Modernisation of Religion to be Equal to Women

[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.

 

[TVP45]

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

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

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

 

[Gokul43201]

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

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

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

 

[Evo]

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

 

[The Dagda]

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

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

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

 

[rootX]

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

Societies change so should the religions.

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

 

[TVP45]

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

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

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

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

 

[Proton Soup]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Office_Shredder]

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

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

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

 

[TVP45]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[TVP45]

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



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



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

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

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

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