posted
That's interesting about the calling, Dana. Ideally, in the Mormon church people would have a spiritual experience preceeding a call that prepares them to receive it. Though I know it doesn't always work that way, but I've seen and experienced that often enough to know it does happen. The call is experienced not only by the individual but to the people who must extend the call. It's wonderful when it works, and frustrating when there is a call made from expediency.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have times that it doesn't work exactly according to how it's supposed to too, of course. But the various levels of candidacy and examination are supposed to weed out the people who are in it for the authority or because they think it looks like an interesting career choice.
At least it's a good bet that no one's in it for the money.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But is it a charismatic event, or can someone just feel increasingly attracted to that profession as they grow up?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It varies from person to person. For me it was a series of nudges which I ignored with increasing difficulty until I couldn't ignore them and started actively arguing against them until I couldn't do that anymore either and grudgingly aplied for candidacy. After which I dragged my feet for another two years before I went to seminary. By which time I'd pretty much come to terms with the whole idea and quit stalling.
When the remaining holdouts against women clergy in our denomination say anything to me about it I tell them to take it up with God because it was NOT my idea. I wanted to be a physicist.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: At least it's a good bet that no one's in it for the money.
Other than PTL-type ministers, are there clergy of any religion that are "in it for the money"? Heaven knows your average rabbi isn't making that much (although there is the occasional one who is), and "poor as a churchmouse" is presumably an expression for cause. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have known priests who were not in it "for the money," as in having any expectation of wealth, but, in my outside judgment, for the security.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. And in the UMC we get requests from clergy from other denominations who want to transfer in because we have a better pension plan. (Not better than secular employment with similar education requirements, but better than some of the more congregational denominations) The COM folks try to weed those out too.
Tom, I don't see how persistent communication from God violates free will any more than persistant communication from any other source. Although God's presumably better at the subliminal advertising thing than the folks who make TV commercials. Does that count as a violation of free will?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: And in the UMC we get requests from clergy from other denominations who want to transfer in because we have a better pension plan.
posted
I have spent too many of the past five years surrounded by people who think pretty much exactly the same way I do about religion. It has obviously made it difficult for me to communicate what I'm thinking to a religious person without coming across as agro and confrontational. I still look back at what I wrote and scratch my head at the response. The only words I would change to be less definite would be "pretty much all of Christendom and Islam". I'd add a "In my opinion" and "many parts of".
To me, I asked a very simple question. How is it not oppressive to discriminate against someone based on gender(basically what I was asking)? I've read through and mulled over every response, and no one has answered that question.
Regardless of the reasons WHY, if a woman feels called to the priesthood, or bishophood, in her heart, she is stopped from fulfilling that call because she is a woman. Now, from what I understand you all have been saying, there are plenty of other roles she can choose to take to fulfill that need. But what if those roles arent what she wants or needs?
It's like telling a woman who wants to be an industrial engineer that, since that's a mans job, she cant do it. She can be a librarian instead. And then telling her that being a librarian is just as good as being an industrial engineer and she should be content in that role. And from what I can tell, many seem to think that's the way it should be. Maybe it's felt that God wouldnt call a woman to the priesthood because that's not the role he created for her. But does that make those women liars? Or misguided?
You think I'm being condescending and demeaning to you personally(general religious you), but I dont feel that way and I'm trying really hard not to communicate that way. I'm not going to get into specific religions and their practices, because I dont think it's neccessary to do so in order to discuss what I want to. The GENRERAL IDEA is what I find destructive. How each individual person lives with that idea, how they come to terms with it, accept it, revel in it, whatever, doesnt actually matter to what I'm trying to say. Because for every well adjusted, happy man and woman in a religion that encourages gender inequality, there is someone suffering because of it. Why else would there be such a push to change the status quo, if everyone were happy with it? You tell me to listen to individual stories and take them into account when thinking about this idea. What about you? Do you take into account individual stories about people who feel ostraziced, sidelined, and demeaned because of this belief?
I look at individual people who believe with all their heart that their religions take on this is correct, and I dont have a problem understanding that and respecting it. I could easily be wrong, misguided, prejudiced, what have you, and I know I dont have the right to judge individuals based on anything other than actual behavior or words. I dont look at a Mormon and think "WOMAN HATER!" just because of how I feel about certain policies. I really dont. Cross my heart and all that...
But I DO have the right, and the obligation, to judge ideas based on what effect they have on the world around me. And I perceive this idea, that women are reserved for certain roles in religion and in life, generally slightly below and off to the side of men, to be destructive. In my opinion, it's been destructive to human society for a very long time.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if you start from the premise that you owe homage to a higher power of some sort that created you, you accept that your will is faulty and that in order to be a better person you will submit your will to that Creator.
Starting from that premise you can get to all the rest (I'm not saying you will get there, just that the first is necessary in order to get there)
If you don't believe that your will needs to be subservient to a Creator, (or that a Creator would demand that from you) then of course it doesn't make sense.
People also believe that by submitting their will to their Creator's is when they achieve true Liberty. The closer their will is aligned to the Creator's, the freer they are.
So if someone believes that specifically prescribed gender roles are part of the Creator's Plan, they will find freedom in complying because the closer to the Plan they follow (in theory) the Freer they will be.
quote:And I perceive this idea, that women are reserved for certain roles in religion and in life, generally slightly below and off to the side of men, to be destructive.
Another disconnect is that many people in this thread have said that they don't agree that the religions you condemn place women "slightly below and off to the left".
quote:To me, I asked a very simple question. How is it not oppressive to discriminate against someone based on gender(basically what I was asking)? I've read through and mulled over every response, and no one has answered that question.
The problem is that, until your last post, you hadn't bothered to answer the corresponding question. It's asking someone to defend their position from an accusation of oppression when you haven't bothered to make a prima facie case. It strikes many as unfair to do that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
In Judaism, there really isn't a concept of having a "calling" in the way there is in Christianity. The notion is very foreign to me. To me, there is little difference between a women saying she wants to be a rabbi and a man saying he would like to be pregnant. Neither is compatible with the way God created them. (A man can certainly be an excellent father, and a woman can do quite a number of the things that a rabbi might do. But in neither case is it quite the same thing.) You may feel that one is internally imposed and one is not. I would disagree.
You say that you understand and respect, but the attitude and tone you take really do not indicate much evidence of either.
"[T]hat women are reserved for certain roles in religion and in life, generally slightly below and off to the side of men." As I and others have explained repeatedly, this is not an accurate statement. Speaking only for myself (although I'd guess some of the other thread participants might agree), there are certain specific roles for men, and certain specific roles for women. Both genders have limitations; neither is "below" or "off to the side."
quote:there are certain specific roles for men, and certain specific roles for women. Both genders have limitations; neither is "below" or "off to the side."
Exactly.
And rivka still rocks. Huzzah for excellent communication of ideas!
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
foundling, honey, the deal is that women do not get called to those things, because they are women. It's not discrimination, they way LDS see it. God doesn't call hammers to turn screws, if you will.
So asking that question gets blank looks and some blinking, generally, because we are not speaking the same language.
I think this one of those times where outsiders find it difficult to follow the mental dance steps required to see what insiders take for granted. We end up regarding each other as blinkered or uncomprehending, which is not somewhere I personally want to go. If you really do want to tilt this particular windmill, go ahead. Me, I'm just going to back away slowly, with friendships in place and unharmed.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll chime in to say that many of us in our adult lives choose the religious faith and tradition (or lack thereof) that we belong to. At least in my current country of residence.
Many people literally believe such commandments and directions came from God, and the purposes of such things are never ascribed to things like "one gender is better than the other".
Can one wisely say one has the power to look into the hearts and minds of others and say: "No, you don't believe this because you sincerely feel it's of God, you believe this because you're sexist hypocrites and/or are oppressed victims."
That's quite a hefty judgment to make. And it's not one to be made without being prepared to go in-depth and in detail.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did the discussions. Not only that, I read what I was told to read and prayed with all my heart to see the truth.
The result is that my faith in my decision is at least as firm as those who chose differently, and I'm grateful for that.
The person that I want to be is a person who respects others' deeply-held beliefs, even when they are in direct conflict with my own. I think the key for me is the fruit, if you will. And it is an individual thing. If a person's religion somehow makes it okay for them to kill thousands of innocents, then I do not believe that individual has a connection to God. Same with the evangelical minister who lines his pockets and beds the church secretary. Does that mean that their religions are wrong? No, it means the fruit of their individual lives kind of sucks.
But again, as reasonable people we must acknowledge that just because a person's beliefs differ from our own does not mean that they are not also reasonable, sincere people.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether or not it should be, Catholicism is hierarchical. And that hierarchy is only open to men. Positions of authority are held only by men. Women's authority is "sideways". I was once told that if I wanted to make a difference in the church, I should have male children and influence them.
This is appalling.
There is nothing required of priests that women aren't capable of doing. It isn't like being pregnant - things that men cannot biologically do.
I will only speak for my own religion here, but I'm with foundling.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just pointing that out because you made a very definitive statement, as though it were a statement of fact, even though in these sorts of discussions the idea that these are matters of faith are usually a given. If that makes any sense.
The point is, the idea that women are equally capable of doing the work of a Catholic priest is only true insofar as a person's faith lines up with yours.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is that a serious question? That's an honest response on my part, because the answer is pretty darn obvious and predictible: I don't know.
I'm not God, and thus I don't know why He delineates certain positions for certain genders, certain roles for certain people. I don't know if He does it because one gender is by nature ill-suited to it, or if there is some other reason.
I do, however, believe that God teaches us that those things are true (different roles for different genders). Also, I do believe that different does not mean oppressive or inequal. Frankly, I believe the idea that different does equal inequal is pretty strange from a religious perspective. Women are by nature generally weaker and less free than men, simply due to being less prone to greater physical strength, and quite a lot more prone to pregnancy than men.
I got past the idea that different means oppressive a long time ago. As a religious person, I could not possibly reconcile a contrary position with the idea that God created humanity. If God created humanity, and God wants men and women to have equality down to the molecules...why on Earth would God restrict the capabilities of women via biology?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about infertile women or physically disabled men? How does that relate to spiritual fitness?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't believe that equality means identical, unless we're talking about math. It's basically a matter of faith for me.
I feel that God wants there to be equality between men and women. However, I must reconcile this with this matter of faith with the fact that men and women aren't identical. Simply because of the unavoidable nature of our genders, there are some things men are more prone to in general, and some things women are more prone to in general-some things women simply cannot do, some things men simply cannot do.
So when I come back to my faith which informs me that God wants equality between men and women, I have to reconcile this biological inconsistency. That leads me to the realization that, to me, equality does not mean being identical.
And therefore, in order for men and women to be equal in a religious setting, it is not necessary that women and men all hold the same jobs.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not everyone fits into the gender roles that you have laid out for them. No person is identical to any other people. What is is about gender that makes women unfit for certain roles?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can men become pregnant, birth children and I missed it? Can women impregnante other women, and I wasn't informed? Perhaps I missed the news bulletin on those topics. Maybe I need to update my alerts for the news sites.
Anyway, if you're asking that question again on religious grounds, I'll answer you for a second time: I don't know.
Edit:
quote:Not everyone fits into the gender roles that you have laid out for them. No person is identical to any other people. What is is about gender that makes women unfit for certain roles?
It should also be noted that I haven't assigned gender roles to anyone, ever, in my entire life. I've also never said that people are identical-I've said the opposite, so I wonder why you even mentioned that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I do, however, believe that God teaches us that those things are true (different roles for different genders).
I beleive the opposite. I believe that God teaches us that our roles are not deliniated by our gender, except relative to the biological facts of reproduction. I base this on Galatians 3:27-28, among other things.
I do, however, recognize that other people believe differently, and I respect those beliefs as long as the decision to follow them is freely chosen by the individuals involved.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it's worth, I understand and agree with foundling and kmboots. I don't have it in me to wade in the depths of the argument, but I will chime in with a "me, too."
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dislike the analogy to biological differences. We're talking about roles in the context of a given religious tradition, here, not about inherent physical differences between men and women.
Unless you're suggesting that God somehow created the universe such that it is physically impossible for women to fill particular roles in a given religious tradition. If so, you'll have to forgive my skepticism.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do you reconcile nudges of that sort with a doctrine of free will?
There are lots of ways to silence the voice of God so it doesn't nag. I still participate in a lot of them several times a day. Though it's kind of tough to tell on some things.
I can see a bit of what Rakeesh is saying, but it gets a bit sticky. Spiritually, a woman needs to be free of encumberances on her devotion. It's kind of like that thing Lisa said about not supporting a Jew for president, because a Jew who would put the country's need before his (or her) devotion to God was not a person she would want to follow.
I actually run into this kind of conflict a fair bit just being Relief Society president. My husband hates it, not because I am in a more "illustrious" position than him, but because he feels like there is constantly a sword hanging over us where I might have to drop everything and go off and do something for the church. Now it happens very seldom, and there's almost never anything that can't wait a little, and we're instructed to put our families first, men as well as women (that's the sticky part- it's not like fathers are expendable) but it's how he feels. I don't think the church means for it to work that way. Hmmm. I also don't know if it's him that is jealous or me that is too... loyal? Clingy? Single-mindedly devoted? Zealous? Maybe that's it. Maybe women are too zealous.
[editing in process]
I do think there is a difference. Why was rivka's quip about men's natural leadership abilities (implying a lack thereof) funny, when if someone had said it about a woman we all would have been furious? Because women are a minority, and women will never escape minority status (even where they outnumber men) as long as they are physically intimidated by men. In this sense, I don't think we can escape biology.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that religion has always served as a vehicle for a small number of people, and as far as I am aware almost always older men, to control others. Ignoring for the moment any spiritual aspects of organized religion, from a secular standpoint it boils down to a small group of leaders, often self-appointed, who have complete authority over their congregations.
Is it any wonder that strange and draconian rules are often in place, which often seem to work very well for those in power, and less so for those out of power? The ability to say, "Hey, it's not my rule, I'm just following it too." is entirely too convenient for my taste.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
True enough. If I forget to wash the dishes, my wife frequently whips me.
Edit to continue:
Which part of what I said is untrue or outrageous? I find it strange that religious hierarchies so closely follow all other social hierarchies of the predominant culture. It would seem that the meek might inherit the religion, if not the earth, but the poor meek don't even get to be in charge of their own deal.
I will add that in some cultures, marriage really does amount to slavery. Fortunately, it's not so bad here in the US.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just trying to figure out why you want to take the conversation in the direction where we ignore "for the moment" any spiritual aspects.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because that's the cop out. That God decreed these rules, which just happen to be incredibly favorable for those in charge, and reinforce the social norms, adding more weight to the status quo. I just want to point out the obvious reason why so many religions don't have powerful positions for women - that the men in charge don't want the competition.
That's just me trying to look at it from a sociological standpoint. Of course, the trump card that "God just wants it that way, and we're not allowed to question it" completely puts a stop to any ability to discuss it, which is why I wanted to leave that out for the moment.
I feel the need to question the motives of a person or group which follows and enforces rules, but is unwilling or unable to rationalize them, except with an appeal to authority. Especially when the rules clearly favor those in power.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So why don't women start a religion where they can be in charge? While they're at it, they should make their own political and financial systems where they have more of everything.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MightyCow, I think that what you say is true for most human organizations. In any organizational structure, the people who make the rules will tend to make rules that favour themselves. You might note that Jesus addresses this very issue more than once (astute judge of human nature). We do, in theory, guard against that tendancy. I believe that we, quite often, fail and foot washing becomes an empty ritual.
Pooka, marriage isn't slavery, but it also isn't for everyone. This is where I have real problems with your argument - the idea that one way should work for everyone. How does the argument about divided loyalties apply to women who don't have children?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, the trump card that "God just wants it that way, and we're not allowed to question it" completely puts a stop to any ability to discuss it, which is why I wanted to leave that out for the moment.
You are, of course, asking those who believe that to ignore what they consider the absolute crux of the issue. It's akin to asking someone to speak of evolution but to ignore mutation for a while.
Calling it "the cop out" is simply leaping ahead to your own conclusion. Whether or not it is a cop out is pretty much the crux of the dispute. For you to want to use that disputed conclusion as a basis for deciding what should be ignored and what shouldn't be doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
quote:I dislike the analogy to biological differences. We're talking about roles in the context of a given religious tradition, here, not about inherent physical differences between men and women.
At least some of the people here are talking about inherent spiritual differences, just as real to them as physical differences.
I don't even have a firm opinion on this issue.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: For what it's worth, I understand and agree with foundling and kmboots. I don't have it in me to wade in the depths of the argument, but I will chime in with a "me, too."
Me, three. Or "me, too" to what CT said. I'm not wading into the argument because I do not wish to wound relationships. I can respect people no matter what I believe of their belief structures. I do not anticipate the same consideration, and I'm not in a place where I think arguing on teh internet will make any sort of difference. So *shrug* I honestly believe it will all come out in the wash.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: How does the argument about divided loyalties apply to women who don't have children?
I did say it was a sticky argument, that along with the idea that men can have their loyalties divided. I believe the term we use for this is compartmentalization. Women don't do it as much, and it is a strength for some things, not so much for others. But don't take my word for it, listen to people who talk about why a woman would be a better president, because she would have more integrity, less secrecy, because she would not compromise, etc. etc. Men succeed in politics and industry because they can cut deals and be expedient and come home and still feel okay about themselves.
I keep getting my ambitions confused. I wonder how far I can go in my new career, what possibilities it holds, and then I have to give myself a shake and remind myself this is just paying the bills while I write novels, and that's why I don't have to excuse myself for not having advanced degrees in the area of my employment.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of the religions which do allow women roles of authority, I've not heard that they are regretting that, for the resounding failures of the female pastors. Were I in charge, I'd say make the ruling on a case by case basis. If Governor Arnold can carry a child to term, surely there must exist one such Priestinator of a woman who can successfully lead a congregation.
I realize that anyone who wants to can just say, "God says so" and leave it at that. For those who might want to think outside the self-imposed box, I simply wanted to point out an alternate reading.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Men succeed in politics and industry because they can cut deals and be expedient and come home and still feel okay about themselves.
I think this is an overgeneralization that's pretty easily proven false. The idea that men are somehow lacking in introspection, self-awareness, or conscience is certainly not one that I think has any basis in reality.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the basic reduction of structures to "God says so" is why I stand by my statement that in some sense, Mormons do treat women like the Taliban. But as often is the case when folks criticize Mormons, the same can be said of many other major religions.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think this is an overgeneralization that's pretty easily proven false. The idea that men are somehow lacking in introspection, self-awareness, or conscience is certainly not one that I think has any basis in reality.
This reminds me of that old scholastic question of whether women have souls -- only for men.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I did say it was a sticky argument, that along with the idea that men can have their loyalties divided. I believe the term we use for this is compartmentalization. Women don't do it as much, and it is a strength for some things, not so much for others. But don't take my word for it, listen to people who talk about why a woman would be a better president, because she would have more integrity, less secrecy, because she would not compromise, etc. etc. Men succeed in politics and industry because they can cut deals and be expedient and come home and still feel okay about themselves.
I'm not sure, are you trying to say that all men and all women are like this?
If not, then what is your point as it pertains to what's being discussed?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
