>Dear Dragan
>
>My "point" since you are clearly being a Joe-Bob ;-)
I'm not claiming any false identitiy here. I'm I, picture included. Sufficient number of people on UT can now confirm my identity.
Other meanings of JoeBobbing elude me.
> is pretty simple:
>There is absolutely no reason why it should be OK for a "nation" to disenfranchise inhabitants but not OK for a Church. Why, exactly, do you say that should be?
A (supposedly democratic) country lives by its laws. These laws are passed and repelled by elected representatives of the people. One is born in the country, and has a choice of emigrating, or born outside of it and has a choice of trying to immigrate. In both cases the above laws apply. It's a fact of the human societies as they are nowadays.
>MH would say that neither should be allowed to; others would say both should be allowed to.
It's not OK, IMO, for a Christian believer (as Doug claims to be) to publicly claim that "Christianity has done more to liberate ladies than anything else I know" (I have to keep returning to this claim, because it is the sole source of this branch of the thread), given the record of the way Christianity et al treat women. My sarcastic example was aimed to prove the absurdity of the claim.
Clear?
Whether "should be allowed to" applies here or not - allowed by whom? Religions are (or at least should be, from my POV) completely voluntary organizations, where one becomes a member entirely of one's free will (though they do have a long history of gaining involuntary members by thousands, and I don't remember they ever appologized to them). As voluntary organizations, they have their own internal laws, which apply to members only, and that's their private matter as far as I'm concerned. Only when they try to influence the non-members, such as me or my family, or try to impact the society in a way disagreeable to me, I will object.
The claim that "Christianity has done more to liberate ladies than anything else I know" is just preposterous, or its author has very little in the "anything else I know" part. The part where we could discuss "why would the ladies need liberation and from what" is the more important part, than this ridiculous quote.
>FWIW, my sister is sufficiently qualified in religions matters that she could be a priest if she had a Y chromosome. She speaks Hebrew and can argue the Torah, biblical translations, the Koran... you name it. She's a Crown Prosecutor instead
This tickles my curiosity. Would you be so kind to show her our recent exchange - I would appreciate hearing her opinion on it, if she's willing.
