Do (many) religions tend to demean women?

[Zzyzx]

.
Do (many) religions tend to demean women?
If so, why?

Examples?

Justification?

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to post 38 by Zzyzx]

Why do religionists so frequently attempt to identify non-religion as a religion?

Just a short reply. You do realise that I am not nor do I see myself as a religionist. But you keep insisting as well.

It appears as though you self-identify as a Christian. Is that not a religious position?

I use the definition of religonist: "a person adhering to a religion." Do we differ on definitions (i.e., do you not adhere to a religion)?

I have no interest in assigning you to a theological position, but accept what you appear to declare. Kindly correct me if I am wrong in interpreting what you say.



Z

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to bluethread]


Hmmm it seems a fair list would be to long as each verse should be given its context. So I will just start with a passage and we can debate that and move on to another passage after it. I will start with 1 Corinthians 11: 1-15

1 Corinthians 11 American Standard Version (ASV)

11 Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.

2 Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.

5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.

6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.

7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man:

9 for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man:

10 for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.

11 Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God.

13 Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Really the whole thing is just demeaning to women. Showing an obvious misogynistic underpinnings for what position in society women should serve. I don't understand how this is even defensible but I'll see what you have to say on the matter.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 38 by Zzyzx]

Why do religionists so frequently attempt to identify non-religion as a religion?

As a Christian I am not aware of any religious practise I have to do.

Is it a sign of insecurity in their own beliefs that requires that they think that everyone believes in "gods?" Do they think that others consider them foolish for believing in invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities -- and try to justify that by claiming "everybody does it?"

No I think it is a natural application of wisdom. Do you believe in any metaphysical concepts? If so which ones and do you feel foolish to admit it?

Perhaps it is appropriate to equate religions' gods to money, entertainment, employment (or whatever religionists identify as the "gods" of others). That would indicate the god is rather mundane and conveniently exchanged for other pursuits (then called "gods" also).

Well in fairness, they are commonly called gods in the Bible.

It just feels to me like you really don't like religious labels. I think that if one spends their time pursuing money that they can be said to worship money.

Religion was never meant to apply to only those who believe in a god of some kind but to anyone who uses habitual practises to worship their god.

Otherwise we will simply have to map a secular word and religious word and when we talk I'll use the secular word that you prefer. Then overtime you will possibly not like that word any more and pick another and then we have to do another mapping so that we can communicate.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 40 by Zzyzx]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religionist
religionist - a person addicted to religion or a religious zealot

I don't think I am addicted. I do think however that an actual addict to a drug could be labelled a religionist but then I don't think that is what you mean.

It's just doubtful that anyone who you mean to talk to considers themselves addicted or a religious zealot.

What I think you mean is you desire a catch all term to talk to the different religious people on the forum. Which is fine but I think it needs to catch all, including the atheists.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Wootah]

This has the appearance of silly word games and not actual debate. You are comparing two different concepts using separate definitions to make false equivocations.


Religion
1 the belief in a god or in a group of gods

2 an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

3 an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

Notice the third and red definition is not the same as the first or second. It is not the same kind of religion yet you are comparing the two as if they are the same.

gods

1
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3
: a person or thing of supreme value
4
: a powerful ruler


again the third definition is not the same as the first two definitions.


You can't compare the two as they are not talking about the same thing.

This is a word game and is hardly related to the Original topic. Sounds like its time to start a new thread to discuss this without further derailing this topic.

[Zzyzx]

.

Why do religionists so frequently attempt to identify non-religion as a religion?

As a Christian I am not aware of any religious practise I have to do.

Did you read "have to do" in my post? "Frequently attempt" does not mean the same thing.

Is it a sign of insecurity in their own beliefs that requires that they think that everyone believes in "gods?" Do they think that others consider them foolish for believing in invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities -- and try to justify that by claiming "everybody does it?"

No I think it is a natural application of wisdom.

Wisdom?

As Danmark so well said, "Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel." That sums it up nicely and simply enough for all to understand.

Do you believe in any metaphysical concepts? If so which ones and do you feel foolish to admit it?

I leave philosophy to those who fancy themselves philosophers (and the few who actually qualify).

It is a bit embarrassing to admit that I once thought Santa Clause and Gods were real; however, it was almost seventy years ago that I learned better.

Perhaps it is appropriate to equate religions' gods to money, entertainment, employment (or whatever religionists identify as the "gods" of others). That would indicate the god is rather mundane and conveniently exchanged for other pursuits (then called "gods" also).

Well in fairness, they are commonly called gods in the Bible.

We are not bound by biblical use of terms or biblical definitions (at least I am not)

It just feels to me like you really don't like religious labels.

I don't like labels in general – or the pigeon holes that they denote. I do not conform to expectations associated.

I think that if one spends their time pursuing money that they can be said to worship money.

If one wishes to use the same terminology regarding money as they use regarding their chosen "God", I have no objection (though I think it silly and demeaning of religious worship), so help yourself.

Religion was never meant to apply to only those who believe in a god of some kind but to anyone who uses habitual practises to worship their god.

There is a current thread regarding what religion was "designed to accomplish."

Otherwise we will simply have to map a secular word and religious word and when we talk I'll use the secular word that you prefer. Then overtime you will possibly not like that word any more and pick another and then we have to do another mapping so that we can communicate.

I tend to prefer definitions in common use in the real world applied consistently. If "god" is defined as money one time and as a supernatural entity the next time, that does not lead to effective communication – nor does a day meaning 24 hours in common use but 1000 years in religion (as needed), or Non-belief being defined as a religion . . .

[bluethread]

[Replying to bluethread]


Hmmm it seems a fair list would be to long as each verse should be given its context. So I will just start with a passage and we can debate that and move on to another passage after it. I will start with 1 Corinthians 11: 1-15

1 Corinthians 11 American Standard Version (ASV)

11 Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.

2 Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.

5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.

6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.

7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man:

9 for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man:

10 for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.

11 Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God.

13 Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Really the whole thing is just demeaning to women. Showing an obvious misogynistic underpinnings for what position in society women should serve. I don't understand how this is even defensible but I'll see what you have to say on the matter.

So, we begin at the crux of the difference between the egalitarian and the traditionalist. Both are idealistic positions, if they do not acknowledge pragmatism. Though you appear to see Paul as making a demeaning traditional argument, I think that he is making a pragmatic argument acknowledging the nature of things, ie social structure, and the equality of both sexes before Adonai. Though the former is the primary focus of this passage, the later is acknowledged in verses 11 & 12.

At this point, I would like to point out the difference between differentiating and demeaning. Differentiation involves acknowledging the existence of a difference and demeaning involves degrading someone. Do you agree? If so we can proceed. If not, we will have to discuss this issue.

Let's follow the argument. Paul is calling for adherence to rabbinics subject to HaTorah in verses 1 & 2. Then in verses 3 through 10, he makes the argument for the rabbinic symbolism of public prayer and uses HaTorah to justify that symbolism. Now, this is indeed not egalitarian, but it is not a symbol of egalitarianism, but of HaTorah. This is therefore no more demeaning to women than is the requirement that the Oracle of Dephi be a woman was demeaning to the men of ancient Greece. It is just a matter of the proper presentation of the symbolism.

That is the point he is making in verses 11 and 12. It is not a matter of degrading women, who are of equal value to Adonai, but a matter of the proper symbolism of the Torah narrative.

Then in verses 12 through 15, he refers to a similar symbolism with regard to hair length. However, here he makes the inverse argument. So, if it is demeaning for women to not be permitted to pray publicly with out their head covered, it would also be demeaning for men to not be permitted to wear their hair as women do. Thus the purpose is not to degrade one sex as compared to the other, but to differentiate for the purpose of proper symbolism.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 45 by bluethread]

Ok, if he is just being pragmatic for his time, then you agree that the treatment of women in that time period is inherently demeaning, correct?

-all the best

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 45 by bluethread]

At this point, I would like to point out the difference between differentiating and demeaning. Differentiation involves acknowledging the existence of a difference and demeaning involves degrading someone

Yes I agree men and women biologically are not the same all I have to do is look between my legs to see that. Specifically though what are those differences this verse supposedly points out?

, ie social structure, and the equality of both sexes before Adonai.

Yes as I have said this is arbitrary and demeaning to women it has no basis in reason or logic.

What is the reason for this social structure why is it created this way that is what I am asking for. What justifies it?

This is therefore no more demeaning to women than is the requirement that the Oracle of Dephi be a woman was demeaning to the men of ancient Greece. It is just a matter of the proper presentation of the symbolism.

Although this is a different subject and there are some key differences I would like to point out. That would likely derail the conversation. So I will simply point out my conclusion that it is demeaning to men. So this doesn't really help your case. I find most religions generally demeaning as they are arbitrary for their social structures and are not based in reason or logic. In other words there is no justification for the differences found there in.

As far as egalitarianism and traditionalism goes I really don't care one way or the other I understand there are differences its why you generally don't see female linebackers in football. The point I am making is that in order to discriminate there has to be a justifiable reason to do so.

For example. we discriminate against pedophilia because of the psychological trauma it causes to the victims. Hence there is a justifiable reason to discriminate.
It is still discriminating and demeaning though it is just culturally acceptable discrimination.

The

1.God

2. Man

3. Woman

societal structure as presented in the bible is demeaning discriminating and degrading with no justifiable reason.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 45 by bluethread]

Ok, if he is just being pragmatic for his time, then you agree that the treatment of women in that time period is inherently demeaning, correct?

-all the best

No more than the treatment of men was demeaning, as Paul points out long hair is a glorious thing for a woman, but not for a man. We are talking about symbolic commemoration not oppression.