Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01024)

At 01:59 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
First I want to thank Nick for passing this message along. Second: I wonder
if there's some way I could send you some of my political essays?
>
>          alexis
>
>          To start off with, I notice that you choose to sign your
>          name in small caps.  This is how I prefer to sign, it lends
>          more credence to my belief that my name (like my body) is
>          only a transitory phenomena in my life wave.

I share your views here, but I also use lower case because the name itself
is far too upper case.
>
>          It never ceases to amaze me, the large number of religions
>          that held women in equal status with men.  Yet if you were
>          to ask the average citizen here, what is the major religious
>          belief system in the world.  They would probably answer,
>          christianity.  (the same goes for what is the most widely
>          spoken non-oriental language, most people do not realize
>          that it is Spanish).  My point is, it is hard for people to
>          accept women in an equal status when the basic core beliefs
>          place women in a distant second position (with alternative
>          lifestyles in the far distance if even on the board).
>          Womens rights movements do have one thing in their favor,
>          easy access to communication.  The struggle for equality on
>          multiple fronts is easier when you realize that you are not
>          the only one struggling.

Well I've been in the struggle with so many others for so long I know I am
not alone, at least in the civil rights struggle. In my struggle against
"The Triad" I feel somewhat more exposed. The only Religion I know of that
is currently totally sexually non-specific is Shamanism. Historically the
Druids (who were an outgrowth of Shamanism) were also sexually non-specific.
Every mainstream religion on this planet currently oppress women.
>
>          I am in total agreement with your statement of
>          christianities "enshrinement of ignorance".  I left the
>          catholic church after I was chastised for reading books that
>          were on the banned books reading list.  The priest told me
>          that the list was to protect the parishoners from ideas that
>          could lead us astray.  I argued that GOD had given me a
>          brain to use and for me to blindly follow anothers ideas
>          without using my own GOD given abilities was an affront to
>          GOD.  Needless to say, the discussion broke down shortly
>          after that.

I can imagine they did. I have had such discussions myself with Catholic
Clergy many times. I only got somewhere once. I enjoy arguing with Jesuits
though, their wits tend to be sharper than their dogma. But I agree with you
entirely (obviously) if we have the intelligence to make decisions and
choices it is hardly accidental.

>          About your comment on Cuba; I believe that if the US had not
>          been so arrogant and had recognized Cuba (after all, the
>          Cubans had just done what the US had done to England
>          centuries earlier).  The seige mentality that Cuba has been
>          living under would not have happened.  With the massive
>          education of the populace, the powers within Cuba would not
>          have been able to keep in place all of the restrictions on
>          personal a political liberties. It is the seige mentallity
>          that has been used to enforce the restrictions.  The lack of
>          education in the US is why it is easy to convince people
>          that the anti-terrorism bill is for our own good.  Little do
>          the people know that the bill will restrict our rights and
>          do very little (if anything at all) to prevent terrorism.
>
>          karl

Except for very minor points I largely agree with what you say. Their
revolution was against the Cuban Government, while ours was against a
Foreign Government. But that aside what you say is completely true. The main
problem is that we, and more important still The Cuban People, are "stuck"
with the bad results on both sides of the equation. America did the wrong
thing (even when viewed from it's point-of-view)but Castro did the wrong
thing in response. There's just too much Machismo in all of Castro's
activities, The US blockaded and embargoes Cuba, that's a given, he did NOT
have to become a tyrant in response. US actions just don't excuse The Isle
of Pines concentration camp. U.S.actions don't excuse the violent oppression
of dissent or of dissenting sexuality. Two wrongs never make a right. Let's
keep this discussion going.

alexis dolgorukii
The Eclectic Theosophist
>
>