Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
Earlier this year, I challenged the notion put forth by some feminists and human rights groups that a US military presence in Afghanistan is both justified and necessary in order to protect Afghan women and girls. I interviewed Kavita Ramdas, President of the Global Fund for Women, who discussed how the women of Afghanistan are hardly united on the need for the US military in their country, and many make a strong case that the war in Afghanistan and US occupation in fact exacerbates the plight of women.
The crucial question of how best to help Afghan women and girls is once again being raised within the peace movement and the media. The Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF)--an invaluable organization dedicated to women's equality, reproductive health, and non-violence-- has made the decision to essentially support the Obama administration's escalation as necessary in order to protect women and girls from the Taliban and enable a "significant redevelopment effort." (Coincidentally, columnist Tom Friedman, who has opposed escalation, is also rethinking his position based on the idea that our presence will create greater opportunities and protection for women and girls.)
While I admire FMF for much of its work, including its fight against the oppression of Afghan women and girls since 1996--and I acknowledge that these are complex and emotional issues--I disagree with the organization's position here. I also take issue with an op-ed by FMF president Eleanor Smeal and board member Helen Cho that characterizes those who advocate for a US withdrawal as wanting to "just walk away", or "abandon the women and girls of Afghanistan." These criticisms are reminiscent of the "cut and run" accusations against a peace and justice movement that wisely opposed the disastrous occupation of Iraq (and FMF was a part of that movement).
In fact, a planned withdrawal doesn't at all mean ending a US role in the security and reconstruction of Afghanistan. It means ramping up wiser alternatives that should have been embraced post-9/11 in the fight against terrorist organizations: intelligence cooperation, expert police work, smart diplomacy, targeted aid (including maternal health care, education, and reconstruction funds), and a regional, negotiated settlement that involves Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, China, Russia, and Iran. It means international-led peacekeeping forces. In no way whatsoever is this approach tantamount to abandoning the Afghan people or just walking away from them.
Those like FMF who argue for the Obama administration's current counterinsurgency strategy argue themselves into a knot--we can't have security without development, they say, and we can't have development without security. The fact is that women's rights in these areas will best be secured through modernization, and the United States has had little success in advancing modernization through military occupation even if accompanied by enlightened development assistance -- partly because the US military presence is so polarizing and, as some experts argue, arouses local opposition. Modernization will best be achieved through strengthening the UN's hand in delivering both security and development assistance.
Nation Institute fellow and veteran war reporter Chris Hedges writes of counterinsurgency, "… Each generation of warriors thinks it has finally found the magic key to victory." But time and again, occupation and the killing of innocent civilians leads to increased recruitment for the enemy, the local population turning against the occupying power, and the cost in lives and treasure proving too great to sustain the support of the folks back home--and that's the case even in places that aren't "the graveyard of empires" as Afghanistan is.
July is already the deadliest month since the 2001 invasion -- "at least 56" NATO troops have died, including 30 US soldiers and 17 British soldiers. (And there are reports that the British public's support for the war is waning.) The New York Times reports that the main reason for the mounting casualties isn't the new offensive in Helmand Province but "the increasing power of roadside bombs employed by guerrillas in eastern and southern Afghanistan." And despite the Pentagon announcing a new strategy of protecting civilians as the top priority, the Afghan people continue to pay the heaviest price. As Hedges puts it, "Combat creates its own rules, and civilians are almost always the losers."
The administration asserts that we are there to prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a safe haven for Al Qaeda. So does that mean we will send troops to Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Algiers, etc. --wherever else a decentralized Al Qaeda and terrorist network may roam?
As for the women and girls of Afghanistan, Ramdas reminds that "highly militarized societies in almost every instance lead to bad results for women. The security of women is not improved and in many instances it actually becomes worse." She points to increased prostitution, trafficking, and rape in Afghanistan since the war began. And Sonali Kolhatkar, co-director of the Afghan Women's Mission and Mariam Rawi (pseudonym) of the Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan, write:
"Today, women in the vast majority of Afghanistan live in precisely the same conditions, with one notable difference: they are surrounded by war. The conflict outside their doorsteps endangers their lives and those of their families…. We are told that the US cannot leave Afghanistan because of what will happen to women if they go. Let us be clear: Women are being gang raped, brutalized and killed in Afghanistan. Forced marriages continue, and more women than ever are being forced into prostitution--often to meet the demand of foreign troops…. The level of self-immolation among women was never as high as it is now. When there is no justice for women, they find no other way out but suicide."
Smeal and Cho write that they would "prefer that all US funding be spent on development aid, [but] cannot in good conscience advocate the immediate military pullout that some are suggesting." Actually, they can. Because a US withdrawal is not the abandonment of Afghan women and girls that they portray it to be, and US resources currently being spent on weapons and killing would do more to help the people FMF wants to help through the alternative approach the peace movement and many in this country and region are proposing.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Why is it necessary to care about the unnecessary deaths and injuries to women from American military operations as a special category? Why can't we just care about the deaths and injuries of Afghanis from American military operations? Do the deaths of men count less?
Why is it necessary to care about the plight faced by Afghani women with or without military occupation as a special category? Does the plight faced by Afghani men, in the frequently stone-age Afghani world, matter less? Why can't we just care about Afghanis in general? Why are women a special category requiring added concern? Don't the suffering men count?
Finally, the same liberal commentators and thinkers, who nod sagely when intellectuals dismiss the belief widely held in elite circles in the Western world that we have some sort of responsiblity to "modernize" the backwards places in the world as a hubris-ridden "White Man's Burden", trip over themselves arguing that our responsibility is to "modernize" these spots for women specially. I've seen many essays over the years arguing against the invasion of foreign countries in order to make their regimes and cultures more like ours on the grounds that we are very arrogant if we believe we understand foreigners or have the responsibility and/or ability to transform their cultures as if we are superior. Some figures have even seen this perception of ours as not just narcissistic but racist. Yet, the moment feminism is involved, all this understanding is thrown out the door. The "White Man's Burden" may be an obsolete intellectual fallacy, but the "White Woman's Burden" is yet pervasive.
Perhaps the answer to these issues is to not attempt to subject Afghanistan and Afghanis to our cultural issues and military interventionism both.
Posted by syfriendly at 07/22/2009 @ 10:48am
fucking awesome fucking post fucking.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 11:04am
In point of fact: if the USA never intervened in Afghanistan's Internal Affairs in the first fucking place then they would be FREE DEMOCRATIC society TODAY.
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/22/2009 @ 10:54am
i wouldn't be so fucking sure fucking about that fucking.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 11:05am
i still say the u.s. should buy up the entire opium crop.
(mask: But then the LEGAL opium growers of Australia would be unemployed and how would the WALLABIES get stoned??!?!??!??!???!?)
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 11:06am
they have been waving the bloody shirt of the afghani women and girls with a vengeance lately. that is why Katrina is correct.
there are two issues. first of all the people we are supporting, the northern alliance for instance, share the attitudes towards women with the Taleban.
second: war is a blunt weapon not suited to much, least of all to make life better for women and children.
eight years of war. how many years more?
Posted by emile duBois at 07/22/2009 @ 11:12am
Speaking of concerns for Muslim women.....
What does TN think of Iranian's `Innovation' in forcibly marrying Iranian virgins w/their captors and then having said virgins be defrocked before their execution? Such devout Muslims.....to do the right and humane thing by their Koran which prohibits execution of virgins.
Islam, the religion of peace and diginity for women, virgins especially! Let it rise, beginning in Minneapolis at this very moment!
Posted by Happy at 07/22/2009 @ 11:15am
how many years more?
Posted by emile duBois at 07/22/2009 @ 11:12am
the chinese will figure on lending for another 12 or so, upping the interest rate until america's drier than last years prune.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 11:29am
Posted by Happy at 07/22/2009 @ 11:15am
We should bomb Iran ...so we can show how concerned we are for their people!
Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 11:31am
Islam, the religion of peace and diginity for women, virgins especially! Let it rise, beginning in Minneapolis at this very moment!
Posted by Happy at 07/22/2009 @ 11:15am
"I HAVE been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.
This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries."
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/losing-my- religion-for-equality-20090714-dk0v.html?page=-1
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 11:32am
We should bomb Iran ...so we can show how concerned we are for their people!
Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 11:31am
or maybe you could just install a shah or something.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 11:40am
"or maybe you could just install a shah or something."----Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 11:40am
Shah Nouri al-Maliki?
Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 11:50am
you folks need an iraq czar.
maybe james baker's available.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 11:53am
posted by syfriendly at 07/22/2009 @ 10:48pm
We've been arming Afghanistani men, not Afghanistani women, for the last few decades and some of the men that we armed have used their increased power to deny the human rights of women, to say the least. So there may be some (or alot) of responsibility there on our part.
Afghanistani women have been put in an increasingly powerless position relative to the men. If women have very little power in a situation, they obviously are going to get less of the blame when bad things happen (like supporting Osama bin Laden). But our natural human instinct to protect innocent people has been manipulated extensively for political reasons her in the United States.
In fairness, I get annoyed when statistics are presented so as to identify "women and children" as the obvious innocent victims in a situation. While children are obviously innocent, women are not, and men aren't obviously guilty. As for the "not interfering in other people's cultures" thing, you have to be pretty careful to not define their culture the way the dominant group sees it. I mean, you could say that putting sanctions on South Africa for apartheid was interfering in their culture but most people wouldn't.
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/22/2009 @ 11:59am
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 11:32am
It's about time that Carter the hypocrite left the Southern Baptists. I'm not part of their denomination, but Carter doesn't deserve to be a part of it. I'm surprised they put up with him for so long.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 12:15pm
We've been arming Afghanistani men, not Afghanistani women, for the last few decades and some of the men that we armed have used their increased power to deny the human rights of women, to say the least. So there may be some (or alot) of responsibility there on our part.
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/22/2009 @ 11:59am
do you have any proof that before "We've been arming Afghanistani men", Afghani women enjoyed more human rights than now?
Posted by Happy at 07/22/2009 @ 1:02pm
posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 at 12:15pm
So you think that the Southern Baptists are right to define women as morally inferior? Or are you just taking the opportunity to express your dislike of Jimmy Carter?
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/22/2009 @ 1:13pm
So you think that the Southern Baptists are right to define women as morally inferior? Or are you just taking the opportunity to express your dislike of Jimmy Carter?
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/22/2009 @ 1:13pm
Carter is a liar. the SB have not defined women as morally inferior.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 1:16pm
opsted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 1:16pm
So explain to me why SB women are supposed to be submissive to their husbands and aren't allowed to be pastors.
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/22/2009 @ 1:29pm
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/22/2009 @ 1:29pm
Just because they don't allow women to be pastors, doesn't mean they think women are inferior, cdlep....
it's simply that according to the Bible, if a woman becomes a pastor, anybody she ministers to will go to Hell.....her too, of course.
Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 1:33pm
posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 1:33pm
Thanks for the clarification - I haven't read it. Does this mean the Methodists & Episcopalians are going to Hell?
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/22/2009 @ 1:51pm
it's simply that according to the Bible, if a woman becomes a pastor, anybody she ministers to will go to Hell.....her too, of course.
Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 1:33pm
the Bible says no such thing.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 1:58pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 1:58pm
Okay, Larry...tell us exactly why women are forbidden to be ministers in the SB Convention.
In detail...with Bible verse support if you like.
Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 2:48pm
Okay, Larry...tell us exactly why women are forbidden to be ministers in the SB Convention.
In detail...with Bible verse support if you like.
Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 2:48pm
Because the Bible says that only men are to be in authority in positions of authority (ie pastors). However, women can serve as Prophets and Evangelists with official positions of ministry.
But you said " it's simply that according to the Bible, if a woman becomes a pastor, anybody she ministers to will go to Hell.....her too, of course.
Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 1:33pm"
the Bible makes no such charge. Nowhere does it say that a woman pastor and anyone she ministers to will go to hell.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 3:31pm
Okay, Larry...tell us exactly why women are forbidden to be ministers in the SB Convention.
Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 2:48pm
i wonder if "god"* allows women to be prophets.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 3:39pm
i wonder if "god"* allows women to be prophets.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 3:39pm
I just got through saying that FZ
Because the Bible says that only men are to be in authority in positions of authority (ie pastors). However, women can serve as Prophets and Evangelists with official positions of ministry.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 3:31pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 3:41pm
posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 3:31
So I guess the idea is that women aren't forceful enough to credibly threaten people with everlasting hellfire.
Or they shouldn't be in authority because they are "weak". Or because Jesus was a guy and that was an indication from God that men should be in charge. Or just because the Bible says so somewhere, though it probably says something completely different somewhere else. I can't take this seriously. All I can say is I'm sure glad I wasn't born in a country where they actually make laws based on this stuff. Like Afghanistan.
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/22/2009 @ 4:12pm
I just got through saying that FZ
Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 3:41pm
hadn't seen your post.
who's the boss in your house?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 4:20pm
If the only message here was that we should get out of Afghanistan, I would, for the first time, agree with KvH, since we cannot win a "boots on the ground" type war. We'll lose many of our irreplaceable sons and daughters, and in the end, we will have to admit defeat. So let's get our troops out now, before we suffer these consequences. But make no mistake; we ARE walking away from the Afghan women, which may not be such a bad thing. Their women are, for the most part, content with their lot. This is a primitive and tribal nation, and they (the tribesmen AND their women) refuse to be brought into the 21st century. They want to herd their goats and tend their poppy fields forever, and they want to be left alone. Our presence brings death and destruction to their lives. They rightly want us gone, so that the Taliban will leave their sons and husbands alone, and peace and tranquility will return to their lives. They (the women), for the most part, do not care to follow in the footsteps of KvH. They want to follow in the footsteps of their Mothers and all of their Grandmothers, living their simple tribal lives, and cleaning their simple homes, and cooking their meals. This cannot be while we are there. So let's just admit we're walking away from the women – sometimes that's a good thing.
Posted by Elcobar at 07/22/2009 @ 4:31pm
After that last post I got to thinking, I've personally walked away from a couple of women, and they're better off now! ;)
Posted by Elcobar at 07/22/2009 @ 4:36pm
posted by Elcobar at 07/22/2009 @ 4:31 pm
What a condescending post. I suggest you go to the RAWA website. Do you actually know that most Afghanistanis do not want their daughters educated, or are you just pulling this stuff out of your hat?
Afghanistani women could want both a more free and educated future for themselves and want the United States to get out of Afghanistan.
And even if many Afghanistani women are content with being housewives & home-based producers (nothing wrong with that) it doesn't mean they want to be forced to be.
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/22/2009 @ 4:45pm
hadn't seen your post.
who's the boss in your house?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 4:20pm
On everything but spiritual issues, she is. On biblical decisions, she yields to my position. It is not an inferior position. Only one person can ultimately make decisions. She makes the household decisions.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 4:51pm
"only one person can ultimately make decisions" posted by antisocialist
Consensus. Look it up.
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/22/2009 @ 4:58pm
"On everything but spiritual issues, she is."
Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 4:51pm
Good answer to a very dangerous question.
Posted by Benchrest at 07/22/2009 @ 5:01pm
Their women are, for the most part, content with their lot.
•• you must be a prophet.
This is a primitive and tribal nation, and they (the tribesmen AND their women) refuse to be brought into the 21st century.
•• they DO need some britney!
They want to herd their goats and tend their poppy fields forever, and they want to be left alone.
•• stupid, arrogant fool you are.
Our presence brings death and destruction to their lives.
•• that's true.
They rightly want us gone, so that the Taliban will leave their sons and husbands alone, and peace and tranquility will return to their lives.
•• you understand so very little.
They (the women), for the most part, do not care to follow in the footsteps of KvH.
•• why not? everybody loves polluting the oceans.
They want to follow in the footsteps of their Mothers and all of their Grandmothers, living their simple tribal lives, and cleaning their simple homes, and cooking their meals.
•• maybe you could buy a few on eBay.
Posted by Elcobar at 07/22/2009 @ 4:31pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 8:13pm
Only one person can ultimately make decisions.
•• guess you've never been in a band. or on a team. that's just icky.
She makes the household decisions.
•• if we're stuck, we flip a coin.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 4:51pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 8:15pm
Only one person can ultimately make decisions.
•• guess you've never been in a band. or on a team. that's just icky.
She makes the household decisions.
•• if we're stuck, we flip a coin.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 4:51pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 8:15pm
I have been on teams, that's why you have a captain or a quarterback to make the calls.
In business you have to have someone who makes the ultimate decisions. In fact I counsel couples in their pre-marital counseling to remember the business aspect of their marriage so they don't neglect that part of it.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 8:18pm
"be in authority in positions of authority"
really?
is the bible really written that poorly?
Posted by urmygyro at 07/22/2009 @ 9:23pm
Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan? What is that? A moldy holdover from the Soviet Union? I think a de-lousing is in order.
So I guess it was a democratic paradise until the Americans arrived the fall of 2001 - I guess I missed that part of history. I guess that video showing those women executed at a soccer field by some characters in turbans must have been in Toledo.
If we leave, the only thing preventing the Taliban from taking over and imposing strict sharia law would be...nothing. Oh I know, Katrina could go over and lecture those Talibanies on how they should treat women - like demand schooling for starters. I want to see that video.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/22/2009 @ 9:24pm
antisocialist--what do you mean your wife does not make spiritual decisions?
give me a list of spiritual decisions you've made for her.
Posted by urmygyro at 07/22/2009 @ 9:27pm
antisocialist--what do you mean your wife does not make spiritual decisions?
give me a list of spiritual decisions you've made for her.
Posted by urmygyro at 07/22/2009 @ 9:27pm
I don't make them "for her". I make them for us.
Where we will minister is the primary and most critical.
In the midst of a need that requires pastoral authority, that is mine to carryout and determine.
As to her personal spiritual life, that is entirely separate. Her personal relationship with G-d is hers and then their is our joint relationship with G-d.
the Bible states that the man is to be the priest of his household. My wife in fact insists upon my carrying out this duty. She is there to remind me when she feels I am doing less than she believes G-d would have me do.
this is not about superiority. it is about roles. My role as a husband is to fulfill my leadership role by being a servant to my wife and my family. that is what scripture tells us. As Christ is the head of the church, so the husband is the head of the family. but as Christ is the servant to the church, so the husband is a servant to his family.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 11:10pm
She is there to remind me when she feels I am doing less than she believes G-d would have me do.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 11:10pm
god does like a well-manicured lawn.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 11:30pm
It's hard to see how the US can represent itself as a moral authority regarding the Afghans after we dropped child maiming cluster bombs on them.
Posted by koroviev at 07/23/2009 @ 02:31am
posted by Pyeatte at 07/22/2009 @ 9:24 pm
The founders of RAWA opposed the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The last time I heard, they wanted the U.S. out as well.
I read one of their articles that said that conditions were actually better under the Taliban than under the Northern Alliance, the U.S. armed warlords that fought the Soviets & then took over (the Taliban subsequently took over from the Northern Alliance). Better in the sense that it is better to have known rules that you can follow and be safe, than just to be randomly dragged out into the streets & raped and killed.
For 30 years, RAWA has opposed foreign occupation and strict Sharia law and warlord violence. They want a secular democracy.
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/23/2009 @ 07:56am
"Because the Bible says that only men are to be in authority in positions of authority (ie pastors)."---------Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 3:31pm
Right....now, Larry.....what happens to a person who FALSELY assumes a "position of authority" (i.e. pastor) in the after-life?
Posted by Mask at 07/23/2009 @ 08:05am
Mask - hooray for your tenacity - I too would like to see the answer to this question (07/23/2009@8:05)
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/23/2009 @ 08:47am
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/23/2009 @ 08:47am
Larry has a pretty standard M.O.
I make a statement on his views that EVEN TO HIM sounds outrageous and ridiculous.
He denies it.
I think ask logical questions derivative of his stated views.
He either ignores my questions or answers them, typically confirming the answers to my question, that lead to an inevitable conclusion which is...
my original "outrageous, ridiculous" statement which he denies.
I'll reveal the trick on this one....Next post (due to drop-down problem)
Posted by Mask at 07/23/2009 @ 09:57am
It's simple-
Larry answers my question on "what happens, in the after-life, to a person who falsely assumes authority, like that of a pastor"....the only possible given his view of Biblical teachings..."they go to Hell for that sin." (Unless they repeat of it...which negates the purpose, doesn't it?)
Now, given he has told us that women CANNOT assume such authority, again based on his view of Biblical teachings, what else can he say?
Further back to my original post...any person who ACCEPTS the authority of a woman pastor, is violating Biblical teaching...and again, what is the eschatological punishment for that???
Posted by Mask at 07/23/2009 @ 10:10am
Right....now, Larry.....what happens to a person who FALSELY assumes a "position of authority" (i.e. pastor) in the after-life?
Posted by Mask at 07/23/2009 @ 08:05am
No one knows with certainty. First of all, it would be dependent upon their purpose. In no case however would it send them to hell.
From the scriptural guidelines regarding the
"Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one's praise will come from God." 1 Corinthians 4:5
"For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." 1 Corinthians 3:11-15
Thus it appears that these would be works of straw or hay at worst. Meaning there is only a recognition of not fulfilling our calling perfectly.
The only really direct injuction of future punishment towards teachers in authority is given in 2 Peter chapter 2. But this deals with false teachers who bring in heresies. While it's possible for some to conclude that this ties in to female pastors, the context says that these teachers have an ultimate goal of leading others to worldly desires and personal lusts.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/23/2009 @ 11:31am
Posted by antisocialist at 07/23/2009 @ 11:31am
Okay, so despite "the Bible say(ing) that only men are to be in authority in positions of authority (ie pastors). " (Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 3:31pm)....
if a woman DOES take a position of authority (i.e. pastor)...
God wouldn't punish her for it or hold it against her in the afterlife?
Posted by Mask at 07/23/2009 @ 12:09pm
Okay, so despite "the Bible say(ing) that only men are to be in authority in positions of authority (ie pastors). " (Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 3:31pm)....
if a woman DOES take a position of authority (i.e. pastor)...
God wouldn't punish her for it or hold it against her in the afterlife?
Posted by Mask at 07/23/2009 @ 12:09pm
I already answered you in my previous post.
And BTW, it is humorous to say the least to read your assumptions about how you "think" you place me in either positions of hypocrisy or catch 22's.
You aren't up to it ol buddy. Not that you don't try hard. But your assumptions about Christianity are so lacking knowledge about the faith that your go off on many misguided tangents. It seems you rely too heavily on either your own assumptions or false teachings propagated by small elements of Christianity or even by the Catholic Church when it departs from scripture.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/23/2009 @ 2:07pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/23/2009 @ 2:07pm
It's a simple yes or no, Larry...
"If a woman DOES take a position of authority (i.e. pastor)...would God punish her for it or hold it against her in the afterlife?"
Just type "yes" or "no"...with an explanation if you like.
OR...keep saying you "answered the question...please move on!" and you've got a great future in politics..if not in teaching theology...heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/23/2009 @ 2:35pm
t's a simple yes or no, Larry...
"If a woman DOES take a position of authority (i.e. pastor)...would God punish her for it or hold it against her in the afterlife?"
Just type "yes" or "no"...with an explanation if you like.
OR...keep saying you "answered the question...please move on!" and you've got a great future in politics..if not in teaching theology...heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/23/2009 @ 2:35pm
I'll try one more time to help your "confusion"
the 1st part of my answer was and still is:
No one knows with certainty. First of all, it would be dependent upon their purpose. In no case however would it send them to hell.
The second was based upon the scriptures I gave your from Corinthians. Perhaps they would be her works of hay and straw which are consumed in fire. That is a recognition of where we fell short in following all G-d asked us to do. But it doesn't bring any punishment.
I really don't have any other answers for you.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/23/2009 @ 2:47pm
"In no case however would it send them to hell....But it doesn't bring any punishment. "----Posted by antisocialist at 07/23/2009 @ 2:47pm
Okay, so "no". So, despite the Bible SAYING that women should not hold positions of authority (ref: your earlier post)...i.e. pastors...
if one did it, God would not judge against them. They'd still be allowed in Heaven (all else "sanctified" naturally).
So....what good is the Bible injunction (and the Southern Baptist support of it) against women as ministers....if God doesn''t care???
Posted by Mask at 07/23/2009 @ 3:37pm
unless the woman pastor was a lesbian--then she's DEFINITELY going to h-ll!
Posted by urmygyro at 07/23/2009 @ 4:23pm
Okay, so "no". So, despite the Bible SAYING that women should not hold positions of authority (ref: your earlier post)...i.e. pastors...
if one did it, God would not judge against them. They'd still be allowed in Heaven (all else "sanctified" naturally).
So....what good is the Bible injunction (and the Southern Baptist support of it) against women as ministers....if God doesn''t care???
Posted by Mask at 07/23/2009 @ 3:37pm
Because it's not a salvation issue. So it's not a matter of "G-d doesn't care". There are decisions and actions we take that are not determinate of heaven or hell if you have received Christ as your savior. This certainly appears to be one of those.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/23/2009 @ 4:25pm
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/23/2009 @ 07:56am: For 30 years, RAWA has opposed foreign occupation and strict Sharia law and warlord violence. They want a secular democracy.
One thing for certain, they will not get a secular democracy under the Taliban.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/23/2009 @ 4:54pm
posted by pyeatte at 07/23/2009 @ 4:54pm
Yeah, no kidding. I was just letting you know that they aren't a commie front organization.
I think most people who are concerned about the Afghanistanis are ambivalent about pulling out. But escalating violence doesn't help anyone. I've been around for a long time, and I have a hard time thinking of any instance where U.S. intervention actually helped a civilian population, even though the U.S. always cites this as a goal. (I'm not counting WWII - haven't been around THAT long).
There are other strategies, which may or may not work, for encouraging development.
I think we could have gotten Osama a long time ago if we had actually just concentrated on that.
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/23/2009 @ 5:12pm
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/23/2009 @ 5:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I cannot imagine that. Bin Laden is the most popular man in the muslim world. he is swimming in a sea of like minded people, most of whom are willing to commit suicide for their cause and this man.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/23/2009 @ 5:55pm
posted by emile duBois at 07/23/2009 @ 5:55pm
Oh, I don't know - usually a group of people's unanimity on a subject is overestimated. Look at Iran.
There are plenty of men and women in Afghanistan who had and still have no appreciation for Bin Laden. Just like there are Afghanistani men who support women's rights. Also, people can be fickle, in case you haven't noticed. Also greedy. Also more influenced by their tribal loyalties than by anything else.
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/23/2009 @ 6:16pm
the facts bear me out.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/23/2009 @ 6:23pm
If you are referring to the fact that we didn't get him, you have to remember that our intelligence forces & military were trying to act in the context of the most incompetent administration in living memory.
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/23/2009 @ 6:50pm
false teachings propagated by small elements of Christianity
Posted by antisocialist at 07/23/2009 @ 2:07pm
you mean like the Pakistani Businessmen's Church of the Newfound Prophet?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/23/2009 @ 7:46pm
Bin Laden is the most popular man in the muslim world.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/23/2009 @ 5:55pm
more popular than michael jackson?
i doubt that.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/23/2009 @ 7:52pm
the facts bear me out.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/23/2009 @ 6:23pm
oh, i'm sure bin laden would receive a heroes welcome in iran.
yep.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/23/2009 @ 7:53pm
so what you're saying is blame america first?
jes' kiddin'
Posted by emile duBois at 07/23/2009 @ 8:02pm
Gender apartheid in Afghanistan is the worst human rights abuse of the last two decades, and believe me, the competition has been fierce. (Remember the Bosnian ethnic cleansing and atrocities in Rwanda and Darfur?)
It is misogynistic to talk about the oppression of the Afghan people without emphasizing the oppression of women. It's like talking about oppression in Nazi Germany without mentioning anti-Semitism.
Some of the most courageous feminists in the world are Afghan women. It is completely untrue that Afgham women are content with their lot.
If the world were less patriarchal (and if men like "antisocialist" would start listening to evangelicals who have a more egalitarian interpretation of the Christian scriptures), Afghan feminists would always make front page news and wouldn't be exploited in the debate about the Afghan war.
It is very offensive to ignore Afghan feminists until we start debating whether or not the United States should have a military surge.
Posted by ktrig at 07/23/2009 @ 11:34pm
If antisocialist really wants to be the "servant leader" of his family, he needs to be a full-time househusband. Period.
Several evangelicals are realizing that a husband-dominated family is a destructive family. A marriage is not going to survive unless the husband honors his spouse's economic, sexual, domestic, intellectual and yes, spiritual leadership.
I know so many evangelical women who divorced men like antisocialist. In the beginning years of their marriages, they believed in male headership. However, they eventually realized that their husbands were choking them to death.
Several of these women say that evangelical churches will never be able to curb pornography until they renounce their belief in male "spiritual leadership" in the home and church. As long as a man thinks God chose him to be the "spiritual leader" of the family, he's going to objectify women.
Posted by ktrig at 07/23/2009 @ 11:55pm
I deeply appreciate the struggle that Afghani women experience everday. But how can American troops be asked to carry their torch when the women of America are still fighting for the right to when and how they will give birth to a child. It has yet to be finally decided in this country if a woman has the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. The Patriarchy is writ large across this planet. Islam/Christianity has more in common when it comes to the treatment of women than this country acknowledges. Fortunate am I not to be an Afghani woman, but my rights to self determination as an American woman are very tenuous. This country has a long way to go before we can claim a moral imperative over this country we have invaded.
Posted by fabricmaven at 07/24/2009 @ 12:59am
Posted by antisocialist at 07/23/2009 @ 4:25pm
Okay, so there are injunctions or restrictions in the Bible (New Testament of course)....that have NO bearing on your final judgement by God?
Hmmm...so what good are they? Eternally-speaking?
Posted by Mask at 07/24/2009 @ 08:05am
Posted by Mask at 07/24/2009 @ 08:05am
here's a question:
ethically, Leopold von Sacher-Masoch should probably be in hell.
yet, that seems like a place he would enjoy and
heaven would seem like his punishment.
so, where is he?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/24/2009 @ 09:52am
"The Patriarchy is writ large across this planet. Islam/Christianity has more in common when it comes to the treatment of women than this country acknowledges. Fortunate am I not to be an Afghani woman, but my rights to self determination as an American woman are very tenuous."
Fabricmaven, I completely agree with you. And I am deeply disappointed that the Obama administration is taking such a cavalier approach to women's rights. Michelle Robinson has not really kept her promise to work on work-family balance issues and the Council on Women and Girls is just a shallow sideshow.
To top it off, the mainstream American feminist movement seems to have sold out to the Democratic Party. Ms. Magazine hasn't criticized the Obama Administration yet. And when is The Nation going to admit that Obama is hardly pro-feminist? Katha Pollitt is a good writer, but she is too easy on Barack and Michelle.
Posted by ktrig at 07/24/2009 @ 10:19am
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/24/2009 @ 09:52am
Or maybe Heaven is Hell?....after all "endless peace and joy" would soon turn to "endless BOREDOM" for the human mind, wouldn't it?
Posted by Mask at 07/24/2009 @ 11:44am
"I am deeply disappointed that the Obama administration is taking such a cavalier approach to women's rights."
posted by ktrig at 07/24/2009 @ 10:19 am
I figured it was going to go like this when he had Jeff Warren give the invocation at the inauguration. It's hard to know how much of his policy reflects necessary political compromise & how much reflects his actual beliefs. I'm not sure which part of his policies I find more disturbing - the appeasement of religious organizations or the appeasement of the bankers.
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/24/2009 @ 12:24pm
Oops. I meant Rick Warren.
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/24/2009 @ 12:43pm
Investing In People: Health and Education
Under the Taliban, only 900,000 boys and no girls were enrolled in schools. Today, as a result of efforts by the Afghan government, the United States, and other donors, over 6 million children are in school, and one-third of enrolled students are girls. By the end of Taliban rule, 80 percent of schools were severely damaged or destroyed. To improve the situation, USAID constructed or refurbished over 680 schools and distributed more than 60 million textbooks. USAID created an accelerated learning program that enrolled over 170,000 students, more than half of whom were girls.
http://www.usaid.gov/locations/asia/countries/afghanistan/
Posted by guitarsandmore805 at 07/24/2009 @ 4:41pm
Posted by guitarsandmore805 at 07/24/2009 @ 4:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
how many Afghanis have we killed?
Posted by emile duBois at 07/24/2009 @ 4:56pm
how many Afghanis have we killed?
Posted by emile duBois at 07/24/2009 @ 4:56pm
not enough it seems. The Taleban are still intent on killing others including women and children. But the idea of the Taleban intentionally killing women and children doesn't bother JR if it means we leave Afghanistan
Posted by antisocialist at 07/24/2009 @ 8:37pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 11:06am
The Counter-Proposal on Government- Reimbursed Health Care:
4 ounces of opium tar per year for every U.S. man, woman and child
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/26/2009 @ 11:08am
If you are referring to the fact that we didn't get him, you have to remember that our intelligence forces & military were trying to act in the context of the most incompetent administration in living memory.
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/23/2009 @ 6:50pm
.I am assuming that the above refers to Obama, given his recent record in screwing things up.
But I want to note that my list of 84 insurgency wars since 1850 qaverages a length of 11 3/4 years, with quite a few up to 25 and thirty years. But, like Iraq, the central government side won about 60 of them. The Afghan project should come out well, too, with substancial progress and benefit to the local people.
John D. Froelich
Posted by balataf at 07/26/2009 @ 11:34pm
Let em eat dirt.
Posted by apoorspic at 07/27/2009 @ 10:24pm