Modernisation of Religion to be Equal to Women

[Mammo]

I saw on a Sunday TV show 'The Big Questions' that the Church is the only institution that is still allowed to be sexist. Women are not allowed to be appointed as bishops. Surely the modernisation of religion is overdue in our secular society? I believe that the adoption of a total religious equality of women is the only way forward in healing the materialistic western way of life. A positive step in the right direction is desperately needed.

 

[arunma]

If we're going with the definition of sexism that you imply (absolutely equal treatment of women and men without regard to genuine gender differences), I would point out that the military is also sexist. Only men are required to register for the draft, and women typically aren't allowed in combat zones.

Mind you, I don't subscribe to the same definition of sexism, so I don't think there's anything wrong with the military in this regard. But that's another discussion. My point is that it might help if you propose a clearer definition of sexism.

 

[mgb_phys]

Surely the modernisation of religion is overdue in our secular society?

Do I detect a slight logical problem here?

For another blatant case of sexism http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2009/01/hooters_sex_discrimination.php

 

[russ_watters]

I saw on a Sunday TV show 'The Big Questions' that the Church is the only institution that is still allowed to be sexist.

As the others have pointed out, this is just plain factually wrong. There are countless organizations/entities that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender and that even includes ones where money is concerned, such as car insurance.

 

[arunma]

Another question for Mammo. How are we defining "the Church?" This can mean a number of things including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, a variety of Protestant denomination, and sometimes even other religions or the "Church" of Scientology. Who are we talking about when we refer to the Church?

 

[Gokul43201]

There are countless organizations/entities that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender and that even includes ones where money is concerned, such as car insurance.

At least insurance companies can make an argument based on the statistics to back their case. The Church has an entirely different kind of argument (one that we can't get into here).

But as mgb pointed, "modernisation of religion" is itself an oxymoron of sorts.

 

[turbo]

As the others have pointed out, this is just plain factually wrong. There are countless organizations/entities that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender and that even includes ones where money is concerned, such as car insurance.

Holy cow! Apparently the OP has never played golf. Even at public clubs, the women are routinely denied early-morning tee-times, and some private clubs do not admit women at all.

 

[Evo]

I was watching a show on India, and the host was visiting a Muslim shrine and there was a big sign in English saying "Sorry, no ladies beyond this point".

There was sign for the men "No open heads beyond this point". Only men could enter and only those wearing skull caps and barefoot, no shoes allowed either.

A religion can have any rules they want.

 

[Gokul43201]

Surely the modernisation of religion is overdue in our secular society? I believe that the adoption of a total religious equality of women is the only way forward in healing the materialistic western way of life.

I don't understand the connection to materialism, but ignoring that for now, would you also recommend adoption of equal treatment for other groups of people as well, such as homosexuals, for instance?

 

[turbo]

I don't understand the connection to materialism, but ignoring that for now, would you also recommend adoption of equal treatment for other groups of people as well, such as homosexuals, for instance?

I'd be all for the Roman Catholic church ordaining gay female priests. It would be safer for altar boys.

 

[russ_watters]

At least insurance companies can make an argument based on the statistics to back their case. The Church has an entirely different kind of argument (one that we can't get into here).

True, but it was just an example - other organizations need no logic - for example, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.

 

[arunma]

I don't understand the connection to materialism, but ignoring that for now, would you also recommend adoption of equal treatment for other groups of people as well, such as homosexuals, for instance?

I suppose this is as good a time as any to mention separation of church and state. As I understand the history of that term and how it found its way to Thomas Jefferson's pen, the original intent of separation of church and state was to protect the church from the state. And it was probably with things such as these in mind. As long as we all believe in the Constitution, it would be both a bad idea and illegal to enforce the sorts of rules that are being suggested here. Religious organizations are protected under American law to have whatever rules they want, and the state can't enforce its own policies on these organizations.

Remember that we live in a country where the KKK is permitted to put its views into practice within the confines of its own membership. So it seems to me that this discussion about "adoption of a total religious equality" is moot.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Another question for Mammo. How are we defining "the Church?" This can mean a number of things including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, a variety of Protestant denomination, and sometimes even other religions or the "Church" of Scientology. Who are we talking about when we refer to the Church?

I think we can safely rule out Wiccans.

I was watching a show on India, and the host was visiting a Muslim shrine and there was a big sign in English saying "Sorry, no ladies beyond this point".

There was sign for the men "No open heads beyond this point". Only men could enter and only those wearing skull caps and barefoot, no shoes allowed either.

A religion can have any rules they want.

Absolutely. I can create a club tomorrow and make up my own rules. If people like them, they'll join. If my rules suck, they won't join.

Obviously, some women are quite comfortable with the rules of patriarchal religions and traditions because in many situations they are free to leave or disobey, but they don't. A classmate of mine told me that she likes the rules of modest dress of her religion because it makes her feel protected from men who would look at her lustfully. Her sisters don't wear a headscarf, but she chooses to do this. She also feels that her male classmates take her more seriously because they are not focusing on her beauty and are listening to what she has to say. Another former coworker has never learned to drive and her husband drives her everywhere. To some people it seems odd, but to her, it is chivalrous. This woman is a highly talented technical professional, one of the best in her field that I have worked with.

It's only going to become an irritating issue to the members who are unhappy about the rules. Until that's the majority, there's no reason for a change.

 

[Math Is Hard]

True, but it was just an example - other organizations need no logic - for example, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.

and the PF Sisterhood.

note: I'm moving this to General Discussion. I don't think it fits well with Philosophy.

 

[fileen]

True, but it was just an example - other organizations need no logic - for example, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.

I tried girl scouts and hated it, I decided to join my brother in boy scouts instead. One of the leaders quit because I was there, but the only rule was that my dad had to be there as a witness that nothing inappropriate happened. This was more to protect the leaders than me. Even boy scouts are not allowed to deny a lady her rights. The funny thing is, none of the boy scouts cared at all, I was just one of the guys, it was the parents that got all upset.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

there are female ministers and female rabbis in some churches and temples. there also exists a strictly female order that is part of the masons. these things are already ironing themselves out there also exist religions such as wicca where females are often regarded as more important than males.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I tried girl scouts and hated it, I decided to join my brother in boy scouts instead. One of the leaders quit because I was there, but the only rule was that my dad had to be there as a witness that nothing inappropriate happened. This was more to protect the leaders than me. Even boy scouts are not allowed to deny a lady her rights. The funny thing is, none of the boy scouts cared at all, I was just one of the guys, it was the parents that got all upset.

do you know if the girl scouts have a similar policy?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

it seems that the girl scouts don't allow boys at all because apparently research shows that girls have special needs and interests that are best served in a program designed specificly for girls in an all girl setting. pfft

there is apparently also a organization called spiralscouts which is a pagan unisex alternative to boy scouts and girl scouts.

 

[mcknia07]

do you know if the girl scouts have a similar policy?

Actually, when I was in Girl Scouts, we had a boy that used to sit in on a lot of our meetings. We just considered him as a brother tho, so none of us cared.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I no longer associate with any synagog now that I have kids. My wife is not Jewish and it seems that no synagog will accept my children as Jewish unless they convert. As I am against such a conversion, they never went to Hebrew school. The point is that a Jewish woman married to a non-Jewish man would not have gone through this, their children would be considered Jewish without conversion.

By the way, I've been a girl scout ever since I was 13.

 

[Ghost803]

Whats the freaking point. Its all just a bunch of contrived rules and beliefs made up by people hundreds to thousands of years ago in ignorance.

The village my mom used to live in still believes that snakes have sentience and can "curse" people and you have to appease them with milk, lolz.

That was a bit offtopic, but yea Boy scouts, Gold clubs, and many other private institutions are legally permitted to do it and do in fact do it.


To Jimmy: Are jews matrilinial or matriarchial? I come from a matrilinial background and its kinda weird, even though they don't have direct power, they have much more influence than I have seen anywhere else.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

To Jimmy: Are jews matrilinial or matriarchial?

I'm not sure because this question is poorly worded. Traditionally, Jewish society is patrilineal and patriarchical. However, the children of a mixed marriage are considered differently based on the sex of the Jewish parent. This has no bearing if both parents are Jewish, one of them through conversion.

 

[Ghost803]

I don't know if the problem is if I didn't provide a definition for both. Matrilinial would mean that you trace family history through the mother's side,etc and matriarchal would mean that and that the women would be the head of the house hold.

I figured you guys were at the least linial seeing as how you said that if your mother wasn't a Jew that you wouldn't be a Jew. In the matrilinial society I have seen, the caste, the inheritence and family ties all go through the mother. So if your mother was a low caste woman and your dad a higher caste, you would still be the lower one. And all family inheritence passes on to the daughters.

Is the kid having to have a Jew mother just a weird quirk totally unrelated to any matrilinial tendencies?

 

[jambaugh]

I saw on a Sunday TV show 'The Big Questions' that the Church is the only institution that is still allowed to be sexist. Women are not allowed to be appointed as bishops. Surely the modernisation of religion is overdue in our secular society? I believe that the adoption of a total religious equality of women is the only way forward in healing the materialistic western way of life. A positive step in the right direction is desperately needed.

Go one step further... modernize your belief system and reject religion all together.

BTW What's wrong with the "materialistic" western way of life? It is the western culture which produced the concepts of individual civil liberties and equality.

 

[Mammo]

I don't understand the connection to materialism, but ignoring that for now, would you also recommend adoption of equal treatment for other groups of people as well, such as homosexuals, for instance?

The TV programme was in the UK and I was impressed by the passion of the woman who was making the point. My friends and I don't see the Church of England as being active and effective enough in changing the gradual erosion of family values and the decline of society in general. Historically, religion was essential in raising the behaviour of humans beyond the behaviour of our evolutionary past. I still believe religion has a role to play in transforming the modern world, it's just that it needs to modernise itself first.

Adoption of equal religious roles for homosexuals could be the next big change needed after the acceptance of women. BTW I've only just googled the subject and it seems that the Church is moving on this issue BBC News report Female Bishops, July 2008. The latest official press release Press Release, 29 December 2008

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't know if the problem is if I didn't provide a definition for both.

The problem is that Jews are individuals and therefore can't be patrilineal or matrilineal. It is society that can be one or the other.

Is the kid having to have a Jew(ish) mother just a weird quirk totally unrelated to any matrilinial tendencies?

Wierd quirk. The pop-culture reason you will often hear is that 'we always know who the mother is'. However, the real reason is that the Talmudists imposed the rule based on an ambiguous Biblical passage. Here I will quote the Bible, but I don't know if that is allowed in PF.

You shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son, for he will cause your child to turn away from Me and they will worship the gods of others.

In other words, don't let your children marry non-Jews. In the event of such a marriage, there is concern that the non-Jewish partner will cause the Jewish partner to abandon the religion. The Talmudists focused on the fact that 'he will cause' is stated, but not 'she will cause' in making the 'Jewishness follows the mother' rule. Although the Biblical passage is a rule concerning intermarriage, the Talmudists turned it into a law concerning the Jewishness of the children of such a marriage. Like we both said 'wierd'. Anyway, the logic of the argument was backwards.

 

[Gokul43201]

I suppose this is as good a time as any to mention separation of church and state. As I understand the history of that term and how it found its way to Thomas Jefferson's pen, the original intent of separation of church and state was to protect the church from the state.

The way I see it, this thread isn't specifically about getting the Government to impose restrictions on religion as more of a hypothetical discussion of what Religion could do to improve itself.

And if you ask me, I don't think Jefferson cared very much to protect organized religion from anything. He was more concerned about protecting the people from the discriminatory practices of a state endorsed religion. See, for instance, the Jefferson-Henry debates against/for using tax revenues to support the Church.

 

[Gokul43201]

The point is that a Jewish woman married to a non-Jewish man would not have gone through this, their children would be considered Jewish without conversion.

By the way, I've been a girl scout ever since I was 13.

What about a Jewish woman married to a non-Jewish woman? Did you present your Girl Scout credentials to your synagogue, while making your case?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What about a Jewish woman married to a non-Jewish woman?

The children are considered to be Shakers.

Did you present your Girl Scout credentials to your synagogue, while making your case?

No, my wife was there. I said girl scout, not Girl Scout.

 

[misgfool]

There was sign for the men "No open heads beyond this point". Only men could enter and only those wearing skull caps and barefoot, no shoes allowed either.

Lol. First time I read that "No open minds beyond this point".

 

[russ_watters]

I tried girl scouts and hated it, I decided to join my brother in boy scouts instead. One of the leaders quit because I was there, but the only rule was that my dad had to be there as a witness that nothing inappropriate happened. This was more to protect the leaders than me. Even boy scouts are not allowed to deny a lady her rights. The funny thing is, none of the boy scouts cared at all, I was just one of the guys, it was the parents that got all upset.

I'm surprised they let you in - if the national organization had found out, there might have been some problems because they were violating policy by including you. They get sued over this on a relatively regular basis (and they always win).

 

[FrancisZ]

I'd just like to say that I think this is a very interesting thread.


I'm a fairly devoted Catholic myself, even while I've found myself at odds with a lot of the traditions of the Church.

Two things though...


There are in fact a lot of homosexual persons within the Church itself. And they are as devout and reliable to their occupations as any other member. They don't get the recognition you might expect (obviously) regarding their sexuality; still in truth, they really aren't suppose to be about sexuality in general, never mind specific orientation. They are suppose to be "sexless," even as they are human and have those desires naturally.

Basically, a good priest or a nun, is doing the work that they are involved in, within the Church, because they know that if they committed to a serious relationship (one way or the other), it would eventually limit their availability to charitable causes.

As a husband or wife, we are called to be "there for THEM," so to speak, more than any other person in the world. At least ideally. But if you desire to basically take on the chores of one such as Mother Theresa: then you realize eventually that your work would only spoil a serious relationship.


Anyhow...in regard to the sexism of the Catholic Church. Yes, it most certainly exists; and that is wrong.

But the truth is that it only continues (I think anyway) because the sorts of people that join the Church tend to be somewhat passive about it.

How many nuns do you know would stage a protest? Outside of, possibly, right to life? It just isn't in their DNA.

The sort of people that become religious sisters are completely self-sacrificing. The take the vows of Chastity, Poverty, and Obedience. They don't care about themselves as much as they care about everyone else.

Truly they are unselfish people.

So if we honestly want change for the better in the Church (for the sake of our female friends at least), we cannot expect insiders to do anything. They like the way it is.

Change, in this case, has to come from the outside.


I'd like for once to see someone stand up for a nun.

 

[binzing]

*grumbles* Can't wait till religion fades away and dies out...

 

[arunma]

The way I see it, this thread isn't specifically about getting the Government to impose restrictions on religion as more of a hypothetical discussion of what Religion could do to improve itself.

Ah, I see. This matters quite a bit to what direction this discussion takes. But if this is a discussion about self-imposed changes by Religion, then we run into the fact that there's no such entity as "Religion." There are many different religions, and different organizations within each religious system. Still seems to me like no one is presenting a clearly defined problem and proposed solution.

And if you ask me, I don't think Jefferson cared very much to protect organized religion from anything. He was more concerned about protecting the people from the discriminatory practices of a state endorsed religion. See, for instance, the Jefferson-Henry debates against/for using tax revenues to support the Church.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I vaguely remember reading that the phrase "separation of church and state" came about when a Baptist church corporately wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson out of concern that a state religion might affect their freedom of religious practice. He wrote this phrase in his response, which suggests that the purpose (at least in his mind) was to protect churches and other religious institutions from the state. Of course the First Amendment was written by many people, so perhaps his intent was of limited importance.

 

[mgb_phys]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I vaguely remember reading that the phrase "separation of church and state" came about when a Baptist church corporately wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson out of concern that a state religion might affect their freedom of religious practice.

A more cynical view is that from European history an official religion often ends up being more powerful than the state - which is probably what Jefferson was concerned about rather than the rights of a particular group to stand-up/kneel-down in a certain order.

Like all constitutional things this simple principle has devolved into people arguing if a school team called St Whoever's can play little league on a city owned pitch.