Common sense

[Arraya]

[quote=Rustico][quote=Djshakes][quote=Rustico][quote=Djshakes][quote=Rustico]Ever heard of the word “chattel”,Djshakes?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_bibl.htm%5B/quote%5D

Are you honestly going to sit and tell me Muslim women have more rights than Christian woman?

By you pointing out a couple bible versus as your source is like arguing a Yugo is better than a Mercedes because the license plate bulb lasts longer.[/quote]
The other posters have managed to get this thread to a higher level. I hope you will join them.[/quote]
Please do explain what your point was then by posting your link?[/quote]
By reminding you of the history of women as “Chattel” in the Judeo-Christian tradition, specifically connecting it to century after century of enforcement of the inferior status of women in Christendom,I thought that you might begin to challenge some of your many attribution biases.”Christianity” did not save women.[/quote]

Actually Islam was a progressive religion. It granted women more rights then the other two at the time. Which remained that way up until the 19th century

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]
But how is this Judeo-Christian?

Seems to me, many of these ideas would perhaps be better labeled “European” than Christian. (Many of of our legal principles come from the Enlightenment, which was a mildly “anti-church” phenomenon.) Keep going back and we find ideas that originated with the Romans and Greeks, who were neither Jews nor Christians.

The claim that are country is based on Judeo-Christian values does imply that these values are somehow different than other religious values (otherwise, why bring religion into it at all?)

You are correct that the roots of our law are in Christian organizations (i.e. “The Church”), but there are few distinct aspects of our law that can be attributed specifically to Christian values.

[/quote]

Pri: We’re about to go off into the weeds here, and I want to avoid that.

Two points need to be made, however. First, (and again), I was not drawing any comparisons, odious or otherwise, to Islam (or any other religions) when I made the point about Judeo-Christian principles. It was a simple statement of fact, with no value judgment of any sort implied.

Second, Henry the Deuce pre-dates the Age of Enlightenment/Age of Reason (generally held to be the 18th century), by a full 600 years. As with my point about Judeo-Christian principles, I simply pointed out that Henry codified and systematized much of the law, resulting in what we now call English Common Law, and American Common Law rests on English Common Law. No disrespect to Hammurabi intended; I was simply drawing a line and making a point.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]
But how is this Judeo-Christian?

Seems to me, many of these ideas would perhaps be better labeled “European” than Christian. (Many of of our legal principles come from the Enlightenment, which was a mildly “anti-church” phenomenon.) Keep going back and we find ideas that originated with the Romans and Greeks, who were neither Jews nor Christians.

The claim that are country is based on Judeo-Christian values does imply that these values are somehow different than other religious values (otherwise, why bring religion into it at all?)

You are correct that the roots of our law are in Christian organizations (i.e. “The Church”), but there are few distinct aspects of our law that can be attributed specifically to Christian values.

[/quote]

Pri: We’re about to go off into the weeds here, and I want to avoid that.

Two points need to be made, however. First, (and again), I was not drawing any comparisons, odious or otherwise, to Islam (or any other religions) when I made the point about Judeo-Christian principles. It was a simple statement of fact, with no value judgment of any sort implied.

Second, Henry the Deuce pre-dates the Age of Enlightenment/Age of Reason (generally held to be the 18th century), by a full 600 years. As with my point about Judeo-Christian principles, I simply pointed out that Henry codified and systematized much of the law, resulting in what we now call English Common Law, and American Common Law rests on English Common Law. No disrespect to Hammurabi intended; I was simply drawing a line and making a point.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]
But how is this Judeo-Christian?

Seems to me, many of these ideas would perhaps be better labeled “European” than Christian. (Many of of our legal principles come from the Enlightenment, which was a mildly “anti-church” phenomenon.) Keep going back and we find ideas that originated with the Romans and Greeks, who were neither Jews nor Christians.

The claim that are country is based on Judeo-Christian values does imply that these values are somehow different than other religious values (otherwise, why bring religion into it at all?)

You are correct that the roots of our law are in Christian organizations (i.e. “The Church”), but there are few distinct aspects of our law that can be attributed specifically to Christian values.

[/quote]

Pri: We’re about to go off into the weeds here, and I want to avoid that.

Two points need to be made, however. First, (and again), I was not drawing any comparisons, odious or otherwise, to Islam (or any other religions) when I made the point about Judeo-Christian principles. It was a simple statement of fact, with no value judgment of any sort implied.

Second, Henry the Deuce pre-dates the Age of Enlightenment/Age of Reason (generally held to be the 18th century), by a full 600 years. As with my point about Judeo-Christian principles, I simply pointed out that Henry codified and systematized much of the law, resulting in what we now call English Common Law, and American Common Law rests on English Common Law. No disrespect to Hammurabi intended; I was simply drawing a line and making a point.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]
But how is this Judeo-Christian?

Seems to me, many of these ideas would perhaps be better labeled “European” than Christian. (Many of of our legal principles come from the Enlightenment, which was a mildly “anti-church” phenomenon.) Keep going back and we find ideas that originated with the Romans and Greeks, who were neither Jews nor Christians.

The claim that are country is based on Judeo-Christian values does imply that these values are somehow different than other religious values (otherwise, why bring religion into it at all?)

You are correct that the roots of our law are in Christian organizations (i.e. “The Church”), but there are few distinct aspects of our law that can be attributed specifically to Christian values.

[/quote]

Pri: We’re about to go off into the weeds here, and I want to avoid that.

Two points need to be made, however. First, (and again), I was not drawing any comparisons, odious or otherwise, to Islam (or any other religions) when I made the point about Judeo-Christian principles. It was a simple statement of fact, with no value judgment of any sort implied.

Second, Henry the Deuce pre-dates the Age of Enlightenment/Age of Reason (generally held to be the 18th century), by a full 600 years. As with my point about Judeo-Christian principles, I simply pointed out that Henry codified and systematized much of the law, resulting in what we now call English Common Law, and American Common Law rests on English Common Law. No disrespect to Hammurabi intended; I was simply drawing a line and making a point.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]
But how is this Judeo-Christian?

Seems to me, many of these ideas would perhaps be better labeled “European” than Christian. (Many of of our legal principles come from the Enlightenment, which was a mildly “anti-church” phenomenon.) Keep going back and we find ideas that originated with the Romans and Greeks, who were neither Jews nor Christians.

The claim that are country is based on Judeo-Christian values does imply that these values are somehow different than other religious values (otherwise, why bring religion into it at all?)

You are correct that the roots of our law are in Christian organizations (i.e. “The Church”), but there are few distinct aspects of our law that can be attributed specifically to Christian values.

[/quote]

Pri: We’re about to go off into the weeds here, and I want to avoid that.

Two points need to be made, however. First, (and again), I was not drawing any comparisons, odious or otherwise, to Islam (or any other religions) when I made the point about Judeo-Christian principles. It was a simple statement of fact, with no value judgment of any sort implied.

Second, Henry the Deuce pre-dates the Age of Enlightenment/Age of Reason (generally held to be the 18th century), by a full 600 years. As with my point about Judeo-Christian principles, I simply pointed out that Henry codified and systematized much of the law, resulting in what we now call English Common Law, and American Common Law rests on English Common Law. No disrespect to Hammurabi intended; I was simply drawing a line and making a point.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya]
Actually Islam was a progressive religion. It granted women more rights then the other two at the time. Which remained that way up until the 19th century[/quote]

Arraya: Your point about Hammurabi got me to thinking. You know what’s conspicuously absent from this discussion regarding Islam and progressivism? Ghenghis Khan and the culture he and his progeny brought.

Its interesting how little he and his kin are mentioned, especially when you consider how sweeping his changes were and how long-lasting the reigns of the Khans, great and otherwise (right up until the 20th century) were.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya]
Actually Islam was a progressive religion. It granted women more rights then the other two at the time. Which remained that way up until the 19th century[/quote]

Arraya: Your point about Hammurabi got me to thinking. You know what’s conspicuously absent from this discussion regarding Islam and progressivism? Ghenghis Khan and the culture he and his progeny brought.

Its interesting how little he and his kin are mentioned, especially when you consider how sweeping his changes were and how long-lasting the reigns of the Khans, great and otherwise (right up until the 20th century) were.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya]
Actually Islam was a progressive religion. It granted women more rights then the other two at the time. Which remained that way up until the 19th century[/quote]

Arraya: Your point about Hammurabi got me to thinking. You know what’s conspicuously absent from this discussion regarding Islam and progressivism? Ghenghis Khan and the culture he and his progeny brought.

Its interesting how little he and his kin are mentioned, especially when you consider how sweeping his changes were and how long-lasting the reigns of the Khans, great and otherwise (right up until the 20th century) were.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya]
Actually Islam was a progressive religion. It granted women more rights then the other two at the time. Which remained that way up until the 19th century[/quote]

Arraya: Your point about Hammurabi got me to thinking. You know what’s conspicuously absent from this discussion regarding Islam and progressivism? Ghenghis Khan and the culture he and his progeny brought.

Its interesting how little he and his kin are mentioned, especially when you consider how sweeping his changes were and how long-lasting the reigns of the Khans, great and otherwise (right up until the 20th century) were.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya]
Actually Islam was a progressive religion. It granted women more rights then the other two at the time. Which remained that way up until the 19th century[/quote]

Arraya: Your point about Hammurabi got me to thinking. You know what’s conspicuously absent from this discussion regarding Islam and progressivism? Ghenghis Khan and the culture he and his progeny brought.

Its interesting how little he and his kin are mentioned, especially when you consider how sweeping his changes were and how long-lasting the reigns of the Khans, great and otherwise (right up until the 20th century) were.

[Djshakes]

[quote=Rustico][quote=Djshakes][quote=Rustico][quote=Djshakes][quote=Rustico]Ever heard of the word “chattel”,Djshakes?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_bibl.htm%5B/quote%5D

Are you honestly going to sit and tell me Muslim women have more rights than Christian woman?

By you pointing out a couple bible versus as your source is like arguing a Yugo is better than a Mercedes because the license plate bulb lasts longer.[/quote]
The other posters have managed to get this thread to a higher level. I hope you will join them.[/quote]
Please do explain what your point was then by posting your link?[/quote]
By reminding you of the history of women as “Chattel” in the Judeo-Christian tradition, specifically connecting it to century after century of enforcement of the inferior status of women in Christendom,I thought that you might begin to challenge some of your many attribution biases.”Christianity” did not save women.[/quote]

I don’t care about your comparisons of the past. Last I checked we lived in the present. My earlier comment was about Sharia law. My question to you was whether or not you thought women were afforded more rights under Sharia law or Christianity. You responded with a snide comment…because you know the answer negates your argument.

[Djshakes]

[quote=Rustico][quote=Djshakes][quote=Rustico][quote=Djshakes][quote=Rustico]Ever heard of the word “chattel”,Djshakes?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_bibl.htm%5B/quote%5D

Are you honestly going to sit and tell me Muslim women have more rights than Christian woman?

By you pointing out a couple bible versus as your source is like arguing a Yugo is better than a Mercedes because the license plate bulb lasts longer.[/quote]
The other posters have managed to get this thread to a higher level. I hope you will join them.[/quote]
Please do explain what your point was then by posting your link?[/quote]
By reminding you of the history of women as “Chattel” in the Judeo-Christian tradition, specifically connecting it to century after century of enforcement of the inferior status of women in Christendom,I thought that you might begin to challenge some of your many attribution biases.”Christianity” did not save women.[/quote]

I don’t care about your comparisons of the past. Last I checked we lived in the present. My earlier comment was about Sharia law. My question to you was whether or not you thought women were afforded more rights under Sharia law or Christianity. You responded with a snide comment…because you know the answer negates your argument.

[Djshakes]

[quote=Rustico][quote=Djshakes][quote=Rustico][quote=Djshakes][quote=Rustico]Ever heard of the word “chattel”,Djshakes?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_bibl.htm%5B/quote%5D

Are you honestly going to sit and tell me Muslim women have more rights than Christian woman?

By you pointing out a couple bible versus as your source is like arguing a Yugo is better than a Mercedes because the license plate bulb lasts longer.[/quote]
The other posters have managed to get this thread to a higher level. I hope you will join them.[/quote]
Please do explain what your point was then by posting your link?[/quote]
By reminding you of the history of women as “Chattel” in the Judeo-Christian tradition, specifically connecting it to century after century of enforcement of the inferior status of women in Christendom,I thought that you might begin to challenge some of your many attribution biases.”Christianity” did not save women.[/quote]

I don’t care about your comparisons of the past. Last I checked we lived in the present. My earlier comment was about Sharia law. My question to you was whether or not you thought women were afforded more rights under Sharia law or Christianity. You responded with a snide comment…because you know the answer negates your argument.

[Djshakes]

[quote=Rustico][quote=Djshakes][quote=Rustico][quote=Djshakes][quote=Rustico]Ever heard of the word “chattel”,Djshakes?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_bibl.htm%5B/quote%5D

Are you honestly going to sit and tell me Muslim women have more rights than Christian woman?

By you pointing out a couple bible versus as your source is like arguing a Yugo is better than a Mercedes because the license plate bulb lasts longer.[/quote]
The other posters have managed to get this thread to a higher level. I hope you will join them.[/quote]
Please do explain what your point was then by posting your link?[/quote]
By reminding you of the history of women as “Chattel” in the Judeo-Christian tradition, specifically connecting it to century after century of enforcement of the inferior status of women in Christendom,I thought that you might begin to challenge some of your many attribution biases.”Christianity” did not save women.[/quote]

I don’t care about your comparisons of the past. Last I checked we lived in the present. My earlier comment was about Sharia law. My question to you was whether or not you thought women were afforded more rights under Sharia law or Christianity. You responded with a snide comment…because you know the answer negates your argument.

[Author]

Posts