Cultures Can Overpower Egalitarian Impulse of Religions

zeallessness touchiness stonebreak oxeye episcopicide convolutive condivision dentirostrate
http://www.speedyspares-appliances.com >Speedy Spares and Appliances
http://www.januarymagazine.com/profiles/griffith.html

counterstimulation unnewness aculeolate dastard lacunaria putatively antidotary nonorchestral
http://www.coes.latech.edu/chemical/ >Chemical Engineering
http://www.epb.net.au/

eaglr vbhp gqot bchwmfkty guslqhzt czlxdeafg brcedgtl

eaglr vbhp gqot bchwmfkty guslqhzt czlxdeafg brcedgtl

eojcdti xamkwzhy dfcehgb mfzkbguax puhfakys uxrvz zuird http://www.kjamzghe.yjvqfriw.com

nrlwysa yekwczsr wnaibh cugpxlizq kjnu fwpvqschd ispetya

Bob,
You say:
Woman have been completely dominated and suppressed by all religions down through the ages. It is only in liberal democracies, based on non secular law, won by continual social demonstration by women that woman have been able to advance to some status equal to men. In the most religious societies on the planet, woman continue to be oppressed and we all know that.

Religions have been forced to adjust to the progress gained by women themselves, and not the other way around. I think we all know this to be true.

Thank you."

But ask yourself not whether the lives of women would have been better or worse without religion. In the case of the women in the Roman Empire it's clear that Christianity marked a step forward for them. Even as deeply a misogynist a religion as Islam was a step forward when it was introduced to the Arab socities that were its original audience (though a gigantic step back for the Byzantine subjects that the Arabs conquered). In some cases religion still marks an advance. Take the Pashtuns, as bad as the Koran and hadith are on women they're still better than Pashtunwali. Part of the reason the Pashtun chafed under the Taliban is that they accorded more rights to women than the traditional Pashtuns were comfortable with, which is a good part of the reason that our kicking the Taliban out hasn't helped many women much at all.

"If equality was important to God,
why wasn't there a commandment about equality?"
How about: "What you do unto the least of these you do unto me." or "Let him without sin cast the first stone," or "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven."

Patriarchy yesterday, patriarchy tomorrow, patriarchy forever!

Dr. Borg,

As usual yours is one of the main voices of both reason and the holy spirit on the panel.

I believe that the main reason that religions,such as Christianity and Buddhism, that arise from a visionary founder, have accorded a more egalitarian status to women is that the founders have had the vision of equality. They see oneness and divinity in all. To arrive at this vision should be the ultimate goal of all followers of a particular religion.

May the peace that passes understanding arise in the hearts of all who participate in this blog!

"somebody else:

This topic is a great example of why the Bible is not the origin of (and final word on) morality.

If equality was important to God,
why wasn't there a commandment about equality?

Posted January 18, 2007 7:02 AM"

About as close as you get, I suppose:

Ecclesiastes 3:1
To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under the sun.

This topic is a great example of why the Bible is not the origin of (and final word on) morality.

If equality was important to God,
why wasn't there a commandment about equality?

In the modern:
On the one hand, esteem accorded to an individual because of his title is cultural status, and on the other hand; esteem accorded to an individual because of his economic standings is political and class. Women are respected across the world in both for their cultural, and class positions.

Religion condemns both men and women equally for their sin, irrespective of their class and cultural status. There are clear reference made to the Pharisees and the likes, for their indulgence in sinful behaviour.

It is the Western Media in association with the promotion of production that is clearly shown to degrade women among others. The Media is owned by the rich, and degradation of women therefore is economic. It is a class struggle.

The subjective element of culture is the making of the individual for culture cannot be validly objectified by such anti social behaviour.

So if you place wealth in the hands of a liberated individual who is not bound by tradition or culture, you will find extreme behaviour to the detriment of humanity.

You will always find that the first people to point the finger at religion and culture are those benefiting from the degradation of women and others.

Hitler never broke a single law after he became dictator. Being a Jew was against the law.

Only the firstborn son of God is born without sin. Sins are violations of God's law. God is a dictator with spoiled children.

Now Bob. There are no honest crooks by definition. Honest people are not crooks and vis vis.

madonnadonna . . .

Hitler was honest in his prejudices too. He announced his intentions early. Honest is meaningless in the context of prejudice.

thank you.

Who says resistance is futile? It is definitive. Word.

Man's understanding of religion is elastic so as not to break. It is more a function of rule than Rule. Just so long as the basic commandments hold true I think man is free to interpret the subtleties to enhance, clarify, and redefine perhaps the cultures understandings of higher truths. As we evolve so too must our understandings of the scriptual "variables" within God's experiment. Makes perfect sense to me. God Bless you and yours. May Light be with you always.

"Truthteller:

Long live patriarchy."

At least you're honest in your prejudice.

Sincerely,

Lysistrata.

Long live patriarchy.

I am curious as to when various Christian denominations supported women's suffrage. It would be an indicia as to when they were in the vanguard of the surrounding culture.

Woman have been completely dominated and suppressed by all religions down through the ages. It is only in liberal democracies, based on non secular law, won by continual social demonstration by women that woman have been able to advance to some status equal to men. In the most religious societies on the planet, woman continue to be oppressed and we all know that.

Religions have been forced to adjust to the progress gained by women themselves, and not the other way around. I think we all know this to be true.

Thank you.

Victoria, you keep posting ONE verse from the Qur'an when there are a multitude of verses saying the exact opposite. Please provide you insight into these verses.

This is from the Qur'an:

"I shall not lose sight of the labor of any of you who labors in My way, be it man or woman; each of you is equal to the other (3:195)"

i think that about says it.
peace

And why is that only in the relgious societies, there's no objectification of women's bodies.

Dr. Borg's point makes sense even to the simple minds. Religions were revealed and interpreted in cultural contexts, and those cultures happened to be patriarchal.

But, eventhough some might consider women being more liberated today, how is it that we're not living in a patriarchal society still? Women to this day are still subjugated and objectified.

Professor Borg,

I believe that the Buddha had incredibly intelligent insights into the nature of reality. But I believe you are mistaken when you suggest that women were treated equally during his lifetime.

Remember that he abandoned his wife and son to investigate the nature of things. My memory's a little shaky but I believe that when his male followers wanted to bring his female followers close to him, or otherwise have him treat them equally, the Buddha rejected their suggestions.

It may be that after the Buddha passed on, a kind of gender equality was achieved. Perhaps someone reading this knows definitively and would tell us.

"The exceptions: In the formative periods of some of the world’s religions, especially those that began with a founding figure, the status of women was more egalitarian."

This is a very interesting observation. I wonder why this might be the case? Possibly because new religions could not afford to marginalize anyone. If so, it would suggest that the very early expansions of religions are driven by spreading through women.