It seems that since the dawn of time there has been inequality and injustice at every level throughout societies globally. The Capitalist elite utilitarian mode of governance has reigned supreme albeit under a different banner. The right of due-process which is not actually a fundamental right within the Australian constitution is neither fair or consistantly implemented and enforced. Society is based on sexism and the masculine white anglo male has/and does determine much in the basic constructs of the law. The High Court of Australia in the past 100 years has had but ONE female judge! This is supposedly based on a meritorious system but when delved into deeper the cracks emerge. The minority capitalist elite who are seated and serving in all arms of government and the judicial system have no concept of the impoverished. They were predominantly private schooled and mixed in a societal hot bed of the rich. Class, race, gender distinction plays a part in society from wages to justice of every kind. The new agenda of governments globally in the 21st century is further impinging on the rights of citizens civil liabilities all under the guise and premise of national security and the threat of terrorism. What then have we left as people and individuals when the very laws that were written to protect us are being stripped away piece by piece under the banner of a 'Democracy'?

Dear Justice,- "Sexism" is a term invented for socio political purposes.

It has no foundation in life other than this.

The idea of 'sexism' suggests or infers that there is a trancendental 'standard' in existence which declares that what is described as 'sexism' is 'wrong'.

Unless you can point to the exact nature of this trancendental standard and prove it's validity.. I'm afraid you are left with the law of the jungle.. unpalatable as that may seem.

Now..at this point, if you have read this far, you are either in denial.. or in a crisis of identity...

I suggest there IS a standard which transcends life..and is a law to which we may appeal... for issues of justice and fairness.

That 'law' so to speak is the Almighty. But with regard to God's self revelation to us.. there are only 2 major points.

1/ Love God...
2/ Love your neighbour as yourself...

These laws cannot be legally enforced as they are matters of the heart. But in regard to your issue..there is no other standard to which you may appeal.. unless you have in mind some other Deity which so prescribes 'sexism' to be morally wrong.

The Christian concept of human relations for males and females is that they COMPLEMENT each other, rather than compete. We each have areas of life specialty, and we will function as a society best when we fulfill those complementary roles.

True Justice is not about 'numbers' in this or that profession.. but about love, dignity and harmony. Obsession with numbers and gender will be our undoing. "Be" what we are..and be the best we can at being that.

Suddenly...it will all fall into place.

"The Christian concept of human relations for males and females is that they COMPLEMENT each other, rather than compete. We each have areas of life specialty, and we will function as a society best when we fulfill those complementary roles."

Sounds like you are suggesting that the man should be the breadwinner and the little wife stay home and keep house. How about instead suggesting that each person has a role and a speciality. Family and society works best when everyone performs the roles at which they are best suited. This causes the least amount of conflict in general. The only problems that arise are where people come into the arena with preconceived ideas about what someone's role should be.

As far as female high court judges go, it is a sad but true fact of life that women will always be more involved in family raising, and so will have restrictions on career-building (in this context read butt-kissing at late night social functions). Some women are able to transcend this (usually with a supportive partner) and its great to see that this can happen. But it takes an enormous amount of drive AND the acceptance that to pursue this path we have to miss out on other things. Its a fallacy that women can have it all. Men cant, so why on earth should women think any different. Both CAN have a career and have children, but the amount of time and the quality of time to be dedicated to one or the other will suffer as a result. In the past men have given up the time with kids, whilst women have given up the career (or at least put it on hold for many years). No-one gets it all.

Half right, Boaz. Which is actually an improvement, so, good for you.

>>"Sexism" is a term invented for socio political purposes.<<

That's the bit you are right about.

And this is the bit where you go of the rails.

>>The idea of 'sexism' suggests or infers that there is a trancendental 'standard' in existence which declares that what is described as 'sexism' is 'wrong'.<<

The word "sexism" is, in all its usages, pejorative. It is only used to describe an attitude that is inherently unfair or biased, hence there cannot be an application of the term that is either neutral or good.

There is therefore no need for a "transcendental standard". The only reason that the word would be deployed is where something is already "wrong", the word itself it provides no service in the measurement of that wrong, only naming its source.

The author clearly describes an imbalance in outcomes, and attributes that imbalance to sexism. It is reasonable to object to either the facts behind the assertion or the assertion itself, but not to veer off at a tangent to try and establish a neutral platform from which to judge sexism itself.

>>Unless you can point to the exact nature of this trancendental standard and prove it's validity.. I'm afraid you are left with the law of the jungle.. unpalatable as that may seem.<<

This is just another poorly disguised attempt to divert the discussion into religion - the Boaz MIUAUG mythology. Unfortunately, because there is no need to identify or validate this "transcendental standard", the segue falls flat.

"Preaching" can also carry pejorative overtones, Boaz. As I think it does here.

Pericles... you are half right also.. again.. good for you :)

It is USually used as you described. BUT.. and it's one of those 'follow the finger' buts.. it, (like most things people care about) becomes extended from the basic 'unfairnes' aspect into ALL or ANY aspect of life where women are treated differently from men.

C.G.. you read a lot 'into' my post...did't you :) keep trying.

Pericles..back 2 u... What you describe as 'unfairness' may in reality not be, but simply is perceived that way.

Example. Female front line combat soldiers.

Clearly, they are not as well suited for this task.. as males.
To say to them "sorry.. you are not suited for this" may cause the 'whoa..thats unfair" reaction, when in reality it is extremely fair.. by protecting the rest of the soldiers from a physical 'weak link' which might compromise the safety of their whole platoon.

Many concepts of 'social and gender' justice do, in my opinion appeal to a standard which they believe is a kind of ultimate truth.. along with animal rights, vegetarians.. etc.. Though some might on the surface appeal to medical grounds.. pushed far enough you will find 'other' things..

*Scratch a vegetarian hard enough and you will find an embryonic Hindu*... not universally true, but close.

The number of female or male High Court judges.. should not be linked with 'fairness' in my humble view..except where it could be shown that such a situation exists due to deliberate 'blokes looking after blokes, simply because they are blokes'

Perhaps those who make the decisions about who does what adhere to an ideology or a faith which suggests it is not the best thing to have female leaders ? If they do... who are you or anyone to criticize them..and if you do..on what grounds ? aaah.. see ? we are back to that 'trancendental standard' again

BD, the front-line soldiers argument is flawed. Some women wont be up to the physical task, just as some men will fail. To ban all women is silly. Those that want to take on the role have to pass physical standards, and if they can pass them, and they are prepared to take on the risks of being on the front line, then who are you to say they cant just becaue they are female. Rot! I dont suggest that standards should be softened so that more women will make the grade, but if they do make the grade and that's what they want to do, then they shouldnt be stopped because of someone's ideal of good roles for women.

Further the basic standard that we have suggested we aspire to as Australians is equality of opportunity. Where opportunity is indeed equal, then numbers of men or women in particular areas shouldnt be a concern. But while we aspire to this standard, we still fall short of achieving it by a long way. Growing up in an environment where children were encouraged to aspire to anything they pleased, it was a rude shock to me when I left home, moving some distance away, to find out just how unequal opportunities are, both for men/women, rich/poor, etc. Some of the views that are held around me still beggar belief. Eg, that a man who stays home to raise the kids (even in the short-term) is a bludger - it cuts both ways you know. To me that just denigrates not only the poor bloke in question, but also the role of women in general and the value of good child raising.

I thank you kindly for your comments and perspectives on my posting.
However, Boaz, I fail to see what relevance religion has to do with this topic. That is the problem globally, everyone wants to project religion into any given political topic as if there is some fundamental religious law above all else. That is not the societal reality when you look at hard data pertaining to my posting. Firstly, I am not some crazy Germaine Greer type feminist who has gone totally off the rails. I agree with you on the issue of female frontline soldiers, but then we are getting back to the 'sexist' view that has been around for centuries that women are indeed inferior to men. Physically, yes of course I totally agree. I am talking about inequality of wages, careers and how the female gender are treated throughout politics and the judicial system and society in general. Our monetary worth is less, why? many women perform at extremely high levels of various professions and are totally competent and better in some cases then men. Why then are women worth less? This is 'sexism'. Your comment about male and female complementing each other is true, but as females we should have the free choices that males have, we do not!
I am a mother,and I am currently studying at University, why can't I have it all? I still take care of my family, but again that delves back to the old perception that women stay at home and take care of the family and be ostracised as some unmaternal weirdo if you want a bit more out of your life.

in addition;
Women are unrepresented in all areas of politics, and as stated in the prior posting, what is alleged to be meritorious is not necessarily the case. Women are different from men! Yes of course but I still adhere to the fact that if viewed from an historical perspective the white male patriachal system reigns supreme, this is not a fallacy, it is fact. One only has to view the data throughout the court and criminal justice system to see how disadvantaged women are. It was only in the late 1980's that 'Domestic Violence' laws were inacted; up to that point in time it was historically accepted that men could do what they would with their spouses or partners and it was nothing to do with the autorities? It was only in the last decade that the laws of rape within marriage were aceepted and passed to protect the women. How then can you state that sexism does not exist and is nothing more than a token phrase used in the socio-political arena. In not accepting its existence, that is condoning it from my view and perpetuating the inequality. I would like to end by saying that all of your comments thus far were thought provoking and greatly appreciated. Wishing you all a wonderful weekend.

Boazy, you really do write some rubbish here:

"*Scratch a vegetarian hard enough and you will find an embryonic Hindu*... not universally true, but close."

What utter nonsense. I'll have to try scratching my vego partner and finding her inner Hindu - hopefully a Kama Sutra devotee!

Back to the topic:

"Perhaps those who make the decisions about who does what adhere to an ideology or a faith which suggests it is not the best thing to have female leaders ?"

Given that Boazy is a member of a particularly patriarchal Christian sect, it's little wonder that he believes that women complement men best by remaining barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. However, at least one of the more mainstream Christian denominations apparently thinks otherwise. The Anglican Church of Australia has cleared the way for women to be ordained as diocesan bishops - although some reactionaries like Peter Jensen retain a view of women's subordination that resembles Boazy's:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/28/2046124.htm

Hi there CG... keyword.. "equality of opportunity where the opportunity is equal".. yep.. good point.
The thing is.. as Justice (who agrees with me here) the physical is the big point.. I don't want to re-argue the same things I have done b4... but keep in mind... I spend 2 nights a week in a mixed combat class and when it comes to combat.. the chics just donnnnt have it...
Strength.. it counts.. bigtime. But the other point about front line and mixed gender soldiering.. for goodness sake.. a pack of blokes out in the bundu with 1 or 2 so so shielas.... sleeping arrangements.. bathing arrangements... male female attraction? Jealousy... none of those things suddenly switch off when you grab the Stire and put the camo's on. The potential for morale to totally come unstuck is huge.

Justice.. an important point I wish to make.. I do not in any way regard females as 'inferior'... I regard them as different..and in a very beautiful complementary way....

You mentioned the usual list of stuff.. such as equal pay etc.. "representation" ..now thats an interesting one. I would love to think that all people are represented in government etc by 'people' irrespective of their gender.

We start to enter the arena of 'culture' here.. they way it used to be was that men were culturally expected to pay for a night out with a female friend.. so the cultural theory was.. men have to spend more and women less... so.. equalize the financial burdern in terms of our cultural norms.

I don't know that the shift from that pattern to the 'equality' thing is neccessarily good. It might be having serious social implications that we have not yet been able to measure. Cultural decay does not happen overnight and tinkering with the glue which holds us together can have horrific consequences.

The big vaccuum these days I see.. is the absence of love.
I was only alluding to 'religion' in an indirect way above..I tend to do that with every 'ism' or issue.. its my 'work' :)

continued....(responding to Justice)

You mentioned:

'Domestic Violence' laws were inacted; up to that point in time it was historically accepted that men could do what they would with their spouses or partners and it was nothing to do with the autorities?

I'm not sure about this one. Laws against assault etc.. are not limited to outside of marriage.. and this 'domestic violence' thing has gone totally too far to the point of direct and specific discrimination and 'pre-judging' men.. no matter what the reason.

In my local police station, there are pamhlets saying "It's NEVER 'your' fault when he is violent" which is a load of absolute rubbish. On the one hand.. CG is telling us about how women can fight up there with the rest of us.. but this pamphlet is telling us we are always wrong.. and on face value it would appear that to knock a women out who is coming at you with a large knife.. is ALSO wrong.

I was physically attacked with a weapon in Melbourne just for holding a sign a communist woman didn't like.. and when I fronted her up to the police, they threatened to arrest 'me'.

Back to Religion. If anything is clear.. the treatment of wives by husbands is ABUNDANTLY clear in scripture. "love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her".

So, in the case of 'It was accepted that men could do' etc.... well.. the solution might have simply been 'repentance' from such evils in God's eyes. Culture might have accepted it (DV) but God sure didnt.

BD, I've worked on an outback farm as one of 3 women among 40-odd men. Same sort of isolation. When you are out in the paddock you have to take a wee, but no facilities. You just do what you have to. To say that it wil automatically lead to disruption along sexual lines is silly. The navy have managed perfectly well with homosexuality ;) . I've also worked in other male-dominated industries and have had few problems. Women are in the armed forces now and generally in the minority. Just not normally on the front line. Front line gender politics should be no different to back at base camp.

The criminal justice system is corrupt. I think the only way to fix it is to have a nation-wide reform of the legal process. We should adopt the inquisitorial system for a start, and do away with the commercialisation of lawyers, who should all be public servants. The system is slanted towards the accused, because just about everyone concerned with it is a trained defence lawyer. Common law wasn't originally designed to favour anyone, but over the centuries the defence lawyer has moulded it to suit themselves. Even the principle of innocent until proven guilty is suspect. Has anyone actually thought about this? Under the inquisitorial system, the accused is neither considered guilty nor innocent; the matter is unproven, and all evidence is admissable. Doesn't that make more sense? Because of the principle of innocence prior evidence of wrong-doing is withheld from the jury as it may "unfairly" prejudice them. Over the years defence lawyers (and this includes the judiciary, legislators etc) have chipped away at the process so as to most favour the accused. Male judges still reserve have the right to deny child witnesses the right to give evidence shielded from the accused. I don't know that our female judges are any better. The problem is more of a defence lawyer bias than gender bias, although gender bias plays its part too.

With expresions like the following it is easy to see justice1964 personal agenda, "The Capitalist elite utilitarian mode of governance has reigned supreme albeit under a different banner."

I fail to see how capitalism or socialism has anything to do with justice. I prefer to live in societies where free markets reign than in societies where the equalisation of income is enforced by the State. There is evidence of envy of the rich and the private schooled. She considers such as injustice.

In NSW we have women Judges and they are extremely biased in favour of criminals and extremely condemnatory of the law and those who uphold the law.

Philo: "In NSW we have women Judges and they are extremely biased in favour of criminals and extremely condemnatory of the law and those who uphold the law."

I don't suppose Philo would care to provide some verifiable examples to back up this extraordinary assertion?

Look at the judgments of Pat O'Shane and her summing up remarks.

One Case report:

Paul Makucha says while he welcomes Ms O'Shane's referral to the NSW Judicial Commission's conduct division, it had come "too late" and that he had still not received an apology for the incident.
Ms O'Shane, the first Aboriginal barrister in Australia and a former head of the NSW Aboriginal Affairs Department who in 1998 was named one of Australia's 100 National Living Treasures, now risks being removed from office after senior members of the NSW judiciary referred her to the disciplinary tribunal.

The state's top judges moved against Ms O'Shane, who was appointed a NSW magistrate in 1986, after she clashed with Mr Makucha in a civil case, jailed him for contempt, heard part of the case in his absence and then ruled for the other side.

Mr Makucha, 60, was strip-searched, photographed and imprisoned for a day after being cited for contempt in July 2004.

"They stripped me, made me lift my scrotum and bend over so they could examine my rectum and made me stand naked in a designated place," Mr Makucha told The Australian last night.

He had been imprisoned from 11am to 4pm and was then given 35 minutes to raise bail of $500 to avoid spending a weekend in jail.

In November last year, the NSW Court of Appeal overturned Ms O'Shane's judgment and found that she had denied Mr Makucha procedural fairness and had made "wholly unreasonable" interpretations of his intentions.

The court said Mr Makucha had behaved badly, "but it was hardly contempt in the face of the court".

"The magistrate's behaviour ... when the defendant was unrepresented was quite inappropriate," the Court of Appeal judges said. "The exercise by the magistrate of a little tact from the beginning of the defendant's conduct to which she took exception would have gone a long way."

Mr Makucha said the inquiry into Ms O'Shane's conduct was excellent news but it was far too late

The above article is from the AUSTRALIAN NEWS PAPER
Chris Merritt, Legal affairs editor | November 02, 200

So, Philo - that's the best you can do to justify your outrageous claim? The article suggests that one female magistrate erred in charging an unrepresented defendant with contempt, and was referred to a disciplinary tribunal.

Hardly evidence to support your statement that "In NSW we have women Judges and they are extremely biased in favour of criminals and extremely condemnatory of the law and those who uphold the law."

How was Ms O'Shane biased in favour of criminals in that case, and exactly where did she condemn the law and those who uphold it? Come on Philo, you made an appallingly egregious claim and you really must provide evidence to support it - or withdraw it.

As it stands, it looks like you are "extremely biased" against female members of the NSW judiciary - particularly if they are Aboriginal. But that's not all that surprising from a male Anglo fundamentalist Christian, is it?

CJ... sooo predictable.....
-you ask for evidence..
-evidence is provided..
-OH.. you say the evidence is weak.

Let me tranlate that into a tribal situation.

-You buy a piece of land for 5 buffaloes.
-The government decides to consider placing an airstrip on that land... making it much more valuable now...
-The person who sold you the land..suddenly finds out and says "HEyyy..those buffaloes were incredibly SMALL"....hint hint....

Patriarchy is not a bad thing.
Matriarchy is not a bad thing.
BALANCED culture is a good thing.

Looking just at 'one' aspect of our culture, and caning it in the name of some upstart wanna be ideology like unworkable marxism or socialism.. is plain shabby.
Patriarchy does not in ANY way have to mean 'inequality or injustice' it all depends on how the overall culture is structured.

Well Boaz,

Tell me honestly, did your white patriarchal status have anything to do with how you were able to marry a non-white women?

How the sister puts up with you on a daily basis is beyond my comprehesion.

Read carefully - I never claimed all women Judges in NSW are biased in favour of criminals. But we do have women who are soft on criminals, especially the stated.

Re: Comment by Philo insinuating envy of the private schooled and wealthy, absoloutely ludicrous! I am private schooled and University educated and am not impoverished. However, I am a realist and if people wish to live in denial and hide behind the cloak of religion or anything else they choose, then all power to them and may they wallow in their ignorance. I posted a comment for discussion and I am pleased that it has received such a great response. The FACT of the matter is this great country Australia was founded on a lie, racism and all other things unequal. 'Terra Nullius' in 1992 in the High Court Mabo case was found to be illegal. Not that the indigenous people have come anyway near to reconciliation except for a token piece of legislature here and there to appease them. Them the Howard government repeals part of the decision and adds his 10 point plan! The Australian Constitution is fundamentally based on inequality and racism so to deny its existence and question my comments on injustice and inequality frankly are insulting and absurd. I have empathy and compassion for the impoverished people of this country and all others globally and think that speaking of Adam and Eve when I am discussing politics is half the problem. I have not personally insulted anyone and do not expect personal insults amongst a topical debate. The fact is the system is unequal and things need to change. I thank you all again for your responses all of which have been thought provoking!

Putting this into perspective, Boaz:

>>...this 'domestic violence' thing has gone totally too far to the point of direct and specific discrimination and 'pre-judging' men.. no matter what the reason.<<

Coming from someone who believes that it is ok to beat his daughter, this is hardly an earth-shattering view.

>>Pericles... What you describe as 'unfairness' may in reality not be, but simply is perceived that way.<<

Your problem is illustrated perfectly in this statement. Your life is run on the basis that there is only one, intractable and immovable measurement, and that this measurement can be universlly and objectively applied to determine whether something is manifestly "fair" or "unfair".

For example, some people believe that being able to send their children to a school of their choice is "fair". Others, equally fervently, believe that it is "unfair" that some parts of the population should be able to exercise this choice, and that private education should not exist. Similarly, there are those who believe that it is totally "fair" that they should be allowed to buy choice in healthcare, through insurance. Others believe that this delivers "unfairness" in the system, and that it should be abolished.

"Fairness" and "unfairness" are, by definition Boaz, individual perceptions. My point was that if you discern unfairness in discrimination between men and women, this is the only occasion that you would introduce the term "sexism". It is by nature pejorative, indicating that unfairness exists. So you cannot argue with the use of the word itself, you can only argue the question of unfairness that underlies it.

Not that you care a fig about proper usage of the English language, or the clear expression of ideas. Both of these are antithetic to your chosen method of discussion, which is to throw our vague and wishy-washy concepts in order to later ground them in some kind of pop-religious cant.

Pericles: "Not that you care a fig about proper usage of the English language, or the clear expression of ideas."

Quite so, Pericles. I wonder if it's a feature of the fundamentalist Christian mind? Not only are linguistic imprecision and malapropism features of their mode of argumentation, but I think it's also integral to their understanding of what they read.

For example, Philo made the outrageous (and probably defamatory) claim that "In NSW we have women Judges and they are extremely biased in favour of criminals and extremely condemnatory of the law and those who uphold the law."

When asked to provide evidence, Philo refers us to one case concerning a female magistrate, that in no way supports his contention. However, this doesn't prevent Boazy from sticking his oar in and obfuscating Philo's error with a supposedly "tribal" anecdote that is somehow relevant in Boazy's mind, but which has no logical connection that I can fathom.

Philo then attempts to back-pedal, saying "I never claimed all women Judges in NSW are biased in favour of criminals. But we do have women who are soft on criminals, especially the stated." So now we have Philo claiming he didn't mean what he actually wrote, and amending his egregious assertion so that it's somewhat less offensive - but stll unsupported by any actual evidence for what he is asserting.

I suppose it's unsurprising that these fundies present what passes for their arguments in tortured English, given that they are woefully credulous in what they accept as "evidence" for their religious beliefs, both linguistically and materially. Most of their theological evidence derives from interpretations of what somebody said or wrote a very long time ago, and which has been translated several times since.

If this is what they regard as infallible truth, then it's little wonder that their arguments invariably fail on all levels, including logic, evidence and the manner in which they are expressed.

One question for Boazy: can you name one matriarchy, past or present, that has actually existed? (Hint: matriarchy is not the same as matriliny).

CJ... I can relate one people group 'described' as matriarchal on the doco which I viewed. It was a group of Chinese where the males were traditionally off fighting..soldiering..and came back only occassionaly. This resulted in the women
a) In charge of..owning the property
b) Temporary/multiple husbands/boyfriends.

Patriarchal Inequality in Heaven/Paradise.

One thing about the Christian idea of heaven, is that there is 'no marriage' there. All are equal... male and female.

I find it fascinating how in Islam.. even the terminology of 'paradise' is understood in 'male' terms.

For example.. in Islam Q & A some scholar quotes a verse which is gender neutral
http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=10053&ln=eng

Verily, the dwellers of Paradise, that Day, will be busy in joyful things” [Yaa-Seen 36:55]

Note...the word "dwellers".....

He then goes on to interpet

they said, (it means) THEY will be busy deflowering virgins. Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said, according to a report narrated from him, that “busy in joyful things” means listening to stringed instruments. Abu Haatim said: he misheard the phrase iftidaad al-abkaar (deflowering virgins) and thought it was samaa’ al-awtaar (listening to stringed instruments). In fact the correct phrase is iftidaad al-abkaar (deflowering virgins). (Ibn Katheer, 3/564)

Now..note the world 'they' which is connected to 'dwellers' and it is given a specific gender.. "males"?

The next verse.. 33:36 says "They..(the blokes) and their wives.. will be in pleasant shade"

So..putting this together.. we have the blokes getting laid continuously -deflowering virgins.. while the wives.. (who are still wives) sit in the shade and look on.....

I don't think I'm wrongly understanding this.. but am open to well sourced correction.

You are so fond of doing this Boaz, I wonder how you ever have any time left over for normal life. Or even if you have time left over for normal life...

Where did you dig up this site?

The author - as I am sure you already know - is presented as a hard-line, Saudi-based Islamist, who writes books with titles like "Weakness of Faith", and is well known around the traps as having links to Hamas and Al-Qaida.

Would you think it appropriate if all commentary on Christianity were to refer to the works of, say, Pat Robertson and his acolytes? Here is one of them, Randall Terry, in full flight:

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."

Mind you, it is well within the bounds of possibility that this is, in fact, reflective of your own sentiments, Boaz.

In which case there is no surprise at all in the fact that you choose to quote from the works of people of a similar disposition, from amongst your enemies.

>>I don't think I'm wrongly understanding this.. but am open to well sourced correction<<

I suspect that when you choose to quote from a hard-line fanatic, Boaz, you will get exactly what you expect to find. There is as little point in "refuting" your interpretation as there is in "refuting" the words of your friend Mr Terry.

Incidentally, does it ever occur to you that if you were to take the item you quote from literally, they would quickly run out of virgins? So clearly, the underlying concept is about as literal as sitting on a cloud playing a harp. It is m-e-t-a-p-h-o-r, Boaz, nothing more and nothing less.

CJ Morgan,
I could state many such cases of injustice attributed to such. But the said person has a history of taking defamation action. The quote was already in the public domain.

If we grant Philo the benefit of his back-pedal with respect to Ms O'Shane, perhaps it would be useful if he would provide some examples and evidence of other "women Judges.. (who) ..are extremely biased in favour of criminals and extremely condemnatory of the law and those who uphold the law".

Or will he hide behind defamation laws again to reinforce what appears to be nothing more than a gratuitous slur on women Judges in NSW, on the basis of one case for which Philo will not (or cannot) provide any evidence that actually supports his claim?

I can see why he'd be worried about defamation laws - this is just malicious gossip of the worst order. Shame on you, Philo.

Dear Pericles.. that was a most interesting post.

You see.. here is where you went astray.

1/ The author of that interpretation.. no matter who he is.. was actually quoting Ibn Qathr.. a very notable Muslim scholar who was way before any of the questionable organizations you mentioned :)

2/ I noticed he was Saudi..yes.. I did not sus him out to the extent you did.. but in this case it isn't relevant. The opinions..were not his .. get it ?

3/ His opinions.. backed up by.. highly esteemed scholars.. have nothing to do with terror.. they have to do with paradise. Though..I suppose if you stretch it a bit we could apply it in this way "Suicide bombers who are yearning for sex in the shade with virgins while their wives happily watch... will be more prone to blow themselves up"
Yep..that thought did occur to me. But that wasn't why I posted it...
It just blows my mind.. that such a view of paradise could be.... and that people are sucked in by it... I've been dialogging with some Muslims in other venues..and the issue of paradise is one issue which cropped up.

Don't you find it rather 'patriarchal and unequal' how the idea of paradise is explained ? and don't you think this could explain some attitudes which are 'endemic' in society ?

PS.. I'm quite happy for you to post 'whacko' "Christian" opinion.. its a free country. People can always read the Bible and get the real story.

Remember how I'm always saying "Do for others as you would have them do for you"..... well.. I certainly don't expect a free ride in all this.
blessings...

Oh..Pericles... on the 'run out of virgins'.... I recall I posted a portion of dialog with a muslim from youtube which you should remember.. (if you don't.. CJ will help you.. he has all my posts highlighted remember :)
That bloke said as follows:

"paradise will mean virgins.. recycled.. each time ur finished.. they will become virgins again.. no menses.. no toilet.. just there for your pleasure"

Well.. you can call it a metaphor if you like..but please see how Muslims interpet it....rather than comitting 'isogesis' yourself.

Here is another view.. this one from Malaysia.. fascinating stuff... really. He says 'a'...and then 'b' in the next sentence.. while a and b are not compatable.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503549252

Read the QUESTION though.. that is a deuzy.

Part of the Answer:

"It is meant for those who want it, not for every single mujahid. Yet every Muslim man and woman who is allowed to enter Heaven is given the opportunity to get whatever he or she wants as clearly stated in the Qur’an and many Hadiths of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). This means that those women who don’t want their husbands to have more could be granted this wish and desire. At the same time if the husbands of those women want to have more than them Allah is great and can satisfy each of them in the way He, the Almighty, wants."

COMMENT This interpreter states a MANS desire.. for many women..and his WIVES desire..that he have only her.. will BOTH be satisfied. err.. 'how'?
They are in direct 100% conflict -He wants A.....she wants B
Cannot have it both ways.

This answer is 'ducking and weaving' and is tailored to make gullable women happy and obedient.

Hey Boazy, I think its time to clean your keyboard, your comma key doesn't work and your full stop key is sticking.

What stories do Christian fundies tell to "make gullable (sic) women happy and obedient"?

The point here, surely, is what is real, and what is fantasy?

My own position is, as you know, that the stories behind both Christianity and Islam are based upon fantasy. What I am trying to do here is point out to you that you cannot claim that there is a serious difference between these two fantasies.

You can point out for as long as you like that the fantasies are different, that they represent different views of the world, and that the scriptures that guide each fantasy were written when times and moralities were substantially different.

But what you cannot claim is that one is more "real" than the other. They both exist only in the imaginations and beliefs of the individual.

Try as you might, you cannot identify any vestige of reality in the quotation you provide about "recycled virgins". Apart from the fact that it is a literal impossibility, it is also a figurative unreality - surely one of the points of virginity is that the virgin in question hasn't "done it". It's hardly a selling point when you get to heaven and find your selected virgin has been recycled a few hundred times, now is it?

So it can only be a metaphor. You yourself are adept at determining the difference between reality and metaphor in the Bible - what is stopping you allowing the same leeway to someone else's religion?

Is that too much to ask?

Incidentally - and I know I have asked this before without getting any semblance of an answer - what is your view of the Christian version of Paradise, Boaz?

And is it literal, or figurative?

Pericles.. the more I read on Islamic paradise.. the more my mind is 'boggled'.... if you do some googling and read the results,

"Paradise for women in Islam"

you will discover that whether or not 'you' believe such claims to be fantasies.. they are very real to the adherants of that faith. VERY real... and this translates into real world behavior.. and the kind of 'endemic patriarchal inequality' that the topic is about.

I CONFESS.. (CJ) I'm not a brilliant speller. Goes back to being traumatized by a sadistic cruel smart alec English teacher in form 3... I still remember his name !
What would I do without your constant reminders of my inadequacies?
Thanx for your help.

APOLOGIES to Justice.. I don't mean to hijack this thread...
no more comments from me about this matter ....

Once again you avoid the key issue Boaz, and attempt a sidetrack.

Do you believe that "Paradise", in any religion or language, is literal or metaphorical?

Assuming you accept that it is dubious to expect to hang around on a little fluffy cloud playing a harp, do you see any differences in the metaphor of the Islamic Paradise and that of the Christian one?

It is too glib to say that you are shocked by an interpretation of a metaphor - "the more I read on Islamic paradise.. the more my mind is 'boggled'" - because you are confusing the means with the end.

It obviously is greatly troubling to you Boaz, so may I suggest the following treatment.

Try to imagine, if you can, the real, factual existence of the Islamic Paradise. Since you are not a Muslim, I suspect that you will find this impossible - after all, it can only be "real" to Muslims, right?

There - in one fell swoop you have relegated the Islamic Paradise to the realms of fantasy. Since it doesn't exist, you can stop fretting about it, and get on with something useful.

Now try the same exercise with the Christian Paradise. More success this time? Good. Now, tell me what you see. Any harps? Something like this, perhaps?

http://www.spiritualism.org.au/teaching/astralplanes.html

So tell me, now that you have had time to consider it carefully, what is your view on paradise?

Fact or fantasy? Myth or reality? Literal or metaphorical?

Pericles.. there is a lot more 'imagery' in the Christian concept of paradise...not sure how to interpet 'lion will lay down with the lamb' literal..or symbolic..

Islamic paradise is primarily 'real' ..when they speak of having sexual relations with the Houris..they mean REAL sex.. I've been speaking with a few on youtube.. trust me.. for them...its real.

I rather like the Christian concept.. all equal up there. None of this 'girls for the men'...but 'nice shade' for the wives.

That's a total cop-out, Boaz, and you know it.

>>Pericles.. there is a lot more 'imagery' in the Christian concept of paradise...Islamic paradise is primarily 'real' ..when they speak of having sexual relations with the Houris..they mean REAL sex..<<

You avoided answering the questions. Is the Christian paradise real, or imaginary? Is the Islamic paradise real, or imaginary? Unless and until you can answer these, all your protestations that one is somehow "better" that the other is just wind.

>>I rather like the Christian concept.. all equal up there. None of this 'girls for the men'...but 'nice shade' for the wives.<<

Where is this particular suburban bliss version of paradise described, Boaz? Or is it only in your imagination, a piece of wishful thinking that describes your personal picture of how you would like to spend eternity?

The reason - the only reason - that I am trying to squeeze out of you some corroborative detail, Boaz, is that you spend so much of your time in the land of double standards when you criticize religions other than your own. If you were to be a little more even-handed in the way you handle the material on Islam that you spend your life researching, then there would be far less reason to label you an unreconstructed mozzie-basher.

And please, YouTube is not a very productive research tool.

>>when they speak of having sexual relations with the Houris..they mean REAL sex.. I've been speaking with a few on youtube.. trust me.. for them...its real.<<

Yep. Hollywood is real too, Boaz. Remember, on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. That makes it a prime-time vehicle for propaganda of the highest order

What is this thread about? Justice or inequality? It seems like its, "Lets jump on Boazy!"

I think the chances of getting this thread on-topic are Buckleys, Philo. Once Boaz takes us along his whack-a-mozzie road, there's no turning back.

It doesn't matter where we start, at some point he will hijack us into his comfort zone of trite tepid-gospelling. And I'm afraid that's usually the point where I get sucked right in. He's the Pavlov to my doggedness.

The diversion from the original topic was instigated, if you were to check, by a typical Boaz throwaway comment:

"Patriarchal Inequality in Heaven/Paradise. One thing about the Christian idea of heaven, is that there is 'no marriage' there. All are equal... male and female. I find it fascinating how in Islam.. even the terminology of 'paradise' is understood in 'male' terms.<<

And it all went downhill from there.

Hello All,

Well I must say when I first joined this forum and put forward a topical comment for discussion and debate I did not envisage that I would be a bystander, in essence reading someones elses thread! That is the trouble with all things religious, people just cannot help themselves throwing it in to the mix, thereby diverting the initial topic away from its original context. I actually think that Boaz would make a great politician. (runs at the mouth giving very little thought to other peoples opinions).

I do not know Boaz or anything about him and do not like to comment personally but, I have to say Boaz sounds like a fundamental christian extremist, no less radical in his opinions than the Islamic people that he is now denegrating and insulting. Christianity is no less radical or dangerous than Islam, one only has to look back historically at nearly every war or conflict, and yes, in amongst it all you will find religion, and not necessarily Islam or any other. Each individual is entitled to their own religious and political beliefs.But how did we get side tracked this far off course to discussing 'infinite supplies of virgins in heaven for all Muslims?' I do thank you all kindly for your input and although I am now reluctant to post again, undoubtedly, I will. I just hope that Boaz can keep on the premise of the topic and not drag us all into the vatican! Wishing you all well and hoping that somehow there is a slight possibility that my posting may deviate back to its original course. Have a lovely weekend.

justice1964: "I do not know Boaz or anything about him and do not like to comment personally but, I have to say Boaz sounds like a fundamental christian extremist, no less radical in his opinions than the Islamic people that he is now denegrating and insulting."

Indeed, justice1964. Amazingly enough, he got all snooty and defensive when I pointed out that he's a member of the Christian Taliban :)