Modernisation of Religion to be Equal to Women

[drankin]

Unfortunately, we do not have the freedom to not participate. Our rights to choose an abortion, birth control, morning after pills, marriage partners, adoption, euthanasia, treatment with stem cells, etc are all affected by religious beliefs, some based on a legitimate set of ethics, some based on personal prejudices. If the SBC wants to tell me how to live my life (and they do), then they better expect me to get right back in their faces.

So basically you are complaining because people that have religious beliefs have a say in how their government legislates.

I still don not understand how you are forced to participate in gender segregation in a religious institution if you do not attend. Are you somehow forced to attend?

 

[TVP45]

So basically you are complaining because people that have religious beliefs have a say in how their government legislates.

I still don not understand how you are forced to participate in gender segregation in a religious institution if you do not attend. Are you somehow forced to attend?

No, I'm not complaining, I'm 'splaining. I am not forced to participate. You asked why I care that these people are flaming @#$@!*&& and I responded. If they want to meddle in my life (and they do and they started it), then by God I'm going to meddle in theirs!

 

[BobG]

Unfortunately, we do not have the freedom to not participate. Our rights to choose an abortion, birth control, morning after pills, marriage partners, adoption, euthanasia, treatment with stem cells, etc are all affected by religious beliefs, some based on a legitimate set of ethics, some based on personal prejudices. If the SBC wants to tell me how to live my life (and they do), then they better expect me to get right back in their faces.

And, presumably, if the 24% of unaffiliated (including atheist) voters that oppose abortion in most cases tried to tell you how to live your live, then you'd get right back in their faces, as well? And maybe convert to Judaism since only 14% of Jews believe abortion should be illegal? Evangelicals, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, are the only groups where over 50% believe abortion should be illegal. (Views about abortion)

Are you condemning the people in religious groups because their political views are different than yours? And are you condemning everyone else that has different political views than yours right along with them?

Or are you condemning them because their religious views are different than yours?

 

[arunma]

I'm curious why anyone in this forum really cares how religions handle gender issues. As long as we all have the freedom NOT to participate, what's the big deal?

I have a definite opinion on the subject.

as far as i know, they do not allow women in any church offices.

but if you want to make their heads spin, ask them about Phoebe.

I'm familiar with this, actually. It doesn't turn out to be a particularly strong argument in favor of egalitarian gender roles in church offices.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm curious why anyone in this forum really cares how religions handle gender issues. As long as we all have the freedom NOT to participate, what's the big deal?

Perhaps, because many churches like to take children at particularly young and impressionable ages and teach them (among other things) things that they are hardly capable of questioning even if they were allowed to, one might wonder exactly how much freedom many church-goers really have in choosing a way of life.

I recall the response of Frank Schaeffer in a recent NPR interview, when asked about this issue. He explains the nature of the indoctrination he underwent, and his journey following his struggles with his faith.

Interview here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97998654

The whole interview is worth the listen, but the relevant parts are at about 22-25 minutes in, and again at 28:45.

 

[TVP45]

And, presumably, if the 24% of unaffiliated (including atheist) voters that oppose abortion in most cases tried to tell you how to live your live, then you'd get right back in their faces, as well? And maybe convert to Judaism since only 14% of Jews believe abortion should be illegal? Evangelicals, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, are the only groups where over 50% believe abortion should be illegal. (Views about abortion)

Are you condemning the people in religious groups because their political views are different than yours? And are you condemning everyone else that has different political views than yours right along with them?

Or are you condemning them because their religious views are different than yours?

Look, it's real simple. If I want to sodomize the cute cop that directs traffic at 41st and Lexington, that's no skin off your nose or anybody else's. So, everybody needs to butt out of my business. A workable democracy has to have individual rights and those rights have to be guaranteed except when they conflict with your rights. I have a fundamental, God-given right to fall in love with any gender I please, no thanks to pious busy-bodies. Likewise with abortion. If you and the atheists don't like it, don't have it.

Rationalism is not a religious belief. It does not, and should not, have to grant equal time to religion in a free society.

And, don't dare to put words in my mouth. I'm not condemning anybody. I'm just saying if those fools want a fight, I ain't backing down.

 

[Proton Soup]

I'm familiar with this, actually. It doesn't turn out to be a particularly strong argument in favor of egalitarian gender roles in church offices.

it doesn't apply across the board, only to the office of Deacon.


so what do you base your denomination of Egalitarianism on? the Letter to the Egalatians?

 

[arunma]

so what do you base your denomination of Egalitarianism on? the Letter to the Egalatians?

Pun aside, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Perhaps you could clarify.

 

[Proton Soup]

Rationalism is not a religious belief. It does not, and should not, have to grant equal time to religion in a free society.

i don't think a free society is what you want

 

[Proton Soup]

Pun aside, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Perhaps you could clarify.

why should religion be egalitarian? whose business is it anyway?

 

[arunma]

why should religion be egalitarian? whose business is it anyway?

Ah, I see. Actually I would suggest that in accordance with American religious freedom, religious groups should be permitted to set whatever rules they like. If one religious group wishes to bar one gender from specific offices (or not), it should be free to do so.

 

[TVP45]

i don't think a free society is what you want

It is exactly what I want. Read the thread carefully. The question was aked why I care if various churches exclude women and I replied that they participate aggressively in political life and, in doing so, seek to limit my freedoms. From my point of view, they don't get a free pass just because they're religious; I don't see Methodists, for example, as being any different from Rotarians. If the Rotary Club tries to influence legistlation that limits my freedoms, I'm going to go have a talk with them. Likewise, if a church group tries to stick their big noses into my pants, I'm going to do all I can to criticize them, to challenge their tax status, etc. They're free to have any religious beliefs they want; they're just not free to force those on me.

 

[drankin]

Perhaps, because many churches like to take children at particularly young and impressionable ages and teach them (among other things) things that they are hardly capable of questioning even if they were allowed to, one might wonder exactly how much freedom many church-goers really have in choosing a way of life.

I recall the response of Frank Schaeffer in a recent NPR interview, when asked about this issue. He explains the nature of the indoctrination he underwent, and his journey following his struggles with his faith.

Interview here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97998654

The whole interview is worth the listen, but the relevant parts are at about 22-25 minutes in, and again at 28:45.

This is off the topic of gender in religious organizations specifically.

It sounds like you have issue with a parents right to indoctrinate their children (religious or otherwise) as they see fit. Basically, there is nothing that can be done about this in a free society.

 

[TVP45]

Ah, I see. Actually I would suggest that in accordance with American religious freedom, religious groups should be permitted to set whatever rules they like. If one religious group wishes to bar one gender from specific offices (or not), it should be free to do so.

The question is whether we as a society have a legitimate and pressing reason to have women not be treated as second-class folks. If we decide we really need women as fully participating members of our country, then we have a right to force that on any group. Religious freedom in the US has two fundamental principles: right of expression and no establishment. Those two principles frequently conflict. Secular society has the right and responsibility to pass and enforce legistlation that affects religious practice from time to time.

 

[Gokul43201]

This is off the topic of gender in religious organizations specifically.

Yes, but I was trying to answer your question which asserted certain freedoms, a priori.

 

[Proton Soup]

It is exactly what I want. Read the thread carefully. The question was aked why I care if various churches exclude women and I replied that they participate aggressively in political life and, in doing so, seek to limit my freedoms. From my point of view, they don't get a free pass just because they're religious; I don't see Methodists, for example, as being any different from Rotarians. If the Rotary Club tries to influence legistlation that limits my freedoms, I'm going to go have a talk with them. Likewise, if a church group tries to stick their big noses into my pants, I'm going to do all I can to criticize them, to challenge their tax status, etc. They're free to have any religious beliefs they want; they're just not free to force those on me.

of course not, and they have no authority to force those on you. they're just off doing their own thing, and you don't fall under their authority except to the extent you choose to submit to it. however, it is you that wishes to use the power of the State to force your rules on others.

anyway, i guess i see your point. it's the risk of living in a free society. as long as you are only using your free speech rights like everyone else to influence legislation, then you're really no different than they are.

 

[Proton Soup]

The question is whether we as a society have a legitimate and pressing reason to have women not be treated as second-class folks. If we decide we really need women as fully participating members of our country, then we have a right to force that on any group. Religious freedom in the US has two fundamental principles: right of expression and no establishment. Those two principles frequently conflict. Secular society has the right and responsibility to pass and enforce legistlation that affects religious practice from time to time.

just so we're being clear here, what you're proposing is a religious belief.

 

[TVP45]

just so we're being clear here, what you're proposing is a religious belief.

No. To be absolutely clear, what I'm proposing is a political belief. It has nothing to do with a Deity or spirital values. It is straight out of Hobbes, with a twist of Locke.

 

[Topher925]

The question is whether we as a society have...

You do know that currently there are more women in the US (no data for other countries) than men right?

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-544.pdf

So really, if majority rules then we men should be the "second-class folks".

 

[mgb_phys]

So really, if majority rules then we men should be the "second-class folks".

I take it you aren't married then?

 

[TVP45]

You do know that currently there are more women in the US (no data for other countries) than men right?

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-544.pdf

So really, if majority rules then we men should be the "second-class folks".

Whatta you mean, "we", XY person?

 

[Proton Soup]

No. To be absolutely clear, what I'm proposing is a political belief. It has nothing to do with a Deity or spirital values. It is straight out of Hobbes, with a twist of Locke.

it's not based on facts and it makes you feel good. i find it indistinguishable from buddhism.

 

[TVP45]

it's not based on facts and it makes you feel good. i find it indistinguishable from buddhism.

I'm not sure how to break this to you, but no political or religious belief is based on facts. But, I should hope I know how to distinguish between western liberalism and eastern spirituality. How do you know whether it makes me feel good?

 

[Proton Soup]

I'm not sure how to break this to you, but no political or religious belief is based on facts. But, I should hope I know how to distinguish between western liberalism and eastern spirituality. How do you know whether it makes me feel good?

i think you're confusing politics, getting what you want through governmental means, versus the actual things you want to accomplish.

 

[pellman]

I have a fundamental, God-given right to fall in love with any gender I please, no thanks to pious busy-bodies. Likewise with abortion. If you and the atheists don't like it, don't have it.

Rationalism is not a religious belief. It does not, and should not, have to grant equal time to religion in a free society.

What about my right to not be aborted?

Really, though, what caught my attention was this strange sentence: "I have a fundamental, God-given right to fall in love with any gender I please, no thanks to pious busy-bodies."

Actually, your "rights" are entirely thanks to pious busybodies. Namely due to their insistence that you have God-given rights. Without that basis your so-called rights are merely the result of legislation, that is, arbitrary. You can say then I desire that the gov't recognize certain rights--and count yourself very lucky if it does so--but you have no basis for ever saying the gov't ought to do such and such. There is no ought. There is only what the gov't decides to do and how you and I can influence it to the advantage of our respective interests.

I don't know if you are in the USA. I am. Our gov't was founded on the idea that there are certain rights which are prior to any law and that it is the purpose of law to defend those prior rights. We are still riding on the momentum generated by that wave 200 years ago and using the language they coined. Woe to us when we realize that the philosophical basis for legislating a "right" to abortion out of thin air, or, say, forcing a religious group to not distinguish women and men, reduces the weight of such "rights" to no more than a fad. When it is seen for the sham it is, we won't bother with talk of "rights" anymore.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps, because many churches like to take children at particularly young and impressionable ages and teach them (among other things) things that they are hardly capable of questioning even if they were allowed to, one might wonder exactly how much freedom many church-goers really have in choosing a way of life.

I recall the response of Frank Schaeffer in a recent NPR interview, when asked about this issue. He explains the nature of the indoctrination he underwent, and his journey following his struggles with his faith.

Interview here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97998654

The whole interview is worth the listen, but the relevant parts are at about 22-25 minutes in, and again at 28:45.

By your logic, we should also regulate what parents are allowed to tell their children.

Should we pass a law against teaching about Santa Claus? Should children be questioned about what their parents tell them to ensure that no one is corrupting their minds?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is exactly what I want. Read the thread carefully. The question was aked why I care if various churches exclude women and I replied that they participate aggressively in political life and, in doing so, seek to limit my freedoms.

First of all, I don't know of any churches that exclude women. Next, your freedoms are protected by the Constitution - not by removing the rights of others. If you think your freedoms are threatened, then it is matter of law and not religious beliefs. There are plenty of groups who would limit the rights of others but who are still protected by the first Ammendment. Are you suggesting that we should ban the KKK or the American Nazi Party? How about Republicans? I see the people who elected Bush as people who would limit my rights [as we have seen to be true]. So would it be okay to ban the Republican party? Also, shouldn't we pass a law against the hate radio that has corrupted so many minds and helped to bring this country to its knees? Maybe the government should interfere with all free speech that isn't politically correct.

From my point of view, they don't get a free pass just because they're religious; I don't see Methodists, for example, as being any different from Rotarians. If the Rotary Club tries to influence legistlation that limits my freedoms, I'm going to go have a talk with them. Likewise, if a church group tries to stick their big noses into my pants, I'm going to do all I can to criticize them, to challenge their tax status, etc. They're free to have any religious beliefs they want; they're just not free to force those on me.

You have every right to challenge the tax exempt status of any church that violates the separation of church and State. But you are suggesting that they don't have a right to their own beliefs and religious practices. Or, perhaps you are suggesting that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

In the case of abortion, are you suggesting that religious people don't have the right to defend what they see as human life - that they don't have the right to object to what they see as murder? You are entitled to rights but babies are not? Do you really accept the notion that a fetus is not a life at 89 days, but it is at 90 days? Does that really make any sense?

As for the role of women churches, it is mostly about the traditional family structure. Should this also be banned? Should we make a law stating that the teaching of traditional family values and roles ist verboten? And what about the women who value their church and their place in it. Do you wish to take away their rights as well? One point that may elude many here is that many women are perfectly happy with their place in their church. They are valued and respected and do not feel slighted by the defined roles for both sexes. Likewise, men gladly accept their role in church and in life. And I don't hear anyone complaining that within the traditional structure of a church, unlike women, men are expected to get a job and support their families while the wives stay at home. Should we ban the teaching of this sexist concept as well?

Does anyone know who is said to sit at the left hand of God? In Christian beliefs, the most revered person after Christ is a woman. A woman is believed to have been more "holy" than any other mortal. The point being that there is a difference between having defined roles, and having value.

 

[Moridin]

Moridin, snark doesn't become you.

I was dead serious. I also noticed that your reply did not attempt to refute the argument i posted. For clarification, my argument is presented syllogistically below.

1. P -> UoN
2. S -> ~UoN
3. ~(P&S)

Where,

P = Physics (validity of)
UoN = Uniformity of Nature
S = Supernaturalism

But I apologize as this argument is beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[Moridin]

As for the role of women [in] churches, it is mostly about the traditional family structure. Should this also be banned? Should we make a law stating that the teaching of traditional family values and roles ist verboten? And what about the women who value their church and their place in it. Do you wish to take away their rights as well? One point that may elude many here is that many women are perfectly happy with their place in their church. They are valued and respected and do not feel slighted by the defined roles for both sexes. Likewise, men gladly accept their role in church and in life. And I don't hear anyone complaining that within the traditional structure of a church, unlike women, men are expected to get a job and support their families while the wives stay at home. Should we ban the teaching of this sexist concept as well?

As for the role of slaves in the crop fields, it is mostly about the traditional worker structure. Should this also be banned? Should we make a law stating that the teaching of traditional worker values and roles ist verboten? And what about the slaves who value their work place and their place in it. Do you wish to take away their rights as well? One point that may elude many here is that many slaves are perfectly happy with their place in their work place. They are valued and respected and do not feel slighted by the defined roles for master and servant. Likewise, slave owners gladly accept their role in the fields and in life. And I don't hear anyone complaining that within the traditional structure of a field, unlike slaves, slave owners are expected to make sure their workers stay healthy and not die while the slaves stay at home. Should we ban the teaching of this racist concept as well?

Telling, is it not? Sorry, was a too good opportunity to pass on. Women are basically slaves to men, being subjugated at home and at the work place, getting less wages even in a progressive country like Sweden.

Does anyone know who is said to sit at the left hand of God? In Christian beliefs, the most revered person after Christ is a woman.

How does the Old Testament treat women again? Anyone?

 

[NeoDevin]

Do you really accept the notion that a fetus is not a life at 89 days, but it is at 90 days? Does that really make any sense?

That really makes perfect sense. The line has to be drawn somewhere, your argument here could be carried on until things like IUDs and birth control pill can be called murder as well (ie, if it's life at 89 days, why not 88? if it's life at 88 days, why not... if it's life at 1 day, why not at fertilization?) If you want to debate about where to put the line, that's fine, but your argument as you posted it is that you can't draw a line, which is just ridiculous (note that some people say the line should be drawn at fertilization, that's a different argument from you saying there can't be a line, also note that the line doesn't necessarily have to be a specific time, it could be based on the development of the fetus as measured by some test, which is slightly different in everyone).

For the rest of your post: The state can't stay completely out of the raising of children, or there would be no way to protect from abusive parents. Even if the parents are not doing it to intentionally hurt the child, (like say, people who deny their children vaccines or other important medical procedures) they can be found guilty of neglect or abuse. I would put forth that indoctrinating violent hatred (no, I'm not saying that all religion falls into this category) should be considered a form of child (mental/verbal) abuse, and the parents punished accordingly. This is another place where a line must be drawn somewhere, though I'm not sure where that line should be drawn, it is something that must be considered.

To clarify: I think we could all agree that it should be (and I'm pretty sure it is) considered abuse if a parent consistently told their child things like, "You're evil/worthless/garbage/stupid/whatever, and you deserve to be beaten!" Something a little less obvious might be: "Homosexuals are evil/worthless/garbage/stupid/whatever and they deserve to be beaten!" (or similarly, a homosexual parent telling their child the same about heteros). Should this be considered abuse? Before you answer that, consider how that child would feel if, at some point in their life, they realized they were attracted to someone of the same sex. I knew someone who committed suicide because of this very situation; to me, this would be abuse, plain and simple. Similar arguments can be made for teaching hatred of atheism (which is not necessarily a choice) and other religions (which is more likely to be a choice), though the argument gets a little weaker with each step. Teaching hatred of anything early in life can lead to serious mental hardship later on, especially if the child turns out to become the thing he was taught to hate, because all that hatred is suddenly directed at himself. This is why I would argue that teaching hatred to children should be considered abuse, and punished accordingly.

It could also be argued that impairing a child's ability to reason (eg. teaching ID, creationism, or other pseudoscience and pseudoscientific thinking as fact and logic) is abuse, though I can't bring myself to support this position, as it too easily opens the way for "legislating truth".

[/OffTopic] (if you want to continue this, please move the relevant posts to a new thread about state interference in parenting)

 

[NeoDevin]

Moridin: The difference is that slaves do not have a choice but to remain slaves, while (ignoring the childhood brainwashing argument) religious adherents can cease to be so at any time.

 

[Moridin]

Moridin: The difference is that slaves do not have a choice but to remain slaves, while (ignoring the childhood brainwashing argument) religious adherents can cease to be so at any time.

No they can't. If you believe that the omnipotent dictator of the universe is going to punish you with endless anguish, pain and suffering in hell, you literally won't be able to make the choice to leave their religion. Similarly, if I am your slave, and I believe that you are going to hunt me down, torture and then kill me and my family, I am literally psychologically unable to attempt to escape. This all is setting aside childhood brainwashing. With that, my argument becomes even stronger.

 

[Moridin]

What is the problem with legalizing truth if we can demonstrate it with clear evidence? We already do it by disallowing the teaching of racism and Holocaust denying, for instance.

 

[NeoDevin]

What is the problem with legalizing truth if we can demonstrate it with clear evidence? We already do it by disallowing the teaching of racism and Holocaust denying, for instance.

The problem is, that if the wrong person is in a position to legalize truth, they will do their best to by-pass or fool the "legal test" (see for example: teaching creationism in schools). They may succeed, they may fail, but either way, I don't think law is the way to decide truth.

 

[Gokul43201]

By your logic, we should also regulate what parents are allowed to tell their children.

What logic is that? I never said anything about regulating anything.

But hey, your idea sounds good!