wow, that was a very frustrating post! you seem to have this weird schism in your head with a desire for women to be treated as full members of society on one side, and ignorance of religion's philosophy of women's roles on the other

i'll try not to belabor this point because it's pretty clear that we're on the same side of this issue, but man!

There's no schism in my mind whatsoever. My defence of "religion" was NOT one sided, as you seem to be lumping all religions into the same boat. My point was that some Abrahamic faith branches are not only concerned with women's equal rights, but actively fight for them. I mentioned two branches of the religion that I follow that DO actively fight for women's rights, and that consider women to be equal.

I'm a little insulted by your claiming that I'm "ignorant of women's roles" in religion. The whole POINT of this debate was to DISCUSS women's roles.

I think the only one currently displaying a large amount of ignorance concerning religion here is YOU dude. You're lumping all religions together and acting as if there's a codified and unanimous opinion on the subject. You get that there are multiple faiths, right?

first of all, i'm pretty sure you never mentioned religions persecuting anyone until this post. i don't know if you, yourself, are religious but your posts were a pretty one-sided defense of religion's treatment of women. that's why several posters in this thread, and i, felt the need to call you out on it. just sayin'.

Wow, several posters "called me out"? You mean three, including yourself? That totally adds great weight to your argument! That two other people posted "women aren't equal in religion". And, again, you lump all religions together in their treatment of women. Oh, and I didn't mention persecution because that wasn't want the debate was about maybe?

You also seem to be unable to see a difference between religion itself and followers of a religion. "Religion" can't treat anyone as anything. It's the interpretation of religion by religious people that deals with "treatment" of groups.

Oh and "defended religion"? I actually specifically defended only two branches of Judaism and one branch of Christianity on the issue, so I wouldn't call that a "one-sided defence of religion".

By the way, the phrase "called you out" is a little ridiculous. It implies righteousness, as if someone has been caught out.

"Just sayin' ".

second, just because a religion doesn't obviously persecute women doesn't mean they consider women to be equal. the torah, bible, and koran are the foundation of the abrahamic religions. these organizations' laws and attitudes are fundamentally tied to books that relegate women to roles in society that are separate and unequal from men. regardless of how egalitarian some splinters of these religions might try to portray themselves, they still believe in a "word of god" that lists women as unequal to men.

Show me the "word of G-d" that lists women as unequal to men. I posted scripture earlier countering the idea that they were "created unequally', so how about you post some quotes to back up this claim that the Torah defines women as inferior to men. With a commentary or explanation of HOW they show this. I mean, you're speaking as if you're pretty clued up about religion, so why not impart some of your apparent knowledge instead of just claiming straight up that I'm wrong and "calling me out" eh?

your insistence that 'saying you believe in gender equality does not necessarily equate with adopting gender equality' actually reinforces my point that "progressive" religions are only paying lip service to the idea of women as full members of society. 

Lip service? You do understand that having different roles, in society or otherwise, does not equate to being unequal? Equality does NOT mean treating everyone the same. As a past campaigner for Disabled people's rights, that's pretty much the FIRST thing you learn. Equality doesn't mean treating people the same, it means treating people with fairness and ensuring that the can access everything that people from other groups can. In terms of disability, this means access to facilities. In terms of gender, this means access to jobs and treatment. In terms of Judaism, it means female rabbis and women being allowed to read from the Torah.

The Anglican faith had the suffragettes. It also has the Women's Institute, which regularly campaigns for women's issues. It has women vicars, women bishops, hell - the HEAD of the Anglican Church is a woman. That's the national religion of my nation. Reform and Liberal Judaism allow women rabbis and full participation in all aspects of faith for women.


I can understand my slight bias, due to the fact that I am indeed religious, but what is your clear bias based on? And where's any evidence for your suggestions, aside from flat out claiming that all religions are misogynistic?

- nope
- yes i am
- yes i do

I don't know much about eastern or animistic religions but that doesn't matter here because we have restricted the discussion to Abrahamic religions. I don't know of one holy text belonging to an Abrahamic religion (including LDS sects like Rastafariansm and Mormonism) that isn't shot through with passages that reek of misogyny. Generalizations are often bad, but sometimes, just sometimes, you can make one fairly. This is one of those times.

And yet, you've not provided any from the Torah so far? I asked for examples - they haven't currently been provided.

Three people out of seven made posts before mine suggesting your thoughts on equality in religion were dubious. Every response to this topic directly discussing something you said in the original post brought up this point. This isn't statistically insignificant. Regardless, i guess this is almost a valid point since the number of people who believe something doesn't dictate its correctness.

Haha, my thoughts are "dubious"? Dude, you're using "HEY OTHER PEOPLE SAID THIS" as the basis for your argument against religion! Farren insisted that the origin story of creation was anti-woman, I showed that it wasn't. What exactly are your criticisms again, aside from "HEY RELIGION HATES WOMEN"?
 

Ahaha dude! Okay, first things first: This is the sort of thing I meant when I said your post was frustrating. Before reading this, I was pretty sure you were just assuming I was making points that I wasn't; That you either weren't noticing or understanding what I was really saying. Now I come to find that you don't even know what the heck YOU are talking about! Jeez!

Haha, I don't know what I'm talking about? How do you figure? I feel the guy who immediately became insulting must know what he's talking about, right? I mean, you're once again criticising with absolutely no substance behind your points.

You claimed all religions were misogynistic, then refused to accept Anglicanism and branches of Judaism having an equal stance and acceptance of women, instead lumping all religions together. Great points dude, you're really proving that you know your stuff!

Second: Now that we agree you never mentioned religions belittling women, it is fair to say that your assessment of gender  equality was one-sided.

Nope. I specifically mentioned that some religions view women as equals, regardless of gender roles that some feel exist. I mentioned two specific examples.

Third: This is not the first time you have tried to deflect criticism by restricting the scope of the discussion, and it's super-annoying. Religions dictate many of the standards of global society, so it is incredibly perplexing that you would say their views on women is not a valid topic of discussion in a thread about gender roles. ugh.

I love how you construe "keeping the topic on focus" to "deflecting criticism"? I haven't deflected anything - I've responded to everything. You're the one who seems to be using a topic about gender roles and transgender people to attack religion.

Ugh, god, this is just dumb, pointless semantics and you are ignoring the fact that it ought to be pretty darn clear to anyone with modest reading comprehension skills that when I say "religion," I mean "religious institutions and their constituents." Furthermore, I've already addressed the fact that adherents to Abrahamic faiths are promoting sexism simply by believing that every misogynist passage in their holy book is the will of an infallible god.

Hmm, I don't think so. And more insults, insinuating that I lack modest reading comprehension skills? Wow, I don't want to toot my own horn here, but I teach English. But of course, don't let that stop you from adding emotive bullshit to your responses. I mean, if you haven't got the substance you better sure as hell rely on those persuasive devices! And yet you haven't provided the passages, yeah?

You do understand that Reform and Liberal judaism don't even hold the Torah itself to be the word of G-d right? Or are you just assuming because some do that all religions do? Maybe you should RESEARCH some religions before randomly lumping us all together, eh?

You haven't addressed the fact at ALL, especially as it isn't a fact. You've instead made vague assertions to things.

Remember when I said you weren't paying attention to what was going on in the discussion? Here is a quote from my first post, which features links to a passage in scripture. In this lovely reading we learn that, according to god, women are LITERALLY worth less than men.If god created men and women as equals, it sure didn't take him long to change his mind.

Anyway, asking me to provide scriptural evidence of misogyny is possibly the most obnoxious thing you could do. You insinuate that I don't know what I'm talking about, that I'm not familiar with scriptures like the Bible, but the fact that you don't think it talks straight shit about women proves that you've never read the damn thing yourself. Open it up and see if you can go fifty pages without running into something blatantly misogynistic. If you're still having a hard time finding what I'm talking about try reading the letters of Paul. Half of these things are just tirades against women.

You don't know what you're talking about. I asked you to provide evidence from the TORAH, and guess what, you haven't, except for a mention of Leviticus later on that has restrictive rules for both genders. The fact that you keep mentioning "The bible" as a whole shows your lack of understanding of the Abrahamic faiths.

I've not only READ it, I've STUDIED it. A large part of my faith INVOLVES study and criticism.

And again, you mention Paul? Hmm, I forget where he fits into the Torah, or even the Tanakh. Remind me? I mean I AM a follower of an Abrahamic faith, I MUST be into Paul right? I'm actually a little insulted by you using Paul against me, given the personal views I have about him. Nevertheless, he isn't in the Torah, thankfully.

[quotePlenty ][/quotePlenty]Ahaha man, I wonder what happens when they get to chapter three.[/quote]

They attend a group every week where they can discuss what the laws in these section entail? Or they read the Talmud, with its 83000 pages of commentary, disagreements, and explanations of rules, then make their own minds up about how best to adhere to them?

You never explicitly said this, but I am inferring you are a Christian?? Do you believe in the entire bible, or do you pick and chose? If someone in your church insisted that every passage in the bible is infallible, would you have the nuts to call them out?

I'm not a Christian. I'm into Reform Judaism specifically, if you hadn't worked it out from my referencing. Reform Judaism doesn't believe the Torah as the literal words of G-d, dictated to Moses, but instead as a historical text of the Jewish people's interactions with G-d. Divinely inspired as opposed to dictated. This is the only section of the entire Tanakh that IS claimed to be dictated by G-d, even for the ultra-orthodox jews. It's believed that the prophets speak for G-d, in their own words. The writings are just that - historical writings.

If someone at my shul insisted that every word in the "bible" was an infallible message from G-d then yes, I'd definitely call them out. Nobody would there, however, even if I attended an orthodox synagogue. Unless I brought up the Torah in the latter, of course.

I just want to point out that you said this:And then provided only 3 examples of denominations with which this is true, two of which are only really practiced in the UK. The other, Liberal Judaism, has a little over 1 million followers, out of 14 million total followers of Judaism. For contrast, there are around 38,000 denominations of Christianity alone. I don't see why you're being so defensive about this. Almost every, if not just every major branch of Abrahamic religion has misogynistic tendencies. Just because your fringe church doesn't does not qualify as the majority.

I didn't think that I needed to post tons of examples of religions as I didn't believe the fury about my claim that many of the major branches of the world's Abrahamic faiths believe in gender equality would be quite so absurd.

I'm being defensive because of the insulting nature of the discussion thus far. I'm defending the practisers of religious faiths that AREN'T misogynistic.

Which two were only practiced in the UK by the way? Actually Liberal AND Reform Judaism treat women as equals. Plus they're two totally separate branches of a faith. 42% of American Jews are Reform, meaning that 2.3 million Jews out of 5.2 million Jews in the US are part of my specific branch. Considering that the rest is split between the Liberal, the Reconstructionist (who aren't religious), the Orthodox, and the Conservatives, I don't see how you can call the religion I follow a "fringe church".

Only 25% of the Jews in Israel consider themselves "Orthodox". 7% o the Jews in America do also, whereas 42% of American Jews are Reform.

So no, it isn't a "fringe church", and it's insulting that you would say so.

In the UK, around 25 Million people proclaim to be of the Anglican faith, which is the major religion here, so also not a "fringe church". And what do you mean "only practiced in the UK"? The 77 million Anglicans are spread across many nations. 36 Million Anglicans live in the African continent, while the others are in the US (Episcopalians), Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. So also, a major world religion.

I'm being defensive about my faith due to the fact that it is being claimed that it is a misogynistic faith. You yourself are dismissing my religion as a "fringe church", and wondering why I'd get defensive?

PS: You're confusing "Jews" for followers of Judaism with your claim that 14 Million (it's 13 actually) follow Judaism. The 13 Million includes the secular jews in Israel (who are the majority), the Reconstructionist movement (who aren't religious but a cultural movement), and the many Jews that are atheists. The false use of these groups inflates the statistic, making Reform Judaism look smaller to a "majority" of Non-Reform Jews. In reality, Reform Judaism is in constant competition with Conservative Judaism for the majority position of the faith. Conservative Judaism, despite the name, is actually a very liberal faith also. So no, not a "fringe church" at all. We don't refer to it as a "church" either, by the way.

I'm fully willing to accept that the Orthodox Jews often show misogynistic beliefs and tendencies, as do a lot of the Christian faiths, as well as the Islamic. I'm not willing to accept the claims that "all religions are the same", or the they're all misogynistic either. It's insulting to my faith, my community, and is a pretty prejudiced claim to make.

just because you follow a progressive branch of your religion doesn't mean the actual religious texts aren't horribly misogynistic and sexist. unitarian universalism is extremely accepting and progressive, but, like the progressive branches of judaism, this is because they REJECT THE SEXIST/MISOGYNISTIC PARTS of their holy texts. if you follow the torah or the bible or the quran down to the tooth you would be one horrible motherfucker.

It isn't about rejecting the "sexist" parts, it's about analysing and interpreting what they mean. As I said earlier, the Talmud is 83000 pages of commentary on the Torah and what it actually means. Arguments are constantly present in it, as it's a collection of articles written by rabbis over a thousand year period. Even the Orthodox argue about the reasoning behind each mitzvah.

Case in point - Lesbians. There's no Torah prohibition about Lesbians whatsoever. However, in the Talmud, there are articles saying that Lesbians are absolutely fine, and others saying Lesbianism is a bad thing as it leads to less future Jews. Neither is more correct than the other religiously, so you're free to make your own mind up.

Reform Judaism holds that Judaism needed to modernise to fit in with a modern world. Anyway, all branches of Judaism are "progressive" aside from Orthodoxy. Thus only a small fraction of Jews actually practice a "non-progressive" religion.

My argument has NEVER been that all religions preach equality between the sexes. Just that ALL religions aren't misogynistic.

then again if anyone seriously believes any of this ridiculous shit they're pretty worthless anyway, sooo.

Wow, that's also quite insulting. So if anyone is religious they're worthless? I mean weird or deluded I could shrug off, but WORTHLESS? Seriously?


By the way, I find it weird that you would say this, given that when Xanqui and I were mocking a religious anti-homosexual website before in IRC you started saying that we were "AWESOME ATHEISTS" and we thought we must be better than religious people due to being "AWESOME ATHEISTS". You were pretty indignant about it.