But it can soon become quite complex, as when new evidence renders the proposition obsolete. Maybe a new fact comes about in which we'd have to conclude that the WWII ended in 1946 because of some technicality concerning some document arises. — Manuel

Oh no, that could not be because I was born a little over 9 months after the end of the war and my birth certificate says that year was 1946. However, I read something about when we figured out the year of Jesus's birth and the beginning of our calendar, that was 4 years off the actual date. So when we were figuring with the Mayan calendar the beginning of the new age we could not be sure of the correct date for that moment of transition. For reasons like this, I don't think we should say science is truth and assume there is no doubt that what believe is true. My very old logic book, explains we should never be too sure of what we think we know, and in fact. Unlike religious beliefs, in science, there are rules for determining facts and a belief can be changed with new information. The difference is religion is mythology and science is validated facts.

I like to address everyone who addresses me, but I might look like an egomaniac if I do that with so many replies so I am condensing. Some of you got, I am getting at the problem of religious conflicts, and the democratic belief that reasoning is the way to resolve conflicts. We do not want religious wars and we do not want people treated badly for religious reasons, so when it comes to knowing God's truth, shouldn't we pay attention to what is a fact and what is not a fact?

My preacher nephew is glad when archeologists prove an event in the bible did happen, but he was not at all happy when a terribly bad time was revealed as a climate-caused event. I thought he would be happy about that proof, but no, he was mad because his belief system demands such things be the act of God, not nature. Okay, but he is glad when the ruins of a building prove an event in the bible happened. However, then I must point out, even though archeologists have evidence of Troy that does not prove the gods are real.

Help me on this. If we are going to make laws that affect everyone, and put people in penitentiaries to save their souls, and go to war because that is the will of God, shouldn't we have really good grounds for what we believe?

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. — T Clark

Yes, yes, and yes. How can anyone today believe a god walked in a garden with a man and a woman and this is the beginning of our history? If that story is accepted as factual, isn't there a problem with our thinking? Like before scientific thinking why wouldn't everyone believe that story? There was not a method for thinking that would clarify the story as a myth, not a fact. Democracy is about reasoning and that is only possible when our minds are prepared to think independently and scientifically, right?

How do you know your address? Presumably you remember it. And so on. — Banno

:lol: No I don't remember it. I look for an envelope that has my address on it.

How do you know it's true? That's an account to be given, imo - although there may be different means for different facts. — tim wood

aaha, you asked the second question. :grin:

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. — T Clark

Thank you. I hope there are a few more definitions before I ask the next question.

True about Renaissance and philosophy. Philosophy was locked up in dogma until that point, for the most part. — schopenhauer1

Thank you and we should know the big, big difference was Aristotle and the Catholic church's Scholasticism that got philosophical and scientific thinking going. But even at this point, not much would have happened. The silk road lead to Europe replacing Roman numerals with Arabic (Indian) numbers which gave us the essential math to progress and also the technology of printing and making paper from China and that made it possible to make books that spread knowledge, including the Bible written in the languages people spoke so they read the Bible and determine truth for themselves. This was not so different from the forces that made Islam great, and it was what lead to democracy, not Christianity.

You are probably right in a sense. However, we shouldn't ignore the differences.

For example:

1. Christianity spread through persuasion, Islam spread through invasion and conquest.

2. There are very few (if any) Christian fundamentalist governments in the world, but many Muslim fundamentalist ones.

3. There are very few (if any) Christian terror organizations, but many Muslim ones.

4. Women are more likely to be oppressed and discriminated against in Muslim than in Christian countries, etc.

I think, ultimately, what matters is not which religion is theoretically "better", but which of them shows more respect for freedom, democracy, and human rights.

Of course some may argue that the US President is "just as good or as bad" as the head of the Taliban, but I think this is debatable. — Apollodorus

Are you sure Christianity was not spread by the sword? We might have read different accounts of history?

What were the steps of persuasion used? How about economic warfare?

Point two, yes, many countries have not modernized as the West did following the renaissance in Europe. And thanks to this discussion, I have been pondering how anyone could write a history book for the East that made them think democracy is their inheritance from the Greeks and Rome?

Point three, would you call the KKK a terrorist organization? How about the Nazis?

Point four,

The 15 states that did not ratify the Equal Rights Amendment before the 1982 deadline were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. — ERA

And none of us had equal rights for that long. We sure can not applaud Christianity for our equal rights gains and protection from sexual predators because Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are basically the same patriarchial religion.

"I think, ultimately, what matters is not which religion is theoretically "better", but which of them shows more respect for freedom, democracy, and human rights." Yes, but that is what we gained through philosophy and conditions that lead to women having liberty, it is not because of religious differences. And can we keep in mind, at one time Isam was far more advanced than Christian Europe, and can we focus on why that was so? I think it is a mistake to think Christianity is better for democracy than Islam. If it had been for the renaissance and philosophy, we would not be a democracy and we would have protected freedom of speech and would not have liberty. Our failure to understand that and what it means to defend democracy in the classroom has us in deep trouble right.

Our president in the US was born a nation that began with liberal/classical education and had education to teach citizenship and defend democracy. We stopped that in 1958 and left moral training to the church. That was a huge mistake.

One more thing Kennedy and Biden were/are Catholic and that means universalism. Most US Presidents are Protestant and that means nationalism like the Christian Republic of Germany we defeated in two world wars and now resemble in many ways.

This is exactly the point that I have been trying to make :smile:

Of course fundamentalism, of any denomination, should be opposed. The question is, what can be done about it?

As I said, it is essential to understand how empires operate in order to understand how we got to this point. However, this is only the first step. The second step, which is equally important, is to understand the opponent.

For starters, we must avoid kidding ourselves and romanticizing Islam. The 7th century Arab is an outsider to what we call civilization, i.e., the urban civilization of Greece, Rome and Persia. He is at home in the Arabian desert whose barren expanse is only interrupted by scattered oases. But he is not content in the desert. For he has seen the unparalleled wealth and opulence of Christian Syria when traveling to the seasonal market at Damascus and the rich merchandise carried by the returning caravans which he and his comrades in arms have often raided. He has also heard of Constantinople, the “Great City of the Romans” (Rūmiyyat al-Kubra) “nothing like which was ever built, neither before nor after”.

Presumably, getting their hands on the gold and silver of Greece and Persia, and enslaving their populations, especially the women, was one of the motivations behind the Arab invasions. But the religious aspect of it should not be neglected.

Islam means submission to the will of God as supposedly revealed in the Koran.

Submission means Peace, non-submission means War or struggle between the forces of submission and the forces of rebellion.

Islamic Law (Sharia) divides the world into (1) areas of Peace or Islam, called the “House of Islam”, Dar al-Islam, where Islamic Law prevails, and (2) areas of War or Struggle, called the “House of War”, Dar al-Harb, where non-Islamic Law prevails.

The concepts of “House of Islam” and “House of War” do not appear to occur either in the Koran or in oral Hadith tradition. However, they were introduced by Muslim law-makers during the Muslim conquests and are part of Islamic Law.

Divisions of the world in Islam - Wikipedia

Presumably, Muslims who accept Islamic Law, also accept the division of the world into these two antagonistic camps, in which case it is not difficult to see why Muslim extremists see the existence of territories that are not subject to Islamic Law as a provocation and invitation, indeed obligation, to wage holy war or jihad against the “infidels.”

What compounds the problem is the Muslim belief that Islam was the original true religion that has been distorted by Jews and Christians whose current scriptures teach falsehoods and lead believers astray.

Clearly, the issue is more complex than it may seem.

So, can Islam be reformed? On the available evidence, I tend to doubt it. If we think about it, Christianity emerged within the evolved culture of Greece and Rome. In contrast, Islam had no comparable cultural background. It moderated itself for tactical reasons and through contact with other cultures. But it never reformed itself.

When external pressures force it to do so, Islam will stay within a certain range of moderation. But left on its own, its own inner logic will cause it to return to its unreformed and unmoderated roots.

This may be seen from the example of Pakistan. So long as it was part of British India, surrounded by Hindus, and dominated by European culture, it moderated itself for reasons of self-preservation. After Independence, when its main point of outside contact was Mecca in ultra-fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, it became more and more radical.

Education seems to be part of the problem. When you have millions of Muslim villagers with little or no education except what they are told by radical mullahs, then the outcome is entirely predictable. And, as we can see, there is a growing movement of opposition against Western education.

The name of the Islamist extremist organization "Boko Haram" (active in Niger and other African countries) literally means "Western education is forbidden" or "(Western) Book Forbidden," the only permitted book being the Koran. — Apollodorus

I see Christianity as just as good or bad as Islam. I hear about what is happening in Texas and wonder if are we coming to the end of our democracy because of Christian radicals? Texas is behind our conflicts with the mid-east and is no more tolerant of non Christian beliefs or racial differences than radical Muslims are tolerant of others. What do you think makes fundamentalist Christians different from fundamentalist Muslims? The Christian Mythology that takes credit for our democracy is no different from what you said about Muslims, and the power of that Christian mythology is the direct result of replacing liberal education with education for technology and leaving moral training to the church.

They might indeed. But it may equally be a cynical ploy to get the world to recognize their government and start pouring billions in aid into the coffers of their Islamic Emirate. — Apollodorus

That would be a terrible mistake for the reason TheMadFool mentioned. This conflict is as old as the Persain war with the Greeks. Any help the Taliban gets needs to remain in the control of those who provide the help. The Taliban must be kept in the position of beggars, until they are developed enough to be independent. I am putting that out there for the purpose of discussion, not because I am sure what I am thinking. But I would never give a teenager or young adult an unlimited credit and hope nothing goes wrong. In God or Allah we trust, must never be a supported belief! It must be very clear who is providing the needs of the people and what it takes to provide those needs. That is the East West difference. (until we come to Trump and then the East and West mentality is exactly the same.)

I don't know how to parse your recommendations. Some of them do sound like what a philosopher might say but I'm not certain whether it'll work or not. Are there any records of historical precedents? I mean that in the middle east and some mulsim southeast asian nations at least, rich philosophical traditions have been literally wiped off the face of the earth by Islam but the reverse has never happened. I'm doubtful that your well-meaning suggestions to improve the situation in Afghanistan will bear fruit.

Morever, the crux of the problem is this: The Taliban is about Islam, not Afghanistan. The west, on other hand, despite the possibility that it's just lip service, want Afghans to think hard and feel deeply about Afghanistan. That's all I have to say. — TheMadFool

Thank you, thank you. The answer to your question is yes. But until we share the same source of information I don't think anyone will believe me. At least over ten years of trying to convence people of the importance of education, have not gotten good results.

My source of information is several books on the history of education. I am sure many people in the forum would love these books, but you will not find them in a regular book store. However these books can be found on line- Textbook in the History of Education by Paul Monroe 1910 and A History of Education by James Mulhern. Then I have old gradeschool text books and other books about education. Or we can come to the same information through an explanation of Liberal Education coming out of the Age of Reason and what scientific thinking has to do with what makes the West different from the East. A difference that was the foundation of war between the Greeks and Persians and has never been resolved. Your last statement is exactly right.

Well, the Taliban aren't going to be just left with their own ideas. The neighboring countries and the Great Powers, even if not enthusiastically, will try to influence what will happen in Afghanistan. Hence they won't be left alone I think.

For example Vietnam didn't have it peaceful after the South collapsed and the country was unified. Then they had a border war with China and then intervened and overthrew the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. Only afterwards it's been rather peaceful in that area of the World. even if South-East Asia has it's fair share of insurgents lurking in the jungles. — ssu

That gives a good perspective.

Can we agree on some truths?

While the Taliban and ISIS mean well, religious truths can not take the place of understanding how to run a government and economic system in the modern world. In the past when the Muslims were the middle man between East and West they had an advanced economic and bureaucratic system, the best for the time in history, but even if everyone remembered it, is that enough in today's world with the large populations dependent on many services such as clean water and sewage systems, a year round food supply, electricity, education for living with 21 century technology and employment?

Right now the Taliban can not pay wages, so the people are starving and many may die of starvation. Others will die if the medical system collapses and because these people have not been paid wages, the medical system is likely to collapse. An invading army can do only so much to enforce social order, but if people are dying, the invading army can not build a nation. Might the Taliban realize they bit off more than they can chew?

I don't wish to make the issue a game to be played without care or concern; if anyone insists its a game, so be it, but the consequences won't be a laughing matter. That's that.

There are two ways we can manage this. Either attempt some sorta unification of religions, politics, ideologies, etc. or just learn to accept our differences and agree to coexist peacefully i.e. stamp out diversity or embrace it. Which path the world chooses will decide the future of humanity. — TheMadFool

I am so sorry! I never meant to indicate I take all this lightly and it certainly is no game to me, but if we loose our sense of humor, there is no hope. I don't think there is any chance of sanity if we do not focus on reasoning. Number one to this goal is correcting the problem of literal thinking by using education to prepare people for abstract thinking. We need to teach people "how to think" and that is not education for technology. If everyone interpreting their holy book abstractly there would be hope of reasoning ending religious conflict.

However, we have all signs of the last days and this also needs to be addressed. People do not kill everyone around them when they need those people for labor. The US is not the only country overwhelmed by refugees. What we have today is overpopulation and our faith that technology makes it possible to continue overpopulating the earth is as bad as believing a god will protect us from the consequences of our bad judgment and bad actions. I am not sure we have a future if we do not have the right reasoning and education for technology will not bring us to good reasoning.

We had a chance in Afghanistan and we blew it because of our failure to understand the education that is essential for higher-order thinking skills, and the 2012 Texas Republican agenda was to prevent education for the higher-order thinking skills, and the teachers in Texas had to take Texas to the Supreme Court, to stop the leadership of Texas from teaching creationism as science. Texas supported Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush and using our military force to regain and maintain control of foreign oil, leading to the extreme division of the rich in poor, the powerful, and the powerless in the mid-east, which in turn leads to the fundamentalist fight against evil. There would not be the problem we have today, without the actions of the US. And this paragraph is trying to say too much. :cry: If people do not learn the higher-order thinking skills, which we could have taught the Afghanistanians when we were there, there is no hope. But it isn't only the mid-east fundamentalist who need to learn the higher-order thinking skills.

There may not be a global center for the whole Muslim ummah, but there are centers of radicalism that can be tackled if there is a political will to do so. And you can take counter-measures against the governments that support them.

Seeing that Muslims demand Islamic states for themselves, perhaps the solution would be for non-Muslims to demand their own states? China and India seem to already be doing this.

Otherwise, I think the conflict is bound to continue until one side defeats the other .... — Apollodorus

That means Armageddon because it is it is not just a branch of Islam that is fundamentalist and more than willing to enter war against the powers of evil. It is just as much an Evangelical Christian thing. These are the folks Bush appealed to when he assured the Brits that there would be no problem getting the US to show their "power and glory" in a war against Iraq. These are the same people who got Trump elected. I don't know what can be done about this Christian and Muslim fundamentalism but we can not correct the problem if we do not properly identify it.

I just got a better understanding that while the US is the center of Christian fundamentalism, Saudi Arabia is the center of Muslim fundamentalism, and it never made sense to me that we made war on Afghanistan and then Iraq, but not Bin Laden's home Saudi Arabia.

WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump do not agree on much, but Saudi Arabia may be an exception. She has deplored Saudi Arabia’s support for “radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path towards extremism.” He has called the Saudis “the world’s biggest funders of terrorism.” — Scott Shane

The center of this problematic brand of Islam is not so different from the fundamentalist Evangelical Christians who are well organized to get their man in the presidency and to use political means to make US laws conform with their literal interpretation of the Bible. These are the folks Bush was appealing to when he turned our war powers on Iraq and sanctioned torturing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. This was announced as our Power and Glory and Evanical Christians loved it. Why don't see the mentality is the same? Political powers using religion to enhance their power.

I don't think we should ignore that what is happening is driven by both fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims. The makes the center of the problem, not a geological location, but literal thinking and fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. Weapons of war can not kill this enemy.

They are not a nation, but many (especially the fundamentalists) see themselves as one world-wide Muslim community or ummah.

And they see Westerners exactly as we see them, i.e., as the "bad guys".

Additionally, though most Muslims are not terrorists, they do agree with Islamic Law. And the problem with Islamic Law is that it tends to become more and more oppressive in addition to encouraging extremism.

The terrorists' reasoning is that if 75% of Muslims want Sharia Law, then it is right for them to fight the 25% that do not. And this goes for non-Muslim countries too. If Muslims are a minority, this means that Islam is being "suppressed" and this situation needs to be redressed by creating a Muslim majority.

India is a good illustration. The Muslim minority in British India demanded their own state. In 1947, they got Pakistan and Bangladesh. But some Muslims chose to stay behind in India and now the fundamentalists among them (and those of Pakistan) demand that they be liberated from infidel "oppression".

As fundamentalism is popular with the uneducated masses (and even some of the educated classes), politicians tend to encourage it for their own agenda, and one wave of fundamentalism is followed by a more radical one, just as the Mujahedin were followed by the Taliban and the Taliban by al-Qaeda .... — Apollodorus

Where is the center of the Muslim world? Like attacking the Mormons may seem like a good thing to do but it would not change the power and influence of the United States. It is futile to attack something that is not a centralized power, but like an invasive species, impossible to get rid of and spreading everywhere.

I see Westerns as the bad guys. At one time the US had all the minerals and resources it needed, But England and France, and then Germany were spreading everywhere and competing to control world resources. Then they were united by world wars and where Britain began to loose power, the US stepped in. It is like the story of Athens and the Persian war, which caused Athens to developed a navy and then merchants and didn't want to give up spreading its power once it had a taste of it. Sparta slapped Athens down and then Roman became the dominant power, but thanks to Alexander the Great Hellenism was spread everywhere.

:lol: My time is up but I must comment about the fighting for what we believe is right. The Christian right seems to be winning the fight against abortion rights. There is talk of this uniting democrats who might come out in larger numbers and defend the right to have an abortion. Fighting for what gives our lives purpose and meaning is a wonderful thing. The problem is the rules for fighting. When we include military weapons in the fighting, the destructiveness can not be justified.

When it was. It's an interesting history just why it then went into the backwardness and only was abruptly awakened by Napoleon invading Egypt. But then it was too late and the Ottoman Empire was "the sick man of Europe". — ssu

When Europeans began sailing around the tip of Africa to reach China and India, it was the end of Islam's glory. The mid-east stopped being the all-important middle man that connected the East with the West. Also, the connection between East and West resulted in the renaissance, a reawakening of scientific thinking that made mankind more dependent on what could be learned and then do under his own power, instead of being dependent on a God. We returned to an explanation of nature being the cause, instead of everything being the will of a God. This radically changed the West and man's understanding of his position in the world, throwing the West into progressive motion and Islam into decline.

What data are you drawing this conclusion from? I said both patriarchy and matriarchy are made-up concepts based on an uneducated opinion regarding differences between genders. That neither is true or better than the other, it's just a concept made up by us through culture and religious biases, it has no valid grounds in science or psychology. — Christoffer

What data are you drawing this conclusion from? I said both patriarchy and matriarchy are made-up concepts based on an uneducated opinion regarding differences between genders. That neither is true or better than the other, it's just a concept made up by us through culture and religious biases, it has no valid grounds in science or psychology. — Christoffer

The first data would be the hormonal difference between males and females. Next is zoology a study of animal behaviors and physical reasons for them. Then anthropology and cross-cultural studies. Also, archeology and geology can give us important information. Where the climate is mild and it is easy to grow food, commonly there are signs of matriarchy and then a switch to patriarchy. Where life is hard and the main source of food comes from hunting, and where raiding and wars became common, there is patriarchy. I have read nothing of a patriarchy becoming matriarchal however, this might be happening today. Why? Because as in the valleys where the climate was mild and food was abundant, we once again are experiencing the good life of physical and food security.

How many women went with the men to burn the Blacks out of town, or were in the cloaked mob to linch a Black person? Women supported this behavior and at times instigated it, but I think the behavior is lead by men and those who engaged in that behavior were men. But if they were Bonobo instead of humans or chimps, it would be the females maintaining social control.

Christianity has been a force in the world of charity for as long as I can remember. Unfortunately, christian charity has been marred by much controversy - I believe the donations were a cover for a more insidious objective, proselytizing. I'm sure that there are huge benefits in being/becoming christian but I was under the impression they were of the spiritual and moral nature, not monetary.

The USA's military capabilities are there for all to see. Which country has been/is ever ready to project power? Anytime, the USA doesn't get what it wants, it engages in gunboat diplomacy and saber rattling - read the headlines of news media for the past 60 years, you'll get an idea of what I mean.

Nevertheless, the USA is the world's only hope for peace and stability but...it's not the best option, it's the least worst.

As for communism, it's become some kind of bogey man, capitalist countries use to scare people into submitting to their demands and creed. Communism is dead! We don't need to dig up the rotting corpse of an old enemy to bring people in line. What we need to do is, in the absence of the red menace, overhaul the system that we've tolerated to counter Marxism. You know, like a soldier, who after a battle, tends to the demons inside him.

I don't know why I said what I said. Suffice it to say that these are not my own views but that of others which I offer as ponderables. — TheMadFool

Oh, I so want to argue against what you said just for the fun of it and I love your ending statement that clarifies we are playing with all these ideas is just fun. :love:

What if we could bring Islam and Christianity together? I know that is an insane idea considering neither religion can avoid division and fighting against each other, so there is not one Christianity or one Islam. And some of us are strongly opposed to both religions, but how can we be philosophical about all this and work on reasoning for peace? Instead of attempting to have peace through power? Ah, is this thread about Afghanistan or patriarchy versus matriarchy, and do we want to bring an end to rape culture, as in raping the earth as we rape each other? :lol:

I think my comment about communism was the bait switch. The threatening enemy was communism until the USSR fell, so we had to have a new enemy to do exactly what the US stood against from its very beginning, that is maintain its WWII military might and fight for global control. The new enemy became terrorists but that is very hard to defend and use to justify our military presence around the world. Who are the terrorist? They are not a nation and wars are against nations, not a handful of nuts cases. Oh, the terrorists are Muslims. You know those people who do not know God and follow his commandments and who are jealous of the US because God blesses the US and not them. Right there, that is proof of who God favors and it is the will of God that we control the resources of the world. But everyone can have religious freedom so we should not attack people for how they understand and worship God. Obviously, religious freedom makes us superior to Muslims and their notion of Shia law is threatening to us. cockco, cuckoo Can we call that reasoning? What is really happening? Is there are a philosophy that explains this insanity?

You guys are absolutely awesome! I am overwhelmed as I see this thread taking a whole different direction. I have been way too focused on the US, and feel as ignorant as a jackass at this moment. That map showing who is where and the explanation of different styles of occupation is a whole different subject and I am thrilled. How about starting a thread focusing on this jockeying to control world resources and the different styles of occupation and PM me. How can this be a philosophical subject or do we even need to try to be philosophical? Can we be just absolutely fascinating?

:lol: I don't think many citizens are aware of how their tax dollars are being spent and the global level politics. Just pick a political party or one issue and vote accordingly as though voting is about our petty human desires.

The citizens cannot hold the government accountable, the government is supposed to be self-regulating. In Australia, where I live, politicians are forced to resign because of mishandled travel expenses. One example:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/19/liberal-mps-shock-2am-resignation-while-facing-icac-charges-plunges-sa-into-minority-government

It can be quite comical to see what Australian MPs are charged with when juxtaposed with what the politicians of other nations are able to get away with. But it's what a healthy democracy looks like, and Afghanistan's corruption problem going unaddressed is the biggest problem here. Neither unifying people with Islam nor educating the populace is going to help much.

Do you disagree and why do you think either of these things would help? — Judaka

In the Puritan US a politician can lie big time and do plenty of things I think are appalling but oh my god, if the politician is a man and touches a woman or comments on how she looks, today he will be tarred and feather and driven out of town. This is a complete flip from the 1970-1980 shows like Mash and Gomer Plie, and many more that got laughs because of inappropriate male behavior. We expected men to be sexual predators and we did create a rape culture. I don't think we should throw stones at Muslims for behaving as though men can not help themselves so women must become prisoners in their homes as we are not dealing with the same problem. Only recently we have dealt with the problem differently. My grandmother was horrified when my mother came home from summer camp with shorts and a bra. My mother became a WWII pin-up girl as we mobilized for WWII, and suddenly at the end of the war, women were to return to their homes, and stay there!

When my son and daughter came of age, Reagan was lying to us, and we slashed domestic budgets and poured everything into military spending. Those were hard years as my teenagers thought I was a fool for not lying and doing whatever it took to get ahead. And people still love Reagan. And was there ever a bigger liar than Trump and he is loved. Niccolo Machiavelli, said, it is much safer to be feared than loved. Especially Trump has done an excellent job of being feared and loved. What is up with that?

We can not keep our leaders accountable when we have no agreements on the principles we must defend.

Here is what the Koran has to say about leadership:

"It is out of God’s mercy that you have been lenient with them. Had you been rough, hard-hearted, they would surely have scattered away from you. So pardon them, and pray for their forgiveness, and take counsel from them in matters of importance. And when you are resolved on a course of action, place your trust in God; surely God loves those who put their trust (in Him). If God helps you none shall prevail over you; if He forsakes you then who can help you? It is in God that the believers should put their trust." (Quran 3:159-160)

Not so different from those who support Trump. I was blown away by how a good friend saw Trump and as the pandemic raged on, our friendship ended. What is a philosophical statement we can make about this? People will be thrilled to follow some really awful leaders, especially when they believe their leader has God on his side and their prayers give the man the power of God to be a good father or the nation. Really, how different are the Christians and Muslims? The only weakness I see in both religions is the divisions in the religions and how they bash each other. :roll:

I hear ya. Nevertheless, one of humanity's biggest problems is not getting our priorities right. For instance, save for a few enlightened countries, the defense budget outstrips the health budget which to me is taking the stand that we would rather die of disease than die from an enemy's bullet. It seems to make sense at some level but that's precisely the point - we, some of us at least, are facing so much pressure that we have to resort to this kinda warped logic. — TheMadFool

Christians are very proud of how much charity they give. At one time the US government paired up with preachers to get people to accept low wages and lusting for wealth was frowned upon. I have old grade school textbooks that stress cooperation and say things like friendship is better than money. In general, most people did not expect to earn enough to pay income taxes before the second world war, and speaking of war, the US demobilized after every war until Eisenhower and the Korean war. The US military ability was ranked 17th, with very small countries ranking better prepared for war. Iran liked the US very much because we seemed to chase the British out of Iran, but then we attempted to become an occupying force and Eisenhower approved of the CIA instigating a coup. I think our troubles with Muslim nations are of our own making. The only thing most citizens know if they know anything at all, is we were saving the world from communism.

The wealth and poverty issue would be great in another thread. I have some very interesting books on the subject. I am now reading one written in 1865 that argues in favor of accumulating wealth and I want to understand that argument before starting a thread. A thread bringing Christians and Muslims together would be great, but I need to do a lot more studying to do that. Should I make the effort?

Yes, and certainly women can be equally as domineering as men, when they are in a position of authority. Moreover, this thing appears to be had by males and females of all mammalian species that organize themselves into social groups. It seems a universal mammalial psychological trait, residing deep within what Freud called the "Id". However, this imperative to dominance is something distinct from agression, which is more hormonally driven. Males are naturally more agressive than females as an effect of testosterone. What this means, I think, is that women are better able to control the "libido dominari" than are men, because of male testosterone production. Surely, this is at the root of why males have greater difficulty in adapting their behavior to the demands of a modern, orderly society in which the rule of law places quite unnatural demands upon us, and so tend to fill up the prisons. For a modern man, learning to control his natural aggression so that he can exert his "libido dominari"/"will to power" in measured ways, is one of the greatest challenges that he will face in life. Many do not find a workable, effective formula for so doing. — Michael Zwingli

I am so glad you referred to all social animals. I don't think we should be discussing anything about humans without an understanding of being one of the mammalian species.

“ANYBODY can become angry, that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not within everybody's power, that is not easy.” So wrote Aristotle, more than 2000 years ago, in his classic work The Art of Rhetoric.Feb 6, 2013

Do get mad: The upside of anger | New Scientist — Aristotle

I am working on trying to figure out when to be angry and how to express that in a way that gets the result I want. When raising my children, I realized I can be a real tyrant and that does not mean being a bad person, but a lack of a good balance of power. It is not easy being human and our best hope is working together.

Nietzsche had some strong thoughts opposing Christianity and slave mentality. I like pagan values and Greek arete. I am out of time, but perhaps you can say something about what reason has to do with being civilized? At some point in time, when city living meant living among strangers, we became self-reflective and experienced ourselves as separate from nature and everyone else. We filled our newly discovered loneliness with a God and imagined a different reality.

Both are illusions of solutions to power plays in society. Neither matters, both are false, truth and what is considered "best" has nothing to do with what is objectively good.

Illusions are for those unable to deduct better ways and solutions for humanity that are good for all. — Christoffer

I disagree because I firmly believe both the hormonal but each is the result of different circumstances. If the community is being invaded, patriarchy is the best.

I heard there was a time when slavery was an improvement over killing everyone. It is better than the Aztec custom of sacrificing a people to the gods. A person can justify just about everything with a quote from the Bible of the Koran. This link addresses the Koran and rules for war https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/war.shtml Also I say the women in Afghanistan do not appear to be to afraid of the Taliban. They are being quite vocal about what they want and if they would only stay united, they might have a chance to get what they want. If the men in their families are supportive of them, the women have an even better chance.

I want to make a point of what history and age have to do with all this. Shall we begin with people did not have a long life expectancy? How do men think before 35 years of age? In a primitive situation, with a life expectancy of 35 years and no careers goals such as we have today, what should we expect? :lol: Yeah, heaven might look like a lot of women available for sex. By the time a man is 60 he might want fewer women and might dislike being called to war even more than the young farmers of Rome who probably thought raping and pillaging would be a great adventure.

The Taliban was using male children for war and this horde of males is mostly young. For sure they are not thinking about the children's college fund or their stock portfolio and retirement. They are thinking with their bodies and about how to satisfy their physical urges and how to impress their peers. Maybe the leaders are more sophisticated. In the right situation, humans improve with age.

Mullah Omar has a point though, no? People are willing to spend so much on statues but only paltry amounts on actual people (men, women, and children). — TheMadFool

Personally, I am in favor of saving the statues for everyone. We have not had the ability to feed everyone and even if they did, they would multiply and the problem would get worse. However, we can feed everyone's spiritual well being and destroying cathedrals, mosques and Buddist statues is wrong. Those who destroyed the Buddist statues would know that if it were a mosque being destroyed.

Likely as just like with communism, it's the means how this "well-being of everyone" is achieved I guess.

I think the basic uneasiness with the Muslim Brotherhood is that it doesn't respect so much "Western" democratic values like minority rights etc. — ssu

Because I have been listening to an explanation of what science has to do with liberty and because in the past Islam was very successful and more advanced than Europe, I judge what is most important is liberalism and science. Islam was both liberal and scientific when it was the center of world trade.

Being conservative and antiscience leads to failure and here is an interesting point, in China, it is the communists who are conservative. The communists of the USSR were atheist and deterministic, firmly rejecting quantum physics and Einstein's relativity. And in the US we are experiencing the solution to overpopulation. Ignorance, and a pandemic, and we remain trapped in an economy dependent on oil, although since 1920 it has been known that is the path to economic disaster and war. :grin: I think we need to understand ourselves before we can understand those we disagree with? We share being human in common. :lol:

Yeah, that patriarchy can cause problems. I just hope that when you go over to the neighbor's house and politely ask them to please keep their teens in check (and to please turn the kids over to authorities to answer for their acts), there is not some patriarchal SOB in his wife-beater, beer in hand, who tells you "Go fuck yourself, and deal with my teens when they are in your yard, not when they've skedaddled back to my house". Oh, and "Get off'n my land, you little . . .". — James Riley

Grandmothers learn quickly that if they want to make a difference, they better be very tactful and very careful about how they word themselves because we have no power over others and if we are seen as offensive, we find ourselves excommunicated from family. The point is, your way does not get good results. Not in Afghanistan, your neighborhood, or your family.

The other thing is that Islam spread through military invasion and conquest which involved killing, raping, pillaging, enslaving, exploiting and suppressing the conquered populations. — Apollodorus

I have a big problem with that because it goes against the Koran. We can know when people make a law, be it a government law or a holy book law, when people are doing what they should not do or they are failing to do what they should do. We have proof in this thread that those terrible acts of war are not limited to what "those people" have done, but seems to be an instinctive behavior when "we" are dealing with "them" and males dominate.

I am very troubled by my sisters in Afghanistan fighting for a better reality and being deserted by the US. My sisters in Africa and South America are not getting as much support as they need for a better world. But I am hoping someday my sisters are united and strong and humanity does a better job of being civilized. We can use the Bible or the Koran for a better reality and I don't know if reason will ever be as effective as religion? Rule by reason requires too much thinking and people avoid it. Rule by reason does not have the emotional appeal that religions have.

Every civilization is a mix of cultures, though, except the most primitive perhaps. — Olivier5

It is not like foreigners can just enter a country and impact that country culturally or politically. They may not even be able to assimilate because of prejudice against them. The US assured most foreigners would be assimilated by providing education for good citizenship. It was understood that by teaching the children American values the parents would learn. However, education for technology brought an end to transmitting a culture and preparing the young for citizenship. I think the new mentality has led to poor American judgment and failure.

I like your analogy to a person's home. The other day I was thinking about that, and the fact that in many neighborhoods there is that family. The parents, of course, ostensibly have sovereignty over their home and the teenagers that reside therein. Now, if they want to let the kids run wild in the house, that's fine. But when their kids start trashing the neighborhood, come over to my house and trash it, I have a right to redress. If I get no satisfaction, then, eventually, I will go over to their house, along with the majority of the neighborhood, kick their fucking door in, beat the shit out of them, kill the fucking kids and leave. But in deference to their right to run their house the way they want, I will not then hang around and try to teach them parenting skills.

Oh, and while I want to tip my hat to cultural sensitivity, I won't stand idly by and watch them fuck little boys or cut the clitoris off little girls with a piece of broken Coke bottle (not Afghanistan, I know, I'm just making a point here). You see, while it is expected that I should be culturally sensitive, I also expect people to be sensitive to my culture. Part of my culture is killing monarchs, racists, slave owners, traitors, emperors, dictators and other vermin who abuse the innocent. I simply ask that others honor my culture. I don't' think that is a big ask. :grin: — James Riley

I had to check to be sure this is the thread on Afghanistan and not my thread about Patriarchy versus Matriarchy. I would say your idea of how to deal with people who are different is pretty patriarchal and I think that mentality is what caused the American effort to make a difference in Afghanistan to fail. I do not believe using violence to defend our sense of how the world should be is the way to have a better world. However, it is in complete agreement with what some Muslims are doing.

That could indicate the presence of a cliché. Something you took for granted without prior examination. — Olivier5

Thanks and what do you think about the point I made?

Last time I checked, the British and Americans were NOT opposed to Islam at all. Nor should they be, I agree. — Olivier5

:lol: I laugh because I immediately disagree with what you said, and then when I try to explain that disagreement, my brain freezes. Have you experienced that? It is weird.

How about this, when you entered someone's home, you do not start taking what that person has. You should not disrespect that person and attempt to correct the way that person has decided how to do things. If that person is opposed to drinking alcoholic beverages, you do not sit in the living room and have a beer. If a person does not want you to talk about your religion in their home, you should not talk about your religion. If the person believes a woman should dress modestly, then that is how a woman should dress in that person's home. It is simply a matter of good morals and good manners. I do not believe the British and Americans have behaved with good manners.

I am a poor representative of whatever the Philosophy Forum might be.

The question is a problem for me. If I am asked to locate a process in one place or another, does that mean it is not happening in other places?

How would one go about checking if such was the case? — Valentinus

Your line of reasoning has merit, however, I don't know how we could validate that thinking happens anywhere besides in our brains. We can validate that thinking happens in our brains by measuring brain waves and MRI imaging, and being to prove with the imaging that the process of thinking causes the area of the brain that is activated to grow. How could we validate thinking outside of the brain?

The Muslim League started the Caliphate Movement in 1919 to restore the Ottoman Caliphate and was of course in touch with Muslims from other countries, including Egypt.

Abul Ala Maududi was a leading Islamist ideologue who wrote al-Jihad fi al-Islam. (Jihad in Islam).
— Apollodorus
Still, generally the Muslim Brotherhood is viewed to be founded in Egypt by Hassan Al-Banna.

Maududi was a member of the Caliphate Movement and inspired the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood (founded in 1928) and Jamaat-e Islami which he personally co-founded in 1941.
— Apollodorus
There you said it yourself. — ssu

Okay, now we are getting down to the nitty grittty. The reality this link speaks of pisses me off and most certainly has moral and political implications regarding western political action and acts of war.

Initially, as a Pan-Islamic, religious, and social movement, it preached Islam in Egypt, taught the illiterate, and set up hospitals and business enterprises. It later advanced into the political arena, aiming to end British colonial control of Egypt. The movement's self-stated aim is the establishment of a state ruled by Sharia law–its most famous slogan worldwide being: "Islam is the solution". Charity is a major propellant to its work.[10] — Wikipedia

It is my understanding the stated purpose of communism and Islam in the physical, social, mental, and spiritual well-being of everyone in a civilized society and I am having a hard time understanding why the British and Americans are opposed to that?

The Muslim Brotherhood may have been physically founded in Egypt. But I am talking about the ideology.

The ideology started in British India in the 1800’s with Muslim revivalist movements like Aligarh Movement and the Deobandi Movement.

Together with the All-India Muslim League they initiated the Caliphate Movement to restore the Islamic Caliphate. This was an international movement with members all over the Muslim world.

Muslim Brotherhood founders al-Banna and Qutb were in the Caliphate Movement.

Maududi who wrote Jihad in Islam in the early 1920's, founded Jamaat-e Islami of Pakistan that spawned the Mujahedin movement in Afghanistan.

Zawahiri who was a follower of Qutb founded Islamic Jihad which teamed up with al-Qaeda in Sudan.

The Deobandis of Pakistan with Saudi funds ran the Islamic schools from which the Taliban were recruited.

So, it’s the Deobandis and Jamaat on the Pakistani side, with some involvement from the Muslim Brotherhood/Islamic Jihad on the Egyptian side. Of course, they spawned other organizations through which they have supported the Taliban and international Jihad. — Apollodorus

I watched the video about Islam and was overwhelmed with information! Your brain seems to handle information much better than mine so I am asking you to attempt to make all this information more comprehensive to me. Why all the different organizations? Do they have different justifications for existing? Do they have different stated purpose?

I don't know if I want to add this to the thread, but what is their moral imperative, and can it be blended with Christianity? Like right now the US can be seen as the moral enemy of all that is good and how important might this be in escalating the problem instead of leading to peace?

Especially after watching the video, I am a bit broken-hearted that the US did not use Islam for nation-building. I wonder if anyone thinks that would have succeeded?

false dichotomy. if your fit to rule, you should. and if not you should conquer your ego before it conquers you, or worse those around you from your own foolish and frivolous action. — Outlander

To tie your post into the subject of this thread, what should the ruler achieve?

All surely true, but the sex drive is much easier to understand than this thing that Augustine called "libido dominandi", and (though he viewed and valued it much differently than did Augustine) Nietzsche called "the will to power". The sex drive is purely a function of physiology, being hormonally produced. As such, it varies across the human life span. The other attribute is more pchycological in origin, an apparently universal attribute of the mammalian psyche. Both the hormonal sex drive and the psychic imperative to dominance can be explained to be a result of natural selection, of individuals having these traits to a greater degree breeding more offspring across the millenia. The fact is, though, that we understand much less about the imperative to dominance than we do about he sex drive, and the former seems to have a greater influence across the human life span than does the latter. — Michael Zwingli

Hum, do women also get this psychic imperative to dominate?

Strongly disagree with this statement. Pornography does not help men objectify women less, and that's not even virtual reality. IMO this would make men even more disrespectful to women, because for many men, women would no longer serve a purpose (they wouldn't even be a thing to be used).

I mean I just can't imagine some guy blowing his load to rape VR porn and then going to a feminist rally. — darthbarracuda

This thread has taken a turn I did not anticipate. We know in times of war women are stolen, raped, abused. And the behavior of Americans in the prison camp holding Muslim war prisoners was absolutely shocking and certainly should be considered a war crime. I also received a letter from a Black convict that was sexual and seething with hatred directed at White women. I don't think a date rape is equal to a rape motivated by intense anger and the intention to abuse and victimized someone. One of my women lib. alarms went off when the word "mother", flipped from meaning a wonderful, loving person to quite an offensive meaning. Do you all want to go down this path or should we move away from it? I think this path is risky but also has merit.

I am willing to go down this path because another thread I started is a question of if the Taliban can succeed in making Afghanistan a civilization that can be admired. It also has merit because the US mobilized for WWII with pin-up girls and personally I think the metal and leather uniforms of Romans are very sexy. It is well-known women find men in uniform attractive and war escalates our mating instinct. Hum, the more I think about this, the more intrigued I am by what seems a pretty strong connection between sex and war. And this subject is directly and strongly related to patriarchy taking over matriarchal societies.

Judaka, I am in a bit of shock. I do not see the US as being free of corruption. I do not think our democracy is the best. And right now I wouldn't bet on it surviving another hundred years.

Our biggest disagreement seems to be different ideas about the importance of education. I don't think there can be good citizenship without education for that. I don't believe a democracy can exist for long without education for citizenship because if citizens are not educated to defend their democracy, they can not defend their democracy. For that reason, I believe the US is in big trouble because it stopped educating for good citizenship and now has the reactionary politics that put Hitler in power, and culture wars are tearing us apart. Our banking system continues to fail and when this happens we do not punish the wrongdoers, and our coins that once had value because of the metals in them, are no longer made with those valuable metals and therefore have no value. We are living with so many lies and extremely few of us could put our democracy back together if it did fall. Not enough of us know how to do that to make it a real possibility. And add to that, our industry is autocratic and people don't understand why that matters.

However, your explanation of people having no experience with democracy and no understanding of the necessary institutions seems obviously correct.

Didn't the thinking for our democracy begin in Athens and then Rome which became Italy and the place where the renascence began? I met a Serian professor who had a better understanding of democracy than anyone I have met in the US. Weren't German philosophers well educated in the Greek and Roman Classics before developing their own philosophy? The American Revolution began as an intellectual revolution and democracy can not be manifest without it. Except for Japan, that is a curiosity to me, unless we give Deming credit for the change.

I think you are correct. Prior to an attempt at liberation there was at least a space for emotional existence. Probably a patronised and exploited space, but one none the less. The mistake might have been the assumption the men were free. Which brings me to your next point below.

I'm pleased to agree. We have a professions that are designed to "burn and churn" where new hires aren't expected to last three years, but the industry relies on the output of the least paid employee and the ability to replace them quickly. We've tried revolution but no one ever makes it past the seizing of things and central control. It never blossoms into the ideal that justifies all the struggle.

Coroporations are finally having to at least acknowledge a social duty exists due to the power of consumers, but I don't think that alone is going to transform a culture. Like, society needs a heart transplant. — Cheshire

:grin: I was swept up in women's lib just like everyone else and had it not been for a recession ravaging my life and plans, I may still be cheering for women's liberation. But thanks to the recession lasting a very long time where I live, I got to experience jobs and employers from hell. With some satisfaction, I can say the really bad employers are no longer in town. The practice of exploiting cheap labor and going through employees very fast is self-destructive, especially when you need your employees as customers but you have pissed off so many of them you no longer have customers. Bad management of employees leads to them thinking of ways to sabotage the company. This can mean breaking things, stealing things, working very slow, telling everyone how awful the company is, and of course walking off the job.

Then you have the Deming model which is democratic industry. Everyone learns all the jobs and is prepared to advance. Everyone has a say in how things are done. Supervisors are trained to take responsibility and if someone goofs, the supervisor checks to be sure the employee understood the directions and then acts as a coach, supporting the employee in doing better. I would bet if we experienced the democratic model, many more families would be doing very well! I do not blame male hormones for bad male behavior, but the Autocratic Industry that has been terrible to all employees. Some ass hole demanding what he wants and thinking bullying and punishing people is the best way to get it and completely undermining families by not allowing family concerns to interfere with the job.

In the past, not enough dared raise their voice because when you live paycheck to paycheck you don't dare displease the employer. But as we gain security we might gain some power and demand industry use the democratic model and families get the consideration humanity requires. Then our democracy might have some meaning. While we are seeing changes, this follows women sitting in the seats of power because those in the seats of power before were not thinking about the women and children. Abigail Adams told her husband to think of the women when he worked on the constitution, but unfortunately, men were not ready to do that nor to be firm about ending slavery.

Our banking system and some industries reward psychopathic skill sets. I think people in general have the capciety for both; but if one spends all day in one frame of mind then the empathetic tool set necessary for making a child feel connected to the world on an emotional level could atrophy. If both parents are competing in a capitalist struggle then yes I think there's a greater chance the child misses out on the sense of connection. I wouldn't expect it is deterministic. Going to requote below.
What is the problem with single mothers raising children without fathers?

If two parents working is bad because no parents are at home, then a single parent working is bad because no parents are at home? Ergo, suggesting two people engaged in the coroporate world is the same as condemning a single parent trying to raise a child. In the sense of a numbers game it works. I guess "the problem" in this case would be the same as above. Where the demands of competetion force the repression of the empathic system that childeren ought have should they grow up seeing others as complete indiviudals with emotional depth they can have empathy for and make robust emotional connections with; but this isn't every case or even considered worthy of a guidline for one "ought do" in my perspective. The OP said to try and describe a problem I assume is asscioated with a cultural drift away from patrachrical society. I attempted to meet the request; and I don't have any desire to play the part the questions above are trying to script for me.

The better counter position might have been; well perphaps women will reduce the advantage of psychopathic skill sets by creating a coroporate culture that values relationships and human connections that laid the cooperative foundation for the civilizations we currently enjoy.

Instead, I'm depicted as criticizing single parents. — Cheshire

I am strongly in favor of your first sentence and it is concern about the negative effect that working outside of the home, can have on parenting and society at large, that motivates me to write. Further what you said about the demands of the competitive force on children is why I am opposed to leaving children in daycare centers for too long.

It is the emotional development of the child that concerns me and then the cumulative effect on the mass of children. Children growing up with a repressed empathic system and undeveloped emotional depth and relationships, may make a strong military-industrial complex, but it will not be the democracy we defended in world wars. I am saying women's liberation did not liberate women, but made being feminine taboo and made the patriarchy stronger. I am not saying matriarchy is better, but that a patriarchy that is not balanced by the female force is a threat to the world and is not the democracy we defended. What we have become is an enemy to humanity. So much so, people argue we would be better off if computers were in control. That is very anti-human.

I have add, it is not just the negative effect on women, of working for a wage, that bothers me, but also on men! The autocratic industry has been the enemy of humanity and our democracy all along. Men were treated terribly by industries that exploited them and held them powerless as they slaved for a wage. Sucking women into this too, should be the last straw and I am calling for a revolution.

I agree, it looks like I must think very carefully about what I say and maybe better say nothing at all lest I get mistaken for someone from Texas .... :grin:

But I agree that we have been betrayed and sold down the river time and time again by corporate interests and their political accomplices. "Democracy" used to have some meaning or at least people thought so. Unfortunately, it has become a bait to catch the ignorant, the gullible, and the unthinking, when in reality it is all about the military industrial complex, big bucks, and big tech.

And no, I don't think the state should raise all our children. What happened in the Communist Bloc was appalling. They had these state-run orphanages where no one cared, the children were totally neglected if not abused, and ended up damaged for life. Maybe in the West things would be run differently to communist states that were not accountable to anyone.

But I think the state should provide some form of financial assistance to its own citizens when it obviously has trillions to throw away. And the same applies to big corporations. They extract billions from society so they should give some of that back to the people for the people to use as they see fit.

Anyway, what is your vision for America and the western world? What kind of matriarchy or patriarchy would you like to have? Could you compile a short list of policies you would like to see implemented? — Apollodorus

:lol: :rofl: :love: :lol: I need to catch my breath. I have not laughed this hard for a while. Your first line is hilarious!

What you said about our democracy is sobbering. It is not funny at all. I will not believe the US is sincere about democracy until it replaces autocratic industry with the democratic model and I think doing this is as urgent as counteracting the manmade part of global warming. I am struggling with the effort to be philosophical instead of political. Do you realize the timeline of the US is almost identical to the timeline of Athens? Thanks to the spread of Hellenism and it being picked up by Christians and others interested in government and philosophy, Athens lives on, but the city/state did not. The US used the Athenian model for education until 1958 when that was replaced by education for technology but get this, Athens also replaced its education with education for technological. Not technology as we think of it today, but more along the line of doing things by the rules versus being educated to figure out what the rules should are and should be. That is a change in authority and the citizens' relationship to authority.

Oh my god! you just caused my heart to stop! "What happened in the Communist Bloc was appalling. They had these state-run orphanages where no one cared, the children were totally neglected if not abused, and ended up damaged for life. " An institution can not do for a child what a family can. I am talking about the complexity of our feelings, behaviors, and relationships. Owning our children as we own pets that wait for our return home, may come with a danger. Making the family meaningless may resolve some social problems, and create others. Please, avoid speaking the truth when it regards children because my heart can not take the stress. I am afraid we take our human goodness for granted. Which one of the paid caregivers will be with the child they raise for life, always ready to support that individual as they manage the trials of life? How much can they really care about the child and his/her future? Do we want teachers to believe they are the most fit to raise our children? If we institutional our children, what will happen to our liberty?

About patriarchy or matriarchy, both have good and bad points. Democracy is not either one. All the gods and goddesses play an important role in a democracy. Democracy is an imitation of the gods and I think this opens our human potential. I think family and property ownership are very important to democracy and our liberty. But we have to raise our awareness before we have enough knowledge to democracy. Right now our knowledge is so lacking we can not defend democracy anywhere, not even at home.

I agree that Native Americans have an interesting history and culture. But I think the main culture that is currently on the rise tends to be not Native American but Afro-American. Other cultures that I can think of around the world are Chinese Communist and Islamic. And they all seem to be male-dominated .... — Apollodorus

Some tribes were/are matriarchies because we can be sure who the mother is, and the earth is our mother so it makes sense the women inherit the land and the man's role is to defend her.

A woman's highest calling is to lead a man to his soul so as to unite him with source. A man's highest calling is to protect woman so she can walk the earth unharmed. — Cherokee proverb

What do you think Afro-American culture is? I will vote in favor of Native American traditional consciousness, a love of the creator, and purpose of caring for the land. There is talk of turning over the national parks to the care of Native Americans and I think this is an excellent idea. It will enable them to have their traditional life purpose and we all can benefit from their care of the land.