When will religions treat women as equals?

[MarkCharles]

I don't see anything in the Holy Bible that allows that.

So that means neither Judaism nor Christianity has Biblical reason to do so.

Today, In Washington, DC, we saw the result of these Biblical teachings in our Congress.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/16/10425952-maloney-asks-where-are-the-women

The insidious Republican big government agenda marches on. The "outrage" manufactured by Republicans over birth control are the most egregious and disturbing example of government intrusion and religious intervention imaginable in this country.

Now, where and how can religious faiths heal themselves without a word about the equality of women in any Bible?

[Angry Dragon]

1. Some religions have women Pastors/Reverends

some are even gay (lesbian)

added: women

[MarkCharles]

2. I think you might want to revise or edit your remarks.

As they stand now, they are neither relevant nor do they make sense.


I'm looking for something that enables religions to go against the Bible, or that enables religions to treat women as equals to men.

[Angry Dragon]

4. I did an edit

and some already do

[wryter2000]

14. The head of the Episcopal Church is a woman

That's not to say everything is fixed in the church, but I think you can say that counts as treating women as equals.

[Johnny Rico]

3. I see no reason to assume that they will do so for the forseeable future.

Mind you, many adherents of the religions you speak of (and let's not forget to throw Islam into the mix!) would consider that a good thing.

[Lint Head]

5. People who poo poo the idea that our country is not threatened by theocratic fascists

are kidding themselves.

[MarkCharles]

6. My point exactly. No matter how many women clergy............

or lesbian clergy, or women in high office in the corporate religious structures of some churches, the Holy Bible, the Kuran, and the Tora all give men ultimate authority, and the result is exactly what we saw in the House hearing today; a bunch of white Christians ignoring the health needs of women, solely for religious reasons.

[cbayer]

8. I would disagree that they were doing it solely for religious reasons.

I would argue that they were doing it solely for political reasons, using religion as their cover.

[MarkCharles]

10. A fair point. But we should make sure the word...

"religious" is not used.

Somehow, I don't hear that when I watched the clips from the hearing.

[cbayer]

12. We can't make sure the word religious is not used.

Politicians have been using religion to advance their often nefarious causes since there was politics or religion.

And they are doing it now.

[Thats my opinion]

16. Please read #7 before you risk making any more accusations.

Digest what is there and then please reply.

[MarkCharles]

17. So I am to ignore the rest of the Bible and cherry pick?

How about those Catholic folks that have been cherry picking the other way for over 2000 years?

I cannot "digest" works of fiction.

[Thats my opinion]

22. No,

Unless you are a bigot with a predetermined point of view which is committed to avoid the evidence you asked for, you may just look at the evidence you asked for. Buts I doubt if we can count on it.

[MarkCharles]

26. So I am the bigot for asking the question?

I am the bigot for not ignoring more than two thousand years of history of how religious organizations have operated regarding the rights of women, and for not ignoring the many Biblical justifications there?

And you are totally non-biased in forwarding your thesis that you claim is "evidence" when it amounts to a highly selective group of citations from a book of fictitious writings and opinions written entirely by men. Strange how the influence of those highly selective passages didn't have much societal or political or legal sway before the establishment of the first nation to separate governing from religion in 1787 in our Constitution. Even after that Amendment stating that "Congress shall make no law..." it was over 130 years more before women were granted a right to vote. Now, suddenly, almost 100 years later we discover selected passages in that old Bible that argue for equality of women? That's your "evidence"?

One thing I find so often is that religious believers cite passages from the Bible as "evidence", when they are technically not "evidence", but simply written opinions, or possibly selective views of history or commonly believed fables of their time. Religious believers have a hard time differentiating such writings from actual historical "evidence".

[Kurmudgeon]

20. How important is the fact that they were "white" to you?

[cbayer]

7. This was the first thing that popped up on a google search

Christians for Biblical Equality - CBE's statement, "Men, Women, and Biblical Equality,” lays out the biblical rationale for equality, as well as its practical applications in the family and community of believers

http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/men-women-and-biblical-equality

If you open the PDF article in English, there are a ton of references to biblical references to gender equality.

There were a lot more links to other organizations and scholarly works when I did a google search.

I think it is important to recognize that various parts of the Bible reflect the times and places in which they were written. There is is a lot of writings on how Jesus challenged traditional views towards women and elevated their status.

No doubt that religion has played, and continues to play, a critical part in the oppression of women. We are seeing it today and right before our eyes. But to say that there are not progressive religious movements that have worked hard for the equality of women and that there is no biblical support for this is not accurate.

[laconicsax]

23. The groups working for equality are to be commended. n/t

[larkrake]

9. Bibles were written by men

[aquart]

11. The point of patriarchal religion is to remove power and property from women.

So never.

[saras]

13. Sikhi has always required it, at least in theory

Guru Nanak set up the religious structure that way, rejecting sexist traditions from both surrounding Hindus (suttee) and Muslims (veiling) - actually Nanak was a joker who ridiculed a lot of arbitrary 'religious' practices - and the Siri Guru Granth is written in (but not translated into, unfortunately) nonsexist language except when an explicitly heterosexist metaphor (God as bridegroom, humanity as bride, their way of managing macho warrior Sikhs) is used.

Fundamentalists are really strange, extreme Christians in the twentieth century. European "Christians" could be considered much more typical. Christianity is a really strange, extremist religion, with its shattering into hundreds of denominations, nearly all evangelical in some way. And Western culture is, of course, the strangest, most extreme culture that has ever, to our knowledge, existed on the planet, and we are on the leading edge of it. So some weirdness is to be expected.

Interpreting the Bible is a mess. Serious Biblical scholars have suggested that it documents three different ways of thought, ways of life, and consequent moral standards. But the more you try to understand it as a collection of myth, history, fancy, letters, what we'd now call creative nonfiction, a few tall tales, and a couple of schizophrenic rants - the stranger it gets, and the stranger you get. I can see why people take it literally - it's not that it's easy to believe, it's that, like in the Illuminatus trilogy, it's so twisted and bizarre that it's easier to just say "ALL the conspiracies are true - at the same time." Basically, "I believe it because NOBODY could make up this shit!"

Jesus is pretty easy on women - except when he's pissed at his mom or something. He's kind of volatile that way - he utterly loses it about a fig tree (old DU link), so I don't think you can hold it against him unless he's consistent, and he's consistent about hanging out with whores.

And those folks they just "found" in South America - I wonder what THEIR religion says about sexual equality?

The world is ruled by mindless, arbitrary, occasionally predictable forces and processes. Those processes and forces are female, and their name is Eris.

[GliderGuider]

21. Eris, the Greek goddess of strife and discord

Echoes abound in the work of the pre-Socratic philosopher Empedocles.

Empedocles postulated two opposing metaphysical forces - Strife and Love. Strife separated the four elements into their individual, divine states, while Love united and incarnated them. Eris was the goddess of Strife, but according to Empedocles her opposite number would not have been Harmonia, but rather Aphrodite. According to philologist Peter Kingsley, Love (Aphrodite) in Empedocles' view represented the principle of illusion - the incarnation of the four elements into illusiory forms that we perveive as reality. On the other hand, Strife (Eris) brought about the truth of the divine absolute by returning the four elements to their primordial states.

I love this topsy-turvy interpretation...

[saras]

25. Well, she used to be. Kerry Thornley and Gregory Hill reformed her in 1958

Kerry Thornley went on to write a book about Lee Harvey Oswald before Oswald killed Kennedy, abandon conspiracy theory for the experimental method, and die poor, crazy, and persecuted. Gregory Hill went on to work for 23 years for the Bank of America.

Modern Discordians are just beginning to get serious academic treatment. I imagine they're pretty disgusted.

[wryter2000]

15. When will the Declaration of Independce be amended

"All men are created equal."

[cbayer]

18. Not holding my breath on that one!

How the heck are you?

[dmallind]

24. Ermmm... 1920.

[Liora24]

19. Don't hold your breath.

I do not think organized religions can be fair to women because they were primarily created by men, for men, and for the purpose of protecting male power and oppressing women. Something has to give way and they have to make a decision to abandon their old ways of thought before any real progress can be made. However it is a known fact that religious conservatives probably all hate women and want to keep them barefoot pregnant and in the kitchen.

That's why secularism is so important. As progressives we don't believe that people need to be subservient to some "religion" which, sadly, too many people have been indoctrinated with. Barring violence against women, there should NEVER, I repeat NEVER, be limits & absolutes on the definition of "right" and "wrong" behavior in the realm of gender roles.

The various indigenous tribes in Africa or South America are based on equality. In their worldview, all people are "brothers and sisters" and hence a woman's first role when she is born into the world is to be a "sister" with the ultimate goal of becoming a self-actualized member of the community. In the patriarchal countries someone goes from being a daughter (controlled by her father) to being a wife (controlled by her husband) to being a mother (controlled by her sons), without a chance to self-actualize. However in matriarchal cultures where true equality prevails those opportunities are there.