1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Why Orthodox Jewish Women are Happy

Stuart Koehl Wrote: Jan 19, 2015 7:07 PM
I was raised Jewish, am now a Melkite Greek Catholic, and frequently worship in Eastern Orthodox Churches, where according to tradition the congregation is also separated--men on the right side of the aisle, women on the left. This is still the general rule in Europe, and it goes back to the fifth century, when St. John Chrysostom had the sexes segregated and a barrier erected to keep them apart during the liturgy, because of the scandalous behavior he noticed going on throughout the services.
In response to:

Why Orthodox Jewish Women are Happy

Stuart Koehl Wrote: Jan 19, 2015 7:03 PM
It also means that most of her family and friends will shun her, she will be cut off from the community that has helped raise and support her, and that she is also cut off from the spiritual home that nurtures her.
In response to:

Why Orthodox Jewish Women are Happy

Stuart Koehl Wrote: Jan 19, 2015 9:44 AM
SOME Orthodox Jewish women are happy. Others are miserable, particularly those stuck in an abusive marriage who cannot escape until and unless they receive a "get" from a rabbinical court, many of which are highly biased against women, if not entirely corrupt. If your that Orthodox woman, then no, you are not at all happy.
In response to:

The Conservative Catharsis

Stuart Koehl Wrote: Jan 16, 2015 7:47 AM
If government is not a means to an end, then it is just an end in itself. That doesn't sound very conservative to me.
In response to:

The Deadbeat Candidate

Stuart Koehl Wrote: Dec 28, 2014 6:49 AM
Other than being a gratuitous hit job, what was the purpose of this article? What ever happened to Reagan's Eleventh Commandment?
In response to:

What if it's True?

Stuart Koehl Wrote: Dec 27, 2014 4:27 PM
Pascal's Wager is a pretty slender reed with which to anchor your faith.
What would we do with a draft, given that it would generate three or four times as many recruits as we need? How long would the term of service have to be to achieve the level of proficiency currently maintained by our professional force? How would you ensure that the military would not, once again, become a dumping ground for poor minorities who could not afford a deferment? The current all-volunteer force pretty much mirrors the socio-economic profile of the general population, with the top income quintile slightly over-represented, and the bottom quintile slightly under-represented. How could this cross-section be maintained with a draft? Those who call for conscription need to reconcile themselves to the fact that the age of mass armies is over, that the U.S. has no need of a force as large as conscription could produce, and that conscription itself will provide an inequitable sharing of the burden of military service. Above all, they have to recognize that the U.S. is not Israel--a small country beset by enemies on all sides, for whom conscription represents not only a source of mobilization reserves, but also a national right of passage. Conscription is part of the Israeli heritage. On the other hand, the U.S., with its English roots, has a long-standing disdain for conscription (and, indeed, for large standing armies). Conscription was part of American life for only some 30 out of our 300+ year history, and during those periods when it was in force, it was widely disliked, as well. Moreover, our conscript forces were never as competent as our long-term professionals. When industrialized warfare between industrialized states was the norm, it was a necessary evil; but in the era of post-industrial warfare, quality counts for a lot more than quantity, which is why most countries--including Israel, by the way--are looking to transition to long-term professional forces, or at the very least, a bifurcated military with well-trained, combat-ready and deployable volunteer forces, and a larger, but less capable conscript force to backfill logistic, administrative and security positions vacated by the professionals in time of war.
In response to:

'Unbroken' the Film

Stuart Koehl Wrote: Dec 24, 2014 9:38 PM
Do not make perfect the enemy of the good. Obviously, there was far more material in the book than could be fit into a single film. If the movie causes more people to read the book or investigate Zamporini's life, then it will have fulfilled its purpose.
In response to:

Slaughtered 'Sons Of Anarchy'

Stuart Koehl Wrote: Dec 12, 2014 7:45 AM
Skipped Titus Andronicus, did you? And, I guess, most of the obscenities and double entendres went over your head, because they were uttered in an Elizabethan idiom.
All you have demonstrated, Hewitt, is you care more for power and outcomes than you do for upholding the constitutional processes that guarantee our liberty. If you like the parliamentary system so much, just outright state that you want a parliamentary system, without the checks and balances, without the division of powers, that the Founders put in place precisely because they did NOT want it easy for the Federal government to implement change.
1 - 10 Next