Is Christianity responsible for denying women's rights?

[Flail]

The political history of the United States includes relatively few women compared to the number of men. Women did not have the right to vote for the first 140 years of our existence as a country. No woman has ever held the office of President or Vice President and very few have served in high office. Women's history as leaders in Christianity is similarly deficient.

Often we hear criticisms of Islam for treating women as second class citizens. Is Christianity the same, having advanced further to combat religious discrimination against women by reason of simply getting an earlier start?

Question for debate: Is Christianity responsible for the shameful history of women's rights in America?

[SOP]

I might add that Thatcher, Gandhi, Bhutto, etc. all worked under the British parliamentary system where one works oneself up slowly through the party ranks and should she become leader of her party, if her party wins a majority or plurality of the popular vote, she then becomes prime minister.
The American system is different enough that somebody hardly anyone in the party (much less the general public) has heard of can suddenly declare he or she is running for president. And if fortuitous circumstances prevail for him or her, voila: Most powerful person in the world. Thank god for the separation of powers.

[notachance]

To answer the OP, I say no. At least theres nothing inherent in Christianity itself that would deny womens rights. Some people (men) might interpret some new testament passages to deny womens rights, but that doesnt necessarily impugn the new testament. It depends on how one interprets those passages.

[font=Georgia]But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. [/font]

This passage clearly outlines the author's view of the correct place for women. Women should look upon their man as having the same authority as a man should look to Christ for. Yes, in my opinion, this belittles women.

head doesnt mean authority. The greek word being used means source or origin. In English a similar term is used to refer to the source of a river (headwaters). So the fact that its translated head doesnt imply authority. Plus, Paul could have used other greek words that more clearly would have conveyed the meaning of authority.

[font=Georgia]For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the womans sake, but woman for the mans sake. [/font]

Again, the author shows his scorn for the contributions and value of women. Women, according to him, were created for man's sake. Women are chattel, servants and adjuncts, not individuals in their own right.

This passage sort of makes my point since it says man did not ORIGINATE from woman. Pauls referring to the Genesis story (regardless of whether one thinks the genesis story is authentically historical or not Paul certainly did and so hes using it as an illustration).

[font=Georgia]The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. [/font]

It is improper for a woman to ask a question in church. A man, who by the nature of his sex, is able to ask meaningful questions, has to be the one who gets the proper explanation for what confuses the little woman and then he can explain it to her when they get home. Don't worry your pretty little head about theology dear, your husband will explain what you need to know when you get home. Yes, in my opinion, this is belittling.

This passage is dealing with disruption and disorder in the church services. Who else but recently emancipated women would have the temerity to yell out questions in the middle of a public service? Anyway, it certainly doesnt mean women couldnt speak at all in church since back in Cor.11 Paul assumes women are prophesying and praying in church.

[font=Georgia]Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. [/font]

The entire fall from grace, the whole sin situation, has been placed at the feet of women. The implications here are impressive. Women are more easily deceived and their gullibility is a dangerous thing. Men, who know better and are less easily led, need to control and instruct the women. How is it that anyone can read this as being anything other than a passage that belittles women?

The reference to the fall is more likely an attempt by Paul to counter claims made by false teachers in Ephesus who were trying to distort the Genesis account by saying Adam was the one deceived. So Paul here is simply trying to set the historical record straight. In addition, the part of being submissive and learning quietly applied just as equally to male students as it did to females. This type of quiet learning was typical of the rabbinic style of teaching. Just as significant is the fact that women were being taught at all. IF Christianity were the women oppressing religion that some think it is, why even bother teaching them? Ignorance is the surest way to keep them down.

Wow. Can you do the Nazi next?

You're so good at interpreting a text as benign and positive no matter how explicit its negative connotations are, that I bet you could interpret Hitler's Mein Kamph as nothing more than a mild dislike for Jews.

Also, could you spin Bin Laden's last video as a loving expression of inter-faith tolerance?

[forumwarrior]

Not being equal doesn't mean that all people don't have EQUAL RIGHTS.

All human beings have the same inalienable rights stemming from their intrinsic humanity, and unaffected by their gender, race, physical shapes, disability, sexual orientation, etc.

lol you and multiple others must be reading the posts of my evil twin. who the hell said anything about women not having equal rights? roflmao.

is the presidencey a RIGHT?

and i tell you what buddy. you might want to read about the theories on where our "equal rights" come from. because i think youre leaving out a couple key words.

"intrinsic humanity" is real nice and creative. it might be the atheist motto. but here in the good old usa, the rights are derived from GOD.

THATS RIGHT! the rights are endowed in you by nature and natures god. a creator. i bet that burns you up doesnt it.

[Crazy Ivan]

lol you and multiple others must be reading the posts of my evil twin. who the hell said anything about women not having equal rights? roflmao.

The point is whether or not you accept society can evolve to determine men and women are equal beyond biology, discarding religious perspectives on the subject.

but here in the good old usa, the rights are derived from GOD.

Thank GOD I'm not there...

THATS RIGHT! the rights are endowed in you by nature and natures god. a creator. i bet that burns you up doesnt it.

Why should your opinions about imaginary entities and imaginary bestowed rights burn anyone that doesn't believe in them?

[Wyvern]

i dont believe that other IMPORTANT (notice i said important) countries would take us seriously with a woman at the helm. it would be like inviting challenges and trouble.

[vapid sarcasm]That's right. No important country took the UK seriously while Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, India while Indira Gandhi was PM, Pakistan while Benazir Bhutto was Prime Minister or Israel while Golda Meir was running things.[/vapid sarcasm]

buddy to compare countries like england, india, pakistan and israel to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is like wyvern trying to compare janis joplin to elvis presley.

their responsiblities in the world, their power PALE in comparison. the leader of iran would laugh in the face of billary clinton if she ever tried to give him a stern warning.

So you think Iran is an important country but not the UK, India, Pakistan or Israel? I guess the important question is what makes Iran important but not the others mentioned?

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm sure others've beat me to the punch, but I don't live on my time anymore.


From Post 57:

i love how she complains about being tossed around. just look at how she gets dominated. now if you ask me. which of these two would i depend on more to drag me out of a burning building? give me joey buttafuoco any day of the week.

If I hadda rely on Mr. Buttafuoco or Ms. Laurer for my life, I'd just as soon let the building burn than to be in the same city block with that bunch.

as far as intellectually/politically. sure women can be on par with men.

Then what was all that carryin' on you was doing awhile back?

8<....

i dont want somebody who is accustomed to going insane every 4th week for the first 40+ years of her life making the decisions that affect the entire world.

Since ya mentioned it, we was all wondering why you were doing it every day.

Which ad hom proves either of us knows what's going on? You damn and slander women, and expect to have your opinion respected? Are you unaware of how others may perceive you and your words?

Sure, men are the best at like war, and physical violence, and such, but the women leaders of my lifetime have been among the most intelligent and peaceful bunch of folks ya'd ever meet - with exceptions of course. Men, as "hunters" may have an illusion of superiority, but women, as communicators, can present compelling arguments with the ferocity of a mother bear. They are a joy to behold in these debates and elsewhere and when they get onto you about something, you mighta caught a hurricane.

And if they happen to be...

Yulia Tymoshenko, Ukranian PM, I'd like to extend my personal invitation to arrive at your convenience and do us some negotiating.

3. men and women are just made differently. theres a reason that men evolved to be the leaders of countries and civilizations. theres a REASON that little boys play cowboys and indians and little girls play house. and it has got nothing to do with evil sexism lol.

Naw, it couldn'ta been our fathers and mothers giving us such toys based on how they saw themselves. I used to have a pack a day candy cigarette habit, but I know better'n that now, and I cut the granddaughters to 1/2 each.

it has got nothing to do with holding the woman down. its just the NATURAL ORDER.

you can deny that until your face turns blue, it isnt going to change because the idea of having a female leader makes you feel good.

You can spout your antiquated understanding of sapiens until you're a checked pattern in the face. The fact remains that to say NO woman is qualified to be a world leader, is sexist, bigoted, and misogynistic.
I'da thought such notions woulda died out with neandertal.

8<...

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 61:

its a celebrity boxing match! calm down a little bit. oh wait a second! only an idiot would tell an angry woman to calm down. just pretend i didnt say that.
...

That'll leave us with it being the moran that'd show the entire intartubez what an idiot he is.

[dianaiad]

Oh.

My.

I think that says everything. The man who admires and puts a child rapist and total...sorry, even my extensive vocabulary is insufficient to describe the utter unsuitability of JB as anything but a bad example...is lecturing the rest of us on the unsuitability of women to run anything but a kitchen.

Y'know, given who you DO admire, I can only consider the fact that you do not think women capable of running nations to be a rare compliment. In fact, I would be leery of your admiration...it would be a little, I think, like getting a campaign contribution from the KKK; not something one particularly WANTS on one's resume.

its a celebrity boxing match! calm down a little bit. oh wait a second! only an idiot would tell an angry woman to calm down. just pretend i didnt say that.

and when did i say you wimmenfolk couldnt run anything but a kitchen?

Well, let's see. You don't think they should be elected officials, or appointed officials...which leaves out the government. You don't think they should be police officers or fire fighters. Since you don't think they should run anything...i.e., tell men what to do in anything, that leaves out pretty much everything, doesn't it?

What other career do you think is open to a woman, when you don't think she is as good as a man in anything?

where are you coming up with these things? why are none of the other posters exhibiting reactions like yours?

I believe that the reactions of the other posters here agree with mine.

i know why. but id be damn sexist if i said so wouldnt i?

Well yes, but you haven't let that stopped you yet.

[dianaiad]

Hey did you hear that Mariah Carey surpassed Elvis's record of number one hits?

As a sidenote itwould be appreciated if you would start capitalizing. I know you know where the shift key is after all.

YOU CANT BE SERIOUS MAN. MARIAH CAREY IS GOING TO BE A FOOTNOTE IN HISTORY. WHEN SHES DEAD AND GONE THATLL BE IT. BUT ELVIS IS GOING TO LIVE FOREVER. PEOPLE IN THE MOST OBSCURE COUNTRY OF THE WORLD KNOW WHO ELVIS PRESLEY IS. NO WOMAN HAS EVER OR WILL EVER ACHIEVE THAT TYPE OF NOTORIETY.

The man is playing with us, guys. Stereotypes this obnoxious don't really exist.

Not really.

Please?

[dianaiad]

Not being equal doesn't mean that all people don't have EQUAL RIGHTS.

All human beings have the same inalienable rights stemming from their intrinsic humanity, and unaffected by their gender, race, physical shapes, disability, sexual orientation, etc.

lol you and multiple others must be reading the posts of my evil twin. who the hell said anything about women not having equal rights? roflmao.

is the presidencey a RIGHT?

If she wins the election, you bet it is.

We had a little showdown on that one back at the beginning of the twentieth century, where a bunch of Utahns had the nerve to elect an actual Mormon to the US Senate....and people like you didn't think he had the right to actually serve in the office to which he was elected. Took something like three years, but Reed Smoot eventually got to BE a Senator--because it seems that the people have the right to expect that the person they elect to an office to actually serve in it.

So, friend, if a woman should run for President, and be elected, she'll serve. Whether you like it or not.