Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (16741)	6/14/2001 4:24:26 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

RE: Atheism. A while back we were discussing bias against atheists and I said that I would report incidents of it as they came to my attention. This afternoon I've been watching the Senate debate an amendment that would cut off Federal funding to any school district that doesn't not allow the Boy Scouts access to the schools. In the course of the debate, Senator Brownback was aghast over a statement that had been made by the ACLU regarding access to schools because it included the Scouts in the same sentence with atheists, satanists, and nazis. How could that horrible ACLU utter the name of the Scouts in that context. Sounds like prejudice against atheists to me. No? Karen

To: Neocon who wrote (16741)	6/14/2001 4:30:42 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

India is maybe the most understandable case, since AFAIK Hinduism is actually not a sexist religion (relatively speaking, anyway) and the predominant discrimination in India is by caste, not gender. Certainly there is sexual stereotyping, but it doesn't seem to lead particularly to submission/repression of women, rather to rigid but more equal demarcation of territory - which does not seem to include the wielding of political power. Possibly Indira Ghandi was a start of that, or maybe it's an attitude since pre-Moghul days? Islam, at least as applied in the world today, does seem to lead to a very noticeable shift of power towards men - I'm sure brees will confirm that this is not proper Koranic teaching, but women are very definitely repressed (have fewer effective rights, less scope for the individual and far less power) in Islamic countries. Which makes it all the odder that Pakistan (given a return by Benazir Bhutto), Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Indonesia could all soon be governed by women via 'elected dynasties', where it's certain that the descendants would never have attained power had it not been for the example of their husbands/fathers... incidentally a concept which was tried in the UK 200+ years ago (the Pitt's) but is, of course, totally alien to modern nations like the USA <vbg>