Religion and Women: Chains That Still Bind

Cry4turtles:
You will read this merde again and again from Victoria and the ever-name-changing Anon. Stoning adultresses is OK because it disincentivizes the breakdown of families; terrorism is understandable and defensible because Bush & Blair drop bombs on innocent Muslims, forcing women to wear the burkha is OK because it prevents them from being sexually objectified, killing over cartoons is understandable because they blasphemed against the prophet, anyone who criticizes Islam is either ignorant or islamophobic, after all, Islam is the religion of peace (here are a couple of snippets from the Koran or Hadith to prove it) and muslims are actually the victims of a terrible backlash in the aftermath of 9-11.

Just as there are stages of moral development that individuals progress through (see Kohlberg), there are also stages of moral development in cultures. The West has progressed in its moral reasoning (though not always its moral behavior) since the 16th century, but much of the Islamic world has not. I am persuaded that many modern Muslims sense this, but are loathe to admit it. My fear is that we in the west will remain wrapped up in our cultural relativistic paralysis while Islam attacks the world's freedoms from without, and the religious right attacks American's freedoms from within. Every convert to their ranks weakens the role of reason in society, and in so doing, erodes personal and cultural moral development.

Cold-blooded murder is wrong, no matter what culture one hails from. There's a rationale for stoning adulteresses? Please tell me it's a sick joke. You folks may try and spin your barbaric religion all you want, it's still a cancer on humanity. I find it difficult that an American woman would choose to practice Islamofacism. Are you daft? Ouvrir les yeux!

TONIO- i came back from california to pittsburgh in the middle of the winter once- it was freezing cold and i had started managing a vegetarian restaurant-
i went to work one day and was wearing the only coat i had access to- given to me by my brother- it was a mink. there happened to be a PETA meeting going on there- they let them use the space before we opened-
i will state they were anything but cuddly- and were just as capable of outrageous judgementalism and imposition of their particular viewpoint as any crazed evangelical-
it isnt really a matter of their isms- but the judgement or fairness with which we respect others rights to be in control of their own thoughts.

self-righteousness and smugness in it can come from any quarter-

for the record- im anti-fur- and only wore the coat until i could get another as quickly as possible-
also my brother tried to give me his 10,000 dollar mionk before he died- when i refused it (and i was broke) he got tears in his eyes that my convictios couldnt be bought- those tears are worth 1000s and 1000s to me-

condemnation of others for religious or whatever reasons are something we should all agree is unfair-

salaams

i have heard tis said before cry4turtles- that it wasnt always a patriarchal world- now i know the legend of rhiannon and the matriarchal system that was taken over when men found out they were fathers and started drawing up lines of territories and started wars- but this is just a fable-
are you telling me that there was some golden age in the past where there was no war?

where would the remnantsof this be?

and what would we all do without men?

i have lived with large groups of nothing but women and i can tell you from personal experience that women can be just as aggressive as men- if not more so-more tenacious-
im not being funny- it just stretches credulity- and if there were these societies were they killed off by war?
and wouldnt that indicate some kind of naivte or lack of wisdom on their part?

I know several moderately religious families. It seems to me that in these cases it is the sense of community that keeps them loyal. They are always telling me what they do in the church or with the church people or (most tellingly I think, FOR the church people or for charity). They never seem to think about religion--it is just there, a part of their lives. They are secure in this community. I think this is a huge reason why women seem to be more religious than men.

cry4turtles- it is proibitive deterrant to adultery which rips apart the most basic nuleus of society- the family-

BUT
BUT
BUT
before you get upset-
you must have 4WITNESSES THAT HAVE WITNESSES THE ACTUAL ACT OF INTERCOURSE- 4

can you think of a time when there are 4 witnesses to any such act ususally performed in private?

do you get that?
there must be 4 separate witnesses who have seen the act itslef- not 2 people lying naked together- but in the physical act-

how great are the chances that such a precondition can exist?

and if 3 witnesses come and say they witnessed such an act you know what happens?

they themselves are flogged-
there must be 4 and if you think that you can find 4 muslims that will swear to ALLAH a lie- you are not aware of the impact of swearing to ALLAH from a muslim view-

islam ismuch deeper- much fairer than you can imagine-

"You will realize the rationale behind certain things, such as the reason behind the stoning of adultresses."

You, sir, are mad.

Phaedrus,
I am not apologizing for anything since I have no need to. As you are well aware, the media of the US likes to sensationalize certain events in order to serve the agenda of a select few. Certain events which occur in the "Islamic World" are made to seem as if it's the norm rather than not. There are many evil acts which are committed in this country on a daily basis, yet you can't say that all Christians are rapists, murderers, thieves, child-killers (abortion), etc. Mankind was created weak and is capable of doing evil deeds and in addition there is ignorance amongst all people such as the ignorance people have in America in relation to the religion of Islam and other ignorances(due to the media's propagation of lies). I would really appreciate if you and everyone would do thorough research before saying something. I would suggest picking up a translation of the Quran and looking through the hadith (sayings, teachings) of the Prophet Muhammad. You will realize the rationale behind certain things, such as the reason behind the stoning of adultresses. You can look all around you today and find that the moral fabric of this society (America) is degrading due to people commiting adultery which leads to families with single-mothers which creates further problems for society as these children grow up without a father. Adultery also leads to other crimes such as abortion (killing of babies), murders (spouses killing the other spouse for adultery), etc. These are just some of the bad effects of adultery and off-course Allah (God) knows best the reasons behind prohibiting adultery since He is the All-Knowing. So please do your research.
Thank you.

Tonio, I think you'll find answers about the evolution of patriarchy in a book called "The Chalice and the Blade" by Raine Eisler. Hint--society wasn't always male-dominent.

Tonio says, "Because the religious controllers claim to have orders from deity. They claim that people who oppose their agenda are evil and worthless and deserving of death."

Spare us the overwrought caricatures. They lend nothing to your argument.

PG, You remind of the arrogant intellectuals I know {although I won't accuse you of intelligence}.

Me Again, you take that verse out of context! After all then would not the Church be able to ban death and suffering? She cannot because God has not given that kind of authority. The loosing and binding has to do with governing itself and interpreting scripture and morals infallibly.

To my Mormon friends who believe in the bible, what did Jesus say to Peter. oh yea, upon this rock I will build my church and it will never fall. It even says the gates of hell can't prevail against it.
If thats in the bible how can you say the church fell and was recreated with Joseph Smith?

"You identify as imminent threats to your family the following: Promise Keepers, Mormon separatists, cultures that practice arranged marriages, and Islamist advocates of sharia."

I don't see those as imminent threats. It's more a matter of principle. I oppose any attempts to control what people think, whether it's by governments or do-gooders or religions. You're right that in practice, some attempts are not worth worrying about. But I don't have to feel immediately threatened by something to have an objection to it.

Take the case of Abdur Rahman. Most reasonable people would agree that no government has any business executing someone based on his or her beliefs. They would also probably agree that the chances are remote that an American citizen would meet a similar fate from his or her own government. Still, I'm too much of a pessimist to say that it can never happen here. I'm sure the fate that almost befell Rahman had a strong emotional impact on Christians worldwide. It had a strong emotional impact on me, although I'm not Christian.

"I'm guessing there are all kinds of secular do-gooders (e.g., environmentalist kooks) whom you are only too happy to see exert control over the rest of us."

Anonymous, you are making incorrect assumptions about my political beliefs.

My point in this discussion is that religion-based control is generally worse than secular-based control. Why? Because the religious controllers claim to have orders from deity. They claim that people who oppose their agenda are evil and worthless and deserving of death. Even the secular extremists in groups such as PETA don't go as far as to condemn meat-eaters to eternal damnation.

Victoria:

I did not say millions died, I said that millions rioted. Check that out if you wish, the fact remains that the riots themselves were over cartoons. That says volumes. As for Huntington, he is a respected scholar, and just because yu do not like what he writes you start in on the ad hominem arguments, rather than pointing out how his writings are what you say they are. I see this repaeatedly in your posts, as soon as someone makes a critical remark about Islam, you post a snippet from the Koran, ignore the rest of that book, and then label the poster as anti-Islam, or Islamophobic. This is not honest debate. As I said, I also read the Koran, and it is a grotesque bok for anyone to take as a moral guide.

Aa for you kins-men, I said your "religious" kins-men. As for Islamic government, what do you consider Iran to be? How about the Taliban circa 2001? No sharia? I do not know where you are getting your information.

I am leaving on business for a week, so I will not be able to respond further. But, I sense that it would not be a fruitful exchange anyway.

phaedrus- when i post something- i post it from the perspective of those represented- for instance if i post on jewish people- i use only self loving jews opinions- i became muslim long before 911 so ive seen the misinformation snowball into a media frenzy of propoganda-

like look at the post above- the word islamist didnt even exist 5 years ago- and even the most ill informed musli will tell you that thereis no sharia law because there is no islamic government-

yet you hear islamist and sharia so often you actually think that they are real-

i think that it may be a tiny bit of an overstatement to claim that 'millions' rioted and killed over the cartoons- let me check-

msn news
the cartoons sparked protests by Muslims around the world in which at least 50 people died. Many Muslims regard any image of the Prophet as blasphemous.

this is a year after the cartoons ran

well its not millions but it is 50 too many, isnt it?

i would suggest that samuel huntington is a really inflammatory vociferously islamophobic man- and his opinions are so biased against islam- that you could only come away from his scholarship hating the religion- try fethullah gulen- or better said nursi- even karen armstrong who is a panelist here or john esposito- also a panelist- western perspectives without prejudging- ok!

o yes-my kinsman are pretty much all in america for many many generations- but there are a few in ireland and i think some in germany
peace

Tonio,

You say, "I object to anyone wanting to control my life or the lives of my daughters."

You identify as imminent threats to your family the following: Promise Keepers, Mormon separatists, cultures that practice arranged marriages, and Islamist advocates of sharia.

Gosh, you must be unable to sleep at night. I hope for your own safety that you support the right to bear arms. You never know when you may need to drop some crazed Promise Keeper.

You add, "My objection is especially strong when people insist they have a divine mission to control our lives." Of course. I'm guessing there are all kinds of secular do-gooders (e.g., environmentalist kooks) whom you are only too happy to see exert control over the rest of us.

But are you really so anxious to impress us with your p.c. wymynist bona fides that you must feign paranoia?

DZ,

There is a forum (community) of (sort of) liberal political/religious folks...
www.streetprophets.com
It is full of Christians, but a few of all kinds of others. They talk religion and politics...
You might want to check it out. It's an annex to DailyKos.
Blessings,
terra

"It's hard to see how any of the phenomena (and you misuse the word 'dogma') that you mention apply to anyone's children but those of the people involved."

Anonymous, I think there's an ethical principle that injustice affects everyone indirectly. But more than that, the type of phenomena affects my children directly when it is perpetuated by evangelists, who I define as people who want everyone to share their dogmas and work toward achieving that goal, either by friendly persuasion or by unfriendly force. To the people who perpetuated the phenomena I named, it is unacceptable that my daughters' or anyone's have freedom of conscience and self-deteremination. They believe they have a divine mission to control women.

And I should have been more clear about my definition of dogma. I define dogma as any teaching that comes with a prohibition against questioning it, usually "because God says so." All the phenomena I described happened because people were convinced that their deity or deities ordered them to commit certain acts. That becomes a problem when those acts affect other people.

For me, it comes down to this - I object to anyone wanting to control my life or the lives of my daughters. My objection is especially strong when people insist they have a divine mission to control our lives.

Victoria:
I have read the Koran actually, and found it to be similar to the OT in its portrayal of a jealous, misogynistic, militant and generally unpleasant deity. I have read more than a few books on Islamic history, in addition to sociocultural works such as Huntington's. I do not solely rely on mass media for any opinion I espouse. I am not a scholar of Islam, and would never claim to understand any of the nuances of the religion. But, how much nuance would it take to counter the torrent of information coming from the Islamic World every day of one atrocity after another. And we are not talking about a few on the fringe either, that is also obvious. Perhaps your personal form of Islam is peaceful and cultured, perhaps you know many others with views similar to yours. I salute you for that- have read your posts and you seem like a kind and generous person. But, this does not counter the mindset of millions of your religious kins-men who riot and kill over a few cartoons, as one example. And you cannot write off the opinions of people who take this in in an open-minded fashion, and reach the obvious conclusion, as closed minded and ignorant.

Tonio, thank you for clarifying and elaborating on your earlier comment, which was not about "women" generally but "my children". It's hard to see how any of the phenomena (and you misuse the word "dogma") that you mention apply to anyone's children but those of the people involved.

As I thought: No one in this chat room, on either side, is really interested in searching for the truth; only in stating and defending their own opinion. Typical human reaction that allows us to continue to be divided instead of moving forward toward the betterment of all peoples. YOU'RE THE PROBLEM!!

DANNY: As a Catholic, I will point out that the Church derives its authority from Jesus Christ. She cannot ordain women because She does not have the authority to do so.

Jesus gave Peter and his successors the right to make the rules for the Catholic church in Matthew 16:19.

Matt 16:19: "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

So for 2,000 years a group of exclusively males have selected other males to select who would be the next male to make those rules. Sounds a lot more like stagnation than thought.

Anonymous, I was referring to these dogmas: the Promise Keepers and other fundamentalist Christian ideologies that use literal readings of Genesis and 1 Timothy; the sharia law from fundamentalist Islam; any dogma that involves arranged marriages for women, including Hinduism and some varities of Judaism; and Mormon separatists like Warren Jeffs who practice child slavery and label it polygamy.

Some of these certainly cause more harm to women than others. But they're all based in the same horrid idea of patriarchy, the idea that men are "more worthy" or better than women.

PHAEDRUS- it truly matters where you are looking- but i wont introduce a long labored diatribe of negativity- what you are seeing portrayed are stupid ignorant hateful people. i was watching tv and there was a story about something in the middle east- and they actually used stock footage over a year old from when arafat died- the women in black were ululating and screaming- the men were firing off rifles- it was barbaric and disgusting (its also forbidden in islam to make any displays of drama at a funeral- just like i imagine you wouldnt want the rest of the world to define you by footage of some stupid snake handler convulsing in the throes of venom poisoning as representative of you as anamerican or your beliefs- there are bizarre and crazy people everywhere-

if you really imagine that this is what the religion espouses without having the intelligence to find out for yourslef- you go ahead and watch those sensationalized news shows and let others decide for you what it is- personally- i realize that moderation doesnt sell news shows and take it for what it is...

clearly you have no real knowledge and are easily led by the media.
and you are right- nomuslim WILL scream loud enough to drown out the stupid- that would be equally stupid.
you see what is chosen for you to see-
i suggest you investigate and think for yourself-

i see your mind is closed to this subject so i have no intention of trying to bother you with facts or sense.

Ms. Jacoby,

Your article was an interesting read. I agree that there have been and continue to be terrible crimes against the dignity of women. However, please do not be so hasty to assault religion. Keep in mind that it is human error that perpetuates these things, not God. The scriptures in Genesis state how God created men and women: "God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them." They were created equally in His image. The man is supposed the love his wife as he loves himeself, as Christ loves the Church.

As a Catholic, I will point out that the Church derives its authority from Jesus Christ. She cannot ordain women because She does not have the authority to do so. The priesthood is a share in the priesthood of Christ, a share also in His personhood. The non-ordainment is no sexist.

Ashfaq:

Are you snickering to yourself when you write that Islam actually grants women respect? There is NO force on this earth at this point in history that does as much violence to its female adherents than Islam, none. And no Muslim apologist can ever scream the contrary loudly enough to drown out the images and written accounts of honor killings, circumcision, stoning of adultesses, pictures of those pathetic black-shrouded masses, and on and on ad infinitum. What Isalm is screams so loudly in the ears of the world that it can no longer hear what its apologists say.

First, to several of you, please do not wish your religion on us. Many of us are unbelievers, and we seek neither god nor the one true anything. Most of us are quite content that you believe differently - we actually believe in the applehood and motherpie thing, you know, religious freedom - but wishing your 'one true faith' on us is usually the first step in imposing your 'one true faith' on us. To that, we take considerable umbrage.

Second, yes, the official LDS does reject polygamy but only because it was a condition of statehood for Utah. There didn't, at the time, seem to be any actual change in theology. Joseph Smith certainly did believe in polygamy. Yet, the official church has repudiated polygamy now for more than 100 years. OTOH, there are thousands and thousands of people calling themselves Mormons who do, in fact, engage in polygamy, including whack jobs like Warren Jeffs.

Last, Phaedrus, I'm not sure a 'community' is developing here - too anonymous, unknown people picking topics, etc. - but it is clear that this has become a forum where an astonishing number of unbelievers have come to post along with all kinds of believers. Since there is mostly no forum for these kinds of discussions, it has been illuminating. A 'community' would be a nice goal, however, but I have no idea how to actually make that happen.

Norrie-

Thanks for the kind words. I adore the Geico caveman. And I keep spending time here because I can learn so much! I can't tell you how many times a post on this site has sent me tearing off to the Internet or the library to research what's been said. I've also learned that:

I'm not the only pagan around. (Happy, happy, joy, joy!)

Atheists face the same discrimination that pagans and Muslims do.

Some atheists are as obnoxiously intolerant as some Christian fundamentalists. (I think it's insecurity. If you're secure in your beliefs you don't have to tear another's down.

But most of all I've learned that there are people like you, and Realist, and Victoria, and Phaedrus who can speak with clarity and listen with respect. Realist said,

"There is a higher purpose here. We are all learning and little by little advancing the global culture here - making people slightly more enlightened and having a better understanding of others' points of view."

Exactly.

Brightest Blessings to all.

Religion, or belief in a higher being, is a tool that many people find useful in dealing with their daily lives. But like all tools, it can be used by some for purposes that are counter to what the tool should be used for. In the hands of some, religion can be used as a rallying point for war, genocide, oppression, political gain, etc. Examples that come to mind include the Crusades, modern day jihads, the colonization of the Americas through conversion of the native populations; there are many others that can be cited. It is not religion that causes the problem; the problem, as in every aspect of life, rests with human beings. It is up to human beings to use any tool wisely. Airplanes are wonderful tools that allow people to travel quickly and in relative comfort. Yet it took 19 malevolent human beings to turn four planes into people killing machines on 9/11/01.
Let us also remember that, as terrible as religion-based killing has been throughout history, the worst killers of all time did not lead religious wars, but were in fact, when they died, non-believers: Mao, Hitler, and Stalin.
Let's concentrate on the real cause of our problems, no matter what they are. The problem is us, not the tools at hand.

DAVID: Last point: There will come a time when all of us "less intelligent" creatures will find out if we are right or wrong in our beliefs. Until that day, I ask that our "intellectual betters" will treat us with kindness and understanding. Maybe just a pat on head and then let us continue on our way.

If you're right, maybe so; but when would you learn if you were wrong?

It does bother me that my "intellectual inferiors" might be distracting themselves with consolations of a better afterlife instead of working to improve this one.

I find the comments to be a more interesting revelation than the article.
Could it be that "religion" has less to do with the sexual hierarchy than the people within that religion? Power is very seductive and addictive. The basiest power is physical strength, which men in general have over women.
Blaming God for this abuse of strength is wrong. Holding God accountable for men's actions is also wrong. God created us to be free thinkers with free will to act. If He would step in to change this without our permission, we would then become less than what we are and then in turn, He would be less than what He is.
Last point: There will come a time when all of us "less intelligent" creatures will find out if we are right or wrong in our beliefs. Until that day, I ask that our "intellectual betters" will treat us with kindness and understanding. Maybe just a pat on head and then let us continue on our way.

"Muslim women were given rights over 1400 years ago which Non-Muslim women are fighting for today. They were given rights of inheritance, property rights, right to education, rights between husband and wife, and many others."

Uh uh; they're just treated like inferiors.

Here's a Kuwaiti member of parliament explaining why they shouldn't have the vote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9YMbF3VleE

PG,

You may have noticed that the overt theme to this forum has been the intellectual oppression of one group of people by another. Namely the oppression of women by men within Patriarchial societies. You may also notice, with no small amount of irony, that you have attempted to suppress the beliefs of someone else because they are apparently different from your own. And you have done so within a forum set up for the free exchange of ideas whose primary topic was the oppression of one group by another.

wome are just more faithfull, thats just the way it is, just accept it ...

TRUTH ABOUT THE MORMONS AND THEIR BELIEFS!!!!
We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

This proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah.

There is a great lack of research here if the writer of this column thinks Mormon's practice polygamy. There is no proof that says it will be practiced in heaven. The LDS church is what it says it is: A restoration of the original church that Jesus Christ set up while he lived on Earth. It is restored with the same priesthood,with Prophets and Apostles, temple and missionary work with Jesus at the head of it all. It is the greatest blessing on this Earth and I am proud to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Assalam Alaikum,
I would just like to state that in Islam, women are treated with very high respect. It is reported that a man came to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and asked: "Messenger of Allah, who is the most deserving of good care from me?" The Prophet replied: "Your mother (which he repeated three times) then your father, then your nearest relatives in order". In another hadith the Prophet has said: "Paradise lies at the feet of mothers". In other words Paradise awaits those who cherish and respect their mothers. This is just a couple of sayings of our beloved Prophet Muhammad which shows the status of women in Islam. Muslim women were given rights over 1400 years ago which Non-Muslim women are fighting for today. They were given rights of inheritance, property rights, right to education, rights between husband and wife, and many others. I would suggest to everyone to leave the misconceptions behind and take a good look at Islam. You will find indeed that it is the true faith for all.

What is truly sad is how quickly we start to pick at each other’s comments instead of addressing issue brought to table by author regarding religions failures toward women over course of our evolution. We must first start by recognizing that most religions (not all) were organized by men to help manage/control societies; setting up rules, direction and behavior norms to live by.

Without doubt, world religions have been slow to advance the recognition of women as being equal. However, in truth it is up to the individual to recognize that any deity wants us to love one as equals. That many of the religious laws/rules were based on our evolution at the time.

For example, it was initially wiser have someone tend the fires and protect cave while another out to hunt (hunters versus gathers). Recognize that in some cases both served in equal roles at times. But as we evolved, those requirements (and others) have changed. That each individual contributes in different ways, and that our treating each as equals is more in line with what our creator wants us to do.

As a Catholic, I understand the church position for example regarding women priest, but also acknowledge it was based on historical position of men in society at the time. Driven in part by the fact that education was limited to men initially. However, that has changed due our evolution and that we now need to look beyond the originally 12 guys, and see the world for where we are today. I hope (and believe) one day we will see women priest in our church, and likewise think there are stronger women out there to lead our country (and others) as well.

However, don’t blame religion completely for this problem, its part of our evolution. I hope that all institutions, be they religious or secular will recognize that as our species evolves, and roles are changing… for the better. As a father with a promising daughter (great spouse & a son), I am convinced women will continue to play greater roles in our evolution and perhaps keep us from killing off our species. Men do not seem to be doing a great job at preventing it.

Not that I'm radically against woman priests, but I'd like to know where Susan Jocoby got her facts regarding the majority of US and European Catholics approving of woman priests. Sounds a little fishy to me.

To Betty:

Mormon men hold the priesthood, woman can give the gift of life. Both are equal powers, and one is not above the other. It is unfortunate that many women out there would gladly trade their femininity to go out and "be like the boys". What are they so insecure about?

Tonio says, "It pains me that some dogmas teach that my children shouldn't have the same rights as males 'because God said so.'"

I wonder if you might clarify to which dogmas you refer? Thank you.

Mormon Women: An Elaboration

Mormons no longer practice Polygamy.
Mormon doctrine does, HOWEVER, say that in the highest level of Heaven, which will be ONLY inhabited by Mormons, Polygamy will once again be practiced. It is a God-like practice (didn't Zeus and Wotan prove that?).

Also
ALL True power in the Mormon church resides with the Men. Only Men hold the priesthood. They make ALL the important decisions.

They are, I admit, very nice to us women most of the time. They place us under, oops, I mean, ON, a pedestal.

I can't believe James is still peddling that bunk.

By all means look at the "studies" he cites. They're meaningless. Asking a binary question about "belief" is utterly meaningless. No thoughtful person can reduce her beliefs to "yes" or "no".

And it is equally meaningless to ask an intelligent person with accomplishments in one field of knowledge about her opinions in another field of which she is completely ignorant.

The real question is why this imaginary "correlation" is so critical to James' self-esteem?

I just wanted to make one small comment: Mormons no longer practice polygamy - and women in the LDS Church are revered, not supressed. Thank you.

Bill,

You have just done an outstanding job of showing how patriarchy, male dominance, and ignorance are perpetuated. Nice work. Now please go back to your 2000 year old story book and leave the thinking to others.

PG

I whole heartily agree with Susan J. The major religions of the world have designated women as weak and flawed. People should recognize that these religions were founded by primitive people whose male-dominated cultures determined their view of god and not the other way around.

It is foolish to justify sexist and racist beliefs on a morality whose cultural underpinnings haven't been relevant for thousands of years.

"I understand that Stanton's comments no longer constitute a universal description of the way religion treats women. Thanks in significant measure to the efforts of women..."

I was wondering about how a non-religious culture may have led to a greater equality of the sexes. Has a-religiocity had a positive effect on the freedom of women historically?

Also, though patriarchy can be found in religion, it is also found elsewhere. Is it not difficult to distinguish between where codified religious law begins and where patriarchy as a human phenomenon ends? As a Christian leader, I find that patriarchal interpretation of scripture is the primary reason for the oppression of women in my faith tradition. But there are some faiths that have actually sanctified oppressive behaviors.

Rather, I take this to be the truth, in Christ "there is no male or female, jew or Greek, slave or free."(the last is a statement of economic equality, not a codification of slavery.)

Finally, I wonder if the advancement of the equality of women in religion and society has had any significant influence from men?

intrigued but not convinced,

SN

Personally, I believe that the only person who can bind our faith is ourselves. Once I accepted Christ as my Savior, and began a personal relationship with Him, the boundaries were broken. Whether female or male, we worship from our hearts and our souls.
As far as women being leaders in the church, my belief is that they should not. I do believe that every person is called to be a desciple of Christs and that each person will be called into a ministry of service according to the gifts given them by God. So, call me old fashion, if you wish. I try to live my life according to God's Will and seek Him prior to making any decisions in my life, no matter how minute.

Many very intellegent people I know {I work with several engineers and my wife with many in the univesity system} are very arrogant. They are so proud of their intellegence they have no room for a god. One engineer I know believes in God, but says he doesn't have time to bother with it. These people have no time for us less intellent except where necessary.

As far as women to men, wether you believe in evolution or creation there is a difference between the sexes! Men are stronger physically and women are emotionally. Together we complete each other.
In the Catholic Church it has nothing to do with an old boys network or women not being capable, but God set up men to be priests and the Church doesn't have the authority to change it. Jesus didn't care about society, or religious or civil authorities. If he intended for women priests I would think Mother Mary would have been a prime candidate.
In Gods plan we are all the bride and Jesus is the Groom. He serves us and gives his life for us as the priest is supposed to do. It's not supposed to be positions of authority, but of service.

Phaedrus,

Just got up and found your last evening's message. What you say makes a lot of sense to me.

I'll be away for a few days. My family's dragging me off to a food and wine show at, of all places, a casino.

Nature, our universe and the Goddess willing, I'll be back.

Best to you and to Realist.

This is an important issue for me because I have two daughters. It pains me that some dogmas teach that my children shouldn't have the same rights a males "because God said so." It doesn't matter to me whether these dogmas are based in scripture or simply in tradition. The effect is the same.

Norrie, don't know if it was necessarily useful work, and it certainly was not god's work, but it WAS work! It is fun to be able to check out the site again, because it serves as a good catalyst for thinking about things for the fun of simply thinking about things.

I agree with you, Realist, that there is a higher purpose here, and a big part of it is the sense of community that can develop around ideas. I am a bit of a Jefferson scholar, and one of the things that is so clear in his writings is his delight in thinking about the major (and minor) issues of his day, and in discussing those things with other people who held reason and learning in equal esteem. His letters to and from Adams in their twilight years are a national treausure! Those of us who do not have churches in which to congregate, and who have moved on from academic careers, should still have Adamses for our Jeffersons.

best to you both,

P.

Realist,

Sounds good to me!

Best wishes.

Hi Norrie, and Phaedrus,
There is a higher purpose here. We are all learning and little by little advancing the global culture here - making people slightly more enlightened and having a better understanding of others' points of view.

Phaedrus, I liked your quote.

Regards,
Realist

Hi, Phaedrus,

It's nice to hear from you again. But I'm not sure you should "admire [my] perseverance".

I imagine you've been away doing God's work, or at least useful work, or something else meritorious. Meanwhile I've maintained my addiction to this endless samsaran round of postings - to what end I don't know and can't imagine.

Maybe there's a higher purpose here somewhere.

Best wishes.

Wiccan Ism Forever

I truly agree with Phaedrus when he says
"Is there any doubt that the primary oppressor of women through recorded history has been Islam, Christianity, and Judaism? "

And in addition, I think there is much to be said for the case that the Wiccan approach has much to recommend it.

Woman deity. Close to earth. Connection to the moon. Closeness to nature.

Is it better to worship a make believe supernatural Male destroyer/creator than to worship the female moon.

Especially if you worship in the intelligent way that our fellow poster Wiccan worships.

I don't think so.

Wiccan,

Thanks for your post. It's nice that we're on parallel tracks with Jung. In my early 30's I read everything I could find that he'd written. I was probably credulous in a way I shouldn't have been, but I learned a lot and still think highly of him, despite his not-too-nice personal and professional life.

Don't worry about the IQ bit. We all type too quickly and unreflectively in these posts. Being a Geico Cave man isn't bad either - I find them warm and cuddly.

My best to you.

i do want to draw attention to the difference between intelligence and education - education involves the guidance of those who can provide context and steer you away from the more specious theories out there...

also would like to note that at the time of their founding, most religions represented an improvement over the status quo in terms of social and gender equity. even now, in the afghan tribal areas, the taliban's sharia law actually has some benefits for women over the traditional tribal law: women can inherit property, widows cannot be inherited by their late husband's relatives, and women may not be exchanged to settle a dispute.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton's criticisms, as quoted by Jacoby, are even more valid today than in 1885. What I don't understand is this - where did those misogynistic attitudes come from? How did those attitudes become ingrained in so many religious dogmas around the world? How did patriarchy originate? I know that might sound like a stupid question, but to me, neither patriarchy or matriarchy seem capable of occurring naturally or as a matter of course. What reasons would there be for one gender to conspire to dominate the other?

I've read a theory that when the male role in reproduction was discovered in humankind's early history, the doctrines of the religions of the time transformed from Earth Mother to Heavenly Father, and societies transformed from matriarchies to patriarchies. I don't know if that's true.

Another thought on science and religion:

I once asked a man, the most accomplished scientist I have personally known, why it was that he and his colleagues were so overwhelmingly atheistic. I will always remember his reply, though it was now 22 years ago: "Well, I think that we found that the more you come to understand how things work, the more you understand how they do not work."

His wisecracking colleague then snorted and said, "And besides, don't you think if there were actually a god, he'd have made himself a better writer than Shakespeare or Dostoyevsky."

JD Crossan points out where all the problems began for women in Christianity in his recent book (along with JL Reed), In Search of Paul:http://www.beliefnet.com/story/158/story_15844_3.html

"The authentic and historical Paul, author of the seven New Testament letters he actually wrote (Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galations, Philippians, I Thessalonians, Philemon), held that within Christian communities it made no difference whether one entered as a Christian Jew or a Christian pagan, as a Christian man or a Christian woman, as a Christian freeborn or a Christian slave. All were absolutely equal with each other.

But in I Timothy, a letter attributed to Paul by later Christians though not actually written by him, women are told to be silent in church and pregnant at home (2:8-15). And a later follower of Paul inserted in I Corinthians that it is shameful for women to speak in church, but correct to ask their husbands for explanations at home (14:33-36)."

Conclusion: As with the NT, scribes have added to the Epistles of Paul a number of embellishments to fit their dislikes (testosterone?) or to increase the acceptance of Jesus to the Gentiles and Jews. And female members have been taken a "back seat" for the last 2000 years!!! Time for change!!! B16 tear down these Walls!!!

The mistreatment of women in the Muslim religion just adds added credence to its significant stupidity as a way of life. One needs to go no farther than the actions of the "crazy Talibaners".

PAM
If one were to poll those under age 18 at church there would be a radically different answer too. There is probably a fairly linear rise in faith beginning at about age 10. Under that age they must be dragged into church so the line clearly goes negative at the outset. We must be born with something less than no_faith whatever that might be, (no name for that as atheists are at zero).

There is probably no difference between male and female children prior to puberty. I wonder how the gender gap looks down there, before puberty. How many girl children would rather go to church than play nintendo? More than boys?

Hello again Norrie. Still hanging in there I see, I do admire your perseverance.

As to women and belief, two quick thoughts.

Is there any doubt that the primary oppressor of women through recorded history has been Islam, Christianity, and Judaism? Or that the most extreme misogynistic belief system openly practiced today is Islam?

And also, given that belief in god negatively correlates with advanced science education, and that women seem not to have been encouraged sufficiently to pursue advanced science degrees historically (pity, there), does it not follow that women may be somewhat over-represented amongst the religious?

Speaking to the higher percentage of religiosity in women, and the negative correlation with education, one must remember that there are still a great many women in the population (thus contributing to the stats) who were raised in a time when women didn't have the educational opportunities that they have today.

Prior to the women's movement of the seventies, many men (usually the sole breadwinners) weren't willing to spend the money to send their daughters to college, because they were "just going to get married and raise children", so what did they need an education for? Those who did go, were there to meet a better class of boys from which to find a husband. They were expected to do this quickly, before they spent too much of Daddy's money.

If one were to poll only people under, say, 40, one might get a different result.

"As to most of the others, it was difficult before the theory of natural of selection was published to answer the question "who designed trees?" (or any other biological organism)"

Moreover, one could be put to death for heresy in those days. Even if one could have escaped being burned at the stake, to profess disbelief would have been social suicide. We will never know the actual thoughts of these men vis-a-vis religion.

Norrie-

"Yes, Jung coined the term "synchronicity" and studied many instances of it. I take it you're implying that anyone who has observed such instances, or believes in their reality, must be a little bit credulous or even crazy. Please google "Jung + scarab beetle" for an astonishing example of synchronicity that happened in Jung's consulting room."

No, no, wasn't implying that at all. I was thinking that was an example of a learned man believing something most scientists wouldn't. Actually, Jung's work with archtypes, along with healthy doses of Joseph Campbell, helped me understand and use the Tarot.

I'm ashamed about my crack about my IQ. "ME"'s post made me feel like the Geico Caveman, disrespected for being "not schmart".

It is an invalid arguement by authority, but here it is anyway.

Einstein

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. "

"The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.
The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man’s image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.
How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it."

Intelligent Scientists

SoK asks "who are these intelligent scientists?

S/he can go to the web site cited above to see

and the short answer for the "elite scientists"
is Members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 97% of whom DO NOT believe in God.

James is right
studies unanimously show that
the more intelligent a person is
the less likely they are to be a believer

web site again is
This web site reference some of them
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

SOK7 and Intelligence

Thought we were clear.
Negative Correlation DOES NOT mean
All smart people DO NOT believe in God
and ALL stupid people do.

It means
If you find a person like Wiccan with an IQ over 135,
they are much less LIKELY to believe in God
than someone with an IQ under 90.

Of course there are exceptions.

And Einstein doesn't really help you case: the God he believed in was more like the Laws of Physics than someone you can pray to.

I believe It is NOt Smart to believe in a Personal God.

wide ranging data show that
the smarter a person is
the less likely she is to be a believer.

Sorry: those are just the facts as we know them today. (my IQ is 63).

SOK7: "Do you refer to Einstein, Kepler, Newton, Pasteur, Copernicus, Brahe, Faraday, Gilbert, or perhaps Galileo?

And each one of these men believed in God without question."

Whether Einstein actually believed in God in the "are your a theist or atheist" sense is at least highly debateable, although he used the term "God" metaphorically.

As to most of the others, it was difficult before the theory of natural of selection was published to answer the question "who designed trees?" (or any other biological organism)

Now that there's a scientific answer to that question, scientists don't need God to explain the natural world.

James,

What elite scientists do you refer to when you say "smarter people tend to believe in God less"? Do you refer to Einstein, Kepler, Newton, Pasteur, Copernicus, Brahe, Faraday, Gilbert, or perhaps Galileo?

Each of these men was not only a scientific genius, but each one revolutionized our understanding of the world.

And each one of these men believed in God without question.

It's not God vs the Smart People, James.

Wiccan,

Yes, Jung coined the term "synchronicity" and studied many instances of it. I take it you're implying that anyone who has observed such instances, or believes in their reality, must be a little bit credulous or even crazy. Please google "Jung + scarab beetle" for an astonishing example of synchronicity that happened in Jung's consulting room.

I'm sorry about my snide comment on your 136 I.Q. It's high but I'm not sure it was smart for you to bring it up in a forum like this. It makes people wonder why you felt the need to mention it.

Also, if you're so smart, why are you, like me, wasting your time in these endless, non-productive conversations?

Best wishes to you and all the goddesses.

Religious people often argue that their beliefs are necessary to keep people from acting on their baser "animal" instincts.

Instead, though, these systems institutionalize these instincts. I suspect women might still be marginalized, abused, mutilated and even killed even if everyone abandoned religion. But there would not longer be a "moral" or "scriptural" justification for these practices and they would be easier to eradicate.

Before we can hear God speak we must lower the level of noise made by Devil. Is God speaking and Her voice is drwoned by those who worship, honor, adore, glorify and make sacrifices to Devil?

The really bright scientist not only believe in God they know they can invent God. The most compelling quality of God, the ability to make something from nothing is not forbidden for scientist to do by Bible God and in turn you and me.

The population of earth is rapidly out growing earth's ability to feed etc. If I made a cartoon of what is happening it would be a ball being devoured by creatures living on it. Those creatures are us. Creating matter from nothing is necessary for the human race to maintain it's present rate of expansion.

Can science save earth and in turn us or will earth be eaten all gone by it's inhabitants? Mother earth is the one we need worry about rebelling. She's likely to do something serious about us if we don't behave ourselves.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/findgod challenges scientists to do just that, invent God. It says that God is a TOOL. I find that to be plausible because God is used to "crowbar" wealth from people with threats of hell.

The creation of matterial objects from nothing is how what we now have came to be. Any arguments to the contrary from ye of great faith? Big bang? Anyone?

Intelligence and Faith

"Just visiting" reminds us of what we all know:
correlation does not prove causality.

however, in the face of the overwhelming data on correlation,
an intelligent person would start to search for explanations.
The correlation between smoking and lung cancer did not prove causation at first, but refinement of studies established it pretty conclusively.

At the very least, the data shows
1. Smarter people tend to believe in God less. It may just be an accident.
2. Believing in God does not make you smarter.
3. It is possible (likely?) that the lack of disposition to think for oneself, or to question the rife inconsistencies and fantasies of religious thought, is predominantly a result of diminished reasoning ability.

Elite scientists, who are trained to make hypotheses (eg God exists) and then
Test them with evidence
Overwhelmingly DISBELIEVE in a personal God (97% in one accepted study).

It would be reasonable to guess that this is because there IS no evidence for God, and the reasoning for HIs existence has been riddled with contradictions and contrary evidence.

Robert Sapolski, neurobiologist at Stamford, points out, in Biology and Human Behavior: the neurological origins of individuality, that desert religions and disposed to patriarchy, heirarchy, monotheism, rigid orthodoxy and a relentlessly second-class status for women. Among those religions: Judaism; Christianity; Islam. As a former Catholic priest, I was relentlessly raised with these ideas as "God's will." It explains, if not justifies, the Roman Catholic preoccupation with sexuality and the very long tradition that "women are, essentially, to blame." The practical results are evident in the front pages.

"There are plenty of studies that indicate that
Intelligence is Negatively Correlated wih
Belief in a personal God."

Correlation does not imply causation. It could be that there are facets of the educational system that (intentionally or not) undermine certain ways of thinking while promoting others, and that is not -necessarily- a good thing.

Just because someone is intelligent doesn't mean that they are not biased as well. Those "SOME smart people" who believe in "God or astrology" have an advantage over the uneducated who also believe in God because they can look at it from a well-informed angle.

I'm not trying to suggest that these "smart people" are not biased as well. Those who believe in God tend to look at things in an attempt to confirm their belief. Those who don't do the same, trying to confirm their belief that there is no God. The former claim personal experience as the prime measure; the latter claim objectivity.

Intelligence and Religion

There are plenty of studies that indicate that
Intelligence is Negatively Correlated wih
Belief in a personal God.

This web site reference some of them
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

I have NEVER seen a study that shows a positive correlation.

One would think that, in general, Astrological belief would show an even higher negative correlation.

Wiccan:: I think 136 is pretty good. 1% of people score higher.

Negative correlation does not mean that SOME smart people don't believe in God or astrology.

Some women are taller than some men.

I should clarify; that lack of control is only one reason people might turn to religion, but a powerful and important one.

I think people turn to religion and other forms of magical thinking when they lack real control over their own lives. A belief in "something bigger" to protect them from the power structures that keep them down. Since women have been kept to second class status by patriarchal societies it's not surprising that they would be more likely to look to the heavens for relief.

ME
There are several ways to explain why women are more religious than men. The easiest one to understand is the fact that church is where they found "him" and they need to "get rid" of him but not completely. The most common prayer is "Dear God, please don't let "him" lose his job for I can't make it without the "child support" check.

That's all summed up with FAMILY VALUES that has other facets as well. How much is a family worth? How much of the child support money goes onto the plate? The ministry is a career like butcher, baker and bank robbing. Everyone is looking for a pay check. Those gotten by ministers are the "wages of sin" in more ways than one.

Norrie-

Boy, am I humbled. I thought that number was toward the high end. And no, I really don't think IQ is one of the more important qualities. "ME" just got my goat. I've found that "emotional intelligence" has helped me more than "pure reason".

Didn't Jung come up with synchronicity?

ME-

Thanks for the link. Boy, what a feast! Will you let me read it and digest before I reply in specific to it?

Let me grant you this: a lot of predictive astrology, especially the nonsense you find in the daily newspapers, is a farce. Now a question, have you ever seen a deck of tarot cards?

Me Again,

Carl Jung thought there was some validity to astrology. He was pretty well educated.

Wiccan,

Do you really think that, except at the far out edges of the curve, IQ has much importance for what matters most in life? And, sorry, but 136 isn't far enough out.

From http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind00/access/c8/c8s5.htm#c8s5l1

"Belief in most-but not all-paranormal phenomena is higher among women than men. More women than men believe in ESP (especially telepathy and precognition), astrology, hauntings, and psychic healing. On the other hand, men have stronger beliefs in UFOs and bizarre life forms, for example, the Loch Ness monster (Irwin 1993). In the NSF survey, 39 percent of the women, compared with 32 percent of the men, said astrology is "very" or "sort of" scientific; 56 percent of the women, compared with 63 percent of the men, answered "not at all scientific."[43] (See appendix table 8-38.)

Not surprisingly, belief in astrology is negatively associated with level of education.[44] Among those without high school diplomas, only 41 percent said that astrology is "not at all scientific." The comparable percentages for high school and college graduates are 60 percent and 76 percent, respectively. (See appendix table 8-38.)"

ME-

"Indeed, I'd be interested in knowing your view why belief in mysticism like astrology, palmistry and tarot cards is strongly correlated with being female.

And strongly correlated with lack of intelligence."

Me,

Where's your documentation for the statements above? "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

BTW- my last IQ test put me at 136. What's yours?

"As a freethinker and a feminist, I have always found it baffling that women, as a group, are more religious than men."

Indeed, I'd be interested in knowing your view why belief in mysticism like astrology, palmistry and tarot cards is strongly correlated with being female.

And strongly correlated with lack of intelligence.