Modernisation of Religion to be Equal to Women

[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.

 

[Vanadium 50]

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

And if I were to say that I can't wait until atheism fades away and dies out, how would you feel? I think one needs to take some care when discussing a touchy area like religion to insure that all participants feel comfortable.

 

[Moridin]

And if I were to say that I can't wait until atheism fades away and dies out, how would you feel? I think one needs to take some care when discussing a touchy area like religion to insure that all participants feel comfortable.

Atheism is not some sort of counterpart to religion. Many deeply religious people are atheists and many theists reject organized religion, so I assume the person you are quoting prefers that their belief system also dies out. Naturally, your feelings are completely understandable. If I was a religious fanatic, and I am not claiming you are, I would look upon science and reason as dangerous enemies and see them as a terrible threat towards everything I hold dear.

"Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets."

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but -- more frequently than not -- struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."

"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."

- Martin Luther

I also think you are confusing, as many people do, respect for people and the content of opinions (bad), with respect for the rights of people to express their opinions (good). Respecting people and the content of their opinions is actually horribly disrespectful, because it shows that one do not value their honesty and integrity enough to simply evaluate their claims and let them know what one has concluded.

 

[BobG]

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.

Society has no say over the rules of an organization that is entirely voluntary. If people don't like the way that religion works, then they can find another religion more appealing to them.

They could become Unitarians, for example. Not exactly a modern religion, since John Adams was a Unitarian, but it doesn't discriminate against women or homosexuals, for that matter.

If a religion isn't keeping itself relevant to the world it exists in, then it will pretty much fade away naturally as its membership dwindles. That's something for that religion to worry about without pressure from the outside world (barring a few exceptions such as child abuse, human sacrifice, etc).

 

[BobG]

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.

I think you're right about Thomas Jefferson, personally. Episcopalian (which basically came from Anglican, the state church of England) was the state church of Virginia. That's why every single one of the founding fathers from Virginia were Episcopalian regardless of their personal beliefs. Jefferson, and quite a few others, were as willing to rebel against England's church as they were against England's government.

The practical reason you had separation of church and state is that the different colonies had different state churches and some colonies had separation of church and state with no favored religion. If you tried to institute a national religion, you wouldn't have had a United States, since the colonies never would have agreed on which religion should be the national religion. And, by the way, the separation of church and state only applied to the federal government in the beginning. Several states continued to have state religions for quite a while. The usual reason for abolishing a state religion was because the majority of the state no longer belonged to that religion. As people voted with their feet, the government eventually followed.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Many deeply religious people are atheists

Huh? Can you give an example? I can't think of anyone who would claim to be both.

If I was a religious fanatic, and I am not claiming you are, I would look upon science and reason as dangerous enemies and see them as a terrible threat towards everything I hold dear.

Well, I am a religious person, but I don't consider myself a "religious fanatic". I also reject the notion that the former implies the latter. I also don't look upon "science and reason as dangerous enemies", and indeed I am a professional physicist whom some might regard as successful.

 

[mcknia07]

Many deeply religious people are atheists

That seems to be an oxymoron right there. How can one be religious and be atheist at the same time? Please give an example to suppost what you just said.

 

[Gokul43201]

Huh? Can you give an example? I can't think of anyone who would claim to be both.

No Buddhist friends?

 

[binzing]

And if I were to say that I can't wait until atheism fades away and dies out, how would you feel? I think one needs to take some care when discussing a touchy area like religion to insure that all participants feel comfortable.

I didn't mean it in that way, but really if you look at it, religions cause a lot of sexism, etc, that would not otherwise exist.

 

[binzing]

I don't plan on going any further with it.

 

[arunma]

Huh? Can you give an example? I can't think of anyone who would claim to be both.

I know that there are many Jews who practice their religion rather fervently, but who don't believe in God. I thought it was weird at first too. And then there's Buddhism, which is a non-theistic religion (you'll find both theists and atheists here). He might be referring to one of these groups.

Well, I am a religious person, but I don't consider myself a "religious fanatic". I also reject the notion that the former implies the latter. I also don't look upon "science and reason as dangerous enemies", and indeed I am a professional physicist whom some might regard as successful.

Some people in my department refer to me as a religious fanatic, since I believe in God, am active in a church, etc. And who knows, maybe they're right? But I too am a physicist (not successful yet, since I'm still working on my PhD), so obviously I'm fully in favor of science and reason. I'm not sure why many people, even in popular media, pit religion against science and reason. I've met stupid people who were religious, as well as who were atheists, and I don't see much of a correlation.

 

[mgb_phys]

Many deeply religious people are atheists

it's a typo - many deeply religious people are athorists - they don't believe in the Norse god of thunder

 

[Proton Soup]

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.

do you think maybe there should also be government quotas on the number of male and female comedians allowed, or do you think maybe there are fewer females here because women just aren't that funny?

 

[arunma]

do you think maybe there should also be government quotas on the number of male and female comedians allowed, or do you think maybe there are fewer females here because women just aren't that funny?

And this should bring to mind the fact that physics is also heavily male-dominated. Should we have gender quotas too?

 

[turbo]

In my Freshman class in Engineering, there were 5 females and 300 males.

 

[mgb_phys]

It's not quite the same as saying there can't be any women comedians or physicists because God says so.

Depending on the country and the status of the church it could be an issue, if for instance the church receives state funding.
There has been an attempt at a challenge in the UK against the law that prevents a catholic marrying anyone in line to the throne - since the UK signed the European human rights act which stops religious discrimination in law.

 

[TVP45]

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.

Not exactly. The Virginia Statue for Religous Freedom was written to disestablish the Anglican Church. Much of the actual effect of this had already been accomplished by the Revolution as the Church Wardens who had formed the county government had become Justices (Magistrates) who formed the county government. And, many ministers were ordained by both the Anglican Church and another (perhaps Baptist or Lutheran) and could already perform the Sacraments. The main beneficiaries of the Statute were Quakers and Mennonites (and the half dozen or so Jews and Muslims that somehow had managed to immigrate into Virginia). The Anglican Church lost it's mandatory income, but was no longer responsible for the poorhouse and the support of widows and the insane and such.

 

[Proton Soup]

It's not quite the same as saying there can't be any women comedians or physicists because God says so.

Depending on the country and the status of the church it could be an issue, if for instance the church receives state funding.
There has been an attempt at a challenge in the UK against the law that prevents a catholic marrying anyone in line to the throne - since the UK signed the European human rights act which stops religious discrimination in law.

if you want funding to be the deciderer, then note that in UK, gov't controls broadcasting, which provides a stage for comedians to ply their craft. so it's simply a matter of fair labour to ensure that both genders are represented equally here. i suspect the government also funds a good share of the physicists and mathematicians. if you don't take action, then you're just letting the religionists win by catering to the biases they've inflicted upon society, no?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

if you want funding to be the deciderer, then note that in UK, gov't controls broadcasting, which provides a stage for comedians to ply their craft. so it's simply a matter of fair labour to ensure that both genders are represented equally here. i suspect the government also funds a good share of the physicists and mathematicians. if you don't take action, then you're just letting the religionists win by catering to the biases they've inflicted upon society, no?

I would think that the origins of traditional male/female roles predate religion. It probably has a lot more to do with muscle mass... not to mention mammary glands, etc.

 

[Gokul43201]

if you want funding to be the deciderer, then note that in UK, gov't controls broadcasting, which provides a stage for comedians to ply their craft. so it's simply a matter of fair labour to ensure that both genders are represented equally here.

Women have all the rights that men do as far as performing on the BBC is concerned. There is no discrimination involved there.

Different story with the Church.

 

[Proton Soup]

Women have all the rights that men do as far as performing on the BBC is concerned. There is no discrimination involved there.

Different story with the Church.

oh, yes, i completely forgot that women are forced to go to church.

 

[Proton Soup]

I would think that the origins of traditional male/female roles predate religion. It probably has a lot more to do with muscle mass... not to mention mammary glands, etc.

good heavens, let's not drag science into this

 

[mcknia07]

Women have all the rights that men do as far as performing on the BBC is concerned. There is no discrimination involved there.

Different story with the Church.

So, how is it different with church?

 

[Moridin]

Huh? Can you give an example? I can't think of anyone who would claim to be both.

Well, I am a religious person, but I don't consider myself a "religious fanatic". I also reject the notion that the former implies the latter. I also don't look upon "science and reason as dangerous enemies", and indeed I am a professional physicist whom some might regard as successful.

Any of the 500 million Buddhists in the world will do as an example. The current Dalai Lama is a prime example.

It may very well be the case that you are a brilliant physicist that has made important contributions to your field(s) of study, but every time you perform a measurement or experiment, you must presuppose that no supernatural entities are secretly altering the facts of reality, your equipment or their results because if they where, all of your work would of course be entirely meaningless and arbitrary because you could not be sure if you are actually seeing how things really are. Science presupposes the uniformity of nature (among other things), and if we allow the possibility of supernatural entities with the ability to secretly alter the facts of reality, the uniformity of nature does not obtain and science as we know it is impossible. With the very large progress science has shown during the last centuries, it is becoming increasingly less likely that the uniformity of nature does not obtain.

 

[Moridin]

good heavens, let's not drag science into this

I think it is a very interesting field of study and I agree. According to some, there is a very fascinating background story about the size of male and female germ cells.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Moridin, snark doesn't become you.