BS: religious fundamentalists and women

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 11:25 AM

Amos, this is wrong thinking-- far beyond semantics. They have that power inherently, along with free will, and all that jazz!

Hardwired.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 10:19 AM

I think you are to be commended for instilling the power of free thought into your parishioners.


A

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 08:22 AM

Donuel, I don't know folks of those traditions well enough myself to agree, exactly, but I can tell you this-- I am very grateful that the Anglican tradition I found my way into some years ago is based on a "three-legged stool" of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. The legs are considered equal, and it's really wonderful how keeping the three in balance (of equal length and strength) in one's personal and corporate spiritual life tends to push one to places one might otherwise never go.

These days, I lead a seminar group using special discussion tools to explore those three legs separately and together; we also
explore how these four areas affect all aspects of our lives and beliefs: Culture, Tradition & Scripture; Action, and Personal Position. This has opened new windows for members of our group, several of whom were raised in strict denominations not encouraging lots of thinking among the membership!

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 07:05 AM

Susan
Hope springs eternal.

Every manipulative technique or religious decree was initially thought up to be used for a positive purpose.

The work of public relations pioneer Bernaise eventually found its way to the library of Goebbles.

The work of the bible is usurped by all sorts of sects, Islam included.

I watched the movie Baraka in which images of Muslim women are showing devotion to their faith by kissing and worshipping the padlock that keeps them locked out of the part of mosque where the men worship. It really summed up how self subjugation keeps people from having to think.

Whether it is the lock step of media telling people what to think about war and the corporate need for freedom, or the Babtist council decree that all women must obey their husband...it is not really telling people what to think but rather teaching people there is no need to think.

Don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: wysiwyg
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 03:27 PM

Mrr, I believe you are. :~)

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 01:56 PM

I once worked with a young woman who was regularly slapped around by her husband. We, her co-workers, assured her that she didn't have to put up with that kind of thing. So she left him and soon started dating another man. In due time he slapped her around.

The longer I live, the less I understand.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 01:39 PM

I'm not a fundamentalist, but I *am* an evangelical atheist.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 01:33 PM

Ebbie -

I'm not meaning to say that that kind of behaviour - either the woman or the men, is "typical" in any way of those who consider themselves fundamentalists. It is only that certain persons, who "require" a rigid moral, mental, and social structure do have a tendency to seek out and associate themselves with groups where that structure exists, hence they are more likley to be found there than in the general population or in other kinds of associations.

Without regard to what group they come from, many "abusers" can be quite pleasant in more casual social contact, and it's difficult to believe that anyone would marry someone they knew would act this way. "Not the one I married" is a common complaint - even for non-abused marrieds. "He (rarely she) changed after we got married" is a very common complaint - I'm told - in abuse counselling. The woman in question obviously applied additional selection criteria. She just found a "mother lode" of the personality type(s) that suited her among fundamentalists of the kind in my area.

John

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 10:47 PM

Oh, JohninKansas, I have a LOT of trouble with your conclusions regarding fundamentalist people. I have known many, many of them- until I was 18 or older, I probably didn't even meet any men that were NOT fundamentalist. And I have NEVER met ANY that behaved in the fashion that you describe and accept as normal for them.

The fundamentalists I have known and know now are moral people, most are decent people, most value their women as essential in the home and venerate them as such. Any instance of something as extreme as you describe would not ever be accepted or condoned.

Extreme control issues such as those you list above are aberrations in any society.

This young woman you cite, in my opinion cannot be used as representative of any healthy person. Assuming she did not marry before the age of 15, she has had 8 marriages in 20 years. In my estimation, she is sick; she is not simply making bad choices.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 12:59 AM

Jaysus.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 12:36 AM

So now that Ratzinger is the new Pope, I guess we can add Catholic women to the list of oppressed women. In this case, your last sentence seems to fit the heirarichal, facist Catholic church as well, John.

"Rigid control" is what attracts them to the belief, and they feel justified in being "rigidly controlling."

So much for liberty!

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 19 Apr 05 - 11:49 PM

Uncle DaveO

The scary part of it is: She apparently LIKES Fundamentalists. She's a little over the edge, but numerous examples I know less about indicate that the dictatorial controlling attitude of her choices of husbands is fairly common among men of Fundamentalist belief. I don't think it's one of the "doctrines" of the belief; but the rigid pseudo-morality of those in the Fundamentalist "faiths" attracts men of this kind.

brucie -

If all she wanted was more sex, there are plenty of "decent(?)" men out and about looking for it; and quit a few of them would be (or would have been) willing to marry her and would have been unlikely to be abusive. Several that I know have attempted to approach her during her brief "available" periods, and at least one that I know fairly well claims to have "begged her to get better acquainted" and was repeatedly rebuffed. This one claimed to have told her "if you don't want to go out with me, let's get married and go home." I believe he was serious. He's no particular prize, and probably has serious drinking problems (apparently one of her other "requirements"); but has kept trying for several years with no success. She'll be 35 in a few months, so maybe her life will turn around(?).

Since her multiple marriages have produced only a couple of children, it's doubtful that much sex was really a part of any of her marriages.

Although her case is exceptional, the point relative to fundamentalists and women is that the treatment she received repeatedly is apparently common among fundamentalist men. In "domestic abuse" reports in the local newspapers, and in cases discussed in the occasional "abuse information" articles, cases in which severely restricting the woman's activities and contacts are reported nearly always cite fundamentalist belief and practice by the husband. (Biblical justification for physical abuse is also common in these cases.) "Rigid control" is what attracts them to the belief, and they feel justified in being "rigidly controlling."

John

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: Peace
Date: 19 Apr 05 - 10:33 PM

Maybe she likes to get laid but carries so much guilt with her about sex outside marriage that seh's gotta keep gettin' hitched.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 19 Apr 05 - 06:37 PM

Wow, John, that lady has mental or emotional problems, in my opinion, to keep marrying that kind of guy. It could happen by chance or inexperience once, maybe twice--PERHAPS even three times, but eight?
She clearly doesn't learn very well.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 19 Apr 05 - 01:17 PM

DaveO

Good point. I only meant to give an example of "casual comment" of the sort heard frequently here that just assumes "every one knows that women are imperfect." It was quite obvious the preacher had no idea what he'd said. There was no visible reaction from the congregation, so they probably missed it, or agree with it.

Since he was expounding that there would be "no need for sex" in heaven, I suppose it might make little difference whether the "perfect male" had the ability to procreate...

One unfortunate young lady of my acquaintance, raised as a Catholic, has just exited here 8th marriage. So far as I can tell, each of her former spouses qualified to be call "fundamentalist." I had little chance to know her situation in one of the 4 instances since I've known her, but in the other three she has indicated that she was:

1. Ordered not to talk to certain (most) of her former friends.
2. Ordered not to admit visitors of any kind while he was away from the home.
3. Ordered not to leave the home except when he accompanied her.
4. At least one of them locked her in the house when he went to work, and had installed double-cylinder locks on all the doors so she could not leave. Accessible windows were nailed shut from the outside.
5. At least one of them removed the cord from the only phone and took it to work with him so she could not make telephone calls in his absence.
6. She showed visible signs of physical beatings by at least two of them.
7. With at least one, the only time she was permitted to leave the house was when he took her to a bar to drive him home when he got drunk. Her older sister did assert in my presence once that "one of her ex-husbands wasn't an alcoholic."

The rest of her family seemed quite rational. Probably just a youthful rebellion against parental authority...

I would agree with Wolfgang's observation that one who asserts the "literal interpretation of scripture" should be called a "literalist." Those in my area who call themselves fundamentalists go a step further by asserting that all people should be required, by law, to observe their "literal" interpretations of their selected parts of their scripture. They are very dangerous, especially in the current US political climate.

John

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Apr 05 - 07:22 AM

'Fundamentalists' is not a good term as John Hardly's post has shown. 'Literalists' has been used recently to replace it. It is the problem of all religions with written sources that the role of women described is a very traditional one not fitting at all today's reality.

Literalists taking each line of scriptures as god's word have diffculties adapting to a modern society. Mulier taceat in ecclesia read by a literalist leads to a males only priesthood. Women as witnesses being counted only half of men (except if the men in questiona re unbelievers) when read and interpreted by literalists leads to the restriction of the role of women.

Adaptationists, on the other hand, accept a changing society, changing needs, and changing roles and only explain the new reality to the believers in the terms acceptable in their religion. On the Christian side, they'd look at how Jesus is reported to have treated and related to women.

I think it would be very interesting and could be done to look for differential treatment of women by different religions and to try to explain differences in crimes rates by looking at the teachings of the religions and the reported practices of the founders.

I'm not at all surprised by a higher murder rate of females in Muslim families quoted above and I'd be very surprised if the sex abuse by clergy in Muslim societies would be anywhere close to the percentage reported for Catholics.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: mandoleer
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 07:12 PM

I would consider a believer in any god/goddess to be fundamentalist if they denied the right of others to differ. Which fundamentalists rather tend to. If they accept the right of others to have their own beliefs, then they are usually not fundamentalist. By the way, nice one, frogprince!

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 06:50 PM

JohninKansas said:

Approximately 2 minutes (or less) later, he delivered "Of course all of the angels named in the Old Testament were male." (that's perfect?)

There was a strong tradition in early Christianity that angels were not women, not "whole" men, but eunuchs!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 09:35 PM

Gets kinda tricky, eh?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 08:28 PM

Just wondering...

Would a radical feminist be considered a religious fundamentalist if she believed in the Goddess?

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 08:17 PM

Most women will no longer allow men to define their role in society. For some women, that has been a path to success: for others it is not so safe.

In any case, Fundamentalists will no longer be able to define the role of all women. On the other hand, liberation has meant that women now have twice the amount of work they once had. It will be up to men and women together to define a new place for women in tomorrow's society.

Fundamentalist dictates are just another form of servitude and enslavement. Women have the same right to choice as men do. We all have free will.

Rapaire - Thanks for the codex link.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 07:31 PM

"fundamentalism is an abdication of the prime power of mankind - the power of thought."- Mandoleer

And, for those who believe in God, abdicating the power of thought which "He" gave us should be considered a sacrilege.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: mandoleer
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 04:25 PM

To Mick - Christians believe in miracles. OK. Pagans quite often believe in magic. Same effect very often. What gets me is when someone's hairline escape is hailed as a miracle, but the hairline chance that sent someone over the cliff edge isn't. As to fundamentalist pagans, new recruits in any faith are often a pain... The emphasis in certain Islamic communities on covering females up suggests to me that the males in those parts have a certain lack of control - or the mullahs or whatever think they have. I don't have much time for priests of any sort, but if females are excluded from the chance of becoming priests or taking a normal part in society, I've got no time for that sort of religion. And find it hard to understand why any woman would willingly adopt it or stay in it. Yes, in Saudi it's a bit hard for a female to escape from it, and even in the UK there are still problems for girls from Islamic communities who want to go out with native boys. (Native applies to people of any type who are born of families that are not of recently immigrant origins. I am a native in the UK - a Ghanaian villager is a native in Ghana.) Men and women are different (thank the gods!) but some men are different from other men anyway. A skinny 7 stone lad isn't going to win the World Heavyweight Boxing championship. And Cassius Clay wouldn't have done very well as a National Hunt jockey. But there should be equality of opportunity for people to achieve something in life. And forcing people to wear veils and stay at home isn't giving those people a chance. And apart from all this, fundamentalism is an abdication of the prime power of mankind - the power of thought. It is a giving over to long-dead and often unknown persons the right to control your beliefs without having to think these things out for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: hesperis
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 01:38 PM

I think that there is a trap in liberation, because of the structure of oppression that is already set up before liberation happens. Women are protected by men because they are desired by men as objects. If we were desired by men as people rather than objects there would be no need for protection either way.

In most of our written history, women were not considered to be human, they were considered to be objects either of sex or of procreation.

True liberation comes only when you are treated as a human, a thinking, feeling being. When you leave the trap of being protected and objectified by one man against other men who would treat you as objects, there is a new trap. Only by avoiding the trap of making yourself and others into objects can you go on towards true freedom as a human being.

I think we all wish for this freedom. In too many areas of the world, women are forbidden this freedom because of religious doctrines that bear no relation to reality. Men are also forbidden this freedom because when women are not free neither are men. Men appear to have freedom, and in some ways they do have more freedom than women, but in truth they are forced to be objects of protection/oppression, which limits their humanity as well.

And that is the trap of feminism that denies men. We forget the wound that this structure gives to men as well and seek to reject men instead of healing the whole human race. It is only as humans that we will all be free. But it is not by denying others that we become human.

When any religion discourages thought, that religion is sick. "I think, therefore I am."

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 07:55 PM

that Codex looks fascinating Rapaire - i'm keeping my eye on it!

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 05:55 PM

I'd love to see a crucifix where Jesus wasn't of the Arian Race...

Okay, go to www.altavista.com, click on "Images" and put in "black Jesus." Lots of such, including some that are hundreds of years old.

There is growing evidence that the "Apostle Jesus Loved" wasn't John, but Mary of Magdala, who was given a very raw deal by Simon Peter.

Also, follow this project. The Codex dates from the 6th century, and should provide fuel for the "What Did Yeshua Really Say And What Was Added Later?" debate.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 02:39 PM

I didn't think you meant that. But I did think that the contents of the link about the light festival showed some of that dichotomy of thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 02:29 PM

I got the sense in reading parts of what was in your links, that "liberation" for women means having the freedom to be a sex object."

not for me it doesnt, and no such intention was meant.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 02:04 PM

I read them. Well, I read parts and skimmed other parts. What I wrote was what I was moved to write after having done this.

I think what was going on for me after reading/skimming them was that there is such a fine line to be walked when it comes to talking about what is good for us as women in a world that is mostly dominated by men, and the agendas that result. It is partly about fundamentlists, but also about the ways in which we resist the agendas of the religious fundamentalists. There is a delicate balance, I think, that needs to be found, but we are so far from finding that balance.

On the one hand, there is a problem of women being viewed primarily as sex objects. And on the other hand there is the problem of women being veiwed as primarily for the purpose of propagation of the species. And also the problem of women being viewed as chattel, and as servants/slaves. All of these things happen for some women in all societies.

The religious fundamentalists seem to promote agendas that keep women pure and at home making babies. The backlash against this seems to result in women moving further in the direction of being sex objects. I got the sense in reading parts of what was in your links, that "liberation" for women means having the freedom to be a sex object.

So I was thinking about women whose role in society has been officially recognized as sex objects... legal sex workers in The Netherlands. They don't seem very liberated. They are experiencing a form of exploitation, not by their husbands, but by large numbers of strangers.

And this line of thought got me thinking about how to find a balance between giving in to the patriarchal domination that women often experience in fundamentalist religions, and defining how we fight that domination by increasing our experience of being treated as sex objects. I think we need to find a third way that liberates us from both of these restrictive influences, although I won't try to suggest that I know what that third way might be.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 07:24 AM

well, I guess I have to balance these comments by acknowledging that anyone in a position of power can abuse it, not just religious people, and that I value the genuine religious commitment of some people, and the great service they do. Don't know why this particular theme has got my goat lately (no, not YOUR goat, brucie & LH), but it has.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 07:13 AM

I started this thread in a light hearted way, but from the responses it doesnt seem like anyone has read the links posted. The second article linked points out that religious fundamentalists like Feiz Muhammad say that women would be safer covered up and in the home. It comments: "a British study of family violence (reported by Geraldine Brooks in her book about Islamic women, Nine Parts of Desire) found that women married to men of Muslim background were eight times more likely to be killed by their husbands than any other women in Britain."

In the same way, women from Christian families are not necessarily protected from abuse, though of a different kind. sex abuse by clergy To be fair, the same site has links to information about sexual abuse happening in other professions.

yes, there are some nutty people out there. Unfortunately, when they assert their ideas through religious power, they have influence over a lot of lives.

The point for me in this thread is to continue a point I tried to make in a previous thread that no matter what someone's religion or culture, they are still accountable to the law, and should be challenged when propagating offensive and dangerous views.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: wysiwyg
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 11:47 PM

Every religion has extremes and everything in between. Sociologically there is a place for each point in the continuum-- an ecology of viewpoints in delicate and discomfiting balance, and the mixed blessing of diversity.

If you pull back a little and look at the big picture, even the most conservative have a role to play in keeping certain traditions alive for the succeeding generations. Heck, we even have folkie fundies-- don't we call 'em purists? Keep some traditions, throw out others. In music we call it the folk process. Societies have a process of weeding out and planting new traditions, too. One hopes to contribute to decreasing ugliness and increasing loveliness.

Because even tho there is a place for each point in the continuum, as a species we tend toward improvement... so the exact location of each extreme tends to move, over time, toward the positive, all things considered. Change is all part of the scheme of things, and upward trends are our collective responsibility.

But the whole picture of the human race has room for even the extremes-- or we wouldn't have 'em.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: frogprince
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 10:48 PM

Not to negate your points, John, but fundamentalists Christians in the U.S. chose the term for themselves, largely in the 1920's to start with. There was a movement to defend several "fundamental" doctrines from liberal, allegedly apostate, theology. At one time I could have given the full list, including original sin, virgin birth, and substitutionary atonement. In practice today, I think the one critical distinctive of avowed fundamentalists is the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible; they say there can be no authentic Christianity apart from this position, which many of us find indefencible(sp.) for a myriad of reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 08:01 PM

But isn't that the more tortured of possible ways of looking at it? I mean, it totally forfeits meaning and not at a small price. It's not that "fundamentalists" believe in the fundamentals of their faith that is the problem, is it? Isn't it the fundamentals themselves?

To define otherwise implies the inability for any religious group to believe in their fundamentals (without being impugned), right?

The "fundamentalist" tag is just a shortcut. It's become a perjorative term meaning "extreme", NOT "fundamental". And the perpetuation of this misnomer leads one to believe that it is somehow wrong to believe in the fundamentals of one's faith.

And that, in turn, makes it easier to discount the opinions of the religious in the public square -- they are merely "fundamentalist".

Essentially, thus, the religious right (for example) gets convicted of the crimes of the muslim extremist because the crime is "fundamentalism". That is weak logic.

We would hardly similarly discount the fundamentals of Ghandi's or Martin Luther King's faith, would we? Yet they acted out of religious purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 07:10 PM

John:

Middle-of-the-road Christians seek to apply general principles articulated in their scriptures against a background of right action, action which somehow forwards the good of those around them.

Fundamentalists in the sense used here believe in literally applying ANY doctrine in their scriptures even if to do so requires the most heinous rationalization or complex justifiers. The difference lies in whether or not they are willing to use rationality rather than blind, authoritarian dramatization of assorted edicts, out of context and out of proportion.

A

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 06:30 PM

"very fundamental"?

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 06:23 PM

very fundamental religions seem to have lots of things that are, for various reasons, forbiddden, and being forbidden and/or hidden has always whetted the appetite--especially when access to women is concerned. Men who deal with interpreting religion for others may very well get caught up in dithering and rationalizing THEIR role and learn to excuse in themselves what they condemn in others. (remember the Branch Davidians and Jim Bakker and others?)

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: Apache
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 06:15 PM

I hate some parts of the Christian Doctorine. The entirity of the Jesus story contradicts what it is to be a God. Reproduction is a means of continuing the family line, it's one way of reminding us that we are mortal, Deities don't need to reproduce, doing so would be pointless and contradict their infalibility. The phrase Son Of God implies reproduction rather than creation.

Also jesus supposedly lived his life on Earth as a Man, as a Human. Humans cannot claim to be deities, Jesus KNEW he was a Deity and supposedly prooved it on many occasions. That is not the work of a man. He didn't live as Man On Earth, he lived as God Incarnate on Earth, which is totally different. No wonder they missed out his teenage years, could you imagine a kid going through pubertywith deitific powers? This is the major point of my distrust of the Christian Faith, the fact that Jesus was not a Man but a God Incarnate, it spoils the whole point of coming down here in the first place. Also "Thou shalt not worship false idols." this is a fairly imprtant rule in Christianity however Jesus is still worshipped. He was supposed to be a Man, a Human, surely worshipping a Human as a Deity would be classed as a false idol.

If God really did exist then TV Evangelists wouldn't!!! Its either/or, you can't have both.

I'd love to see a crucifix where Jesus wasn't of the Arian Race, he was an Arab, not White. This blatent show of racism by the church is a disgrace and a mockery of all the religion stands for.

The Pope led a thing through Africa spreading the word of Iam, converting all the townsfolk to Catholosism, telling them not to use contraception and to love thy naighbour. AIDS and HIV trebled in the next few years and as more poeple were converted the AIDS and HIV grew and grew. I couldn't believe it when I heard that the Pope was publicly telling people in Africa to have non-protected sex (only with a marrital spouse of course.) Talk about blind Faith.

Belfast annoys me, Catholics vs. Protestants. "You worship God!", "Yeah, well so do you!", "I'm gonna kill you!", "Not if I kill you first!". They all worship the same God for crying out loud, if anyone asks what religion you are, say Christian. Catholosism and Protestant are NOT religions, the are denominations of the same religion.

The one thing many Christians forget is that Jesus was infact a Jew. The blatent religious discrediting of anyone outside the Christian Faith should be reviewed as to this point. The one person that saved the Christian Faith was a Jew. I'd be congratulating then, not slandering them.

Christians believe in Monotheism, however God himself (through a prophet of course) said "I am a vengful and jealous God" Why would he say that if he was the only one? What/Who is he jealous of and why? Why did he say "a" instead of "the". All leads to there being more than one Deity.

The Roman Catholic Church is the largest comany in the world and also the richest, far surpassing Microsoft. With more employees and affilates than any other commercial company. Because that's what it is, it's a commerical company, even more than that, it's a franchise buisness. They control how each new version of the bible is written to tailor for new trends and language. It is in their interest to keep people believing.

Fundamental Christians who take the bible literally really really annoy me. Translation, local colloquialisms, cinematics, over enthusiasm, the writers own take on what went on, writing from memory, slang, poor handwriting, spelling mistakes and church interferance and re-writing through 2000 years all lead to the fact that the bible cannot be taken literally. The old letter P looked much like an F, so five loaves and 7 fish could have been five loave and seven pish. Pish was a kind of unleavened bread that was extremely filling and very long lasting. 5000 could have been an over emphasis or simply over estimation. Peoplewo tell stories always make them sound more dramatic and amazing than they actually were, why is the bible any different. The translation for the word 40 can also be miscintrued with the word "many". It rained for many days and many nights... There are loads of little thingsg like this.

People who say "It's God's Will what happens to me." Didn't he give you Free Will? Doesn't that mean it's upto you? The whole pont of you having Free Will means that it is not God's Will but your Will that comes into play. Blind Faith is Bad Faith. "Don't worry, God will save you!" No he bloody well will not!!! Has he saved anyone recently? Between Earthquakes, Wars, Tsunami's, AIDS, Terrorists (aka, non-christians who kill people or threaten to kill people or act suspicious or breathe) he hasn't really saved that many people, what should make me any different, why would he pick me out as someone to save? Save me from what anyway?

I odn't like people who presume that just becauseyou are Caucasion, living in an MEDC that you are Christian. "You'll go to hell for that you know!" my repply to this would be: "No, actually, Hell is a Christian depiction, I'm not Christian therefore I won't go to this Hell of yours, you may believe I have but I won't have because in my religion Hell doesn't exist, not as you know it anyway, I will go to my religion's "Hell"."

I am Agnostic, I would believe if there was proof, but I have seen nothing in my lfetime that would make me think it was anything to do with this great all seeing all knowing, alll powerful, kind, loving Deity. Aside from that there is no way of actually prooving it because to prove it would break the belief system. Do you believe in a table? No, you know it's there, you don't need to believe in it, it's right there in front of you, you know it exists. Religion works on the fact tat no-one really knows if it's real or not. Would you have the same respect and love and belief in God if he came round once a week for a coffee and a hob nob (with caramel)? You wouldn't need to believe because he'd be there, there would be no mytery.

Christianity claims to be the only religion and shuns every other or tries to convert them into the cult yet it is taken from so many different religions before it. As I said before in my previous post about Oestro and Odin. It's a shame copyright laws weren't in effect then because Christianity would have been stopped a long time ago.

"God" is far to much of a generic term, why didn't they name him? Every other reliegion named their Gods, why does Christianity have to be different. It'd be like one of us being called Human.

My main brunt with Christianity is against the Church and mainly the Catholic Church, not against the religion as a whole, the premise of the religion, love, peace, mercy, compassion, kindness, good will... that's fine. It's when the fat cats in the Vatican start dictating people lives through fear of devine retribution that I get annoyed. People telling you to do stuff because it says it in the bible or not to stuff because it's either not in there or says not to.

How many Fundamentalists drive to work, masturbate, drink alcohol, smoke, wear man made fibres, don't wash their guests feet, go online, own a mobile, get annoyed at cold callers, roleplay or even own a house with windows and don't pay window tax? All these things were either scorned or didn't appear in the bible, some because they didn't even exit when the bible was written. How can you live a 21st century life word for word from a 2000 year old book with half the pages missing?

I am quite double standardised though, I do not believe in Yahweh, however I am Agnostic, I am a Royalist, I support the Monarchy whole heartedly and I also pray. Moreover I ask questions to the wind and hope for an answer, usually questioning his existance and reaffirming that I would believe if I had proof, if I had a devine awakening.

I think the Pagan Path holds much more truth, Gaia is their "deity" as such but She isn't worshiped as a deity in the same way as Yahweh or Allah or Vishnu. She s Mother Nature, she is the trees, the wind, the forest fire, the aminals, te flowers, the birds. They are all representaions of her.

Christianity took this mythos and changed it a little, She became He, He became vengefull rather than passafistic (Vengful deities bring more followers, people feel safer under a Deity that will lash out.) Rather than being everything He became know as being IN everything. Things were created in His image rather than being representaions of the deity.

The pagan Goddess Oestro was the goddess of fertility, it's where we get the word "Oestrogen" from. Her harvest was in Spring to welcomethe turn of the year, the change of the season and new life. Christians took this and made Easter with the helpful event of Jesus' death. They stolethe festival from the Pagan's to keep them happy. Hence the Easter Eggs. Also Odin, high Deity of the religion Odinism and Norse mythos, he was tied to a tree arms out streched and stabed in the side and bled water (although he did also have his eye gouged out.) The tree was a tree of knowedge and he gained godly powers after this experience (after he died) and created the halls Of Valhalla.

Anyway, rant over, i hate doing that, it wriles me up.

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs though, just please don't force Christianity upon me.

If any Christians were offended by what was said then forgive me, that's what you do isn't it, forgive people.

Sorry for the rant, i'm a nice guy really.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: Big Mick
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 04:24 PM

It's only boring if you have a hard time understanding concepts and intellectual discussion. But I have great faith that even you, one day, might get it. I mean, I am a Christian so I believe in miracles.

Now, come on, Martin. I am waiting for you to make a crack about something on my body. I realize it is tough for you since Fr. Joebro decided to make you talk nice. Makes it awfully hard for you to hide your lack of depth.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: Once Famous
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 04:15 PM

This is such a boring thread.

Does any one know who is pitching for the Cubs tonight?

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 04:06 PM

What, relative to this discussion, is a meaningful distinction between "religious" and "fundamentalist"?

What religious people do not believe in their "fundamentals"?

...and if they don't believe in the "fundamentals" of their faith, by what logic do they count themslves actually of that faith?

I'm certainly no whiz-bang in the mental acuity department, but I don't think that my ability to reason (and question) is limited to not dozing on railroad tracks. Yet I believe in the fundamentals of my faith.

In fact, the fundamentals of my faith require testing all things.

I guess that the religious are bound to be judged on the basis of how well they adhere to what they believe. That's only fair. It's also a pretty cool reason to not believe in anything! *BG* No guts no glory -- no rules no shame.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 03:07 PM

Here's a discussion of the revolutionary role of women in the Arab world worth looking over.

I think the word "Fundamentalist" is being used awfully loosely in the above. The fact that people use a term doesn't mean it has any real referent -- people talk about military intelligence, too! Sounds like a map without any territory to me.


A

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: wysiwyg
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 02:52 PM

Here's another writer using the term "fundamentalist pagan."   From "Paths: The Magazine of UCD's" [???????]
http://netsoc.ucd.ie/~pagansoc/paths1.1.pdf

I just feel that there's nothing worse than a fundamentalist pagan recruit. You can spot them easily enough. They are hypocritically hateful to Christians, and constantly moan about how oppressed they are by Christianity.

Again, this is not my area of expertise, so I'm curious what I might learn from those for whom it is an area in which they have some experience.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: wysiwyg
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 02:37 PM

So.... here's a discussion of paganism (including a fundie reference) and women, but I don't know this author or his reputation in the Pagan commuity, so that's why I'm asking someone to fill me in. On first reading, I'm thinking, well, this is different from Xian fundie stuff on women! But if polyamory (as an example) is an expectation an individual is not OK with, isn't it just as harmful?

~S~

MODERN PAGANS
Excerpt from interview with Isaac Bonewitz

R/S: Can you illuminate us on the differences between Pagans, Wiccans, Druids, and--

IB: Consider "Pagan" as the largest category, the umbrella. Within that you have the Paleopagans, the Mesopagans and the Neopagans. As a category Paganism is equivalent to Monotheism, so Neopaganism could be likened to Christianity. Within Christianity, you have Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, etc. Likewise, under the umbrella of Neopaganism you have Wiccans, Druids, Celtic Reconstructionists, and everybody else.

Thousands of Goddess worshippers who are part of the Feminist Spirituality movement may or may not consider themselves to be either Pagan or Wiccan. The problem is that "real" people don't fit into nice, neat categories. Let's say 80% of the Neopagans are Wiccans and 10% are Feminist Goddess worshippers from the women's spirituality movement. Out of the remaining 10%, 5Ð6% of the remainder may be Druids, and the rest are people who are reconstructing or reviving Neopagan religions based on other ethnic traditions, and/or are created out of whole cloth like the Church of All Worlds. You've got Egyptian Neopagans, Norse Neopagans, Greco-Roman Neopagans, etc.

R/S: I don't see any reference to Santeria--

IB: Santer'a is mostly Mesopagan. It's a blending of different varieties of Christianity with different varieties of Paleopaganism. All those related African-based religions like Santeria, Macumba, Condomble are what I call Mesopagan. By and large, the overwhelming majority of Santerians are NOT part of the Neopagan community, and most of them have probably never even heard of people like us. In fact, to most people in the Santeria-Macumba-etc. community, the word "Witch" is a bad word meaning "magic user suspected of being bad." Nobody in history ever thought of Witchcraft being a good thing until Gerald Gardner.

Ronald Hutton's Triumph of the Moon gives the absolute, final pounding of the nail into the coffin of fantasies about Wicca being a survival or revival of an underground faith from pre-Christian Britain. Hutton is a professional historian who spends 500 pages going through all the cultural, academic and historical sources of all the different ideas that Gardner blended together to create Wicca. He traces it back to the Romantic movement, the Freemasons, the Rosicrucians, the nostalgia for the countryside--all these social currents that were happening in the 1700s and 1800s, that created an intellectual milieu. And Hutton shows how these different strands of culture got woven together by Gardner. This is the one book that apologists for the antiquity of the Craft are going to have the most trouble with.

We have, in the Pagan community, rabid fundamentalist Wiccans who absolutely insist that Witchcraft was a Pagan underground religion going back to the Stone Age, and disavow all scholarship to the contrary. In their own way, these Pagans are just as desperate as the fundamentalist Christian apologists are!

R/S: That reminds me--what's the Pagan position on abortion?

IB: That's one of many topics where if you ask a half-dozen Pagans, you'll get twenty opinions. Paganism is still very much in a ferment, which is a good thing--it hasn't fossilized yet! As for the topic of abortion, I have a very firm and clear-cut position, which I will explain the very next time I'm pregnant!

R/S: It's a woman's right to choose.

IB: Actually, I'm trying to go to one level beyond that: the opinions of men on the topic, whether they're religious leaders or not, are irrelevant.

R/S: Let's discuss sex. You seem to have a rational treatment of more-than-monogamous relationships on your Web site--

IB: Polyamory. It's not for everybody, but for those for whom it is, it fits perfectly well with Pagan theology, or Polytheology as I call it. Dossie Easton and Catherine Liszt's The Ethical Slut and Deborah Anapol's Love Without Limits are the classic polyamory texts--there have been so few texts that it doesn't take much to be a classic! I think both books kind of tiptoed around the religion question. But since they were controversial enough, maybe they decided they didn't want to add yet another layer of controversy.

R/S: The invention of terms like polyamory or Polytheology give the illusion that consciousness is progressing--

IB: They do. I'm a firm believer in mimetic engineering. A meme is a fundamental unit of concept (or word or image) in the same way that a gene is a fundamental unit of heredity. Mimetic engineering is the art of creating and combining memes in creative ways to cause fundamental changes in culture. And this is what all authors try to do--and all other artists, to a certain extent. But to those of us who coin a lot of vocabulary, it's even more important.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: wysiwyg
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 02:28 PM

I didn;t make it up, really; it came up in dialog with a paghan correspoindent.

Here's more:

From http://www.catalystpoint.org/castings/2003/06/04

Personal Counterpoint, June 4, 2003
Some friends and I were having a discussion on the subject of a Wiccan book. I'm choosing not to name the title and author because I don't want to distract from the main point of this article, but the book contained some very disturbing things passed off as Wiccan Tenets-- sexual practices that are fine when they're consensual, but deeply disturbing when they become mandatory, and outrageous when they are applied to children. It's a sad fact that these people are out there. There's something to be said for the discussion of their flaws, but this will not make them stop talking, nor will it make others stop listening.

Every time the subject of my being Pagan comes up, I always watch the person I'm talking to with a dread that I'm going to see "that look" on their faces. The one that says, "Oh, God, not another one." We've progressed beyond the point where I worry about people thinking I worship Satan, but now I have to worry that they think I'm a complete loser. Lately, most people I encounter have heard of Paganism in a modern context, but too many of those have encountered some of the less mature members of our community.

When I see that look, I tell the person, "Look. I know there are some Pagans out there that are nuts. It's okay-- you can say it. I like them less than you do. To you, they're weird and harmless. To me, they're a disgrace."

Every minority and religion has bad examples.... [see site for more]

It's so very PC not to bring it up, but that won't help. There's certainly wisdom in not giving them more attention than they deserve, but to ignore them accomplishes nothing. You can't say "We're not really like that" to someone who has seen those of us that are really like that. You can't make these people stop existing.

The real danger, though, isn't the effect that these people have on the public perception of Paganism. It's the effect that they have on our internal perceptions, and the things we do in response to them. I have to watch myself that I don't become too much of a "Fundamentalist Pagan." The truth is that I have no more right than anyone else in the world to say that this is Paganism and this is not.

All I can do is present my views in a reasonable manner.... [see site for more]

© 2003 by Cather "Catalyst" Steincamp


From http://www.cauldronfarm.com/writing/fundementalist.html

On Being A Neo-Pagan Fundamentalist
Yes. I am most certainly a Neo-Pagan Fundamentalist.

Before everyone screams and runs away, please allow me to define what that means. So far, in modern Pagan writings, no one else has used this term except as a joke, so I'm going to to define it now once and for all, quite seriously. I am not defining this term by way of, or in comparison of, any Christian or Jewish or Muslim fundamentalism. Being a Pagan fundamentalist is very much its own thing. That being said, here are the absolute fundamental tenets of this brand of Pagan faith. You may or may not practice these; you may or may not agree with them; but I'm much more interested that you simply understand them. [goes on to list a number of points]

This is the starting point of this attitude. It's not that of the majority of Pagans, and given point number 5, it likely never will be. However, those of us who are on this path are the small minority of diehards for whom this is the way we do things. You can be a Pagan fundamentalist and be a Wiccan, an Egyptian Pagan, a Druid, or whatever else; there are traditions which are specifically inimical to some of the above tenets and don't mix well with it, but most well. There does seem to be a lot of us in reconstructionist traditions, and a reconstructionist bent to many who aren't specifically doing that, but there are also many eclectics in the demographic.

So there it is. Pass it on. The only way a definition gets defined is if it gets heard. And if this makes you uncomfortable, good. Sometimes it's been when I was most uncomfortable, and forced myself to look at the source of that discomfort, that I learned the most about myself.

Raven Kaldera

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 02:12 PM

A good reference on "social and cultural change," especially in the US, is in The Century of Sex by James R. Petersen, ©1999, published by Grove Press. List price was $35 (US) but I got my copy for about $8 off a Barnes sale table, and it appears fairly regularly at both Barnes and Borders - on sale.

It would probably be easier to recognize with the knowledge that the subtitle is "Playboy's History of the Sexual Revolution: 1900 - 1999." (Sorry guys, virtually no pictures.) Despite the source, which will be a little suspect to some, this is a fairly scholarly review of attitudes, politics, and laws reflecting the state of our society during the indicated period. It triggered quite a few memories of things I "knew were wrong" at the time, and gave reasonable perspectives on how and why they happened. There are fairly detailed histories of the McCarthy hearings, and of J. Edgar Hoovers "sex slave" hunts, just as examples. Readable.

As to how "Fundamentalists" get to be that way, my trite answer would be "brainwashing." It is quite possible to understand religion in the context of the rest of the world, and still believe in it - in a healthy way. The Fundamentalists push the notion incessantly that only a rigid adherence to their "word of God" will make you anything but the piece of shit you are, and it becomes a substantial barrier to acceptance of anything else. The few who were not raised in this, who embrace it later are - IMO - mostly psychotics who are unable to handle reality in any other way.

For those raised in a Fundamentalist religion, the belief in rigid rules is a "learned" thing, and what you learn is that "rational thought" (any questioning of doctrine) is unacceptable. Eventually you accept it. Note that this doesn't preclude being rational about some other things (don't sleep on the railroad tracks, etc.) but any question about religion, morals, or ethics, must have "the answer from GOD" and cannot be questioned.

My personal experience with "converts" to Fundamentalism is that 100% of them (that I've known well enough to form an opinion) have been persons with serious social/emotional/identity conflicts who sought out a rigidly controlling sytem to relieve themselves of conflicts they couldn't handle otherwise. The "elite" military forces have a very difficult time detecting and detering these types, although sometimes they may actually "use" the emotional rigidity of a few. Civilian law enforcement agencies are a "magnet" for some of them, but generally are more careful about admitting them, when possible.

Note that with respect to the above, being a member of a Fundamentalist Church doesn't necessarily make you a "Fundamentalist" in the sense meant. Most are just followers, and for many it's just a default place to go. As with any large group, many don't think much about anything anyhow.

John

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 01:35 PM

I doubt you can find a pagan fundamentalist around, to be honest. There are so few source materials prior to 1950 that "fundamentalism" in the sense of literal adherence to received doctrine isn't very meaningful, I suspect. Like looking for a Dale Carnegie fundy -- but at least in that case, you have a known scripture!! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: wysiwyg
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 01:15 PM

Will someone kindly describe the pagan fundies' take on women?

Because I have heard it said by pagans themselves, they too have their purist/fundie element.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 12:48 PM

On this subject, the best (and most disturbing) book is "The Handmaids Tale". A novel, but in many parts of the world (e.g. USA) reality is moving towards this fiction.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 12:44 PM

The Lutheran minister I dated for a short while a few years back. He was quite anxious to get me into bed with him. I was rather puzzed by this, and asked him how he reconciled his words in the pulpit about how people shouldn't sin, and how fornication is a sin, with his own personal behavior. His response (spoken with a wry grin)... "I feel like a sinner". Whereupon he proceeded to continue his efforts to get me into bed with him.

On the subject of the hijab... I was watching a documentary about that subject a few weeks ago. One of the people filmed was the mother of a young woman in her teens or early twenties. They were a Muslim family. The young woman didn't wear a hijab, and the mother was distressed about this. The mother said that she wanted her daughter to be seen as and treated like a human being and not a sex object, and that the hijab is what would make this possible for her daughter.

I have to admit that I can understand what that mother was saying. In my younger years, I often felt that men were not seeing past the part that they appraised with regard to sexual desirability, and were not treating me like a human being.

Of course, now that I have gotten a lot older and I am now at the age when men are far more likely to see my humanity along with everything else, I don't mind so much if they happen to notice both ;-)

I was watching a documentary last night about prostitution in The Netherlands. It's a very complicated issue. There are women who work as prostitutes there because they want to, but far more of them do it out of economic necessity. One woman who was a former sex worker said that she deeply regretted her life as a prostitute. She said she cried about it every day. But, she said, its a system that sucks women into it and makes it very difficult for them to get out of it. Another woman said that prostitution was one of the best indicators of economic health of a country. In a bad economy, more women resort to prostitution in order to survive.

I was thinking that if people who are against prostitution for religious reasons were sincerely interested in eliminating prostitution from the world, they would be working very, very hard to immprove the economic condition of the women of the world, so that no woman would ever become a prostitute because she saw it as the only way she could survive.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 12:43 PM

I think some people want easy answers, and don't want to be bothered by abstraction and uncertainty. They also feel more secure if they can see themselves as better than other people.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: Peace
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 12:26 PM

Basic question is this: Why do people remain in religions of that nature? Takes a special and particularly stupid person--male or female--to want to be subjugated to that kinda shit.

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 12:10 PM

freda -

Not long ago I walked into the room where the TV was idling, and found a "minister of the gospel" delivering a sermon on the critical and essential theme of "Will there be sex in heaven?". In my area it's pretty safe to assume he was a "Fundamentalist."

He was in the process of explaining that there would be no need for sex (he meant intercourse) in heaven because when they ascend into heaven souls become "perfect beings like unto the angels."

Approximately 2 minutes (or less) later, he delivered "Of course all of the angels named in the Old Testament were male." (that's perfect?)

.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.!

Maybe I should have stayed tuned, but...

John

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 11:02 AM

Whoa--- that girl has some decisions to make!! She's about to be Oster-cized!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 09:43 AM

"What's wrong?" I asked my co-worker.

"My daughter's pregnant," she replied.

"Oh?" I asked here, a minister's wife.

"She's not married," she said. "And she's at Liberty University. "
"Oh." was all I could say.

Subject: BS: religious fundamentalists and women
From: freda underhill
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 09:15 AM

well, why not? what is it about religious ministers?

one the one hand we have Australia's own Fred Nile and the Festrival of light (scroll down for spiritual upliftment) , and on the other hand we have the dreaded Sheikh Feiz Muhammad

are they all as nutty where you come from? please give examples of your most peculiar ones..