Modernisation of Religion to be Equal to Women

[TVP45]

If you don't believe The Bible is the Everlasting Word of God, you cannot consider yourself a Christian, and your opinion on what happens in a Christian church is null.

I quit calling myself a Christian years ago. I refer to myself as a follower of Jesus Christ.

Do you have an opinion about Congress? You're not a member. Do you have an opinion about the Cubbies? You don't play for them. Do you have an opinion about the weather? You don't make rain. I have opinions about various Christian churches.

 

[Gokul43201]

I am shocked that you admitted your support to that kind of activity.

Your shock is irrelevant, since your opinion in the matter is null...

...unless you wish to admit that you believe the Quran is the Everlasting Word of God.

 

[Evo]

Back to the topic. Should all religious sects be forced to appoint men and women equally to positions within their religion? The discussion should not be about anyone particular religion.

 

[The Dagda]

Back to the topic. Should all religious sects be forced to appoint men and women equally to positions within their religion? The discussion should not be about anyone particular religion.

Very true, and thanks for the feedback Evo, I posted on your blog as your pm box was full.

I think that's an ecumenical decision and as such is a matter for the hierarchy, but I do think genuinely think that at least the liberal religions should all move to advocating female ministers. However since in most religions dogma is overturned with all the celerity of a constipated sloth then this will obviously take time. Particular faiths may even have dogma that is too ingrained to overturn or may still be living in a society where womens' rights are subjugated, so well, it may not happen in this century or the next.

 

[rootX]

Back to the topic. Should all religious sects be forced to appoint men and women equally to positions within their religion? The discussion should not be about anyone particular religion.

Societies change so should the religions.

I think it can be justified that woman were to be treated differently at the times when those religious books were written. But, how could the writers anticipate the today's culture? Religions were created only for benefits of then societies but then got subjected to the abuse and those people forgot the real intention of the religions (in my opinion).

 

[TVP45]

Let's forget the religious designation for a moment, since any group may claim to be a religion, and ask the broader question: Does a democratic society have the right to regulate the behavior, and membership, of any group when there exist conflicting rights between the group and other members of the society? I would argue yes whenever the conflict rises above the level of nuisance. Allow me to return to religion via a circuitous route.

Consider the case of a small, private, men only, liberal arts college in Newark, NJ. Such exclusion is perhaps a slight inconvenience to a potential woman student who now has to catch a bus to Manhattan instead, but it seems only slight. In this instance, I would not argue for forcing them to admit women.

Now, add an ROTC component to the college and the interest of society at large is involved. The inclusion of women in the military is important to the excluded women and to the country in general, and is more than a passing nuisance. Now I would argue that society has a right and, indeed, an obligation under the constitution to require the admission of women.

Applying the same logic to religions, I would hold that a small sect of devil-worshipers in the woods of Idaho might well be allowed to exclude men. However, if they seek tax-exemption for their property, if they ask to be admitted to the US Chaplains Corps, if they ask to be permitted to perform marriages, or if they corporately participate in Pocatello politics, then it is fair to look at whether they should now be forced to include men.

 

[Proton Soup]

Let's forget the religious designation for a moment, since any group may claim to be a religion, and ask the broader question: Does a democratic society have the right to regulate the behavior, and membership, of any group when there exist conflicting rights between the group and other members of the society? I would argue yes whenever the conflict rises above the level of nuisance. Allow me to return to religion via a circuitous route.

Consider the case of a small, private, men only, liberal arts college in Newark, NJ. Such exclusion is perhaps a slight inconvenience to a potential woman student who now has to catch a bus to Manhattan instead, but it seems only slight. In this instance, I would not argue for forcing them to admit women.

so size is the criteria? should they lose their tax-exempt status?

Now, add an ROTC component to the college and the interest of society at large is involved. The inclusion of women in the military is important to the excluded women and to the country in general, and is more than a passing nuisance. Now I would argue that society has a right and, indeed, an obligation under the constitution to require the admission of women.

until women have the same obligation of compulsory service in times of war, there's no reason to grant them the same privileges here. that would put them in a higher class and make them more than equal.

Applying the same logic to religions, I would hold that a small sect of devil-worshipers in the woods of Idaho might well be allowed to exclude men. However, if they seek tax-exemption for their property, if they ask to be admitted to the US Chaplains Corps, if they ask to be permitted to perform marriages, or if they corporately participate in Pocatello politics, then it is fair to look at whether they should now be forced to include men.

it's a small sect, though. so, as per above, they are not a nuisance and are exempt from punitive actions by the government.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Now, add an ROTC component to the college and the interest of society at large is involved. The inclusion of women in the military is important to the excluded women and to the country in general, and is more than a passing nuisance. Now I would argue that society has a right and, indeed, an obligation under the constitution to require the admission of women.

Isn't this more an argument that they shouldn't have an ROTC on their campus?

However, it seems to me that you've created a logical gap: the presence of an ROTC at an all male college doesn't preclude in any way women joining the military. If you took away the ROTC from the campus, you haven't increased the ability of women to join the military, so what argument is there for the dichotomy you've created?

 

[TVP45]

Isn't this more an argument that they shouldn't have an ROTC on their campus?

However, it seems to me that you've created a logical gap: the presence of an ROTC at an all male college doesn't preclude in any way women joining the military. If you took away the ROTC from the campus, you haven't increased the ability of women to join the military, so what argument is there for the dichotomy you've created?

I'm unsure whether you misunderstood my perhaps poorly phrased argument or whether you don't understand what a dichotomy is. But, I've not argued for a sharp division resulting in mutually exclusive cases; rather, I've tried to say there is a fuzzy, ever-shifting line between the instances in which the public has a substantial stake and when it doesn't.

Whenever there is an intermingling of public money and policy with private, there is always the possibility that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment applies. The key to that is the type of review that is legally merited. I would argue (and if you dissent, please argue your point rather than attacking mine) that such a case as I quoted would be covered by intermediate scrutiny, principally because an important government interest is involved. I should note that SCOTUS has shown an inclination to go somewhat beyond my interpretation. For example, in Mississippi Univ for Women v. Hogan, SCOTUS ruled that a school must have an extremely persuasive case for exclusion; this moves their review level to almost strict scrutiny.

Your point about not having an ROTC is a valid one. In my view, a school which withdraws from all interaction, whether financial or political, with the public realm would be presumed to merit review only on a rational basis, and that should be quite easy to satisfy in most instances.

 

[TVP45]

so size is the criteria? should they lose their tax-exempt status?



until women have the same obligation of compulsory service in times of war, there's no reason to grant them the same privileges here. that would put them in a higher class and make them more than equal.



it's a small sect, though. so, as per above, they are not a nuisance and are exempt from punitive actions by the government.

First, I strongly suggest you might post your own point of view rather than just denying mine. I am only a single person, with no political or religious authority, and refuting me does nothing to advance your case.

But, I did not mean to say, or imply, that size is the criterion, but rather pervasiveness is.

With regards to the draft, however, you must get the facts correct. While some MOS's remain gender exclusive, compulsory service is not. My wife, among many women, has been subject to draft, should one occur, for the past two decades.

 

[mgb_phys]

when those religious books were written. But, how could the writers anticipate the today's culture?

Most religions claim that their books were written (or at least dictated) by God. anticipating the future is generally in god's job description

 

[Proton Soup]

First, I strongly suggest you might post your own point of view rather than just denying mine. I am only a single person, with no political or religious authority, and refuting me does nothing to advance your case.

But, I did not mean to say, or imply, that size is the criterion, but rather pervasiveness is.

With regards to the draft, however, you must get the facts correct. While some MOS's remain gender exclusive, compulsory service is not. My wife, among many women, has been subject to draft, should one occur, for the past two decades.

because she volunteered as a soldier? that's a decision she made. but as far as i know, selective service registration is still not a requirement for women. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System#Exemption_of_women

as for my views? i think we'd be a lot better off if more people minded their own business instead of acting like religious busybodies. and yes, i do mean the atheists here. these busybodies could start by realizing that much of what they feel indignant about isn't even based on logic/science/anthropology, but the very religious culture they are a part of.

anywho... the person advancing a case here is the OP, Mammo, and anyone else that jumps on their bandwagon. my purpose here, rightfully, is simply to toss sticks into your spokes.

 

[TVP45]

because she volunteered as a soldier? that's a decision she made. but as far as i know, selective service registration is still not a requirement for women. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System#Exemption_of_women

as for my views? i think we'd be a lot better off if more people minded their own business instead of acting like religious busybodies. and yes, i do mean the atheists here. these busybodies could start by realizing that much of what they feel indignant about isn't even based on logic/science/anthropology, but the very religious culture they are a part of.

anywho... the person advancing a case here is the OP, Mammo, and anyone else that jumps on their bandwagon. my purpose here, rightfully, is simply to toss sticks into your spokes.

You're confusing selective service registration with a draft. There is no draft now. Congress has not authorized a draft since the seventies. Registration provides a registry of men who would be likely drafted to augment current active duty soldiers in the event of a re-authorization.

The question remains, is there any basis for persuading/forcing religions to be gender inclusive? I offered my opinions, partially supported by reasonable argument. You've offered ad hominem attacks. You might persuade me I'm wrong, but not without a reasoned argument.

And, I am a Deist not an Atheist.

 

[Proton Soup]

You're confusing selective service registration with a draft. There is no draft now. Congress has not authorized a draft since the seventies. Registration provides a registry of men who would be likely drafted to augment current active duty soldiers in the event of a re-authorization.

it doesn't matter that there isn't a draft right now. there could be at any time. that is the whole purpose of registration.

The question remains, is there any basis for persuading/forcing religions to be gender inclusive? I offered my opinions, partially supported by reasonable argument. You've offered ad hominem attacks. You might persuade me I'm wrong, but not without a reasoned argument.

And, I am a Deist not an Atheist.

don't think because i attack your arguments that i am attacking you.

the fact remains that, both here and in britain, women can choose to not go to a church that isn't "gender inclusive". oddly enough, what you're proposing is that the government indirectly persuade/force WOMEN to only participate in government-approved religion. it seems awfully ironic to me.

 

[TVP45]

it doesn't matter that there isn't a draft right now. there could be at any time. that is the whole purpose of registration.



don't think because i attack your arguments that i am attacking you.

the fact remains that, both here and in britain, women can choose to not go to a church that isn't "gender inclusive". oddly enough, what you're proposing is that the government indirectly persuade/force WOMEN to only participate in government-approved religion. it seems awfully ironic to me.

And, of course, women can always choose not to work at a company where they are paid 65% of what men are, and they can choose not to work in an office where they are expected to have sex with the manager, but those behaviors generally rise to the level of strict scrutiny and wind up being prohibited by the equal protection clause. My argument is that the same applies to churches under certain circumstances. I freely admit that churches will often fall under only intermediate scrutiny or rational basis and thus must be judged on a cas by case basis or perhaps not at all.

However, we differ, I think, on the point of whether a democratic society has the power to force religious institutions to comply with the law. I believe we do.

I do not propose anything that persuades/forces women to only participate in government approved religion. Would requiring that churches have fire exits marked with NFPA approved signage imply government approval of the religion? Would requiring that ministers pay income taxes imply government approval? Would requiring that all church school educators have child clearances imply government approval? I argue no. If you have a valid argument why it would be the other way, please present your argument.

 

[TVP45]

it doesn't matter that there isn't a draft right now. there could be at any time. that is the whole purpose of registration.



don't think because i attack your arguments that i am attacking you.

the fact remains that, both here and in britain, women can choose to not go to a church that isn't "gender inclusive". oddly enough, what you're proposing is that the government indirectly persuade/force WOMEN to only participate in government-approved religion. it seems awfully ironic to me.

And, of course, women can always choose not to work at a company where they are paid 65% of what men are, and they can choose not to work in an office where they are expected to have sex with the manager, but those behaviors generally rise to the level of strict scrutiny and wind up being prohibited by the equal protection clause. My argument is that the same applies to churches under certain circumstances. I freely admit that churches will often fall under only intermediate scrutiny or rational basis and thus must be judged on a case by case basis or perhaps not at all.

However, we differ, I think, on the point of whether a democratic society has the power to force religious institutions to comply with the law. I believe we do.

I do not propose anything that persuades/forces women to only participate in government approved religion. Would requiring that churches have fire exits marked with NFPA approved signage imply government approval of the religion? Would requiring that ministers pay income taxes imply government approval? Would requiring that all church school educators have child clearances imply government approval? I argue no. If you have a valid argument why it would be the other way, please present your argument.

 

[WhoWee]

Separation of Church and State was conceived of for a variety of reasons...only the members of a religious group should have a voice regarding Church policies.

We all have a freedom to choose...lot's of religions...or none at all...

 

[The Dagda]

Separation of Church and State was conceived of for a variety of reasons...only the members of a religious group should have a voice regarding Church policies.

We all have a freedom to choose...lot's of religions...or none at all...

I actually agree, it's much like a private club, only the members who really follow the faith that should make a judgement on how it progresses, but even members don't exist in a vacuum, at some point they have to deal with the society they live in, and then their ministers by the same measure have to deal with them. Church politics, be it Islam, Christian, Jew, Shinto or Buddhist are very much up to the ecumenical councils therein. But most of these churches understand that morality and even church doctrine is not something that is set in stone, even those that are. Let's face it even Moses shattered the stone that the ten commandments were written on, to allow for a practical application of God's law, so should any religion evolve.

 

[Proton Soup]

And, of course, women can always choose not to work at a company where they are paid 65% of what men are, and they can choose not to work in an office where they are expected to have sex with the manager, but those behaviors generally rise to the level of strict scrutiny and wind up being prohibited by the equal protection clause. My argument is that the same applies to churches under certain circumstances. I freely admit that churches will often fall under only intermediate scrutiny or rational basis and thus must be judged on a case by case basis or perhaps not at all.

However, we differ, I think, on the point of whether a democratic society has the power to force religious institutions to comply with the law. I believe we do.

I do not propose anything that persuades/forces women to only participate in government approved religion. Would requiring that churches have fire exits marked with NFPA approved signage imply government approval of the religion? Would requiring that ministers pay income taxes imply government approval? Would requiring that all church school educators have child clearances imply government approval? I argue no. If you have a valid argument why it would be the other way, please present your argument.

i don't see what the comparison is here to your workplace. most of these women are not working for the church and depending on it for a paycheck. and if you really want to get down to it, you haven't established a rational basis to pay women the same rate as men. in fact, the capitalist marketplace seems to indicate that they are not very equal in this regard. so, until you establish that, you're actually arguing on a religious basis.

 

[arunma]

But most of these churches understand that morality and even church doctrine is not something that is set in stone, even those that are.

This belief seems to be a recurring theme in the discussion here. I suppose if you believe that morality and doctrine are fluid, then it makes sense to modernize religion. But one of the prevalent ideas in many religions is that morality is an objective truth, and is independent of culture or changing ideas. Most of the churches that forbid female leaders hold to this idea.

Let's face it even Moses shattered the stone that the ten commandments were written on, to allow for a practical application of God's law, so should any religion evolve.

Not trying to get into a discussion on religion here, but I'm pretty sure that's not why Moses destroyed the tablets of the testimony...

 

[rootX]

anticipating the future is generally in god's job description

God either done a really poor job or he self defined some constraints about what he could do

But either way, it is not possible to write something that can be useful to all cultures in all times and all regions. I see that religions from same geographical region/time share many similar ideas.

Religions didn't seem to define morals, ethics, or social values but rather tried to help people to act accordingly with the existing morals or other social values with some new approaches (like reincarnation or hell).

 

[The Dagda]

This belief seems to be a recurring theme in the discussion here. I suppose if you believe that morality and doctrine are fluid, then it makes sense to modernize religion. But one of the prevalent ideas in many religions is that morality is an objective truth, and is independent of culture or changing ideas. Most of the churches that forbid female leaders hold to this idea.

Then it is useless.

Not trying to get into a discussion on religion here, but I'm pretty sure that's not why Moses destroyed the tablets of the testimony...

He saw the Jews worshipping false Idols and smashed the tablets.

 

[TVP45]

i don't see what the comparison is here to your workplace. most of these women are not working for the church and depending on it for a paycheck. and if you really want to get down to it, you haven't established a rational basis to pay women the same rate as men. in fact, the capitalist marketplace seems to indicate that they are not very equal in this regard. so, until you establish that, you're actually arguing on a religious basis.

I think we're now at the point of simply repeating ourselves rather than either debating or participating in a critical dialogue. I am unsubscribing this thread.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

However, we differ, I think, on the point of whether a democratic society has the power to force religious institutions to comply with the law. I believe we do.

I don't believe that the government has the authority to legislate the manner in which social organizations choose to organize themselves. There is no law compeling social organzations to give equal oportunity to its members or for membership. Would you say that a synogogue should allow christians to be members? We do have laws against descrimination based on religion so why allow a church to descriminate against inclusion of persons of other religions in their membership?

As far as tax exemption status I believe that all an organization must show to retain it is that they are non-profit and providing a service for the public, or some section of it. There are several non-profit organizations that help only certain demographics such as persons of a certain sex, of a certain race, of a certain age. All of these are descriminations that are not allowed by law. And really, wouldn't you say that whom an organization prefers to expend its energy on is far more important than whom they choose to hire?

So then should government not allow any social/charitable organization to descriminate in any fashion at all what so ever?

 

[arunma]

Then it is useless.

Useless for what end? It seems that you may be defining some purpose arbitrarily, and then judging each religion according to its ability to accomplish your end. But different religions have different purposes, and usually the religious communities define these purposes. So saying "it is useless" doesn't mean much. If you start with the assumption that religions exist to agree with society's gender roles, and then throw away religions that don't do what you want them to do, then it defeats the very idea of religiosity. Adherants of religions are supposed to conform themselves to their respective religion's ideals, not the other way around.

He saw the Jews worshipping false Idols and smashed the tablets.

Yes...I'm not quite sure why you think this implies some sort of fluidity to morality. And if you wanted to argue to such an end in the context of Christian theology, there are far better (though ultimately flawed) arguments.

 

[The Dagda]

Useless for what end? It seems that you may be defining some purpose arbitrarily, and then judging each religion according to its ability to accomplish your end. But different religions have different purposes, and usually the religious communities define these purposes. So saying "it is useless" doesn't mean much. If you start with the assumption that religions exist to agree with society's gender roles, and then throw away religions that don't do what you want them to do, then it defeats the very idea of religiosity. Adherants of religions are supposed to conform themselves to their respective religion's ideals, not the other way around.

It seems you think religions exist comfortably in a vacuum too, but then you sound like the average religious apologist.

No matter how stupid or redundant is our faith we should follow it without question like sheep. Good job the Jews have a little more sense or they'd still be stoning people and executing homosexuals and murderers. But then unlike other religious people they understand what an eye for an eye actually was meant to accomplish, coming as it does straight out of Hamurabi's code of laws.

Yes...I'm not quite sure why you think this implies some sort of fluidity to morality. And if you wanted to argue to such an end in the context of Christian theology, there are far better (though ultimately flawed) arguments.

All arguments against theology are flawed by default, thus is the starting point and ending point of apologetics in any religion.

 

[Moridin]

It is not the cause that all arguments against theology are flawed by default. It is possible to argue that theology is an invalid form of methodology for gaining knowledge without using theology. This is of course entirely separate from the question of the existence of the supernatural; it may very well be the case that the supernatural does exists, yet theology still being an invalid method and/or theory of knowledge regarding the supernatural.

 

[arunma]

It seems you think religions exist comfortably in a vacuum too, but then you sound like the average religious apologist.

I hope you won't take this the wrong way. But from what I'm detecting, you don't seem to be giving any substantive argument, but rather are presuming your fluid view of morality to be accurate by default. It seems rather circular. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I'd like to understand your position on this.

No matter how stupid or redundant is our faith we should follow it without question like sheep. Good job the Jews have a little more sense or they'd still be stoning people and executing homosexuals and murderers. But then unlike other religious people they understand what an eye for an eye actually was meant to accomplish, coming as it does straight out of Hamurabi's code of laws.

Stoning homosexuals and murderers is actually a good example, because this is still practiced in Islamic theocracies. May I ask: how do you define morality? To what authority do you appeal? If you believe that morality is not set in stone but simply changes with the times, then you really have no basis to say that these Islamic dictatorships are wrong to stone their gays, adulterers, and murderers.

 

[The Dagda]

I hope you won't take this the wrong way. But from what I'm detecting, you don't seem to be giving any substantive argument, but rather are presuming your fluid view of morality to be accurate by default. It seems rather circular. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I'd like to understand your position on this.

So morality is cast in stone by some invisible figure in the sky and can never change, is a better form of morality than say pluralism, or utilitarianism? Why exactly? I think I agree with Nietzsche on this one, religion is nothing more than group think and genuinely outdated. Any moral system that does not change and is inflexible is obviously not as valuable as one that can and does change with the society it is in, that is why we have state and church seperation, and why church morality is impractical. Unless you're going to make an argument for reintegration of church and state I don't see how such a moral code is worth all that much, particularly in countries like mine where only 46% of people believe in any God at all.

Stoning homosexuals and murderers is actually a good example, because this is still practiced in Islamic theocracies. May I ask: how do you define morality? To what authority do you appeal? If you believe that morality is not set in stone but simply changes with the times, then you really have no basis to say that these Islamic dictatorships are wrong to stone their gays, adulterers, and murderers.

I define morality by using ethics to determine fundamental principles or if in fact they exist, why how do you do it? Stoning homosexuals to death is ignorant and barbaric, if that's the best you can do to defend it then that is a pretty lame moral code you have there, perhaps a paradigm shift with the 21st century and it's science may be in order for religion? is appealing to common standards of behaviour amongst men, any better than appealing to some mythical figure in the sky who's dogma is unreflecting, unchanging and seems anachronistic: yes I think so. I mean let's face it it was either written by men, or God is one utterly messed up person, perhaps he has multiple personality disorder to keep up with all the religions that are the one true faith?

As for all the other faiths well they are all just wrong by default so it doesn't matter their going to hell anyway for having the nerve to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time. Religion when taken at face value and as a moral compass is so flawed that the fact that you think there are none, utterly astounds me. Even Buddhism has its bad points, however by dint of divine command you are right by default about anything, and unfortunately since Gods not big on personal appearances all this is interpreted through flawed individuals. Especially given what science and philosophy and anthropology have taught us about human nature it seems crazy to let individuals determine what x means? Particularly when the vast majority aren't historians, have no idea of context, can't read the original languages and thus pick and chose what to believe accordingly.

What world would end if women were allowed to be ministers, oh yeah none, they already are.