Unlike Prislam, B'Hai values people.

"In an interview with George Washington's campus newspaper, Wilson credited his concern for social justice -- and women's rights in particular -- to his Baha'i faith."

OK. I credit mine to having my eyes open.

Funny- I associate Wilson with his character in The Last Mimzy.

That many? I could believe that dozens of women the world over are held as slaves because of their gender, but hundreds is just too far-fetched.

Funny, Professor Explosion, when I read the "hundreds" comment I thought exactly the opposite to you. I thought that he was drastically low-balling the figure and that not saying "thousands" was probably just a minor slip up.

And about Screaming Steam's "Prislam" comment: I am a Baha'i, but your comment about Islam not valuing people is nonsense. Blaming the idiocy of today's Muslim fundamentalism on Islam is like blaming Jesus Christ for the Crusades.

The Baha'i say that the husband and wife are like the wings of a bird. If one is weak, the bird can't fly.

I've always loved that.

Yeah, why do you need religion to tell you to do what you should be doing anyway? Now, you might need religion to tell you to do things that, objectively, you shouldn't. The aforementioned "bad sides" of Christianity and Islam actually reflect what their respective holy books command their followers to do. All the so-called moderates are apostates. It's time to put up or shut up, believers. Either it's true or it isn't. Either it's all right or it's all wrong. Pick up some poisonous snakes, I dare you!

And yeah, The Last Mimzy was a good movie. I have this feeling that it'll be a longtime favorite among people who saw it as little kids and always retain a soft spot for it. I was curious, so I saw it in a crowded second-run theater full of annoying kids. That's what I get for being such a cheapskate, I guess.

Jeez, if it inspires someone to do something good, isn't that the time to bitch about it??

Oh well.

When you start reading about the plight of women throughout the world ... you realize that hundreds of women are essentially used as slaves just because of their gender ... It's amazing that it's not one of the top things that we're discussing as what's wrong with the world today.

This is exactly why so many readers tried in vain to convince Salon that discussion of human issues that pertain to women should not be segregated in Broadsheet. It's exactly that sort of unconscious "not a top thing" editorial reflex that contributes to the fact that "women's issues" are not core, central, key, and concentrated on daily in a huge way by the press.

I share this actor's amazement. Bless him for it.

Perhaps because a man said it, Salon's editors might reconsider?

Hello BadReligion and all,

BadReligion, you said:

Yeah, why do you need religion to tell you to do what you should be doing anyway?

Firstly, it is not only telling. It motivates. Are you personally working for advancing the status of women? Were you always doing so? Is everyone who recognizes that it is a good thing to do already doing so themselves? As a male Baha'i myself, I found this teaching challenged me to do some more work--however small--that I don't think I otherwise would have been inspired to do.

Secondly, other things inspire people to do good things too. Should we denigrate films because they have been used to inspire evil (e.g., Hitler's propaganda films evolved techniques still used today) and because they inspire people to do things they should be doing anyways? Or how about reading blogs at Salon? :) Religion is like an alarm clock. You willfully choose it to help you. As an often frail human being (like all of my fellow human beings), I am not always motivated to do things at first dawn. If my leg is broken, I will gladly accept a crutch; if my own vision is not universal, I will gladly embrace one that is.

Thirdly, religion is like listening to a doctor. We first must choose a competent doctor, or otherwise we are putting ourselves in danger; this cannot be overemphasized. But if we have some humility (and wish for our own best interest), we may give some extra credence to expert (or Expert) opinion once we have found one that is proven to deliver.

By respecting the higher authority (whether of science or true religion), we still ask questions, and even moreso, but we also admit that there are experts with knowledge higher than ourselves and cannot expect ourselves to be experts in everything even while we continue to try. Is a person a fool for heeding the advice of a competent doctor or researchers besides herself?

Now, you might need religion to tell you to do things that, objectively, you shouldn't. The aforementioned "bad sides" of Christianity and Islam actually reflect what their respective holy books command their followers to do.

Islam did so in the context of fighting that was permitted after Muhammad witnessed his followers endure 13 years of intense persecution. Islam raised the status of women: it severely condemned female infanticide/burying daughters alive that had been taking place in the culture (e.g., Qur'an 81:8-9), it limited the deeply entrenched and ancient practice of polygamy (and prohibited it, if you read between the lines)--see Qur’án 4:3 and 5:6 for example; it prohibited widowed women from being inherited against their will (Qur’án 4:19), and all around brought a greater consciousness of solidarity, which enabled a civilization which was the envy of Europe, and is universally recognized among scholars as fostering the preservation and extension of science, civilization, and philosophy inherited from the Greeks.

Recognizing that religious truth is not absolute, but relative, Baha'u'llah and the Bab, the Prophet-Founders of the Baha'i Faith, proclaimed the equality of men and women further--because the old teachings are indeed certainly not adequate to a more advanced age--but we must be fair in recognizing the often religiously-inspired factors which led to it being a more advanced age (and as far as fighting, Baha'u'llah stated that in this age, "the law of holy war hath been blotted out from the Book" and that in the context of such religious warfare today, "it is better to be killed than kill."--a practice embraced by those Baha'is living in countries like Iran today who demonstrate this ideal).

All the so-called moderates are apostates. It's time to put up or shut up, believers. Either it's true or it isn't. Either it's all right or it's all wrong. Pick up some poisonous snakes, I dare you!

In one sense, I think this is reasonable. It's either from God or it's not (though in prior religions, the successorship was not clearly outlined, thus many sects could arise and doubts arise). But, all of the great religions have (by design) allowed for a progressive unfoldment of their truths and alteration of teachings and laws for the needs of a different age; judging by ancient standards is not reasonable for religious or even areligious individuals. Should the Magna Carta be judged according to modern-day democratic standards? Should the weakness of the original League of Nations be judged according to the greater (yet still inadequate) strengths of the United Nations today? Every teaching depends on its context. But trying to apply the Magna Carta today would indeed be a step backwards, and one which should cause religionists to question whether they may have not missed the boat on God's latest message for humanity.