Attending church where female clergy is no-no: Why isn't this an issue?

[bunkerbuster1]

At best, I'm not expecting this to be one-hundredth the issue of the Great Corporate Media Jerk-Off we saw about Reverend Wright's one (1) sermon, but shouldn't it?

Seriously, McCain attends and will in all likelihood some time before the campaign ends, will formally join a Baptist church that's part of the Southern Baptist Conference.

And I know the SBC is something like a gazillion times larger than the United Church of Christ, and that there are other denominations that willfully discriminate against women and keep them from achieving the highest ranks of power. And that for some reason this is all perfectly legal because we're more interested in religious non-violence between sects than we are about justice for all. I get all that.

Still, shouldn't this be at least an issue raised at some point? Shouldn't someone ask McCain if he agrees with the Baptists that women should cheerfully submit to the various and sundry ravings, rantings, and pokings from the menfolk?

If the Rev. Wright's "God Damn America" business is protected free speech and protected freedom of religion but, still, worthy a mandatory condemnation, shouldn't the Baptists' active discrimination (and that of the Roman Catholic Church, the Mormons, orthodox Jewry, Islam and many others, be worthy of condemnation as well?

Or are we just going to ignore this and pretend like it doesn't play a role?

[electron_blue]

1. As I've said before, this country has come farther to overcome racism than sexism

This issue is too far down the list of most Americans to care about, plus I'll wager that a fair amt of them still believe women ought not to be clergy.

[hokies4ever]

34. The Bible could be said to have some sexist tenets in it

which partially explains it.

[noel711]

36. The Bible definitely is written from a patriarchal point of view...

But a very wise rabbi said: "Those scriptures were not written for us,
but for a people struggling to survive, a people who lived long ago."

Most educated people of faith can read the Bible, and discern the spiritual
truths therein without swallowing the patriarchal (i.e. sexist) dictates.

The Bible says many things that horrify us, but somehow many so called
'religious' leaders pick and choose which dictates they hold up to keep
folks 'in line.' Within the Bible you can find justification for war,
slavery, racism, anti-mixed marriage, sexism, even dietary restrictions, etc.

But if you look, you can also find justification for support of aliens and
immigrants, feeding the poor and hungry, and caring for abandoned children.

[Irreverend IX]

45. You don't get to pick and choose, if you really follow the Bible.

The Bible states many times that it is the inerrant, infallible word of God, and (contradictions notwithstanding) you can't cherrypick stuff you like out of it and meaningfully say that you believe it and follow Christianity. You can twist it to justify all kinds of things, but outright disregarding certain scriptures because you don't like them just isn't logical if you're regarding the Bible as anything more than a Hebrew history and mythology book. Jesus is quoted as saying that not one jot or whatever would be removed from the law. I don't believe a word of it, so it's not my problem, but some Christians go through laughable logical gymnastics in order to keep their faith while holding post-Bronze Age cultural values.

[JerseygirlCT]

48. Of course you do! What nonsense!

People have always interpreted scripture. NO ONE actually reads it "literally" - that's impossible to do. The text we have today is the result of many translations, interpretations, and lots of editing. On top of those layers, each person who reads the Bible, brings to it their own interpretations.

Those people who would claim to believe in biblical inerrancy are just fooling themselves because they like the interpretation they've been handed and wish to believe it's the only one.

[Irreverend IX]

51. You can interpret it different ways...

But interpreting doesn't mean flat-out ignoring some things, like Paul saying in one of the letters that if a woman wants to know something, she should ask her husband, and that women shouldn't speak during worship. The meaning of those statements is pretty unambiguous, and if you say no to that you might as well chuck the whole book in the trash. But hey, cognitive dissonance and faith go hand in hand.

[JerseygirlCT]

56. No, no and no

Only if your idea of faith is "following the rule book".

So long as you look at Scripture that way, that's what you'll end up with: follow the rules faith. Which is empty and meaningless.

The Bible isn't a rule book. It doesn't set up rules and those that follow them are in, those that don't are out. That's not at all the way it works.

The Bible is a record of humankind's search for relationship with God. Did Paul say some incredible things and some stupid things? Sure he did. He was a human; he was utterly fallible and of course, totally a man of his time and culture.

Jesus' words, as seen through the filter of other people, still come through. And they're not about male supremacy, or how evil gay people are. Not in the least.

The fact that people are still choosing to look at things in those lights is just indication that cultural, human, fallibility is still very much with us. And that some would much rather cling to old biases that simply love one another.

[electron_blue]

55. Yes you do! You have to, or you'd get nowhere. The Bible is rife with inconsistencies

and contradictions. For example, there are two separate version of the Creation. Which one do you think most Christians take as the "true" one?

[JerseygirlCT]

57. Actually, I think the vast majority of Christians worldwide now

know that both stories are stories. Allegories, meant to cause us to think, not scientific accounts.

Only the fundamentalist Protestant sects that have bloomed in the US seem to want to look at those as actual history or science!

[electron_blue]

59. Yes, I think you're right.

[noel711]

61. Your comments are curious since you don't believe it...

YOu CAN and MUST interprete scripture... it isn't called 'cherrypicking' a word used for facts. But the holy scripture is more than a book of facts. It's really a library, containing books of history, poetry, prophecy, and much more.

It wasn't written to be a book of rules.. if you want rules look at Exodus 19 (the ten commandments) and most of Leviticus.. but those who understand the point of the Bible know that most of these rules are considered 'cultic' given for the survival of a small tribe out of the middle east. Most of those rules don't apply to us anymore.. and for folks who 'don't believe' to castigate those of us who do believe ..is kinda silly.

It isn't about ignoring scripture because we don't care for it, it's being able to sift through things that simply dont' apply any more..
like regulations against women when they're menstruating! The people then didn't understand the biological function of menstruation, and were terrified at any issue of blood. Do we, people of the 21st century, demand that menstruating women isolate themselves from others because the Bible told us to do so? Not at all; but you think our cultural changes are 'cherrypicking'? Get serious.

To understand the Bible, like any other book, is to look at the reasons why these things were written, and as I said in my earlier post, to sift out the unnecessary to find the spiritual truths beneath.

I find it intriguing that a someone who doesn't believe can tell those of us to do ...how to read our book of faith. If you really wanna weigh on on this topic, perhaps you need to do a little study yourself.

Please don't judge all of us Christians on what you may have heard or read about in the media, nor about what you may have experienced from neighbors, or even in your youth. It's not that simple.

I would hesitate making judgments on the holy scriptures of other faiths unless I had studied the faiths and books myself.

[JerseygirlCT]

47. Yup. That's what happens when the boys write the books...

male-centered power is just given.

But the real message is so much more compelling, and gives the lie to male domination.

[Jamastiene]

42. That is a valid point.

Many people also read the Bible "literally" instead of figuratively too. So, they take it to be the absolute law.

[electron_blue]

54. Yes. The Bible didn't start sexism, but it has significantly helped to perpetuate it.

[havocmom]

2. Good questions

Have always wondered about people who belong to any organization which practices institutional subjugation of over half the human race.

[bunkerbuster1]

11. When you add it all up...

It's probably a majority of church- (and mosque- and synagogue-) goers in the US.

So maybe it's a really stupid thing to discuss, politically--but then again, maybe it isn't.

[michreject]

27. In just the U.S.

How about the world.

[Warpy]

3. Too many people have a blind spot big enough

to fit half the human race into. In other words, it's not discrimination if it's discrimination against women. It's not a hate crime if a woman is the victim. It's not illegal and/or immoral exclusion if it excludes women.

The rigid sexism of Rome was one of the reasons I rebelled and got the hell out of Catholic school when I was 10. Even at that age, I figured men were responsible for controlling themselves and that "occasion of sin" crap they hung on women was total hooey.

The angriest I ever saw my mother was when a prick of a priest gave a sermon about how the only place for a woman in church was cleaning it. The most disappointed I ever was with her was because she didn't stand up and walk out.

The pull of community was too great, I guess, and that's what keeps female butts in the pews of all sorts of churches who treat them as barely acceptable second class members.

[csziggy]

4. isn't SBC the sect that believes everyone else is going to hell

since THEY are the only ones with the "true word of GAWD"?

"Christians" like that are why I am an agnostic.

[MountainLaurel]

5. Aren't they all like that?

:shrug:

[timtom]

18. Good one!

Not even close, but damnably clever.

Compassion and intellect like yours are the reason I'm not an agnostic.

Though, I used to be.

[MountainLaurel]

28. I calls 'em like I see 'em

B-)

[JerseygirlCT]

49. No. nt

[bunkerbuster1]

8. Not all denominations actively believe that they've got the only code-to-Jesus...

But far too many do, and are really obnoxious about it.

[MadHound]

6. Yes, it is discrimination, yes it is sexism

But it is also religious belief, and that is protected by the First Amendment in this country whether you like it or not:shrug: Would I join a church that had these kind of practices? No, however I also believe in giving respect to those religious institutions in so far as allowing them to do as they wish, so long as they commit no crime or violence.

If you want tolerance for your own beliefs, then you have to extend that respect and tolerance to others

[timtom]

7. Why not just attend a church that suits you?

My church, by the way, has women pastors, women elders, and women deacons.

I left the Baptist church when my wife overheard two members arguing whether or not Roman Catholics were "saved".

(By the way -- they were until this pope.


Just kidding.)

We don't have discussions of that nature at my church.

[bunkerbuster1]

9. I think that's a fair question for McCain.

Really, even if it were theoretical in nature. I'm just looking, if nothing else, to blunt the impact of any future attacks on Obama over his supposedly out-there, anti-American church.

I can think of few things more anti-American and out-there than closing off top management positions to women. I also recognize there are centuries-plus of religious tradition in the way in some denominations and you don't turn it around easily.

But can't the issue be broached? Or is it just counter-productive to our chances for winning in November at this point? I guess that's what I'm wondering.

[Fumesucker]

14. That wasn't the point of the OP

The point is why the discrimination is not a political issue..

No one said that denominations may not discriminate according to sex, what was being asked is why this is not mentioned when Rev Wright's remarks were and are a huge issue.. No one said Wright should be forced to stop saying what he was saying, but lots of people complained bitterly about his words.

[timtom]

Now, that's a horse of a different color.

Rev. Wright should never have become a political issue.

No one's religion should be a political issue, unless they are a dominionist and have an agenda that is detrimental to America.

[Fumesucker]

26. The politicians *make* it an issue..

They blab about their religion, how can it not be an issue?

If you don't want your religion to be an issue, don't talk about it in the first place.

[timtom]

33. Wait...

and I mean this seriously...did Obama blab about his religion or did the MSM drag it up?

I honestly don't remember.

[Fumesucker]

37. You can't get elected without blabbing

All about your "faith"..

If you don't the voters might think you're an atheist and then they definitely won't vote for you.

[crikkett]

10. If we just ignore the religious nuts maybe they'll go away.

[bunkerbuster1]

13. But these aren't the "nuts."

That's my point. It's part of a very well-established, stubborn part of the major faiths in this country (and elsewhere, to be fair.) If it's "nuts" to think women shouldn't preach, then Roman Catholics are all "nuts." and so forth. Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry are "nuts."

I thought maybe if we could get to the point where we acknowlege that people can be devout but take serious issue with their own church's policies, then we'd not only head off at the pass any future Rev. Wright eruptions, but also put the damn abortion-legality question in perspective.

[crikkett]

16. If it's "nuts" to think women shouldn't preach, then Roman Catholics are all "nuts."

precisely my point my dear!

[dflprincess]

32. You're assuming that all Catholics agree with the ban on women priests

I know a lot of them who don't.

[RoadRage]

12. As a former Catholic..

That is one of the many reasons I left the church as quickly as I could (age 14).

The problem is that over 1/2 of church-goers are women who happily submit themselves to this each and every Sunday! My Step-mom and Mother-in-law are two fine examples. It's how they were raised... pathetic as that may be.

So, sadly I don't see it as the same thing. Unfortunately a Rev. screaming about the US being responsible for AIDS is more headline catching then "Yet another religious institution keeps women in sub-serviant roles". It just doesn't have the same "zing" to it, ya know?

So, although I agree with your premise, the MSM certainly will not. Nor will the 60% of female church goers each week who happily oblige by sitting in the pews watching the men run the show.

[crikkett]

15. oops

:shrug:
dupelification.

[bunkerbuster1]

17. eh, a kick is a kick

no problemo.

[timtom]

19. Ya'll are pretty much playing into the RW hand.

If you get bogged down in candidates' religion, race, or gender you have descended from the moral high ground.

And that's just what Rightie the non-clown wants you to do. Wants all Americans to do, that is.

[bunkerbuster1]

21. And that is what I want to avoid.

Having given this some thought, I do think that in the midst of any discussions that have already arisen about that "crazy, scary, America-hatin'" Rev. Wright down the road, it's worth mentioning that while the vast majority of folks profess a belief in equal opportunity, they nevertheless attend church where equal opportunity isn't practiced.

And that somehow, they continue to "sit in the pew for 20 years," as the stupid Republican talking point would have it.

[timtom]

22. I think you may have a valid point.

There is a whole lot of "churchianity" going on ("Yay! I went to church another week. I'm good to go till next Sunday and...what? What's that? You want some spare change for food? Bullshit. You're just gonna get high or drunk. Shove off, scum, before I call the cops. Whaddyou mean you were in Iraq? Why aren't you there now...?" etc. I see several cars with American flags attached to them. And I know -- I just KNOW -- that they haven't a clue as to the reality of this whole disgusting adventure since 2001. The President still equates as emissary from God.

I seek to change that.

[happyslug]

20. While the Catholic Church prohibits women from being Priests, Nuns are a strong #2.

I would say nuns are more powerful in the Catholic Church then their technical equals the monks. Even Pope John Paul II used nuns as part of his hierarchy, sending a nun to investigate problems within the US Catholic Church instead of a priest. Nuns can and do write on theology and the main push for female priests have come from the nuns, thus women have a say in the Catholic Church even while the Hierarchy (Bishops and Priests) is all male.

I can not, and will not, call the Nuns the female equivalent of the Priest for the Nuns are NOT (The Nuns are the equivalent of Male Monks not Priests), but to say that women have no voice in the Catholic Church is also wrong. At least one woman is called a "Doctor" of the Church, where only a handful of people have ever achieved that title. Most such Doctors have been male, but of the 33 Doctors of the Catholic Church three are female (Through two of the three were only made Doctors of the Church in 1970, the third in 1997).

List of Doctors of the Catholic Church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_the_Church
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075a.htm

The last Doctor of the Church, declared so only in 1997, made the following comment:
I feel in me the vocation of the priest. With what love, O Jesus, I would take You in my hands when, at my voice, You would come down from heaven. And with what love would I give You to souls! But alas! while desiring to be a Priest, I admire and envy the humility of St. Francis of Assisi and I feel the vocation of imitating him in refusing the sublime dignity of the Priesthood.

Was she advocating female Priests? She says she was following St Francis of Assisi who was a Monk NOT a Priest, in simple terms did Pope John Paul II see this as the first step on letting women be priests? I may be reading to much into it, John Paul also refused to recognized the female Check Priests ordained during the last days of Communist rule in the Check Republic (But then declared the Religious act they had done were valid). How the Catholic Church adapts to the world is often slow, but at time interesting to watch. Pope John Paul II was presented a theological papers showing that women could not be Priest early in his pontificate, about 20 years after a similar Paper had been presented to Pope Paul VI that there was no theological reasons to deny women the right to be a priest (And John Paul II made clear rulings against female Priests).

I have always observed the Catholic Church is about ready to admit Female Priests, but concerns as how to do it is still a problem. I also believe John Paul believed the strength of the Catholic Church against the Communist government of Poland was its unmarried priests (Priests who are unmarried do not have to worry about their children they should NOT have, and most do not). Thus I do NOT see the Catholic Church accepting married priests, but accepting female priests. The problem is HOW, some non-western cultures look down upon female religious leaders, given the opposition to Married Priest, the Protestant solution of married couples as Religious leaders is not possible. What I see is Female Priest becoming a Bishop's option PROVIDED women and men do not sleep in the same house (Probably some parishes being run by male priests other by female priests). The Bishop's option being a way to make sure only those Bishops who feel female priests will be treated the same as male priests will have female priests (And I see it as a Bishop's options with approval of the Vatican to make sure no Bishop permits female priest where it will weaken the Catholic Church do to pressure from the Secular government i.e. the Middle East more than Europe and the USA).

Just comments on how women within the Catholic Church has some voice and that it is being listen to, though not with compete enthusiasm.

[havocmom]

23. Good enough to teach and do chores, but not to lead the church

Sorry, no equality = hidden slavery whether they are treated swell or not.

[happyslug]

25. That is NOT want i meant, I was trying to show the Church is at least trying.

Is it perfect? NO, is there equality within the church of the sexes? NO, even the pope will admit that. All I was showing in that equity is complex as is any attempt to do so. I always like some local Police Departments claim they handled Female and Male recruits as equals, but then set up the physical test so that only men can do them even through what is being tested has been used in any police action ever. i.e. Can you pull a down 200 pound officer out of the way by yourself. Most men can, most women can not, but when an officer is down no one does move such a body without the help of at least one other person. Thus the test is useless as to job performance, but good at making it harder for women to become Police Officers. Other agencies do similar "tests'.

My point is the Catholic Church, and most other Churches are addressing the problem of equality, NOT coming up with false justifications (With some noted exceptions) to show only a man can perform the job. What is needed is support for those people who want to make the changes, not abandoning them to they fate for NOT getting equality today.

[Fumesucker]

29. My daughter was a lifeguard at 17

She had to rescue an adult male and pull him from the pool as part of the test..

So there are some men women that can do what you speak of.

[havocmom]

30. Would we sit by and let any social/political entities get tax free status

while practicing blatant institutionalized discrimination? I think most here would not be silent about that. But when churches do it? Yeah, makes no sense to exclude over half the population from working for what they feel called to achieve.

Bravo to your daughter. I am sure there are many men who could NOT do what she did. Proves how foolish it is to determine positions by gender, doesn't it.

Give that girl a hug.

[happyslug]

35. The test was to drag a dead body on level ground.

NOT a floating body in the water. Now I do NOT want to down play want your daughter did, but it is technically easier then dragging the same body on the ground (Bodies float, so so much of the weight of the body is taken by the water, through getting the body out of the water is a difficult as moving the body on land).

Anyway, the test I referred to were intended to keep women OFF the Police Force by setting up a test women tended to fail. It as one of several test that relied on men's strength to be done, not skill or the ability to work as ab actual officer under actual conditions faced in the field.

Thus the fact some women can do what a man can do, undermines attempts to undermine woman's rights, but does not address the need for society to protect women's rights. The real problem is men setting the standard of equality on grounds set by men for men. Women often can not meet these standards which often had NO BARING on how people live within a society. How important is it for a woman Police officer to be able to pull her fellow Officer out of the line of fire, when that situation is so rare as NOT to even be in the book on Police Statistics? (Unlike lifeguards pulling people from swimming pools). Would the ability of a Woman to put her hands behind a gate to open a door without smashing it be of greater importance to the police (especially given it is easier for women to do that maneuver then it is for men with their larger and more powerful hands)? Would a woman, playing the rule of "mother" be a more effective way to reduce tensions than a man playing the rule of enforcer of the rules?

My point is women do NOT do things the same way as men do. This is both good and bad, but in most situations of equality the bad is emphasized and the good is ignored (or dismissed as a non-issue). As long as women seek to be equal to men, and permit men to define what equality is, you have a losing game for women.

While the Church has NOT been in the forefront of equality for women, it has been trying to address the issue (And in some people's opinion "very trying"). As I said above, the real test is NOT saying Women and Men should be treated equally, but when you look at both sexes and try to address the needs and demands of BOTH sexes equally. "Equal Rights" is more then treating both sexes the same, treating them the same undermines one or the other sex depending on what is called "being treated the same" (And generally disadvantage to women). Society has to treat each sex fairly, equal when possible, but protecting the weaker when equality is not possible.

[Fumesucker]

41. A lifeguard has to get the body *out* of the water..

A more difficult feat than simply dragging a body on the ground.

[happyslug]

44. But the point of the Police test was to exclude women...

The test for lifeguards tend to be a truly functional test, not test to exclude women. My point was that the police test was NOT a valid test to test for a job, but a test technically for a job, but had no real life prospective of every occurring on the job. The dragging the body was to exclude women NOT to test fro actual job performance. Women life guard stand a good chance of having to pull a body out of the water, thus it tends to be a functional test, not a test to exclude women because they are women. Lets make sure the test is valid before we use it to exclude people. The police test I mentioned were NOT valid reasons to exclude candidates, while the test of life guards would be a valid test. The issue is NOT whether one test is more difficult then the other, but the validity for the job being tested for, Even the most radical feminist would support a valid test for a valid job that excludes almost all women do to lack of upper body strength needed for the Job. The issue is when such requirements exists and the tests have NO RELATIONSHIP to how the job is actually performed, That was the issue I was discussing NOT if a women could pass a valid job related test. I regret any confusion as to my threads, but I tried to keep them on point, which was to make sure a strength related test is actually related to the job being tested for.

[Fumesucker]

50. I'm not so sure that the test is invalid..

I can think of situations where a lone police officer might have to drag an unconscious person across the ground..

There are indeed some women who can perform the task, female lifeguards are not all that uncommon.

[happyslug]

52. It was one of many test, taken as a whole design to keep women off the force.

The problem was NOT that the situation could NOT happen, but it had NOT happened in over 40 years of police actions in that county. The rule was adopted NOT because it was a situation an officer might find herself in, but a situation that had a 99% chance of NEVER OCCURRING DURING HER POLICE CAREER even if we include situation where she was NOT present. Do NOT get hung up on the actual tests, that was one of the intentions of the Police Force that came up with the test, Was it possible? yes, was it probable? NO. The test was design (Along with other "test" in the actual physical exam) to keep as many women out as possible.

A similar situation happened in the Federal Civil Service in the 1960s and 1970s. If you wanted to be hired as a typist, you had to pass a the Federal Typing test. The higher your scored, the higher chance of being hired by the Federal Government. Men and Women would take the test, and men would do better given they stronger finger strength. The problem was when the new federal employees were assigned to an actual job, they were given ELECTRIC TYPEWRITERS. At that time period (the 1960s) more women had more experience with typing but on electric typewriters. Thus once working the women did better then the men, who tended to have minimal use of typing, mostly in the Military. As long as men would apply for Federal Typing positions, the typing test were held on the manual typewriters. This changed in the mid 1970s, as the Army went to the Volunteer army, the Army transferred most of its typing duties to women, thus you had a drop in males typists. This led to a drop in men taking the typing tests, and finally to the elimination of such tests as useless when it was shown it was discriminatory against women (And that very few men applied for the job). Note the test was kept until men were no longer looking at typing positions for themselves, once the tests were all being taken by women, the test was abolished as useless. Just another example of test set up to be equal, and on its face was equal, but in actual use was NOT. The same with the Police test I mentioned, it was useless for what it was suppose to test for, the ability of a candidate to perform the duties of an officer while on duty, on it face the test did that, in actual use it did NOT. That is the point I am trying to make, not that it is possible for some women to match a man in strength, when strength was needed.

[havocmom]

31. They'll change faster if more of us practiced what we preached

about equality ;)

[bunkerbuster1]

24. Thanks for the perspective.

I hope that my original post didn't make it seem as if I were unaware of the complex nature of this issue within the RCC and elsewhere.

[Brigid]

39. You're right.

The truth is, ordained or not, women do rule in the Catholic church. About the only tasks we don't perform are those that actually require an ordained priest or deacon, and those tasks are very few (administering the sacraments is about the only function still closed to us). We serve on parish councils; run schools, universities, and hospitals (which we were already doing long before women in other segments of society). We run charitable organizations of all kinds, and even serve as canon lawyers and and as dioscean chancellors. We are encouraged to get college and graduate-level degrees, and to use them. We run the day-to-day operations of parishes that do not have a priest (there are two parishes here in my small city that are operated this way). We serve as hospital and prison chaplains, and as religious education coordainators. Overall, women fill about 85% of all of these jobs.

Yes, it is true that ordination is still closed to us. The feminist in me doesn't like that. The feminist in me hopes to see that change one day. The feminist in me sees no reason why it shouldn't. But even if it never does, the feminist in me can rejoice in the fact that women do serve in the church. We always have, and always will.

[Rob H.]

38. A friend of mine does freelance leadership training

and when she applied to teach some courses at the local SBC megachurch they were reluctant to hire her. Was it because she wasn't qualified? Nope, she's been at it a long time. Was it because she was asking for too much money? No to that one, too. It was because they were nervous about having a woman teach men--seriously, she had to find some Bible verses that showed that it was okay.

The saddest part? She's now a member of that same church. :(

[Brigid]

40. In the typical Catholic parish,

your friend would have been welcome to teach such courses. Her gender wouldn't have been an issue.

[bunkerbuster1]

43. Wow. That is sad.

It speaks volumes about how far we have to go in this country.

[JerseygirlCT]

46. I think he absolutely should be questioned about that

And about all his ties to people like Hagee. I wonder if that's part of why he has never formally joined the Baptist church? If he has to, he can hide behind the church he was raised in, which is fairly liberal, and certainly does ordain women - the Episcopal church. Not that I'm eager to claim him, lol.

I think these questions are quite important. Does he agree with their beliefs? How about Hagee's?

[VotesForWomen]

53. religion is "off-limits;" of course it shouldn't be. judeo-christianity is misogynistic from top to

top to bottom.

[mdmc]

58. I'm catholic

it is an issue.
People of faith are trying to change the church...

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

60. Serious?

"And that for some reason this is all perfectly legal because we're more interested in religious non-violence between sects than we are about justice for all. I get all that."

No its perfectly legal because we let people worship as they please *not* to prevent violence

--

But just are wright should not have been an issue nor should McCains soon to be membership in the SBC