Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!snorkelwacker!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism & Religion (was Re: Newspaper Article)
Message-ID: <1990Oct19.221509.8092@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Date: 20 Oct 90 15:22:37 GMT
References: <4836@sarah> <1990Oct12.214229.23575@nntp-server.caltech.edu> 	<60497.271b504a@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> 	<1990Oct18.003900.28134@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <9010191803.AA14586@liberty.cs.columbia.edu>
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 74
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu

travis@liberty.cs.columbia.EDU (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes:

>Well, if a male god really had sent down his male son, there wouldn't
>be much to argue about, would there?

You're missing the point. I'm not interested in the truth or falsehood
of the scriptures. I'm simply questioning the relevance of grotesquely
androcentric scriptures to a feminist agenda.

>There are other ways to consider the issue.  A large number of
>writings were gathered into two canons of the Old and New Testaments.
>Many of earlier Old Testament writings had been written and edited by
>several different people, some of which wrote of a god with no
>specific gender.  For example, compare the two different creation
>myths that appear in Genesis 1 and 2.  As a Catholic, you were only
>pointed at the parts of the Old Testament that reinforced Catholic
>doctrine.

The insinuation that I've only read the parts of the Bible I was
"pointed to" as a Catholic child is unwarranted. Why would I be
raising the questions that I am if my Biblical reading simply
"reinforced Catholic doctrine"? What difference does it make to modern
women if millenia ago, a few genderless gods were propagated? I'm
dealing with a modern phenomenon, not esoteric redaction
theory.(Redaction--not reduction, is the study of the origins and
validity of scriptural material)

>People like Paul and Augustine convinced others by the force of their
>personality.  However, we live in a different sort of society now.
>Because we are aware of explicit acts of interpretation, such as the
>creation of the Christian bible, we can recreate and reinterpret them.

My question is given the many more pressing issues on any feminist
agenda I've heard, why bother with this recreation and
reinterpretation? It may be time to move on, and focus our energy on
reeducating the men of this world. (It's certainly time to wrap up
this thread!)

[Or start another direction?  Do we dispense with religion, rework
existing ones, or create new ones?  --CLT]

>Well, there were only two choices, unless you count hermaphrodites.  I
>suppose the Christian God could have sent down a Messiah with no
>gender at all, just smooth like a Ken doll, if He had really thought
>to make a big deal about it.

Yes, he obviously didn't, did he?  The whole reason this newsgroup
exists is that gender bias *is* a big deal.

>Note also that you subvert your own message -- i.e., that gender is
>not important -- when you refuse to overlook the gender of the
>Christian Messiah.

I see. Just like feminists subvert their agenda when they refuse to
overlook the gender of the people oppressing them.

>Although one might note a tendency to insist on your own dogmatism;

Speak for yourself.

>perhaps this is the legacy of Catholicism that you have kept.  Many
>people have found meaning and beauty in Christianity; let them.  There
>are few absolutes here.

No. There are many absolutely oppressed women whose aspirations are
stifled by the different manifestations of J-C-I tradition. Too many.
The personal jabs have no basis. I think I'm right and so do you. If
that's dogma, you're equally guilty. I guess that just makes you
Catholic, then.


Jones
Physics Department
California Institute of Technology