jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (51 posts)

Freedom of Religion and Sexism

  1. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/us/re … odayspaper

    Why is this still allowed?  If the Catholic Church ever had a doctrine that said African Americans, Asian Americans, or Hispanic Americans could not be priests, they would've been banned from discriminating.

    However, the United States court system sits silent as the Catholic Church continually marginalizes women, and they allow it because it is a "freedom of religion" issue.

    If my church has racist or sexist doctrine, does that mean they should be protected from lawsuits because they are simply practicing their "freedom of religion?"

    1. gmwilliams profile image82
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sooner, religion is such an untouchable and taboo subject in this society.    Religion to many people is considered to be quite a sacrosanct issue which is preordained.     Many people still believe that religion and religious authorities have some type of unworldly wisdom and they are somewhat infallible, especially in the Roman Catholic Church.   

      Sooner, the Roman Catholic Church has always marginalized women and considered them to be "lesser."    Look and study its position on contraception and abortion.   If that is anti-womanist, nothing is.    The position of women in the Roman Catholic Church is to be a silent, obedient, and submissive women who follows male authority without question.    They are bound so to speak.     

      However, there many women are quite vocal in the Roman Catholic Church.   They believe that the  church's position regarding contraception and abortion are quite atavistic to say the least.    Many Roman Catholic women are not abiding by the church's position regarding reproductive issues.   They use contraception and are pro-choice.     Many women want to see women priests in the Roman Catholic Church.

      Not only the Roman Catholic Church but many conservative religions believe that women such not be in decision making careers and to be more dominant.   They subscribe to the premise that men are the head and women are to be submissive to them.    More orthodox segments of Judaism and Christian religions hold that position.

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        History will judge them harshly, just like it has with the crusades.

        1. nightwork4 profile image61
          nightwork4posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          have we. then explain why the catholic religion is the biggest in the world and islam is second. no other religions have cause so much genocide yet they are the most followed.

          1. profile image0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Non-believers are growing worldwide.  I'm not speaking about the current time.  Don't get caught up in looking at such a narrow time.  Take the long view.

    2. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Sooner. A rather provocitive thread here.

      Actually, the Supreme Court of the United States has NOT been silent as you claim.  No doubt you missed the unanimous decision in January 2012 regarding Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C.

      In a unanimous decision favoring the First Amendment, the court drew a distinction between discrimination and government interfering in religion. “The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in the court's decision, “But so, too, is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission.” {1}

      Marcia Coyle, of The National Law Journal, explained further, “He said, if you impose an unwanted minister on a religious organization, that violates the free exercise clause which protects churches' right to shape their faith through their hiring decisions. And he said, also, if you give the state the power to determine who is a minister, you violate the establishment clause, which prohibits government interference in purely church decisions.” {2}

      Although this case involved a lay teacher in a Lutheran school, it reinforces a religion’s right to choose “who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission.” It all seems to make sense to me, Josh.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/su … wanted=all
      {2} http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan- … 01-11.html

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I said, "However, the United States court system sits silent as the Catholic Church continually marginalizes women, and they allow it because it is a "freedom of religion" issue."  My saying it was a "freedom of religious" issue seems like it would have been obvious I was familiar with Robert's reasoning.  Sorry for the confusion.

        What I meant was they are allowing it to go on and doing nothing to stop it, not that they literally have been silent on the issue.  I didn't miss that decision.  I had it in mind when I crafted the discussion.  Instead of intervening, the Supreme Court decided to say no, the Church can discriminate.

        If you agree with this decision, would you be okay with the Mormon church's policy up to 1978 not allowing African Americans to be priests as a matter of "religious freedom?"  If so, I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong.  I'm just curious as to how far "religious freedom" can go in preventing government intervention.

        1. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hi again, Sooner.

          Sorry. I am still unsure if you are critical of the Supreme Court not addressing what you consider discrimination by religious groups or if you are upset over religions' right to hire and/or appoint the individuals they want to preach their doctrines.

          My opinion regarding the Mormon Church's decision in 1978 is irrelevant. My point is the Supreme Court has decided the separation clause of our Constitution prohibits interference with decisions of all religions regarding whom they ordain to "preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission." However, the same can not be said for teachers of secular subjects in their schools.   

          Like I said earlier, a provocative thread.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

          1. profile image0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It's not irrelevant.  An African American bishop would be disseminating church teachings.  The Mormon Church claimed God delivered a revelation to them that African Americans were cursed by God.

            I'm not accusing you of anything sinister.  I know you are a well intentioned fellow, and I agree with you on many issues.  However, if you think this is truly a religious freedom issue, it is important to understand how far you think religious freedom should extend when it comes to cases like the Mormon or Catholic church keeping our certain groups from positions of power.

            The Supreme Court also has ruled what you claim.  Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision?

            1. A Thousand Words profile image81
              A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Here's the thing. If someone chooses to be a part of a certain religion, then they must subject themselves to whatever regulations are required out of that religion.

              Religious freedom is a touchy subject, because many people start cults with the knowledge that there are laws that should protect them from being judged according to "the law of the land." However there are certain scenarios where something might require government intervention.

              For instance, if a religion says that women can't be in a position of power, and women want to be part of that religion, than they accept that they cannot be in a position of power. They don't feel as though they are having any rights taken away, and actually justify those regulations with their beliefs.

              However, if a certain cult decides that in order to pease their god, they want to chop women up, serve them in soups to the male members, the government has the right to step in because the lives of those women are in danger. Even though they may have joined the cult with the knowledge that they would be killed, when lives are put in danger, the government steps in to say "hey, you've gone too far."

              One scenario is simply a social norm that seems unpleasant to people from a less patriarchal society, where as the latter is a clear threat to the physical livelihood of the women.

              1. profile image0
                Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Then the tax exempt status has to go.

                I won't push for anything to regulate their sexist beliefs as long as the government doesn't give them preferential tax treatment.

            2. A Thousand Words profile image81
              A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              African Americans still can't be in positions of power in the Mormon Church.  Well, at least the last time I checked. As members, they have accepted this. Or they can choose to leave the Mormon church or attempt to form their own sect where blacks can have postions of power (although you see less denominations in basically every other religion apart from protestant Christianity, hmmm). Gay people also can't go to same level of Heaven in Mormonism, though they do go to "Heaven." I'm certain they've accepted this, or apply what I said above.

              Sooner, as much as you might want to stop something because you find it distasteful, quite frankly, unless lives are endangered or children are being abused, we have no right to say anything about it, and the government doesn't have to do anything. The people being singled out/"discriminated" against can simply just not join those religions. As long as those religions don't try to take over the government and force their views on the entire populace, then we don't have a right to pry.

              1. profile image0
                Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I didn't know the Mormon church still discriminated against African Americans...

                That makes Mitt Romney a billion times worse if that is true.

            3. Quilligrapher profile image90
              Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Hey there, Sooner.

              It is my irrelevant opinion that the Supreme Court decided the matter as prescribed by the Constitution.

              I understand where you are coming from. I do. However, my point is how two different, over-lapping subsets of society are each protected by our Constitution. Anti-discrimination laws apply to the secular subset of our society and the Constitution prevents their application in the religion subsets when they interfere with how religions choose to conduct their internal affairs. It seems rather simple and straightforward to me. The Mormon Church can recognize racial distinctions in the practice of their beliefs; the same as the Catholic Church makes distinctions based on gender. The government has no authority to exert strict control over the way religions exercise their tenets. 

              Furthermore, neither “sexist beliefs” nor “excommunication” can be considered, even remotely, as “blatant political activism” and both have absolutely nothing to do with tax-exempt treatment.
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

              1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                So - basically - religions are exempt from certain laws, including anti-discriminatory laws? Are they exempt from all laws or just certain ones?

                If it is "against their religion," to wear motorcycle helmets or seat belts - will they be exempt also? wink

              2. profile image0
                Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I meant irrelevant in the sense that I was asking for YOUR line of between what constitutes "religious freedom" and not what the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue.  The Supreme Court would only be relevant if it agreed with you.  I don't believe in outsourcing my opinions about what is and is not constitutional to a Supreme Court that has a very political and maligned history, and that is not any more objective than you or me.

                Furthermore, equal rights for African Americans and women ARE political issues!  The Civil Rights Act of 1964, women being given the right to vote in 1920 were all very much political struggles.  I don't see how you could possibly claim it would be otherwise!  Taking a position one way or another is an endorsement of a political belief.

                To add to Mark's point, here is another scenario.  There are certain Christians who believe modern medicine is immoral and against God's will.  Children have DIED because of parents' refusal to give them medical treatment.  Courts have ruled parents cannot hide behind "religious freedom" anymore on this issue.  Do you agree that parents should be "forced" to take their children to a qualified doctor, or is it a matter of religious freedom for them to refuse?

                http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30763438/ns … chemo-boy/

                1. A Thousand Words profile image81
                  A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Of course. This is where a life itself is actually being threatened that I mentioned earlier comes into play and the governement should be able to step in.

                2. Quilligrapher profile image90
                  Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Hi Sooner.

                  First, I did not say civil rights or women’s suffrage were not political struggles. I did say they were secular issues. The discussion is likely to be more educational if you address what I actually say and refrain from attacking what I did not say.

                  Secondly, political issues and religious issues function as distinctly different dynamics within our society. I sense you may not be happy with this arrangement and would like to see it changed.  However, our Constitution prescribes that they, as issues, be treated differently. In particular, it is an essential element of our individual liberty that one does not exert excessive influence over the other. Within that context, becoming a member of any church or demanding to be ordained as a priest are not among the inalienable rights of any person regardless of gender or race.

                  It has been said that our individual liberty ends where the another’s liberty begins. One of your points stated, “There are certain Christians who believe modern medicine is immoral and against God's will. Children have DIED because of parents' refusal to give them medical treatment.” What a dramatic and emotional argument! It occurs to me more adults than children may have died unnecessarily because of those particular beliefs. However, it does demonstrate what I see as one of those limits of “religious freedom” you were seeking. The government will, as you have mentioned, intervene to protect the child’s right to life but, on the other hand you must have noted, will not interfere on behalf of a competent adult.

                  Personally, I see no reason why religious beliefs can not co-exist with secular beliefs to a large extent in a well-educated, tolerant society that takes adequate steps to insure one does not meddle in the affairs of the other. 

                  Thank you again, Sooner, for creating this interesting learning experience.
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                  1. profile image0
                    Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "First, I did not say civil rights or women’s suffrage were not political struggles. I did say they were secular issues. The discussion is likely to be more educational if you address what I actually say and refrain from attacking what I did not say. "

                    You claimed, "Furthermore, neither “sexist beliefs” nor “excommunication” can be considered, even remotely, as “blatant political activism” and both have absolutely nothing to do with tax-exempt treatment."

                    Sexist beliefs about women's role in society and how they should be treated are inherently political.  The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Equal Rights Amendment floated in the 70s, and the already mentioned women's suffrage being granted in the 1920s are all examples of sexism being fought against in American society.  If the church is taking the position that they should be allowed to discriminate against women because it is their "religious freedom," they are entering the realm of politics and asserting what rights women should and should not be granted in the church, and how others should be allowed to treat women in the wider society.   If that isn't "blatant political activism," I don't know what is.  Since they are involving themselves in political issues, it is very much relevant to their tax-exempt status.  The Mormon church's exclusion of African Americans from the priesthood can be understood in the same way.   I'm not sure how you can call these obviously political positions anything other.

                    I'm not claiming that dogmatic beliefs about the virgin birth or who is and is not a Christian are examples of political activism.  There is sometimes, but not always a clear dichotomy between religious and political issues.  There is, unfortunately, often overlap, such as in the examples I cited. 

                    "Secondly, political issues and religious issues function as distinctly different dynamics within our society. I sense you may not be happy with this arrangement and would like to see it changed.  However, our Constitution prescribes that they, as issues, be treated differently. In particular, it is an essential element of our individual liberty that one does not exert excessive influence over the other. Within that context, becoming a member of any church or demanding to be ordained as a priest are not among the inalienable rights of any person regardless of gender or race."

                    I am aware of this, and the rule does exist that if a church engages in politics, they will lose their tax exempt status.  You aren't addressing this at all.

                    I'll summarize.

                    1.  If a church engages in political activism of any sort, then their tax exempt status should be revoked.  (IRS rule)

                    2.  Keeping women or African Americans out of positions of power is the taking of political positions.

                    I have given evidence for this, and your only response has been, "Secondly, political issues and religious issues function as distinctly different dynamics within our society."  This doesn't address the evidence I brought to bear on the question.

                    3.  The Catholic church presently, and the Mormon church in the past have supported these positions respectively.

                    4.  Therefore, The Catholic church should lose its tax-exempt status, and the Mormon church should have lost theirs up until they decided to allow African Americans to be priests.

                    "It has been said that our individual liberty ends where the another’s liberty begins. One of your points stated, “There are certain Christians who believe modern medicine is immoral and against God's will. Children have DIED because of parents' refusal to give them medical treatment.” What a dramatic and emotional argument! It occurs to me more adults than children may have died unnecessarily because of those particular beliefs. However, it does demonstrate what I see as one of those limits of “religious freedom” you were seeking. The government will, as you have mentioned, intervene to protect the child’s right to life but, on the other hand you must have noted, will not interfere on behalf of a competent adult.".

                    First, whether more adults have died from the belief is not relevant to whether it is a religious freedom issue or not.  It's just a consequence of the particular "Christian science" belief system.

                    Second,  I am glad to see this is an example of where your line would be drawn, when there is a danger of death to a child.  It has provided a little more clarification about what definition you are using for religious freedom.  Unfortunately, I still don't know what criteria you are using.

                    Personally, I see no reason why religious beliefs can not co-exist with secular beliefs to a large extent in a well-educated, tolerant society that takes adequate steps to insure one does not meddle in the affairs of the other. 

                    I agree with this!  My claim is simply that tax-exempt status should be revoked when churches engage in political activism of any sort.  In initially thought it should be banned from occurring, but after conversations with you and others I think it's better to not ban the practice.

    3. Barefootfae profile image59
      Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Freedom of religion also means if you don't like what you church says you can go to another church or stop going to a church altogether.

      1. A Thousand Words profile image81
        A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Agreed.

    4. Ceegen profile image85
      Ceegenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The RCC is notorious for controlling information, because they're just an institution of humans trying to keep a hold of their power. They keep trying to be a middle-man in something they have no say over, when God was VERY clear that we go directly to Him with our problems and prayers. Not to mention all the sun worship and other pagan holidays they have incorporated into the church system, in direct contradiction to what God says in the bible, including the role of females in church.

      When Jesus died on the cross, the "veil" curtain in the temple was torn in two, and everyone could see the "holiest of holies" for themselves:

      "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." - John 19:30.

      It is finished. There is nothing more to add to or take away. If you believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life... You've won.

    5. profile image60
      retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Can a White Representative of a mostly Black Congressional district join the "Black Congressional Caucus?"

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If you are willing to let Obama join the Tea Party Caucus.

        1. profile image60
          retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Having no connection with any TEA party group yet pretty certain there isn't  a skin color test for membership, I suppose all it would take is for him to; FIRST - and most obvious and apparently most easily missed - be a member of Congress and Second agree with the ideological aims of that caucus.  Is Black an ideology?

          1. profile image0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Lol.  He's not going to agree.

            I do see your point though.  I don't like racially divided caucuses anyway.

            If I admit that it shouldn't go on, what exactly is your objection?

            1. profile image60
              retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I have no objections left.   I think what ever befalls the Catholic Church it is little more than it deserves for embracing the forces of liberalism in America.

              1. profile image0
                Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                What's your argument against liberalism?

  2. profile image0
    khmohsinposted 4 years ago

    These doctrines neither defined by the religion nor the church. It's the self perception of the people came after the Jesus. He was only the messenger and conveyed the universal doctrines by the God.

  3. LauraD093 profile image83
    LauraD093posted 4 years ago

    Happy Turkey day Sooner28-to answer your question I am a "lapsed," Catholic at times and agree with you to an extent but good points have been made here in relation to your topic. I attend mass more often now that women are allowed to be Eucharistic Ministers (in the old days we weren't allowed to handle the host because our menses made us unclean...sigh) Some progress has been made (i.e. young ladies as alter attendants) but I doubt i will see female priests in my lifetime although in some regions of Ireland  women are trying to break through this religious ceiling as well. Without participation of us  Catholic women demanding change these would have never occurred. Being present to voice our concerns is key...I believe freedom of religion isn't a legal issue it is a constitutional right and  personal choice.

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm in agreement as long as the preferential tax treatment goes.

      The Catholic church is heavily involved in charity work, and should be commended for it!  They also don't take anti-science stances on climate change and evolution the way many Protestant denominations do.  I am happy about these aspects of the Catholic church.

      But if they are going to ACTIVELY discriminate (remember, the priest was excommunicated for trying to ordain a woman), then they are not going to be treated as a true non-profit, because they are engaging in blatant political activism.

  4. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 … -says?lite

    Well, those disenchanted with the Roman Catholic Church's treatment of women as second class citizens might follow the example of one Henry VIII* and join the Anglican Church. At least, here in the States or Australia or New Zealand. But not back in merry old England.
    sad



    *One of the more pro-woman kings in history. Wasn't he famous for saying, "That woman's got a good head on her shoulders. I wonder what she'd look like without it!"??
    lol

  5. cheaptrick profile image74
    cheaptrickposted 4 years ago

    Just to clarify here...Sexism is a bad thing right?
    Cause the way I read it was:Freedom of religion and of sexism?
    and my GF says I'm not allowed to do the sexism thing or I'm on the couch...again...

    1. manshuk profile image61
      manshukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      recent times in our country too has many problems with religion, specially with hijabs. freedom religion is also taking place  because a lot of unofficial sectas. this is the also big problem for society

      1. A Thousand Words profile image81
        A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Jihads, not hijabs, those are head scarf type coverings...

    2. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Inarticulate expression on my part .

      I'm not too concerned with grammatically correct titles.  I appreciate you holding me accountable though tongue.

  6. Shadesbreath profile image90
    Shadesbreathposted 4 years ago

    Religion, at least the horrific and barbarous ones of the bronze age are finally dying, but they are doing it slowly and their death throes are killing thousands, and trapping millions of others in miserable lives that probably won't span the years required for this horrible cancer that came upon humanity a few thousand years ago to finally perish and, in its absence perhaps allow for something new to come along that might actually usher in peace. We'll never see true peace in our lifetimes because all that hate and divinely ordained dominance crap is still alive and, if not healthy, angry and vengeful (joy for whoever decided to write in hateful gods like those middle-eastern goat herders did way back when, but ... sigh), but, it is dying and maybe our great grandchildren will have a world without that ridiculous garbage. Pull out the brilliant human philosophy and throw away the insane bronze age package already. Sheesh.

  7. Geopeter profile image78
    Geopeterposted 4 years ago

    There are religions that are exempted from national laws of the land. The Jehovah's Witnesses for example cannot perform their duty in military so in Korea they are ready to go to jail for two years as voluntary because of Korean Laws.

  8. Barefootfae profile image59
    Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago

    Wow!
    Good job here gang!
    I guess that about wraps it up for the First Amendment huh?
    On to the Second!

  9. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    Just to clarify, and for intellectual honesty purposes, I have decided that sexism and racism in churches should NOT be banned in the same way that it is banned in private business, unless the church operates as a private business, which is another issue altogether.

    I've decided the best course of action is to simply revoke tax-exempt status when blatant political activism is engaged in, not to ban the churches from practicing their religious freedom.

  10. profile image60
    retief2000posted 4 years ago

    wasted on anyone who does not already know the argument

    1. A Thousand Words profile image81
      A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well that certainly allows for a productive conversation...

      1. profile image60
        retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And that assumes that productive conversations are possible.

        1. A Thousand Words profile image81
          A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry, oh superior one that you can't waste your time explaining to us simpletons. Wee to stuped tuh undastand. Wee to dumb to hav productive conversation.

          1. profile image60
            retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Taking things personally and assuming that others believe themselves superior are just two of the many reasons why productive conversations are impossible.

            1. A Thousand Words profile image81
              A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              LoL. We can't have a productive conversation because you don't want to. It's quite simple.

              1. profile image0
                Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It's too bad a vigorous defense of conservatism or liberalism hasn't occurred!

    2. Barefootfae profile image59
      Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  11. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

    It's really a matter of truth in the time-forgotten universe of justice, and a matter of providing visually produced sentences for the deaf. In fact, if the freedom of religion and sexism argument could be observed in the light of day, one would be blinded by the light of the brilliance of the matter at hand! And, furthermore, the importance of this matter can be held accountable for all sorts of confusion, especially in the land of the brave!  Why are we finally getting out the microscope? I mean the telescope.  Well, maybe I mean the magnifying glass. Well, maybe the looking glass?  Where is Alice when we need her? Oh yeah, chasing after the Mad Hatter...NOT.

 
working