Re: Islam's Captive Women

From: Grant Callaghan (
Date: Tue Feb 05 2002 - 01:09:09 GMT

  • Next message: Joe Dees: "Re: ply to Grant"

    Received: by id BAA15067 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 01:14:53 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Grant Callaghan" <>
    Subject: Re: Islam's Captive Women
    Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 17:09:09 -0800
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2002 01:09:09.0535 (UTC) FILETIME=[B72A8AF0:01C1ADE1]
    Precedence: bulk

    >On Monday, February 4, 2002, at 11:32 , Vincent Campbell wrote:
    >>Name me a religion that doesn't oppress women (or men for that matter).
    >Most any Wiccan coven does not. Satanism does not, either, in
    >its most organized form.... The Shakers didn't.
    >Of course, generally, all of the established, state-linked religions do.
    >And, what with the recent uncoverings about the catholic church,
    >in several countries, the oppression of children, beyond the
    >oppression of their free-thought, has been not only officially
    >ignored, but, officially sanctioned.
    >- Wade
    You mean to tell me a black mass is not degrading to women? Of course, I've
    never attended one, but the one's I've heard about sure were. Maybe those
    "religions" are just the figment of someone's vivid imagination. I hear
    that protestants across America are trying to have Harry Potter banned from
    the school and libraries because it preaches Satanism and witchcraft. Much
    to the surprise of J. K. Rowling, I surmize. I doubt she thought it had
    anything to do with the "real thing." Could it have been a meme dream?


    Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:

    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 05 2002 - 01:55:09 GMT