So step one being accomplished, it's on to step two.

Jeffrey, regarding your completed analysis of the couple of website articles:

Your argument seems to generally fall into two general themes. First, if a region persecutes many different groups in addition to Christians, then the Christians aren't being persecuted for being Christian, merely for being different or otherwise undesireable along with other equally undesireable groups. Therefore, you don't count this as persecution for being Christian. However, it is their Christianity itself that makes these people different or otherwise undesireable, and in the eyes of the oppressors, worthy of persecution.

Your second theme seems to be the "white guy" argument: that if you went to some region where you obviously, visibly stood out as an outsider, that you'd be singled out for persecution for that reason alone, not for your particular religious beliefs. There are two problems with that theme. First, it is largely the corrupting, infidel "crusader" religion that many of these regions fear from all those outsider "white guys" - whether, in fact, the specific white guys even hold any particular Christian faith (the locals make no such quaint distinction among the outsiders, we're all "crusaders"), so the real situation is often the exact reverse of your thought. Secondly, the vast majority of Christian persecution is not the (very real and tragic) abuse of the "outsider" missionaries in a region, but rather is the persecution of the local, native populations that have converted from their traditional religion, or no religion, or the "religion of state", to Christianity, that those different-looking missionaries are serving. Again, it's not the fact that these people look different - since most often, they don't. It's hostility toward, or fear of - put another way, the inherent threat from - their religious beliefs to the established order.

Put together, the two themes of your argument serve not to actually deny the actual acts against these people, but to simply redefine the word "persecution" in such a way as to not allow these Christian martyrs room within the scope of your new definition. I disagree with that style of argument, so we're really not going to ever come to terms here.

Even this relatively short comment is more than I intended to say about the issue. I'm not going to reply any more about it, or debate the obvious ad nauseum. While I still encourage you to read more about the topic, I'm not discussing it any further for the reason I mention above. If you define having the last word on a subject to be victory, you can have the floor and claim victory. I'll be content with the knowledge that the facts so overwhelmingly make my case that I can live in the humiliation of such a "defeat."

Jeffery,

I'm not one to discuss comparative victimology. I'm not a fan of people feeling sorry for other people they have some sort of theoretical relationship with--through religion or nationality of race. It's a senseless preoccupation and just leads to more victimhood down the line.

You being angry about some doing of some medieval monks to some medieval Jews is pointless and irrelevant. They were all just a bunch of uneducated fools at the time, that's not to say that they didn't have the right premises and some wrong premises--they had the same premises we have, but it took thousands of years to follow them down to their logical conclusions either right or wrong--and in fact we aren't there yet.

Jeffrey,
You challenged me in another forum as to where I found the reference in Aristotle's works that alluded to the fact that women did not have souls and how his work influenced our negative attitudes towards women.

It was during the time of tumultuous intellectual and religious debate after the rediscovery of the "Greeks", that the argument of "whether a woman possessed a soul or not" resurfaced. Aquinas argued that they did not, his theories based in part on his interpretation of Aristotle's writings. This led to the mass cloistering of women in the Christian Community and the complete removal of any powers they had previously enjoyed within the church.

After a little digging, I found these two quotes, that, I hope will clarify that link.

The first regarding Aristotle:
Like Plato, Aristotle believed in the inherent superiority of men over women. Aristotle expounded at length on the physical differences between male and female animals as examples of male superiority. For example, he noted that males were larger, longer-lived, stronger, and more articulated.14 Aristotle suggested that female physiology was defective compared to the male body, and syllogistically, that men were intellectually superior to women. From this proposition, Aristotle concluded that women should be ruled by men: "It is clear that the rule of the soul over the body, and of the mind and the rational element over the passionate, is natural and expedient... Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind... the one rules, and the other is ruled. . . . The courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying."15

Like Plato, Aristotle also believed that the natural order of the universe determined the proper roles of men and women in society.16 By looking to the biology of reproduction, Aristotle claimed that males actively provided the form or soul of the offspring, whereas women passively provided the matter.17 Moreover, Aristotle argued that form was more divine than matter, suggesting that males were superior to females. In his Politics, Aristotle applied his view of the woman's inferior role in reproduction to her role in society. For example, Aristotle proposed that marriage and reproduction should be regulated by the state, thereby reflecting an underlying view of women as breeding vessels and subordinate members of the state.18 Moreover, the private maternal role of women served to prevent them from participating in the public sphere of governance. Unlike Plato, Aristotle clearly stated that men alone could serve as true citizens, whereas women could flourish only within confines of the household.19

The second regarding Thomas Aquinas:
To begin to understand his position, we must ask why Aquinas thinks women intellectually inferior in the first place. Scripture is likely his first guide. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:10 that "man was not created for the sake of woman, but woman was created for the sake of man." This passage echoes Genesis 2:18,19: "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will give him a helpmate." Aquinas reasons from these scriptural passages that when one thing exists for the sake of another, it is inferior to that other. Other passages indicate more clearly that the intelligence is the seat of woman’s divinely ordained inferiority. When in 1 Corinthians 11:3 St. Paul says that "man is the head of woman," and in Ephesians 5:22 that "a husband is the head of his wife," Aquinas takes it as evident that if men are meant to rule, it can only be by virtue of intellectual superiority.

Aquinas’ views on female inferiority were influenced as well by Aristotle’s reproductive biology, with its understanding of the relation between male and female as one of active (perfect) principle to passive (imperfect) principle. Aristotle saw the sperm as the formative agent; the mother simply supplied raw material to be incorporated into the developing child. He also thought the sperm was directed to producing only male offspring, and that when this did not result it was because something interfered with the active principle within the sperm.

Sorry Kenny. Americans earned it. Even His Majesty's Government conceded that. The American colonies acted responsibly.

the Palestinians and Chechens have not. Reblder is in a California smog.

erginc - "Aristotle proposed that marriage and reproduction should be regulated by the state, thereby reflecting an underlying view of women as breeding vessels and subordinate members of the state.18 Moreover, the private maternal role of women served to prevent them from participating in the public sphere of governance. Unlike Plato, Aristotle clearly stated that men alone could serve as true citizens, whereas women could flourish only within confines of the household"

Aristotle held the social views of the Athenian male aristocracy of his time on these topics, and rarely criticised them. Given the technological level of development of the society at the time, such views may have made more sense than they do in a modern knowledge-based economy. I do not recall Aristotle thinking that women didn't have a soul. He couldn't have thought that women didn't have a Christian soul, since such a concept did not exist. Greeks had ideas of an afterlife, but both women and men could go to an afterlife, if that is what having a soul allows one to do.

I also doubt that Aristotle is the reason for the position of women in medieval Europe. There were many other social factors. "If only Aristotle hadn't existed, women would be fine" doesn't hold up. Certain views of Aristotle were taken out of context from a 1500 year old book, because people wanted to justify a certain social organization, rather than choosing a certain social organization, because of a 1500 year old book. Read Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics. You may like it.

Saint Thomas Aquinas believed that women have souls. Aquinas thought that God infuses a soul into a baby girl on the eightieth day after conception. Now, that "eightieth day" part was his personal opinion, not official Catholic dogma. The Church today believes that God infuses a soul into every child, male or female, at the moment of conception. Though he was wrong about the timing, Aquinas still believed - along with all his medieval contemporaries by the way - that women have souls.

Also: web page

Dwain - You are a smart literate guy, and the tone of your posts indicates that you have to be sincere in what you are saying. But you (and the websites) are ignoring what is blindingly obvious: Christianity is the dominant cultural influence in this society (and in much of the world). For the life of me, I don't see why you can't accept this clear, plain fact. You seem to agree with the article that says that Christians are persecuted in the US of A, and used some strong language to support that. For the author of that article to compare the situation of Christians in this country to that of Jews in Nazi Germany was simply disgusting. I can't believe you didn't disassociate yourself from that grotesque claim: instead you seemed to back the idea that Christians were being vilified and persecuted in a country where presidential candidates fall all over each other to claim Christian bona fides.

Some people may not like you because you are Christian, but some Christians don't like non-Christians (suppose I give stories as well, from my experience?). I don't have the full story in your case, so I can't really say. But this is hardly persecution in the USA, since Christianity is still the overwhelmingly dominant cultural influence in this country. (For example, look at how many people on PW from JA to Larry to kathyk to lb, all claim to be Christian when they argue for some political viewpoint or other, and assume this is a relevant, shared basis for debate). As my wife said when I told her about this debate, "Everyone likes to think they are the ones being persecuted."

If you choose to regard your viewpoint as so obvious and righteous as to need no defense, and the denial of your viewpoint as being motivated only by ignorance or base moral motives, you have the right not to reply, or even read my post, as you wish. I did find it interesting to be exposed to a viewpoint that seems very widespread in this country, and that I never imagined could exist. As you wish.

Best - Jeffrey

P.S. TomK's hard-nosed perspective is interesting, as usual, but I won't respond in detail. There needs to be a healthy balance, I think, between not dwelling on the past, and not forgetting it either. (I am speaking here of the past of Jewish experience in particular.) There is surely a median between endless energy-sapping victimhood, and pollyanna-ish denial of real problems and dangers. I will leave to others whether my posts on these topics strike that balance or not.

Good enough for me. All the women I've known have got soul and probably a bit more.

Jeffrey,
Sheesh you are overly argumentative sometimes... ...my point was that it was the "interpretation" and perhaps the misinterpretation of Aristotle's views by Aquinas and other Christians that "contributed" to the suppression of women in medieval Europe. Like most of the Scholasticism of the time, Aquinas' world view was firmly based on the philosophy of Aristotle. Later as a Dominican, he was responsible for church doctrine that led to the formation of the "Holy Inquisition". The church stuck obstinately to the world view of Aristotle which it had adopted through Thomas Aquinas and because of this the Inquistion persecuted not only women but scientists such a Galileo, Franciscans, Waldensiens, and Cathars. After the Dominicans published the Malleus Maleficarum, "The Hammer of Witches," a handbook on how to detect and eradicate witches, the Inquisition pursued women with a renewed fervor. The 200,000 documented cases still in existence are just the tip of the iceberg documenting their three centuries of persecution, and that the real figure of women tortured and executed as witches, some historians estimate, must run into the millions.

I did not say anything implying that Aristotle had said that, "women did not have a —Christian—soul". I did, however, supply a quote saying that he thought that women did not have a soul or a "form" as it was called during his time.

You further say that I said..."If only Aristotle hadn't existed, women would be fine." Sorry Jeffrey I did not say or imply that. I do recall saying that I had reconsidered some of his work in light of his attitudes towards women and how his writing had been later interprated. And considering the historical ramifications of these interpretations I do not believe that I overstated my case.

And a little something regarding Plato from another article....
From his theory on the creation of humankind, Plato provided a philosophical foundation for gender inequality that was implicitly adopted by the Jewish and Christian thinkers that followed him. According to Platonic creationism, all souls were originally implanted in male bodies and given volition, sensation, and emotion.1 Comprised of only males, the first community of souls enjoyed equality with one another.2 However, the soul of a man who conquered his emotions and developed his intellect would be blessed after his death and reborn as a man. In contrast, a man who failed to master his irrational, emotional proclivities was considered incapable of reason and would be reborn as a woman.3 Moreover, Plato only briefly discussed the creation of women in conjunction with the creation of birds, mammals, reptiles, and fish.4 By placing women on the same level as animals, Plato revealed an underlying view of women as not fully human. Plato's theory of creationism thus provided the roots of female subordination:

This theory maintains that women not only follow men, but are less than perfect men, returned to earthly life in order to perfect themselves. If women, by Plato's terms, are those men who fell prey to their irrational, emotional side, and are therefore incapable of reason, it syllogistically follows that women are incapable of making rational choices... Moreover, as irrational beings, women may not always know what they really want, and so it is the man's domain to decide for them.5

And a little more information regarding Aquinas...
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) lived at a critical juncture of western culture when the arrival of the Aristotelian corpus in Latin translation reopened the question of the relation between faith and reason, calling into question the modus vivendi that had obtained for centuries. This crisis flared up just as universities were being founded. Thomas, after early studies at Montecassino, moved on to the University of Naples, where he met members of the new Dominican Order. It was at Naples too that Thomas had his first extended contact with the new learning. When he joined the Dominican Order he went north to study with Albertus Magnus, author of a paraphrase of the Aristotelian corpus. Thomas completed his studies at the University of Paris, which had been formed out of the monastic schools on the Left Bank and the cathedral school at Notre Dame. In two stints as a regent master Thomas defended the mendicant orders and, of greater historical importance, countered both the Averroistic interpretations of Aristotle and the Franciscan tendency to reject Greek philosophy. The result was a new modus vivendi between faith and philosophy which survived until the rise of the new physics. Thomas's theological writings became regulative of the Catholic Church and his close textual commentaries on Aristotle represent a cultural resource which is now receiving increased recognition. The following account concentrates on Thomas the philosopher and presents him as fundamentally an Aristotelian.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tom-*K:
Saint Thomas Aquinas believed that women have souls. Aquinas thought that God infuses a soul into a baby girl on the eightieth day after conception. Now, that "eightieth day" part was his personal opinion, not official Catholic dogma. The Church today believes that God infuses a soul into every child, male or female, at the moment of conception. Though he was wrong about the timing, Aquinas still believed - along with all his medieval contemporaries by the way - that women have souls.[/b]

It was a little more complicated than stated above or in the web site you posted, The debate about the nature of souls and whether women had them started much earlier in history. I mistakenly posted that Aquinas ruled that women had no souls and I apologize for my mistake. According to Aquinas, neither man nor women had immaterial souls and women had lesser, imperfect and perhaps disfigured soul bodies, having failed to be born as men. He believed that a soul was a 'form of matter' and not a form in matter, as in Aristotle; who also thought women had no form therefore no soul, hence my confusion.

Souls aside, I was originally addressing Aristotle's philosophy and how it later influenced Christian thinking in regards to women. I got that part right...I think.

Here is one viewpoint.
Thirteenth Century Thought

And another...
Women in the Christian church.

A feminist perspective.
Feminist Christian Philosophies

erginc--I think so, for what it's worth Plato and Aristotle were only following the society that they were living in.

As for me, I only meant to show that Aquinas always posited that women have souls--I wasn't sure what Jeffery's and your original discussion was about. Aristotle did indeed consider women inferior to me and reflected Athenian society of his day. The "Glories of Ancient Greece" was a boys only club. Actually, Plato said in the Republic that the best education for women is that they get as little information as possible and talk little as possible.

As far as the actual roll of women in the medieval church--women while regarded an inferior they had a strong standing in the martyrology and in the exemplary tradition of saints. From the beginning women were regarded as defenders of the faith just as much as men were.

The Cult of the Virgin Mary was a strong influence on the day to day lives of most medieval Christians. Also, it's to be remembered that Thomistic Philosophy while the guideline of the Church was not read by the rank and file, so the actual day to day lives of most Christians was little affected by his teachings.

So, I don't think that most lives were affected as much as those web pages indicate.

On the other hand Led Zeppelin said:

I don't know but I've been told
Big legged woman ain't got no soul...

Maybe that's who you were thinking of.