : There will always be Mecca and the Vatican and Jerusalem and Banares and Kyoto and Amritsar. Those cities are older than Washington DC.

I just love the Smithsonian museums. But alas, they only house bits and pieces of items stolen or purchased from all over the world. Too bad the Sistine Chapel can't be moved stone by stone like the London Bridge to the US, no?

You : The only Fall was our first ancestors falling out of the trees of Africa some 60,000 years ago.

Moi : Really? They live in tree-houses? And fell off like apples and oranges? They don't live in caves if they found one? Who drew those cave paintings?

Now, now, don't just rely on Wikipedia for information as most others are wont to. Read a few simple books for starters such as "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Bryan Sykes, "The Journey of Man" by Spenser Wells, and "Y: The Descent of Man" by Steve Jones.

There's not a lot of pictures in those books, but nice and easy and simple reading all the same, like the yet to be published "Crossanization for Idiots" by Concerned the Christian Now Liberated complete with the Five Steps Programme.

How about coming out with a generic Five Step Programme to dispel of racism and sexism?

On women:

- thou shalt have no vagina envy

- thou shalt not ask, "What do women want?"

- thou shalt not tell women what to wear, what to think and what to do with their live

- thou shalt not think women mean "yes" when they say, "No!"

On people of colour (What are we? A box of crayons?):

- thou shalt not say "Oh, I just love your skin tone. Is it caffe latte?"

- thou shalt not ask, "Can you see through those slits you call eyes?"

- thou shalt not say, "African women has conical shaped breasts."

- thou shalt not think "dark" and "black" is evil and menacing or "yellow" is a peril.

Then we can talk about racism and sexism in religion.

Meeeeooow.....brrrr......

We need one female feline in this manimal kingdom.

GaryD, GaryD, GaryD,

The only Fall was our first ancestors falling out of the trees of Africa some 60,000 years ago.

It means something along the lines of suited or right for him. It also implies the reverse. In Eden prior to the fall there was no subordination. What actually entered the world with the fall was selfishness.

Putting an end to religious sexism and racism:

"Deflaw" it all!!!!

And there would be no Mecca or Vatican or Jerusalem holy places or Mormon Tabernacle save for nice museums to visit!!!!!"

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist and her Shiite and Sunni Sisters and Brothers,

Your attempts to distract from the obvious flaws and errors of Islam continue to fail as they are still there just like they have been for the last 1400 years. Once again we remind you of the Five Steps to Deprogram your Islamic brainwashing. These Steps by the way are slowly making there way through the Muslim world as they are now permanent records on the great equalizer, the Internet.

Take it slow, it will finally come. I assume you have copied and pasted these steps into your "important things to do journal" but just in case, one more "thumper" just like the 1400 years of koran thumping.

Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

"1. Belief in Allah"

aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to your cleansing neurons.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist".

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."

A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels/"pwtfft"s to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.
Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.
"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."

Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

Accept these five "cleansers" and we guarantee a complete recovery from your Islamic ways!!!!

Hello Ahmed from Bahrain,

Re your post addressed to Concerned the Christian Now Liberated, you stated:

"I know, I know You would want to change the whole 1.3 billion Muslims. Let us start by one. Humble me. It will give you some practice to apply to the rest of the brutes.

Go for it."

Yep. Concerned the Christian Now Liberated thinks that he can change everyone's beliefs single-handedly. Can't even persuade Christians here.

He has been "going for it" with all Muslim posters and Muslim On Faith panelists, and still.....:)

Nope. He did not change a single Muslim mind and heart in On Faith threads. He is an excellent example as a civilised being, an advanced man and cultured fellow. Or, rather, a Crosssanized Christian or Catholic/Christian of Reality.

I am one brute, one non-noble savage still not in the fold on the civil world and civilisation of his desire out of my own free will.

If you are an old dog, I am a distaff dog.
(Can't use the "b" word here. Not polite)

Amazing is it not, these non-Muslim chaps wanting to liberate Muslim women like Victoria, Mischka and me from hijabs/burqas/chadors and to save us from the oppression and sexism of Muslim men and still we are not impressed. What does that say about them:)

Salam and regards

"J"

A little off the topic but this just ruins my week:

Ava Worthington, age 15 months: "Ava Worthington is dead. She was only 15 months old when she died. The people responsible are her parents, who relied only on prayer as their child expired before their eyes."

Madeline Neumann, age 11 years: "WESTON, Wisconsin - Police are investigating an 11-year-old girl's death from an undiagnosed, treatable form of diabetes after her parents chose to pray for her rather than take her to a doctor."

Two kids who very recently have died as a direct result of their parent's relying on FAITH instead of evidence-based, scientifically proven, medical interventions and likely cure.

Murder, in my view. When will this insanity end?

"isms" are disguisting, but I hope ON FAITH soon discusses this very relevant set of deaths that were entirely based on cures promised through faith and God's intervention.

This thread of over 70% males discoursing on racism and sexism in religion. No wonder women left it as I did - pallid and futile.

And some in the manimal kingdom here circling aroud Victoria - she a minority by gender and by faith here. Well done boys, even 16 year old Josh joining in the gang slamming.

I'll just leave you boys to talk on, but for one or two posts -

--------------------------------------------------

Hello Thomas Baum,

You (to CTCNL) : As I have also said previously, I do not hold it against Mohammed that he was deceived by satan considering that satan can try to come across as mister nice guy but as Jesus told us, "satan is a liar and a thief".

Moi : That's all right. I don't hold it against you for saying that. It was not in the Bible, but was taught subsequently by the church/churches - from the Catholic to the evangelical kinds.

I would probably be in a hissy fit if it was the Pope who said that and seek to align with other irate Muslims around the world to array a street rise and ruckus as an expression of our shock and dismay and discontent and displeasure and what have you.

So, for you my friend, when you said that about the Prophet, I'll let it pass.

So, Satan is a "liar and a thief". Can we take it that Enron and Bears Stearns executives are Satan incarnate? Or are those fellows tempted by Satan and yielded to temptatation?

Is Satan a male? That Hollywood movie, "Bedazzled" has Elizabeth Hurley as Satan in various slinky and sexy red rags and she drives the Lamborgini Diablo too.

At least there is one attempt of gender unbiasness in characterising Satan by Hollywood.

Hope you have had a great Easter my friend.

-------------------------------------------------
Concerned the Christian Now Liberated : " Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed."

Moi : My, my. Still obsessing on the original sin, or was it revised by you as sin of origin somewhere else? Come now, original sin or sin of origin, we are all born sinless.

And still obsessing on sex in Islam and Muslims? Hope the harems and belly dancers as painted and written up by over-imaginative Orientalists have not heated up the minds still.

Lust? Just because Catholic nuns and priests do give up sex and marraige does not mean we all have to. No good sex without lust. And preferably with your partners by law if married.

And where is the correlation that polygamy lead to more rapes and adultery? Or is there envy of Muslim men who can have up to four wives, including the ulema?

Hatred, anger and greed? Now, now, now.....we all know how hatred, anger and greed by men translated into wars. And men use rape as an instrument of war and subjugation. Boudicca's daughters got raped and then she waged war against the Romans. I'm with her anger and hatred on that as reason for war.

But of course we all know that hatred, anger and greed is only found among Muslims. It is so proven and all have the empirical evidence to prove it. I have not read of a single rape case in the US of A. Or was it in Utopia?

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated : The sexism stench of Islam is also attested to by Professors John Crossan, Marcus Borg and Paula Fredriksen, all Jesus Semnarians and On Faith Panelists, and Karen Armstrong, Elaine Pagels and Susan Jacoby, all On Faith Panelists.

Moi : Surely anyone who cared to Google up the Jesus Seminarians would see that women members are few.

And all you can manage to list are all Caucasians, including women, who are non-Muslims as "experts" on Islam and Muslims and on racism and sexism? Come now. Susan Jacoby is an expert on atheism.

Surely all knows that at least 90% of Muslims are not Caucasians, and over 90% of Muslims don't live in the west.

Do I smell the stench of racism and sexism here? All Caucasians and token Caucasian women one can count with the fingers of one hand only? And one former Muslim woman to be politically correct? Or to show she is all you know and heard of?

Come on, admit it, while Mrs. Concerned the Christian Now Liberated (if there is one) is busy doing the shopping for household items, cooking, cleaning, doing the laundry, sending and picking up kids to school, Mr. Concerned the Christian Now Liberated is thus free to pontificate on racism and sexism in On Faith threads.

Reform begins at home. Unless of course, you are not conscious on racism and sexism due to it being biologically inborn and/or culturally imbued.

Small test for you:

1. There is no racism in religion. Only against those who are not adherents of the same religion.

(a) true

(b) false

(c) none of the above

(d) all of the above

(e) this should be an essay question, not a multiple choice one

2. There is not sexism in religion. Only against the weaker, lesser sex.

(a) true

(b) false

(c) don't know

(d) don't care

Dear Stan -

I agree with you that god never existed in the first place. My response to Gary was on the philosophical level, ie: the concept of god is a man-made philosophical concept that has outlived its limited usefulness. God is philosophically dead, as is the "a slave is equal to 3/5 of a freeman" philosophy.

TO HUMANITY:

God is not dead or alive in the way that we use that terminology but as God said to the Old Testament Moses, "I AM WHO AM".

I suppose the Big Surprise will catch many unaware, believer and non-believer alike.

Take care, be ready, see you [ALL OF HUMANITY] in the Kingdom.

The night of the sixth day will arrive but the dawning of the seventh day [the new heavens and the new earth] will arrive also in due time [God's Time].

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hi CCNL

I am compelled to reply to you this time, since you have a great knack for cut and paste. Where did you learn this amazing art CCNL?

Sound like CSN - Crosby Stills and Nash. Man they were great artists.

You on the other hand, seem to be so concerned with stuff of 1500-2000 years ago. We can't change any of that and it is futile to do so. Energy should be spent in changing ourselves and you know what happens, when we change, slowly others around us will change.

Try it but start rewriting your scenarios afresh instead of cut and paste. I'd say at least 30% of the stuff written in these posts belong to you and all cut and paste. What a waste of space coz one has to plow thro to find anything worthy.

Anyway, I am a Muslim. What can I do for you. How would you like to see me change? Give me your description of the man you wish to turn me into. Let us say if you had the power to do so and I granted you your wish. What would you turn me into?

I know, I know You would want to change the whole 1.3 billion Muslims. Let us start by one. Humble me. It will give you some practice to apply to the rest of the brutes.

Go for it.

A word of caution. Am 59 years old and you know what they say about old dogs. Still am happy to learn new tricks, as long as they are not cut and paste, even an old dog like me would tire of that.

GaryD:

I couldn't find "mete" used with the Adam and Eve tale or a definition of 'mete' that would be appropriate. The New KJ version uses 'helper'.
The Darby translation does use "helpmate". However, some parts of the country or cultures may have used 'mete'.

Mr. Mark:

The statement shouldn't be 'God is dead' but simply 'god as described in the Old Testament never existed'. To state that He is dead implies that He was once alive; and also, that nothing similar to a God of the Universe is alive in the world today.

The subleties in the phrases that are allowed to be used are often overlooked.

GaryD writes:

"The Clinton's and their endless machinations have worn out friend and foe alike."

Finally, GaryD and I agree on something.

I liked Bill very much. On a personal level, my income rose substantially while he was president, I bought my first home and lived the American Dream.

Since Dopey took over, it's been a real struggle. Businesses all seem on edge, worried that there's no tomorrow and not looking towards relationship building and a bright future.

I would have been fine with Hillary as president. Certainly, she was a clear front runner and would have been better than anyone in the R field, including McCain. And, I had grave reservations about Obama at first, mostly related to his wearing his religion on his sleeve, a move that I correctly predicted would come back to haunt him.

But over the course of this campaign, I have lost tremendous respect for both Clintons. They seem interested only in Hillary winning and nothing else. As a lifelong Democrat who has had it with the destructiveness of RW rule, I want nothing more than a D-controlled Senate, House and WH. That said, Clinton's attacks on Obama have revealed an ugly side of her and her husband. Truth be told, they're acting like a couple of entitled Republicans. The attacks on Obama - who has really risen to the challenge of the campaign and elevated the discourse to a much better level - are simply unacceptable to me and to many Ds that I know. There are those of us who will hold our noses and vote for Hillary, but there are just as many who are seriously thinking of sitting this one out, at least if Hillary continues to stink up the place and to somehow steal the nomination from Obama.

She could have exited gracefully months ago. She didn't and she's only gotten worse since. Some people just don't understand the phrase, "the better part of valor." Hillary should have followed Edwards' lead and bowed out with her dignity and her Party intact. Instead, she's given us a crystal-clear indication of what her presidency would look like, and frankly, I don't like it in the least.

Funny how those who drop the political A-bomb never seem to understand that the fall-out can blow back their way in a heartbeat.

Which "ism" is more entrenched in America, sexism or racism? Which should religion address?

I would have to say the problem which is simplest is also the one most entrenched, and that would be sexism. Sexism is most entrenched because men and women have existed separate and with woman largely subordinate for millenia, but the problem is also simpler than racism because men and women have come to an understanding: that woman is the subordinate but complementary race. For all evils of sexism we do not try, as with racism, to wipe woman out altogether or make her radically similar to man in another effort make her extinct. The worst that can be expected for woman it seems is that she is subordinate, and at best complementary--or even equal in a great many respects.

Now with racism the picture is darker. Although it may seem great progress has been made with racism it has only quite recently become a problem historically speaking. Racism has increased and become a problem through civilizations coming into increased contact with one another--and it can even be said racism is something of the original problem of sexism writ large and with an as yet undefined outcome. We do not know if this or that race will become subordinate; complementary to other races; or be wiped out altogether--or become the superior race. Or mix with another race and become lost. Racism is less entrenched but is the looming problem.

And we can hardly expect the problem to get easier with the advent of the genetic sciences. With the genetic sciences differences between races (and between men and women) will become clearer, and we do not know what form society will take with respect to racial composition. Certain groups might be elevated and others subordinated in Brave New World fashion. Sexism might be overcome to an extent because if a race becomes superior to others its women will also enjoy an elevated position. We just do not know yet the outcome. And as for religion addressing the problem, it is addressing something largely biological, economic, political. What answers can it possibly have?

Religion at best historically speaking seems only to smear racial difference and keep women subordinate in something of a mixed race society. Perhaps Islam is the quintessential example. But religion has certainly promoted other forms of society what with the Hindu caste system or Christians bringing "civilization" to other societies. This is not to say Hindus and Christians are evil, but to simply point out one of the better aspects of Islam in a world in which it seems it is unanimous that Islam is the worst religion.

In the final analysis I am pessimistic about religion solving the problem unless it somehow continues at best to get races to mix even as science progresses and reveals differences between men, women and races.

Science and religion should of course go hand in hand on this problem.

Dear GaryD -

Thanks for your comments and for staying engaged in the discussion.

I've noticed that when challenged with some Biblical quote, your stock answer seems to be, "ignore what the words so obviously say, what they REALLY mean is X." Might I suggest that your particular interpretations are not those held by many Xians living today, and they most certainly are not the opinions that have been held by the majority of Xians over the centuries. In fact, your interpretations seem to be heavily influenced by secular philosophies, and recent secular philosophies at that, ie: equal rights irrespective of race, creed or gender.

It would appear that the "unchanging truths" of Xianity are open to human reinterpretation depending on the societal demands of the time. Or, perhaps god had men write down his words knowing full well that they'd be misinterpreted for thousands of years before people living in our time suddenly figured out what the words really meant (if so, how can we be sure we're not also misinterpreting?). Or, perhaps god's unchanging truths are as capricious as the most-human of guarantees?

Perhaps god does have a plan but the world has moved way beyond a need for his plan. Perhaps mankind has, in fact, eclipsed and nullified god's ability to enact any plan he came up with 6,000 years ago. After all, if Yahweh couldn't overcome the Caananites chariots of iron (Judges), then how the hell can he overcome the advances in technology and philosophy made since?

God is dead. Time to move on to a much brighter future.

Not hardly stan. The actual word was not mate but mete. Look it up some time. In christianity we are all supposed to be helpers, servants one unto the other. Jesus standard was Him who would be first among you let him be servant of all.

And while I am quite willing to admit that this particular commandment is honored far more often in the breach than in actual practice, It is impossible to make sense of any other new testament hierarchical statements without keeping it in mind.

To GaryD:

Making women servant/help mate to men was incorporated in the tale of Adam and Eve !!!!!!
So when did it start: before that tale or after that tale? Do you believe that writing was/is factually true as to what happened and established the order for the earth?? The Universe??

Stan you do know there is medication available for that sort of paranoia. The problem with Hillary is her last name. The Clinton's and their endless machinations have worn out friend and foe alike.

What you are seeing isn't people behind the scenes working (most of them don't get along either and half them are owned lock, stock, and barrel by Clinton Inc.) What you are seeing is the fact the Charisma works especially when wielded by a very clever politician who long ago figured out that the more you show people the more they have to get mad about so he is showing as little as possible and still have a campaign and relying on as Shelby Steele calls it the mask of tolerance.

The behind the scenes folk must put "keeping women in their place" at the top of the list. It should be without question that the media is being manipulated to bash Hillary and boost Obama.

A fundamental question for consideration should be: Can "in truth" self-government/democracy work in a mixed racial society with everyone voting? With women, races, and generations to manipulate it would seem that the behind the scenes group with unlimited funds has unlimited resoures to manipulate the people through the media to control elections as long as they can keep it to two dominant parties.

Ahmed, Ahmed, Ahmed,

To make mixed religion marriages work well one must correct the flaws in both religions to level the "playing field.

A synopsis of said flaws:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man suffered from hallucinations and has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven,warmongering, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds these acts of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

4. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

Judaism and Christianity have started to note their flaws. We await Islam to do the same.

Which 'ism' more prevalent in America? and How does religion address this?

Perhaps inter-race sex will solve both isms? Now, don't get too excited. I mean marriage between races. It does produce children of both isms who are better placed in uniting the two races of their parents. Another good side effects are beautiful children, good genes and most probably bilingual.

How does religion handles this. Well, it has nothing to do with religion but everything to do with us. Still here what Quran says:

"49:13 O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)."

How do we know each other? Marriage is the quickest route. Friendship and trade are other next good means means.

Cycle Two-

Part 1,

1. Sexism in the Catholic Church.

a) the refusal to allow women, single or married, to be priests using "fuzzy" references in scripture to make the case.

b) St. Paul the Prude as per Professor Bruce Chilton
An excerpt from his book, Rabbi Paul":

"He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any "pretty wingie talking fictional thingies" in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10). Simply add Paul's thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Christianity and a major factor in the Church's treatment of women.

Professor Chilton btw is a Professor of Religion at Bard College and a priest at the Free Church of St. John in Barrytown, NY.

c. And it is very probable that the Islamic scribes in the plagiarizing from the NT used Paul's ideas about women and added them to the sexist koran.

Hrm. You know, you posted that three times, and I'm still just not seeing why that sort of attitude holds such weight in public policy as it does.

Maybe it needs more spin, who knows.

Go ahead and see if it benefits you. But I will say this, you are dead wrong this time, however it wouldn’t do any good to tell you as such because everyone woman is judged based on your past dealings of pain/hurt from those relationships.

When does someone stop paying for the sins of another, NEVER?

Aha, Soja! You've spoken upon the unspoken, here:

"Men who abused their power positions have had to learn after the advent of feminism and emancipation that women are capable of abusing power too, and many women are capable of using their sexuality as a weapon of power with men. Men who have not mastered their sexual instinct remain helpless slaves to women who are past masters at manipulating men with their sex appeal."

That women have a magic power to treat men like men have treated women... thus must be 'pre-emptively' suppressed.

GaryD,

Hmmm, and what NT exegete agrees with your version of Paul's "prudish remarks"????

Yeah yeah yeah more misunderstanding and more misinterpretation along with a complete misunderstanding of what's at play here.

Paul did not advise women to dress modestly because he feared there sexuality but because he feared for their safety in a society in which women were and remained only slightly higher in status than slave until relatively recently.

There is something to the old saying that if it isn't for sale don't advertise it.

GaryD,

The topic is about "sexism" not "sexuality".

Whereas some Christian sects are opening up their leadership to women, the Catholics and Mormons have not.

Why? A lot of it has to do with "Prude Paul".

e.g.

As per Professor Bruce Chilton in his
book, Rabbi Paul":

"He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any "pretty wingie talking fictional thingies" in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10).

Simply add Paul's thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Christianity and a major factor in the Church's treatment of women.

Professor Chilton btw is a Professor of Religion at Bard College and a priest at the Free Church of St. John in Barrytown, NY.

Christianity has and continues to address the issue of both race and sexuality.

Christ Jesus said, "Love one another even as I have loved you"

Now all we have to do is figure out what love means and we're home free. Biblical love is nothing less than a caring concern for the physical and spiritual well being of another.

Biblical love - that is to say real love - doesn't keep score. Real love places its object ahead of its own needs wants or concerns. It is made complete by the mere existence of its object. It cares enough to correct but yet is not harsh. It sorrows when it's object sorrows and rejoices when it's object rejoices.

The issue of sexism can be properly addressed only after we have dealt well enough with the issue of human sexuality: the sexuality of males and females and how they relate to each other in sexual and non-sexual relationships.

Men who abused their power positions have had to learn after the advent of feminism and emancipation that women are capable of abusing power too, and many women are capable of using their sexuality as a weapon of power with men. Men who have not mastered their sexual instinct remain helpless slaves to women who are past masters at manipulating men with their sex appeal. So relating at the level of power is not the right way to form harmonious relationships. Men and women need to sit down and discuss needs, rights and responsibilities that will contribute to a better society that is safe for children and the weak and vulnerable. It is possible to learn to relate to men and women in their masculinity and feminity which is not sexual or competitive but complementary and mutually uplifting.

Religions have moral laws that cater to the needs of the weak and vulnerable (rules regarding marriage and family are timeless), but the males in positions of power have tended to keep their positions of worldly power in a state of unbalance. Enter women on the scence, there is chaos because men and women are still in the process of working out a proper balance.

Mothers, who have the greatest influence on their children when they are young, need to ask themselves what values they teach and model to their sons and daughters. All machos and every male tyrant was once a little boy who depended on their mothers...

Libraries could be devoted to discussing the issue. Let the discussion begin also at the level of religions more consciously and more intensely.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

When one considers the problem with racism, it is important to determine the origin of the problem.

Every race has some strengths and some weaknesses, some remarkable achievements and some abysmal failures. If every member of every race could consciously learn to identify with both (strengths and weaknesses) in themselves and in other races, we will have contributed a great deal to understanding the human family better, to learning from each other and to appreciating the contribution each race makes to the welfare of the human family. The world has now become an interdependent global village, so the need to deal with this problem is no longer a luxury but an absolute necessity. It is not about races competing with each other but about each member of every race being their best selves for the harmonious functioning of the human family, where each member has the opportunity to develop their highest potential for the benefit of all; where the strength of one is not used to the detriment of the weak etc.

This is the great wisdom that religions with no national or racial borders teach us.

The problem is not about how many pigment cells our skins have been endowed with by our Creator, the colour of our eyes or hair, the shape and size of our bones, but what importance we bestow to these attributes, how we define beauty, what role "our definition" of physical beauty influences our life, and how much we think it contributes to the person's character or skills which is what ultimately determines the ways in which we are directly or indirectly affected by that person's actions. Do short, ugly, black human beings who manifest selflessness and universal love mean less to me than a tall, white, handsome blue eyed narcissists who live only for themselves, exploiting the weak and vulnerable? Do I believe the reality of human life that good and bad people come in all colours, shapes and sizes, and judge each person on their individual merit?

Yes there is such a thing as collective racial sins (and virtues) which each one carries in their collective consciousness, which acts as a conditioning, a predisposition to committing racial sins (or being virtuous) in one's own life. But a predisposition is just that, a predisposition. One is free to act independently of the predisposition. That is what bringing an issue to conscious awareness does. It helps us deal with the problem consciously. Only the problem that is faced and named can be overcome. As long as it hides as an unconscious predisposition, it will retain its deadly potential to cause harm unconsciously, without the individual being aware of it.

Non-whites who live among majority whites adapt and evolve in extremely complex ways that it is essential to understand the complex mechanism individually in dealing with them. It is foolish to apply simplistic labels on them. Similarly whites who live or deal with non-whites also relate in very different ways, each one according to their own level of consciousness and conditioning and personal values. There is no 'one size fits all' way in which they relate. While it is useful to develop some general guidelines based on general patterns seen, it is always necessary to keep in mind that each human being is so unique, each biography and conditioning so unrepeatable, and the human free will gives each human being the freedom to develop in completely different ways. Relying on what the genetics camp or the behavioural camp alone say can be very misleading, although they do provide some valuable hints.

Question:

Sexism or Racism? Which "ism" is more entrenched in America, sexism or racism? Which should religion address?

As an Indian-Australian woman and a world citizen, I wish to applaud Sally, Jon and David for posting this question. It brings to our attention two very important issues that must be dealt with consciously. There is a long road ahead for all of us. It is vital that we be reminded repeatedly how long the road really is and how much work there needs to be done.

First, I wish to note that this question, which is being asked in the American context, is relevant to all peoples around the world; and every nation, every race, every community, every family, every individual the world over must deal with both questions.

Secondly, I wish to point out that they are two separate questions: it is not sexism OR racism, but sexism AND racism. The impact of each issue on the welfare of the human family are different, each must be assessed separately and solutions to both the problems brainstormed and worked out separately.

Thirdly, religions must address both issues.

Finally, the solution to the problem must not be left to religions alone, for there are millions of nominal believers who do not attend religious services and believers for whom sermons are not an integral part of their religious worship,(eg most Hindus and Buddhist who go to temples for worship); believers who are not influenced in anyway by the preaching they listen to, and the vast number of atheists and anti-theists who must depend on their own sense of right and wrong...

Families and educational institutions must play their part in addressing the issues and seeking solutions.

The issue about race has the easiest solution from a religious/spiritual perspective. The human spirit/the eternal soul has no race or gender. The spirit/soul resides in a body-mind/tent that has a particular gender and the skin a certain number of pigments. At the human level we make the differences but in God's spiritual world, which alone is eternal, such differences counts for nothing. The differences we make at the human level is learnt at the human level. To verify: watch a young child which has not yet learnt to differentiate and has not been negatively influenced by parents/environment in its development.

Religions must address the ways in which they have added fuel to the fire of sexism, and seek to extinguish the fire.

Most pastors and priests will find that they have a lot of work to do on themselves regarding both issues first!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

The writers of the Bible got a lot of things right; however, they just mixed in things to help explain the world and for their own benefit. Even the concept of God designing different races is most likely correct but went off course when it claims God's preference for a particular race at the expense of all others. If God designed different races (as opposed to 'evolution of species'), then Obama's wanting "to make the world as it ought to be" should be an interesting activity.

Years ago Fortune Magazine had an article about a fellow that tried to "design a new world in five days when the previous record was six". Reckon how long it will take Obama "to make it like it ought to be"? Who will be the architect? Who will be the assembler? And who will be the Controller/Enforcer?????

Clearly, evolution of species by 'natural selection' would be out.

Thomas, The Hallucinator" Baum,

You are in reality a clone of Spiderman2 aka CanyonShearer, aka Bible Thumper, Fortune Teller and Severely Brainwashed in that Old Time Religion,

"Fools are those who have read only the bible. God cannot be proud of such lazy creations!!!!"

To reiterate:

What "voodooer of the hoodoo" blessed you with such stupidity in the field of fortune telling and interpretations of said stupidity???

TO FRED EVIL:

Maybe you should read what I write before putting a label on me.

I have met God, the Trinity, and some of the people that try to shove the bible down other people's throats seem to think that the bible is God when in fact God is God.

There seems to be many that know God's Name but that is about the only thing that they know about God.

It doesn't matter if you believe in God or not, God is real whether you or anyone else believes that He Is.

Believing that Jesus is God-Incarnate, which He Is, and actually accepting His invitation to, "Come follow Me" can be two completely different things.

There are some that follow Jesus that don't even believe that He Is Who He Is and there are others who believe that Jesus is God-Incarnate and not only don't follow Him but twist not only what He taught but also what He lived and died for.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Baum :
It is wrong for anyone to use any justification to force themselves or their ideas or their beliefs upon another.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

*Truly stated.*

Yet Fred my boy that the atheistic world is devolving into chaos in which at the edges nothing is known and may not even be knowable.

To Thomas Baum - "I am not a bible thumper"

YES YOU ARE.

I am less concerned about sexism or racism, than I am about Theism. The inclination of those whose constructs of the universe involve a magical entity responsible for everything within, their lack of intellectual curiosity and the mental laziness that allows so many humans to accept such fantastical stories as 'truth.' Even worse, their judgement of those around them who recognize the silliness inherent in their perspective of the universe.

This planet is in a bad way until more of us grasp the foolishness and vacuity represented by Theism today.

How many of you who 'Judge not, lest ye be judged yourselves' would even CONSIDER voting for an atheist?

You can't even grasp your hypocrisy, rooted in fallacy.

THUMP ON!! The rest of the planet will evolve without you!

Daniel please quit listening to the race baiters.

For the overwhelming majority of Caucasian Americans race is an issue to exactly the degree you wish it to be. People don't like being place on the defensive. Please read Shelby Steele's latest book.
While I would tend to disagree slightly with his terminology most of his analysis is dead on. He is African-American if that matters to you and I sincerely hope it doesn't.

TO CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED:

You wrote, "Thomas, the hallucinator, and Moses of the NT has declared that he will no longer thump the bible."

I am not a bible thumper, I am a messenger.

God is real and is a Trinity and is a Being of Pure Love whether anyone believes that or not is not my concern, I have been chosen by God and I am here to do what God chose me to do.

God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and His Plan will come to Fruition.

God's Plan is for ALL OF HUMANITY and is also for ALL OF CREATION, the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth] will arrive at the dawning of the seventh day, the day that [God Blest, Rested and made Holy], of course, the night of the sixth day will come first, as Jesus told us, "There is work to be done during the day and night is coming when no man can work, be ready".

Jesus is God-Incarnate just like He said, He is not a second-rate prophet as the god of islam, who is satan, claims Jesus to be.

As I have also said previously, I do not hold it against Mohammed that he was deceived by satan considering that satan can try to come across as mister nice guy but as Jesus told us, "satan is a liar and a thief".

As I have also previously stated: The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

And as I have also previously stated: It is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth], this is spoken of in Revelations.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

The first four flaws/errors of Islam to include those related to sexism:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that a hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female/sexist words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

For B.arking perverts and s.lutes information,

More than 95% of mature Muslim World get married to single man or women. And they DO get married and tend to stay with same person for life.

What do you have to compare with Muslims?
Only adulterors and fornicators from teen to 80?

Moody, Moody, Moody,

Sexism in Islam- The Reality

a) Its operating manual, the koran, reeks with the stench of sexism just ask Hirsi Ali.

b) A portion of the fourth major flaw of Islam-

" Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed."

What to do about it???

Deflaw the koran!!!!!!

Which "ism" is more entrenched in America, sexism or racism? Which should religion address?

I would have to say the problem that has been increasing over time historically speaking--for hundreds of years--has been the problem of racism, and this is because civilizations have increasingly come into contact with one another. Sexism is of course a problem, but as complicated as it is, it is a simpler problem. Although women have been subordinate to men for centuries--milleniums--and today we expect equal rights for them, they have also evolved to be something of a complementary race to man, a race with different and well recognized abilities.

And with race we have something different, something more complex. There are various sorts of racism. We do not speak of races complementing one another as women complement men. That is a form of racism. Another form is expecting a race to be radically similar to our own. Still another is throwing a race into a subordinate position or trying to wipe it out all together.

Looking over the situation as a whole, it seems the problem of race is something of the primitive relationship of man to woman all over again but writ large and with the increased consciousness of the present condition of the human race. In other words we do not quite know what to make of a different race, just like we did not know what to make of woman once. And of course we still do not know what to make of woman. But at least we do not try to wipe woman out or make her radically similar to man. In fact we accept her as the complement of man.

But all this is new in race relationships. We do not know if races will become radically similar to us--melt into whatever race we belong to--or if races will complement our own. Or if we will be engaged in subordinating races or wiping them out altogether. In short, we are quite new to the concept of race. And unfortunately all this will come to a head with the advance of the genetic sciences.

With advances in genetics we will have increased tension between races--desires to make similar and to differentiate--and no doubt the relationship of man to woman even will become more tense. Science will clarify and put into historical perspective the problem of race and sex and we do not know the outcome yet...

And to expect religion to have the answer...

Well religion might have the answer if it is flexible and is simply something of faith coupled with reason...

We have to be extremely careful.

With science entering the picture we do not know what form race relations will take. We do not know if attempts will be made to make races similar to whatever race we belong to. We do not know if we will try to wipe races out or subordinate them in some sort of Brave New World fashion. And it seems feeble to say the best that can be achieved is that races will become complementary as woman is to a large extent in relationship to man.

I hope that clarifies the picture.

This is an exceedingly difficult question, one difficult to shed light on, to organize in mind.

No doubt religion will have to go hand in hand with science on this one. There should be no conflict between the two. Race and sex depend on it.

It’s not only about plain sex, like you eat when you feel hungry.

It’s ABOUT sexual rights upon each other. YOU CAN EAT, BUT CAN'T STEEL......STEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELA.

Does EVERY BODY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE?
I guess yes?

But is every single soul who become in control is JUST & FARE??? How could we make sure?????

How could we prevail justice and fareness?
THE ANSWER IS, ONLY BY FOLLOWING & "IMPLEMENTING" FARE AND JUST RULES "IN SEXUAL RELATIONS AS WELL".

I can understand that my comments will hurt the DEVILS (SEX PROMOTERS IN GENERAL MEDIA, TRADERS, PERVERTS & HIDDEN SUPPORTERS (RULERS IN THE WHOLE WEST) FOR THERE OWN CRIMINAL INTENSIONS).

FOR THEM EVERY THING GOES AND OKAY UNTIL THERE DAUGHTER IS SAFE!!!!!!!

Thomas, the hallucinator, and Moses of the NT has declared that he will no longer thump the bible.

Halleluja!!!!!

It is wrong for anyone to use any justification to force themselves or their ideas or their beliefs upon another.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Which "ism" is more entrenched in America, sexism or racism? Which should religion address?

I would have to say the "ism" that has increased over time historically speaking--centuries upon centuries--has been racism. Sexism of course has existed for millenia, but the relationship of man to woman is complicated: on one hand we have the modern age with its demand for not only equal opportunity but the claim that men and women are identical as to ability, and on the other we have woman as the "complementary race" in relationship to man, a creature that has evolved with complementary abilities and finds a measure of satisfaction in these abilities.

And this is different when we speak of race proper. We never speak of one race being complementary to another. In fact there are roughly three forms of racism: 1) we expect a race to be complementary to our own. 2) We expect a race to be radically similar to our own. And 3) we expect a race not to exist if not capable of the first two. So in the modern age we oscillate between expecting a race to be exactly like our own (and much of this is hidden in equal rights and equal abilities, etc.) or we expect a race to be separate, with different abilities, something of an extension of the concept of a division of labor (although we do not speak of races being complementary).

In short we are very confused in the modern age. And unfortunately this will probably only increase with the advance of science. Religion has been accused of being divisive--and this is true--but with the advance of the sciences of genetics we have an extended meditation on sex and race. We come to see in essence our differences and with race we can expect something of an extension of the tension of man in relationship to woman. In short, men have had a tense relationship to women in the sense of wanting to make women like themselves, or hating women, or relegating them to a complementary race apart. And we can expect this to spread to civilizations, races, ethnic groups, apart from ourselves--but especially races.

So we can say sexism was the original problem but is now not as fierce as might be expected. But the original problem has been magnified in race relations and the question is whether we can achieve a measure of understanding as we have arrived at with man in relationship to woman.

But particularly do I want to warn about the genetic sciences coming upon us. We have religion questioned as to whether it can deal with sexism and racism but science is making the problem a lot more complex and clearer and it is doubtful that religion as it exists now can solve the problem. The tension between desires to differentiate and make similar will only increase with the genetic sciences and navigating the difficulties will require reason, the ability to make intelligent discriminations. Without intelligence at the helm we are only likely to discriminate in the negative sense.

We have to be careful that with science we do not arrive at a world in which races are starkly different and we have division of labor taken to the extreme of having races separate and at best complementary...It seems doubtful that races can be as complementary as man is in relationship to woman...But perhaps I am wrong. The main thing though is that people freely choose what course they want to take. If increased separation between the races must occur it must be freely chosen and not instinctive as the relationship between man and woman. We have been lucky that women and men complement each other. We should not rely on luck again if races must complement each other at all.

In general races should probably fuse--but not fuse out of a hostile desire to make the "other" similar to ourselves. A complex process no doubt.

We should hope religion can provide some insight into it--or religion will only make it more difficult.

Argh wrong homonym meant accept rather then except.

Realizing fully that you are being facetious, anonymous, you'll have to use bullets as too many of your targets live among those who except such equality;)

Why dont we bomb all those who dont

believe in sexual and racial equality ?

Part 4 - Racism

1) The Catholic/Christian Churches-

a) parishes especially in the US need to integrate.

b) real estate agents should be reminded that denying minorities access to white neighborhoods is a serious sin.

c) interracial marriage should not be frowned upon.

2) Islam

a) Darfur!!!!!!

b) Sunnis vs Shiites - different races??? It appears that way.

" Great Rivers flow with silent majesty

Shallow brooks are noisy "

Iconoclast:

Ironic? Hmmm...only partly.

Glaucon:

Well, you know, the Thracians did a pretty good job of it.

TexasTim:

Yes, they are talking about them. While Levinas is not the "solution," he at least offers a lingua franca for people concerned with the ideals you mentioned.

Cathy:

You are very kind.

Hi Josh,

Not a hero, surely!

Farnaz:

Tolerance, acceptance, brotherhood on a blog titled OnFaith?

Did you mean to be ironic?

Farnaz:

Not happy at the Piraeus? You're not alone.

Glaucon

Farnaz,

Tolerance, justice, brotherhood? People are speaking about these things?

Sounds good to me! Will check out Levinas.

Farnaz,

Josh wrote to you: "You are my hero."

You're mine too!

Cathy

Hey Farnaz,

You are my hero.

Josh

Dear Daniel in the Lyons Den:

I can see why you would think some of these postings cryptic, "'inside' stuff."

But I assure you Emmanuel Levinas was not inside. He was all about the outside, actually. He was an ethicist, who has become a "seminal" thinker in academia. He believes that every human being has a responsibility to the Other. He maintains that each of is morally obligated to know the Other as best s/he can while taking the Other on his/her own terms. Ultimately, what that means is that full knowledge is impossible as it would mean assimilating the Other to oneself, an act of violence.

For many people, reading Levinas is enormously difficult. Wikepedia has a reductive, inaccurate overview, but the links to some of the concepts are all right. The Stanford Encyclopedia is more detailed, somewhat more accurate. Both are included in search results for Levinas, as are many other sites.

I should add that Levinas steadfastly insisted that his philosophical writings were separate from his theological writings, although some question this since his belief that justice is the hope of humanity is clearly Judaic. Levinas would have thought the phrase "social justice" to be redundant. Justice, in Judaism, means ending poverty, exploitation, expropriation, etc., etc., theft of identity, etc.

Judaism is Christianity's Other, by the way. Levinas would say, all-but-did say. Christianity must know Judaism, on its own terms. He's not alone of course. Many Christians have said the same.

The important thing about Levinas for OnFaith is the hope that he holds out for tolerance, brotherhood, acceptance of the Other, every Other.

AOL Search results for "Levinas"

Take care.

Farnaz

The last few posts seem a little cryptic and hard to understand. I guess it is all "inside" stuff.

I wish we had a new question.

Maybe they should ask what style of church architecture is most conducive to being very relgious? Yeah that sounds about right.

Time for some thumping:

Part 2- Sexism in Islam

a) Its operating manual, the koran, reeks with the stench of sexism just ask Hirsi Ali.

b) A portion of the fourth major flaw of Islam-

" Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed."

c) The sexism stench of Islam is also attested to by Professors John Crossan, Marcus Borg and Paula Fredriksen, all Jesus Semnarians and On Faith Panelists, and Karen Armstrong, Elaine Pagels and Susan Jacoby, all On Faith Panelists.

Hey Farnaz,

Do you see my point? Levinas, Farnaz? Philosophy?

Here's the scientist or maybe alchemist Chris E.,
whose main concern is with his panties.

Levinas?

Josh

Ok, we're done, here; racism and sexism is a problem; religion should deal with it;

Next question.

Shibboleth!

Ok, we're done, here; racism and sexism is a problem; religion should deal with it;

Next question.

Chris E:

Try untwisting your own panties before fixating on others. You could be accused of voyeurism.

Farnaz

Well, I went back to the Resurrection Faith thread and perused it a little. Wow. You religious folk sure know how to get your panties in a wad.

Victoria:

Please tell us the answer to Just Wondering's question. You live in Queens.

Also, verses that were said for Danny Pearl. Still they are said. Please tell us.

elegantly stated portmoodygal

daniel- yes, men and women are equal but different in ability- men can impregnate and women can give birth-

different abilities, each useless without the other.

hi chris- by all means- your input is always logically stated, and appreciated.

Chris E:

This Victoria business is not my problem. But it is very difficult for me, a nonMuslim, indeed, an atheist, to understand how you can be this thick.

There are serious doubts about Victoria who has long posted on this web. Many people think she's fraudulent, an imposter, misrepresenting herself as Muslim. I'm not going to say more, since any literate person can draw the obvious conclusions from the postings on the Resurrection Faith thread, and I don't want to interfere with what Just Wondering, Malik, Nadeem, and Samir are trying to accomplish.

Scientists are usually capable of reading, ahistorically, but they can read.

This may be too difficult for you. If so, don't tire yourself out.

Josh

Samir,

I read Just Wondering's post, and I went to the Resurrection Faith thread looking for "Danny" or "Perl". I'm not going to read through all 121 posts there.

But I still can't figure out what you hope to accomplish, and frankly, on review I can't tell what "Please tell us the appropriate verses to say to help us for Danny" even means. It seems that YOU want the help, but it's nevertheless FOR Danny. Facinating.

Also, what conclusions are you implying I leapt to? My post had no statements at all, only questions.

Chris E.

Scroll down and read Just Wondering. Then scroll up and read my posting. Then go to the Resurrection Faith thread.

See what we mean?

You are scientist? Scientists look before they leap to conclusions.

That sir was in response to your statement concerning over 300 verses in the Bible that you found demeaning to women.

Sorry you didn't make the connection. Sorry, but not terribly surprised leftist and atheist are so frequently predictable.

Samir,

Isn't Danny dead? Killed by religious radicals? What do you hope to accomplish?

Josh H,

See what I mean?

Josh H,

Very well said. Religion is institutionalized ignorance. It will brainwash you into believing in a nonsensical fantasy world. Once that happens, your morals will become fixed to things that don't even exist. Then your actions, especially your most morally high-minded actions, are liable to be foolish or even evil, because you will be acting on behalf of nothing save your own delusions.

Just think about the Mormons, Christian Scientists, etc, that prosthelytize at your door. They think they're doing the most important thing possible - saving souls. But they're doing the exact opposite - stealing minds. Steer clear, my friend.

Nadeem wrote to Victoria:

"Please tell us the appropriate verses to say to help us for Danny."

I want to know also. Please tell us.

I may be only 16, but through my lifetime it seems as though religion itself has become very means for prejudice. How is religion supposed to uphold and create tolerance for race, and sex, when it barely manages to create tolerance for other groups who in a more general picture are trying to stress a subject that they all can agree upon, morals. Tolerance comes from respect, yet in only respecting those that agree with their religious beliefs the message that spawns tolerance is distorted from the very beginning.

I may be only 16, but through my lifetime it seems as though religion itself has become very means for prejudice. How is religion supposed to uphold and create tolerance for race, and sex, when it barely manages to create tolerance for other groups who in a more general picture are trying to stress a subject that they all can agree upon, morals. Tolerance comes from respect, yet in only respecting those that agree with their religious beliefs the message that spawns tolerance for other things such as race and gender roles is distorted from the very beginning.

Just Wondering:

My aunt met Danny Pearl in Pakistan. She said he was a "free spirit". She liked him and she was afraid for him.

Victoria,

Please tell us the appropriate verses to say to help us for Danny.

Sister Farnaz,

My aunt was educated in US. She spends a lot of time here and has many Jewish friends. She explained to me the tetragrammaton and other things. I know it is more complicated but I could understand some things.

You wrote about the Quarayza Jews. I am sorry. The next time the cockroaches come out you can say this. I will help.

Nadeem

Victoria:

I do not live in Queens, and so I am eager to hear your answer to Just Wondering's question.

Both “isms”, along with many other forms of discrimination (weight, height, socio-economic, age etc…) are entrenched in our society. As a white woman, it would be natural for me to say that sexism is more deeply entrenched. That is because I view life through my own set of filters and experiences, as do all people. While we do not have control over what other people say and do, we do have control over our reactions. We need to own and work to change our personal filters because they cause us to jump to conclusions that may, in fact, be erroneous. When my boss asks me to take notes – is that sexism or is it because I take excellent, well-organized notes? When another boss told me “you are different, you work like a man”, should I get upset, or have a dialogue with him about what “working like a man” means to him? Another example: I was in a nail salon in Toronto, and a black girl came in. When the owner asked her if she would like to pay before he painted her nails, she flipped out, accusing the owner (who was Vietnamese) of being racist. He was actually trying to do her a favour; we all pay before getting our nails painted so that we don’t smudge the polish. I tried to explain this to her, but no go. I know that she left the salon thinking we were ALL racist. That was her filter at work. I just feel like we’ve all played the victim card too much. Is it fair that some people have to work twice as hard to overcome discrimination? No. Get over it. Life isn’t fair. Organize, participate in local government,change things from within. Be part of the solution. Excellence is the ultimate equalizer.

Which "ism" is more entrenched in America, sexism or racism? Which should religion address?

I would have to say racism is the bigger problem--the problem which has increased over time historically speaking. Sexism of course has been a problem for millenia, but the relationship of man to woman is complicated: on one hand with the passage of time we have come to expect, to consider, woman equal to man not only in opportunity but equal in ability, but historically speaking it seems woman has received a measure of satisfaction being complementary to man, as if a race different from man which does not compete with man but is complementary.

And this is different when we consider race relationships proper. Over time historically speaking as civilizations have come into increased contact, we have come to expect that the "other" should become like ourselves. In other words we are less likely to tolerate other races being complementary to our own, if such a thing is possible at all. In fact such a consideration could well be considered a type of racism. So we now live in the modern age in which we expect all races not only to be equal in opportunity, but equal in ability. And we even expect woman to be similar to man.

I would say we are very confused in the modern age--a confusion which will only increase with the genetic sciences. We expect politically for men, women and races to be radically similar to one another and really have no imagination for races (and women) to be something of an extension of division of labor economically speaking, which is to say really with different abilities and complementary. And to expect religion to address the issue is to expect religion to address something it has never really addressed before.

But I particularly want to warn about our entering the genetic age, the age succeeding postmodernism.
The genetic age will bring to light all the differences between races and men and women and we will have increased tension between desires to differentiate and to make similar. And this can play havoc economically and politically speaking.

Take a piece today (thursday the 27th of march 2008) written in the Wash. Post by David Ignatius. He writes that the Democrats should not be talking up economic protectionism as they go into Pennsylvania and should instead by talking up the possibilities of innovation, Schumpeter's (the economist) "creative destruction". I would ask Ignatius to consider that such creative destruction is premissed on education not only really being able to deliver, but premissed on each generation of humans really being more advanced than the previous, capable of continual adaptation and growth.

To make a long story short, I foresee an age arriving in which the genetic sciences will be thrust upon us by the fear of foreign economic competition (because only genetic solutions can provide continual schumpeterian creative destruction) and that this is going to play havoc with race relations (and male female relations) and we have to ask if more black males are going to be incarcerated than ever before. Or if through the genetic sciences we are going to create races really complementary to one another (and increase the difference between men and women) in a type of Brave New World fashion.

We try to make everyone equal not only in opportunity but in ability, and in this sense religion really is not as divisive as so many think when compared to the genetic sciences coming upon us, but it is doubtful if religion can solve the problem because it has been divisive and shortsighted in the past (a paradox somewhat in other words).

But to answer the question directly of which is the bigger problem, I would say racism rather than sexism. The tension is greater with racism, the desire to both equalize and differentiate. The problem of man in relationship with woman is of course great, but men and women have also evolved to be complementary, to live with difference even if trying to equalize things across the board.

Racism is the bigger problem and unfortunately unless we are vigilant will only increase with the genetic sciences. Perhaps religion can provide this vigilance for us.

Q: "Which "ism" is more entrenched in America, sexism or racism?
Which should religion address?"

A: If religions were doing their jobs teaching right relationships, healing, loving thy neighbor instead of their aggressive, competitive, exclusive dogmas, we would not be living with these pathologies. Like bullying, sexism and racism, no matter where they are expressed, or by whom, should be treated as mental health issues in the perpetrator(s).

Living in the Bible Belt USA, I must say I've never heard such vicious blather as comes out of the mouths of self-described "good Christians". Oh man. I don't think religion is going to clean house and transform itself into a truly useful department of life. But, there is a movement out there which holds out hope for the future. http://www.justice4peace.org

Chuck Colson is the embodiment of ISM. Few are more hateful of non-Christians and secularists than Chuck Colson. And, how typical for Colson to cite skewed history. Religion has done more to set women back (worldwide) than anything else, and women like Susan B. Anthony knew that. She stated, "But while I do not consider it my duty to tear to tatters the lingering skeletons of the old superstitions and bigotries, yet I rejoice to see them crumbling on every side."
As for racism, the most cruel and fervent supporters of US slavery were southern Christian ministers.
Why is the Washington Post even giving Chuck Colson a voice? He is a blatant idiot.

Part 3 - Sexism in Corporations

a) the overwhelming number of male corporate executives and board members.

b) the forever present "glass ceiling".

c) unequal pay for equal work.

What should religions do about it? Insist these inequalities are eliminated by sermons, by forcing the issue via proxy statements and by proxy voting for only female members.

from a female perspective i have to say, although deceased,isn't henry james charming?

Longtime poster- Victoria tells us she is a Muslim living in Queens NY. Perhaps she will tell us wtf is going on with Muslims in Queens--

"On any given day, log on to RevolutionMuslim.com and a host of startling images appear:

— The Statue of Liberty, with an ax blade cutting through her side;

— Video mocking the beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl, entitled “Daniel Pearl I am Happy Your Dead“;

— Video of a puppet show lampooning U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq;

— The latest speech from Sheikh Abdullah Faisal, an extremist Muslim cleric convicted in the UK and later deported for soliciting the murder of non-Muslims.

Even more surprising is that RevolutionMuslim.com isn’t being maintained in some remote safe house in Pakistan. Instead, Yousef al-Khattab, the Web site creator, runs it from his home in the New York City Borough of Queens."

http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=1158#more-1158

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341811,00.html

Hi Josh,

I did read your reply on the Resurrection Faith thread. Sorry it took me awhile to respond, but I have been swamped.

Anyway, good luck with trying to explain the tetragrammaton. Maybe CCNL can just remove it from his list. I do not mean to be discouraging, but I have found that most, although not all Christians, do not want to know about Judaic subjectivity--for obvious reasons. Maybe CCNL is an exception.

That is why I thought about Levinas. Having been expropriated, turned upside down, inside out, slanted left and right, he is known to many educated people of all faiths in Europe, America, India, etc. He is probably floating around in popular discourse.

Some current "incarnations" of Levinas could put an end to some of the anger and intolerance on this blog. They could lead to rational discussion. You will say not possible, not what Quinn wants. You are probably right.

I'm signing off now.

Take care.

Farnaz

CCNL:

You are still speaking from a Christian perspective. It's your idea of belief or disbelief in the tetragrammaton that's silly, antrhopomorphic, oxymoronic nonsense, etc.

The tetragrammaton is a construct. It cannot be pronounced. That's the point. I mean no disrespect, but it's not a person, not a god. No Jew anywhere on the planet would refer to YHWH in speaking to a person literate in Judaism.

This ninetheenth-century European insanity of "the Jews believe in Yahweh" is still present in introductions to religion texts edited by Christians. It would be almost laughable if people weren't having students pay money for these books.

Josh

Josh,

You noted: "The idea of belief in the tetragrammaton is anthropomorphic nonsense, oxymoronic,intellectually insulting."

I, of course, agree with you. In the Five Step Deprogramming of Islam, the first step is to accept all possible forms of anthropomorophic nonsense as infinite dilution of Allah et al but yet have some "wiggle room" for the remote possibility of some form of Singularity.

Daniel,

I have heard some of the Pastor Wright's sermons...all of the ones his 30 seconds were chose from. One of the more agrieved comments was repeated by the Pastor. A white man said it first on a talking head show. They really are not what was portrayed on the 24/7 loops. So who took all that time to look through all those clips to find 30 seconds from 5 years apart? And why?

People were so willing to spout their condemning of Wright..but what of Pastor Parsley...the spiritual advisor of Mccain. He says America was created to kill Muslims. Or Haggee...another one that hates and spouts hate. But who says anything about them, or Haggard, or Falwell, or Robertson or any number of the white hate mongers? So what is the difference? White racism.

My best friend is a gay black man, he is honest, intelligent, well read, funny, can not decorate worth crap...LOL. He does not fit the stereotype at all. He has been shown an amazing amount of isms...and still comes out the other side with strength and balance.

I just don't see how the color of a man's skin is a judge to their spirit and character. Or if any gender is best. Thatcher was pretty much as hard and war like as any man, proving her ability to fit in with the boys...she lost what a woman can give.

terra

Josh wrote to CCNL:

"You're unbelievable. To self-riveted to read posts addressed to you?

I'm not going anywhere by the way."

Me, too. I'm not going anywhere.

CCNL:

You're unbelievable. To self-riveted to read posts addressed to you?

I'm not going anywhere by the way.

Ooops, make that:

"Victoria and the Obfuscating Jihadist suffer from the cult-like brainwashing of Islam."

CCNL:

Huda E. wrote to CCNL:

"I suggest you go back to the Ressurection Faith thread and read the recent posts if you haven't done that already."

Ditto from me. In case it's too hard for you to that, here is my post copied for your convenince.

CCNL wrote:

"1. Belief in Allah"

"aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to your cleansing neurons.

YHWH and other variants are the tetragrammaton. This business of referring to "belief" in the tetragrammaton developed with nineteenth century religious "scholars" who assimilated other religions to Christianity. The idea of belief in the tetragrammaton is anthropomorphic nonsense, oxymoronic,intellectually insulting.

With a Ph.D. in the Hebrew Bible, you should know this. I would think that despite whatever you may have been taught back in the day, you were given the tools to pursue further research. It's important to understand the subjectivity of other people's beliefs regardless of what you might think.

Take this from an atheist.

HEY FARNAZ,

I posted to you on the Resurrection Faith thread. Are you still visiting this blog?

Josh

CCNL:

I suggest you go back to the Ressurection Faith thread and read the recent posts if you haven't done that already. Victoria is a liar and a fraud. She has been caught lying on other threads. She is a plagiarist, and she is not Muslim.

We have enough problems without sickos her.

Daniel, Daniel, Daniel of the Lions Den,

Victoria is a Muslim. As such she suffers from its cult-like brainwashing.

Unfortunately most of us here have suffered or are suffering from some type of religious brainwashing. You and I suffer or have suffered from Christian brainwashing and the many flaws of Christianity.

Recognizing the flaws of contemporary religions goes a long way in deprogramming the brainwashing that has been going on for "many a millenium".

These flaws have been presented many times. You know them. Hopefully your deprogramming continues.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated

In your verbal jousts with Jihadist, I can see that you have a stereotyped image of Muslim people in your mind, and I can see that she does not really seem to match up very well with your stereotype. In fact, she often comes off better than you do. Without trying to provoke an argument with you, which I will certainly try and avoid, can't you see that? I think of her as "one of us" who, for some strange and weird reason, likes to read this stuff and comment. Don't you see her as "one of us" too? If someone has a religious belief that you do not like, that does not mean that you should dislike that person, too, if that person is a likable person. Think of all the likable people you would miss out on knowing. You seem to be holding some sort of secret psychological grudge that is pretty much hidden from the rest of us. I just wonder what it could be.

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

Coming to grips with the flaws of Islam is no doubt more of a problem for you then the resurrection myth.

Maybe the Deprogramming of Islamic Brainwash is also starting to have some results.

To keep the hammer banging, here again are the Five Steps for Isalamic Deprogramming:

Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

"1. Belief in Allah"

"aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to your cleansing neurons.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist".

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."

A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels/"pwtfft"s to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.
Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."
Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy".

Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers and women.

Accept these five "cleansers" and we guarantee a complete recovery from your Islamic ways!!!!

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

Part 2- Sexism in Islam

a) Its operating manual, the koran, reeks with the stench of sexism just ask Hirsi Ali.

b) A portion of the fourth major flaw of Islam-

" Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed."

c) The sexism stench of Islam is also attested to by Professors John Crossan, Marcus Borg and Paula Fredriksen, all Jesus Semnarians and On Faith Panelists, and Karen Armstrong, Elaine Pagels and Susan Jacoby, all On Faith Panelists.

i have noticed a crystallizing of some of the anti-muslim vocalists on these boards, and have not been coming in here much.

but i am seriously freaked out by the responses to a declaration of faith on the resurrection main question-

i dont think ive been hateful here- but i am contemplating not coming in here any more as -

well- i dont know- im just freaked-

peace all

Jihadist

The bee hive is ruled by the QUEEN bee.

The modern age is going to be ruled by you women. All that right brain capacity.

Devolution is over. Evolution is the wave of the future.

love you
Henry

Ahhh...the black widow spider. She kills her male mate after mating.

Too bad. I'm already in another place for something to sustain a blog brawl on this delicious question:)

But....

------------------------------------------------

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated,

Hello pussycat.

Prof. Bruce Chilton is a male? And JD Crossan too? Et tu?

How many women were in the Councils of Nicea?

How many women are members of the Jesus Seminarians?

Correct the flaws of unproportianate representation of one gender to reflect the reality of men deciding on racism and sexism in religion. Starting with Jesus Seminarians, Crossanized Christianity and Catholicism of Reality.

Address the problem of over male representation in everything in the public square!

-------------------------------------------------

Mr. Mark,

Is the animal kingdom not "racist" and "sexist"?

Are the animal world not dominated mostly by the male specie?

Are gorillas in the mist not having a pecking hierachical and sexist order of alpha male dominating and the head honcho brute lording it over?

Are gorillas in the mist not territorial viz other gorrila groups?

Are gorrillas not "racist" viz other ape specie and look down on baboons (persecution and forced displacements in chasing them from their territory?)

Are mostly atheist Scandinavian countries(so said Sam Harris) having lots of female heads of state, heads of government, CEOs, in the academia, in the business world etc?

Are most of the atheist writer-thinkers women?

Are most of the scientists women?

Are most of the Nobel Prize winners women?

--------------------------------------------------

It is a fact, an evident truth that men decide on and shape the discourse on and reality of racism and sexism in religious and secular life.

It is such a yawn that men would not admit that men are the primary originators and enforcers, both overt and covert, by laws and attitudes and characterisations, of racism and sexism in the secular and religious spheres.

Go ahead. Prove otherwise. And say why that is so or ain't so. Other posters may be interested to know what you both think beyond pre-prepared postings or fun flings.

Cheers

"J"

Let us look at the problem in parts.

Part 1,

1. Sexism in the Catholic Church.

a) the refusal to allow women, single or married, to be priests using "fuzzy" references in scripture to make the case.

b) St. Paul the Prude as per Professor Bruce Chilton
An excerpt from his book, Rabbi Paul":

"He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any "pretty wingie talking fictional thingies" in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10). Simply add Paul's thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Christianity and a major factor in the Church's treatment of women.

Professor Chilton btw is a Professor of Religion at Bard College and a priest at the Free Church of St. John in Barrytown, NY.

c. And it is very probable that the Islamic scribes in the plagiarizing from the NT used Paul's ideas about women and added them to the sexist koran.

Henry James writes:

"I think religion should address Sexism and ignore Racism!!!"

Ha!

I agree...as long as the women have no say in it.

I think religion should address Sexism and ignore Racism!!!

(sorry to be snide, but what a way to phrase the question).

Garyd writes:

"Yes the Bible does a marvelous Job of describing what the world was like prior to Christianity and for women it was indeed a nightmarish hell. MOst of what the Bible suggest is an actual improvement over the situation as it currently existed at the time the Bible was written."

A strange response considering I quoted only verses from St Paul that are found in the NT. Do you consider Paul's writings and the entire NT to be "before Christianity?" In what way is Paul's saying that "the head of the woman is the man" an improvement over the OT's regard of women as being not much more than a man's property? Do you think these things through before you set mouse to screen?

Dear Mr. GaryD

Try to raise the level of the discourse. Don't be part of the problem; be part of the solution; you can do it.

GaryD writes: "Yes the Bible does a marvelous Job of describing what the world was like prior to Christianity and for women it was indeed a nightmarish hell. MOst of what the Bible suggest is an actual improvement over the situation as it currently existed at the time the Bible was written."

The world??

Let's see... what was happening at the time. Yes, it does a splendid job of describing what life was like for women in matrifocal Amerindian societies. It's both lyrical and insightful. Truly incredible commentary. The ladies sure had it rough in the Egyptian and Meroë cultures too. The bible does a heck of a job of describing their hardships.

Yes the Bible does a marvelous Job of describing what the world was like prior to Christianity and for women it was indeed a nightmarish hell. MOst of what the Bible suggest is an actual improvement over the situation as it currently existed at the time the Bible was written.

It's all culture and how different people/sex/races want to conduct themselves. The color of skin doesn't have anything to do with it.

All the other reasons are just noise.

I think that the word "entrenched" used in the question is a very good word to describe both "isms;" they are entrenched, as a river that has flowed for a long time becomes entrenched in its riverbed, and its course cannot easily be changed.

However, racism in America is a very different phenomenon than sexism.

Black people were kidnapped from Africa and brought here to do the manual labor. And the excuse for doing it was that they were "inferior." This custom and belief became entrenched. Then a great and horrible war was fought to change the course of the river, to free the slaves, and to solve the problem. But the problem was not solved.

Then a dark age descended, in which deceit and crookedness ruled over America, as the caste system continued, the superior white caste, and the inferior black caste. Then a period of social reform finally emerged to set things right, once and for all. We are still in that period. It will take a long time for all of this to settle out, probably a few more generations.

Sexism, on the other hand, is the sum of 5,000 years of history, of men and women living together; there is legal equality, but society sets men and women on different paths, and expects different things from them.

They are both deeply entrenched in their own, but different ways.

Christianity may have played a strong role in the abolition of slavery, but Christianity was used to justify, all along the way, slavery and resistance to its abolition. And Christianity was used to justify the obstinate obstruction of progress for the freed slaves and the black race after the Civil War. There is no getting away from this or around this; this is how it was and how it is.

Christianity may have played a role as the basis for the modern social movement that led to civil rights for black people. But Churches have been the most conservative institutions to accept these changes, and the very last to implement them. Most churches still, to this day, remain entrenched as either all black churches or all white churches. I do not think Christians who read this should be angry at me for pointing this out, but rather, should humbley acknowledge the awful truth of the matter.

So it is a little ironic that this question asks if religion should do anything about it.

Dear GaryD -

I could easily cite over 300 verses from the Bible that speak of women in disparaging/inferior terms, but such a context-enabling post would be embargoed by the blog owners.

Perhaps your next defense of the indefensible will be that 300 verses is small change when one considers the total number of verses in the Bible. Others might be forgiven for detecting a brutally misogynist pattern throughout the "holy" book.

Oh course you took it out of context. You cherry picked two short verses from an entire 2 chapters on this subject containing perhaps 3 dozen versus.

In Christianity this is about love not compulsion.

Garyd sez:

"Truly it doesn't Mark. If I am to love my wife to the point that I would lay down my life for her then How can she be truly subservient?"

What about this?: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

Go ahead. Tell me how I'm taking Paul's words out of context. While you're at it, you might also explain what Paul meant in Romans when he spoke of "the natural use of a woman, " ie: her use as a sex object for men's pleasure.

Truly it doesn't Mark. If I am to love my wife to the point that I would lay down my life for her then How can she be truly subservient?

Religion needs to remove the racist/sexist mote from its own eye before it can offer an opinion on the subject.

Perhaps religion could start by disowning the subservient place it assigns to women?

As long as we think in terms of race and sex we will perforce have both racism and sexism. As long as we engage in group think there will be a tendency to associate any given unknown member of a group with the lowest common denominator of that group.And this tendency will apply to any member of any group anywhere.

The trouble is when one looks only at a group the average tends to disappear and what remains are the extremes both bad and good. One sees not individuals but actions of one individual within a group at the very least subconsciously shapes our view of the whole group. In this regards Michael Jordan did more for racial equality in this country than all the H.Rap Browns Al Sharptons, and NAACP race hustlers who ever lived. Ditto for men like those who formed the rank and file of the 54th Massachusetts, and the Tuskeegee Airmen.

There will always be racists. I truly wish it could be otherwise but the fact is that there will always be people who wish to make their failures and short comings real or imagined the fault of others and the easiest scape goat for such will always be some one a little bit different from them and their immediate associates be that difference color, race, or religion.

Religion can serve as a solution of sorts to this problem or it can serve as a buttress for it and it has done both in the past.

TJ said:

Let's don't mistake the problem for a solution.
_____

Yeah, buddy.

Magical thinking has never held a solution to ANY problem.

Let's don't mistake the problem for a solution.

insightful observation daniel-
there is certainly an imbalance of power-

we havent even had the conversation about race yet- not really- where we listen to each other with respect-
and white people want to pretend it is over already.

There is personal reacism, when an individual of one race does not like people of another race, and there is socio-economic racism, when one entire group has a built in dominance and position of advantiage over the other race. I think alot of white people do not know this, do not realize this, give a cold shoulder to this notion, or just plain turn their backs on it.

So, in reality, it is pretty difficult for me, a white man, to ever feel threatened by black racism, by anyone's words or actions dirtected against me for my race. I have actually had this experience, several times, but it barely effects me at all. I don't even worry about it for 5 minutes. This is why the comments of Reverend Wright are not the same as the KKK.

Therefore, so-called black racism, does not even exist, in the same tone and force as white racism. When white people complain about black racism, I think such people are being disingenuous and self-deceiving.

I would be interested to hear some responses from people on this. I am sure to be called a moron and an idiot with my head in the sand.

Should religion "address" it? Kind of a silly question. On the matter of race, religion has often been one of the main problems. There is no such inert thing as "reliion" but religion is all the people who cause the religion to be.

In America, there has been progress; I certainly hope there will continue to be.

Sexism is a different sort of thing. I don't have my thoughts together enough to go into it now.