Modernisation of Religion to be Equal to Women

[Gokul43201]

First of all, I don't know of any churches that exclude women.

The Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Southern Baptist Churches do not ordain women. That accounts for about 30% of all US Christians and about 80% of the World's Christians [1,2].

It would be interesting to learn how the other churches interpret the following verses of the book in a manner that allows female ordainment:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

Perhaps someday, I will find someone who explains this to me.

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.

This (the willingness of the women to be subject to a specific action), by itself, does not justify the action. To cite an extreme example of this, a large fraction (possibly a majority, even) of women in the most repressed parts of the ME/N. Africa support the practice of female genital mutilation. There was a news story a few months ago, about a group of Saudi doctors going about the country, trying to educate women on the health effects of FGM in an attempt to reduce the prevalence of this attitude. To cite another example, polygamists often use this same defense: that the women that enter into polygamous relationships are happy to do so.

Well, you don't really have much choice but to be happy, do you ... if that is what your God demands of you?

Does anyone know who is said to sit at the left hand of God?

I don't. I can't remember coming across anything about this from my readings of the Bible. The right hand, yes; but not the left.

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.

Speaking from a purely practical point of view, it would seem like not a great idea to revile the person chosen by G to bear his son. And continuing to speak from a practical point of view, being born of a man would be a little extreme, and the virgin birth was not an uncommon idea among other religions at the time.

The point being that there is a difference between having defined roles, and having value.

Speaking of which, I've also wondered about the following passages that speak to the relative values of men and women:

And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above, if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female, ten shekels" (Leviticus 27:1-7)

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days. (Leviticus 12:1-5)

Perhaps I'll find a patient person to explain these things to me sometime.

1. See post #62
2. http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/1/20/no-female-bishops-for-proposed-new-province

 

[Moridin]

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

Does not seem to be a problem is said person is forced to present evidence to justify his proposed legislation?

 

[BobG]

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

Does not seem to be a problem is said person is forced to present evidence to justify his proposed legislation?

You have a lot more faith in government than I do if you want to trust it to start legislating truth. Only two weeks have passed and you've flushed every memory of the past administration from your head? Finding evidence for weapons of WMD, finding legal opinions supporting abuse of detainees, warrantless surveillance. An "effective" leader can find evidence for any policy he desires to follow.

For that matter, that administration was making some progress in eliminating scientists in government agencies when their conclusions didn't match what the administration had hoped to get.

 

[BobG]

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.

Once again, someone is applying the beliefs of one Christian religion and applying it across all Christian religions. Adding too many mortals to some superholy status was one of the reasons the Christian religion split. Ironically, the religion that gives Mary the most status is one that doesn't ordain women (at least at this time).

However, I agree with the rest of your post. I don't buy the argument that women in these religions were forced to accept that role or brainwashed into accepting that role. Aside from a few extreme groups that isolate their members from mainstream culture, it would be hard to prevent church members from obtaining enough information to make their own decisions about life.

 

[BobG]

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.

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.

I wouldn't dare put words in your mouth, but you see no conflict there?

 

[Gokul43201]

However, I agree with the rest of your post. I don't buy the argument that women in these religions were forced to accept that role or brainwashed into accepting that role.

What role, specifically?

Aside from a few extreme groups that isolate their members from mainstream culture, it would be hard to prevent church members from obtaining enough information to make their own decisions about life.

No need to isolate anyone when nearly 80% of the population follows your Religion, in one form or another. Heck, isolation may be a good idea in some cases. =(

 

[Proton Soup]

i'll give some opinions, and some things i'll just ignore, lest some mod throw a hissy fit and lock it. but overall, i'd like to say i have a fairly non-traditional viewpoint on some of these things, and think that much of the old law is practical and based on protecting people from physical harm/disease (eating pork, etc.).

The Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Southern Baptist Churches do not ordain women. That accounts for about 30% of all US Christians and about 80% of the World's Christians [1,2].

It would be interesting to learn how the other churches interpret the following verses of the book in a manner that allows female ordainment:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

Perhaps someday, I will find someone who explains this to me.

read genesis and the curse on Eve

This (the willingness of the women to be subject to a specific action), by itself, does not justify the action. To cite an extreme example of this, a large fraction (possibly a majority, even) of women in the most repressed parts of the ME/N. Africa support the practice of female genital mutilation. There was a news story a few months ago, about a group of Saudi doctors going about the country, trying to educate women on the health effects of FGM in an attempt to reduce the prevalence of this attitude. To cite another example, polygamists often use this same defense: that the women that enter into polygamous relationships are happy to do so.

FGM is an odd practice. for the most part, it seems to be a way of assuring virginity. pharaonic circumcision is like tamper-proof packaging, and a broken seal can be found with a simple inspection.

however, it seems that a woman can get her virginity back and marry again after a second procedure, which renders much of the practice moot.

Well, you don't really have much choice but to be happy, do you ... if that is what your God demands of you?

I don't. I can't remember coming across anything about this from my readings of the Bible. The right hand, yes; but not the left.

Speaking from a purely practical point of view, it would seem like not a great idea to revile the person chosen by G to bear his son. And continuing to speak from a practical point of view, being born of a man would be a little extreme, and the virgin birth was not an duncommon idea among other religions at the time.

Speaking of which, I've also wondered about the following passages that speak to the relative values of men and women:

And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above, if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female, ten shekels" (Leviticus 27:1-7)

probably relates to the relative earning potential of males vs. females.

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days. (Leviticus 12:1-5)

i suspect this is mostly about protecting the woman and telling her husband he can't have sex with her until she recovers from giving birth. males are bigger and warrant a longer recovery time. adding spiritual and ritualistic aspects to the law makes it more likely that people will actually adhere to it.

Perhaps I'll find a patient person to explain these things to me sometime.

1. See post #62
2. http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/1/20/no-female-bishops-for-proposed-new-province

 

[TVP45]

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.

I'm not sure what prior rights you refer to. The US government is based on the US Constitution which acknowledges that citizens have unenumerated rights, but does not give them any philosophical or religious bases. We can easily trace our thread of rights from Runnymede to the Long Parliament to the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom to the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution to the Civil War and see little mention of prior rights save those "inalienable rights" Mr. Jefferson referred to. How do you see Hobbes as a religious figure?

 

[TVP45]

I wouldn't dare put words in your mouth, but you see no conflict there?

I do not. There is a clear divide between freedom of belief and freedom of action (establishment). That has been fairly clear throughout the Republic's history. For example, I have no problem at all if Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints want polygamy; at best that has only a slight impact on me and certainly seems like it doesn't clash with any of my rights. Now, if they want to force thirteen year old girls to be their wives, that does impact my rights (I believe in the original basis of "crimes against the crown"), and I would oppose that as strongly as I can. Along that vein, should they seek to influence public attitudes or law concerning sex with minors, I feel perfectly justified in contesting every action, every word, and every belief of theirs.

 

[Proton Soup]

I do not. There is a clear divide between freedom of belief and freedom of action (establishment). That has been fairly clear throughout the Republic's history. For example, I have no problem at all if Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints want polygamy; at best that has only a slight impact on me and certainly seems like it doesn't clash with any of my rights. Now, if they want to force thirteen year old girls to be their wives, that does impact my rights (I believe in the original basis of "crimes against the crown"), and I would oppose that as strongly as I can. Along that vein, should they seek to influence public attitudes or law concerning sex with minors, I feel perfectly justified in contesting every action, every word, and every belief of theirs.

at what age do you suppose one would marry when this republic was formed?

 

[TVP45]

at what age do you suppose one would marry when this republic was formed?

In Virginia, I don't suppose, I know. Twenty-one. With parental permission, and following examination by the Clerk of Courts to determine there was no coercion, sixteen to twenty. I don't know about other states and I rarely guess.

 

[Proton Soup]

In Virginia, I don't suppose, I know. Twenty-one. With parental permission, and following examination by the Clerk of Courts to determine there was no coercion, sixteen to twenty. I don't know about other states and I rarely guess.

so you agree that this attitude that a minor should not marry is a recent one?

 

[Moridin]

You have a lot more faith in government than I do if you want to trust it to start legislating truth. Only two weeks have passed and you've flushed every memory of the past administration from your head? Finding evidence for weapons of WMD, finding legal opinions supporting abuse of detainees, warrantless surveillance. An "effective" leader can find evidence for any policy he desires to follow.

For that matter, that administration was making some progress in eliminating scientists in government agencies when their conclusions didn't match what the administration had hoped to get.

I am personally a free market anarchist in principle so i don't actually trust the government per say and isn't the government already legalizing truth with Holocaust denial and creationism, for instance?

 

[Moridin]

I'm not sure what prior rights you refer to. The US government is based on the US Constitution which acknowledges that citizens have unenumerated rights, but does not give them any philosophical or religious bases. We can easily trace our thread of rights from Runnymede to the Long Parliament to the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom to the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution to the Civil War and see little mention of prior rights save those "inalienable rights" Mr. Jefferson referred to. How do you see Hobbes as a religious figure?

Also, I doubt that you can have any rights before you exist.

 

[NeoDevin]

I am personally a free market anarchist in principle so i don't actually trust the government per say and isn't the government already legalizing truth with Holocaust denial and creationism, for instance?

Holocaust denial is (usually) hate speech. The government does not currently regulate the teaching of creationism to children, or have a position on it's truth. What the government does have a position on is it's teaching as science, in publicly funded schools.

 

[Moridin]

Holocaust denial is (usually) hate speech. The government does not currently regulate the teaching of creationism to children, or have a position on it's truth. What the government does have a position on is it's teaching as science, in publicly funded schools.

Is it not simply that we label statements that are so incredibly incorrect as hate speech, such as Holocaust denial or saying that white people are intrinsically superior than white people, as hate speech? Well, if local school boards are an extension of the state (?), then any decision regarding the teaching of creationism in one form of another as truth must be seen as an extension of the state?

 

[BobG]

i'll give some opinions, and some things i'll just ignore, lest some mod throw a hissy fit and lock it. but overall, i'd like to say i have a fairly non-traditional viewpoint on some of these things, and think that much of the old law is practical and based on protecting people from physical harm/disease (eating pork, etc.).

I agree with Proton Soup on this one. A good, solid culture interlocks different facets of its cultural life together to increase the strength of its overall fabric. So, yes, religion is filled with lots of "good ideas" that make that particular society function better in addition to some core beliefs that can't be broken.

Considering how old most of the books in the Bible are, that makes most literal interpretations slightly irrelevant for most Christians. In fact, only 33% of religious Americans take a literal interpretation, with Evangelicals, historically black churches, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Muslims having the highest percentage of folks believing in a literal interpretation of their major religious text. Evangelical's ability to accumulate some political clout makes that minority seem a lot larger and louder.

http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#

Interestingly, while 33% believe in taking a literal interpretation, only 27% believe there's only one way to interpret their religious teachings. (This sounds like a court hearing I was at recently. We reached an agreement just prior to the hearing and it only required my lawyer to recite the agreement in court, get verbal approval from both parties, and the agreement was official. Now, we're trying to figure out just what he said so we can all figure out just what we agreed to. It's a little like figuring out just what those words in the 2nd Amendment mean. What a mess!)

 

[rootX]

I am reading about few religions from historical perspective. Religions were essential to the people those times (maybe as important as the scientific development).

Here's my interpretation of religions:

To wear robes and speak about God but think selfish is not a religious act. On the other hand, a politician or a lawyer with a real concern for humankind for humankind who takes actions that benefit others is truly practicing religion

- Dalai Lama

 

[TVP45]

so you agree that this attitude that a minor should not marry is a recent one?

This is turning into a tangent off the original question, so I'll try to turn it back. No, I don't agree that the attitude is recent.

In colonial times, English common law was still very important. Fathers could sell their children and could force their daughters into marriages as early as ten (or twelve, this is not clear for all jurisdictions) and, in some locales, husbands could sell their unwanted wives. Early laws seemed to place a greater emphasis on the hymen than on the girl's age. Codified law generally sought to limit or eliminate these practices. Thus, rational society imposed it's views on women's rights on the long held prejudices. This had the effect of dictating to churches whom they could marry or not.

It's worth noting, I think, that religions where women enjoy relatively equal status - Unitarian, Reformed Jewish, Lutheran, Methodist, Disciples of Christ, and Presbyterian - rarely seek to force non-believers to accept their beliefs and values. This doesn't mean that churches which oppress women necessarily try to force their beliefs on others, but at least some do.

 

[Proton Soup]

This is turning into a tangent off the original question, so I'll try to turn it back. No, I don't agree that the attitude is recent.

In colonial times, English common law was still very important. Fathers could sell their children and could force their daughters into marriages as early as ten (or twelve, this is not clear for all jurisdictions) and, in some locales, husbands could sell their unwanted wives. Early laws seemed to place a greater emphasis on the hymen than on the girl's age. Codified law generally sought to limit or eliminate these practices. Thus, rational society imposed it's views on women's rights on the long held prejudices. This had the effect of dictating to churches whom they could marry or not.

It's worth noting, I think, that religions where women enjoy relatively equal status - Unitarian, Reformed Jewish, Lutheran, Methodist, Disciples of Christ, and Presbyterian - rarely seek to force non-believers to accept their beliefs and values. This doesn't mean that churches which oppress women necessarily try to force their beliefs on others, but at least some do.

i don't think it's a tangent. the thread was started as an attack on churches because of their attitudes towards women. and you're expressing a negative view against a certain sect because of older traditions they have held onto. now, 13 is a little low, i would agree. but oddly enough, with parental consent, it is still legal in two of the old colonies.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage

take note that this is Massachusetts and New Hampshire. and a couple more states have no age limit.

now, just eyeballing it, it appears to be that 16 is the agreed-upon age. a minor. so, why suddenly is 18 so important? i think it is because our society has become obsessed with higher education and financial security in the past few decades. the underlying motivations here revolve around finance and reducing birth rate, but the expression of this motivation comes out as some kind of outrage against sexual immorality.

 

[The Dagda]

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.

Hospitals for example, women tend to be fussy about who they'll let see them naked, and so can men for that matter.

The Anglican church has female vicars, it was long overdue IMO, they tried to give a gay priest the Bishopry, but the African and American Anglicans kicked up a stink. There are lesbian vicars now too. The key is if you want to make it in the Anglican church don't be overtly gay. The Arch Bishop has long been an advocate of both homosexual and women priests, but now he's in the top spot he has to be more diplomatic.

If you ask me personally the institution being male is little more than an example of masogynism by the church, but then dogma and social prejudice is hard to shift. I mean 20th century before we had universal suffrage? Are you pulling my plonker.

Interesting factoid, in the New testament it is forbidden for women to speak in church and for them to uncover there hair full stop. Surprisingly we don't hear too much about that these days, as ever the church is always if nothing else willing to cherry pick.

 

[turbo]

now, just eyeballing it, it appears to be that 16 is the agreed-upon age. a minor. so, why suddenly is 18 so important? i think it is because our society has become obsessed with higher education and financial security in the past few decades. the underlying motivations here revolve around finance and reducing birth rate, but the expression of this motivation comes out as some kind of outrage against sexual immorality.

Those of a certain age (me, for one) know that 18 gained extra significance in the '60s. It was argued that if you're old enough to be drafted and get shot at in 'Nam, you're old enough to drink, old enough to vote, and old enough to be treated as an adult in other ways.

 

[turbo]

Interesting factoid, in the New testament it is forbidden for women to speak in church and for them to uncover there hair full stop. Surprisingly we don't hear too much about that these days, as ever the church is always if nothing else willing to cherry pick.

When I was a kid, it was verboten for females to attend (Roman Catholic) church services with uncovered hair.

 

[ndnkyd]

Im joining late onto the thread, but I will comment on the original thread. Look in the Bible, First book of Timothy, God's law is plainly stated what is expected in the hierarchy of the Church.

 

[The Dagda]

When I was a kid, it was verboten for females to attend (Roman Catholic) church services with uncovered hair.

Catholics eh?

I personally don't care what it says in The Bible, I think text is dead, and that morality evolves. Me I'd rather stick with Jesus teachings if any, at least they are consistent. This whole after the fact thing smacks of interpretation according to context. Not that I believe, but let's face it Jesus did have a point even if most so called Christians set about to soon ignore it.

 

[ndnkyd]

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.

 

[BobG]

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.

You're among the 24% of Christians that feel that way.

Or, I guess from your point of view, among the 100% of Christians that feel that way.

 

[mgb_phys]

If you don't believe The Bible is the Everlasting Word of God, you cannot consider yourself a Christian,

Of course you have to pick which Bible - I have always tried to live by the one published in London by the royal printers in 1631

 

[ndnkyd]

are you referring to the King James Version?

 

[mgb_phys]

are you referring to the King James Version?

Not quite, it was one printed for King Charles I but had a slight typo.

 

[ndnkyd]

I bet the countrymen were excited until that version was discarded.

 

[Gokul43201]

ndnkyd: (I know this is a little off-topic, but I request a little lenience here) What is your opinion of Mosques that fund and train terrorists and suicide bombers? Would you agree with me if I said they were acting for the greater good?

 

[ndnkyd]

Very good question and you could probably start a new thread because of the complications this question poses. The situation, as described, I will say as a short answer NO.

As I think about the question, I can't help to ask 1) What country/religion is engaging in this activity and 2) who are calling them supporters of terror?

 

[Gokul43201]

Very good question and you could probably start a new thread because of the complications this question poses. The situation, as described, I will say as a short answer NO.

As I think about the question, I can't help to ask 1) What country/religion is engaging in this activity and 2) who are calling them supporters of terror?

You don't believe that mosques should proliferate terrorism, but isn't your opinion completely null? Or do you believe that the Quran is the Everlasting Word of God?

 

[ndnkyd]

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