Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!andrew.cmu.edu
From: cr2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Christian M. Restifo)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Newspaper Article
Message-ID: <88736@aerospace.AERO.ORG>
Date: 16 Oct 90 23:39:13 GMT
References: <4836@sarah>,
	<1990Oct12.214229.23575@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Lines: 32
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
In-Reply-To: <1990Oct12.214229.23575@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Status: R


 morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:

>First of all, god is consistently referred to as male, unlike the
>supreme deities of many other religions. When he does choose to sire a
>child, he does so with no advance warning to the person involved. We
>now call that rape.

Last I heard, rape was criminal solicitation, i.e. forcing someone to
have sex with you.  "Immculate conception" is something very different. 
I doubt god came to the virgin mary, beat her into submission, and then
had sex with her.

>Most damning, however, is that god consistently prefers to talk to
>men. All prophets are male, as is Christ. Women are purely auxiliary,
>as far as god is concerned.

I agree with you on the point of god talking only to men.  However, I
don't think you can argue that god intended women to be auxiliary
components of the church.  The church is a political institution run by
human beings.  It is flawed just like any other political organization. 
Although some religious scholars will point to certain parts of the
bible as proof that women are inferior to men, the document as a whole
does not call for the submission of women.  What you have here is a
little knowledge becoming a dangerous thing.

Note:  I'm not picking on any one religion.  I'm just calling it as I see it.

-Chris Restifo
cr2r@andrew.cmu.edu

"All opinions stated here are not the opinions of anybody, even myself."