Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Sexism and Religion
Message-ID: <1671@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Sep-85 08:19:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1671
Posted: Tue Sep 24 08:19:22 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 06:27:39 EDT
References: <560@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 72

In article <560@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA> tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes:

>> From mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Thu Sep 19 08:39:33 1985

>> In article <547@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA> tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney)
>> writes:

>>>None of the monotheistic religions are sexually egalitarian.  Judaism
>>>incorporates many discriminatory commandments and temple practices.
>>>Christianity also incorporates discriminatory temple practices and has
>>>historically been very sexist.  I don't see Moslems as being qualitatively
>>>different from Jews or Christians in this respect.

>> Considering that a number of christian denominations have actively promoted
>> ordination of female clergy, and justified doing so theologically, I don't
>> see how there is any justification for this monolithic evaluation of
>> christianity.  There are so few values held in common by the various
>> christian sects and denominations, in fact, that ANY blanket statement is
>> probably false.

>Yet the fact is that in Jewish, Moslem, and Christian societies, women have
>almost always been treated as inferiors, and in the organized religions have
>not been granted authority in any way commensurate with that of men.  To
>deny this is either to lie or to deliberately blind oneself to fact.  Things
>are changing in all three religions during this century; for instance the
>move (mentioned by Wingate) to allow women to speak in church in a few
>Christian churches, despite the instructions in the letters of Paul.  If one
>is to blame Islam for its centuries of oppression of women, then one must
>also blame Judaism and Christianity for the precisely similar phenomena in
>their religions and societies.  Letting just one, or even two, off the hook
>and leaving the other to hang is nothing more than a hypocritical double
>standard.  I am not sure whether Wingate meant only to defend his religion,
>or to leave the accusations about Islam intact, but I am sure many took his
>message as an argument in favor of the idea that Christians are somehow less
>culpable for the sexism of their religion than Moslems are for the sexism of
>theirs.  This is false; all are equally culpable.

First, let me say that I intended no comment about either Islam or Judaism;
in the former case, my ignorance of theology is total, and in the latter
case, there appears to my eye to be similar diversity of views.  I chose to
tak about the Episcopal Church because it is the one I know best; similar
movements are taking place in other Protestant denominations.

Let us consider Paul's letters to the ROmans and to the Corinthians (since
these are essentially the only scriptural source of justification for
suppessing women's voice in the church).  With the advent of less
literal-minded examination of the moral implications of scripture, many
churches have decided that Paul's writings must be read in light of the
social situation of Paul's day, where the place of women was considerably
more restricted ithan it is now.  When a woman can run for the vice
presidency, and be taken seriously, the chruch believes that there is no
reason why a woman cannot be a bishop, and be taken seriously.

Criticising current religions on the basis of their ancestors is, I would
submit, a dubious thing.  Every religion or philosophy that has enjoyed
significant popularity and power has been "adopted" at times by the
unscrupulous, the destructive, and the greedy.  It provides excellent cover
for them.  The culture surrounding the religion, which is an important input
into the moral decisions made within the religion, also has changed a great
deal.  Fifty or a hundred years ago, when the majority of Americans in towns
actually did attend church, blue laws may have made some sense.  But if the
USA was ever a "Christian" nation, it certainly isn't now.  Many
denominations have had to re-think their sexual morality.

It's also not clear that monotheism has anything to do with it.  Suppression
of women is widespread in polytheisms too, and even in societies where
religion is not formalized at all.  Within the various monotheistic
religions, denominations, and sects, there is plenty of dissent about the
place of women.  So it is unfair, and wrong, to characterize monotheism as
being monolithically opressive of women.

Charley Wingate


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com