Modernisation of Religion to be Equal to Women

[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.

 

[Gokul43201]

So, how is it different with church?

There are no rules with the BBC saying a woman can not become the Chairman or the Director General. There are also no rules saying a woman will be in the good graces of the management if she is submissive to the men that work there and calls them her masters.

 

[BobG]

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.

Which church?

Roman Catholic Church - The church has taught that when the People of God, the membership of the church, prayerfully and devoutly reach a consensus on a topic, that this is also the will of God. Numerous surveys have indicated a near consensus in North America and much of Europe in favor of female ordination. However, this does not extend elsewhere in the world, where the feminist movement has not been as influential. Hence, no female ordination.

Anglican and Episcopal - Most North American and European provinces allow female ordination. Most Far East provinces don't allow female ordination, plus a few North American and European provinces don't. They don't have the same strong central control the Catholic Church does, so there's variation.

Eastern Orthodox - "This priesthood is Christ's, not ours...And if the bearer, the icon and the fulfiller of that unique priesthood, is man and not woman, it is because Christ is man and not woman." Pretty much a statement of gender discrimination that will not change - ever.

Presbyterian - We affirm the Good News of Christ’s Gospel contained in the Old and New Testaments, authoritative and ever judging of human cultures, and hence liberating of all peoples from cultures of submission and gender inequality.

Other protestant religions - Most liberal and mainline Christian denominations (e.g. Congregationalists, some Lutherans, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Church of Canada, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, etc.) ordain women and give them access to other positions of power.

A study by the Hartford Seminary, 5 commented upon by the Boston Globe, 6 has examined the Christian denominations which do ordain women. The study shows that the number of clergywomen in 15 large Protestant denominations has skyrocketed over the past two decades. For example, between 1977 and 1997, female clergy:

in the American Baptist Church has increased from 157 to 712;
in the Episcopal Churches in the USA has increased from 94 to 1,394;
in the United Methodist Church has gone from 319 to 3,003.

Unitarian - According to Time magazine, the liberal Unitarian Universalist Association, has the highest percentage of female clergy -- over 50%. (The UUA is regarded by many as a non-Protestant, non-Christian denomination.)

Southern Baptist (the conservative branch of the Baptist Church) - No absolute central control, but a strong recommendation. "There is no biblical precedent for a woman in the pastorate, and the Bible teaches that women should not teach in authority over men... Far less than one percent of churches cooperating with the Southern Baptist Convention have ever called a woman as pastor."

Debate continues:
An unknown Methodist minister in Charlotte, NC concluded that the root cause of the SBC prohibition against ordaining women could be traced back to Genesis where Eve is said to have brought sin into the world. The minister said, with tongue solidly in cheek:

"Men can be ordained because Adam blamed Eve; however, women can also be ordained because Eve blamed the serpent; But under no circumstances should we ordain snakes."

To which Bernie Cochran of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church said:
"Especially, I would add, since they speak Hebrew with a forked tongue and tend to lisp -- terribly."

- from female clergy

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catholic and Eastern Orthodox definitely discriminate by gender, although the Catholic church allows that they may change their policy some time in the future.

Protestant religions have a lot of variation in their policies with gender discrimination fading just as it is in other aspects of our culture.

To say "different story with the Church", you really have to be more specific. 23.9% of Americans are Catholic and would know exactly what you're talking about. 51.3% are Prostestant and may or may not know what you're talking about.

 

[BobG]

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.

I was a groundbreaker. I was in the group of boys that were the first to legally camp out at the local Girl Scout camp (Camp Ledgewood).

We were a co-ed Explorer Post, though, not a Girl Scout troop. The local Boy Scout camp wouldn't allow us to camp on their grounds because we had females. Even the Girl Scout camp only allowed us to camp there in the winter when camping out was a lot less popular.

 

[Gokul43201]

To say "different story with the Church", you really have to be more specific. 23.9% of Americans are Catholic and would know exactly what you're talking about. 51.3% are Prostestant and may or may not know what you're talking about.

The OP was talking about a BBC show, so I figured this was about the Catholic Church (if I recall correctly the CoE finally agreed to allow female Bishops only a few months ago - it was a big deal, and all over the news).

I sort of disagree with the link you posted on the position of the Southern Baptist Church. I am pretty sure they explicitly do not permit female ordainment. I remember this came up last year when they pulled all copies of a Christian magazine that carried pictures of 5 female pastors on its cover from all the bookstores that they owned.

Edit: Found it - http://www.christianpost.com/Ministries/Culture/2008/09/s-baptist-bookstores-pull-magazine-featuring-female-pastors-20/index.html

Over 100 Christian bookstores run by the Southern Baptist Convention have pulled from their shelves this month's issue of Gospel Today Magazine, which features a cover story about female pastors.
...
The Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's second largest Christian denomination, officially opposes females serving as pastors. In 2000, the denomination overwhelmingly adopted a revised statement of faith that said the pastoral role should be restricted to men.
...

 

[drankin]

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?

 

[arunma]

I sort of disagree with the link you posted on the position of the Southern Baptist Church. I am pretty sure they explicitly do not permit female ordainment. I remember this came up last year when they pulled all copies of a Christian magazine that carried pictures of 5 female pastors on its cover from all the bookstores that they owned.

The SBC actually used to have many female pastors. I think it was back in the 60s and 70s that they decided to return to orthodox Biblical doctrine, and began removing theologically liberal seminary professors and pastors, including the female pastors. I don't know if there are any remnants, but probably not.

 

[Proton Soup]

The SBC actually used to have many female pastors. I think it was back in the 60s and 70s that they decided to return to orthodox Biblical doctrine, and began removing theologically liberal seminary professors and pastors, including the female pastors. I don't know if there are any remnants, but probably not.

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.

 

[TVP45]

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?

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.

 

[Proton Soup]

Which church?

hey now, don't forget muslims and jews. they're as deserving of our meddling as the rest.

 

[BobG]

The SBC actually used to have many female pastors. I think it was back in the 60s and 70s that they decided to return to orthodox Biblical doctrine, and began removing theologically liberal seminary professors and pastors, including the female pastors. I don't know if there are any remnants, but probably not.

Of course there are. Well under 1% is not 0%. I think the non-zero percentage is more reflective of the hierarchy of the SBC; not their policy on gender equality. In other words, the SBC can very strongly recommend individual churches take certain positions, but they don't have absolute control.

Edit: In other words, I don't think Gokul really disagreed with what I meant. I just think my trying to be technically accurate made the situation seem more cloudy than it was.

 

[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)