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
= new reply since forum marked as read
since they are included on every level of my church, including the head of the Episcopal Church
Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Schiori.
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?
