This is a video a friend linked me to , it's about the potential for depression when you've cast off superstitious beliefs and magical thinking (aka: religion). While at first he sounds a little dismissive, he does actually make some really good points later in the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBBWMo8ISe0&feature=colike
Here's the text if you can't watch the video:
Believers and non-believers alike have asked me about the potential depression that comes with a life free of the belief or faith in a purpose granting, paradise promising deity. It's old hat for theists to accuse me of being miserable and depressed due to my life without God, but recently I've also heard from atheists who seem legitimately depressed as a result of their delusion free world view. They've tried to explain to me that they can now understand why the religious people so desperately clutch to illogical, nonsensical, and absurd beliefs. They explain that it makes sense to do so, being that their lives of free thought have exposed to them just how pointless and empty life must be.
In my opinion the meaning of life question is a trite and trivial one- and no, the answer isn't 42. The decision of life's purpose belongs entirely to the individual. The evident understanding that our lives don't have a pre-determined meaning or a guaranteed afterlife waiting for us shouldn't be depressing. I prefer being the lone drafter of my life goals and evaluator of my success. This preference, however does not dictate my position. I didn't decide to take a path of free thought, skepticism and atheism because I like being personally accountable for what I do with my own life. Even if I took the position of those depressed skeptics who consider life meaningless without the illusion of God-given purpose, no level of desire for that perspective could allow me to convince myself of that for which I can see no actual evidence or logical presence of, and if I was genuinely convinced a god exists, no level of desire to the contrary would allow me genuinely disbelieve my own convictions. I might really want to believe that when I wake up tomorrow I'll have a job as Beyonce's personal masseur- but my desires do not inform my actual beliefs.
So, I'm perfectly happy to enjoy the many things life has to offer, even though it also offers plenty of things to be upset about. One of my favorite teachers taught me that nature craves balance. There are emotional valleys and plateaus to suffer through and be enthralled by. We are fortunate enough against all odds to be living beings, to enjoy a sliver of time as a part of this colossal cosmos with an intellect just strong enough to be self-aware, and capable of appreciating the majesty of all existence around us. I consider it a privilege to have the atoms and molecules that make up our physical existence temporarily taking the form of sentient beings with conscious brains.
As living beings with those complex brains, we're able to experience the emotional jolts of terror, love, hope, victory, defeat, and wonder in a way the overwhelmingly vast majority of molecular compositions throughout the known galaxy ever could. In my opinion, the ability to hold those experiences, and the understanding of just how rare and finite they are make this life very special, and I'm humbled and appreciative to partake in it. So no, most other people living their lives don't see eye to eye with me, and I think they'd be better off if they did- and no, life doesn't come with a neat little instruction booklet, or a gift-wrapped objective meaning. But, from my perspective, life is just too short to spend it in depression because of it.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Do YOU Have A Relationship With Satan?
As I was out for my early morning walk today (in the rain - love that) I had a bit of a revelation.
Christianity has misunderstood ha-Satan (Satan), as it has misunderstood so many things about the Jewish tradition on which it was based*.
Under Christianity, Satan has become something of a boogeyman, a malicious and evil entity in perpetual conflict with God, trying to tempt the unwary into sin and destruction. But that's not what ha-Satan was at all as originally conceived by the ancient Hebrews.
Ha-Satan is a TITLE, not a name, the prefix 'ha' simply being the Jewish 'the', the noun 'Satan' simply meaning 'accuser' or 'adversary'. So it's 'the Accuser', or 'the Adversary', a being that opposes or obstructs but which - crucially - is not necessarily in opposition to God, and which isn't, in fact, even evil as such. The term only crops up twice in the Hebrew bible referring to a supernatural entity (in the first two chapters of Job, and in Zechariah 3:1-2), the rest of the time it refers to human agents standing in opposition to a character or the kingdom of Israel.
In Job, ha-Satan is a member of the divine council, "the sons of God" who are subservient to God. Ha-Satan, in this capacity, is often translated into English as "the prosecutor", a being that is charged by God to report back on all who go against God's decrees. At the beginning of the book, Job is a good person "who feared God and turned away from evil" (Job 1:1), and has therefore been rewarded by God. When the divine council meets, God informs ha-Satan about Job's blameless, morally upright character. But ha-Satan counters (between Job 1:9–10 and 2:4–5) that God has given Job everything that a man could want, so of course Job would be loyal to God; if all Job has been given, even his health, were to be taken away from him, however, his faith would collapse. Seeing the logic of this, God proceeds to take everything away from Job - his home, his family, his property, his health - in order to test him. This would seem to imply that ha-Satan is an agent of God's rather than a rival. In Zechariah, 'the Accuser' merely stands at the right hand of God looking upon Joshua and Jerusalem as God himself defends them. The overall impression then, is of a servant of God who acts a bit like a prosecuting attorney. And this, I think, is important.
Thinking about it this morning, I concluded that modern Christianity has in fact robbed people of an important psychological tool. I personally don't believe in supernatural entities - being an apostate and atheist, I think Biblical literalism is fairly childish. But the IDEA of an accuser can be a very helpful thing, perhaps even something crucial to our mental, emotional (and even physical) well-being. I'd like to think that people are all nice, that everyone can get along, that there's no need for aggression or hostility, but we're simply not like that in reality. We NEED enemies, it's hard-wired into us... you've only to look at the nice, decent people on both sides of the political spectrum who habitually demonize those on the other side to see that. But WHY must it be so?
Having an accuser is a bit like having a yard-stick, it allows you to see where you're at, where you're failing, and spurs you on to do better. It's like an externalization of conscience, a concept that the ancient world was largely unfamiliar with. But, more importantly I believe, it's something you have to fight back against - it's no accident that ha-Satan is basically a prosecuting lawyer - imagining a being like that pointing out all your flaws forces you to defend yourself; having your own inner ugliness held up before you in a mirror with no acknowledgement of the good you do pricks at your innate sense of fairness and arouses your indignation, forces you to fight back. In doing so, you assert your own goodness and worth, and convince YOURSELF of your own worthiness, which lifts your self esteem and confidence and makes you happier and ultimately healthier, both mentally and physically**.
Of course, some people have a very low sense of self worth (I'm one, and I seem to know quite a few others, particularly in the more marginal communities of which I am a part***), and such people are not likely to defend themselves against real or imagined accusers. People who have been convinced by others that they're worthless will just agree with their accuser(s), and that is why it's so crucial that we all, everyday, express our sincere gratitude for, appreciation and admiration of those with whom we come into contact, to build up their confidence so that they can defend themselves against the one-sided accusations of their real or imaginary accusers, against their own minds, which are the cruelest adversaries of all.
So I'm going to cultivate an adversarial relationship with an imaginary supernatural entity, because the argument in my head has been pretty one-sided most of my life. Nobody's stood up for me against my attacker (and how could they? He's in my head!), so I'm going to stand up for myself. I'm going to remind myself of the good I have done and point out the good I continue to do, I'm not just going to sit and take it. And I expect I'll be better off for it :)
* Of course, I understand that 'misunderstood' is too simple a description for what has occurred over the 2000 years of Christian tradition, there were a lot of forces at work, personal, priestly and political, seeking to distance Christianity from its origins for a host of reasons.
** Physical health is a good indicator of overall happiness, and in fact laughter, excitement and joy have positive effects on overall physical health.
*** I think the LGBT communities have lost something really important in forgetting the song that used to be our anthem - 'I Am What I Am' by Gloria Gaynor. Whether or not you like the style of music, the song is a powerful assertion of one's individual worthiness and innate goodness, one that very few subsequent songs have emulated. The most recent 'gay anthem', Lady Gaga's 'Born This Way', simply pales in comparison.
Christianity has misunderstood ha-Satan (Satan), as it has misunderstood so many things about the Jewish tradition on which it was based*.
Under Christianity, Satan has become something of a boogeyman, a malicious and evil entity in perpetual conflict with God, trying to tempt the unwary into sin and destruction. But that's not what ha-Satan was at all as originally conceived by the ancient Hebrews.
Ha-Satan is a TITLE, not a name, the prefix 'ha' simply being the Jewish 'the', the noun 'Satan' simply meaning 'accuser' or 'adversary'. So it's 'the Accuser', or 'the Adversary', a being that opposes or obstructs but which - crucially - is not necessarily in opposition to God, and which isn't, in fact, even evil as such. The term only crops up twice in the Hebrew bible referring to a supernatural entity (in the first two chapters of Job, and in Zechariah 3:1-2), the rest of the time it refers to human agents standing in opposition to a character or the kingdom of Israel.
In Job, ha-Satan is a member of the divine council, "the sons of God" who are subservient to God. Ha-Satan, in this capacity, is often translated into English as "the prosecutor", a being that is charged by God to report back on all who go against God's decrees. At the beginning of the book, Job is a good person "who feared God and turned away from evil" (Job 1:1), and has therefore been rewarded by God. When the divine council meets, God informs ha-Satan about Job's blameless, morally upright character. But ha-Satan counters (between Job 1:9–10 and 2:4–5) that God has given Job everything that a man could want, so of course Job would be loyal to God; if all Job has been given, even his health, were to be taken away from him, however, his faith would collapse. Seeing the logic of this, God proceeds to take everything away from Job - his home, his family, his property, his health - in order to test him. This would seem to imply that ha-Satan is an agent of God's rather than a rival. In Zechariah, 'the Accuser' merely stands at the right hand of God looking upon Joshua and Jerusalem as God himself defends them. The overall impression then, is of a servant of God who acts a bit like a prosecuting attorney. And this, I think, is important.
Thinking about it this morning, I concluded that modern Christianity has in fact robbed people of an important psychological tool. I personally don't believe in supernatural entities - being an apostate and atheist, I think Biblical literalism is fairly childish. But the IDEA of an accuser can be a very helpful thing, perhaps even something crucial to our mental, emotional (and even physical) well-being. I'd like to think that people are all nice, that everyone can get along, that there's no need for aggression or hostility, but we're simply not like that in reality. We NEED enemies, it's hard-wired into us... you've only to look at the nice, decent people on both sides of the political spectrum who habitually demonize those on the other side to see that. But WHY must it be so?
Having an accuser is a bit like having a yard-stick, it allows you to see where you're at, where you're failing, and spurs you on to do better. It's like an externalization of conscience, a concept that the ancient world was largely unfamiliar with. But, more importantly I believe, it's something you have to fight back against - it's no accident that ha-Satan is basically a prosecuting lawyer - imagining a being like that pointing out all your flaws forces you to defend yourself; having your own inner ugliness held up before you in a mirror with no acknowledgement of the good you do pricks at your innate sense of fairness and arouses your indignation, forces you to fight back. In doing so, you assert your own goodness and worth, and convince YOURSELF of your own worthiness, which lifts your self esteem and confidence and makes you happier and ultimately healthier, both mentally and physically**.
Of course, some people have a very low sense of self worth (I'm one, and I seem to know quite a few others, particularly in the more marginal communities of which I am a part***), and such people are not likely to defend themselves against real or imagined accusers. People who have been convinced by others that they're worthless will just agree with their accuser(s), and that is why it's so crucial that we all, everyday, express our sincere gratitude for, appreciation and admiration of those with whom we come into contact, to build up their confidence so that they can defend themselves against the one-sided accusations of their real or imaginary accusers, against their own minds, which are the cruelest adversaries of all.
So I'm going to cultivate an adversarial relationship with an imaginary supernatural entity, because the argument in my head has been pretty one-sided most of my life. Nobody's stood up for me against my attacker (and how could they? He's in my head!), so I'm going to stand up for myself. I'm going to remind myself of the good I have done and point out the good I continue to do, I'm not just going to sit and take it. And I expect I'll be better off for it :)
* Of course, I understand that 'misunderstood' is too simple a description for what has occurred over the 2000 years of Christian tradition, there were a lot of forces at work, personal, priestly and political, seeking to distance Christianity from its origins for a host of reasons.
** Physical health is a good indicator of overall happiness, and in fact laughter, excitement and joy have positive effects on overall physical health.
*** I think the LGBT communities have lost something really important in forgetting the song that used to be our anthem - 'I Am What I Am' by Gloria Gaynor. Whether or not you like the style of music, the song is a powerful assertion of one's individual worthiness and innate goodness, one that very few subsequent songs have emulated. The most recent 'gay anthem', Lady Gaga's 'Born This Way', simply pales in comparison.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The Power of Porn, by Christopher White
I regularly recieve links and updates from the National Sexuality Resource Center (NSRC) through my work with the local sexual health service providers network, here's one I got today that I thought might raise a few eyebrows.... DR
Retrieved 4/11/09 from http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/dialogues/blog/view/3539/6241?utm_source=NSRC+News&utm_campaign=f910b24a6d-NSRC_Newsletter_November_03_2009_draft_211_3_2009&utm_medium=email
I believe in the Power of PORN!
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 02:50:09pm
by Christopher White
Today, I'm writing in honor of the the Morality in Media's (MIM) WRAP Week: White Ribbons Against Pornography, which is also supported by one of my favorite anti-gay organizations, Concerned Women for America (CWA). According to the MIM website the event, which is being held all week from October 25 through November 1, "WRAP week is intended to educate the public about the extent of the pornography problem and what can constitutionally be done about it." The CWA goes on to point out the truth about all of us "Pornography advocates" who apparently claim that porn is a "victimless crime" are delusional and spreading lies - I'd like to point out that I am a proud advocate and voracious consumer of pornography, particularly of the online and amatuer produced variety and I have NEVER stated that it is a victimless crime. Mainly, because pornography is no longer a crime in United States - either producing it or viewing it. Of course, I know there are legal issues regarding the production and distribution of porn and that these laws may vary from state to state. I'll let my lawyer friends weigh in on this one.
I want to counter their claims (and misuses of research) with the idea that pornography is actually the opposite of "dangerous" and can actually be beneficial to helping individuals and couples practice lifelong sexuality education and explore their sexual pleasures, fantasies, and desires in a safe and practical way. First, I want to point out that my own research has shown that young men tend to claim that pornography is one of the main resources for understanding the realities of sexual behaviors. That fact may frighten some of you because you might be concerned that what they see in commercial porn may not be truly representative of what happens in real life. To that, I suggest that you give them a little credit for having the critical skills of being able to distinguish between highly produced movies and reality. I would also suggest that this is one more reason why it is so very important that schools and parents provide the necessary education to make sure they have critical thinking skills when it comes to being media consumers. Then, think about it. Where else are young people (or adults for that matter) going to turn to get the graphic depictions that enable understanding of the physics and mechanics of behaviors if not pornography? I am pretty sure there are not many health education books or biology books that provide the actual details of intercourse much less oral sex, anal sex, playing with sex toys, rimming, mutual masturbation, and I could go on and on and on.
Next, I want to ask you to consider the reasons that adults consume pornography. Let's say that it's because we get tired of the same old sexual activities we've been doing since puberty and allow us to consider what the anti-porn people refer to as needing more and more to be able to achieve sexual arousal and pleasure. So what. I think we might want to openly acknowledge that our sexuality and our sex lives change over time, whether it's due to age and changing bodies or because we are in long-term relationships. We crave novelty just as we do in other parts of our lives. Contrary to the idea of porn being dangerous, I suggest that porn is one of the best places to explore your sexuality, to learn new things to try out, and to fulfil your fantasies. It is not an accident that every time a new technology emerges that one of the first things we do is make new, more easily accessible forms of pornography or perhaps that it is actually the desire for new and more easily accessible pornography that drives technology. Most of us love to access porn and want to do so without any fear, shame, or guilt for doing so.
Finally, let's consider ways in which individuals, couples, or even groups of people can have safe, consensual sexual experiences without having to leave the safety and comfort of their own homes. Of course, I am not in anyway suggesting that porn or any kind of online interactions become a replacement for actual live human interactions. But I do think it can be a safe alternative for some people who may want to explore and have a little fun but aren't necessarily interested in picking someone up at a bar, going to a sex club, or cruising in a park or highway rest area. Then there's the individual or couple in a committed relationship who may want to have other types of sexual encounters but have agreed to a boundary that live, in the flesh sexual encounters are off limits. They may choose to engage and interact with others online by chatting, camming, exchanging photos and videos, or even just going online to look at user-generated porn on amateur sites.
For all of these reasons, I think that we ought to consider promoting greater pornography consumption (and production in this user-generated content world we live in) for people of all ages as a way of learning about sex and sexuality throughout our lives and as a way of expressing and exploring our sexualities. We hear a great deal of discussion about the blurring of the virtual and real worlds as more and more people participate in online social networks and other sites on which content is produced by users - photos, blogs, music, videos, and even live video streams from our offices and homes. So why not think the same way when it comes to our sexual lives?
On that note, I encourage all of you to celebrate WRAP by getting off online just a little bit more than you were probably going to do anyway. Have fun!
Retrieved 4/11/09 from http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/dialogues/blog/view/3539/6241?utm_source=NSRC+News&utm_campaign=f910b24a6d-NSRC_Newsletter_November_03_2009_draft_211_3_2009&utm_medium=email
I believe in the Power of PORN!
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 02:50:09pm
by Christopher White
Today, I'm writing in honor of the the Morality in Media's (MIM) WRAP Week: White Ribbons Against Pornography, which is also supported by one of my favorite anti-gay organizations, Concerned Women for America (CWA). According to the MIM website the event, which is being held all week from October 25 through November 1, "WRAP week is intended to educate the public about the extent of the pornography problem and what can constitutionally be done about it." The CWA goes on to point out the truth about all of us "Pornography advocates" who apparently claim that porn is a "victimless crime" are delusional and spreading lies - I'd like to point out that I am a proud advocate and voracious consumer of pornography, particularly of the online and amatuer produced variety and I have NEVER stated that it is a victimless crime. Mainly, because pornography is no longer a crime in United States - either producing it or viewing it. Of course, I know there are legal issues regarding the production and distribution of porn and that these laws may vary from state to state. I'll let my lawyer friends weigh in on this one.
I want to counter their claims (and misuses of research) with the idea that pornography is actually the opposite of "dangerous" and can actually be beneficial to helping individuals and couples practice lifelong sexuality education and explore their sexual pleasures, fantasies, and desires in a safe and practical way. First, I want to point out that my own research has shown that young men tend to claim that pornography is one of the main resources for understanding the realities of sexual behaviors. That fact may frighten some of you because you might be concerned that what they see in commercial porn may not be truly representative of what happens in real life. To that, I suggest that you give them a little credit for having the critical skills of being able to distinguish between highly produced movies and reality. I would also suggest that this is one more reason why it is so very important that schools and parents provide the necessary education to make sure they have critical thinking skills when it comes to being media consumers. Then, think about it. Where else are young people (or adults for that matter) going to turn to get the graphic depictions that enable understanding of the physics and mechanics of behaviors if not pornography? I am pretty sure there are not many health education books or biology books that provide the actual details of intercourse much less oral sex, anal sex, playing with sex toys, rimming, mutual masturbation, and I could go on and on and on.
Next, I want to ask you to consider the reasons that adults consume pornography. Let's say that it's because we get tired of the same old sexual activities we've been doing since puberty and allow us to consider what the anti-porn people refer to as needing more and more to be able to achieve sexual arousal and pleasure. So what. I think we might want to openly acknowledge that our sexuality and our sex lives change over time, whether it's due to age and changing bodies or because we are in long-term relationships. We crave novelty just as we do in other parts of our lives. Contrary to the idea of porn being dangerous, I suggest that porn is one of the best places to explore your sexuality, to learn new things to try out, and to fulfil your fantasies. It is not an accident that every time a new technology emerges that one of the first things we do is make new, more easily accessible forms of pornography or perhaps that it is actually the desire for new and more easily accessible pornography that drives technology. Most of us love to access porn and want to do so without any fear, shame, or guilt for doing so.
Finally, let's consider ways in which individuals, couples, or even groups of people can have safe, consensual sexual experiences without having to leave the safety and comfort of their own homes. Of course, I am not in anyway suggesting that porn or any kind of online interactions become a replacement for actual live human interactions. But I do think it can be a safe alternative for some people who may want to explore and have a little fun but aren't necessarily interested in picking someone up at a bar, going to a sex club, or cruising in a park or highway rest area. Then there's the individual or couple in a committed relationship who may want to have other types of sexual encounters but have agreed to a boundary that live, in the flesh sexual encounters are off limits. They may choose to engage and interact with others online by chatting, camming, exchanging photos and videos, or even just going online to look at user-generated porn on amateur sites.
For all of these reasons, I think that we ought to consider promoting greater pornography consumption (and production in this user-generated content world we live in) for people of all ages as a way of learning about sex and sexuality throughout our lives and as a way of expressing and exploring our sexualities. We hear a great deal of discussion about the blurring of the virtual and real worlds as more and more people participate in online social networks and other sites on which content is produced by users - photos, blogs, music, videos, and even live video streams from our offices and homes. So why not think the same way when it comes to our sexual lives?
On that note, I encourage all of you to celebrate WRAP by getting off online just a little bit more than you were probably going to do anyway. Have fun!
The Right Words
Retrieved 4/11/09 from http://amerinz.blogspot.com/2009/11/i-dont-have-time-for-this.html
I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR THIS
By AmeriNZ
I don’t have time for this. This is the busiest week of the month for me, and I have a lot of work to do, so I don’t have time for a blog post. But that’s not what I’m talking about: I just don’t have time for the bullshit anymore: Tonight Maine repealed marriage equality.
This came about because our opponents ran a campaign filled with lies and distortions made possible by millions of dollars in out-of-state contributions. This came about because of out-of-state agitators organised by a prominent national organisation quietly backed by the Mormons.
The people fighting for our side were brilliant: They ran a strong grassroots campaign involving thousands of ordinary Maine folks who made phone calls, went door-to-door and did all they could to keep equality in Maine. However, they had one major handicap: They were in the reality-based world where facts and reason matter, something our opponents know little about, but, apparently, didn’t need to.
Our opponents played on people’s fears, as they always do. They played on people’s ignorance, as they always do. They played on people’s prejudice and hatred, as they always do. And for good measure they just made stuff up, as they always do. Our side couldn’t match the millions of dollars the right’s churches collected to promote the lies and hatred, so it was always an uphill fight.
It’s time to make one thing abundantly clear: Our opponents don’t have a minor disagreement with us—they hate us. It’s not the word “marriage” they have a problem with—it’s that we have any rights whatsoever.
In California, they claimed their problem was with “activist judges” (a term they only use when they disagree with a ruling). If “the people” don’t enact it, it’s not legitimate, they said. Then when Maine’s elected legislature enacted marriage equality, and its elected Governor signed it into law, the religious extremists tripped all over themselves to repeal the law the people’s representatives had enacted. Apparently, by “the people” the religious extremists meant only themselves.
In doing so, the religious extremists glossed over the gross immorality of the majority ever being allowed to vote on the rights of the minority, as if it’s ever proper for voters to decide who has full equality and who does not.
Maine’s governor—who formerly opposed same-sex marriage—was a strong advocate. So were many other prominent Mainers. But the national Democratic Party, including President Obama, were absent. The president issued a mild, vague statement but never said, “vote NO”.
The mainstream news media failed miserably. They treated it as an interesting, possibly significant, curiosity. They never once called out the religious bigots on their lies; maybe they’re too frightened of them.
Still, despite all that, we'll win because we’re on the right side of history. Those who oppose us will be remembered like the famous bigots of the near past—Thurmond, Wallace, and so on—and that day is fast approaching.
So, I refuse to give up on America. Despite all the hate, despite all the money and power being deployed against us, despite the evil being done in the name of their god, I know we will win. I have that hope because America gave it to me as a birthright. I have that hope because generations of Americans have fought and died to nurture it. I have that hope because at this moment, all across America, millions of people are hanging their heads in sadness or shame over how GLBT people are being treated—again. I have hope because, as the president once said, “In the unlikely story that is America, there is nothing false about hope.”
An activist friend suggested the song in the video at the top of this post as an antidote for those filled with sadness from this defeat. I love how very gay it is to take courage from a song by Liza—Judy’s daughter—but I also love the sentiment.
This isn’t the end: It’s just the beginning. We will win—if not tomorrow, then the day after that.
Posted by Arthur (AmeriNZ)
AmeriNZ writes some brilliant posts commenting on life in both in New Zealand and the USA, check out his blog at http://amerinz.blogspot.com/
I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR THIS
By AmeriNZ
I don’t have time for this. This is the busiest week of the month for me, and I have a lot of work to do, so I don’t have time for a blog post. But that’s not what I’m talking about: I just don’t have time for the bullshit anymore: Tonight Maine repealed marriage equality.
This came about because our opponents ran a campaign filled with lies and distortions made possible by millions of dollars in out-of-state contributions. This came about because of out-of-state agitators organised by a prominent national organisation quietly backed by the Mormons.
The people fighting for our side were brilliant: They ran a strong grassroots campaign involving thousands of ordinary Maine folks who made phone calls, went door-to-door and did all they could to keep equality in Maine. However, they had one major handicap: They were in the reality-based world where facts and reason matter, something our opponents know little about, but, apparently, didn’t need to.
Our opponents played on people’s fears, as they always do. They played on people’s ignorance, as they always do. They played on people’s prejudice and hatred, as they always do. And for good measure they just made stuff up, as they always do. Our side couldn’t match the millions of dollars the right’s churches collected to promote the lies and hatred, so it was always an uphill fight.
It’s time to make one thing abundantly clear: Our opponents don’t have a minor disagreement with us—they hate us. It’s not the word “marriage” they have a problem with—it’s that we have any rights whatsoever.
In California, they claimed their problem was with “activist judges” (a term they only use when they disagree with a ruling). If “the people” don’t enact it, it’s not legitimate, they said. Then when Maine’s elected legislature enacted marriage equality, and its elected Governor signed it into law, the religious extremists tripped all over themselves to repeal the law the people’s representatives had enacted. Apparently, by “the people” the religious extremists meant only themselves.
In doing so, the religious extremists glossed over the gross immorality of the majority ever being allowed to vote on the rights of the minority, as if it’s ever proper for voters to decide who has full equality and who does not.
Maine’s governor—who formerly opposed same-sex marriage—was a strong advocate. So were many other prominent Mainers. But the national Democratic Party, including President Obama, were absent. The president issued a mild, vague statement but never said, “vote NO”.
The mainstream news media failed miserably. They treated it as an interesting, possibly significant, curiosity. They never once called out the religious bigots on their lies; maybe they’re too frightened of them.
Still, despite all that, we'll win because we’re on the right side of history. Those who oppose us will be remembered like the famous bigots of the near past—Thurmond, Wallace, and so on—and that day is fast approaching.
So, I refuse to give up on America. Despite all the hate, despite all the money and power being deployed against us, despite the evil being done in the name of their god, I know we will win. I have that hope because America gave it to me as a birthright. I have that hope because generations of Americans have fought and died to nurture it. I have that hope because at this moment, all across America, millions of people are hanging their heads in sadness or shame over how GLBT people are being treated—again. I have hope because, as the president once said, “In the unlikely story that is America, there is nothing false about hope.”
An activist friend suggested the song in the video at the top of this post as an antidote for those filled with sadness from this defeat. I love how very gay it is to take courage from a song by Liza—Judy’s daughter—but I also love the sentiment.
This isn’t the end: It’s just the beginning. We will win—if not tomorrow, then the day after that.
Posted by Arthur (AmeriNZ)
AmeriNZ writes some brilliant posts commenting on life in both in New Zealand and the USA, check out his blog at http://amerinz.blogspot.com/
Friday, September 18, 2009
Comments!! I Heart Comments!!
The following is an email I received about an old essay I posted on this blog about the role of women in early Christianity, and my response.
I sent an email to the address mentioned on your profile page then I saw this email addy so I'm guessing this is the right one.
I read this: http://liminald.blogspot.com/2009/05/role-of-women-in-early-christianity.html
and I don't agree with the conclusion, I don't see any evidence for jesus preaching equality between men and women and I was wondering whether you could elaborate on that.
RW
Hi RW,
Thanks for your email. The piece you refer to is an old essay of mine for a philosophy paper at Massey University called Sex, Gender and Religion. Unfortunately we have word limits on the essays and I couldn't make space to elaborate on the teachings of Jesus in regards to women, my focus being on women's place in Christian communities in the time after his death. I believe this is the section that could have been expanded:
"Certainly the retention in early Biblical texts of such accounts as these, and of Jesus praising women for putting spiritual growth and learning ahead of domestic responsibilities (thus rejecting the equation of a woman with her domestic, sexual and reproductive roles) demonstrates the early Christian community’s awareness of the centrality of the message of equality in Jesus’ teachings (Swidler, 1971:182-183)."
The papers by Brown (1988), Heine (1986) and Swidler (1971), which I cite at the bottom of the essay, were particularly helpful, Leonard Swidler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Swidler) goes into some detail about the messages about women's place in society that were central in the teachings of Jesus. He makes particular note of the gospel story of Mary and her sister Martha, how Martha busied herself with household chores - fulfilling her 'womanly' duties - while Mary sat at the feet of Jesus eager to learn. Sure, it was religious education, but there really wasn't any other sort in Israel at the time. The point being, Mary is praised, and Martha criticised. The message of the story can be interpreted as being that spiritual growth and education supersede social roles.
Another account in the gospels (Mark 5:24-34, Luke 8:43-48, Matthew 9:20-22) is of Jesus being touched by an 'unclean' woman, that is, a woman who was ritually unclean due to her hemorrhaging or prolonged menstruation. An 'unclean' woman was subject to all sorts of social restrictions, about the company she could keep, where she could go in public and so forth, to say nothing of the social stigma, and this woman, with her perpetual 'uncleanness', had suffered more than most. She hoped for healing, and by touching Jesus she had broken the laws regarding ritual cleanliness and had made him 'unclean' also. But Jesus did not rebuke her for this, he said that her faith had made her well, demonstrating explicitly that faith, or spiritual cleanliness, was more important than ritual cleanliness, and implicitly stating that a woman's menstruation was not valid reason to exclude her from social or religious life. again, the message is couched in religious tems, but the message is clear that there should be no barriers to participation in social and religious life, which for the Jews of the time were one and the same.
Again and again throughout the gospel accounts of Jesus' ministry we find him aligning himself with the poor, the 'unclean,' the outcasts, whether Samaritans (a race whom the Jews particularly despised), Gentiles, (who the Jews regarded as heathens and hated for their occupation of Israel), beggars, tax collectors (seen as blights on society), the lame and blind and those afflicted with leprosy (all of which made a person 'unclean' and unfit for participation in social/religious life) and women, the most systematically excluded and restricted underclass in that society. The central message of Jesus was therefore one of equality for all -- a profoundly social message that sadly is often overlooked in contemporary Christian teaching.
I'll leave it at that, but again, thank you for your interest, and please feel free to email back or post comments on the blog - I love feedback :)
Danny
I sent an email to the address mentioned on your profile page then I saw this email addy so I'm guessing this is the right one.
I read this: http://liminald.blogspot.com/2009/05/role-of-women-in-early-christianity.html
and I don't agree with the conclusion, I don't see any evidence for jesus preaching equality between men and women and I was wondering whether you could elaborate on that.
RW
Hi RW,
Thanks for your email. The piece you refer to is an old essay of mine for a philosophy paper at Massey University called Sex, Gender and Religion. Unfortunately we have word limits on the essays and I couldn't make space to elaborate on the teachings of Jesus in regards to women, my focus being on women's place in Christian communities in the time after his death. I believe this is the section that could have been expanded:
"Certainly the retention in early Biblical texts of such accounts as these, and of Jesus praising women for putting spiritual growth and learning ahead of domestic responsibilities (thus rejecting the equation of a woman with her domestic, sexual and reproductive roles) demonstrates the early Christian community’s awareness of the centrality of the message of equality in Jesus’ teachings (Swidler, 1971:182-183)."
The papers by Brown (1988), Heine (1986) and Swidler (1971), which I cite at the bottom of the essay, were particularly helpful, Leonard Swidler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Swidler) goes into some detail about the messages about women's place in society that were central in the teachings of Jesus. He makes particular note of the gospel story of Mary and her sister Martha, how Martha busied herself with household chores - fulfilling her 'womanly' duties - while Mary sat at the feet of Jesus eager to learn. Sure, it was religious education, but there really wasn't any other sort in Israel at the time. The point being, Mary is praised, and Martha criticised. The message of the story can be interpreted as being that spiritual growth and education supersede social roles.
Another account in the gospels (Mark 5:24-34, Luke 8:43-48, Matthew 9:20-22) is of Jesus being touched by an 'unclean' woman, that is, a woman who was ritually unclean due to her hemorrhaging or prolonged menstruation. An 'unclean' woman was subject to all sorts of social restrictions, about the company she could keep, where she could go in public and so forth, to say nothing of the social stigma, and this woman, with her perpetual 'uncleanness', had suffered more than most. She hoped for healing, and by touching Jesus she had broken the laws regarding ritual cleanliness and had made him 'unclean' also. But Jesus did not rebuke her for this, he said that her faith had made her well, demonstrating explicitly that faith, or spiritual cleanliness, was more important than ritual cleanliness, and implicitly stating that a woman's menstruation was not valid reason to exclude her from social or religious life. again, the message is couched in religious tems, but the message is clear that there should be no barriers to participation in social and religious life, which for the Jews of the time were one and the same.
Again and again throughout the gospel accounts of Jesus' ministry we find him aligning himself with the poor, the 'unclean,' the outcasts, whether Samaritans (a race whom the Jews particularly despised), Gentiles, (who the Jews regarded as heathens and hated for their occupation of Israel), beggars, tax collectors (seen as blights on society), the lame and blind and those afflicted with leprosy (all of which made a person 'unclean' and unfit for participation in social/religious life) and women, the most systematically excluded and restricted underclass in that society. The central message of Jesus was therefore one of equality for all -- a profoundly social message that sadly is often overlooked in contemporary Christian teaching.
I'll leave it at that, but again, thank you for your interest, and please feel free to email back or post comments on the blog - I love feedback :)
Danny
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Charming...
Is it wrong that I find this guy attractive?? ;)
This video comes to you courtesy of The Gay Atheist at http://www.thegayatheist.com/2009/08/more-video-of-pastor-anderson.html
Monday, July 27, 2009
God's Plan doesn't extend to Health Care
Norm: Does God answer your prayers?
Chris: Yes, of course. I have a strong personal relationship with God. I pray to him many times each day. Jesus hears my prayers and, through his grace and the grace of the Holy Spirit, my prayers are answered. I am blessed every day by God.
Norm: So if you prayed to Jesus for something, would he answer your prayer?
Chris: Yes. Of course. Jesus promises in the Bible that he answers prayers. We see prayers being answered constantly.
Norm: Why pay for health insurance if you can pray and God will cure you? Why do people need doctors, prescriptions and hospitals?
Chris: Sometimes it is not God's will to answer prayers.
Norm: But in John 14:14, Jesus says, "If you ask anything in my name, I will do it." James 5:15 says, "The prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well." Why would God ignore your prayers?
Chris: God is not some Santa in the sky. He does not answer prayers like that.
Norm: Didn't you just say that God answers prayers? In the Bible, doesn't Jesus promise to answer prayers?
Chris: God does answer prayers. I can show you millions of examples of God answering prayers. I have 20 books on my shelf at home filled with answered prayers.
Norm: Then why do you need health insurance?
Chris: Because, sometimes, it is not God's will to answer a prayer.
Norm: Why do you say that? "The prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well" is completely unambiguous. But when you pray for a cure, in a lot of cases nothing happens. Doesn't that mean that Jesus is lying?
Chris: No. Jesus is perfect so Jesus cannot lie. When God does not answer a prayer, it is not part of his plan.
Norm: So you go to the doctor anyway?
Chris: Yes. Of course I do.
Norm: Aren't you defying God's will? Aren't you ruining God's plan?
Chris: No. God does not intend for me to be sick.
Norm: Then why doesn't God answer your prayers and cure you himself?
Chris: There is no way that we can understand the mysteries of our Lord.
*Reprinted from the brilliant website, Why Won't God Heal Amputees?
Chris: Yes, of course. I have a strong personal relationship with God. I pray to him many times each day. Jesus hears my prayers and, through his grace and the grace of the Holy Spirit, my prayers are answered. I am blessed every day by God.
Norm: So if you prayed to Jesus for something, would he answer your prayer?
Chris: Yes. Of course. Jesus promises in the Bible that he answers prayers. We see prayers being answered constantly.
Norm: Why pay for health insurance if you can pray and God will cure you? Why do people need doctors, prescriptions and hospitals?
Chris: Sometimes it is not God's will to answer prayers.
Norm: But in John 14:14, Jesus says, "If you ask anything in my name, I will do it." James 5:15 says, "The prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well." Why would God ignore your prayers?
Chris: God is not some Santa in the sky. He does not answer prayers like that.
Norm: Didn't you just say that God answers prayers? In the Bible, doesn't Jesus promise to answer prayers?
Chris: God does answer prayers. I can show you millions of examples of God answering prayers. I have 20 books on my shelf at home filled with answered prayers.
Norm: Then why do you need health insurance?
Chris: Because, sometimes, it is not God's will to answer a prayer.
Norm: Why do you say that? "The prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well" is completely unambiguous. But when you pray for a cure, in a lot of cases nothing happens. Doesn't that mean that Jesus is lying?
Chris: No. Jesus is perfect so Jesus cannot lie. When God does not answer a prayer, it is not part of his plan.
Norm: So you go to the doctor anyway?
Chris: Yes. Of course I do.
Norm: Aren't you defying God's will? Aren't you ruining God's plan?
Chris: No. God does not intend for me to be sick.
Norm: Then why doesn't God answer your prayers and cure you himself?
Chris: There is no way that we can understand the mysteries of our Lord.
*Reprinted from the brilliant website, Why Won't God Heal Amputees?
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Unwellness
So...
I've been a bit unwell this last week and I really haven't got the energy or brainpower to come up with anything interesting to say. Consequently, I'm settling for posting these vids from somegreybloke.com ...
I've been a bit unwell this last week and I really haven't got the energy or brainpower to come up with anything interesting to say. Consequently, I'm settling for posting these vids from somegreybloke.com ...
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Baloney Detection Kit
Pilfered, with much love and respect, from http://www.thegayatheist.com/2009/06/baloney-detection-kit-how-to-be-good.html
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
And Now, For My Next Trick...
The Rest of the Story
(Stolen from Apteryx's cool blog )
And on the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee. And it came to pass that all the wine was drunk.
And the mother of Jesus said unto the Lord, They have no more wine.
And Jesus said unto the servants, Fill six waterpots with water. And they did so.
And when the steward of the feast did taste from the water of the pots, it had become wine. And they knew not whence it had come.
But the servants did know, and they applauded loudly in the kitchen.
And they said unto the Lord, How the hell did you do that?, and inquired of him, Do you do children's parties?
And the Lord said, No.
But the servants did press him, saying, Go on, give us another one.
And so he brought forth a carrot, and said, Behold this, for it is a carrot.
And all about him knew that it was so. For it was orange, with a green top.
And he did place a large red cloth over the carrot, and then removed it, and lo, he held in his hand a white rabbit.
And all were amazed, and said, This guy is really good. He should turn professional.
And they brought him on a stretcher a man who was sick of the palsy. And they cried unto him, Maestro, this man is sick of the palsy.
And the Lord said, If I had to spend my whole life on a stretcher, I'd be pretty sick of the palsy too.
And they were filled with joy, and cried out: Lord, thy one-liners are as good as thy tricks. Thou art indeed an all-round family entertainer.
And there came unto him a woman called Mary, who had seen the Lord and believed. And Jesus said unto her, Put on a tutu, and lie down in this box.
And then took he forth a saw, and cleft her in twain. And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
But Jesus said, Oh ye of little faith! And he threw open the box and lo, Mary was whole. And the crowd went absolutely bananas.
And Jesus and Mary took a big bow. And he said unto her, From now on you shall be known as Sharon, for that is a good name for an assistant.
And the people said, We've never seen anything like this. This is great! You should take your act on the road!
And the Lord did hearken unto their words. He took his act before the Pharissees and the Romans. But alas, it did not please them in their hearts.
In fact, they absolutely crucified him.
Thus endedth the lesson.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The Role of Women in Early Christianity
by DannyR
Anyone who investigates women in the New Testament gets a dusty answer: some names are mentioned, and in a few cases a little more than that. The authors of the biblical writings have no interest in biographies; as men, moreover, they are more interested in their own history (Heine, 1986:55).
All the many contradictory positions on the place of women within Christianity have their foundations in the Bible, and much of the interpretive work that shaped these positions were based on texts written in the first four centuries C.E. (Drury, 1994:31). In seeking to understand the roles of women in the Christian tradition, it is first necessary to uncover their origins in the early Church and the social contexts of its beginnings. In the following, ‘women’s roles’ will refer to those duties performed by, but not necessarily those exclusive to women, while ‘early Christianity’ encompasses the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, the subsequent era of Pauline theology and the Pastoral Epistles, and finally the era of Gnosticism (Heine, 1986:11).
This essay will trace the evolution of women’s roles through this early period of Christian history, paying particular attention to the Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions against which Christianity initially was a reaction, demonstrating that despite its revolutionary origins, the Early Church eventually followed its forbears in relegating women to subservient roles.
Jesus of Nazareth led one of a number of ‘renewal movements’ within Judaism that was condemned as heretical by the religious authorities of the time (Heine, 1986:55). The first Christian women were, like their male counterparts, called by Jesus to leave their families and follow him in his ministry. Heine (1986:61) notes that ‘following’ in all Biblical texts connotes “complete participation in the conviction and activity of the travelling preachers,” thus, women became disciples of Jesus to engage in religious practice from which they had been excluded under Jewish law (Swidler, 1971:180). Theirs was a life of homelessness, dependent for their survival on the gifts they received from those they preached to and from their families, and such wealth as they brought with them, which was shared. Three women are named among these followers – Mary Magdalene, Susanna and Johanna – and “it is quite in keeping with the lifestyle of Jesus and his followers that these women… should have supported the Jesus group by giving them provisions” (Heine, 1986:59-60).
Women’s practice in this primordial Christianity stood in stark contrast to their roles in Jewish society of the time, in which they were decidedly inferior – along with slaves and children, women were considered unfit to testify in legal proceedings, and were not permitted to study the Torah, read aloud in the synagogues or lead the assembly in any manner (Swidler, 1971:178). Women held no responsibilities of any significance at prayer and were restricted to the outer court of the temple at Jerusalem, and rabbinical teachings discouraged their leaving the house (except to visit the synagogue) and sought to limit women to particular ‘female areas’ of the home (Swidler, 1971:178-179). Women’s roles were thus reduced to the bearing and raising of children, and further, Jewish women were always answerable to a man, whether her father or husband, or “if a widow, the dead husband’s brother” (Swidler, 1971:178) A Jew could have multiple wives, a Jewess only one husband, she could be divorced with ease by her husband, but could not herself initiate separation (Swidler, 1971:178).
Contempt for women was by no means restricted to Judaism. While Rabbis thanked God that they were not born gentile, female or ‘ignorant’ (Swidler, 1971:178), Hellenistic men gave thanks that they were born neither animal, nor woman, nor barbarian, and thus “much as these men differ in ethnic character, they are united in gratitude that they have the ‘right’ sex” (Heine, 1986:85). Indeed, even secular philosophers such as Aristotle declared the inherent superiority of men over women (Drury, 1994:35). In the wider Roman Empire in which Christianity developed, the reproductive function of marriage was of great importance, due to much loss of life through war and disease, and short life expectancy, thus marriage was encouraged at a young age, and women were expected to bear a number of children. Furthermore, the secular Roman world was at that time making the regressive transition from the marital egalitarianism and liberty of the Republic to the patriarchal marriage form exemplified by Augustus and his household and thus, given this tide of misogyny, it is hardly surprising that women in particular, both Jew and gentile, were attracted to the nascent Christian religion (Heine, 1986:93).
In the period following the death of Jesus, Christian emphasis shifted from the early ideals of ascetism and homelessness to the establishment of faith communities in order that families should no longer be “torn apart over belief” (Heine, 1986:93-94). Women’s roles within Christianity were redefined in this period by the apostle Paul who, in preaching to non-Jewish communities to create the ‘Israel of God’ (Brown, 1988:49), nevertheless insisted that all who entered the new faith should live according to Jewish custom, with all its rabbinical bias against women (Heine, 1986:95). He propounded his belief that women should be veiled and silent in communal gatherings (Brown, 1988:52), justifying this subordinate, inferior status by appealing to the Creation account in Genesis 1-3, in which God is said to have created women “after men and from men and for men” as companions or helpers (Drury, 1994:34).
But perhaps Paul is not so misogynistic as he is commonly made out to be – he certainly “met women of acknowledged status who were actively engaged in mission and the building up of the community independently of him… not only does he nowhere question working with these women but he confirms, values and at times stresses it – more often and more explicitly than any other author in the New Testament” (Heine, 1986:86). Almost a quarter of the “active collaborators” named in Paul’s writings are women – among them, Euodia and Syntyche, hinted to be martyrs and missionaries like himself, and Phoebe, whom he appears to regard as a deacon in Cenchreae, even including in Romans 16 a ‘letter of commendation’ for her missionary work (Heine, 1986:87-89). His contemporaries, also, record in ‘The Acts of the Apostles’ that Mary, mother of John Mark, and Lydia, a wealthy merchant, each lead a Christian house community; that Tabitha’s charity work was deemed so valuable that Peter raised her back from the dead so she might continue it, and that the four daughters of Philip of Caesarea were prophetesses of renown (Heine, 1986:89). Prisca (or Priscilla) is recorded as having co-founded a Christian community in Ephesus with her husband Aquila, and as participating in the teaching of converts and visitors (Heine, 1986:43). Indeed,
Despite the none too lavish sources, we can construct a vivid picture of community life at the time of the women involved: their influence extended from Caesarea to Rome. Mothers, wives, sisters… and young girls worked at spreading the new faith and building up the communities. Their functions ranged from the highest to the ‘lowest.’ They worked as apostles, deacons, community leaders, teachers and prophets. They travelled as missionaries and did charitable work; they preached, taught, gathered the believers together and sewed clothing for the women. There were well-to-do women among them who shared what they had and kept open house, and there were poor women and slaves… in all this they were no different from men and fellow Christians (Heine, 1986:89-90).
Certainly the retention in early Biblical texts of such accounts as these, and of Jesus praising women for putting spiritual growth and learning ahead of domestic responsibilities (thus rejecting the equation of a woman with her domestic, sexual and reproductive roles) demonstrates the early Christian community’s awareness of the centrality of the message of equality in Jesus’ teachings (Swidler, 1971:182-183).
Yet even within the early Christian church, there was much disagreement over such issues, and the Pastoral Epistles of the New Testament, “not written by Paul, although they explicitly mention Paul as their author” (Heine, 1986:15) demonstrate this ambivalence toward women. Drury (1994:31) asserts that the teachings of these mostly “celibate male writers” with “fears about their own sexuality” have been used to assign women a secondary or inferior status in the later Christianity, while D’Angelo (2001:399) notes that the writers of the Pastoral Epistles “prescribe submission to a husband… forbid women to have rich clothing, braided hair, teaching, authority over men and early celibacy… and require silence in the assembly.” In fact some early Christian communities such as the Essenes, continuing in the earlier ascetic tradition of the first followers of Jesus, went so far as to exclude women completely, considering them disruptive in that they ‘caused’ jealousy and conflict in men by arousing men’s sexual lust (Brown, 1988:38-39). The Gnostic groups were largely among these.
Gnosticism, “a religious attitude and practice which seems to derive the motives for its views from many different religions and world-views” (Heine, 1986:108-109), was strongly influenced by the philosophical writings of secular philosophers such as Aristotle, who considered every baby girl “a failure, less than the ideal, useful only for her ability to bear children” (Drury, 1994:35). While in some Gnostic sects women certainly held positions of prestige (Heine, 1986:8), influential writers such as Thomas Aquinas, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian in other sects expressed considerable hostility toward women (D’Angelo, 2001:405-406; Drury, 1994:35-36; Heine, 1986:35) and to all “womanliness” or sensuality (Brown, 1988:36). Clement, whose writings would be highly influential in later Christian thought, expressed his belief that the souls of men and women are indeed equal in virtue, but that women’s bodies mark them out for a role in childbearing specifically (Heine, 1986:33-35), and asserted that a woman’s role is to “get what is needed out of the provision store, tread mill the mill, do the cooking so that it tastes good to the husband, make the bed, get the drinks… [and] to have children so that the city and the inhabited world do not go under for want of men;” they are to “bathe for purification and for their health, men only for their health” (Heine, 1986:35). And thus, the message of liberation for women from patriarchal oppression that was so central to the message of Jesus (Swidler, 1971:179) was undermined, and Christian thought returned to its androcentric roots, setting a decidedly anti-feminine tone for the Christian tradition and limiting women’s roles to reproduction and household management for centuries to come.
To conclude, understanding the roles of women in the early Church allows us to comprehend the evolution of those roles and thus their many incarnations today, but we must also understand that women’s roles in the early church were even then shaped by historical forces and the social and cultural contexts of the time. This essay has traced women’s roles from their revolutionary origins in early Christianity, exploring the background against which they developed, demonstrating in so doing that the influences of Pauline and Gnostic theology effectively reinstituted the patriarchal status quo that existed in Judaism and the secular Roman Empire prior to the advent of Christianity, thus undermining the emphasis placed on sexual equality by the first followers of Jesus of Nazareth.
References
Brown, P. (1988). From Apostle to Apologist: Sexual order and sexual renunciation in the Early Church. In ‘The body and society: Men, women, and sexual renunciation in Early Christianity’, pp.33-64. New York: Colombia University Press.
D’Angelo, M. R. (2001). Veils, virgins, and the tongues of men and angels: Women’s heads in Early Christianity. In Elizabeth A. Castelli and Rosamond C. Rodman (eds.) ‘Women, Gender, Religion: A reader, pp.389-419. New York: Palgrave.
Drury, C. (1994). Christianity. In Jean Holm and John Bowker (eds.), ‘Women in Religion.’ pp.30-58. London: Printer Publishers Ltd.
Heine, S. (1986). Women and Early Christianity: Are the feminist scholars right? London: SCM Press Ltd.
Swidler, L. (1971). Jesus was a feminist. Catholic World, 212, pp.177-183.
Anyone who investigates women in the New Testament gets a dusty answer: some names are mentioned, and in a few cases a little more than that. The authors of the biblical writings have no interest in biographies; as men, moreover, they are more interested in their own history (Heine, 1986:55).
All the many contradictory positions on the place of women within Christianity have their foundations in the Bible, and much of the interpretive work that shaped these positions were based on texts written in the first four centuries C.E. (Drury, 1994:31). In seeking to understand the roles of women in the Christian tradition, it is first necessary to uncover their origins in the early Church and the social contexts of its beginnings. In the following, ‘women’s roles’ will refer to those duties performed by, but not necessarily those exclusive to women, while ‘early Christianity’ encompasses the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, the subsequent era of Pauline theology and the Pastoral Epistles, and finally the era of Gnosticism (Heine, 1986:11).
This essay will trace the evolution of women’s roles through this early period of Christian history, paying particular attention to the Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions against which Christianity initially was a reaction, demonstrating that despite its revolutionary origins, the Early Church eventually followed its forbears in relegating women to subservient roles.
Jesus of Nazareth led one of a number of ‘renewal movements’ within Judaism that was condemned as heretical by the religious authorities of the time (Heine, 1986:55). The first Christian women were, like their male counterparts, called by Jesus to leave their families and follow him in his ministry. Heine (1986:61) notes that ‘following’ in all Biblical texts connotes “complete participation in the conviction and activity of the travelling preachers,” thus, women became disciples of Jesus to engage in religious practice from which they had been excluded under Jewish law (Swidler, 1971:180). Theirs was a life of homelessness, dependent for their survival on the gifts they received from those they preached to and from their families, and such wealth as they brought with them, which was shared. Three women are named among these followers – Mary Magdalene, Susanna and Johanna – and “it is quite in keeping with the lifestyle of Jesus and his followers that these women… should have supported the Jesus group by giving them provisions” (Heine, 1986:59-60).
Women’s practice in this primordial Christianity stood in stark contrast to their roles in Jewish society of the time, in which they were decidedly inferior – along with slaves and children, women were considered unfit to testify in legal proceedings, and were not permitted to study the Torah, read aloud in the synagogues or lead the assembly in any manner (Swidler, 1971:178). Women held no responsibilities of any significance at prayer and were restricted to the outer court of the temple at Jerusalem, and rabbinical teachings discouraged their leaving the house (except to visit the synagogue) and sought to limit women to particular ‘female areas’ of the home (Swidler, 1971:178-179). Women’s roles were thus reduced to the bearing and raising of children, and further, Jewish women were always answerable to a man, whether her father or husband, or “if a widow, the dead husband’s brother” (Swidler, 1971:178) A Jew could have multiple wives, a Jewess only one husband, she could be divorced with ease by her husband, but could not herself initiate separation (Swidler, 1971:178).
Contempt for women was by no means restricted to Judaism. While Rabbis thanked God that they were not born gentile, female or ‘ignorant’ (Swidler, 1971:178), Hellenistic men gave thanks that they were born neither animal, nor woman, nor barbarian, and thus “much as these men differ in ethnic character, they are united in gratitude that they have the ‘right’ sex” (Heine, 1986:85). Indeed, even secular philosophers such as Aristotle declared the inherent superiority of men over women (Drury, 1994:35). In the wider Roman Empire in which Christianity developed, the reproductive function of marriage was of great importance, due to much loss of life through war and disease, and short life expectancy, thus marriage was encouraged at a young age, and women were expected to bear a number of children. Furthermore, the secular Roman world was at that time making the regressive transition from the marital egalitarianism and liberty of the Republic to the patriarchal marriage form exemplified by Augustus and his household and thus, given this tide of misogyny, it is hardly surprising that women in particular, both Jew and gentile, were attracted to the nascent Christian religion (Heine, 1986:93).
In the period following the death of Jesus, Christian emphasis shifted from the early ideals of ascetism and homelessness to the establishment of faith communities in order that families should no longer be “torn apart over belief” (Heine, 1986:93-94). Women’s roles within Christianity were redefined in this period by the apostle Paul who, in preaching to non-Jewish communities to create the ‘Israel of God’ (Brown, 1988:49), nevertheless insisted that all who entered the new faith should live according to Jewish custom, with all its rabbinical bias against women (Heine, 1986:95). He propounded his belief that women should be veiled and silent in communal gatherings (Brown, 1988:52), justifying this subordinate, inferior status by appealing to the Creation account in Genesis 1-3, in which God is said to have created women “after men and from men and for men” as companions or helpers (Drury, 1994:34).
But perhaps Paul is not so misogynistic as he is commonly made out to be – he certainly “met women of acknowledged status who were actively engaged in mission and the building up of the community independently of him… not only does he nowhere question working with these women but he confirms, values and at times stresses it – more often and more explicitly than any other author in the New Testament” (Heine, 1986:86). Almost a quarter of the “active collaborators” named in Paul’s writings are women – among them, Euodia and Syntyche, hinted to be martyrs and missionaries like himself, and Phoebe, whom he appears to regard as a deacon in Cenchreae, even including in Romans 16 a ‘letter of commendation’ for her missionary work (Heine, 1986:87-89). His contemporaries, also, record in ‘The Acts of the Apostles’ that Mary, mother of John Mark, and Lydia, a wealthy merchant, each lead a Christian house community; that Tabitha’s charity work was deemed so valuable that Peter raised her back from the dead so she might continue it, and that the four daughters of Philip of Caesarea were prophetesses of renown (Heine, 1986:89). Prisca (or Priscilla) is recorded as having co-founded a Christian community in Ephesus with her husband Aquila, and as participating in the teaching of converts and visitors (Heine, 1986:43). Indeed,
Despite the none too lavish sources, we can construct a vivid picture of community life at the time of the women involved: their influence extended from Caesarea to Rome. Mothers, wives, sisters… and young girls worked at spreading the new faith and building up the communities. Their functions ranged from the highest to the ‘lowest.’ They worked as apostles, deacons, community leaders, teachers and prophets. They travelled as missionaries and did charitable work; they preached, taught, gathered the believers together and sewed clothing for the women. There were well-to-do women among them who shared what they had and kept open house, and there were poor women and slaves… in all this they were no different from men and fellow Christians (Heine, 1986:89-90).
Certainly the retention in early Biblical texts of such accounts as these, and of Jesus praising women for putting spiritual growth and learning ahead of domestic responsibilities (thus rejecting the equation of a woman with her domestic, sexual and reproductive roles) demonstrates the early Christian community’s awareness of the centrality of the message of equality in Jesus’ teachings (Swidler, 1971:182-183).
Yet even within the early Christian church, there was much disagreement over such issues, and the Pastoral Epistles of the New Testament, “not written by Paul, although they explicitly mention Paul as their author” (Heine, 1986:15) demonstrate this ambivalence toward women. Drury (1994:31) asserts that the teachings of these mostly “celibate male writers” with “fears about their own sexuality” have been used to assign women a secondary or inferior status in the later Christianity, while D’Angelo (2001:399) notes that the writers of the Pastoral Epistles “prescribe submission to a husband… forbid women to have rich clothing, braided hair, teaching, authority over men and early celibacy… and require silence in the assembly.” In fact some early Christian communities such as the Essenes, continuing in the earlier ascetic tradition of the first followers of Jesus, went so far as to exclude women completely, considering them disruptive in that they ‘caused’ jealousy and conflict in men by arousing men’s sexual lust (Brown, 1988:38-39). The Gnostic groups were largely among these.
Gnosticism, “a religious attitude and practice which seems to derive the motives for its views from many different religions and world-views” (Heine, 1986:108-109), was strongly influenced by the philosophical writings of secular philosophers such as Aristotle, who considered every baby girl “a failure, less than the ideal, useful only for her ability to bear children” (Drury, 1994:35). While in some Gnostic sects women certainly held positions of prestige (Heine, 1986:8), influential writers such as Thomas Aquinas, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian in other sects expressed considerable hostility toward women (D’Angelo, 2001:405-406; Drury, 1994:35-36; Heine, 1986:35) and to all “womanliness” or sensuality (Brown, 1988:36). Clement, whose writings would be highly influential in later Christian thought, expressed his belief that the souls of men and women are indeed equal in virtue, but that women’s bodies mark them out for a role in childbearing specifically (Heine, 1986:33-35), and asserted that a woman’s role is to “get what is needed out of the provision store, tread mill the mill, do the cooking so that it tastes good to the husband, make the bed, get the drinks… [and] to have children so that the city and the inhabited world do not go under for want of men;” they are to “bathe for purification and for their health, men only for their health” (Heine, 1986:35). And thus, the message of liberation for women from patriarchal oppression that was so central to the message of Jesus (Swidler, 1971:179) was undermined, and Christian thought returned to its androcentric roots, setting a decidedly anti-feminine tone for the Christian tradition and limiting women’s roles to reproduction and household management for centuries to come.
To conclude, understanding the roles of women in the early Church allows us to comprehend the evolution of those roles and thus their many incarnations today, but we must also understand that women’s roles in the early church were even then shaped by historical forces and the social and cultural contexts of the time. This essay has traced women’s roles from their revolutionary origins in early Christianity, exploring the background against which they developed, demonstrating in so doing that the influences of Pauline and Gnostic theology effectively reinstituted the patriarchal status quo that existed in Judaism and the secular Roman Empire prior to the advent of Christianity, thus undermining the emphasis placed on sexual equality by the first followers of Jesus of Nazareth.
References
Brown, P. (1988). From Apostle to Apologist: Sexual order and sexual renunciation in the Early Church. In ‘The body and society: Men, women, and sexual renunciation in Early Christianity’, pp.33-64. New York: Colombia University Press.
D’Angelo, M. R. (2001). Veils, virgins, and the tongues of men and angels: Women’s heads in Early Christianity. In Elizabeth A. Castelli and Rosamond C. Rodman (eds.) ‘Women, Gender, Religion: A reader, pp.389-419. New York: Palgrave.
Drury, C. (1994). Christianity. In Jean Holm and John Bowker (eds.), ‘Women in Religion.’ pp.30-58. London: Printer Publishers Ltd.
Heine, S. (1986). Women and Early Christianity: Are the feminist scholars right? London: SCM Press Ltd.
Swidler, L. (1971). Jesus was a feminist. Catholic World, 212, pp.177-183.
Feminism: Its History and Ongoing Influence on Religious Studies
by DannyR
“It is increasingly recognized that feminist theories have not only constituted a most influential scholarship within academia, they have also had a profound impact on the subjectivities of countless women worldwide. This has led to immense personal and political transformations, the consequences and direction of which are still unfolding” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p3).
Feminism has always been concerned with inequalities between the sexes in both politics and religion, from its beginnings in the eighteenth century through to the political turmoil of the 1960s, and into the more reflexive postmodern period. The advent of feminism has presented a challenge to the male dominated hierarchies and institutions of religion and academia, highlighting structural inequalities and biases and allowing women to reinterpret and criticise religious texts, and this has in turn allowed men to become aware of their own gendered natures and religious subjectivities, sometimes to the detriment of the feminist enterprise. The following charts the history of feminist thought as it pertains to the study of religion, concluding that it is a field of enquiry that continues to develop in scope and subtlety.
In order to understand the impact of feminism on religion, it is first necessary to understand what is meant by each term. Feminism is a perspective that exposes and questions the privilege and prestige accorded to men (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3), being traditionally focused on inequalities founded on biological sex but having given rise to the relatively new concept of gender and genderedness (King, 1995, p.12). Alice Schlegel defines gender as the cultural perception, construction and expectations of the sexes, as opposed to actual biological sex (King, 1995, pp.12-13). Defining religion is more problematic, for as King notes (1995, p.10) the term can apply to either a “historically and culturally evolved,” “cumulative” tradition or to a subjective, transcendental experience.
Feminism as a recognizable political and intellectual movement first appeared against the backdrop of Industrialisation in Europe and America (Osto, 2008, p.4), though its origins can be traced back to the eighteenth century writings of Mary Wollstonecraft (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.2) among others. This first wave of feminism was largely concerned with the rights of women to vote and achieving equality in the eyes of the law (Osto, 2008, p.4) but the growing awareness of sex inequality was reflected in religious scholarly circles by the publication of such discourses as Elizabeth Candy Stanton’s The Women’s Bible in 1895 (Giddens, 1997, p.449), in which the author propounds her view that man and woman had been created equal, that the Bible did not reflect this equality and did not therefore reflect the values of God, but rather the views of the committees of men who periodically revised the Biblical texts.
Having declined somewhat after the First World War, the feminist movement regained momentum in the 1960s (Giddens, 1997, p.516). This second wave was characterised by an emphasis on solidarity, intense political activism around employment, reproductive and sexual rights, and the push for the inclusion of Women’s Studies programmes in universities (Osto, 2008, p.4). Central to this activism was the development of the concept of patriarchy, the way in which “masculine values” are built into the very workings of “most organizations” at all levels of management (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.146). The seemingly all-pervasive power of patriarchy led some feminist scholars to name it a religion in itself, “the prevailing religion of the entire planet,” and to declare all world religions merely sects (Biezeveld & Mulder, 2001, pp.32-33). Yet even in the 1970s some feminist scholars noted that this concept of worldwide patriarchy disregarded historical context, was “monolithic” and “dismissive of women’s resistance and agency” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.147).
Thus in its third wave, beginning in the 1980s, feminism became decidedly theoretical and postmodern in character, rejecting essentialism and shifting its focus from gender inequalities to constructions of gender – or, put another way, the existence of a variety of masculinities and femininities (Osto, 2008, p.4). No longer could women be considered a “homogenous group,” as increasingly it was recognized that sexual preference, race, class and age all contribute to the shaping of subjectivity (Biezeveld & Mulder, 2001, p.11; Armour, 1999, p.7). It is this more nuanced approach to gender that has allowed religious discourse to blend the masculine with the feminine in its conceptions of divinity, or in some cases to transcend gender altogether, rather than simply substituting the male for the female (King, 1995, p.15). Anne E. Carr, among others, asserts that the task of this third, mature stage of feminism is the building of general theories and the establishment of a “unifying framework” for these more integrative and inclusive analyses (King, 1995, p.20), though this has met with some resistance from separatist feminists such as Mary Daly (King, 1995, p.14).
The challenge posed by feminism has given rise to a number of different responses by men, from the “avidly anti-feminist… such as the Christian Promise Keepers, through to a possibly more accommodating mythopoetic movement” in which men may acknowledge their own gendered natures and spiritual subjectivities (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, pp.4,283). Another such response is the advent of masculinities studies within the academy, which some consider the completion of the feminist project (King, 1995, p.14). If men’s traditional perception of feminism as “about women,” and the lack of discussion around gender in men’s writing “has served to make men invisible, particularly to themselves” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.4), the move toward studies of masculinity, then, constitutes some recognition by men of the validity of women’s experience. A chief criticism of this movement, however, is that where ‘masculinities’ and ‘femininities’ are studied separately the gender dichotomy is in fact reinforced, the genders polarized further (King, 1995, pp.14-15).
Feminism continues to evolve in European, American, and Australasian countries, and is beginning to have an impact in Asia, Africa and the Middle and Far East (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). The backlash against feminist critique has been at times severe, leading Whitehead and Barrett (2001, p.3) to posit that the resurgence of religious fundamentalism around the world may be a response by men to the “changing positions and expectations of women.” They note that “in terms of sustaining unequal material advantage, opportunity, status and privilege, men have much to lose with the rise of feminist thinking” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). However, the authors are quick to see the opportunities for men in the exchange – empathy, quality in relationships, reflexivity, emotional wellbeing and balance in their lives (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). Such analyses owe their very existence to the insights born of the feminist perspective.
To conclude, from its inception feminism has been concerned with inequalities between the sexes in both the political and religious arenas, developing through periods of activism into a discipline concerned with the construction of general theories of gender, becoming ever more reflexive and nuanced in its analyses of patriarchy and subjectivity. The advent of feminism has presented a challenge to the male dominated hierarchies and institutions of religion and academia, highlighting structural inequalities and biases, and this has resulted in the development of reflexive men’s studies and further opportunities for its own growth. As King (1995, p.12) observes, while “progress in the study of religion is slow … there is no doubt that the perspective of gender is of increasing importance in theoretical and empirical studies.”
References
Armour, E.T. Deconstruction, feminist theology, and the problem of difference: Subverting the Race/Gender divide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.
Biezeveld, Kune & Mulder, Anne-Claire, (eds.), Towards a different transcendence: Feminist findings on subjectivity, religion and values. Bern, Germany: Peter Lang, European Academic Publishers, (2001).
Giddens, A. Sociology, 3rd Edn. Cambridge: Polity press, 1997.
King, Ursula, (ed.), Religion and gender. London: Blackwell, 1995.
Osto, D. 135.207/307 Sex, Gender and Religion Study Guide. Palmerston North: Massey University, 2008.
Whitehead, S.M., Barrett, F.J. (eds.), The masculinities reader. Malden, Massachusetts: Polity Press, 2001.
“It is increasingly recognized that feminist theories have not only constituted a most influential scholarship within academia, they have also had a profound impact on the subjectivities of countless women worldwide. This has led to immense personal and political transformations, the consequences and direction of which are still unfolding” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p3).
Feminism has always been concerned with inequalities between the sexes in both politics and religion, from its beginnings in the eighteenth century through to the political turmoil of the 1960s, and into the more reflexive postmodern period. The advent of feminism has presented a challenge to the male dominated hierarchies and institutions of religion and academia, highlighting structural inequalities and biases and allowing women to reinterpret and criticise religious texts, and this has in turn allowed men to become aware of their own gendered natures and religious subjectivities, sometimes to the detriment of the feminist enterprise. The following charts the history of feminist thought as it pertains to the study of religion, concluding that it is a field of enquiry that continues to develop in scope and subtlety.
In order to understand the impact of feminism on religion, it is first necessary to understand what is meant by each term. Feminism is a perspective that exposes and questions the privilege and prestige accorded to men (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3), being traditionally focused on inequalities founded on biological sex but having given rise to the relatively new concept of gender and genderedness (King, 1995, p.12). Alice Schlegel defines gender as the cultural perception, construction and expectations of the sexes, as opposed to actual biological sex (King, 1995, pp.12-13). Defining religion is more problematic, for as King notes (1995, p.10) the term can apply to either a “historically and culturally evolved,” “cumulative” tradition or to a subjective, transcendental experience.
Feminism as a recognizable political and intellectual movement first appeared against the backdrop of Industrialisation in Europe and America (Osto, 2008, p.4), though its origins can be traced back to the eighteenth century writings of Mary Wollstonecraft (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.2) among others. This first wave of feminism was largely concerned with the rights of women to vote and achieving equality in the eyes of the law (Osto, 2008, p.4) but the growing awareness of sex inequality was reflected in religious scholarly circles by the publication of such discourses as Elizabeth Candy Stanton’s The Women’s Bible in 1895 (Giddens, 1997, p.449), in which the author propounds her view that man and woman had been created equal, that the Bible did not reflect this equality and did not therefore reflect the values of God, but rather the views of the committees of men who periodically revised the Biblical texts.
Having declined somewhat after the First World War, the feminist movement regained momentum in the 1960s (Giddens, 1997, p.516). This second wave was characterised by an emphasis on solidarity, intense political activism around employment, reproductive and sexual rights, and the push for the inclusion of Women’s Studies programmes in universities (Osto, 2008, p.4). Central to this activism was the development of the concept of patriarchy, the way in which “masculine values” are built into the very workings of “most organizations” at all levels of management (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.146). The seemingly all-pervasive power of patriarchy led some feminist scholars to name it a religion in itself, “the prevailing religion of the entire planet,” and to declare all world religions merely sects (Biezeveld & Mulder, 2001, pp.32-33). Yet even in the 1970s some feminist scholars noted that this concept of worldwide patriarchy disregarded historical context, was “monolithic” and “dismissive of women’s resistance and agency” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.147).
Thus in its third wave, beginning in the 1980s, feminism became decidedly theoretical and postmodern in character, rejecting essentialism and shifting its focus from gender inequalities to constructions of gender – or, put another way, the existence of a variety of masculinities and femininities (Osto, 2008, p.4). No longer could women be considered a “homogenous group,” as increasingly it was recognized that sexual preference, race, class and age all contribute to the shaping of subjectivity (Biezeveld & Mulder, 2001, p.11; Armour, 1999, p.7). It is this more nuanced approach to gender that has allowed religious discourse to blend the masculine with the feminine in its conceptions of divinity, or in some cases to transcend gender altogether, rather than simply substituting the male for the female (King, 1995, p.15). Anne E. Carr, among others, asserts that the task of this third, mature stage of feminism is the building of general theories and the establishment of a “unifying framework” for these more integrative and inclusive analyses (King, 1995, p.20), though this has met with some resistance from separatist feminists such as Mary Daly (King, 1995, p.14).
The challenge posed by feminism has given rise to a number of different responses by men, from the “avidly anti-feminist… such as the Christian Promise Keepers, through to a possibly more accommodating mythopoetic movement” in which men may acknowledge their own gendered natures and spiritual subjectivities (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, pp.4,283). Another such response is the advent of masculinities studies within the academy, which some consider the completion of the feminist project (King, 1995, p.14). If men’s traditional perception of feminism as “about women,” and the lack of discussion around gender in men’s writing “has served to make men invisible, particularly to themselves” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.4), the move toward studies of masculinity, then, constitutes some recognition by men of the validity of women’s experience. A chief criticism of this movement, however, is that where ‘masculinities’ and ‘femininities’ are studied separately the gender dichotomy is in fact reinforced, the genders polarized further (King, 1995, pp.14-15).
Feminism continues to evolve in European, American, and Australasian countries, and is beginning to have an impact in Asia, Africa and the Middle and Far East (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). The backlash against feminist critique has been at times severe, leading Whitehead and Barrett (2001, p.3) to posit that the resurgence of religious fundamentalism around the world may be a response by men to the “changing positions and expectations of women.” They note that “in terms of sustaining unequal material advantage, opportunity, status and privilege, men have much to lose with the rise of feminist thinking” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). However, the authors are quick to see the opportunities for men in the exchange – empathy, quality in relationships, reflexivity, emotional wellbeing and balance in their lives (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). Such analyses owe their very existence to the insights born of the feminist perspective.
To conclude, from its inception feminism has been concerned with inequalities between the sexes in both the political and religious arenas, developing through periods of activism into a discipline concerned with the construction of general theories of gender, becoming ever more reflexive and nuanced in its analyses of patriarchy and subjectivity. The advent of feminism has presented a challenge to the male dominated hierarchies and institutions of religion and academia, highlighting structural inequalities and biases, and this has resulted in the development of reflexive men’s studies and further opportunities for its own growth. As King (1995, p.12) observes, while “progress in the study of religion is slow … there is no doubt that the perspective of gender is of increasing importance in theoretical and empirical studies.”
References
Armour, E.T. Deconstruction, feminist theology, and the problem of difference: Subverting the Race/Gender divide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.
Biezeveld, Kune & Mulder, Anne-Claire, (eds.), Towards a different transcendence: Feminist findings on subjectivity, religion and values. Bern, Germany: Peter Lang, European Academic Publishers, (2001).
Giddens, A. Sociology, 3rd Edn. Cambridge: Polity press, 1997.
King, Ursula, (ed.), Religion and gender. London: Blackwell, 1995.
Osto, D. 135.207/307 Sex, Gender and Religion Study Guide. Palmerston North: Massey University, 2008.
Whitehead, S.M., Barrett, F.J. (eds.), The masculinities reader. Malden, Massachusetts: Polity Press, 2001.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Cracking Up...
Ok so I found this picture on a blog and just went into fits of laughter for nearly five minutes... dunno why but it's the funniest thing I've seen in months...
Monday, October 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Science vs Religion
Heart
I guess I just care too much...