(May 9, 2011 at 5:43 pm)apophenia Wrote: Well, it is funny as hell. However, I'm willing to accept their explanation and probable belief that what they were doing was in the best interests of the women involved and was in no sense meant as harm. Whether that policy is indeed fair and just to women, I'm not sure that can be untangled from a complex philosophical and theological discussion in which I'm sure none of us could avoid bringing our own prejudices to the table. I think the best description would be to say that the paper, "handled things badly." If their religion forbids publishing pictures of women, goats, or Rocky the Squirrel, they should simply not publish the picture. It just goes to show, no matter what the rational skeptic may do to reveal the errors of the faithful, it will always be topped by the ways the faithful reveal it themselves.This is true, but I think the heart of the matter is why would a religion forbid publishing pictures of women. The most orthodox of the three abrahamic religions have all used their religious texts to their to keep women at bay. This is not a spiritual issue but a political one. I'm all for religious freedom but there is a line that you cannot cross in claiming religious practice such as human sacrifice. If these people truly are on the high moral ground that the big three religions all claim to be, this issue should be rectified. Alas, it will not in the name of keeping men in power.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
