|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
 Posted - 04/04/2005 : 18:25:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Well, y'all do date us and marry us men. Soooooooo..... 
This argument works just as well the other way round ...  |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2005 : 20:52:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Valiant Dancer:
Well, as both a Wiccan and male, it's more nature related of a religion and stresses male and female being equal parts of the whole. It attracts women by allowing them equal status which they do not enjoy in most other religions.
Like Wiccan, the New Age is female friendly. That is not to say that there are more woman in the New Age than men. Only that they are seen as equal to the men. Perhaps what we should be wondering then is why there are not more woman in science. Could it be that women have to jump through too many hoops to finally be seen as equal to a man in that endeavor? I don't think that women are born to be irrational, anymore than men are. So it seems likely to me that they, like men, gravitate to areas of acceptance. What we are focusing on is the large number of women in the New Age instead of focusing on the much less equal gender distribution in the sciences.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2005 : 08:21:46 [Permalink]
|
| The implication seems to be that all major belief systems have been started by men? Is this true? Is there a major belief system that has been founded by women? Or as Kil sugest, do women simply gravitate towards the ones that are "female friendly"? |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2005 : 08:28:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Valiant Dancer:
Well, as both a Wiccan and male, it's more nature related of a religion and stresses male and female being equal parts of the whole. It attracts women by allowing them equal status which they do not enjoy in most other religions.
Like Wiccan, the New Age is female friendly. That is not to say that there are more woman in the New Age than men. Only that they are seen as equal to the men. Perhaps what we should be wondering then is why there are not more woman in science. Could it be that women have to jump through too many hoops to finally be seen as equal to a man in that endeavor? I don't think that women are born to be irrational, anymore than men are. So it seems likely to me that they, like men, gravitate to areas of acceptance. What we are focusing on is the large number of women in the New Age instead of focusing on the much less equal gender distribution in the sciences.
Haven't we discussed that? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2005 : 10:28:01 [Permalink]
|
| Indeed. Just pointin' out so the new members can scavange it. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
trishran
Skeptic Friend
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2005 : 11:50:02 [Permalink]
|
| Astropin asks if there is a major belief system founded by a woman. Off the top of my head, Christian Science. Perhaps not major in demographics these days, but still very influential in that their practitioners are paid by health insurance for prayers, and in that laws that prevent parents from being held accountable for the death or injury of their children who were deprived of medical care because of the parents' religious beliefs. |
trish |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2005 : 12:14:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by trishran
...and in that laws that prevent parents from being held accountable for the death or injury of their children who were deprived of medical care because of the parents' religious beliefs.
I'd still like to see evidence that any such law has been upheld and fully enforced, but that's a matter for this thread.
[/hijack] |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
trishran
Skeptic Friend
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2005 : 11:24:59 [Permalink]
|
| Dave asks about evidence that parents aren't held accountable for deaths of children because of state laws that shield decisions to withhold medical care due to the parents religious beliefs. I realize such laws may someday be declared unconstitutional, but I know that such laws are still on the books in Oregon and Washington. More later... |
trish |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2005 : 12:33:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by trishran
I realize such laws may someday be declared unconstitutional, but I know that such laws are still on the books in Oregon and Washington.
Yes, I know such laws exist, the question is whether or not they've ever been sucessfully used to shield parents from manslaughter or murder. According to one child-protection group, every case that has gone before the Supreme Court has been lost by the parents.
Hell, there's still a law here in VA which states that unmarried men and women may not live together, but the last time it was enforced was in 1865. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2005 : 12:49:02 [Permalink]
|
There isn't much info available on the net, that I could find easily anyway.
I recall a case here in FL from several years ago, where parents let their child die from some insane number of beestings (300 or more), while they gathered around and prayed... never called 911.
Not sure what happened to them legally.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2005 : 12:59:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yes, I know such laws exist, the question is whether or not they've ever been sucessfully used to shield parents from manslaughter or murder. According to one child-protection group, every case that has gone before the Supreme Court has been lost by the parents.
But what about laws that would protect the children of parents who hold such radical beliefs before the children come to harm? Sure, if a child dies due to a failure on behalf of the parents to seek proper medical care, the parents cannot hide behind the protection of religious freedom. But do you think the state should remove children from homes where their parents' religious beliefs put them at bodily risk? Should the state be charged with periodically checking up on the health of such children to ensure that any illness is properly treated? At what point does concern for a child's wellbeing override the parent's right to free religious expression? (For instance, aren't innoculations mandatory?) Is it necessary that the child come to actual physical harm before such an environment be deemed unhealthy?
I'm interested in hearing everyone's views on this.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/06/2005 15:59:38 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2005 : 13:04:05 [Permalink]
|
| Remove the kids and behead or sterilize the parents. JK, we should destroy the world of modern medicine instead. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2005 : 17:40:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
But what about laws that would protect the children of parents who hold such radical beliefs before the children come to harm? Sure, if a child dies due to a failure on behalf of the parents to seek proper medical care, the parents cannot hide behind the protection of religious freedom. But do you think the state should remove children from homes where their parents' religious beliefs put them at bodily risk?
Taken only a little bit further, one might suggest that all parents undergo regular and in-depth psychiatric assessment, to ensure that no blossoming mental disturbances (one could include religious fanaticism in that category) endanger children who can't protect themselves.
But in the USA, we don't punish people for what they might do - since anyone might, at any time, take a hammer to someone else's head - we just hope that serious impairment of judgement comes to light before it does substantial harm to self or others. Once it does - once a person becomes a clear danger (in other words, once "might" turns into "probably will") - then the State can act to protect others.
Seriously, once we start compulsory biannual screening of everyone for incipient schizophrenic breaks (and proactively hospitalizing those deemed at risk), then we can start talking about screening parents for behaviour - religious or not - that may endanger their children.
And at such a point, we can also mobilize the "stupidity police," whose job it will be to arrest and/or heavily fine those who stand on the top step of a ladder, or who use an automotive jack inappropriately, or who use a hair dryer while in the tub. These people all cost society in general, through increased health-care costs and lost productivity. They must be stopped, but we can't stop them without a massive police force roaming through and around people's homes, day and night. Hell, they can enforce "lights out" at 10 PM, also. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
