"And if a few things had been different the Nazis would have had nuclear bombs first and would therefore have won. What grounds would you have had for objecting?"
True, until only recently the most brutal ruled. Hunmanism is a very recent ideal ancient greece excepted), and it does not go well with the 'might makes right' attitude.
"Surely you would have objected to Julian's attempt to resist the evolution of society, wouldn't you?"
I don't know who you mean by Julian.
"Subservient" by what definition? In what manner? To all men? Some men? One man per woman? Do you know? Do you care?"
By their husbands.
"Told by whom? In what respects? In which context?"
Are you saying the church has not resisted vehemently against women's rights? Still there is debate about letting women into the clergy!
"So what do you plan to do about it?"
Secular and civil rights trump religious, it's taken care of.
"Perhaps you were confused (more so than usual, that is)."
Easy!
"This is truly a remarkable sentence."
Why is that remarkable? Granted, just because currently I can think of no reason why we would ever consider one race/gender better than another in the future, does not mean that some new information cannot change that. But according to gentics, there is no race. Given what we know now, everyone should be treated equally regardless of race/gender.
That's all very nice. But if you're right that we're a meaningless byproduct of a meaningless universe, why shouldn't we consider might the closest thing to right we'll ever see?
I don't know who you mean by Julian.
The last pagan emperor of Rome was Julian the Apostate, who tried to get everyone sacrificing goats and pigs to Jupiter like in the old days. It didn't work.
"Subservient" by what definition? In what manner? To all men? Some men? One man per woman? Do you know? Do you care?"
By their husbands.
I suppose you mean to say to their husbands, in which case you are finally begining to address some of what the Bible says.
Now, then: what does the Bible say to husbands?
Are you saying the church has not resisted vehemently against women's rights? Still there is debate about letting women into the clergy!
A religious body choosing who can hold a religious office based on a religious text! Shocking! Offensive!
"So what do you plan to do about it?"
Secular and civil rights trump religious, it's taken care of.
It is? A husband can easily tell his wife who to vote for, and you can't stop it. And secret ballots only stop that sort of thing if they vote on election day, which lots of people don't do these day because they vote absentee.
BTW, do you think there are "secular and civil rights" having to do with who can be clergy?
Why is that remarkable? Granted, just because currently I can think of no reason why we would ever consider one race/gender better than another in the future, does not mean that some new information cannot change that. But according to gentics, there is no race. Given what we know now, everyone should be treated equally regardless of race/gender.
Should? Why? Because the races are equal? Why should that matter?
I'm serious, by the way. I don't think you can provide a substantive answer, or provide a serious defense of humanism in general.
The remarkable thing is that you think that "progress" (which is a meaningless concept in an atheist universe anyway, but that hardly ever stopped someone from believing in it) is irreversible, contrary to pretty much all recorded history. Your comment here is equally naive: you actually imagine people dispassionately weighing the evidence of science when considering whether or not to be racist!
As for gender, it's enough for the sexes to be different. Will you admit that much?