You do not need to be religious to possess a moral framework

by AwfulTruth Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:03 am

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

by Shirina Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:01 am

I think the evidence speaks for itself. There are more self-proclaimed atheists in the US than there are African-Americans. If religion was necessary for a moral compass, some 20% of Americans would be running amok. That's more than enough people to plunge the nation into anarchy.

Of course, if religion gave us an absolute morality, then we would not have one denomination claiming it's a sin for women to wear pants while another denomination of the same religion saying it is perfectly acceptable for women to do so.

Not only do I agree with Dawkins in saying that I would not want an absolute morality, I would go one step further by saying I would want even less an absolute morality based on religious teachings. I think religious texts are filled to bursting with unspeakable atrocities that make Hitler and Stalin combined seem like lovable teddy bears by comparison, and yet this is the nature of the God so many worship. Were we to idolize such a being and live by God's example, genocide would be perfectly acceptable.

Christianity, especially, has been in the hijacking and usurpation business for a long time. It has hijacked the myths of other cultures from Sumer to Egypt in order to cobble together its own set of stories. It has hijacked pagan holidays and made them its own. It is trying - and succeeding - at hijacking and usurping marriage as if marriage did not exist before Christianity's founding. And, all too often, it also wishes to hijack morality as if Christianity has a monopoly on being a good person.

by trevorw2539 Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:44 am

Re: You Do Not Need To Be Religious To Possess A Moral Framework

Above statement. Absolutely true.

Christianity, especially, has been in the hijacking and usurpation business for a long time. It has hijacked the myths of other cultures from Sumer to Egypt in order to cobble together its own set of stories. It has hijacked pagan holidays and made them its own. It is trying - and succeeding - at hijacking and usurping marriage as if marriage did not exist before Christianity's founding. And, all too often, it also wishes to hijack morality as if Christianity has a monopoly on being a good person.

Though I think I would say that Judaism started the hijacking in the Torah. This from earlier codes (Hammurabi etc) and the general health and moral and civil laws already in place in ancient Mesopotamia. The Torah puts a spiritual, rather than civil, aspect. It's Monotheism was the real difference, though I believe this had already been tried in Egypt under Akhenaten, who made Aten/Ra the only god. (This didn't last after his death.) Others disagree.

Christianity has never hi-jacked marriage. It may have given it a different relevance according to its beliefs. It has never refused to acknowledge other national/religious forms of marriage. You are referring to the current debate, and are talking 'US'. In this country the church is coming to terms with the 'problem' - slowly. Don't expect miracles. Oh. You don't accept miracles anyway, do you:)

Christianity has hi-jacked feast days, etc. Why not? These are only days put aside to remember something. The date is of no significance.

Christmas day is only a remembrance that Christians recognise Christ's birth. No-one believes he was born on that day. Whatever that day was in the Jewish calendar. Easter ditto.

Did Christianity 'adopt' the virgin birth, the 'crucified messiahs' etc. You either accept that the NT is true or you reject it. It's for the individual.

Perhaps some believe the message of Jesus (if you accept he existed) is the most important thing.

by AwfulTruth Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:55 am

Very interesting and apposite posts that reflect the broad panoply of issues that religion compels the atheists and doubters to question, investigate and comment on. I relish the fact that we live in a democratic country that does not seek to repress free speech.

My own litmus test for the existence of God is this: If God exists would he stand by and not use his power to save children, for example, from suffering hideous abuse and even horrific murder at the hands of evil abusers? The very fact that 'He' does nothing/does not intervene, marks 'Him' out as an accessory to a crime, in human legal terms, simply because he could have done something to stop it, but chose not to?

I do not think this is a harsh litmus test of God's existence. A definite case, surely, of Deus est non in machina? If we cannot judge God using the same 'God-given' tenets that we are regaled with from the pulpit and legislative seat of national governance, as codified in law, then how else shall we judge any god? Finally, a god that will not prove its existence, corporeally and emphatically, is a god of fiction and human invention, in my considered opinion; until God appears and disproves my disbelieving mindset, then tough!

by oftenwrong Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:24 pm

English Judges seem to be ready to discount Religion as a factor in legal decisions.

The last couple of years have seen several examples of people using their Religious Beliefs as an excuse for defying the Law, and failing. Examples have been a couple who refused to admit a homsexual couple to their Guest House home; employees disciplined for displaying religious symbols, and care workers refusing to house children in a same-sex couple's household.

This week, a Judge gave his opinion that legal decisions must be based upon FACT which can be proved in evidence - not on an individual's beliefs.

by astra Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:46 pm

When I was born, did I have a Bible, a copy of the watchtower or the quoran in my hand when I emerged screaming and kicking?

NAH!

I believe I was born with a code ingrained that wanted to be PART of a society. Seems to me some are NOT born with thisdesire, and it is fir them to resolve.

Church? I ever only saw that as a sump for my pocket money and a gathering place of some VERY nice girls! Embarassed

by trevorw2539 Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:55 pm

Quote Oftenwrong

This week, a Judge gave his opinion that legal decisions must be based upon FACT which can be proved in evidence - not on an individual's beliefs.

The decision to ban the wearing of a cross is ridiculous and a minefield. If a person wishes to wear a symbol, as long as it's not lewd or obscene they should be allowed to.

The ruling that this is wrong opens up a minefield. Sikhs Turbans, Muslim womens Hijab, Indians forehead spot, Hindu Teeka (as Indian) and other religious clothing and symbols. All are signs of their faith.

Ooops. I can see civil war coming. Let's use a bit of commonsense.

by trevorw2539 Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:02 pm

by astra Today at 12:46 pm

When I was born, did I have a Bible, a copy of the watchtower or the quoran in my hand when I emerged screaming and kicking?

Had a word with the Boss upstairs. He says it was his fault. He had a New Testament ready for you, but he dozed off just before you were born. Very Happy

by blueturando Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:39 pm

I am a confirmed Atheist, but I cannot see what the issue is with people wearing a cross in the work place if they wish to do so. This is not harming anyone and if the cross is banned, will the government then ban all religious symbols or clothing worn by other faiths?......I doubt it somehow!

As far as the thread question goes....personally I believe overall Atheists possess a stronger moral framework as we do not discriminate based on what is hammered into our heads by a book and religious leaders who have a motive to control people, their actions and their thoughts

by AwfulTruth Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:30 pm

blueturando wrote:I am a confirmed Atheist, but I cannot see what the issue is with people wearing a cross in the work place if they wish to do so. This is not harming anyone and if the cross is banned, will the government then ban all religious symbols or clothing worn by other faiths?......I doubt it somehow!

As far as the thread question goes....personally I believe overall Atheists possess a stronger moral framework as we do not discriminate based on what is hammered into our heads by a book and religious leaders who have a motive to control people, their actions and their thoughts

In extreme cases I draw the line, say, at members of the Ku Klux Klan wearing the full white garb and pointy hat whilst checking in passengers at Terminal Five, Heathrow.

If members of staff are outlawed at covering their faces, or wearing a full Burqa (that full body outfit of controversial nature), and not allowed to wear ANY jewellery, then wearing a cross is also fair game for banning. HOWEVER, you are allowed to wear a cross UNDER your outer clothing! Problem is solved since religion is a personal choice and not a public declaration in a place of work?

I do not see what the problem is!

by Shirina Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:15 pm

Private businesses are not bound by the same rules as the government. A private employer is under no obligation to grant you freedom of speech or freedom to practice your religion when you're on the clock. Unfortunately, people seem to think that religion should grant special permissions that other facets of life are not granted. If an employer must allow someone to wear a cross at work, why shouldn't an employer be forced into allowing me to wear a comfortable pair of tennis shoes, or, for that matter, come dressed any damned way I please as a form of expression?

This reminds me of a rule in a public school handbook regarding the dress codes of teachers. A rule stated that facial hair is not allowed because it could cause a distraction in the classroom ... unless the wearing of facial hair is done for documented religious reasons. Except facial hair is facial hair ... if it is going to cause a distraction, the reason why it is worn becomes irrelevant. This is obviously a case where it should be allowed for everyone or no one. Having an exception only undermines the reason for having the rule in the first place.

In most cases that I have seen, those who were forbidden to wear a cross failed to understand that it wasn't the cross that was prohibited, but the jewelry itself. For example, there was a case where a Dutch tram conductor sued because he was forbidden to wear a crucifix necklace while at work unless he concealed it, but a Muslim woman was allowed to wear a head scarf. The conductor claimed religious persecution. The reality, however, is that necklaces in general are not allowed to be worn outside of the uniform regardless of the charm, symbol, or medallion hanging from it. The tram company even said the conductor could wear a religious ring or even an earring if he wished to, just not a necklace ... and he could even wear a necklace if he kept it underneath his uniform.

Upon closer examination of many of these religious symbols cases, the claimant often has very little understanding of workplace policy. Instead they immediately jump to persecution. Even when they are informed of the policy and how they are in violation of it, they won't let it go. Once they get it inside their heads that they are being discriminated against, they become akin to a dog with a bone and begin demanding exceptions. Then we end up with the school teacher and facial hair scenario.

by trevorw2539 Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:37 pm

AwfulTruth Quote

If members of staff are outlawed at covering their faces, or wearing a full Burqa (that full body outfit of controversial nature), and not allowed to wear ANY jewellery, then wearing a cross is also fair game for banning.

There is some debate about it, but I don't think the face covering is religious. The Qu'ran demands that the body be covered and the hair. Thus the high neckline and long skirts. So only her husband can enjoy her beauty.

I think it was a fatwah that brought in the face covering. However that's as I see it. Others may disagree. Mad

by Shirina Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:05 pm

There is some debate about it, but I don't think the face covering is religious.

It's cultural rather than religious although it has its roots in religion.

All major religions have these bizarre rules about "covering" for women, ostensibly for modesty. However, what these rules are REALLY saying is that men don't want to be bothered with employing self-discipline when it comes to sexual desire, so its easier on them if women are made to be as bland or as covered up as possible unless they're in the bedroom.

We have our own silly "rules" in the Western world, too. During grad school, I had this late-40ish professor who wore her hair long and dressed rather youthfully. The women in my class would invariably gossip about her during our breaks: "She needs to cut that hair." "Yeah, women her age shouldn't have hair down to the middle of her back!" "And those earrings!" "Those earrings have to go. Some studs would work just fine."

Yet I thought she looked attractive, even cute for her age. I know she was single ... and probably hoping not to be. If you're on the market, the last thing you want is to look "matronly." If she chopped off her hair and dressed more conservatively, she'd look like every other soccer mom out there. But because of these silly rules ....

by trevorw2539 Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:42 pm

Shirina.

I won't print your post. Just a couple of Points. I'm not arguing on the religious side.

Hair. Religious facial hair is regulated and after the initial interest would become a matter of course. On the other hand facial hair is, and can be, a source of competition and amusement. Look at the moustache competitions that go on. So it is sensible to have clean shaven 'pupils'. Concentration then can be on education.

Would you make exceptions for facial hair which covered a scar from an accident, or blemish from birth defect. There should always be exceptions to every rule in special cases. Except, of course, where danger is involved.

Comparing the wearing of jewellery to wearing clothing is a bit over the top. Jewellery is not appropriate in certain types of employment for obvious safety rules. Certainly clothes are not always appropriate - ooops - I mean clothes should be appropriate to the job. Most 'uniform-clothing' is chosen by an employer to suit the job entailed.

As supermarket deputy manager it was one of my jobs to make sure that mainly girls were appropriately dressed. The main contention was shoes. No high heels and no mules. Both were health and safety risks on stairs to stockrooms, and any steps to be climbed to reach stock.

Had you turned up in tennis shoes you would have had a smacked ..erm. Embarassed

You would have been sent home to change, for your own safety.

I'm not asking for special consideration for jewellery wearers of any type. Let commonsense prevail.

I agree with your 'cultural' face covering in the other post. It was a later (than the Qu'ran) fatwah that some quote in support of the religious claim

by trevorw2539 Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:46 pm

Shirina.

Re. Your teacher's hair. As a matter of disinterest my grey hair almost reaches my - what waist I have - at the back. Smile

And I am male.

by AwfulTruth Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:19 pm

Good posting: off the wall but all the better for it.

It won't be long before they ban everything and then where will we be? Personally, I'd like to see the world run by nut cutlets: that way you please the vegetarians AND the world would make more sense.

Possibly... :albino:

by True Blue Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:02 am

trevorw2539 wrote:AwfulTruth Quote

If members of staff are outlawed at covering their faces, or wearing a full Burqa (that full body outfit of controversial nature), and not allowed to wear ANY jewellery, then wearing a cross is also fair game for banning.

There is some debate about it, but I don't think the face covering is religious. The Qu'ran demands that the body be covered and the hair. Thus the high neckline and long skirts. So only her husband can enjoy her beauty.

I think it was a fatwah that brought in the face covering. However that's as I see it. Others may disagree.

When does a Nun's Habit become a Religious habit. Certainly, there is nothing in the bible that requires of nun's that they adopt the Habit.

by snowyflake Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:18 pm

If showing off your religious affiliation inspired peace and tranquility in the world there would be no question as to the freedom of wearing what you like. Unfortunately, religion is far more divisive than it is cohesive and any time you have different religions or even different factions of the same religion there will be conflict because one groups interpretation of the holy text doesn't jive with another group. There may be outward signs of tolerance but deep down they are all screaming how wrong the other group is. So in the public work place, no affiliation is needed to show what you believe. No one cares. And there is no need to make yourself a target for crazy people.

Religious belief is personal and it disagrees with the religious beliefs of others so best to keep it to yourself unless asked about it. This to me seems a sensible, reasonable solution and doesn't impede on anyone's right to believe whatever fairy story they like. Smile

by snowyflake Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:23 pm

Well that was way off the topic of the thread. Morality is not the sole domain of the religious. I find atheists and agnostics to be far more loving in their morality than most religious people. Religious people, regardless of Jesus' instructions to 'judge not lest ye be judged' are the most judgemental people on the planet. They can't help themselves.

by Shirina Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:32 am

When does a Nun's Habit become a Religious habit. Certainly, there is nothing in the bible that requires of nun's that they adopt the Habit.

Unfortunately, the nun's habit is just another example of female subjugation -- the idea that women should be covered head-to-toe in a plain, black, and loose garment to deprive her of any beauty or sexuality. It's really no better than a burka, in my opinion, but at least with a habit a) it is only required to be worn by nuns and not the general female population and b) nuns don't have to cover their faces.

Yet, at the end of the day, I can almost guarantee that habits were foisted onto nuns to help celibate priests coexist with women without having to exercise any personal, sexual discipline. This is a theme that threads its way through most religions -- especially the Abrahamic religions.

Religious teachings have always tried to blame women for their sexuality and seductiveness, one reason why females are often maligned as the cause of the Fall of Man whether she is Pandora or Eve. It is also the reason why modesty is always the responsibility of the woman ... modesty is almost never applied to men. The real weakness, of course, is the male sex drive, something that has destroyed many a man both powerful and inept, intelligent and stupid. The truth is that a female's beauty and seductiveness only exists within the perceptions of a man. These traits do not exist independently else everything from bumblebees to elephants would be trying to have sex with her. Therefore, it is not the fault of a woman if she happens to be sexually attractive; it is the fault of the man for being unable or unwilling to discipline himself to ignore his libido.

But ... because religions of all stripes are inherently patriarchal and often misogynistic ... and because religions are male inventions, God has very conveniently ordered all kinds of restrictions on women, the severity of them depending on the culture and the religion. Believe it or not, one of the big reasons why women wear dresses is to hide their pelvis, legs, and feet/ankles which, for quite a long time, were regarded as the most sexually provocative features of the female body. The debate over whether women should be allowed to wear pants still exists in many places around the world, including in the West. Fashions like miniskirts (which defeat the purpose in many cases) are very modern inventions. Until the 1960's, dresses and skirts were rather long to keep up with the tradition of hiding those most salient parts of female anatomy. Habits and burkas, of course, fall all the way down to a woman's ankles.

Women have, for centuries, been forced to wrap themselves in layer upon layer of concealing clothing, no matter the temperature or climate, to keep the man's little head nice and bored. Whether it is cultural or religious (and the two are often indistinguishable), wearing a habit -- like many other "modesty" rules -- is just another small way in which a patriarchal society has shown its distrust of the female body.

by oftenwrong Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:13 pm

People are all the same, but some people like to think of themselves as "different" or "special" and so choose to dress differently, to eat differently and to profess different Beliefs.

I don't see why normal people should encourage them in the endeavour to be different, because it's so clearly divisive.

by snowyflake Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:16 pm

Oh yeah, I can see where you're coming from, OW, because eating different food and dressing differently has caused oodles of wars and unnecessary bloodshed. The only one of the 3 that has caused more outrage in this world than anything else is religion.

Hope you're having a nice day. Smile

by trevorw2539 Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:45 pm

Shirina wrote:
When does a Nun's Habit become a Religious habit. Certainly, there is nothing in the bible that requires of nun's that they adopt the Habit.
Unfortunately, the nun's habit is just another example of female subjugation -- the idea that women should be covered head-to-toe in a plain, black, and loose garment to deprive her of any beauty or sexuality. It's really no better than a burka, in my opinion, but at least with a habit a) it is only required to be worn by nuns and not the general female population and b) nuns don't have to cover their faces.

Yet, at the end of the day, I can almost guarantee that habits were foisted onto nuns to help celibate priests coexist with women without having to exercise any personal, sexual discipline. This is a theme that threads its way through most religions -- especially the Abrahamic religions.

Religious teachings have always tried to blame women for their sexuality and seductiveness, one reason why females are often maligned as the cause of the Fall of Man whether she is Pandora or Eve. It is also the reason why modesty is always the responsibility of the woman ... modesty is almost never applied to men. The real weakness, of course, is the male sex drive, something that has destroyed many a man both powerful and inept, intelligent and stupid. The truth is that a female's beauty and seductiveness only exists within the perceptions of a man. These traits do not exist independently else everything from bumblebees to elephants would be trying to have sex with her. Therefore, it is not the fault of a woman if she happens to be sexually attractive; it is the fault of the man for being unable or unwilling to discipline himself to ignore his libido.

But ... because religions of all stripes are inherently patriarchal and often misogynistic ... and because religions are male inventions, God has very conveniently ordered all kinds of restrictions on women, the severity of them depending on the culture and the religion. Believe it or not, one of the big reasons why women wear dresses is to hide their pelvis, legs, and feet/ankles which, for quite a long time, were regarded as the most sexually provocative features of the female body. The debate over whether women should be allowed to wear pants still exists in many places around the world, including in the West. Fashions like miniskirts (which defeat the purpose in many cases) are very modern inventions. Until the 1960's, dresses and skirts were rather long to keep up with the tradition of hiding those most salient parts of female anatomy. Habits and burkas, of course, fall all the way down to a woman's ankles.

Women have, for centuries, been forced to wrap themselves in layer upon layer of concealing clothing, no matter the temperature or climate, to keep the man's little head nice and bored. Whether it is cultural or religious (and the two are often indistinguishable), wearing a habit -- like many other "modesty" rules -- is just another small way in which a patriarchal society has shown its distrust of the female body.

Always the Patriarchal society. While it existed, not everything is down to that. The origin of the black habit goes back to the early 3rd /4th century when a 'religious' women would wear black as a sign of repentance for sin and often withdrawal from the world.

And, for heavens sake, religion itself has never caused a war. It is a form of belief, not an entity. Mans human nature, intolerance and bigotry is the cause of wars.

by snowyflake Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:53 pm

You are deluding yourself if you think religion isn't at the heart of most of the conflict in our history. Man's nature is to believe in the supernatural (religion) and to profess loud and clear that his belief in the supernatural is the one TRUTH and all other beliefs are lies (intolerance) and anyone who doesn't believe exactly as he believes is not a 'true' believer (bigotry) and that's when he scorns you in the street or blows up the World Trade Center or has an Orange-In-Your-Face parade because religion doesn't cause wars people cause wars. Sounds like a similar argument that NRA likes to spout in support of carrying guns in the US.

by oftenwrong Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:40 pm

snowyflake wrote:Oh yeah, I can see where you're coming from, OW, because eating different food and dressing differently has caused oodles of wars and unnecessary bloodshed. The only one of the 3 that has caused more outrage in this world than anything else is religion.

Hope you're having a nice day.

Everything in the World is lovely, thank you, snowyflake. Perhaps you could expand upon the universal peace that stems from religious conviction.

by Guest Mon Oct 15, 2012 11:06 pm

snowyflake wrote:
… religion doesn't cause wars people cause wars. Sounds like a similar argument that NRA likes to spout in support of carrying guns in the US.

Snowy,

Both assertions are true. I would bet a dollar to a dime that Switzerland has more guns per capita than any other civilized nation possessed of a functioning government. That qualifier excludes lawless regions like Somalia and taliban controlled Pakistan and Afghanistan. Moreover, Switzerland’s guns are military issue and thus military quality. Let’s check out the murder and violent gun-crime rates in Switzerland and see if gun ownership equals killing people.

The same is true of religion. I was once a practicing Baha’i, which, although called a faith, probably meets your personal definition of religion. Had I been a Baha’i when drafted, I would have been required to claim 1O status and to accept nothing more than IAO status, as Baha’i beliefs do not allow Baha’is to enter military service for the purpose of killing other people.

by Shirina Tue Oct 16, 2012 12:09 am

Always the Patriarchal society. While it existed, not everything is down to that.

Are you really going to sit here and tell me that women aren't often forced by religious custom to dress a particular way while men usually are not? I wasn't referring to "everything." I was referring only to that which I actually referred to, and while I have no clue why habits were invented, I find it awfully suspicious that having uncovered hair was once a sign of immodesty and, lo and behold, habits will not allow so much as a wisp of hair to be seen. Funny how "convenient" that was, don't you think? Any garment, even miniskirts and tube tops can be black ... your explanation does not explain why the habit covers every square inch of the female body except for a face-sized hole.

And, for heavens sake, religion itself has never caused a war. It is a form of belief, not an entity. Mans human nature, intolerance and bigotry is the cause of wars.

Religion is often used as the justification for intolerance and bigotry. While individual greed can incite individuals to do horrible things, religion stands virtually alone as the enabler for an entire society, culture, or nation to unite for the sake of committing evil.

by ROB Tue Oct 16, 2012 2:50 am

Shirina wrote:
Religion is often used as the justification for intolerance and bigotry.

With a bit of enhancement/clarification, I agree. Religion is in fat often used by intolerant, bigoted people to justify intolerance and bigotry. It’s the people, not the religion.

I was once a practicing Baha’i because Baha’is tend to be the some of the finest Christians around. I’ll let that set right there.

by oftenwrong Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:45 am

The Church of England might never have come into existence had Catalina de Aragón presented Henry VIII with a male heir instead of Mary.

by trevorw2539 Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:03 am

Man is solely responsible for his own actions.

A Nun is wedded to Christ and keeps herself and her beauty for him.
In most early civilisations a womans hair was usually long and plaited. Left uncovered except for special occasions. Clothing for men and women has varied down the millenia. Mostly women have worn clothing from the shoulder to ankle. Men have varied from the same to knee length 'skirts'.
In many civilisations is was the custom for a wife to veil herself when out, or male visitors called on her husband. Again the idea was to keep her beauty for her husband to enjoy. Ommitting Islamic religion, it still occurs in some places today.
I don't deny the 'Patriarchal' church. But it has become an obsession with some.
That's why I post little.

by ROB Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:03 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
Mostly women have worn clothing from the shoulder to ankle.

I don't deny the 'Patriarchal' church. But it has become an obsession with some.

Trevor,

In a 21st Century Melanesian or Polynesian country, women go about their daily business bare-breasted with no fanfare. The man who witnessed this went on to say that women’s knees were always covered, and that he quickly learned that if his eyes were “caught” staring at a woman’s knees during the day, his neck might be “caught” staring at a machete blade welded by the woman’s husband, father, or brother during the night.

It’s a cultural thing; the “religion” of choice simply overlays that cultural imperative.

I know and know of Muslims in America whose cultural imperative differ markedly from the Arab, Berber, and Middle Eastern cultures which Islam overlays in North Africa, Southwest Asia, and South Central Asia. Ahmad Rashad, a cultural Black American once known as Bobby Moore (one hell of a wide receiver in his day), married to Felicia Rashad, an actress, for God’s sake, doesn’t follow his wife around from set to set ensuring that no one sees her unveiled face. Hakeem Abdul “Olajumonster” Olajuwon (enjoy the video) a Nigerian Hausa and naturalized United States citizen, doesn’t follow his basketball-playing daughter around from gym to gym ensuring that she is covered from head to foot in black, formless cloth. Kareem “The Captain” Abdul Jabbar is a bit more renowned for his Sky Hook and 38,000 plus career points than he is for sequestering his female relatives behind shuttered windows.

Those who know not the cultural history of that about which they read often miss the contextual arena within which words were spoken and actions were taken. What many do not get is that women’s liberation started with Torah.

by trevorw2539 Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:35 pm

[quote="RockOnBrother"]

trevorw2539 wrote:
Mostly women have worn clothing from the shoulder to ankle.

I don't deny the 'Patriarchal' church. But it has become an obsession with some.

[color=black]
Trevor,

In a 21st Century Melanesian or Polynesian country, women go about their daily business bare-breasted with no fanfare. The man who witnessed this went on to say that women’s knees were always covered, and that he quickly learned that if he were “caught” staring at a woman’s knees during the day, his neck might be “caught” by a machete blade welded by the woman’s husband, father, or brother during the night.

It’s a cultural thing; the “religion” of choice simply overlays that cultural imperative.

Of course there are cultures who do not conform to my description. However, if you look back to early civilisations this appears to be the case in the majority. Other peoples, such as many African peoples were not 'known' in those days. We can only suppose they have always been as today, with less clothing. Sensible considering climate conditions.
To say that it has been a 'religious' thing is not borne out in early civilisations. Cultural and practical yes. Across the swathe of known civilisations, mainly in Asia, you had a range of varying religions, beliefs and philosophies, and most dressed in similar fashion, shoulder to ankle. Cultural in styles and 'caste'. Including 'trousers'.
Not being up with European history of the same period I can only think it would have been similar
Celibacy did not become 'rigid' doctrine until about the 5th century. And not in all branches of the Church.

And that is all.

by oftenwrong Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:53 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:Man is solely responsible for his own actions.

A Nun is wedded to Christ and keeps herself and her beauty for him.
In most early civilisations a womans hair was usually long and plaited. Left uncovered except for special occasions. Clothing for men and women has varied down the millenia. Mostly women have worn clothing from the shoulder to ankle. Men have varied from the same to knee length 'skirts'.
In many civilisations is was the custom for a wife to veil herself when out, or male visitors called on her husband. Again the idea was to keep her beauty for her husband to enjoy. Ommitting Islamic religion, it still occurs in some places today.
I don't deny the 'Patriarchal' church. But it has become an obsession with some.
That's why I post little.

Are you still wearing waist-length hair, Trev? That must help to convince doubters.

by Tosh Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:43 am

What many do not get is that women’s liberation started with Torah.

.

And God said to her, “Your husband shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16-19)

There may be good reasons why many don't get it.

by oftenwrong Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:16 pm

And God said to her, “Your husband shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16-19)

Nice try. The reality requires female acquiescence for that to be literally true, and the surprise may be how many couples appear to follow that principle, but they are not in the majority and are becoming marginalised as time passes.

Far from acceptance, a male-dominated "partnership" in the 21st. C is something of a rarity, while divorce ensures that to be a continuing trend.
More and more young people have discarded the notion of a Church Wedding, and simply agree to co-habit. The Law is following that trend where children's rights and property rights are concerned.

by Tosh Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:53 pm

Nice try ? Come again sweetheart ?

The reality is I haven't a clue why you are addressing me or my post with your middle of the road overview, maybe you can try and explain to me what relevance it has to the Torah.

Apart from its irrelevance, it is complete fiction:

Far from acceptance, a male-dominated "partnership" in the 21st. C is something of a rarity,

mmm, you need to broaden your horizons, Mr Little England.

by oftenwrong Thu Oct 18, 2012 4:59 pm

Perhaps I should have made it clear that same-sex marriage was never in my thoughts.

by Tosh Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:33 pm

Perhaps I should have made it clear that same-sex marriage was never in my thoughts..

Nice try, a straw man coupled with a red herring is more like bestiality than anything else, perhaps you should have thought before you posted, saves wiping egg off your face.

Anyway, I must return to the debate concerning womens lib starting with the Torah, feel free to join in anytime,

p.s.

a male-dominated "partnership" in the 21st. C is something of a rarity,

Is this an official UN announcement ? I bet its news to the billions of women trapped in mysogynistic cultures.

by polyglide Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:12 pm

I do not doubt for a minute that there are thousands of people who would not claim to be of any faith who lead better lives than many that say they are.

That does not mean that they do not believe in a creator, in many cases it means they cannot understand the actions and beliefs of the many different churches etc;

It all depends on ones interpretation of religion.

by trevorw2539 Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:30 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
trevorw2539 wrote:Man is solely responsible for his own actions.

A Nun is wedded to Christ and keeps herself and her beauty for him.
In most early civilisations a womans hair was usually long and plaited. Left uncovered except for special occasions. Clothing for men and women has varied down the millenia. Mostly women have worn clothing from the shoulder to ankle. Men have varied from the same to knee length 'skirts'.
In many civilisations is was the custom for a wife to veil herself when out, or male visitors called on her husband. Again the idea was to keep her beauty for her husband to enjoy. Ommitting Islamic religion, it still occurs in some places today.
I don't deny the 'Patriarchal' church. But it has become an obsession with some.
That's why I post little.

Are you still wearing waist-length hair, Trev? That must help to convince doubters.

My 'Nazarite' vow finished a few weeks ago. Smile

by Sponsored content