During the 3:00PM EST hour of MSNBC news coverage, anchor Norah O’Donnell discovered the source of sexism in the Middle East was not Islamic fundamentalism, but rather, capitalism: "And to another big story, is oil behind sexism in the Middle East? It's a provocative new theory out there today, suggesting the real culprit of the lower status of women in the Middle East is because of the region's oil wealth."
O’Donnell then turned to Sally Quinn of the Washington, who wrote about the theory on the newspaper’s On Faith blog: "This is a hot topic, Sally. Do you believe that oil is behind sexism in the Middle East?" Quinn replied: "Well, I do think that it has a lot to do with it...when you have an oil-rich country, there's much less manufacturing, so that there are fewer jobs for women. But also because the country is so rich that women don't need to work and therefore they're comfortable and they stay home."
Later, O’Donnell concluded: "But it's a very interesting question, it's not necessarily Islam, it may be more, and you would know this better than I, as -- because of what you're doing -- it may more be the wealth of that country." Quinn replied: "Well, it is the wealth. The -- part of it, too, has to do with culture. I mean, that they come from a culture where women don't work. And so, because the oil-rich countries, all of the jobs that are involved around oil are much more male-oriented jobs."
Quinn also suggested that the oil-wealth of Middle Eastern countries made people so financially "comfortable" that women can afford to stay at home and therefore have become complacent to sexist treatment:
...it obviously follows that here you have these oil-rich countries and women are sort of cosseted and it's a double-edged sword. Because on the one hand, they're much more comfortable, they don't have to work, they can shop, they can gossip, they can go to lunch. On the other hand, they're held back and living in a totally male dominated society...I think most of them are bored out of their minds, the rich ones...I think a lot of women, and this certainly goes for women in this country too, would probably rather spend more time at home when they have little children and not have to work full time. But I think that, in general, most women would prefer a full -- a more fulfilling life than just sitting around and eating bonbons all day.
Here is the full transcript of the segment:
3:26PM SEGMENT:
NORAH O'DONNELL: And to another big story, is oil behind sexism in the Middle East? It's a provocative new theory out there today, suggesting the real culprit of the lower status of women in the Middle East is because of the region's oil wealth. According to a World Bank report, women make up less than a third of the work force in the Middle East. Let's bring in Sally Quinn on the Washington Post and co-founder of On Faith. Sally, I just want to read from your blog post about the theory posed by Michael Ross. Quote, 'the concentration of the production of oil eliminates manufacturing, where women have the best chance for jobs. But more interestingly, because the average woman living in an oil-rich country does not need the extra income she stays home. Therefore the culture and society are dominated by men and women have much less political influence.' This is a hot topic, Sally. Do you believe that oil is behind sexism in the Middle East?
SALLY QUINN: Well, I do think that it has a lot to do with it. And I -- this was a whole new idea for me. I just came back from Doha, from a Brookings conference on Islam. And I was stunned and as you can imagine, this was very controversial in the panel where this paper was introduced. But what he did say was, first of all, that when you have an oil-rich country, there's much less manufacturing, so that there are fewer jobs for women. But also because the country is so rich that women don't need to work and therefore they're comfortable and they stay home. So my question is, do you -- do women really want to work-
O'DONNELL: Right.
QUINN: -or do they work because they have to? I mean, when you look at the most oil-rich countries in the United -- I mean in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, those countries have the fewer women vote -- they don't -- they have the fewest women in parliament. They have much more reluctance to grant women the vote. Fewer women in the work force and fewer women's rights.
O'DONNELL: Yeah.
QUINN: And -- and so, it obviously follows that here you have these oil-rich countries and women are sort of cosseted and it's a double-edged sword. Because on the one hand, they're much more comfortable, they don't have to work, they can shop, they can gossip, they can go to lunch. On the other hand, they're held back and living in a totally male dominated society.
O'DONNELL: In Saudi Arabia, women make up 5% of the work force. Women in Saudi Arabia cannot drive, although the King may reconsider that this year because one of his family members is pushing for him to change that, that could be a real change. But it's a very interesting question, it's not necessarily Islam, it may be more, and you would know this better than I, as -- because of what you're doing -- it may more be the wealth of that country.
QUINN: Well, it is the wealth. The -- part of it, too, has to do with culture. I mean, that they come from a culture where women don't work. And so, because the oil-rich countries, all of the jobs that are involved around oil are much more male-oriented jobs. There aren't that many jobs for women anyway. And yet, these women are very well educated. A lot of them go to school in the United States or England. They come back, they're well educated. I think most of them are bored out of their minds, the rich ones.
O'DONNELL: Yeah.
QUINN: I think a lot of women, and this certainly goes for women in this country too, would probably rather spend more time at home when they have little children and not have to work full time. But I think that, in general, most women would prefer a full -- a more fulfilling life than just sitting around and eating bonbons all day.
O'DONNELL: It's a provocative theory and it's great. Sally Quinn, great blog, really interesting. Thanks so much. We appreciate it.
QUINN: Thanks.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
So now making a profit is
February 20, 2009 - 18:10 ET by HeavyChevySo now making a profit is sexist??????? Well isn't that just fascinating.Reason # 435,564 why no one takes MSNBC seriously.
This has got to be intentional.
February 21, 2009 - 13:13 ET by TailgunnerThe alternative explanation is their utter and complete stupidity.
There's far too much evidence to the contrary to accept their ignorance as an excuse.
I think this is a semi-coordinated effort to downplay the dangers of militant Islam.
We see this effort in media that revise violent acts with an obvious Islamic connection as motivated by 'domestic violence' or 'disgruntled employee' or in any other way possible to minimize this connection.
We see it in education where children are indoctrinated with a selective, revisionist, 'peaceful' form of Islam.
Teachers who violently resist any mention of God within the same zip code force these students to memorize and recite the Koran, dress in the same misogynistic coverings Islamic women are forced to wear under threat of beatings and murder, and to observe Ramadan.
We even see it in our own antiterrorist efforts as government agencies, including the FBI, are indoctrinated by government-appointed Islamic 'cultural experts' with known ties to Islamic apologists and even terrorist front groups.
Anyone with the courage to name the threat is literally persecuted.
We once discounted the possibility of radical left-wing groups like ACORN having the ability to actually take over our government. We are now paying the price for this blindness.
Let's not allow the politically correct Left, this time, to intimidate us into silence.
NOLI PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
ABSOLUTELY! One hundred ten
February 21, 2009 - 15:51 ET byABSOLUTELY! One hundred ten percent agreement my friend. The proof is that they didn't "neglect to consider" the Islam angle, they DISMISSED it!
Let's see, making money may be the cause of sexism in a culture who's religion mandates the internment of women, who's satanic Koran, mandates a DEATH PENALTY for women WALKING DOWN THE FREAKIN' STREET UNACCOMPANIED BY A MALE, but it must be the money!
"Duh, where's the forest Waldo, all I see's those big ass trees!"
I have been to rich and
February 20, 2009 - 18:09 ET by SlicksterI have been to rich and poor muslim countries, there is no difference. This moron need look no further than Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
So what I gather from
February 20, 2009 - 18:13 ET by MidAmericaSo what I gather from this theory is that our governments support of welfare that allows women to stay home and not work is actually sexism.
My word how dumb and blind can you get
February 20, 2009 - 18:15 ET by dark_dsSo oil wealth is the reason that women are held down and treated like property and it isnt the religion of peace Islam that is oppressing women. My word how dumb and blind can you get
"America is on the Short Bus to Socialism"
Really?
February 20, 2009 - 18:15 ET by BlondeThis libtard has no clue about women as chattel in the ME?
I hope this woman has no pets....because they're likely little terrorist terriers, in need of the Dog Whisperer.
Talk about projection!
Blonde
February 22, 2009 - 10:38 ET by thebutlerdiditGreat analogy. The Dog Whispererer. I think Sally Quinn needs a session with Cesar, myself. She is one dumb bowser.I can't decide how much of this is obsfuscation and how much is sheer ignorance.
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
These idiots can't even spell logic
February 20, 2009 - 18:21 ET by c5thenIf oil wealth is the root cause of sexism, then it follows that all oil-rich countries should be sexist. right? That includes Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, Mexico, Venezuela, Canada, Norway, USA, Russia...
Oh, wait...it's only some of them. Is there another common trait among those that are that is missing in those that aren't? Hmmmmmmmm?
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012
February 21, 2009 - 16:26 ET byDude, Alan Keyes is a NUT who doesn't understand the things you can say in public and the things that will brand you a "nut" forever. All that is true is not necessarily "expedient".
Sarah Palin, for all her down homey charm, isn't ready for prime time. It's time for the Republican Party to stop retreating into FANDOM and start re-aligning itself with it's first principles.
THIS is NOT "presidential".
1. "Well, let's see. There's ― of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American, and there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but ―" --Sarah Palin, unable to name a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with other than Roe vs. Wade, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008 (Watch video clip)
She lacks the guts to call Roe vs. Wade EVIL, hiding conveniently behind the "States Rights" B.S, that people with no guts use when discussing a Supreme Court decision they are too fearful of revealing their real feelings about. When asked what she reads the answer was EMBARRASsing, NOT because she didn't list the NYT, WSJ or whatever, because she didn't say "Katie why do you think I need to read a bunch of dumb ass liberals in order to know what to think. I mean, that's how you guys get your "commonly accepted" wisdom isn't it? One liberal moron with no morals writes a piece that is instantly adopted as gospel by other idiot liberals with no morals and it then finds it's way into a question by, well, YOU Katie!" She should have rejected the PREMISE as being an unworthy question since reporters BY DEFINITION don't really KNOW anything practical, and certainly shouldn't be given any credit for intelligence! They just REPORT what OTHER PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY KNOW SOMETHING, HAVE SAID.
2. "They are also building schools for the Afghan children so that there is hope and opportunity in our neighboring country of Afghanistan."
AFGHANISTAN is not a neighboring country of the United States.
3. "[T]hey're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." --Sarah Palin, getting the vice president's constitutional role wrong after being asked by a third grader what the vice president does, interview with NBC affiliate KUSA in Colorado, Oct. 21, 2008 (Watch video clip)
At the VERY LEAST someone running for Vice President should actually know what the job entails! The V.P is not "in charge" of the senate. He presides over the senate only in the event of a deadlock where he might have the deciding vote. The V. P cannot schedule legislation to be brought either to the floor or into committee and cannot prevent the same from occurring. If a kid from Queens knows this, it is a SHAME that this dim bulb from Alaska doesn't.
Then there's this gem, in which she totally doesn't understand that "First Amendment Rights" don't extend to "criticism" from the Press. Ouch.
3. "If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media." --Sarah Palin, getting First Amendment rights backwards while suggesting that criticism of her is unconstitutional, radio interview with WMAL-AM, Oct. 31, 2008
4."We realize that more and more Americans are starting to see the light there and understand the contrast. And we talk a lot about, OK, we're confident that we're going to win on Tuesday, so from there, the first 100 days, how are we going to kick in the plan that will get this economy back on the right track and really shore up the strategies that we need over in Iraq and Iran to win these wars?" --Sarah Palin, suggesting we are at war with Iran, FOX News interview, Nov. 1, 2008
We are not at this time and certainly weren't when she said this, at war with Iran.
Ummm. New Hampshire is in the EAST
5. I like being here because it seems like here and in our last rally too -- other parts around this great Northwest -- here in New Hampshire you just get it." --Sarah Palin, Laconia, New Hampshire, Oct. 15, 2008
AND showing the Political discretion we need in a great leader....
"Perhaps so." --Sarah Palin, when asked if we may need to go to war with Russia because of the Georgia crisis, ABC News interview, Sept. 11, 2008
Imagine if she had BEEN V.P when she said that! Oy Vey! OH and on that Bridge to Nowhere that she took credit for rejecting?
"We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative." --Sarah Palin, on the Bridge to Nowhere, interview with the Ketchikan Daily News, Oct. 2006
SARAH PALIN is not, and has not at any time been ready to be the Vice President, much less the freakin' PRESIDENT. There are decent Republican men and women who know their jobs and the jobs they are aspiring to. Pick one of THEM next time.
Acts is Obama ready to be
February 21, 2009 - 17:14 ET by Dan The Man 2Acts is Obama ready to be President? I ask you because you shame yourself by saying Palin is not ready. The people decide who is and who is not ready. Your examples are lame at best as we must remember she was towing the McCain lineand facing an extreeme hostile press. In most nuetral/freindly venues she didvery well.
All said she would do well, you seem to forget teh fact she is a sitting governor now. She has excellent people skills and can work a crowd like nobodies business. She is President material and you are wrong.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Dan, Acts forgets Obama's
February 21, 2009 - 17:26 ET by ThisnThatDan, Acts forgets Obama's best qualification is that he voted Present so many times.
Whoops, one other qualification. He spent most of his Senate years campaigning for President. How could I have left that out?
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
Hey Dan Sorry to take so
February 21, 2009 - 21:28 ET byHey Dan
Sorry to take so long replying. And I'm on my way out now, so any response will unfortunately have to wait.
I NEVER said Barack Obama was qualified to be President. I don't think he is qualified to be DOG CATCHER. But in all honesty, much as I felt a twinge in my gut when Harriet Meyers was shakey on the whole equal protection thing, I feel the same about Sarah Palin. This is not because of the liberal media which does not have the power to influence MY thoughts. This was my opinion based on observation, the same way I feel that while I AGREE with EVERYTHING I have ever heard Alan Keyes say, he can never be president because of the way he says them. I like Ann Coulter too, but I wouldn't vote for her for anything.
~Acts.......like a tool
February 21, 2009 - 17:30 ET by choselife3xCould have been worse. She could have been a CATHOLIC.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Acts... I don't give a
February 21, 2009 - 17:41 ET by bigtimerActs...
I don't give a rats rear about Palin that much...with the expception she was a breath of fresh air after what we had been subjected to via McC and crew...and I would fight for her to the end because of the constant msm blathering with the fear and hatred mentality...but when if comes to Keys...just where do you get off calling him a nut?
Eh?
I have listened to the man for over 18 years now...tell me where he is a nut with any speeches he has given.
He has been slimed or ignored by just about all ...I am sick of it.
The only thing I can tell
February 21, 2009 - 21:29 ET byThe only thing I can tell you about Alan is that his DELIVERY is slightly maniacal when he gets on a roll. Mind you the content, I agree with but the almost crazed delivery is prohibitive.
Acts... You agree with
February 21, 2009 - 21:45 ET by bigtimerActs...
You agree with all of his content, but not the delivery.
Wow.
Granted, like all of us, depending on the situation on who, what, where, we may not be in the right time frame when we speak, or who we are speaking to, but it is always the content that matters when it comes right down to what you say...in my opinion anyway, like I said, I have been listening to him for over 18 years...it is sad what has been to Keyes in my opinion, by both sides of the aisle in different respects.
Thanks for your response...I appreciate it.
~That is one of the FUNNIEST things
February 22, 2009 - 12:36 ET by choselife3xI have ever read.
Acts...you are the KING of 'crazed delivery'.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Acts like another serial PDS-er we know
February 21, 2009 - 18:25 ET by Free StinkerAnd BTW, She did cancel the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" (Even Alaska Democrats have admitted it)
OMO! She was for it 1st !!
The end result is the important thing. This is a politician who went into office and later changed to spend less. Usually it is the opposite with politicians.
"Gov. Palin has been subjected to one of the most massive and dishonest pile-on smear attacks in the history of liberal media." -- Lowell Ponte
~Free
February 21, 2009 - 18:31 ET by choselife3xI am so glad you're around for stuff like this. I got tired of typing the same responses to the same stupid lies about Palin after the first few months.
Now I just make fun of them.
Keep up the good work.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Returning abortion to states not enough
February 21, 2009 - 18:40 ET by nkviking75Guess what? If Roe vs. Wade is ever overturned, Abortion may very well still be legal in all 50 states since the State legislatures will be back to regulating it.
Free, I hope you're wrong on this point in this sense: I hope the court rules to support the personhood, and therefore the right to life, of the unborn. That would take it out of both federal and state hands. The new law being considered in North Dakota may bring this about if it passes. Kicking it back to the states would improve things, but it's not the goal IMHO.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Banning abortion in every
February 21, 2009 - 18:46 ET by Free StinkerBanning abortion in every state is the goal.
I am just saying that overturning Roe vs. Wade will not - by itself - ban abortion throughout the country.
overturning Roe v. Wade won't ban abortion anywhere
February 22, 2009 - 14:06 ET by lotrThat will be up to the States to decide -- imagine that -- democracy in action as envisioned in the Constitution.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
I agree with all that you
February 21, 2009 - 21:36 ET byI agree with all that you have said my friend! The point I was making is much like you've lost the "gay" debate because of moral fecklesness, you are similarly losing the abortion debate. The idea is not to hide in legalities the idea is to frame it as what it IS, evil. From satan. Something no SANE person would even consider, if they knew the truth of their actions, which, thanks to the abortion industry, has been carefully hidden from them.
The only reason to object to abortion or homosexuality is Jesus Christ. On all other arguments you lose. Homosexuals for instance, are Americans, and as Americans they should be protected under the constitution. It's not a stretch to imagine some godless jurist who believes that sans religion, there is no reason at all NOT to give them "equal rights". Sans religion there is no reason a man can't marry a horse! Horses rarely complain!
Dancing around the issue only weakens your position. The reason that we are against the murder of Children in the womb is because it is just that, the MURDER OF CHILDREN in the womb. And I don't give a good googley moogley what some STATE thinks of it. MY goal, and the goal of the pro-life movement is the ERADICATION of abortion. Period.
Read my reply to the
February 21, 2009 - 21:50 ET by***FREESTINKER***
Read my reply to the "abortion returning to the states argument" that is the EFFECT of overturning Roe v Wade, that is not the REASON to overturn it! The reason is because only a morally DEPRAVED society would sanction the killing of it's children and the degree to which an individual does NOT believe that is the exact degree to which that individual has been deceived by the god of this world.
What does "no link" mean. My post had links to every stupid thing she said! Plus video!
Whether we SHOULD go to war with IRAN or not is not the issue. Although I would be with you on that one! The issue is what she said. And when you ARE the V.P a misstep like that one could LEAD to war with someone you aren't really ready to fight yet.
I have read the constitution and nowhere in it does it say that the Vice President is "in charge" of the senate and NOWHERE in there does he have a chance to "get in there and make changes" I paraphrase her lunacy. He has ONE VOTE and HE ONLY HAS THAT IN THE EVENT OF A TIE. Period.
Being for something originally and then changing your mind is not a crime. BRAGGING about the virtues of your JOHNNY COME LATELY position however, IS. Ask John "I was for it before I was agin' it" Kerry!
Acts: WHo do you
February 21, 2009 - 18:21 ET by BDActs:
WHo do you recommend for president on the GOP side?
BD... Good
February 21, 2009 - 18:37 ET by bigtimerBD...
Good question.
The answer should be interesting.
I'm for Sanford so far...then there is Rush.
I'm just kind of kidding...well, sort of....well, maybe not.
Hope you know I am laughing here....should be an interesting answer though.
I think the rehabilitation
February 21, 2009 - 21:40 ET byI think the rehabilitation of RICK SANTORUM should begin. He's conservative, media friendly ( at least when they let him talk) and his RECORD of conservatism didn't appear yesterday like Romney's . For that matter if Romney would stop trying to link his mormonism with Christianity, which it is not, I think he'd be fine. He certainly has the mgmt experience and he knows how to run a race. I think a lot of the hurdles that kind of slowed him down, flip-fopping etc, will be void if he maintains his conservatism till the next election!
GEORGE ALLEN should not live in political obscurity because of a FREAKING WORD THAT NOBODY KNEW ANY DARNED WAY! Re-hab G.A.! Now thar's an idea!
For that matter if Romney
February 22, 2009 - 10:28 ET by BDFor that matter if Romney would stop trying to link his mormonism with Christianity, which it is not, I think he'd be fine.
BD
February 22, 2009 - 10:34 ET by sherylsimsChristians don't consider Mormonism Christian because they deny Jesus is the only son of God and the complete and only way of Salvation. Mormonism is a works-based religion.
I consider myself a
February 22, 2009 - 10:51 ET by BDI consider myself a christian and that is not my criteria.
My criteria would be largely to adhere to the Nicene Creed of 381 AD.
Thus, since Baptists and several other groups would not adhere to that, would I NOT be forced to categorically eject them from Christianity?
If I can consider baptists to be part of the larger christian family, how could I not also assume mormons are as well?
I personally don't
February 22, 2009 - 10:56 ET by sherylsimsI personally don't consider any group Christian or non Christian. Christianity is a personal thing and in every group (Catholic, Mormon, etc) you will find people who have a real relationship with God and people who do not. The vehicle to get to God is Jesus. (According to the Christians) In the structure of religion, some believe Jesus is the way to God and some believe in other ways. I don't think ANY religious structure can be "Christian" or "Non Christian". I think only people can be. But I was just telling you what Christians consider about Mormons. Studying the genesis of the Mormon religion though reveals it to be a cult that broke away from Christian religion, rather than being just another branch of it.
I just find it odd that
February 22, 2009 - 11:05 ET by BDI just find it odd that certain groups feel the right to judgement on who might or might not be "Christian" and thus color a presidential candidate in a prejudicial manner.
As a catholic, if ANYONE were to have the right to eject a group of followers from the group "Chritianity at large" I would assume it to be the originators. Yet I will not do that.
I am not mormon, but have yet to find a group in the US Military that is as over representated demographically, or nearly as patriotic as the mormons I have encountered here in the west. To act prejudicially against them because of a certain odd belief is insulting, particualrly when I find most beliefs by the group "Christianity at large" to be odd. Including some of my own.
I don't think that it is
February 22, 2009 - 11:11 ET by sherylsimsI don't think that it is judgemental to say, "These are the beliefs that define what a Christian is" and then to say (to someone who does not share those beliefs) "You are not a Christian" If they want to be included in Christianity then they need to believe and teach the Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible so help me God. Christianity is the most inclusive of all religions. ANYONE who comes will not be turned away (By Jesus.) If Mormons want to be Christians, nobody is stopping them. But you can't say "I am a Christian" and then deny that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. It just doesn't work that way.
Why should the Bible enter
February 22, 2009 - 11:21 ET by BDWhy should the Bible enter into it? I do not subscribe to a doctrine of infallibility regarding the bible. See position as described below.
Yet, Since you adhere to such a thought I will not eject you from the larger group.
Yet, Since you adhere to
February 22, 2009 - 11:27 ET by sherylsimsYet, Since you adhere to such a thought I will not eject you from the larger group.
Thanks.
Hey, what can I say, I
February 22, 2009 - 11:30 ET by BDHey, what can I say, I believe in the larger brotherhood....
Who is Christian?
February 22, 2009 - 11:39 ET by cocodrieJesus addressed this in Luke 9:49&50 - "And John answered and said, Master, We saw one casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not, for he that is not against us is with us."
A Christian is a follower of Jesus and that is decided by what is in our heart not by someone's opinion.
Jesus Loves You
A Christian is a follower of Jesus ...
February 22, 2009 - 11:52 ET by QueenMumcoco: Amen.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
If I can consider
February 22, 2009 - 11:02 ET by sherylsimsIf I can consider baptists to be part of the larger christian family, how could I not also assume mormons are as well?
Baptists have taken their doctrine from the Bible. Mormons doctrine comes from other sources. They claim to believe the Bible "so long as it is interpreted correctly" but in areas where the Bible does not agree with the Book of Mormon the will give the B of M preeminence. There is a huge difference between accepting a group who believes and adheres to the Bible as Christians and accepting a group who does not. Wouldn't you agree?
Baptists have taken their
February 22, 2009 - 11:13 ET by BDBaptists have taken their doctrine from the Bible.
The Bible is an
February 22, 2009 - 11:25 ET by sherylsimsThe Bible is an extremely important element of Christianity. Belief in the Bible as inspired by the Holy Spirit and preserved for us as the Living Word of God is the basis for everything in Christianity.
The original statement I made was that Christians don't consider Mormons to be Christian because they don't have the same doctrines that Christians do. You may not rely on the authority of Scripture, but most Christians do. You can argue that all day long as to whether it is ok or not, it won't change anything.
So, the christians who were
February 22, 2009 - 11:28 ET by BDSo, the christians who were christians before the Bible was brought together were not "Christians?"
~Uh Oh
February 22, 2009 - 11:33 ET by choselife3xNo need for a Holy War. We're all on the same side here.
Conservatives good, liberals bad. :-)
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Hey, I am just making that
February 22, 2009 - 11:38 ET by BDHey, I am just making that case. Acts wrote of a prejudicial position of small minded people towards Romney due to mormonism and I have been decontructing it this morning.
No holywar needed or being fought.....
my word BD!!
February 22, 2009 - 11:50 ET by botgwouldn't we be much better off with Mitt making the policies governing this economy?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Concur there....
February 22, 2009 - 12:00 ET by BDConcur there....
I wasn't really
February 22, 2009 - 11:51 ET by sherylsimsI wasn't really interested in a holy war either. My husband came in and was reading over my shoulder and is now telling me, "Say this..." "Say this..." (But he is going way too fast for me to type it all, so you are lucky this morning.) I told him I would give him the keyboard and turn him loose, but he declined. GOSH! It is like living with POP TECH here! (reference to the links and info overload)
Poptech? Oh hell, not
February 22, 2009 - 12:03 ET by BDPoptech? Oh hell, not endless links without rationale!!
BD
February 22, 2009 - 12:06 ET by sherylsimsIt was good having this little "tussle" with you and I have to leave now. I will talk to you again later. Now I have to listen to my own personal poptech all morning about this. GRRR.
In the beginning was the
February 22, 2009 - 11:33 ET by sherylsimsIn the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. There has always been a Bible. It just hasn't always been printed. God had other ways of communicating with man before we had the Bible. And God's people weren't (and aren't) always called "Christians". That is a name for the post-resurrection believers that was given to them by the Romans in ridicule "Little Christs" and it caught on.
No, there has NOT always
February 22, 2009 - 11:50 ET by BDNo, there has NOT always been a bible.
THere were various torah prior to the birth of christ, but various groups took those torah and added to it with whatever they could find contemporarily including books which were later removed to become what we know now as the new Testiment (Books of the Apocrypha etc).
Are these books less holy? and how do we know? Are they less or more viable than the Book of Mormon?
I am going to stop here
February 22, 2009 - 11:59 ET by sherylsimsI am going to stop here because there isn't any way we are going to come to agreement. I don't want this to turn argumentative. I respect your views and my right to disagree with them.
(Note from my husband: "The sad part is everything you believe is not true and there is no way you can prove it. Some anti-Christian came up with those theories to destroy the foundation upon which we could have this discussion not based on any facts whatsoever.")
-so much for me not wanting to be argumentative, eh?-
Yeah, nor do I agree with
February 22, 2009 - 12:07 ET by BDYeah, nor do I agree with much of what Mormons believe, but will not eject them from the greahter family called christianity.
Regarding your husbands position, my beliefs can hardly be considered anti-chritian since I asscoiate myself with chritianity. Is it anti-Chritian to observe the bible's new testiment not being assembled until the reign of Constantine?
BD
February 22, 2009 - 11:39 ET by botgcountless rewrites?
hardly, in fact the latest translations have been done using manuscripts from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries
there are many resources available on text criticism and how we can be very sure that what we have today is essentially equal to the autographs as written by the Apostles or their scribes or students
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Yeah, but the bible was not
February 22, 2009 - 11:54 ET by BDYeah, but the bible was not assembled until 400 years post christ. In that time it went through countless assemblages and re-writes.
Just saying....
but BD
February 22, 2009 - 12:06 ET by botgthe individual epistles (letters) and gospels were distributed and read within the communities during that time. Just because they had not been assembled into a single source and some of the less credible removed doesn't mean things were rewritten.
The John Rylands mss has been dated to 90AD, plus there are countless cites within other writings from the time with which 75% of the Bible could be re-written even if all the numerous original texts were lost
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Hey, I would say that the
February 22, 2009 - 12:11 ET by BDHey, I would say that the act of assemblage act itself is an act of rewriting. But hey....
so when i read from
February 22, 2009 - 12:17 ET by botgmy 'Collected Works of Edgar Allan Poe' i'm reading short stories which were rewritten in 1968?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
hey BD
February 22, 2009 - 11:06 ET by botgwhere do you get that baptists are in disagreement with the Nicene Creed?
Oneness Pentacostals now there's a whole nother story
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Because the Nicene creed of
February 22, 2009 - 11:18 ET by BDBecause the Nicene creed of which I speak says the phrase:
In one holy catholic and apostolic church.
I have been told by Baptists that that disqualifies them. Personnally, I do not... I still condider them christians.
Some baptists just don't
February 22, 2009 - 11:28 ET by sherylsimsSome baptists just don't like being in anyone else's group. :o)
Yeah....
February 22, 2009 - 11:31 ET by BDYeah....
BD
February 22, 2009 - 11:30 ET by botgi can vouch that baptists do indeed believe in one separated, universal body of believers as was revealed to the Apostles
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
But not the Catholic part.
February 22, 2009 - 11:33 ET by BDBut not the Catholic part. That is okay, I am not judgemental regarding that but likewise cannot understand such judgement against mormonism.
Maybe you would if you
February 22, 2009 - 11:36 ET by sherylsimsMaybe you would if you studied what they actually believe. It is not Christianity.
Sooo.... Now Catholics are
February 22, 2009 - 11:56 ET by BDSooo.... Now Catholics are not Christians? Really?
NO, I didn't say that. I
February 22, 2009 - 12:01 ET by sherylsimsNO, I didn't say that. I was talking about Mormons. Do not twist my words!
But should catholics cast
February 22, 2009 - 12:16 ET by BDBut should catholics cast you out of christianity since you impute an infallibility to a book rather than Christ? Or that you do not impute an infallibility to the pope?
For the record I do not believe so. Nor do I believe mormons should.
BD
February 22, 2009 - 11:44 ET by botgcatholic simply means universal, i believe you are confusing catholic with "Roman Catholic"
that is why i updated the wording in my answer to prevent any such misunderstanding
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Agreed, BD
February 22, 2009 - 11:46 ET by BlondeI read this comment of yours earlier, and I agree one hundred percent.
I am not mormon, but have yet to find a group in the US Military that is as over representated demographically, or nearly as patriotic as the mormons I have encountered here in the west. To act prejudicially against them because of a certain odd belief is insulting, particualrly when I find most beliefs by the group "Christianity at large" to be odd. Including some of my own.
We had some hot and heated discussions about Mormonism (including much bashing and banned posters) while Mitt Romney was still in the mix during the primaries. And I came to the exact conclusion you posted above.
Danke sehr....
February 22, 2009 - 11:57 ET by BDDanke sehr....
A friendly reminder
February 22, 2009 - 11:58 ET by QueenMumIs it time for this sidebar to move to the Forum before the Mormon and Catholic bashing begins? I'm just asking.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
Mea Culpa! Sorry.
February 22, 2009 - 12:17 ET by BDMea Culpa! Sorry.
I see no bashing here.
February 22, 2009 - 12:21 ET by BlondeMerely calm, reasoned discussion.
hey B!
February 22, 2009 - 12:27 ET by botgi'm off to breakfast, have a great one.
btw: some of my bestest friends are Catholics ;^ )
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
~Agreed
February 22, 2009 - 12:28 ET by choselife3xDisagreeing about different doctrines does not equal 'bashing'.
That's like calling someone who disapproves of sodomy a 'homophobe'.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Norah O’Donnell is the poster girl for government "education"
February 20, 2009 - 18:25 ET by R D Helm...as she is profoundly ignorant of even basic history.
The "oil rich" Middle East is a very recent phenomenon, as it only came about in the first half of the last century.
Members of the "peaceful" religion of Islam were beheading their women and treating them basically like cattle for a full 1300 years before the first ounce of oil was ever pumped out of the ground over there.
We are awash in a sea of ignorant, uneducated people.
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
Pot calling kettle...
February 20, 2009 - 18:26 ET by bigtimerSpeaking of rich... this is rich coming from Quinn...she believes those women are rich and can stay home eh?
Why, oh why, didn't we get lucky enough to get this sleep around, political ladder climbing whore to chose the middle east to do her social parties with the upper crust instead of here.
She is full of sh!t...as usual, nothing but a two-faced b!tch.
I have never, ever, been able to stomach her...from way back.
I guess that means that
February 20, 2009 - 18:36 ET by eaglewingz08I guess that means that Afghanistan under the Taliban was an Eden for women since it was not oil rich, or rich in any way?
That igNORAHnt slut, is so stupid she would be embarrased at this crap coming out of her mouth if she had half a brain.
ew08... GREAT
February 20, 2009 - 18:40 ET by bigtimerew08...
GREAT points!
She is a blonde bimbo who worked her way up...and it wasn't from the other half of her brain cells that worked for her if you know what I mean. ;-)
Exactly
February 20, 2009 - 18:42 ET by GalvanicThat's what came to my mind, too. Given the Taliban' srecord, Afhganistan must be awash in oil. ;-)
So, according to Norah
February 20, 2009 - 18:40 ET by Trix RabbitSo, according to Norah O'Dumbass, it's "a provocative theory". She's right. That's all it is. A theory. Nothing but subjective horsesh*t passing as reason and truth.
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
"And to another big story,
February 20, 2009 - 18:40 ET by BD"And to another big story, is oil behind sexism in the Middle East?
Absolutely
February 20, 2009 - 19:25 ET by Dont_Like_TheBluesThis O'Dumbass is as bad as Rosie O'Dumbass.
Women were regarded as property in the mid-east LONG before the discovery of oil over there.
Just because video cameras didn't doccument executions of middle east women 100 years ago doesn't mean it never happened.
I CAN'T STAND PINHEADS
Absolutely
February 20, 2009 - 19:25 ET by Dont_Like_TheBluesThis O'Dumbass is as bad as Rosie O'Dumbass.
Women were regarded as property in the mid-east LONG before the discovery of oil over there.
Just because video cameras didn't doccument executions of middle east women 100 years ago doesn't mean it never happened.
I CAN'T STAND PINHEADS
Oil Money is not sexist
February 20, 2009 - 18:47 ET by LogicalI am in the oil and gas industry and travel internationally for business. The idea of oil money causing sexism actually makes for a good laugh going into the weekend. If any country owes it's success to oil, it's Norway. Compare them to Saudi... Then come back and explain how they are so different when it comes to sexism. Are we not allowed to call a spade a spade anymore? Islam is a sexist religion.
Huh??? Women are repressed because of the religion
February 20, 2009 - 18:53 ET by Miket53Miket53 http://mtaricani.blogspot.com/
Simply amazing that they conclude it's the profits. Especially since the customs are so well known..women can't drive, show their faces, hold positions of power.....and all that is based on old customs. That is why I was so amazed liberal women were so anti-Bush when he liberated probably 10+ million women in Iraq.
Unbelievable.
holy peas and carrots
February 20, 2009 - 18:54 ET by katainkentThe Ministry of Truth is working overtime tonight.
OK - so oil wealth provided so that ..
February 20, 2009 - 19:08 ET by Gary Hall"..when you have an oil-rich country, there's much less manufacturing, so that there are fewer jobs for women." Whew!
Anway - I'd grant them, that with the infrastructure improvements in place, fewer women are forced to walk the 12 miles across the desert to the oasis to get water. That's about as much as I'm willing to give.
Norah O'Donnell and Sally Quinn Two Numbskulls
February 20, 2009 - 19:27 ET by The Smokin FrogNorah O'Donnell and Sally Quinn must be two of the most blazing of idiots on the planet. If these two bright lights just spent a little time with the history of Islam it would spare them from displaying to the world their sublime ignorance. Islam started with a mass murderer and it is continuing to this day the same. Mohammed killed from the beginning and so did his followers. Women were never treated as anything but property long before oil was discovered.
I am becoming convinced that the liberal mind is a vast wasteland, and possibly beyond recovery, thrilled with its own existence and its insight into the evils of the west. The very west that allows them to speak like numskulls and not be beheaded.
TSF Protests!
And why are those country`s
February 20, 2009 - 19:42 ET by chessplayerAnd why are those country`s wealthy? Because the US buys their oil. Therefore, this is a roundabout way to blame the US for sexism in Islamic countries. Because we all know the ROP does`nt condone sexism! sarc/
Hell, if that is what we have to tell the libs
February 20, 2009 - 21:50 ET by general companyIn order to drill our own,,well then I am for it!!
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
ignorance is bliss
February 20, 2009 - 20:43 ET by lotrSelf deluded fools. Can they explain to me what's money got to do, got to do with it?
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
Again, working women are
February 20, 2009 - 22:28 ET by Radical1979Again, working women are demeaning women who don't work outside their homes. Here's a clue, I don't have a paying job, but I work. I take care of my ageing mother, my teenage children, and my house. I don't eat bonbons and I'm not bored (unless I'm watching MSNBC).
Working outside the home is NOT the answer for every woman or the cause of every woman's problem.
culprit of stupidity
February 20, 2009 - 23:42 ET by TN Momthe real culprit of the lower status of women in the Middle East is because of the region's oil wealth
The status of Middle Eastern women was the same 2000 years ago when there wasn't any oil wealth.
Maybe MSNBC should hire some 5th graders to explain to O'Donnel & Quinn.
Here's Obama's change in
February 21, 2009 - 00:09 ET by snaggletoothieHere's Obama's change in action. Four months ago theywould have blamed Bush.
Absolutey TRUE!
February 21, 2009 - 01:13 ET by JWFLook at the wealthiest country on earth and what it does to it's women. The United States of America.
America takes it's women, straps them to tables, and sucks the intelligence out of their brains and feeds it to their cattle.
Result: smart cows that can open gates and graze wherever they want. And rock stupid women that are then forced to go on TV shows and expound on some of the stupidest ideas formulated on the planet today.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
These two are truly
February 21, 2009 - 04:02 ET by nofateThese two are truly vacuous. A minimum of journalistic effort could have dug up the fact that islam has been sexist and oppressing women since the beginning with the full support of Muhammed and the Quran. As Robert Spencer points out:
More here:
And, lastly, WARNING!- extremely graphic link by Robert Spencer and Phyllis Chesler, "The Violent Oppression of Women in Islam". This booklet describes common nightmarish practices such as polygamy, honor killing, rape, wife beating and genital mutilation. All condoned by various clerics and scholars dating from the present back to the time of the founding of islam.
This stuff is not hard to find, unless you are as vacuous as 90% of the women in the media today.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Nice
February 21, 2009 - 08:39 ET by lotrThanks for the reality check. Facts are inconvenient things to the media propaganda machine.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
Female Sterrotypes
February 21, 2009 - 12:26 ET by nofateWhat I find amazing is that these supposedly enlightened feminists who take umbrage at every supposed slight uttered by any American male, such as how good they look tonight, will buy into the absolute lies promoted by the media and islamofascist propagandists. And while they unwittingly support this tyranny over women while sitting at their comfortable "news" desks, islamic values that are built into that system, continue unabated to oppress islamic women using barbaric methods to induce submission. They are committing journalistic fraud by complicit omission of facts and refusal to check sources.
Talk about clueless.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
ouch. Clean up on aisle
February 21, 2009 - 21:55 ET byouch. Clean up on aisle three! Dude you PWNED those two idiots.
Uhhh, let me guess Sally and Nora
February 21, 2009 - 16:52 ET by NorthCoasterUhhh, let me guess Sally and Nora,......... did you both flunk your Ancient History courses in college?
No wonder journalists like Sally have no clue about the world that we live in. The Middle East oil countries are living in the 13th Century for the most part. Feudalism reigns supreme and all property is owned by the males of the family. This includes WOMEN as property.
There is almost nothing in their current cultures that allows for women to be independent of their male family members. Why do you think that Al-Qaeda and similar movements have such a following? Our Modern Western Culture threatens the core fabric of their cultures!
I have it on good authority
February 21, 2009 - 22:26 ET by TeddyI have it on good authority that the oil rig next to the Bridges TV station in Orchard Park also led Mo' Hassan's beheading of his wife.
Norah and Sally told me so!
Of course, it might as well have been Rosie O’Donnell and Martha Quinn who told me so, but that's another matter.
In the U.S. women of wealth
February 22, 2009 - 12:18 ET by QueenMumIn the U.S. women of wealth may have time on their hands, or not. But I'd hardly consider them "victims" of sexism. Are O'Donnell and Quinn honestly ignorant about the tenets of Islam or are they "playing" to an audience that they think can't see the difference?
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
ATTENTION ALL YOU CHRISTIANS
February 22, 2009 - 12:29 ET by cocodrieWhile we are busy bashing one another with petty doctrinal differences, the Islamist terrorists are trying to kill us.
Our rediculous in-fighting is what got Present Obama selected and that may result in all of us becoming destitute Islamists. Some of us would go under the axe in short order.
There are a few of us that suffer from severe tunnel vision and cannot see the real struggle is for our survival as a culture and as a nation. Pray for Israel Our destiny is inseperable from hers.
Jesus Loves You
~And a big, fat AMEN to THAT
February 22, 2009 - 12:40 ET by choselife3xIn order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.