Why does every religion on the planet

[malaise]

have women in inferior positions -isn't that the crux of humanity's problem??

[TDale313]

1. Yes, it is. And not every. I'm Wiccan.

And a big part of why is its emphasis on the feminine divine. (The masculine as well, but in a healthier way than more patriarchal religions IMO.)

But it is certainly true of most "major" or "organized" religions.

[BlueJazz]

16. Have you heard of Diane Stein ?

[Depaysement]

2. Doesn't Mary . . .

. . . outrank every guy except Jesus in Catholicism?

[temporary311]

3. I dunno, maybe we should ask

one of the many female Cardinals, Bishops, or Priests about that.

[Depaysement]

5. Yes I know the Catholic hierarchy is sexist

That's an awesome revelation.

[Mendocino]

9. So it's an "awesome revelation"

that you are going to acknowledge after being called on it.

[Depaysement]

25. Oh spare me

You can do better than that, can't you?

On the other hand . . . maybe not.

[lunatica]

86. Why not answer the question?

It's certainly legitimate to ask why women, in spite of Mary, Mother Of Jesus, are not equal to men in religion.

[Depaysement]

123. I did

Look at #35.

[smirkymonkey]

159. And of course she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.

If she had conceived in the natural way, would she still be revered?

[treestar]

34. That is a different issue though

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. "women in inferior positions" is the issue of the OP (nt)

[Mendocino]

4. No

How many women priests are in the catholic church? Bishops, Cardinals...?

[Depaysement]

6. Zero

There should be a woman pope too.

[Jim Lane]

125. Have you forgotten Pope Joan?

Don't go around grousing that "There should be a woman pope" as if Pope Joan had never existed.

All right, for those of you too lazy even to click a link... In the Middle Ages, the story was told that a woman who disguised herself as a man was able, because of her great ability, to rise through the ranks of the Church and be chosen as Pope without being discovered. Party-pooping Papal pedants contend that the story is just a legend, but, hey, they can't prove it's false.

[beam me up scottie]

15. Only because she was a virgin.

The rest of us are inferior to men in every way according to the Church.

Women are marginalized, shamed and forced to be subservient to men if they want to stay active in the Church.

[malaise]

18. Well they said she was a virgin but since there was no artificial insemination back then

it is a ridiculous argument. I once asked my mother what she would say if I came home and told her I was pregnant by the immaculate conception. Her response was that
i'd better give her the name of that boy. My mother was more Catholic than any pope.

[beam me up scottie]

21. What's even more misogynistic is the idea of original sin.

Blaming Eve for the downfall of man and condemning women to suffer the agonies of childbirth because she was uppity.

Lovely sentiment, I can't imagine why women would be offended.

[abelenkpe]

27. That right there

Was what made five year old me decide the church and bible were full of shite.

[beam me up scottie]

30. Not a single one of my friends stayed in the Church after they were old enough to leave.

They aren't raising their kids Catholic either.

[malaise]

57. Only one of my siblings raised her sons Catholic

and not one of them has anything to do with the church.

[beam me up scottie]

60. Who needs the additonal guilt?

My mother found ways to make us feel guilty about everything without ever using religion, it was her specialty.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

58. Original sin is corrosive and abusive.

When part of the founding premise of your religion is that you are a failed, worthless sinner, just because you are breathing, and because a couple of fruit-munching simpletons in a fairy tale disobeyed God, and NOT because you did anything wrong, that is a doctrine that destroys people. Children and adults.

It's socially sanctioned, mentally and emotionally crippling abuse. Simple as that.

Made up problem with a made up solution (substitutionary atonement). And you CANNOT be a Christian without accepting that horrible doctrine.

It's an insult to my human dignity and everyone else's human dignity. People make enough mistakes out of ignorance or willful stupidity. We don't need unearned guilt and shame that we do not deserve. It makes addicts out of us. Read John Bradshaw, Ph.D., Healing the Shame that Binds You. It's one of the reasons we have an addictive society. To get out of the pain.

[beam me up scottie]

64. Very well said! Wish I could rec this post!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

69. Thank you, kind fan. The Christians have no good answer for me on that.

They come back with, "Well you can be a Christian and believe anything you want."

And I say, "Wrong. No Christianity without original sin. If you weren't born with original sin you don't need substitutionary atonement through Jesus." I sat through enough church services saying The Apostles' Creed and feeling like a fool to know that. Sometimes they say, "What is substitutionary atonement? Never heard that word."

It took me many years of going through various Christian churches and realizing how soul-destroying that is to formulate what is wrong with Christianity. And reading "Healing the Shame That Binds You" by John Bradshaw, Ph.D. and former Jesuit priest.

Took me many years to condense the problem of Christianity in society, especially among the depressed and suicidal, and how it makes people feel worse, but you can't talk about that. It's socially sanctioned emotional abuse.

You're hurting, you're depressed, life is tough. You go to church seeking help to feel better. Do they tell you you're OK? No, they tell you you're a worthless sinner, "our righteousness is as filthy rags" etc.

They set you up as a worthless sinner, THEN tell you the only answer is to believe that Jesus is God and everything will get better if you pray hard enough and read your Bible (which doesn't have a lot of answers fitting for the modern world). If things don't get better they accuse you of being not spiritual enough and not praying hard enough, which is pretty insulting.

And they tell you you have free will, but if you don't love God, he'll send you to hell! For an eternity of suffering! Gee what a nice guy! That's not free will. That is what is legally called duress. Like holding a gun to someone's head to make them do something.

I was supposed to feel the presence of the lord, or feel some warmth or have some spiritual experience. I did everything I was supposed to do and felt nothing different.Prayers were not answered, not that I could tell, and nothing got better. I just felt worse from being put down as an affront to my human dignity, by a preacher that was preaching blanket doctrine. A preacher that didn't know me personally or anything about my life. I could not see anything directly attributable to praying. I had a real problem with causality because I saw nothing getting better and nothing connected to prayer.

Then I decided that the people I was with in the congregation were probably under a mass delusion. They were feeling the way they did spiritually because they were told and expected to feel a certain way. I never felt any of it. So I walked away.

I had to get the strength to walk away, or become completely immobile and numb.

[Warpy]

78. Walking away is the best policy

because you can't have a rational discussion on irrationality with an irrational person. It's just not going to work and somebody is going to get defensive and hurt, usually the irrational person. All the questioning has to come from within them. Once they ask that first question, the whole shaky edifice starts to collapse. It's why they hate atheists, we have asked the questions they're afraid of.

Central to that is why all modern religions first declare war on women. Even Buddhism is guilty of this, some sects more than others. The main reason is that religion is a man's business because men have more free time with no useful work to do and can dream them up. Women are busy doing the work of the human race, having the babies and providing food on the table, having grown much of it throughout the world. It's why there are male gods, male officiants, and lots of stupid and inconvenient rules that are mostly aimed at controlling women.

And they wonder why I left.

[hifiguy]

83. I had profound doubts about that nonsense by the time I was 10.

Admittedly, I was a precocious sort. By the time I was 15 I was an agnostic who leaned atheist. After seeing Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" I admitted to myself that I had been an atheist for a long time. And "Cosmos" was a far more grand, beautiful and awe-inspiring "story" than any religulous fairy tale I have heard. A bright 12-year old should be able to see through the nonsense of the Abrahamic religions; they have more logical fallacies than a 50-pound wheel of Swiss has holes. And once you read some decent cosmology and physics, the Skywizard Story falls apart completely.

[malaise]

140. Excellent post

but how else would the snake oil salesmen and parasites enrich themselves if we were not guilt or fear driven.

[malaise]

33. Yep - I think the only person ever blamed for everything more than women

is Obama

[randys1]

66. THANKS Obama!

[smirkymonkey]

138. +1000

[hifiguy]

48. + a brazilian!!!

Fucking idiocy on stilts.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

90. "Virgin" is a mistranslation of "young woman".

The word is "almah". I am no Hebrew scholar, but umpteen translations and editing by a committee at the Council of Nicaea and the assorted revisions and additions and subtractions and doctrines added on by later saints--yeah, The Bible is a big mess.

[truebluegreen]

130. Or they said she was a young woman

which got translated as "maiden" which was construed as "virgin".

I think it is more likely she was a young, unmarried woman who got pregnant...i.e. the child "had no father."

Just my opinion.

[malaise]

38. Hold yourself to a decent standard

You sure won't define that for me

[beam me up scottie]

39. He's dead, Jim!

[malaise]

40. I was going to add - have a good life

[Mendocino]

41. I think we've had a "divine intervention "

by the priest of passive -aggressive.

[malaise]

44. Hehehehehhe

[beam me up scottie]

42. I just don't know my place!

[Mendocino]

51. That damn Mary

should've settled with her prominence as the mother of christ, but NOOO! Uppity women! (should I add the sarcasm thingy?)

[beam me up scottie]

54. The RCC: proudly shaming women for over 1000 years.

And men too but they have the authority to change the Church and won't, so I have less sympathy for them.

The RCC was behind every law restricting access to birth control, women's health clinics and abortion in this country.

[Mendocino]

61. Goes back to Eve

that harlot vixen tempted men, therefore they're not responsible for their actions.

[beam me up scottie]

62. Yep, it was all HER fault!

What kind of twisted mind comes up with a story like that?

And they're still teaching it to little boys and girls.

[Mendocino]

67. They get older,

(I won't use the term grown up in this case) then become MRA types and Stepford wives.

[beam me up scottie]

68. Some break free, more than a few DUers were raised as fundamentalist Christians.

In fact some of the most outspoken women's and lgbt rights advocates are ex-fundies. It can't be easy so I give credit where credit is due, my aversion to religion came naturally.

[Mendocino]

113. Point taken

but being opposed to the rights of women and of the LGBT community isn't something unique to fundamentalist Christians.

[beam me up scottie]

115. Nope, it's not but they've made it their modern day crusade and they have the numbers to wage it.

Without organized religion as a basis for their beliefs and laws they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

[Mendocino]

118. I agree

but it isn't just christians, many religions stake out that position.

On a side note, I noticed if you don't capitalize christian, it shows up here as a misspelling.

[beam me up scottie]

119. Yes, many do but the only one powerful enough here to affect laws is Christianity.

Last edited Mon Feb 1, 2016, 08:00 AM - Edit history (1)

And in fact they're also using their influence to try to pass laws that would restrict the religious freedom of Muslims.

I'm posting from my mobile so it automatically capitalizes Christian.

[rug]

73. Your facts are wrong. Again.

Contraception was legal in the United States throughout most of the 19th century, but in the 1870s a social purity movement grew in strength, aimed at outlawing vice in general, and prostitution and obscenity in particular.[16] Composed primarily of Protestant moral reformers and middle-class women, the Victorian-era campaign also attacked contraception, which was viewed as an immoral practice that promoted prostitution and venereal disease.[17] Anthony Comstock, a postal inspector and leader in the purity movement, successfully lobbied for the passage of the 1873 Comstock Act, a federal law prohibiting mailing of "any article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of conception or procuring of abortion" as well as any form of contraceptive information.[18] Many states also passed similar state laws (collectively known as the Comstock laws), sometimes extending the federal law by outlawing the use of contraceptives, as well as their distribution. Comstock was proud of the fact that he was personally responsible for thousands of arrests and the destruction of hundreds of tons of books and pamphlets.[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control_in_the_United_States

[beam me up scottie]

79. Catholic Church and the politics of abortion:

Catholic Church and the politics of abortion

Before the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that opened the door to the legalization of abortion, the right-to-life movement in the U.S. consisted of lawyers, politicians, and doctors, almost all of whom were Catholic.[citation needed] The only coordinated opposition to abortion during the early 1970s came from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Family Life Bureau, also a Catholic organization. Prior to Roe v. Wade decision, abortion was not a high priority for Catholic bishops in the United States.[3][4] Neither was abortion a prominent issue in American politics prior to Roe v. Wade. It was not a major platform plank for either party in the 1968 and 1972 elections.[5]

In the 60s and early 70s, there was a shift as a number of Catholics and Southern whites abandoned their traditional affiliation with the Democratic party and began to support the Republican party. This shift is evidenced by the fact that Nixon received only 33% of the Catholic vote in the 1968 election compared to 52% in 1972. As a group, Catholics represented a quarter of the nation's electorate and were now one of the nation's largest swing groups. Both parties began to aggressively woo both the Catholic voters. Although the Catholic hierarchy could not dictate who Catholics voted for, they did have a substantial influence over the faithful in their dioceses. Politicians were aware that the bishops could employ significant time, energy and money to support the issues that were important to them. From their perspective, the bishops were eager to regain some of the influence that their predecessors had wielded in the earlier part of the 20th century.[5]

After Roe v. Wade, the involvement of the Catholic hierarchy in American politics increased to an unprecedented level, with bishops devoting more time, energy and money to the issue of abortion than any other single issue. The substantial role of the Catholic Church in the abortion debate has received much attention in the American media .[6]

Mobilization of a wide-scale pro-life movement among Catholics began quickly after the Roe v. Wade decision with the creation of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). The NRLC also organized non-Catholics, eventually becoming the largest pro-life organization in the United States. Connie Paige has been quoted as having said that, "[t]he Roman Catholic Church created the right-to-life movement. Without the church, the movement would not exist as such today."[7]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_the_politics_of_abortion

How the Catholic Church masterminded the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby debacle

But while the Green family who filed the Hobby Lobby suit objecting to the mandate are evangelical Christians, the road to Hobby Lobby wasn’t paved by the Christian Right. It was the Catholic Church, more specifically the U.S. Catholic bishops’ conference, that largely engineered Hobby Lobby to block the legitimization of contraception as a standard health insurance benefit—a last ditch effort to prevent by law what it couldn’t prevent from the pulpit: women from using birth control.

The Catholic bishops’ interest in “conscience clauses” that would allow employers to opt out of reproductive health care services began in earnest in the late 1990s, with the increased viability at the state and national levels of contraceptive equity measures designed to ensure that health plans covered prescription contraceptives like the Pill just like other prescription medications. For years, insurers had omitted contraceptives from prescription drug plans—the only entire class of drugs routinely and explicitly excluded—which made women’s out-of-pocket medical expenses some 70 percent higher than men’s. Measures to ensure contraceptive equity had been stalled by male legislators and social conservatives who asserted that employers and insurers shouldn’t be forced to pay for what they called a “lifestyle” choice, not a health care need. Despite that fact that nearly all women use contraceptives at some point in their lives—98 percent, according to government surveys—and that at any given moment two-thirds of women of child-bearing age are using a contraceptive method, the implication was that fertility management was frivolous or immoral and that “other people” shouldn’t be forced to pay for it.

***

When charges that contraceptives were abortifacients failed to halt the measure, the bishops turned to a new tack: claiming that contraception equity laws violated the religious freedom of insurers and employers who disapproved of contraception and would be forced to subsidize its use. “They force private health insurance plans and/or employers . . . to cover all ‘FDA-approved’ methods of contraception. . . regardless of the provider’s conscientious objection or long-standing religious beliefs against such coverage,” wrote Cathy Deeds of the NCCB. It was a stunning claim, suggesting that anyone who administered or paid for an insurance policy should be free to dictate what coverage was provided to policyholders based on their objection to services that they themselves would not be forced to use.

The Catholic bishops now sought a broad-based conscience clause that would allow any employer or insurer to refuse to cover contraceptives for any religious or moral objection. This represented a major escalation in the grounds for claiming conscience protections. Traditionally so-called conscience clauses, like the 1973 Church Amendment, protected individuals or health care entities like hospitals only from being compelled to directly perform abortions or sterilizations in violation of their moral or religious beliefs. In 1997, the federal government expanded conscience protections to the payers of abortion-related services when it allowed Medicaid and Medicare managed-care plans to refuse to pay providers for abortion counseling or referral services. Now the bishops were attempting to extend conscience protection to any payer who had a “moral” objection to contraception. Such a measure would make contraceptive coverage mandates useless, because any employer or insurer could opt out. And it would once again leave women’s reproductive health care at the mercy of individual employers and insurers and stigmatize contraceptives, like abortion, as a segregated health service that could be carved out of the continuum of women’s health needs.

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/14/how_the_catholic_church_masterminded_the_supreme_courts_hobby_lobby_debacle/

United States pro-life movement

Demonstrators at the 2004 March for Life
The United States pro-life movement (also known as the United States anti-abortion movement or the United States right-to-life movement) is a social and political movement in the United States opposing on scientific, moral, or religious grounds elective abortion and usually supporting its legal prohibition or restriction. Advocates generally argue that human life begins at conception and that the human fetus (or embryo or zygote) is a person and therefore has a right to life. The pro-life movement includes a variety of organizations, with no single centralized decision-making body.[1] There are diverse arguments and rationales for the pro-life stance. Some anti-abortion activists concede arguments for permissible abortions in exceptional circumstances such as incest, rape, severe fetal defects or when the woman's health is at risk.

Before the Supreme Court 1973 decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, anti-abortion views predominated and found expression in state laws which prohibited or restricted abortions in a variety of ways. (See Abortion in the United States.) The anti-abortion movement became politically active and dedicated to the reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision, which struck down most state laws restricting abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy.[2][3] In the United States, the movement is associated with several Christian religious groups, especially the Catholic Church, and is frequently, but not exclusively, allied with the Republican Party.[4][5] The movement is also supported by non-mainstream pro-life feminists.[6] The movement seeks to reverse Roe v. Wade and to promote legislative changes or constitutional amendments, such as the Human Life Amendment, that prohibit or at least broadly restrict abortion.[1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-life_movement

[rug]

82. "The RCC was behind every law restricting access to birth control, women's health clinics and

abortion in this country."

What about "every law" is it that you misunderstand?

The history of contraception and abortion laws, especially contrasting the last 50 years to the previous 50 years, is more involved than simple-minded Catholic bashing. So is the remedy.

[beam me up scottie]

85. Every recent law, splitting hairs about how involved the RCC is in restricting my rights?

Because you've tried that before and lost.

Federal Lawsuit Challenges Tennessee Antiabortion Amendment
By JACOB GERSHMAN

Days after Tennessee voters approved a constitutional amendment that opened the door for more regulation of abortion clinics, opponents of the measure struck back with a federal lawsuit alleging that the state improperly counted the votes in violation of due-process rights.
As WSJ reported, Amendment 1–backed by leading Republican Gov. Bill Haslam, the Catholic Church, the Tennessee Baptist Convention and Right-to-Life groups–added wording to the state constitution that, “Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion,” including those stemming from rape or incest. The measure passed 52.6%-47.4%, according to Associated Press.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-49817

Your wiki-fu skills are no match for reality, the RCC is waging a war on women in this country and winning.

Anyone who is more interested in defending the Church from its critics than joining them in the fight is no ally.

[rug]

93. Knowing the facts is not splitting hairs. And the issue is far greater than "your" rights.

I'll take that as an admission that you posted a broad brush, simple-minded - and incorrect - statement.

I'll explain to you why you're wrong.

If the RCC vanished tonight, an eventuality which I expect is dear to your heart for reasons well beyond contraception and abortion, the political forces against legalization would not vanish.

If you've been paying attention, one, it is not simply the political wing of the RCC which is waging "a war on women", and two, they, all of them, are not winning. Not by a longshot. The courts have across the board slapped down lawsuits attempting to restrict access to abortion and contraception. You'll need to ramp up your google-fu beyond a bill passing a state legislature "52.6%-47.4%" to rewrite that reality. Not to mention, the reproductive constitutional protections are federal, not state.

I am no ally of you, specifically you, because with you it's always a close call as to whether you're driven by anti-religion or pro-reproductive rights.

Fortunately, the actual movement to maintain reproductive rights is not hamstrung by such narrow, parochial concerns couched in inaccurate rhetoric. And it works just fine with religious and nonreligious advocates. Unlike you.

[beam me up scottie]

94. Anyone who feels he needs to defend the Church from its victims is no ally.

When the Catholic Church owns your doctor: The insidious new threat to affordable birth control
Eight of the largest health systems in America are now Catholic-owned. More and more won't prescribe conraception
Patricia Miller



Angela Valavanis had already had one bad encounter with the Catholic health care system when St. Francis Hospital, the hospital in Evanston, Ill., where she delivered her second baby, refused to allow her OB/GYN to tie her tubes because of Catholic restrictions on the procedure. When she went to her doctor’s office for a check-up after the birth and asked about going back on the Pill, since she hadn’t gotten the sterilization she wanted, she got another shock: “My doctor told me that she couldn’t prescribe birth control because she had sold her practice to a Catholic health system,” said Angela. “My mouth dropped open. I was so confused to hear those words coming out of the mouth of an OB/GYN.”

An OB/GYN who can’t prescribe birth control? It’s not some bad joke. It could be a reality if your doctor’s practice is purchased by a Catholic health system that then imposes the Ethical & Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, a set of rules created by the U.S. Bishop’s Conference that prohibits doctors from doing everything from prescribing the Pill to performing sterilizations or abortions.

...

And with Catholic hospital systems accounting for eight of the 10 of the largest nonprofit health systems in the U.S., these hospitals are poised to become major owners of doctors’ offices, which could severely impede access to contraceptives if doctors are forced to follow the Directives. “The more we see these Catholic systems buying up these practices, the more we are going to see what Angela saw,” predicted Lorie Chaiten, director of the Illinois ACLU’s Reproductive Rights Project, who notes that such refusals are legal under Illinois’ Health Care Right of Conscience Act.

...

But for some women, changing doctors may not be an option. Health insurers are becoming increasingly restrictive about which hospitals and doctors a patient is allowed to use and may charge a steep penalty for going out of the network of preferred providers. Smaller towns and rural areas may not have a large selection of OB/GYNs. The ACLU is backing a measure in the Illinois Legislature that would require health systems to tell patients beforehand what services they don’t provide and where they can get them. Chaiten also encourages women who have been denied reproductive health services for religious reason to report it to the ACLU, which is tracking this trend.

Ironically, Angela’s experience with her OB/GYN wasn’t her last run-in with Catholic health care. After she was refused a tubal ligation and a prescription for birth control, Angela’s husband decided to get a vasectomy. His doctor, who was also part of the Catholic system, said his practice couldn’t do the procedure or make a referral. “The whole situation is so unbelievable to me. I had no idea these limitations occurred,” she says. “When I tell my friends about it, they say it’s medieval. We have to worry that if they keep buying up all these practices, it will get harder and harder to find someone who can prescribe birth control.”

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/11/when_the_catholic_church_owns_your_doctor_the_insidious_new_threat_to_affordable_birth_control/

The RCC is also waging a war on lgbt people but you seem to be more concerned with defending it from its victims and shutting down any criticism on DU than discussing the issue. It's pointless to try to discuss this with you but thanks for giving me the opportunity to post these articles!

[rug]

99. Has someone ordained you to declaim who is or who is not an ally of whatever you think you're doing?

Calling you on your broad-brushed, bigoted rhetoric is hardly defending the RCC or anything else.

The actual pro-reproductive rights movement, while very effectively curbing political attempts by the USCCB and others to limit those rights, is not dividing support by attacking either the religions themselves or the members of those religions. You do.

Your problem is you see this as a religious war and not a political struggle. It's not.

http://rcrc.org/

The net effect of your efforts, if they have any effect whatsoever, is disruption and division. Excuse me now while I step away and scoff at your fatwa of who is and who is not an ally.

[beam me up scottie]

100. Oops, missed one: Catholic dominance over hospitals endangers women

Catholic dominance over hospitals endangers women

A public-health giant

Catholic hospitals provide care for 1 in 6 patients in the United States; they are, collectively, the largest not-for-profit health care provider in the country. As secular hospitals merge with Catholic ones, many health care organizations and the communities they serve are on edge. In Washington state, for example, mergers mean that nearly half of hospital beds are in facilities controlled or influenced by the church, and in many regions a Catholic hospital is the sole provider. Nationwide, Catholic health care providers grew by 16 percent from 2001 to 2011. The number of secular nonprofit hospitals dropped by 12 percent in that period; the number of public hospitals fell by 31 percent.

Catholic health care providers are bound by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, a document issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that governs how health care providers should deal with reproductive issues, end-of-life care, the “spiritual responsibility” of Catholic health care and a variety of other concerns. The range of women’s health care options that Catholic facilities offer is limited — sometimes, like when a pregnancy goes wrong, to a deadly degree. And while most doctors have an ethical obligation to inform patients of all their options, Catholic facilities routinely refuse to offer even abortions necessary to save a pregnant woman’s life; their doctors are also barred from telling a patient with a nonviable pregnancy that there are other, often safer options available elsewhere, lest the patient seek care at another facility. (LGBT patients may also run into problems, whether it is with hormone therapy for transgender patients or simply the right of married same-sex partners to be treated as next of kin in making health care decisions).

***

But Catholic hospitals receive enormous amounts of state and federal funding, in the form of large tax exemptions, Medicare and Medicaid dollars and specific grants for certain types of care. In 2011, Catholic hospitals received $27 billion in public funding, not including tax breaks — nearly half their revenue. Catholic hospitals employ and serve populations that are not predominantly Catholic. One-fifth (PDF) of physicians at religious hospitals reported facing a “clinical ethical conflict” in which their medical judgment was at odds with the hospital’s religious policy. Because Catholic hospitals receive public funds and care for a diverse population, they should have a duty to serve the actual health needs of their patients and the ethical obligations of their staffs over church dogma.

Instead, they put the dogma first. As a result, rape victims are routinely refused emergency contraception in Catholic hospitals. Women with life-threatening ectopic pregnancies, which are easily ended by a shot of methotrexate or a minor surgery, often find an entire fallopian tube unnecessarily removed — decreasing the odds of future pregnancy — if they seek care at a Catholic facility. And, as Means discovered, even in life-threatening emergencies, Catholic hospitals regularly refuse to terminate pregnancies and may face penalties, including removal of church-affiliated status, if they do so to save the life of the mother. In one case in Arizona, a pregnant mother of four went to a Catholic hospital’s emergency room with a condition so life-threatening that her chances of imminent death without an abortion were nearly certain. She was too ill to transfer to another facility, so the hospital’s administrator, a nun, approved an emergency termination. The woman lived. The nun was excommunicated. Her standing with the church was eventually restored, but the hospital lost its 116-year affiliation with the Catholic Church.

Refusing to provide female patients with a full range of reproductive care is discrimination. Intentionally providing substandard care when safer, better options are available is monstrous. It means women see their bodies damaged, their fertility impaired and their lives threatened. Low-income women and women in rural areas face the greatest hardships, since they may have no other option for care except a Catholic hospital. Rural living means there may not be another hospital for miles. Poverty means finding a provider that accepts Medicaid and is nearby; distance equals more gas money or more time on public transportation and off work. For many women, the closest abortion clinic is hundreds of miles away. Religion should not be an excuse for public health institutions to discriminate so broadly and do such harm.

***

In reality, the so-called religious freedom of health care providers to accept massive federal and state funding while refusing to provide comprehensive health care violates women’s bodies and endangers their health. The grossness of this discrimination and the dangers it poses become transparent in neighborhoods affected by mergers, where women in need of emergency care may not have the option of seeking out a non-Catholic hospital. If the Catholic Church sees women as second-class citizens and wants to continue barring them from positions of power within the church while fruitlessly demanding they abstain from contraception use and premarital sex, that is the church’s prerogative. But if they are working in the health care space, they must provide the most appropriate, humane and effective health care. Even to women

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/dangers-of-a-catholichospitaluntold.html

[rug]

101. Oh, you've missed much more than that.

Starting with framing it as a religious war and not a political one.

But given to your omission of the Comstock laws and your loathing of all things religious, it's unsurprising.

[beam me up scottie]

104. The Church frames it as a religious war, rug and they wage it every day.

Why shouldn't women loathe misogynistic institutions? I loathe the GOP too for the same reason - they made me their enemy first.

I also loathe the NRL and Operation Rescue, that doesn't make me a bigot, it makes me a liberal.

Your church isn't special, they deserve the same level of loathing as any other misogynistic, homophobic organization.

Stop blaming the victims.

[rug]

105. They frame their position as religious doctrine.

Their political lobbying through the RCC is pure politics. Unsuccessful politics.

Before you speak for women, you should ask the many religious woman who oppose restrictive reproduction laws if you can speak for them. You can start with Nancy Pelosi.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/us/politics/in-pelosi-strong-catholic-faith-and-abortion-rights-coexist.html?_r=0

[beam me up scottie]

106. There it is! The word "religious", thanks for admitting that religion is the source.

[rug]

108. Read the post again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/us/politics/in-pelosi-strong-catholic-faith-and-abortion-rights-coexist.html?_r=0

[beam me up scottie]

109. The Vatican's War on Women:

The Vatican's War on Women

The Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) received a harsh condemnation from the Vatican after a three-year study into its practices and stances. The critique expresses concerns that women religious have been too tolerant in their views about sexuality, too supportive of universal health care despite its long history within official Catholic social teaching, and too silent in opposition to abortion. As we have watched the U.S. bishops become completely identified with right wing Christian politics in recent years, we now see the Vatican join the current "war on women" that is dominating the presidential race on the Republican side.

But this is not a new war for the Vatican. This is old time religion. The Catholic Church has been a repressive place for women for its entire history. We could easily point to the exclusion of women as priests, a role which presides over the Sacraments which bind the church community to each other and to the divine source of life. Finally, at Vatican II in the 1960s, women were allowed to have more participation in the Catholic liturgy by reading from the Scripture, serving at the altar and providing the Sacrament of the Eucharist to parishioners. Under the current Pope, all reforms of Vatican II are being questioned with the inclusion of women in specific ministerial roles in jeopardy.

But a more telling statistic about the importance of women's voices in the Catholic Church is found in its official teaching. Despite the hard work of nuns and lay women who are often the heart of local parishes and schools, no single document ever published by the Catholic Church has ever been written by a woman or a group of women. For 2,000 years, each and every teaching of the Catholic Church has been the viewpoint of men. And, more than not, women were not even consultant about the content. This includes church documents written about women and their role in society and the church. And, of course, it includes official teaching on sexuality and motherhood.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/vatican-war-on-women_b_1443573.html

[rug]

110. There's the monomania again.

Who do you think has a more direct effect on these laws (which is the bottom line here), Nancy or Francis?

[beam me up scottie]

111. Another uppity woman speaks: Beatriz Case Reveals Catholic Hierarchy’s War on Women

Beatriz Case Reveals Catholic Hierarchy’s War on Women

For the women of the world’s more privileged nations, it is tempting to view the plight of Beatriz, the gravely ill Salvadoran woman denied a therapeutic abortion of a fetus missing its brain, as something that could not happen to us. But if the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) had its way, women who face similar medical challenges in the United States would be forced into the same life-threatening circumstances as the 22-year-old Central American mother.

El Salvador’s draconian abortion ban is Catholic doctrine made law, in a nation where church prelates hold great political power. While the bishops’ political power encounters greater checks in the U.S. system of government, it is nonetheless substantial—never mind that the USCCB’s positions on women’s health and rights do not represent the beliefs of most American Catholics.

Bishops’ Political Power and the War on Women

One need only look at the way in which bishops tried to derail the Affordable Care Act (ACA), holding up the legislation for months through the resistance of several conservative Catholic congressmen, ostensibly because the law would allow women to purchase, with their own money, health-care coverage for abortion (via a convoluted formula designed to satisfy the church fathers—which, of course, it didn’t).

Today the bishops’ jihad against the health-care law rests in the requirement that employer-provided health plans, including those offered by Catholic-affiliated institutions such as universities and hospitals, provide coverage for prescription contraception without a co-pay. Hoping to avoid a conflict with the Catholic bishops, whose doctrine forbids the use of birth control, the administration convinced insurance companies to pay for contraceptive prescriptions in such plans so the Catholic institutions wouldn’t have to, but that did not satisfy church leaders.

The USCCB, working in coalition with members of the Protestant evangelical right, claims the contraception requirement to be an infringement on its religious liberty, since it prevents the bishops from imposing their religious views on the women of many faiths who work in these large institutions, some of which receive federal dollars, whose primary work is not religious in nature. (In many parts of the country, in fact, the only hospital within reach is one affiliated with the Catholic church. In 2009, according to the National Catholic Reporter, Catholic hospitals served one in six U.S. hospital patients.)

As I write, dozens of lawsuits filed by Catholic institutions and agencies against the Obama administration, challenging the ACA contraception policy, are wending their way through the courts—an effort “spearheaded,” according to Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones, by the USCCB. (Many of those institutions are represented by the right-wing Becket Fund, which is led by Catholic conservatives.) Essentially, the church is claiming a right to discriminate against women as a matter of religious liberty, much as Bob Jones University claimed a religious right to discriminate against African Americans, a claim knocked down by the Supreme Court in 1983.

A Cult of Misogyny?

Before you write off Beatriz’s predicament to moral ambiguity on later abortion, it is only fair to consider the whole of the church’s teaching on matters particular to women, exemplified by its proscription on contraception, which finds no standing in the teachings of Jesus or his disciples, or in the consciences of most Catholics, 82 percent of whom reject it, according to a 2012 Gallup poll.

Neither does one find admonitions against women preachers in the teachings of Jesus, yet the Vatican holds fast to its ban on women priests, a doctrine that can only be viewed, in the modern age, as misogynistic.

Despite the many good works of those it claims to lead, the Vatican and the institutional church has a troubled, centuries-old history in the realm of temporal power. At its essence, the hierarchy is, more than anything, a cult of power—a cult whose leaders wish to assure that any future members look and think exactly like them. And that’s what accounts for the prelates’ stunning lack of compassion in matters concerning women.

They’d have you believe, of course, that their concern is for the children of the world—a term they apply liberally, to zygotes, embryos, and fetuses.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/06/04/beatriz-case-reveals-catholic-hierarchys-war-on-women/#sthash.OrYTSC56.dpuf

[rug]

112. Your disregard of Pelosi suggests yorur real target here is not women's rights at all.

Just another tool to use to advance your hatred for the RCC.

Fortunately, Pelosi, unlike you, does speak for many.

(BTW, your google fu is losing its focus.)

[beam me up scottie]

114. My focus is the Church's war on women and guess who's leading the charge?:

How Pope Francis is perpetuating the Catholic Church's radical anti-abortion position
Another week, another flood of stories about Liberal Pope Francis.

This week they focused on the Vatican's declaration that during the Jubilee year that runs from Dec. 8, 2015, to Nov. 20, 2016, the pope will be empowering priests around the world to grant absolution for the sin of abortion. In what has become a recurring pattern, the media has greeted this announcement with barely contained excitement. Oh, there goes the reformist pope yet again, opening wide the doors of the church to the modern world, offering a healing message of mercy instead of a harsh hand of judgment and rebuke!

Informed commentators have noted that the comparatively conservative Pope John Paul II did the same thing during a Jubilee year of his own pontificate. But with Francis, every expression of empathy, however miniscule, gets interpreted as a sign that the church is moving in a new, more progressive direction.

In this case, at least, such hopes are woefully misplaced. The fact is that the church's position on abortion is breathtakingly, stunningly radical — more radical, even, than the mainstream pro-life movement. Viewed in the context of this radicalism, Francis' proposal of temporary pastoral leniency is hardly something worth applauding. On the contrary, it's an act so small that it deserves to be denounced as a woefully inadequate response to a fundamental injustice at the heart of the church.

No one would be surprised to learn that the Vatican considers abortion to be an act of murder. In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable." (Par. 2271) When fair-minded lay Catholics (like Ross Douthat of The New York Times) argue about abortion as a matter of public policy, they see no conflict between upholding this moral teaching and proposing that those who procure abortions be legally punished with less severity than those who engage in other forms of lethal violence. That's because these commentators recognize that abortion differs from all other kinds of murder: In no other form of homicide does the victim reside within the body of the perpetrator.

But then why does the Catholic Church officially lean in the opposite direction, treating abortion as worse than other forms of homicide and deserving of more severe punishment?

According to the church, if I commit adultery, my priest can hear my confession and absolve my sin. If I murder my wife, my priest can hear my confession and absolve my sin. Heck, if I engage in an act of genocide, my priest can hear my confession and absolve my sin.

But if my wife procures an abortion, she incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication, meaning she instantly falls out of communion with the Catholic Church. That precludes her from partaking in the sacraments, including the sacrament of reconciliation, which is the means by which a priest can hear a confession and absolve sins.

That makes abortion worse than every other form of murder, including mass murder.

http://theweek.com/articles/575293/how-pope-francis-perpetuating-catholic-churchs-radical-antiabortion-position

[rug]

116. And Pelosi's focus is on keeping the laws on the books and enforced.

Who of the two of you is more relevant and more credible?

[beam me up scottie]

117. Annie Laurie Gaylor is pretty credible, she speaks for me:

The Religious War Against Women
By Annie Laurie Gaylor

Virtually every vocal opponent of contraception and abortion for the past 30 years argues against these rights on the basis of God and the bible. There were many fine organizations working for women's rights, but none--we felt--getting at the root cause of women's oppression--patriarchal religion and its incursions upon our secular laws. So that's why I'm here today.

The primary organized opposition to reproductive rights in this country always has been religion. In fact, we are in the midst of a religious war not just against abortion rights, but women's rights in general, not just in our country, but worldwide.

In this country, the religious terrorism is directed at birth control and abortion clinics, their patients, medical providers and staff. In Alabama, it is the Army of God bombing abortion clinics. In Algeria, it is terrorists from similarly named groups who are shooting schoolgirls on the streets for not wearing veils.

In America, the foot soldiers of the Religious Right are engaged in their campaigns of terrorism, harassment, stalking, arsons, bombing, murder, trying to close down legal abortion clinics by force. They do all these things in the name of God. In Afghanistan, the radical Islamic Taliban that has taken over that country is literally halting all medical care for women--the hospitals in the capital city are already closed to women. They've done this, and worse, in the name of Allah.

Islamic fundamentalist theocrats openly talk of jihad, a holy war. So does Patrick Buchanan, who has called for a Christian jihad in this country.

Whether declared or undeclared, there is nothing new in this religious war against women. After the organized women's movement was officially launched 150 years ago this year, Elizabeth Cady Stanton said the "bible was hurled at us on every side." Every freedom won for women in this country, small or large--from wearing bloomers to riding bicycles to not wearing bonnets in church, to being permitted to speak in public, to attend universities, to enter professions, to vote and own property--was opposed by the churches. In the nineteen seventies and eighties, it was the churches--Catholic, fundamentalist Protestant and Mormon--which marshalled political forces to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment.

http://ffrf.org/legacy/fttoday/1998/april98/gaylor.html

[rug]

120. That's a matter of opinion. Every pronouncement is through the lens of FFRF.

She is explicitly antitheist and a single issue activist with no real power beyond that.

What is telling is that the Minority Leader in the House sees no contradiction between her Catholic faith and keeping abortion and contraception legal. Along with millions of others.

[beam me up scottie]

121. You asked and I answered, my opinion is just as valid as Nancy's and counts for more than yours.

The war isn't being waged against your gender and the laws aren't restricting your reproductive rights so it's easy for you to dismiss my voice. But I'm not shutting up because you're offended on behalf of your church. So get used to it.

Thanks for helping turn this thread into a source for info on the war on women, it's tough to keep track of all those links, now they're in one place!

I'll keep adding to it whenever I can.

You're a sport!

[rug]

122. Let me guess. Your opinion counts for more than mine because . . . .?

[smirkymonkey]

160. +1000

[beam me up scottie]

107. More: "Thank the Catholic church for terrifying abortion restrictions in Latin America"

Thank the Catholic church for terrifying abortion restrictions in Latin America
Erika L Sánchez

States have adopted 43 restrictions on access to abortion, the second-highest number ever at the midyear mark and the same number enacted in all of 2012. These numbers are alarming and many American women are rightfully worried. I'm terrified by the trend.

If women in the US aren't careful, we might find ourselves in a similar situation as our southern neighbours in Latin America and the Caribbean, which still have extreme abortion restrictions (pdf). Although most Latin American countries are supposedly secular, the Catholic church continues to insert itself into governments. Abortion is broadly legal in only six countries, which means it's permitted either without restriction as to reason or on socioeconomic grounds. These countries only account for less than 5% of the region's women aged 15 to 44. Because of these limitations, many women resort to "traditional practitioners" who use unsafe methods and purchase abortion-inducing drugs from pharmacists and other vendors.

The World Health Organization estimates that in Latin America and the Caribbean a staggering 12% of all maternal deaths were due to unsafe abortions in 2008. In the name of religion, girls as young as 9 years old have been inhumanely denied abortions though their pregnancies were life- threatening. Their family members and doctors have even been threatened with excommunication.

Why is Latin America so far behind the US and Europe in terms of abortion rights? In her article "The Politics of Abortion in Latin America", Cora Fernandez Anderson points out that while feminist movements were gaining momentum in Europe and North America in the 1960s and '70s, Latin American countries were busy fighting dictatorships and civil wars.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/27/abortion-rights-latin-america

[beam me up scottie]

96. Rightwing Watch: The Personhood Movement: Internal Battles Go Public

The Personhood Movement: Internal Battles Go Public: Part 2

In 1975, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops had developed a plan to turn every diocese into an anti-choice political machine and to use its existing infrastructure to set up an office in every congressional district. The bishops’ plan included a four-pronged legislative strategy, which continues to guide the anti-choice movement today:

(a) Passage of a constitutional amendment providing protection for the unborn child to the maximum degree possible.

(b) Passage of federal and state laws and adoption of administrative policies that will restrict the practice of abortion as much as possible.

(c) Continual research into and refinement and precise interpretation of Roe and Doe and subsequent court decisions.

(d) Support for legislation that provides alternatives to abortion.


In other words: fight for an amendment to undo Roe, but at the same time work through the courts and legislatures to make it harder for women to access legal abortion. While Roe would remain the law of the land, women would not be able to actually exercise their rights.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/personhood-movement-internal-battles-go-public-part-2-0

[beam me up scottie]

97. More facts for you: Do Bishops Run Your Hospital?

Do Bishops Run Your Hospital?
The Catholic Church is making health care decisions for more and more Americans—whether they know it or not.
—Stephanie Mencimer |

One morning in November 2010, an ambulance brought a woman who was 15 weeks pregnant to the emergency room at Sierra Vista Regional Health Center, 70 miles outside Tucson, Arizona. She had been carrying twins and had miscarried one at home in the bathtub. The chances of the second fetus making it were "minuscule," Dr. Robert Holder, the OB-GYN on call that day, later recalled in an affidavit. He told the woman and her husband that trying to continue the pregnancy would put her at risk of severe bleeding and infection. In short, she needed an emergency abortion.

But there was a problem: Sierra Vista was in the midst of a trial merger with a Catholic hospital company, Carondelet Health Network, which required its doctors to abide by the church's ethical and religious directives. Hospital administrators told Holder that because the surviving fetus still had a heartbeat, he could not perform an abortion. Holder had to send the patient to a hospital in Tucson—a three-hour delay that he believed put her at risk for life-threatening complications.

The doctors at Sierra Vista aren't the only ones to struggle with submitting their medical decisions to a higher authority. A growing number of patients are finding their health care options governed by the church's guidelines as Catholic hospitals, long major players in the health care market, have been on a merger streak, acquiring everything from local hospital systems to medical practices, nursing homes, and health insurance plans.

Between 2001 and 2011, the number of American hospitals affiliated with the Catholic Church grew 16 percent, even as the number of public hospitals and secular nonprofit hospitals dropped 31 percent and 12 percent, respectively, according to an upcoming report by the American Civil Liberties Union and MergerWatch, a nonprofit that tracks religious health care mergers. In 2012, Catholic hospitals and health care systems were involved in 24 mergers or acquisitions, according to Irving Levin Associates, a market research firm. Ten of the 25 largest nonprofit hospital systems in the country are Catholic, and Catholic hospitals care for 1 in 6 American patients. In at least eight states, 30 percent or more of patient admissions are at Catholic facilities.

Ten of the 25 largest nonprofit hospital systems in the country are Catholic, and Catholic hospitals care for 1 in 6 patients.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/catholic-hospitals-bishops-contraception-abortion-health-care

Darn that Mother Jones and its anti-Catholic bias!

[beam me up scottie]

98. More anti-Catholic bias, this time from the ACLU:

ACLU Sues, Claiming Catholic Hospitals Put Women At Risk

The American Civil Liberties Union has decided to go directly to the source of its unhappiness with the way women are treated in Catholic hospitals. It's suing the nation's Catholic bishops.

The ACLU and the ACLU of Michigan have filed suit in federal court in Michigan charging that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops forces hospitals to deliver what amounts to substandard medical care.

Directly at issue are the bishops' "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services," which among other things forbid Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, even if the pregnant woman's life or health is at risk.

"It's about rules that tie the hands of doctors at Catholic facilities," says ACLU Deputy National Legal Director Louise Melling.

The case involves a mother of three from Muskego, Mich., named Tamesha Means. In December 2010, when she was 18 weeks pregnant, her water broke. A friend drove her to the nearest hospital, Mercy Health Partners, where she was told she was likely to lose the baby. But she was not told that the hospital would not do the therapeutic abortion she would get in a non-Catholic facility. She was given medication to stop contractions and sent home. She returned to the hospital later, bleeding, running a fever and in pain, and begged them to help her.

"And they proceeded on with, 'Well, you know, Tamesha, there's nothing that we can do to help you,' " she says. Means said she was unaware that it was a Catholic facility.

Eventually, as the hospital was preparing to discharge her again, she delivered the very premature infant, who died after a few hours.

***

This is hardly the first time a pregnant woman in a life- or health-threatening situation has run afoul of Catholic ethical and religious directives. In 2010, a nun who was the administrator of a Catholic hospital in Phoenix was excommunicated after she allowed an abortion to save a woman's life. And as more and more hospitals merge with or get taken over by Catholic facilities, the tensions continue to grow.

"It's clear to me that Mercy Health Partners neglected to treat Ms. Means according to basic medical standards, and as such prolonged her suffering and jeopardized her health," says Laube. "While we're all entitled to our religious beliefs, hospitals should not be entitled to impose their religious beliefs on patients and medical staff who do not share them."

The Conference of Catholic bishops declined to comment on the lawsuit. But others wonder about the idea of suing the bishops themselves for neglect.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/12/02/248243411/aclu-sues-u-s-bishops-says-catholic-hospital-rules-put-women-at-risk

Sure looks like a war on women to me.

[malaise]

141. There is a very clear war on women

No escaping that evidence-based reality

[beam me up scottie]

142. Yes there is, and it's escalated significantly.

After Hobby Lobby and the 2014 elections they know they have the momentum to keep chipping away at reproductive rights.

[malaise]

143. They won't win that one

Trust me on that

[hifiguy]

153. And it's about as much of a secret

as the mayor marching down Main Street with 10,000 Irishmen and a pipe band on St Patrick's Day.

[malaise]

154. LOL

[loyalsister]

56. Isn't that because of her virgin status?

One of the most sexist parts of Catholocism is glorifying female virgins and despite Jasus' stance degrading and demonizing women who are "unclean" is the tenet that perpetuates opposition to BC and abortion.

[restorefreedom]

74. mary is seen as a saint and a very special one

she supposedly has better access to jesus because of her being his mother. but she was seen, in life, as a woman was seen in those times. when jesus was dying, he told his mother to take in john and treat him as her son and for him to see her as his mother. she had no special privileges in life and in death, yes, is a special saint "our lady" so in that sense "outranks" other saints. but atnthe same time, because she agreed to carry jesus without question, she was seen as a dutiful and obedient woman and a role model for the feminine ideal. i am not sure that comports with our ideas of modern feminism.

[Ino]

152. She might outrank Joseph.

But because all the apostles were men, all priests are men.

[valerief]

7. You need to go to Venus for women to play a dominant/equal role.

I guess they don't have religions there.

Here's a more fun Zsa Zsa. She was once married to another famous Sanders (not Colonel Sanders, although you couldn't tell that from this clip).

But seriously women are smaller so men will beat them into submission. After that, the brainwashing takes over.

[Donkees]

10. "When 'God' was a Woman"

"What effect did the worship of the female deity actually have upon the status of women in the cultures in which She was extolled? In this book, archeologically documented, is the story of the religion of the Goddess. Known by many names - Astarte, Isis, Ishtar, among others - she reigned supreme in the Near and Middle East. Worshipped for fertility, she was revered as the wise creator and the one source of universal order. Under her, women's roles differed markedly from those in patriarchal Judeo-Christian cultures. Women bought and sold property, traded in the marketplace, and the inheritance of title and property was passed from mother to daughter. How and when did the change in our perception of God (and woman) come about? By documenting the wholesale rewriting of myth and religious dogmas, the author reveals a very ancient conspiracy: the patriarchal re-imaging of the Goddess as a wanton, depraved figure. This is the portrait that laid the foundation for one of culture's greatest shams - the legend of Adam and fallen Eve. It is time to bring the facts about the early female religions to light. They have been hidden away too long. The facts in this book will help you understand the earliest development of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and their reactions to the female religions and customs that preceded them. With these facts, you will be able to undestand how these reactions led to the political attitudes and historical events that occurred as these male-oriented religions were forming - attitudes and events that played a major part in formulating the image of women during and since those times.
Let's clear away the centuries of confusion and misunderstanding. When the ancient sources of the gender stereotyping of today are better understood, the myth of the Garden of Eden will no longer be able to haunt us! "This book will change the way you look at history and, perhaps, the way you perceive organized religions."

http://www.amybrown.net/women/book.html

[truedelphi]

71. thank you for mentioning this book.

I know that in the book, Song of Eve," there is an explanation of the letters that makeup the expression "JEHOVAH" and that entails how several of those letters refer to the Female Divinity.

[Donkees]

84. "The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets" is also excellent

http://www.amazon.com/The-Womans-Encyclopedia-Myths-Secrets/dp/006250925X

[Donkees]

12. Prajnaparamita --The Perfection of Wisdom

Prajnaparamita
The Perfection of Wisdom

"The wisdom of all Buddhas personified in the enlightened form of a female deity."

[Manifestor_of_Light]

81. Yes there are female bodhisattvas (enlightened beings) in Buddhism.

The Buddha said it was just as possible for a woman to be enlightened as a man. That there was no reason why a woman could not be enlightened. Which is pretty good for 600 years before Jesus.

In Theravada or Hinayana Buddhism, (the lesser vehicle)the original kind, you are supposed to work towards enlightenment in your successive lives, so you can go to Nirvana.

In Mahayana Buddhism (the greater vehicle), you are supposed to work towards enlightenment and become a bodhisattva but to stay on earth and help others achieve enlightenment.

Mahayana Buddhism (Chinese) has Kwan Yin as the Bodhisattva of Compassion, she who hears the cries of the world. Buddha said gods were irrelevant when he was asked. He said that what was important was how we treat each other on earth (i'm paraphrasing obviously). There are numerous revered deities, depending on what style of Buddhism you are studying. Buddha is revered in all of them. BUDDHA IS NOT A GOD.

Tibetan Buddhism has numerous revered avatars such as Green Tara, Red Tara and White Tara and many others.

[barbtries]

14. i think so

patriarchy, sexism. many religions do not really even acknowledge that women are fully human. interesting you would post this as i have been thinking about it a lot lately.

[malaise]

17. We went to a funeral service this morning

and it hit me again. The assumptions are just unacceptable.

[eppur_se_muova]

19. Most religions are about divine approval of whatever TPTB want ...

and TPTB are pretty exclusively male.

[nichomachus]

20. Actually ancient religions gave women a prominent place

as well as serpents.

When the patriarchs came up with Genesis, they turned that on its head. That's why the serpent and the woman were both the bad guys -- and Adam was just a poor dupe who suffered for their sins.

[Kurska]

22. It is because most religions developed out of primitive socieities

1. Might made right in such societies, men tended to be physically stronger.
2. One male can impregnate many women, but many women are required to keep a population goings. By that very value women would be assigned less dangerous work and sheltered more.
3. Concerns about paternity were much higher, therefore women were further isolated.

The values of such a culture are reflected in their religion. This has continued through history as oppression of women as those religions spread.

This is certainly not universe. For instance, in many pagan religions women were commonly priests.

[GliderGuider]

23. It's not like that in Unitarianism. nt

[Manifestor_of_Light]

65. Yes, and UUs are not Christian anymore.

The UUs started out as two denominations in the abolitionist movement, although their roots go back several centuries. Michael Servetus is considered the first Unitarian (believer in one god) and he was barbecued at the stake by John Calvin, who he pissed off mightily. Servetus was a doctor who knew about the blood circulation before William Harvey and also did not believe in infant baptism.

The Universalists believed in Universal Salvation and the two denominations merged in 1961. They are a non-creedal religion, which I think is probably unique. They have guiding principles but not creeds.

I've been a UU since I discovered them in 1979. They are generally atheists, agnostic or pagan. Or just questioning. There are ex-Jews, ex-Christians, and those raised with no religion. There are supposedly Christian UUs but I have never met one. They draw from many spiritual traditions and tend to be highly educated and liberal. The largest UU congregation in the world is in Tulsa, to fight the fundies.

Because it is explicitly non-Christian, it's the only church I will set foot in.

www.uua.org

[JustAnotherGen]

75. My Church

Is filled with people like myself - JC the philosopher, a Jewish human being (not a supernatural one) and no trinity. We believe in the person but none of the "super natural"

When I joined in 2004 - my pastors in Rochester were a wife/husband duo on equal footing. That group was more like your description - 1st Unitarian in Rochester NY.

I think the non adherence to to creed is reflected based upon the congregants - from the many UU churches I've visited over the years. Which is how it should be - because we don't colr in the lines of traditional steeples.

[eShirl]

126. nor in the Society of Friends. n/t

[Journeyman]

24. Until this year, The Presiding Bishop of the U.S. Episcopal church was Katharine Jefferts Schori...

At the end of her 9 year administration, she was replaced by Michael Curry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Jefferts_Schori




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Curry_(bishop)

[Journeyman]

47. Twelve U.S. presidents have identified as being Episcopalian . . .

Including FDR, Ford, Bush (père), Madison, Monroe & Washington.

For what it's worth . . .

[Rebkeh]

28. Not every, just the loudest and most visible

And they are the distortions, not the true forms anyway.

Consider that many of the indigenous peoples right here on American soil were matriarchal. All, or at least nearly all, revered Mother Earth as a deity in one form or another. Our roots, in a manner of speaking, are quite the opposite of what you say.

As for western culture, it's also about conquest, "might makes right," and a superior/inferior model of classification - equality is a relatively new concept. Women are definitely not the only ones who suffer that oppression.

[kwassa]

29. No.

Culture is the problem, not religion. Religion is part of the culture. Religion is interpreted. through the culture.

Most cultures, worldwide, are traditionally highly sexist.

[malaise]

36. Well that is true but they feed each other n/t

[Lordquinton]

45. Pretty sure you have that backwards

For an easy example: The Romans were famous for finding local culture and traditions, and then informing them that they were really just misinterpreting the Roman Religion.

Or how the Spanish saw the native American culture and decided it needed to be replaced with Jesus.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

70. The indigenous people would not give up their goddesses.

They wouldn't accept only male gods, so that is why the Virgin Mary is a large part of Catholicism and there are different Marys representing different places, such as the Virgin of Guadalupe.

And I have seen Catholic websites that are made by people who are incredibly pissed that other Catholics worship Mary. They are very sexist and patriarchal and hate mariolatry (that's the word for worshiping Mary).

[Promethean]

128. Funny thing. Look up the origins of the goddess Columbia and her importance

to the District of Columbia. The founders made up a goddess because they wanted to mirror some of the governing principles of the natives which were thought to be good ideas. Literally a false idol to watch over our government. I just learned about it recently and am amazed at that because it is an absolute refutation of the thumpers who claim we were founded as a christian country.

[hopemountain]

156. and because many of the indigenous

tribes/cultures were matrilocal societies or systems whereby women were inherent in their status as life givers and participated in decision making.

[kwassa]

72. I disagree

Part of the Spanish culture in that situation is the inherent belief in their superiority, due to technological advantage, nationalism, and greed. Religion was part of the equation, but as a means to an end, which was the acquisition of great wealth for the individuals involved.

[hifiguy]

87. Yep, the Romans were masters at pragmatic co-opting

and had zero interest in "conversion" as xtians practice it. The Roman Empire was home to countless "gods" besides the official Roman deities. No problems, as long as the provinces acknowledged the political and military supremacy of Rome.

[Odin2005]

31. It is because they originated in patriarchal societies.

Religious institutions merely reflect the social status quo of the society they are in.

But it is important not to confuse the social baggage with the genuine theology and spirituality of those religions. I see all to often "New Atheists" and other close-minded militant anti-religion types (of which I used to be one) blaming religion for what is in reality just a backward social norm that justifies itself with religion.

[malaise]

49. I think that's true for most institutions - the views of the dominant class prevail

The thing is that religious leaders and followers facilitate the perpetuation of many of these backward social norms.

[Bluenorthwest]

76. And they are codified in texts considered to be hand made by God, backward norms made sacred

criticism of those norms punished, often with death because again that is what God's best seller says to do.

[treestar]

32. It does seem to be a common feature of ancient civilization

It seems it takes an advanced civilization to think of women and maybe even men as individual people.

[Depaysement]

35. Seriously, there is a simple answer

Religion was created by men.

[EdwardBernays]

43. Not every

But most.

Jainism isn't sexist.

Hard to imagine the whole world becoming Jainist though.

[hifiguy]

46. It is certainly one if humanity's

Bigger problems. I have no time for Invisible Skywizards of any stripe.

"I'd rather KNOW than BELIEVE." - Carl Sagan

[malaise]

50. Same here

You all die but you don't die if you buy my pie in the sky (and you tithe)

[Mendocino]

52. "The bible is my favorite book of fiction"

Lisa Simpson

[malaise]

55. Unfortunately it's the only book many persons have read

and just a few choice parts. and the same is true for many people in other religions - they have only rad 'their' book. and it's the only book they have ever read in their lives.

[Mendocino]

63. I had a co-worker who considered reading anything

except the bible as not worthy of their time.

[smirkymonkey]

161. Wow, what a narrow-minded person

What were they like as a co-worker?

[hifiguy]

89. Objectively speaking, that is about as profoundly

sad and depressing a statement as I can imagine. And I have no doubt it is true.

[malaise]

136. Yes indeed

It is scary how many people do not read

[KamaAina]

53. In addition to Wicca, Unitarian Universalism does not.

But there are so few of us.

[Cleita]

59. Not all religions.

The religions our Native American people practice give women status and most tribes are ruled by matriarchs who make the important decisions.

[doc03]

80. Not arguing but that is not how the Native American women are portrayed

in the movies. In the movies the squaws are treated like dogs.

[Curmudgeoness]

91. "In the movies"...

and who made those movies? They were mostly made by people who were raised in religions of the Abrahamic god.

And use of the word "squaw" as a female Native American is vile.

[doc03]

133. The dictionary definition of the word squaw is "an American Indian Women". Had no idea

at all it was a derogatory term. I make the statement that movies do not portray American Indian women that way so I am attacked for it like I made f---g movies. It seems some people here just have to go out of their way to be angry about something.

[Grey]

92. Movies made by men, mostly white men.....

[Cleita]

103. Movies? Of course one must base all one knows about First Nations people on movies.

Yes, because they are so accurate in how they portray them.

[smirkymonkey]

77. Because all Abrahamic religions were started by men.

I think as a way to control and dominate women. You may notice that in every society where women are held as equals, that society is highly successful and has a superior way of life and vice versa. The most degraded, poorest societies are those that hold women in contempt.

[malaise]

137. But the Hindu religion is not Abrahamic

and women are worse than second class in Indian culture

[onecent]

88. Well, hell, it BEGAN IN THE BIBLE.

[valerief]

102. TPTB are also killing the planet AKA "Mother" Nature. They really hate women. nt

[OxQQme]

124. Modern societies where women rule

http://mentalfloss.com/article/31274/6-modern-societies-where-women-literally-rule

The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory --> https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/e/eller-myth.html

[guillaumeb]

127. This brush is so broad that it must need a crew to move it.

So broad that a tractor trailer must move it.
So broad that it has a "wide load" sign on it.

[H2O Man]

129. Not all do.

[Rex]

131. Well, not picking on Eastern religion here just Western

why in Western religion is it always okay to break the most holy of commandments daily? It just seems that the lip service is giving lip service to that NEXT TIME will be that time when we are not murdering, raping and committing war crimes against our fellow man and women.

Seems it is nothing BUT hypocrisy all the time, every day. From the fake billionaire TV preachers, to the ones that want to kill off entire ethnicity in the name of rat instead of cat...the whole things seems like one huge failed religious experiment. After centuries, when do people finally begin to wonder?

[Half-Century Man]

132. I see the relegation of women to lesser roles not as a crux so much,

More of a facet of the sparkling crystallized feces that we perpetually circle in ever degrading orbits.

[DFW]

134. It's easier to justify injustice if you are guided by an invisible being whose will only you know

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[malaise]

145. Profound

Wish I could rec

[DFW]

147. I wish it were posted at the Capitol and at the EPA

The Republicans--the same people who renamed Washington's National Airport after Reagan (who hated Washington)--would never stand for it.

[quaker bill]

135. Quakers have never had women as other than equal.

from our beginning 360 years ago.

[malaise]

139. Quakers were a very progressive religion particularly with the regard to the

anti-slavery movement. Don't know much about their hierarchical structure but they appear to be very silent on all issues these days

[quaker bill]

157. Friends Comittee on National Legislation

FCNL.org, a "green" building across the street from the Senate offices. We are on Capitol Hill literally every day.

Susanne B. Anthony and Lucretia Mott (leaders of womens sufferage) were Quakers (Ms. Anthony a disaffected Quaker, Ms. Mott a member). Bayard Rustin who advised and organized MLK's march on Washington, a gay, black, Quaker....

There is no hierarchical structure. There is no real power to be had as Quakers reject all things that place one person above another. The authority, to the extent authority exists, lies in the Unity of the local Meeting.

[malaise]

158. I know about Susan B.Anthony - a great woman

Thanks for the info - did not know about Bayard Rustin.

[Bad Thoughts]

144. Because almost every religion codifies the existing power structure. eom.

[malaise]

148. I think it's more like the power structure adopting and adapting what suits them

to maintain and deepen their grip on power

[ancianita]

149. Yes. It's the outward show of the crux. The crux can be ferreted out. One theory is Marilyn French's

women's world history, From Eve to Dawn.

Like any long read that covers half the planet, it's worth the other half's time. It also offers the crux you speak of. There are other theories, but use of force is in most of them.

[yuiyoshida]

150. There are now women Buddhist monks

[Tab]

151. It's age-old

(and I'm not defending it, just trying to understand it). Men were the traditional strong ones, the ones who could make the most impact in their community. Not that there weren't strong women, but I think it was relatively few and far between, certainly socially, but more importantly just physically. So, mankind (if I can call it that) became a male-centric universe. This stuff doesn't change easily, and it's had hundreds and hundreds (or thousands) of years to get entrenched.

As people evolve, we're finding (I think) that other skills - diplomacy, negotiation, social order - are valued now more than they used to be, mainly because armament and such have evened out the playing field, and strength itself is no longer the deciding factor. I would argue that females are actually better in this department than males. And the religions are changing - there are more female priests, activists in repressive societies and so forth; the shift might not be running as fast as some would like, but at least it's going in the right direction. It took a long time to get here, and it might seem like it's taking a long time to get out, but we also had slavery / female oppression (right to vote) / xenophobia / homophobia for a long time, but the turnaround is, I think relatively quick. I've seen remarkable changes since I grew up in the 60s. There's a long way to go, granted, but I wouldn't lose hope. It's a good question, and we're going to get there.

[malaise]

163. Nice post

Thanks

[madokie]

162. Yes and Yes

[B Calm]

164. Because every religion is copied after earlier ancient religions.

[Arugula Latte]

165. Most of the ones that have gained and retained power were made up for that very reason.

People pulled these asinine belief systems out of their asses because they make it easier to control others, particularly women. That's the crux of it.