It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Women are subjugated by Religion.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I was just reflecting on one of the threads I commented on. I think it was called "Do women defy the Holy Bible?" I don't clearly remember, but I think it was about a person who couldn't get laid, and hence blamed his impotance on "dark" people. This strange declaration made me think of what role women do play in Religion, and I then began to have a wee look at the rampant sexist attitude that is in not just the Bible, but in ALL holy books.
All the major religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all stem from the olde Abraham tree and consider women's inferiority to be devinely decreeded by God, Yahweh, Allah, GMan or whatever His name is. The most interesting thing about this is that many Jews, Christians, and Muslims claim that they "liberate" women, whilst those other religions, subjagate women and treat them unfairly. However, they all do it.

Let's start with the Old Testament eh? Or maybe Genesis? Almost right from the beginning, the third chapter dictates how women are subserviant to men. Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (Genesis 3:16) The New Testament isn't much better to be honest...

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of women, is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3, 8-9)

Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

The Bible doesn't dither when it comes to showing how women are inferior to men (All by the third chapter of Genesis for goodness sake! That's really really fast!). How women were born from man's spare rib (I wonder if that would hurt? Is that like being all pregnant and stuff? I mean if man gave birth to woman, that would be sort of odd. I don't particulary buy the idea that women were born from a spare rib. It's more then likely they were born from the funny bone:brkdnc
.

Anyways, the Bible characterises many women in their sacred tome, to be either whores or harlots or strumpets, or whatever. Whenever the Lord is displeased with a nation ne'er do well, he starts foaming at the mouth and calling the offending nation "a lewd woman" and then proceeds to describe some sort of sick sadistic sexual punishment.

Enough of the Bible of course, it's only fair to start on other religions as well. Let's mess about with the Koran then folks!

The Koran written 700 years after the Bible, embraced all the bad bits from both the Old and New Testaments, becoming fascinated with polygamy, and advising "Marry as many women as you like, two, three, or four" (Koran 4:3) The result of this little line is widespread polygamy throughout the Middle East because it's seen as acceptable behaviour. The Koran also states that women are worth half as much as men: "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females" (4:11)

The Koran also dictates that it's also okay to beat up your wife with a green branch, because it hurts more. If you don't believe me then read verse 38:44. In Mosaic Law, apparently women who have been raped have to marry the rapist, because of it's overbearing value upon "chastity" in females. Stoning women for death for adultary is commonplace in Islamic Iran.

Mormons like polygamy as well. Despite it being outlawed, I'm sure it still occurs in places. The worst thing about them is their idea of heaven. Their idea of heaven is different from Jesus's equal opportunity heaven which was promised in Galatians. Mormon women can't get into Celestial Heaven unless their husbands will receive them. If not, they'll receive them as servents.

I'm sure some folk here will say that many of the teachings out of these "holy books" have been "blown out of proportion" and can no longer be taken literally, or seriously, but can they deny the historical harm that religion has caused to women's rights? A good wee verse would be from Exodus 22:18: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live That little verse caused the death of many many women. You'd be sort of hard pressed to find a witch amongst them, y'know, the ones that fly?

You can look at the Bible in many ways, well you can't really textproof most of this malarky away can ya?




posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Great post Mac, and well put.

Men of ancient times were the strong ones. With their physical strength and primative mentality, they subjugated women easily. Religion was just an extension of that mentality, and to this day some women still feel like the man should be the head of the household instead of being equals. I guess in order to stay sane while being married to a domineering husband, some women fool themselves with the "ordained by god" crap.

And muslim women having to marry the man who rapes them? OMG that's just sick.

Only religion can make normally good people do horrible things in the name of "god".



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
That's quite true. I remember answering a thread asking if religion was made by the devil? I said it was by man, and therefore, it was flawed. How can you possibly worship Him if all the religions are messed up? Do we do it our own way and find our own path to God? Who knows...Perhaps all religions have part of the truth, but Man twists it to his advantage.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
This is all so true. There isn't one non-sexist religion out there. But we also must remember it isn't just the religions per se, men simply have always felt the need to dominate and control women as much as possible. What better way to achieve that than with false religious doctrines?



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 05:54 AM
link   
I disagree with your assesment, MacDonagh. Religion didn't subjugate women, man did.

Since you restrict yourself to the Abrahamic religions, I'll refer to them alone. They included many great women. You know the Prophetess Deborah? No? Oh well. What about Mary (mother of Jesus Christ)? Despite what some Anti-Catholics may say, she played an enormous part in religion. I'd go as far as to say she was akin to the apostles, bring "Good News". In Islam, there is Aisha, and Khadija, who played a great part.

Since I have greater knowledge of Islam than Christianity or Judaism, I can talk about that. It doesn't say "Marry as many women as you like". It says "Marry women you like, two or three or four, but if you cannot deal justly with them, then only one". Also, it's not a branch, it's grass. It doesn't say that it's ok to beat your wife with it, though. It's talking about Job. I don't see how hitting someone with grass is meant to hurt very much. Also, I don't understand why you brought forward a (suspiciously unsupported) reference to Mosiac law while discussing Islam. It might (although I doubt it) be Mosiac law, but it's certainly not Islamic.

You have to remember, at the time of these books, women couldn't do much without men. The men were the main bread-winners of the family. Hence stuff like "The men would rule over you", and the men getting twice as much as women in the will. Marrying or looking after women was seen as a form of "helping out".



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Hence stuff like "The men would rule over you", and the men getting twice as much as women in the will. Marrying or looking after women was seen as a form of "helping out".

Yeah right.. and "Love honour and obey" in christianity was 'for her own good'.

It's only in the last sixty years that it's been illegal to beat your wife.. the bible said they were property so so did the law.
These traditions usually make a reference to genesis.. can't ignore the fact that Eve was created to serve Adam [and that she cause the fall of man so must be punnished..] and [in the torah?] that she replaced Lilith because Liltih wouldn't obey [she was made an equal]. These variations on genesis definently have an anti-woman bent that has had a significant impact on cultural attitudes.

[edit on 27-5-2006 by riley]



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Hence stuff like "The men would rule over you", and the men getting twice as much as women in the will. Marrying or looking after women was seen as a form of "helping out".

Yeah right.. and "Love honour and obey" in christianity was 'for her own good'.

It's only in the last sixty years that it's been illegal to beat your wife.. the bible said they were property so so did the law.


Ya, actually. If she didn't "Love honour and obey", her husband would tire of her. Would mistreat her. Not feel inclined to support her, etc.

I'm just pointing out reasons why it was so.

[edit on 27-5-2006 by babloyi]



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Church=Ruled by Man
Man=Flawed
Church=Flawed

I could never be religous, had a room mate into witchcraft or Wiccon, howver you spell it, but not me. Religon is a cop out, in the Bible God kills millions of children and innocent because he feels like it.

Also, it says it is ok to sell your daughter into slavery, kill children for saying no, raping and marrying children, so many other disgusting things. Why do you think they were having children so young? Women barely into womanhood being forced to marry an older man by her family and have children becauce their religon said it was ok.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   

They included many great women. You know the Prophetess Deborah? No? Oh well. What about Mary (mother of Jesus Christ)? Despite what some Anti-Catholics may say, she played an enormous part in religion. In Islam, there is Aisha, and Khadija, who played a great part.


I presume that they were all obedient and stoic right? The few heroines that are found in the holy books are just that, and that's what women should aim for, to be like those women. Silent and obedient. Most of the women that are in the holy books are just possesions. Fathers own them, sell them into slavery, sometimes have sex with them (as with Lot, such a righteous man!), and even offering them up as sacrafices like that really cruel story of Jephthah and his nameless daughter.

www.answers.com...

You could interpret the story in another way, but to me, it's a stupid thing to promise. He could have said "Oh, I shall sacrifice a lamb when I get back from all the raping and pillaging!" instead of saying "whoever is first through the door of my house" Or perhaps he meant to say it, because he subconciously thought "Oh I've been wanting to kill my only daughter, but how am I going to do it without looking silly?"

Anyways, what else did you say?


It doesn't say "Marry as many women as you like". It says "Marry women you like, two or three or four, but if you cannot deal justly with them, then only one".


How can you know if you can deal "justly" with them? Is there like a rating system or something or is it left to the bloke's judgement?


Also, it's not a branch, it's grass. It doesn't say that it's ok to beat your wife with it, though. It's talking about Job. I don't see how hitting someone with grass is meant to hurt very much. Also, I don't understand why you brought forward a (suspiciously unsupported) reference to Mosiac law while discussing Islam. It might (although I doubt it) be Mosiac law, but it's certainly not Islamic.


Islam was made hundreds of years after Judasim, or Christianity. They have taken bits from Mosaic law which suit them. Don't believe me? Orthodox Jews attack Israeli women for wearing sleeveless dresses and deigning to pray at the Wailing Wall. Probebly something that is frowned upon in Mosaic Law right? Islam takes it to new extremes by introducing burkas or stupid wee tents to put over their women.
Okay, I must take you up on this. Why bother to hit them in the first place? It's a little bit strange to have a verse dedicated to hitting women with grass eh?


You have to remember, at the time of these books, women couldn't do much without men. The men were the main bread-winners of the family. Hence stuff like "The men would rule over you", and the men getting twice as much as women in the will. Marrying or looking after women was seen as a form of "helping out".


True, but at least they probebly had a bigger say in how things were run before this Religion BS got brought up. Religion has been used by man to put down women for thousands of years. The Suffragettes and Suffragists had to suffer a lot of ignorant crap to get their rights. And I'm sure it's happened in America as well. So in my view, religion is used as a ways of control, to stop and to silence our womenfolk. Thank God, that some people saw sense and started to question.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   
MacDonough, I'm going to call you on a very, very basic mistake in your thread title and some of the statements in your first post, before commenting on why MANY (but not all) religions do subordinate women and have for thousands of years.


Originally posted by MacDonagh
All the major religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all stem from the olde Abraham tree


No. All major religions do NOT stem from the Abrahamic tree, only those three plus the Bah'ai faith. Even restricting ourselves to non-modern religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Shinto, Confucianism, Taoism, Sikhism, and many others have roots completely outside the Abrahamic soil.

And if you DO include more modern religions, you must include my own -- Neopaganism -- which most emphatically does NOT subordinate women in any way, shape, or form.

I see this all the time from atheists: an attribution to "religion" in general, what really is a specific characteristic of one, or of several, specific religions. Belief in or experience of a higher power is not what leads to these abuses, yet it is what atheists often (conveniently and quite irrationally) blame for them. And that is why I always ask atheists in these religion discussions one question: "What would God be if he, she, or it did exist?" It is necessary to define precisely WHAT you don't believe in, and what you are asserting that a belief in leads to villainy of whatever kind, without vagueness or guilt-by-associating inappropriately applied.

OK, now to the question of women's subjugation in many religions.

Religion comes from the experience that many people have of communion with a larger world through extra-sensory means. In these experiences, the boundaries of the self are smudged, and one shares identity with something larger than oneself. From this perception comes the idea of subordinating selfish desires and concerns to the needs of the whole -- ultimately the whole universe; more immediately, the community, or nature. And this feeds into the development of community mores and the concept of humanity's place in the natural world.

That is where religion ultimately comes from, but the specific characteristics of any particular religion are a melding of this deep experience and its fruits with the demands and perceptions appropriate to the material and societal realities experienced. A religion that emerges in a primitive forager/hunter society will differ in significant ways from one that emerges in a classical agrarian civilization, which in turn will differ from one that emerges in a modern industrial democracy, even though all three derive from the same experiential core, because that experience is filtered through very different personal and community consciousness and understanding.

Classical agrarian civilization was the norm for human society from a few centuries after the development of agriculture until roughly the 15th or 16th century CE. One may observe many features of this classical-type civilization that persist across the world and the millennia, including monarchy, landed warrior-nobility, a bottom societal rung consisting of slaves or serfs -- and certain religious ideas. These include a concept of the divine as separate from and above nature, and of humanity as subordinate to these divine entities. All of this was in service to a material change in human circumstances. No longer were humans subordinate to nature, taking what nature offered in game and wild plants. Rather, humans dominated and controlled nature, forcing the land to grow what they wanted rather than taking what the land offered freely. So the kinship of humanity with nature was no longer a useful concept; rather, the dominion of humanity over nature (offered or commanded by the gods) took its place.

A part of that was the desirability of high birthrates to take advantage of the new food source. High birthrates were necessary because if you didn't have them and the tribe over the hill did, you were toast. And, as many studies have shown, subordinating women to men's rule -- and especially depriving women of control over their own fertility -- results in higher birthrates.

As we are now in transition away from the classical civilized paradigm and towards something new, religious ideas in new religions diverge from this pattern. Today, our power over nature has grown so overwhelming that we must learn to restrain ourselves and behave like responsible caretakers rather than tyrants. A part of that is the need to limit our own fertility -- and this need is served by the emancipation and empowerment of women and hurt by their subjugation.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   

No. All major religions do NOT stem from the Abrahamic tree, only those three plus the Bah'ai faith. Even restricting ourselves to non-modern religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Shinto, Confucianism, Taoism, Sikhism, and many others have roots completely outside the Abrahamic soil.


Oh, my bad. Surely "those" religions are free from such blame right? WRONG!
I'm sure in Hinduism there is just as much BS as there is in Christianity. I just can't be assed to write up all their malarky as well.


And if you DO include more modern religions, you must include my own -- Neopaganism -- which most emphatically does NOT subordinate women in any way, shape, or form.


Neopaganism? Lookie here boy. Making up religions isn't cool. You just add fuel to the fire. If your talking about paganism, then I'd tend to agree with ya, but NEOpaganism? Is that like some kind of futuristic paganism that goes in search for the One that will set us free?
Forgive me, but I've never heard of Neopaganism.


I see this all the time from atheists: an attribution to "religion" in general, what really is a specific characteristic of one, or of several, specific religions. Belief in or experience of a higher power is not what leads to these abuses, yet it is what atheists often (conveniently and quite irrationally) blame for them. And that is why I always ask atheists in these religion discussions one question: "What would God be if he, she, or it did exist?" It is necessary to define precisely WHAT you don't believe in, and what you are asserting that a belief in leads to villainy of whatever kind, without vagueness or guilt-by-associating inappropriately applied.


You assume that I'm an atheist because I question. You've no idea what I believe in. I'm just pointing out that "every" religion has got some little rule against women. Bar the possible exception of Paganism, but I've not read too much into it. It's not about what I believe, and there is no hatred for religion in this. Just dismissing me as an atheist with a grudge is misguided and foolish.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacDonagh
Oh, my bad. Surely "those" religions are free from such blame right? WRONG!


If you read the rest of my post, you will see that I'm not saying they are free of it. They emerged during the period of classical civilization, too. What I AM saying is that you expressed yourself carelessly and in a manner containing gross factual error. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to avoid that sort of thing. It makes you look like you're writing off the cuff, and too lazy to do your homework.



Neopaganism? Lookie here boy. Making up religions isn't cool. You just add fuel to the fire. If your talking about paganism, then I'd tend to agree with ya, but NEOpaganism?


I'm talking about the modern pagan revival, for which "Neopaganism" is an accepted term. Actually, ancient and original paganism in its many forms usually DID oppress women. The modern version, despite internal origin myths occasionally to the contrary, dates only back to the 1950s at earliest. "Neopaganism" distinguishes this modern religion from the paganism that characterized ancient Europe.

I am not making anything up, as you would know, except that apparently you haven't done your homework in this context, either.



You assume that I'm an atheist because I question. You've no idea what I believe in.


Point taken, although in fact I never said you were an atheist, I only said this is what I say to those who are. Consider the question asked now, and if my assumption is incorrect I shall apologize.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   

If you read the rest of my post, you will see that I'm not saying they are free of it. They emerged during the period of classical civilization, too. What I AM saying is that you expressed yourself carelessly and in a manner containing gross factual error. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to avoid that sort of thing. It makes you look like you're writing off the cuff, and too lazy to do your homework.


Which part of "can't be assed" didn't you understand? Did you not read MAJOR religions? Who can claim to have been bigger opponents to women's rights then Christianity, Islam and Judism? I don't want to talk about other religions, because it'd be too gruelling to start going for ALL of them. We could be ending up talking about Calvinists non-stop. So why not cut the rest away and pick the three biggest offenders eh? I don't want to read about any more obscure religions. I've had my fill. :bnghd:


I'm talking about the modern pagan revival, for which "Neopaganism" is an accepted term. Actually, ancient and original paganism in its many forms usually DID oppress women.


And what? Not much of a surprise there eh? What makes your way different from the ways of old?


I am not making anything up, as you would know, except that apparently you haven't done your homework in this context, either.


I have admitted that once.

Bar the possible exception of Paganism, but I've not read too much into it.

Prinny Dood.



Point taken, although in fact I never said you were an atheist, I only said this is what I say to those who are. Consider the question asked now, and if my assumption is incorrect I shall apologize.


Why should I consider it? My spiritual views or values have no place in this thread.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacDonagh
Women are subjugated by Religion



i don't think that eveyone who takes part in silly pseudo-masochistic sex is a religious believer.

i know a lot of atheist teachers in high school who are into bondage and all sort of stupid kinky action.




[edit on 27-5-2006 by mr conspiracy]



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacDonaghWhich part of "can't be assed" didn't you understand? Did you not read MAJOR religions?


Are you always this insulting and defensive?

Yes, I read "major" religions in your first post, but that qualifier still doesn't restrict us to the Abrahamic lineage.



Who can claim to have been bigger opponents to women's rights then Christianity, Islam and Judism? I don't want to talk about other religions, because it'd be too gruelling to start going for ALL of them.


Well, then my complaint about your thread title and general broad-based assumptions remains, I think, valid. To say, "Women are subjugated by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism" is not the same thing as to say, "Women are subjugated by religion," and the latter is what you DID say.


What makes your way different from the ways of old?


1. It's not old.
2. It's environmentalist.
3. It contains a stronger mystical aspect.
4. It's feminist.
5. It's conscious of and incorporates modern science.
6. In no country where it is practiced is it a state-supported religion or part of the government.
7. It does not involve either human or animal sacrifice.
8. It recognizes the metaphorical character of all human-recognized deities, and so does not concern itself with religious bigotry or conflict.

There are some other differences, but those will do for a start.


Why should I consider it?


You should consider the question asked because I asked it, of course.



My spiritual views or values have no place in this thread.


Then why are you bringing them up? Nobody but you has said anything about your spiritual views. All I said was that this sort of thing commonly comes from atheists, and you took me to task for assuming you were one. But I made no such assumption; I merely observed that you were presenting assertions similar to what I see from atheists. Which you are. Maybe that's a coincidence.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacDonagh

They included many great women. You know the Prophetess Deborah? No? Oh well. What about Mary (mother of Jesus Christ)? Despite what some Anti-Catholics may say, she played an enormous part in religion. In Islam, there is Aisha, and Khadija, who played a great part.


I presume that they were all obedient and stoic right? The few heroines that are found in the holy books are just that, and that's what women should aim for, to be like those women. Silent and obedient.

Hardly! The Prophetess Deborah lead the Israelites to victory. Mary, well....I'd assume it'd be pretty hard to go through what she did. Aishah participated in fighting, something I'm pretty sure is far away from you "Silent and obedient" bit.

About the story of Jephthah, you're going a little extreme here! I get the feeling he wasn't too happy about having to sacrifice his daughter. I don't think this sort of story is limitted to women. You know how Abraham had to sacrifice his son.


Originally posted by MacDonagh
Anyways, what else did you say?


It doesn't say "Marry as many women as you like". It says "Marry women you like, two or three or four, but if you cannot deal justly with them, then only one".


How can you know if you can deal "justly" with them? Is there like a rating system or something or is it left to the bloke's judgement?

I'd assume you've got to treat them all equally, not favour one over the other, etc. Polygamy was rampant even in the times before Islam. You've got to say that it did a lot to regulate it, and bit by bit, it's disappearing now.



Originally posted by MacDonagh

Also, it's not a branch, it's grass. It doesn't say that it's ok to beat your wife with it, though. It's talking about Job. I don't see how hitting someone with grass is meant to hurt very much. Also, I don't understand why you brought forward a (suspiciously unsupported) reference to Mosiac law while discussing Islam. It might (although I doubt it) be Mosiac law, but it's certainly not Islamic.


Islam was made hundreds of years after Judasim, or Christianity. They have taken bits from Mosaic law which suit them. Don't believe me? Orthodox Jews attack Israeli women for wearing sleeveless dresses and deigning to pray at the Wailing Wall. Probebly something that is frowned upon in Mosaic Law right? Islam takes it to new extremes by introducing burkas or stupid wee tents to put over their women.

Then let me ask you, where did you get this bit of "Mosiac Law" from? Because I've never heard of it before, either from Jews or from Muslims.
Gotta say, burkha is not really from Islam. In fact there are numerous hadith of women going around uncovered during the prophet's time. Islam does say that you've got to dress modestly, and heh.....I suppose people can draw a lot out of that.


Originally posted by MacDonagh
Okay, I must take you up on this. Why bother to hit them in the first place? It's a little bit strange to have a verse dedicated to hitting women with grass eh?

Why? I don't know. You'll have to ask Job. It's a story concerning him, after all. I mean, you wouldn't take the story about Jephthah to mean that people should regularly sacrifice their daughters so as to win victories.

My point is that this stuff happened way before religion. In fact, religion even tried in some cases to stop this stuff happening. You can hardly blame religion, when it's man who is the culprit.

[edit on 28-5-2006 by babloyi]



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Sorry, Double post again. Internet been going wacko for a while now.

[edit on 28-5-2006 by babloyi]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Do religions oppress women? People sure do use them to oppress and even kill one another. Our current endless war on everything remotely threatening to the status quo is framed in religious mumbo jumbo.

One thing I've always found particularly silly is the notion that Eve was created from Adam's rib. The y chromosone is a mutation of the x - it's missing a leg. It would appear the reverse is true.

While I enjoy religious text; find it rich and deep with meaning, a meaning that changes with the needs with which I read it, I'm appalled when it's used to justify cruelty.

Since people fail at most every test God has laid out for us and this failure itself seems to be the crux of our learning love and forgiveness - perhaps the perversion of religion is the greatest lesson.




top topics



 
0

log in

join