>You have justified "the way it is" for Nations by saying effectively "because that's the rules". I ask again, why should "rules", "being born" and all the rest of it, only apply to Nations as a justification for actions when you say it is abhorent for Religions to behave exactly the same way?

I think I'm seeing a tiny ray of light here - I'm getting to understand what you mean. And actually I've answered this today in my reply to Tracy (want a quote or have you found it?).

Two issues here: I don't mind churches having whatever rules they want, as long as their jurisdiction is limited to their own voluntary members. That would be even more fair than the situation with the states, where you get born and don't have much choice, unless you migrate.

I don't mind the Christianity thinking that women are a lower species, should stay at home, should be dependent on males and have no economic independence, must not be priests - as long as they find volunteers who subscribe to that. But, remember that the issue I commented is about the boasting of DD here that... (no, I'm not quoting it the fourth time), which severely contradicts the history on record. I also do mind their influence on the society, which appears in all possible forms from subtle peer pressure to the influence upon political decisions.

The other issue is their members being voluntary. Are they? You mention "being born"... and "religions behaving exactly the same way". This is where we may differ, and if I had any say in making of a law, I would forbid any automatism in becoming a member of any church by mere act of birth. No choice of religion should be treated as binding until the age of consent, or any other age which is deemed mature enough for making a qualified decision. We're worried about showing sex on TV, fearing that it may influence the young minds, yet are willing to submit the youngest to the influence of the church as soon as they are born. (Showing violence on TV is far more liberal than display of sex, but that's a completely different matter, mostly unrelated to this.)

>I have no comment re "liberating Ladies" except to say that New Zealand emancipated even before Iceland, i.e. we were first in world to come to our senses and acknowledge that women have minds and a right to vote, and NZ was a strongly WASP community in those days. Draw a tenuous connection if you wish. < g >

Good for you. I assume you have about 50% of ladies in your parliament and government by now.

>I'll pass this exchange to Claire next time I see her, she's in NZ at present while I'm in USA.

I'll be waiting.