Amazon.com Widgets

« The Eagle Has Landed | Main | Daily Show: Cenac - Bee - Jones - Pyramid Scheme - World Reaction »

The Three Passions of Bertrand Russell

Truth, Justice, and Love... Happy Valentine's Day


 

Comments

Imagine if Superman had gone with Love.

well done, and an enjoyable watch.

so, let me get this straight: ol' bertrand is disturbed by the attitudes towards sex in "all religion", and believes that this (imaginary) homogenous view can "all be found in st. paul".

and that the greatest remedy for this distortion and misperception is pussy- er, i mean "love"- you know, the thing st paul was against.

talk amongst yourselves. :)

Well I initially read this as "The Three Passions of Russell Brand", which seems to fit.

Which religion were you going to suggest isn't obsessed with sex and sexism?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10161713

And i don't know that you share BR's definition of "Love"

i know this is kinda lame, and even confusing, and who knows what it really means, anyway, but, from todays edition of ynet:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4028148,00.html

Jewish public believes Judaism isn’t egalitarian towards women, but more so than other religions

Lol, news flash 42% of Jewish people in isreal thinks Judaism is better than other religions.

While most seculars responded that they were self-hating.

i don't get you sometimes, red. when i'm being perfectly serious and just "laying out the facts" you're all over me. but here, where i'm obviously being totally obnoxious just for fun, practically asking for it, (sorry for the crudity, ladies or others who might have been offended), you get all civil and mature and serious.

you know i like bertrand russel (i mean his ideas-as a person he was something of a perfect bastard, i've heard.)

but i was kidding- actually just talking out my ass, since i have no idea what his definition of love might be.

re: your link- interesting. jewish orthodoxy (like other religions, i guess, christianity anyway) has been going through the "egalitarian upheaval" for quite some time, and there are still plenty of patriarchal hold outs like this guy. anyway i didn't have the impression russel was talking about sexism per se, but about religion sticking it's nose in the bedroom. fwiw, orthodoxy certainly has a set of "rules and standards" for WHO you're allowed to sleep with, but much much less of the "what you do with them" obsessions of christianity. (they don't call it "missionary position" for nothing. :)

no, i don't think there's an "obsessive" aproach to sexuality in normative orthodox judaism, in fact a very liberal approach to private consensual sex.

there have been and are plenty of "spin offs", like christianity and islam, that do, and also certain sects run by certain rabbis that are still considered jewish that do make something of an obsession of it.

i don't belong to any of those, though. :)

Sorry, I forgot the ";)"

If there's an "upheaval" doesn't that mean that it's not orthodox anymore?

BTW I had a very good friend, who at one time wanted to become a sistah (catholic), but met a guy, moved to Jerusalem and converted to Jewish orthodox.

I used to IM with her once in a while, but when the marriage got goin, I could only chat with her less and less, and only when the husband was out. Last time I spoke with her, years ago, she said something like "my husband's come home, have to go!" She said it in a way that made me feel really bad for her. I appreciated her a lot as a friend, cause of the very fact that she's one of the very few people that called me on my bullshit, and made me admit it to myself. It was very sad for me, little did I know that I'd never find her again "online".

I appreciated her a lot as a friend, cause of the very fact that she's one of the very few people that called me on my bullshit, and made me admit it to myself.

i totally know how you feel, i think. i feel this way too about friendship- people who can really call me on my bullshit are rare and valuable. and it sucks if they happen to be members of the opposite sex and get married, and that marriage itself means (for religious reasons or any others, of which there are plenty) that maintaining "old friendships" with members of the opposite sex is not really an option any more. as they say, marriage requires sacrifice- no matter how you look at it, religiously or otherwise, and this is one of the more painful ones. been there, on both sides of the coin, and i feel for ya.

re:

If there's an "upheaval" doesn't that mean that it's not orthodox anymore?

orthodoxy of any kind is allowed to define itself, just like the palestinians, no? no matter how you might answer this, you know it's the truth, and has been going on for a long, long time.

I didn't mean exactly that. From the feel of our conversations, it seemed like she was subjugated in the marriage. So my beef was that I liked her cause she was no-nonsense (apart from wanting to be a sistah, obviously), but in a sad turn of events she ended up there.

My closest friend right now is married, and I'm friends with both, even stay at their place often when I go to Sin City. I have no problems with being friends with married women, and I know to keep my distances!

and I know to keep my distances!

so you're ok then. any "silly rules" are from the "other side".

just don't think these "silly rules" are all religion's fault. it's a human nature thing, imo.

in orthodox judaism, there are all kinds of rules governing the behaviour of married women with ANY man not her husband, not to speak of "old friends". but they DON'T include email, they're mostly focused on physical closeness. so my call is that your friend's sudden "dropping" you from i.m. or whatever had more to do with the general nature of marriage, and human nature (maybe of her husband) than with any sort of religious restrictions.

i'm sure you feel a lot better now. :(

No, I didn't even know of these "rules". I'm not even complaining that she didn't talk to me anymore (though that's sad too), but that in her marriage, she seemed to be subjugated. And for what it's worth, she talked a lot about her (your?) religion a lot, with not so kind words, bordering on racist, for Palestinians. Frankly, to me who had known her for years, sounded like a brainwashed cultist.

well, that's all a bunch of different stuff from "religion took my friend away from me". it may be true, your take on the situation. converts are (as i'm sure you've heard) like ex-smokers- they tend to go to extremes. in your friend's case, maybe to "prove herself" "more kosher than the rabbi". the change in her political opinions and possible racism against palestinians could also be explained this way. a convert is not genetically jewish, and the conversion itself might have "screwed with her mind" in this way. i've seen it happen.

but whatever happened, i'm just saying don't blame "the jewish religion" or any religion for it. she obviously went hitchhiking, and took a ride with someone. from your description it sounds more like "stockholm syndrome" than a true commitment to the study and practice of jewish law/religion.

again, i'm sure this is small comfort. and you're right, in a way- she could have "taken that ride" with someone who has some kind of (what i would consider to be) a warped perception of jewish life. there's certainly no shortage of these, especially among small and insular sects that abound, especially in israel. but this is not, as i said before, "normative orthodox" judaism.

just to be clear: the subjugation, in the way you're talking about, is not "normative" to judaism. men and women have fairly clearly defined roles, the borders of which are fairly (and more and more)porous, but subjugation? no. with the exceptions noted above.

beware of the zeal of the converted.

It's too bad that some relationships cannot withstand partners having non-sexual friendships with opposite gender.

JB: "just don't think these "silly rules" are all religion's fault. it's a human nature thing, imo." imho this is tautological - religion is a 'human nature thing'.

re: JB: "just to be clear: the subjugation, in the way you're talking about, is not "normative" to Judaism. men and women have fairly clearly defined roles, the borders of which are fairly (and more and more)porous, but subjugation? no."

With all respect, Clearly defined "roles" for the sexes are endemic in religions, and form the basis for much of the subjugation of women we have struggled against for lo these many centuries. When a religion defines a woman's role as 'helpmate', housekeeper, baby maker, child care provider, cook, stay home mom, and a man's role as master, breadwinner, Decider, priest, rabbi, or any other old thing they want,this is subjugation. When a religion says "this isn't subjugation, our women want to be covered in burkas from the tip of their nose to the tip of their toes, that's a sign of men's respect." Or, when a religion says "we put our women on a pedestal we value them so highly", they never consider the possibility that the gal on the pedestal might much rather be 'allowed' to climb down off the pedestal, not always be perfectly sweet, wear trousers, play sports, learn math, have easy access to birth control, make a million bucks, save the world, whatever.... Collars and shackles made of gold are still just collars and shackles.

re: "just don't think these "silly rules" are all religion's fault. it's a human nature thing,imo."

I suppose there might be cultures that achieve buy-in for this irrationality of condemning half the species to support roles without calling on God to justify it, but I don't know of any. Mostly I think they get away with this only by explaining that it's the way God wants it. Obedience to "God's Law" (as defined by a male priesthood), seems to be a driving force behind way too many religions.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and Judaism is different. but it seems to me that Orthodox Judaism ain't that different than Fundamentalist Mormonism.

betty jo: all due respect, and not ignoring the sexism inherent in religion (no more or less than in society in general), i think your idea of what a "support role" is, and how it may be "inferior" in some way, is simply wrong.

fwiw, the word you used, "helpmate", followed by a bunch of other stuff i don't know where you got, is, in the original hebrew, "ezer k'negdo", which literally means " a help against him". make of this what you will. but there is no inherent sexism in the torah itself, except for purely descriptive passages describing how society "worked" at the time. and the jews, and their religion (especially if we want to include conservative and reform) have been at the forefront of egalitarianism for longer than the feminist movement itself, and the "egalitarian upheavals" of other religions. fwiw. there's still a long way to go. but the basic biases, as i've said, don't come from religion itself, rather the other way around: they found their way into religion from the societies that produced them.

Clearly defined "roles" for the sexes are endemic in religions, and form the basis for much of the subjugation of women we have struggled against for lo these many centuries.

i'm sorry, i have to say something about this too. isn't this a site where "biological/scientific fact" means something? the idea that men and women have clearly defined roles is rooted in basic biology, sister. deal with it.

this doesn't mean that any "subjugation" need be involved. although this subjugation probably has it's roots in the need to PROTECT pregnant/nursing woment and their/our children. the fact that it was warped, over the centuries, into what we now know as sexism, is, imo, not religions "fault", and certainly not mine, or the jews, or whoever you want to blame it on.

i get the impression from your comments you're a hard worker, indepentant minded, yadda yadda yadda. so just keep on keeping on, doing what you're doing, and don't waste time throwing blame around. you can see as well as i the trend toward egalitarianism, at least in the western world, and the best thing you can do is be an example- which you seem to be doing well. don't ruin it with cattiness. :) you can leave that to me- i'm in touch with my womanly side, dontcha know.

The problem with the warping has to do with people who want to go outside the societal/religious norms of what each gender should do. So women who want to be plumbers or race car drivers and men who want to be fashion designers or nurses often get shat on, literally or figuratively. Today's religions may not have invented it, but fundamental religions perpetuate this better than any society's custom could.

or race car drivers

Danica Patrick gets a lot of respect from NASCAR considering her talent in this event. Of course, she gets a lot more respect from Indy.

Furthermore, all of the male drivers in NASCAR get shat on, even the pros. NASCAR is a rough and tumble venue.

Of course there are the traditional "women driver" jokes that Becker and Syngas no doubt love since they pride themselves on not worrying about being pc :-D

Yeah yeah, but Danica also brings in a lot of money. If she could weigh in on her climb to the top, my guess is we'd hear alot about her having to pull herself up by her boot straps. If you're in North Carolina, it'll depend on the company you keep as to who would support a female driver or mechanic. Since it's non-standard occupation for women, they get to prove themselves double.

So should I pick a different occupation? NASCAR = big money thus big competition and rednecky reputations for all involved.

into what we now know as sexism, is, imo, not religions "fault", and certainly not mine, or the jews, or whoever you want to blame it on.

Nothing is really religions fault from atheist perspective. Because people invented religion. Religion is just a way to institutionalize and protect 3 thousand year old ways of thinking.

Now if there turns out to be a teapot in orbit around mars and god exists, well, god has been the cause of a lot of sensless suffering.

Whichever god he turns out to be.

Amen to that, Red.

I'm sure that in some sense, JB is at least pertly right, maybe even mostly right. Religion is very often the fall back excuse for retaining shitty behavior. In fact, I suspect that if it weren't useful for just that purpose, religion would die off faster - I mean, if you can't use religion to keep people down, keep people out, and shut people up - what good is it?

if you can't use religion to keep people down, keep people out, and shut people up - what good is it?

Too long for a bumper sticker?

and shut people up - what good is it?

This is one thing that Atheists really lack.

Ah the scent of a derailed thread...sniffff

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives