HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Feminists can be Christia...

Tue Jan 31, 2012, 03:38 PM

 

Feminists can be Christians, too

Why do people assume any woman who has something interesting to say must be an atheist?



Kristin Aune
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 29 January 2012 09.00 EST

Recently, I discovered my name on a blogger's list of "100 interesting atheists in Britain – who aren't old, white, privileged straight men". Nice as this was, I'm a Christian, so I felt like a rabid carnivore finding herself on a list of vegetarians. It got me thinking. Why do people assume any woman who has something interesting to say must be an atheist?

As a feminist and sociologist, my faith often surprises people. When I became a Christian as a teenager my mother said: "Intelligent people aren't religious."

Religious institutions have rightly attracted bad press for their record on women's rights. Often, religion justifies women's subordination by cloaking it in theological language, and teaches gender-differentiated roles to keep women dependent on men.

But this isn't always so. Religion also has a good record on social welfare and religious organisations have at times been in the vanguard of social change (for example, liberation theology in Latin America).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jan/29/feminists-christians?newsfeed=true

74 replies, 6594 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 74 replies Author Time Post
Reply Feminists can be Christians, too (Original post)
rug Jan 2012 OP
provis99 Jan 2012 #1
Swamp Lover Jan 2012 #2
cleanhippie Jan 2012 #9
kwassa Jan 2012 #14
Thats my opinion Feb 2012 #68
Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #3
Kurmudgeon Jan 2012 #5
provis99 Jan 2012 #6
Kurmudgeon Feb 2012 #31
provis99 Feb 2012 #38
Kurmudgeon Jan 2012 #4
pnwest Jan 2012 #7
darkstar3 Jan 2012 #8
Swamp Lover Jan 2012 #10
darkstar3 Jan 2012 #12
kwassa Jan 2012 #13
darkstar3 Jan 2012 #15
kwassa Jan 2012 #17
darkstar3 Jan 2012 #18
kwassa Feb 2012 #24
cleanhippie Feb 2012 #27
darkstar3 Feb 2012 #35
kwassa Feb 2012 #44
Kurmudgeon Feb 2012 #32
Thats my opinion Feb 2012 #69
Thats my opinion Feb 2012 #70
ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #11
struggle4progress Feb 2012 #20
ZombieHorde Feb 2012 #21
kwassa Feb 2012 #25
cleanhippie Feb 2012 #28
kwassa Feb 2012 #39
cleanhippie Feb 2012 #42
kwassa Feb 2012 #46
cleanhippie Feb 2012 #48
ZombieHorde Feb 2012 #30
kwassa Feb 2012 #40
Kurmudgeon Feb 2012 #33
ZombieHorde Feb 2012 #34
kwassa Feb 2012 #41
ZombieHorde Feb 2012 #45
Thats my opinion Feb 2012 #71
ZombieHorde Feb 2012 #73
darkstar3 Feb 2012 #36
kwassa Jan 2012 #16
darkstar3 Feb 2012 #19
kwassa Feb 2012 #22
cbayer Feb 2012 #23
darkstar3 Feb 2012 #37
kwassa Feb 2012 #43
darkstar3 Feb 2012 #47
kwassa Feb 2012 #49
darkstar3 Feb 2012 #50
kwassa Feb 2012 #61
darkstar3 Feb 2012 #63
ButterflyBlood Feb 2012 #51
darkstar3 Feb 2012 #52
ButterflyBlood Feb 2012 #54
darkstar3 Feb 2012 #56
ButterflyBlood Feb 2012 #59
darkstar3 Feb 2012 #60
kwassa Feb 2012 #62
Nikia Feb 2012 #67
rug Feb 2012 #53
darkstar3 Feb 2012 #57
rug Feb 2012 #58
kwassa Feb 2012 #64
darkstar3 Feb 2012 #65
Donald Ian Rankin Feb 2012 #66
Thats my opinion Feb 2012 #72
darkstar3 Feb 2012 #74
AlbertCat Feb 2012 #26
cleanhippie Feb 2012 #29
MarkCharles Feb 2012 #55

Response to rug (Original post)

Tue Jan 31, 2012, 03:40 PM

1. Feminists can be dummies, too.

 

The author's mother was right: Intelligent people aren't religious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to provis99 (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 31, 2012, 03:57 PM

2. And provis99, you've convinced me. DU'ers can be bigots too.

 

Frankly surprised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swamp Lover (Reply #2)


Response to provis99 (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 31, 2012, 11:31 PM

14. Intelligent people have been religious for all of human history, all over the world.

Bigoted comments like this indicate ignorance and prejudice and very little else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to provis99 (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 17, 2012, 01:39 PM

68. Some intelligent people aren't religious

Some intelligent people aren't anti-religion.

I know those in both categories--and they appear here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Tue Jan 31, 2012, 04:04 PM

3. To do so, she must pretend that much of Paul's teachings are not in the faith

 

when she does pretend those words are not there, she helps promote the words against others we all know are there. She writes and writes yet she does not address the actual teachings of the faith, nor does she mention that her faith oppresses gay people across the world. She does not care, as she's already edited and redacted and rationalized all the parts she SHOULD speak out against.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 31, 2012, 04:16 PM

5. Some need to decide whether they are Paulists or Christians.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurmudgeon (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 31, 2012, 04:25 PM

6. No True Scotsman.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to provis99 (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 07:15 PM

31. Knee jerk response.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurmudgeon (Reply #31)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 10:54 PM

38. brilliant display of logic.

 

something you learned in bible school, I'll bet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Tue Jan 31, 2012, 04:15 PM

4. Of course they can!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Tue Jan 31, 2012, 04:43 PM

7. the mistake is confusing "christian" with "religious"

One has nowt to do with the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Tue Jan 31, 2012, 08:47 PM

8. The vast majority of religion, and the vast majority of Christian churches,

including Catholicism, do not see or treat women as equal to men.

That's why "people assume any woman who has something interesting to say must be an atheist."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 31, 2012, 11:07 PM

10. I've never assumed that.

 

Why don't you think all women have something interesting to say? Or every person for that matter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swamp Lover (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 31, 2012, 11:12 PM

12. I don't find your contributions here interesting. QED.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 31, 2012, 11:27 PM

13. Why did you avoid his question?

It was a civil query.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 31, 2012, 11:42 PM

15. Did you happen to miss

the fact that it was a direct answer? Not everyone has something interesting to say. It's a simple fact of life. As an example, I haven't heard a single interesting thing come out of say, Joe Scarborough's mouth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 31, 2012, 11:48 PM

17. Attack the messenger rather than deal with his message.

This is what you did.

It creates the appearance that you can't answer his question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 31, 2012, 11:56 PM

18. Wrong. Again you ignore that it was a direct response to the question at hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 03:27 PM

24. I ignore nothing.

You attempt to divert, you fail, so what else is new?

You made a direct response attacking the questioner and avoided his question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #24)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 05:11 PM

27. Just what was the question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #24)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 07:50 PM

35. Contradiction in itself does not constitute an argument.

Restating your premise as an alleged supporting fact does not constitute an argument.

If you have any intention of making something resembling a point, you're going to need to grow beyond "nuh-uh."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #35)


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 07:17 PM

32. Amazing how some presume to think they know how everyone of an organization or group thinks.

 

That's why it's never good to "assume".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 17, 2012, 01:42 PM

69. Be thankful for the increasing number that do nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 17, 2012, 01:44 PM

70. Let's be thankful for increasing number that do nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Tue Jan 31, 2012, 11:11 PM

11. Jesus Christ said men are the head of women, so a feminist Christians have

to do some picking and choosing, or make excuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 10:29 AM

20. What exactly are you trying to quote?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 01:02 PM

21. I am trying to quote the Christian Holy Bible.

1 Corinthians 11

1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

On Covering the Head in Worship

2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #21)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 03:36 PM

25. This is Paul, not Jesus, who says this. And, maybe not Paul, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_the_Corinthians

There is near consensus among historians and Christian theologians that Paul is the author of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, typically classifying its authorship as "undisputed" (see Authorship of the Pauline Epistles). The letter is quoted or mentioned by the earliest of sources, and is included in every ancient canon, including that of Marcion. However, two passages may have been inserted at a later stage. The first passage is 1 Cor 11:2-16 dealing with praying and prophesying with headcovering.[1] The second passage is 1 Cor 14:34-35 which has been hotly debated. Part of the reason for doubt is that in some manuscripts, the verses come at the end of the chapter instead of at its present location. Furthermore, Paul is here appealing to the law which is uncharacteristic of him. Lastly, the verses come into conflict with 11:2-16 where women are allowed to preach. [2]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 05:13 PM

28. So parts of the bible aren't what many people think they are?

They think it's Jesus saying something when it's really someone else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #28)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:43 AM

39. No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #39)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 11:09 AM

42. Yes.

Unless you have an explanation for your answer of no, especially in light of your prior post which prompted my question in the first place, I will just take your post at face value and consider you a yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #42)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 09:17 PM

46. so, you have the power to change my answer to whatever you think it should be?

Fascinating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #46)

Fri Feb 3, 2012, 09:36 AM

48. I have the power to recognize when someone is being obtuse

and contrary for no reason.

And now your posts are simply irrelevant.

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 06:00 PM

30. Like I said, pick and choose. No part of the Christian Holy Bible was written by Jesus Christ. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #30)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:45 AM

40. Of course not. No one said that Jesus wrote it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 07:19 PM

33. No, that was Paul. Another reason why I make distinction between Paulists and Christians.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurmudgeon (Reply #33)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 07:43 PM

34. No book in the Christian Holy Bible is attributed to Jesus.

It is picking and choosing. That said, I like the way liberal Christians pick and choose from the Christian Holy Bible. I am glad that part of the Christian Holy Bible is disregarded as "not really Christian."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #34)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:56 AM

41. This argument you are making doesn't make much sense.

Let's break it down.

It isn't called the Christian Holy Bible, it is called the New Testament.

Everyone picks and chooses from the Bible, Old and New Testament together, because the book is so massive, running some 1300 pages or so, depending on how it is printed. People focus on what they relate to best. This has been true since it was written. People can focus on very different things, too. Those who consider the Bible an inerrant source of the word of God pick and choose, too, on which laws to obey, and which they just rather not pay attention to.

The Holy Gospels are a relatively short section in the overall New Testament. It consists of four written accounts of Jesus' life. After that, commentary from others. Jesus didn't write anything.

The definition of Christian varies widely; we've been through discussion of that many many times in this forum. Often what is considered really Christian or not is simply personal opinion, base on one's personal beliefs about Christianity.

Therefore, this whole "pick and choose" argument carries no water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #41)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 12:24 PM

45. "Pick and choose" wasn't an argument; it was an observation.

An observation you seem to strongly agree with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #34)

Fri Feb 17, 2012, 01:47 PM

71. It's called a rational approch to literary criticism nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #71)

Fri Feb 17, 2012, 03:08 PM

73. Wouldn't a rational approach consider all the miracles and supernatural parts metaphors?

The existence of Heaven and God, the healings, walking on water, etc.?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurmudgeon (Reply #33)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 07:53 PM

36. Which means you engage in fallacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Tue Jan 31, 2012, 11:43 PM

16. Most of the female Christian clergy I know are quite feminist.

since they are included on every level of my church, including the head of the Episcopal Church

Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Schiori.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 12:09 AM

19. I'm trying to remember a saying...how does it go...

OH yes...

"There's an exception to every rule."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #19)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 03:05 PM

22. and many thousands of exceptions to this one ...

so many, it is not worth calling it an exception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 03:06 PM

23. Agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 08:12 PM

37. "thousands of exceptions"...all of them Episcopal, I'm sure.

Let's step away from your myopic worldview for a moment and check on other Christian denominations around the world, and how they treat women.

Catholic: not equal.
Lutheran: not equal. (2 out of 3 synods)
Methodist: not equal.
Presbyterian: not equal.
Baptist: not equal.
Pentecostal: not equal.
Church of Christ: not equal.
Church of the Nazarene: not equal.
Disciples of Christ: not equal.
Christian Scientist: not equal.
Assembly of God: not equal.
Jehovah's Witness: not equal.
Mormon: not equal.

And those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. There are literally thousands of Christian (Protestant) denominations, and by far they do not treat women as equals. And that's just going by denomination alone. If you go by the size of denominations, just the fact that the Catholic church doesn't treat women as equal to men and accounts for more than half of the world's Christians makes the "rule" from my previous post.

Furthermore, one can even make the argument that the entire theology surrounding Christianity and the Bible is misogynistic from the word "In", and therefore it would be a feat of herculean proportions for any Christian church to be a place for feminism.

But maybe it's not all bad...what about other religions? Well...

Judaism: not equal. (Blessed are you...for not having made me a woman.)
Hinduism: not equal.
Buddhism: not equal.
Islam: not equal.

The list goes on.

You do know that it's OK to be the exception to the rule, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 11:12 AM

43. "Today, over half of all American Protestant denominations ordain women,

but some restrict the official positions a woman can hold. For instance, some ordain women for the military or hospital chaplaincy but prohibit them from serving in congregational roles. Over one-third of all seminary students (and in some seminaries nearly half) are female.[83][84]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women

I would call that a little more than an exception to a rule, and involve many thousands of female clergy. Here is a little more from the same source.

HinduismThere are two types of Hindu priests, purohits and pujaris. Both women and men are ordained as purohits and pujaris.[100][101]

Furthermore, both men and women are gurus (gurus are teachers of Hinduism but are not always ordained; when they are, it is by their own guru).[102]

(jump)

JudaismMain article: Female rabbis
See also: rebbetzin
Only men can become rabbis in Orthodox Judaism (although there has been one female Hasidic rebbe, Hannah Rachel Verbermacher, also known as the Maiden of Ludmir, active in the 19th century[119]); however all other types of Judaism allow and have female rabbis.



I know several female rabbis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #43)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 11:44 PM

47. See, now you're just amusing me.

Let me count the ways.

1. Wikipedia has serious problems with accuracy, especially when (as in this case) the reference materials are not all readily available online for fact checking.

2. Even if #1 wasn't a problem, you're quoting and linking to an article that makes my point. Go read it in its entirety. You'll see that every major heading under Christianity describes an inequality between women and men.

3. The ability of a member of a victimized class to rise to a position of power in no way demonstrates that the victimization of that class is "over." That is, unless you're one of those people who thinks that having a black President means we're now a "post-racial society."

4. Branching off of #3: Ordination is one small piece of religion. Even if we threw out the other points I've made so far, using a laser beam focus on ordination to try and claim that religion (especially Christianity) is somehow a bastion of sexual equality is a badly flawed argument.

5. On the topic of ordination, the article you link to weakens the word considerably. Ordination is a formal process by which certain members of a denomination put in the time and effort to learn about their faith, and then are recognized for it. The article, when referring to protestant churches, treats church elections as an ordination process. That is just plain incorrect. And when you don't stretch the meaning of ordination to mean "any process by which someone begins leading a congregation," you find that half of protestant denominations don't even have ordination. Again, Wikipedia and accuracy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #47)

Fri Feb 3, 2012, 09:39 PM

49. I'm glad you are amused by being wrong. It is big of you.

There has been vast inequality between women and men for many thousands of years in virtually every culture in the entire world. To pin the inequality on Christianity or any other religion is entirely bogus, as the inequality is embedded in the culture, only part of which is religious. The religion is part of, and reflects the culture, but is only part, not the whole.

You've stated that CURRENTLY that equal roles for women and men in American Christianity are the exception, and not the rule, and I have provided you with thousands and thousands of exceptions, so clearly you are wrong.

You voiced an opinion on a subject that you really know very little about. You can't admit being wrong, but I am well aware of that.
I have never said that women have achieved parity with all men in all aspects of Christianity, but what you won't admit is any progress. In order for you to erect the straw man you wish to thrash, you have to ignore recent evidence and historical trends, if you even know them at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #49)

Fri Feb 3, 2012, 10:14 PM

50. There are so many things wrong with your post that it's hard to know where to begin.

I suppose "at the beginning" is as good a place as any.

"To pin the inequality on Christianity or any other religion is entirely bogus."
Of course, no one is doing that. Now who's building a straw man? No one, anywhere, stated that religion was the cause of sexual inequality.

"You've stated that CURRENTLY that equal roles for women and men in American Christianity are the exception, and not the rule,"
No I didn't, and I've bolded the part that you changed. I said that Episcopalianism might be the exception to the rule, but upon further investigation I've found that even that isn't true. Furthermore, even my saying that was simply a rhetorical tool. I accepted your premise for the moment in order to make a larger point about Christianity. You've ignored that point, and now you're trying to twist this rhetorical tool into a contradiction. It's ridiculous.

As for your third paragraph, it's funny to read that from someone who so recently accused me of doing nothing but making personal attacks. Hypocrisy much?

Now, let's see. I made five specific points in my last post to you. You've answered...none. As far as I'm concerned, that makes your fallacy laden post completely worthless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #50)

Sun Feb 5, 2012, 11:44 PM

61. It is too bad you can't point out what is wrong.

You talk endlessly about fallacy, but never, ever prove it. You use it, essentially, as a broad-brush insult without substantiation.

Since you complain that I didn't address your five points, which weren't points, I will address them.


1. Wikipedia has serious problems with accuracy, especially when (as in this case) the reference materials are not all readily available online for fact checking.

Um, no. Disprove the specific quote. Until then, you have no cause to complain.

2. Even if #1 wasn't a problem, you're quoting and linking to an article that makes my point. Go read it in its entirety. You'll see that every major heading under Christianity describes an inequality between women and men.

I don't see that under ever heading. Sorry.

3. The ability of a member of a victimized class to rise to a position of power in no way demonstrates that the victimization of that class is "over." That is, unless you're one of those people who thinks that having a black President means we're now a "post-racial society."

It does, however, indicate major progress, which you would have us believe doesn't exist, just as Obama's election to the Presidency is gigantic progress.

4. Branching off of #3: Ordination is one small piece of religion. Even if we threw out the other points I've made so far, using a laser beam focus on ordination to try and claim that religion (especially Christianity) is somehow a bastion of sexual equality is a badly flawed argument.

Ordination is the power position of religion, the highest power that can be found in a religious denomination. Your attempt to minimize it is absurd. I never said that Christianity is a bastion of sexual equality; this is simply one more example of you erecting another straw man, a statement I never made, for you to attack.

5. On the topic of ordination, the article you link to weakens the word considerably. Ordination is a formal process by which certain members of a denomination put in the time and effort to learn about their faith, and then are recognized for it. The article, when referring to protestant churches, treats church elections as an ordination process. That is just plain incorrect. And when you don't stretch the meaning of ordination to mean "any process by which someone begins leading a congregation," you find that half of protestant denominations don't even have ordination. Again, Wikipedia and accuracy...

You misread the passage, and create your own conditions for ordination, which are yours and yours alone. The quote about elections is in addition to study, not instead of study. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is elected, as are all bishops. This does not mean that they haven't graduated from a seminary and gone through all the processed to be ordained, and haven't served in a variety of roles before they were elevated to various positions in the church.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #61)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 12:02 AM

63. In response:

1. That's called shifting the burden of proof. Not playing. When a claim cannot be verified, then it need not be treated as true, and therefore the entire idea of "disproving" it is ridiculous.

2. Then you have blinders on. Which of course, I already knew.

3. What do you want, a cookie? Your church has made "progress" toward a level of equality that has been seen in non-religious groups for decades. Bravo. And since you have such problems recognizing fallacy, I should point out that this is a straw man of your construction. Not a single person on this thread has attempted to deny such "progress". Instead, the topic of the thread was feminists in Chrisitianity, and the topic of this subthread has been the lack of equality in Christianity. You admit that equality hasn't been reached, and ergo, you make my point again for me.

4 & 5. There are myriad denominations around this country, and around the world, whose members would look at you like you had sprouted a third eye if you referred to their leaders as "ordained". And again, the topic of this thread is equality, and you brought up the concept of female ordination as if it were some indisputable example of equality within your church. And if that wasn't your point, why did you even bring it up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #37)

Sat Feb 4, 2012, 12:36 AM

51. What? Many of those denominations ordain women

Methodists, Presbyterians (PCUSA at least), some Baptists (not all Baptists are Southern Baptists), some Pentecostals (yes there are liberal Pentecostals, and even gay Pentecostal churches in fact), Disciples of Christ and the Assembly of God (yes even them!) ordain women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ButterflyBlood (Reply #51)

Sat Feb 4, 2012, 12:46 AM

52. Good for them. That doesn't mean those denominations treat women equally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #52)

Sat Feb 4, 2012, 11:51 AM

54. In what way do they not?

Please elaborate.

For the record I actually go to a charismatic, evangelical church (about as far from Episcopalianism as you can get), and we have women pastors and leadership and don't see any way in which women are not treated equally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ButterflyBlood (Reply #54)

Sat Feb 4, 2012, 04:27 PM

56. Go read the wiki post,

and after you do that, investigate the various activities and social groups you'll find available at your church. Take a look at who is involved at different levels, and who is expected to be involved at different levels. You'll find a surprising number of gender specific roles. Having gone to a church like you describe, let me throw a few likely candidates out there.

1. Only women teach children's Sunday school.
2. Only men teach adult Bible study.
3. Only men are allowed to hand out the Communion sacrements.
4. "Ladies Prayer Breakfast."
5. "Men's Sausage Dinner."
6. With the exception of #5, any event where cooking was involved.
7. Only one vote per family, and the man is the vote if he attends.

I could go on. These are not necessarily "official" positions of the church, they're simply the reality in the church. Purely as social groups, churches are a place where gender roles are enforced far more often and far more effectively than anywhere else. And if you're participating in and enforcing gender roles, you're not a place for equality.

And this is just for churches where a little progress has been made. Unfortunately, the majority of church-going Christians attend churches which are far more regressive when it comes to women's rights and roles in the church. Note the various denominations I listed above, and many more. Some of these churches are so regressive that they require women to wear dresses to church and never actually participate in the service.

To paraphrase what I've said elsewhere...no one in their right mind would say that the American government treats black people equally as compared to white people just because a black man was successfully elected President. Why, then, would you say that a church treats women equally just because women have been successfully ordained? It's a ridiculous argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #56)

Sun Feb 5, 2012, 12:01 AM

59. Well let's look at your checklist in my church

1. I know the main children's pastor is a woman and have never been to the children's service for obvious reasons. But male volunteers are certainly accepted. Women are far more likely to go for this position just as they are vastly more likely to be kindergarten or early elementary school teachers.
2. Nope we have small groups led by both men and women. In fact I'd estimate there are more exclusively female led than exclusively male led groups (there are enough married couples ones for neither to have a majority)
3. No one does it, we do it self-serve.
4. Never heard of such a thing here. The closest would be the recent mothers group meetup.
5. Ditto
6. Well just about all our events except some parenting ones are for both genders...
7. We don't vote on things because we don't have a formal membership.

So most of those don't even apply. And churches where women are required to wear dresses? There might be a few but I'm sure at well over 90% of American churches have plenty of people of both genders wearing jeans on any given Sunday, and I've noticed if anything it's actually more likely that people will be casually dressed at evangelical churches (this is part of the reason I go to a liberal-leaning evangelical church instead of a denomination like the Episcopal Church by the way.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ButterflyBlood (Reply #59)

Sun Feb 5, 2012, 02:06 AM

60. You really think it was a "checklist"?

A checklist?! I don't even know how to respond to the idea that what I posted there was some checklist for you to go over.

Wrap that DU mantra of "my church is different" around you like a shield all you want, just don't expect other people to believe that your limited experience is reflective of religion as whole. In fact, don't even expect me to believe that your church is some miraculous center of equality when so many are today's bastions of gender roles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #56)

Sun Feb 5, 2012, 11:54 PM

62. You are wrong once again.

1. Only women teach children's Sunday school.

I am male, I've taught Sunday school.

2. Only men teach adult Bible study.

Female clergy conduct Bible study in my church.

3. Only men are allowed to hand out the Communion sacrements.

Again, female clergy, and female laypersons, including my wife, hand out the sacraments. "The blood of Christ, the cup of salvation".

4. "Ladies Prayer Breakfast."

Doesn't exist in our church, never heard of it anywhere.

5. "Men's Sausage Dinner."

Doesn't exist in our church, never heard of it anywhere.

6. With the exception of #5, any event where cooking was involved.

I have no idea who cooks various potluck items. I cook all the time,

7. Only one vote per family, and the man is the vote if he attends.

Each member, male and female, has a vote in our church.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #56)

Fri Feb 17, 2012, 12:57 PM

67. When I was younger, women's church groups tended to focus on one of two things, sometimes both

Sometimes it was focused on the traditional roles of mother and wife. There were other times that it was more of a Feminist and social justice group, though. When I was elementary school age, my grandmother's Methodist church had those two different women's group. Since the church has declined in membership, now it is one group. They still talk about how to increase women's influence and participation in the church and support charities that benefit women and children. I don't think that this is really sexist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ButterflyBlood (Reply #51)

Sat Feb 4, 2012, 08:06 AM

53. Facts trump moving goal posts.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #53)

Sat Feb 4, 2012, 04:31 PM

57. Yes they do. Ordination is not equality. Switching to ordination was moving the goal posts.

But I don't expect you to recognize that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #57)

Sat Feb 4, 2012, 07:48 PM

58. I suspect your complaint is not really about equality.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #57)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 12:04 AM

64. Ordination is the most powerful position in a church. It is equality.

All derives from it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #64)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 12:08 AM

65. That's not what you said a few minutes ago.

I do believe you said that female ordination was a sign of progress. Now you want to say that "it is equality."

Um, no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 10:18 AM

66. Are you certain?

In what ways do methodists treat women as unequal? Or reform Jews?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #37)

Fri Feb 17, 2012, 01:51 PM

72. I son't know where you got your list from,

but is shows more prejudice that knowledge. Take it from an insider--always a better source than an outsider.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #72)

Fri Feb 17, 2012, 08:11 PM

74. An "insider" is "always a better source than an outsider."

That is an utterly ridiculous statement. Those, like yourself, who are incredibly invested in what they are discussing have absolutely no way to be objective.

And BTW: You've said similar things before. You clearly believe that "outsiders" have no place commenting on your faith. Consistency would then dictate that, since you are an "outsider" as far as government is concerned, you have no place commenting on how our government runs. Yet I see no hesitation from you and others who share your view of "outsiders" to deride the government's current treatment of the poor, for example.

I'd call it hypocrisy, but really it's just special pleading. You're trying to give religion a pass where other topics never get one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 05:00 PM

26. Who the hell CAN'T be a Christian?

 

We have and have had Christian
doctors
scientists
lawyers
teachers
artists
musicians
murderers
sadists
opportunists
tyrants
politicians
queens
kings
gays
slaves
slave owners
tinkers
tailors
soldiers
sailors
rich men
poor men
beggar men
thieves
rabid carnivores
vegetarians
etc
etc

Christianity is so pick & choose, cut and paste, it's practically useless as a label.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #26)

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 05:13 PM

29. Winner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #26)

Sat Feb 4, 2012, 12:11 PM

55. Yes, the above comment is a winner, for sure. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread