Judeo-Christian Doctrine is Sexist

[Skullymund]

[font=Times New Roman]Religion has been the greatest oppressor of women's rights throughout the history of man. Judeo-Christian doctrine preaches that women are second rate to men: "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14) The old testament was much more gruesome: "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)

There are so many things wrong with the bible, it is often difficult to know where to begin when refuting or criticizing it. The subjugation of women has been one of the greatest detracting forces on society. The best way to cure poverty is the empowerment and education of women, and for too long have the religions of the world preached the madness that woman are property to men, on the level of cattle. People such as Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris write about a future in which we can be free of the shackles of wish thinking, of a more humanistic world in which we derive morals not from ancient religious texts, but from a discussion of the human condition as it exists in reality, and how we can improve lives and reduce suffering.

Any sort of religion that preaches for the subjugation of women should be looked at not as sacred, but as barbaric, and at best written by the hands of man, not those of God. It is clear that any sort of faith that is so disgusted by a woman's vagina, and the sorts of things that relate to it, must be written not by a divine and loving creator, but by ignorant, iron-aged men.

Feel free to challenge my views.[/font]

[JehovahsWitness]

Did I just learn the Jehovah's Witnesses don't try to legislate their religious beliefs?

No we don't. We don't vote or take part in politics. No Jehovah's Witness is a politician or a political lobbyist. We don't take part in any social, military or political movements to change laws.

We do exercise our rights under existing laws to protect ourselves and our freedom to choose what we do with our bodies and we do not keep silent when our members are imprisoned, persecuted or oppressed, but if a government want to legalize marrying your goat Jehovah's Witnesses will not try and oppose them (unless it is made compulsory and then we will simply exercise what we believe is our divine right to refrain from an action which compromises our Christian consciences).

JW

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 1 by Skullymund]

Sure seems that way, but that's by today's standards (as well as each of our society's standards). But why should we be surprised when the bible was mostly written in a male-dominated society where everything centered around a small area of the world?
Seems rather accurate for the time & location all these things happened.
While society evolves, religion does too - albeit at a much slower pace sometimes. This happens to be one of those 'times'.

[JLB32168]

I don't really see the import of the question since practicing a Judaeo-Christian religion isn't compulsory and certainly women aren't being prohibited from speaking in church - at least not in mine.

[Skullymund]

Any sort of religion that preaches for the subjugation of women should be looked at not as sacred.

I would agree. Fortunately that is not the case in True Christianity.

subjugate:
To defeat and gain control of (someone or something) by the use of force

Jesus discouraged all use of physical violence and rather than force people to obey God he taught to simply present the truths he believed in and allow people to chose or not to submit to them.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

Excuse me, but that is in fact the case for not only "true Christianity," but for every strain of Judeo-Christian worship that has since sprung from the original texts, including and certainly not limited to: Judaism, Catholicism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Here is a citation directly from the Jehovah's Witnesses website homepage: "Women and Submission: Jehovah's Witnesses are a patriarchal society where women are to view men as their head and only men can hold positions of responsibility and teaching in the congregation. The head of a wife is her husband, and the spiritual head of a "sister" is a "brother". A female Witness is not to pray in front of a male Witness and must wear a head covering in order to pray in front of an unbaptised man or conduct a meeting in front of other sisters. This is one of the more unusual Watchtower practices, particularly as the covering of choice is often a tea towel or paper napkin. A 1930 Golden Age even claimed they may turn into men in the New System."

Well isn't that something, Jehovah's Witnesses seem to think that women not only should be submissive to their men, but should become men in the afterlife. Does your faith stand in favor of or against same sex marriage? No need to answer, your faiths position, like that of most modern religions, is against the loving union of any same sex couple.

Now take a good read of this, a direct passage from The Watchtower, the JW's scripture to accompany the new testament:
Watchtower 2011 May 15 pp.8-10
" “Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord,� wrote the apostle Paul. (Eph. 5:22) This statement in no way suggests an undignified position. Rather than manifesting the attitude of disobedience and independence that characterizes the world, she is in submission to her mate. (Eph. 2:2) A wife who is foolish does not hesitate to speak unfavorably of her husband, whereas a wise woman works to increase the respect that her children and others have for him. Such a wife is careful not to undermine her husband’s headship by nagging him or arguing with him."

Clearly it cannot be argued that this is not a direct command for the inferiority of women to men, saying no women should hold authority over men. This interests me, because it is my view that women are of equal standing to men, and that religion is a great vehicle of oppressing women's rights.

How interesting it is, too, that some would argue that the good parts of the Bible outweigh the bad, that it is not an evil doctrine. This will be the topic of my next debate, for those of you interested in preparing an argument against me.

To reiterate my original stance, it is of my opinion, based on the evidence sighted above, that all religious doctrine springing from the Judeo-Christian texts is sexist, and on that ground, therefore immoral to teach.

One last note on how condescending in tone it was to say that your view of Christianity is the 'true Christianity. " I think any Mormon, Catholic, or Christian not subscribing to Jehovah's Watchtower would say otherwise.

Thank you.

[Bust Nak]

I agree, that was the point of my original post, nobody should be forced to do what they don't want to do, especially over what is done to their own body.

But you are not willing to go as far as to condemn teaching that asks women to take a submissive role? Okay, I guess that much is a matter of opinion, but let see if you are willing to accept that it is sexist?

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I know we have had to fight long and hard for the right to refuse blood transfusions and we still hear horror stories of women being tied down and forcably transfused against their will.

But not men being tied down and forced?

[bluethread]

"Sexism" is an egalitarian pejorative. As Joey points out, this can be applied to any difference in expected behaviors. Last time I checked, every woman I know expects men to lift the toilet seat when they are urinating and lower it again when they are done. Isn't that sexist? There is no such thing as a truly egalitarian society. Every society has different rules for different groups of people. Also, in every society there are individuals in a particular group that do not like the rules that apply to that group. Labeling a general rule as "sexist" is just a way of legitimizing the isolation of a general rule one doesn't like from the ones one does like.

[KenRU]

"Sexism" is an egalitarian pejorative. As Joey points out, this can be applied to any difference in expected behaviors. Last time I checked, every woman I know expects men to lift the toilet seat when they are urinating and lower it again when they are done. Isn't that sexist? There is no such thing as a truly egalitarian society. Every society has different rules for different groups of people. Also, in every society there are individuals in a particular group that do not like the rules that apply to that group. Labeling a general rule as "sexist" is just a way of legitimizing the isolation of a general rule one doesn't like from the ones one does like.

Even if you are 100% right (which I don't believe), that doesn't make the label of sexist untrue, nor does it mean it shouldn't be something we should try to avoid.

Why is the concept of treating everyone fairly (which can't happen when one is sexist) a bad thing? Even if it isn't 100% attainable, that doesn't mean it is a goal not worth striving for. So even if what you say is true, why should the enemy of perfect be good? So why shouldn't society strive to be more egalitarian? Why is that bad?

Lifting the toilet seat is one (peripheral) way of finding sexism, but saying the chain of command is as follows: God, Man then Woman is massively another.

-all the best

[bluethread]

"Sexism" is an egalitarian pejorative. As Joey points out, this can be applied to any difference in expected behaviors. Last time I checked, every woman I know expects men to lift the toilet seat when they are urinating and lower it again when they are done. Isn't that sexist? There is no such thing as a truly egalitarian society. Every society has different rules for different groups of people. Also, in every society there are individuals in a particular group that do not like the rules that apply to that group. Labeling a general rule as "sexist" is just a way of legitimizing the isolation of a general rule one doesn't like from the ones one does like.

Even if you are 100% right (which I don't believe), that doesn't make the label of sexist untrue, nor does it mean it shouldn't be something we should try to avoid.

Why is the concept of treating everyone fairly (which can't happen when one is sexist) a bad thing? Even if it isn't 100% attainable, that doesn't mean it is a goal not worth striving for. So even if what you say is true, why should the enemy of perfect be good? So why shouldn't society strive to be more egalitarian? Why is that bad?

Truth is not the issue. The issue is the fact that it is an ill defined self-serving term. As often happens in these cases, you have reframed the question as one of fairness and not equality. Fairness implies justice and equality is not just because not all things are equal. If one fudges and says that egalitarians do not require equality, but equity, that is getting closer. However, equity is a valuation standard and is subject to how something is valued. Therefore, in order to evaluate whether a given system is indeed just, one must determine the standard of valuation. Are we talking about what is acceptable to the recipient, society as a whole, or some other standard of equity?

Lifting the toilet seat is one (peripheral) way of finding sexism, but saying the chain of command is as follows: God, Man then Woman is massively another.

So, are you saying that they are both sexist, or that one is sexist and one is not?

[Skullymund]

"Sexism" is an egalitarian pejorative. As Joey points out, this can be applied to any difference in expected behaviors. Last time I checked, every woman I know expects men to lift the toilet seat when they are urinating and lower it again when they are done. Isn't that sexist? There is no such thing as a truly egalitarian society. Every society has different rules for different groups of people. Also, in every society there are individuals in a particular group that do not like the rules that apply to that group. Labeling a general rule as "sexist" is just a way of legitimizing the isolation of a general rule one doesn't like from the ones one does like.

Even if you are 100% right (which I don't believe), that doesn't make the label of sexist untrue, nor does it mean it shouldn't be something we should try to avoid.

Why is the concept of treating everyone fairly (which can't happen when one is sexist) a bad thing? Even if it isn't 100% attainable, that doesn't mean it is a goal not worth striving for. So even if what you say is true, why should the enemy of perfect be good? So why shouldn't society strive to be more egalitarian? Why is that bad?

Truth is not the issue. The issue is the fact that it is an ill defined self-serving term. As often happens in these cases, you have reframed the question as one of fairness and not equality. Fairness implies justice and equality is not just because not all things are equal. If one fudges and says that egalitarians do not require equality, but equity, that is getting closer. However, equity is a valuation standard and is subject to how something is valued. Therefore, in order to evaluate whether a given system is indeed just, one must determine the standard of valuation. Are we talking about what is acceptable to the recipient, society as a whole, or some other standard of equity?

Lifting the toilet seat is one (peripheral) way of finding sexism, but saying the chain of command is as follows: God, Man then Woman is massively another.

So, are you saying that they are both sexist, or that one is sexist and one is not?

Excuse me, perhaps it would have been better to say that Judeo-Christian Doctrine is Misogynistic. Nobody has addressed the fact that the old Testament condones rape, and that the new Testament explicitly states that women are to serve men.


My position is simple: Those ancient texts, written by ancient men, are not equal in their treatment of men and women, such as saying a women may hold no position of responsibility over a man, or that she cannot teach. In the Old Testament women are treated like cattle. This is misogyny, and this is sexist.

[Yahu]

[font=Times New Roman]Religion has been the greatest oppressor of women's rights throughout the history of man. Judeo-Christian doctrine preaches that women are second rate to men: "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14) The old testament was much more gruesome: "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)

There are so many things wrong with the bible, it is often difficult to know where to begin when refuting or criticizing it. The subjugation of women has been one of the greatest detracting forces on society. The best way to cure poverty is the empowerment and education of women, and for too long have the religions of the world preached the madness that woman are property to men, on the level of cattle. People such as Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris write about a future in which we can be free of the shackles of wish thinking, of a more humanistic world in which we derive morals not from ancient religious texts, but from a discussion of the human condition as it exists in reality, and how we can improve lives and reduce suffering.

Any sort of religion that preaches for the subjugation of women should be looked at not as sacred, but as barbaric, and at best written by the hands of man, not those of God. It is clear that any sort of faith that is so disgusted by a woman's vagina, and the sorts of things that relate to it, must be written not by a divine and loving creator, but by ignorant, iron-aged men.

Feel free to challenge my views.[/font]

You just don't get it. I guess you were never in the military. You don't have co-commanders in the military. There has to be a clear chain of command or you end up with constant conflict. You can't have two people equal in authority when they can each have an opposite position. Someone MUST yield to the other.

You seem to think the biblical position is one of ownership or master/slave relationship. That isn't it at all. A wife is to submit to her husband BUT a husband has to make his decisions based on his love for his wife. No, it doesn't work if a man is just being a dictator over a woman. If a woman dishonors her husband or usurps his authority, how can he love her? That won't work either.

A biblical marriage ONLY works if both parties follow their proper roles.

I was teaching my fiance what I expected in marriage during our courtship. She explained it to a bunch of the other girls. One of the girls was married and was constantly fighting with her husband. She decided to try out the way we set up our marriage. She told her husband he got to make all the decisions BUT he had to make them based on his love for her. They stopped fighting and had a much better marriage. They named their next son after me.