Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Off the cuff (and on the run). . .
    
    There's a closely-related discussion in 85.*  Insofar as it's
    nominally about Christianity and feminism, it's a subset of
    the broader view of this note (all organized religion).
    
    I also doubt it'll bring down the house and, in general, find
    more to agree with in Gage's statements than disagree.
    
    Steve

    
    yup, I too find more to agree with in Gage's statement, than
    to disagree with.  
    I was raised Southern Baptist, now a UU, and consider myself
    a Christian.  But i do think most 'organized' religions tend
    to force women (and men, for that matter) into a mold.  The good
    husband, faithful wife, mother, housekeeper...sort of thing.
    
    Most religions don't encourage thinking/questioning.  I do
    believe one should always 'question authority'...and had that
    bumper sticker on my car for years.  (along with " the
    moral majority is neither")
    
    Anyway, that's my 2 cents...any debaters out there?
    
    deb
    

    
    I also agree with Gage...and in some ways find it hard to imagine
    anyone *not* agreeing with her, at least on rational grounds.    
    
    My experience of religion consists in having been raised RC until an
    faith-shattering episode (which I may recount in the "changed your
    life" string) caused me to leave forever.
    
                                             =maggie

    Actually, I'd like to see more of what she said.  Can someone post
    a reference to the source of the quote, please?
    
    I was raised in a church that stressed a Father/Mother God and was
    founded by a woman, which has left me blessedly free of a sense of
    'devaluation' as a woman within my faith.  However, as I have studied
    more traditional theologies, I have been appalled at the role demanded
    of women within them.  My reading of the Gospels supports an
    egalitarian role for women.  Paul, on the other hand, strikes me
    as a singularly misogynistic individual, with little tolerance for
    the foibles of the ordinary person.  As his writings seem to be
    the source of most of the Scripture quoted for women's subsurvient
    position, I am left wondering what really happened those 2000 years
    ago.
    
    Alison

	Yesterday I attended a service for a friend's mother, both of
	whom I have a very deep respect for.  The service was done by
	a Christian minister and there were readings from the Bible
	and lots of "Lord" this and "Lord" that.  And "trust in God"
	"he will provide" type of stuff.  YUKKKKKK,

	I had a very hard time not walking out of the service it was
	so offensive to me - no mention of femaleness anywhere in what
	the minister had to say.  The eulogy was done by a close friend
	and was beautiful.

	What bothered me the most was that the woman and her family
	are Chinese and adhere to their customs concerning death.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			We all come from the Goddess and
			to her we shall return - like drops
			of rain flowing to the ocean.

    
    
    This article was in this morning's paper and it kind of sums up
    the problem I have with organized religion these days.
    
    SAN DIEGO - A state assemblywoman has been barred from receiving
    Communion in the Roman Catholic church because of her prochoice
    stand on abortion in her campaign for the state senate.  Assemblywoman
    Lucy Killea was notified Wednesday of Bishop leo T. Maher's order
    that she refrain from receiving Communion until she rescinds her
    advocacy of abortion rights, which she says she will not do. (AP)
    
    If a church is going to dictate to representatives how they are to
    vote, then they are interferring in our political process in an
    unreasonable manner (in my opinion).   Should an organization that
    attempts to influence elected representatives be allowed to retain
    a tax exempt status?

    We are elected to represent the views of the people of our district, 
    not those of our religion.  I can't help but notice that Catholic
    MEN who are elected representatives have not (so far anyway) been 
    given a choice to give up their religion or give up their opinions.
                                                                      
    Mary

    Actually, male politicians have also been denied communion by the
    Catholic Church for taking a pro-choice stand.  There was a notice in
    the magazine _Free_Inquiry_ a few issues back about the same sort of
    incident occurring in Virginia to a man who was involved in local city
    politics.
    
    -- Mike

    
    A very dangerous trend, in my opinion.  When religion enters politics,
    reason and democracy are in serious trouble.  Countries that mix
    religion and politics seems to have a difficult time.  Witness
    the violence in Israel, Iran and Northern Ireland for example.
    
    Religions are supposed to be concerned with spiritual matters and
    yet they appear as political as any PAC.  If they focus their influence
    and their money on acquiring political power then are they truly
    spiritual at all?  Or do they use spirituality to acquire secular
    power and to enforce political opinions?  
    
    Mary

    Since becoming engaged I have looked at both my His religon Catholic
    and Mine Protestant- UCC- so far the difference I can see are:
    
    Catholics: Woman are not allowed birth control, are not allowed
    active high standing church roles, the church does not recongize
    a divorce
    
    Protestants: Allow woman a choice of Birth control they leave the
    choice to the woman, they do allow abortion, the church recongizes
    that once the state says you are legally divorced that you are
    divorced.You do not have to the church to annul before you can remarry.
    The church allows female Ministers.
    
    There are also Religous activites that also differ. and I have noticed
    that some catholic churches vary their services, while one offers
    music- hymns- others don't. while Catholics reciever communion every
    Sunday  we recieve it only the first Sunday of every month.
    
    But my choice of religion will continue to be the faith I grew up
    in, as I want the choice, the church does not condone me for being
    a) a women who might get pregnant and migh want to terminate that
    pregnancy for whatever reason. 
    b) I would be allowed to make mistakes and not be condemmed in He*l
    for them .i.e marriage.
    c) they just say ok a women as just as much right to a man in todays
    world.
    
    Lise

    re:.8
    
    While I agree that the Church meddling in politics is bad, I
    don't see the problem here. They aren't trying to get a
    *politician* to rescind her views, they're trying to get a
    *parishioner* to rescind her views. There are undoubtedly a
    number of parishioners in that church who hold the same views,
    but simply haven't made those views public knowledge.
    
    --- jerry

    
    ahhh, but Jerry, that *parishoner* WAS/IS a *politician*, so,
    by default the church is forcing its moral stance into the world
    of politics.  I think the church, particularly it seems to me,
    the Catholic church, wields a tremendous political 'stick' by
    condoning or condemning certain politicians, political groups,
    actions, etc.  If there becomes less separation of church and
    state, then, as someone noted, we will become more like Israel
    and less like America!
    
    deb
    
    oh, don't misread this as downgrading Israel...or the Catholic
    church...just my opinion, and all that...
    
    

    I have wondered how both men and women who are of liberal minds (i.e.
    they support birth control, abortion, gay/lesbian civil rights, etc.)
    can also support the Catholic church...perhaps another one of life's
    strange paradoxes.
    

    Laura,
    
    It is my Christian faith that has helped to bring me to the place
    where I am of a liberal mind, so I continue to go to my church (not
    Roman Catholic but Episcopal) because it is an important part of
    the person I am.
    
    Bonnie

I figure they'll drive people away by beating them with a stick (that's how it
works in real life, why not in church interactions?).
	Mez

    I wonder how many of you who object to churches and clergy getting
    involved in politics object only to clergy and churches who disagree
    with you? Somehow I have had trouble finding any of you criticizing
    Martin Luther King or Jesse Jackson for their political involvement.
    Quite frankly anyone who criticizes Catholic priests from trying to
    push politicians for pro-choice because they feel it violates the
    separation of church and state and don't criticize MLK and Jesse
    Jackson can not be taken seriously.

    ~Cliff

    
    well, I'll be more than happy to criticize Jesse Jackson...he
    strikes me as a Jim Bakker sort...out to get all he can ...
    As for MLK, seems to me he wasn't preaching anything more than
    equality, 'love thy neighbor' stuff.  I can't disagree with that.
    I can, and do, disagree with someone, anyone, telling me what I
    can/can't do with my body, how to act in my own bedroom, or otherwise
    preaching control over my life.  Big difference it seems to me.
    
    There's certainly nothing wrong with any clergy expressing their
    ideas---it is a free country after all.  But when they take to
    manipulating the congregation/parishioners by witholding services,
    or otherwise punishing them for certain political stances, I can;t
    agree with it...whether its the Catholics, or Jerry Fallwell, or
    Billy Graham.
    Seems there MUST be a separation of church and state, and the clergy
    must understand that when they take on that role.  Speak out, yes,
    manipulate--no.
    
    again, just my 2 cents.  oh, by the way, i tell my brother, who
    is a Baptist minister the same thing...can't say he agrees with
    me though!!!
    
    deb
    

re: .16:

    I wonder how many of you who object to churches and clergy getting
    involved in politics object only to clergy and churches who disagree
    with you? 

There are several issues here:  some churches consider their beliefs
to be universal: binding on all humanity.  They also believe that
they are required by their belief to bring that that theology to
all people.

Obviously, when some aspects of one religion's theology conflict with
the beliefs of other religions, problems ensue.  Abortion, where some
religions require the woman to preserve the life of the fetus even if
it means her own death, while others require the woman to preserve her
own life even if it means the death of the fetus is an obvious -- and
topical -- example.

Martin.

    
    Martin,
    we entered our replies about the same time...
    You hit the nail on the head...the Christian religions tend
    to want the 'convert the world' --some more than others.
    Therein lies my gripe with them.  What about some of you folks
    out there sharing some info on Buddhism, Taoism, or some of the
    native American Indian religions...
    Christianity is not the end-all and be-all...
    
    deb
    

    
    re .16
    
    I have a great deal of problems with your statement. Rather than speak
    for anyone else, I will certainly say that I don't have a problem with
    Catholic priests/nuns demonstrating for their beliefs. And I don't have
    a problem with them gaining a following. I think it is their right as
    citizens and their rights don't go away when they take on a "higher
    calling".
    
    However, I *really* wish that you had used non-black examples. Because
    of the history of blacks in America and subsequently, the nature of the
    "African-American" subculture, it is normal and natural for the orators
    and leaders to enter the church. It was the only place where black
    people were allowed self-expression and it automatically turned into
    the place where political and civil action HAD to stem from. For a very
    long time, congregations (gatherings) of black people outside of a church
    environment have been suppressed for fear of up-risings... 
    
    I have heard that many people had problems with Pat Robertson's
    presidential bid, due to the religion vs politics issue, but I did NOT
    see it that way.
    
    I think what you may be hearing is the specific use of using religious
    "punishment" and withholding of sacraments to in an attempt to
    influence  one's political views as the true issue at hand. I cannot
    see Jackson or King doing this. If you believe it has occured, PLEASE
    cite examples. 
    
    The way in which the Catholic church is set up is not unique. Jehovah's
    Witnesses also ostracize those who do not conform to teachings and who
    commit grievious sins. Ostracization is a tool, and often an effective
    one, for enforcing moral policies. When moral and political ideals
    conflict, there are bound to be problems.
    
    I think it is incorrect for the church to deny sacraments for your
    voting position, as opposed to actual acts. It is a way of saying that
    voting a certain position is a sin. And its kind of scary. But it is
    certainly within the church's right to say that committing the sin is
    grounds for denial of sacraments. 
    
    Its easy to stand outside of the Catholic church and protest its
    position. But I've known soooo many people who were comforted by it,
    and by its guidelines for life, that it seems to be a normal case of a
    balance of pro's and con's. It is sad that Americans are so used to
    expressing their individualism that they feel that they should be able
    to disagree with the church and remain within it. But that is not how
    the church is always going to view things.

    In addition to Steve's pointer to topic 85 in this file, if  you
    wish, see also:
    
    womannotes-v1
    457 - women in the church
    
    womannotes-v2
    752 - have patriarchal religions oppressed women
    
    -Jody
    

    RE: .20 You know it never occurred to me that both my examples were
    black. They are just the first two PC clergy that came to mind. How
    about if I add the Berrigan group (anti-war priests)? How about if
    I add the Marxist priests in South America? I'll leave out Desmond
    Tutu since he's black OK? How about Fr. Drinan (sp?) the former rep.
    from MA?

    The point I'm making is that all these people use their pulpit to
    push their agenda. Many of them I agree with. Several I don't. Yet
    it would never occur to me to argue "separation of church and state"
    to shut them up. 

    I am a very religious person. Very. There are more clergy in my close
    family then most of you know. Yet the threat to withholding of the
    sacraments or being excluded from the church would never ever stop
    me from doing what I believed was right. In fact the more religious
    a person is the less a threat of excommunication would influence them.
    That is because the more religious a person is the more they feel they
    have to report to God than to the earthly church. You can't threaten a
    true believer with religious punishment. Especially after the fact
    because by that time they have already made up their mind that they
    have done what a higher authority than their local priest wants. So
    just drop the "but the threat of excommunication is so powerful"
    garbage. If that threat was so powerful the Pope would have pacified 
    Ireland a generation ago.

    ~Cliff

    
    Cliff, I greatly appreciate your effort to find different examples.
    
    But again, I think there is a big difference between a "religious
    person" using his title and his/her pulpit to speak and a religious person
    using his/her religious authority to punish dissidents.
    
    Did those of the Berrigan group actually refuse to administer
    sacraments to anyone? 
    
    Perhaps you don't draw the line the same place that I do. But I'm
    interested in knowing if you see my point.
    

    The pope himself has mandated that priests eschew politics. That's
    the stand he takes in South America anyway. He seems to have a
    different view in the United States. Even some of the priests and
    bishops in the US have disagreed with him openly (and been taken
    from their posts). Polls I've read say that a majority of US
    Catholic women ignore the BC ban.

    My big problem is that most organised religions seem to have the "if
    you aren't with us you go to hell" point of view. They aren't happy
    forcing their followers to toe the line, they insist I do too. My
    life is not their choice. liesl

    There's another viewpoint to this discussion of separation of Church
    and state.  The argument seems always to be one sided to me.  The
    church has always taught that there are Ten Commandments believers
    must obey, that not obeying them is sinful, and that withholding
    some sacraments for deviation is part of the belief.  All of this
    constitutes matters of religion.  
    
    It is the right of religions to have standards of behavior that
    believers must uphold to participate in that religion.  The State
    does not have a right to interfere in that.  Separation of Church
    and State was meant to embody this prinicple.  If an individual
    member chooses to behave otherwise, it is his/her right to do so
    while that Church has the right to ostracize that person.  This
    is completely separate from issues of State.  The church has a right
    to ostracize that person (a matter of religion), but not to do anything
    further to them.  (I use ostracision as the biggest stick that a
    given religion has the right to use.)
    
    If a person has objections to the beliefs and actions of their
    religion, they have the right to leave it (in America).  This is
    separation of Church and State.
    
    The incidents in California are less than ostracision, and are purely
    matters of Religion.  Everyone involved still has the right to speak
    and act acccording to their beliefs and motivations.  This includes
    politicians and voters among others.
    
    I object to the more recent interference of State into religion.
    For instance, I object to the recent action of the city of Washington,
    DC threatening Georgetown University with removal from tax exempt
    status if they didn't fund and support homosexual activist groups
    on campus.  Georgetown did not want to do this on religious grounds
    and is a Catholic religion institution.  It should have the right
    on religious/moral grounds to not fund activity that it considers
    immoral.  Anyone not liking the stand, moreover, has the right to
    go to school elsewhere.  
    
    It seems to me that the cry for separation of Church and State is
    flawed by being self serving and spottily enforced.
    
    Bud

There is a difference between a church enforcing standards of individual
behavior (e.g. excommunicating a member who chooses to have an abortion)
and a church trying to get its members to control the behavior of others
(e.g. excommunicating a member who votes to allow everyone to choose
for themselves).

I believe there are alot of Catholics who might not choose to have
an abortion themselves, but who do believe that everyone has a right to
decide for themselves.  My mother, for example, would think it very wrong
for her to have an abortion, but is very strongly opposed to not allowing
others to make their own choices.  

re: .25
I also believe that it's fair to expect an institution to uphold non-
discrimination policies of the state it's in (and getting exempt
tax status from).  Agreeing that gays shouldn't be discriminated against,
and even supporting equally their right to fighting for civil rights is not the
same as condoning gay sex.  (There are alot of gays who are celibate,
for example.)  I'm sure there are religious colleges that provide
student funds for a (straight) singles event, like a "mixer",
even though (gasp!) some of the participants might choose to have
sex before/during/after it.  Giving funds for the social activity does not say
the church condones extra-marital sex.  And I think the social activity
is less worthy of funding than a civil rights political activity.

(Last I heard the Catholic church did not condone discrimination against
gays, but rather agreed that no one should be discriminated against.  Of
course, the church stand that gays should not have sex is pretty weird,
and a whole 'nuther topic.)

	MKV

    hmmm
    this seems to have deteriorated to a 'church bashing' note...
    (which i take some responsibility for...so...)
    
    let's see if we can get back on track by focusing on some
    WOMEN in the church issues...
    
    are women treated equally by various organized religions?
    can they lead the services --priest, preacher, rabbi, whatever?
    when the marriage ceremonies are performed do women still get told
          to obey?
    does the 'church' expect women to stay home and have babies?
    are there church activites which take into account most couples
    	are 2 income families, thus both work, and have limited hours?
    are men encouraged to work in the 'childrens church/nursery school'?
    are women allowed to be on the board?  deacons?
    
    just some questions for re-starters...
    
    deb
    

	Deb,

	Which church are you asking about?

    
	There are many different "churchs" in this country.

	_peggy
    
    

    
    I'm asking about them all...
    what does your church/temple/whatever do?
    and is it common to others of that same persuasion?
    
    Being raised Protestant, I have some idea of the various
    denominations...and also some idea of Catholicism from various
    friends/relatives....but very little insight into any other
    religions, be it Islam, Buddhism, or whatever.  
    
    So, are there any organized religions/churches which truly
    promote and practice equality?  The closest in Christianity which
    I have found is UU...are there others?
    
    just looking for insight/comments/wisdom.
    
    deb
    

    RE: .23 I see your point and have from the beginning. For the sake
    of argument let's draw the line where you do. In this case Jesse
    Jackson and Pat Robertson fall on the same side of the line. Now I
    would not vote for either (though I'm more likely to vote for Jesse
    because he at least seems to have a brain) so I can be pretty
    objective. Lots of people in this conference (and in others) supported
    Jesse's right to run. Yet many of these same people objected to Pat
    running because he's an ordained minister. This is the kind of
    blatant hypocrisy I don't understand.

    RE: .24 You don't approve of people being forced to toe the line?
    Then you disapprove of anti-discrimination laws? OH, that's not
    religious right? So I guess since I support those laws for religious
    reasons I should stop trying to force my beliefs on people?

    Please someone, anyone who believes religion should not try to
    influence the state, demand that the World Council of churches stop
    fighting apartide. Demand that churches stop letting Jesse Jackson
    run from office from their pulpits. Demand that Desmond Tutu stop
    his anti-apartide fight. Demand that the Polish Catholic church
    stop helping Solidarity. Demand that Priests in South America and
    the Philippines stop fighting for the rights of the poor and oppressed.

    Because if you don't then your complaints of clergy fighting abortion
    by complaining of separation of church and state are valueless. I agree
    that they should not threaten excommunication of believers. But either
    give them the same freedom you allow clergy you agree with or be
    forever labeled hypocrite.

    ~Cliff

RE: .27

These answers based on First Church Unitarian [Universalist] Littleton [MA]

>>>    are women treated equally by various organized religions?

>>>    can they lead the services --priest, preacher, rabbi, whatever?
	Yes, our minister leads three of her services a month.

>>>    when the marriage ceremonies are performed do women still get told
>>>          to obey?
	Not unless they ask for such text

>>>    does the 'church' expect women to stay home and have babies?
	No

>>>    are there church activites which take into account most couples
>>>    	are 2 income families, thus both work, and have limited hours?
	Activities are not generally held during the working day, except
	some in something called the Woman's Alliance which meets maybe
	8 times per year.

>>>    are men encouraged to work in the 'childrens church/nursery school'?
	Yes, anyone is encouraged, several men work with the teenaged group.

>>>    are women allowed to be on the board?  deacons?
	Standing Committee (governing board) is headed by a female, 3 of 7
	members on ministerial search committee were female.
	...
	We have female deacons
    
/s/ Jim Williams

Wow, big topic.  I think I feel a tirade coming on! ;-)

I don't anyone can deny that their their has been some incredable
sexism in the history of the Church.  I think that ground has been
covered very well especially with the quotes notes.  I wonder if these
men are doing a good job of following their own religion though.
Jesus supposedly said, " Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Do unto
others as you would have them do unto you."  Sounds like these people
either did not consider women neighbors or people or something or just
had an incredable blind spot.  In any case, it is an unfortunate fact
that real people have a really hard time living up to religious
teachings.  Some traditions seem to fare better than others.

I fall into the ex-catholic category.  I was atheist for a while, then
transistioned in UU before practicing the Zen Buddhist teachings and now
I am kind of on my own loosely following Buddhist teachings.  I
studied neo-pagan traditions and Native American traditions as well as
other Buddhist traditions. What truly amazes me if the similarity and
commonality of all religous experiences.  Unfortunately to get at this
kernel of common experiences, you have to get through layers of junk
that people have added on top of the original teaching or experiences.  
What this tells me is that teachings, rituals, teachers, religious
symbolism, ideas about reality are not the thing in and of itself.
Isn't the diversity wonderful?  That so many different teachings can
point to something within ourselves that is the same thing.

So often, people mistake the teachings, methods, symbols for the truth
and then you have hatred, prejudice, religious wars and all kinds of
untold suffering.  If only we could all follow whatever teachings feel
right to us and realize for ourselves the truth of the teaching.
Teachings are just a tool.  This tool points to the self.  Life is
very short.  Moment by moment, it is ticking away.  So I wonder "What
is life?", "What is death?", "Who Am I?", "Is there a way to live
correctly?".

Animals know their function in life.  You don't see your cat wondering
who it is!  Humans have this problem.  I believe it is within each of
us to live as a fully "enlightened" and fully functioning human being.
What is this way?  I don't think anyone else can tell us.  I don't
think that a book can tell us.  It has to be lived and made real
within oneself.  We're always looking for someone else to come along
and do the work for us, to tell us what to do, to show us the easy way
out.  Its hard work and awareness every moment of the day.

I just finished a book by Thomas Merton called Seven Story Mountain.
He was a good Buddhist! ;-)  Either that or his mediatation and prayer
led him to the same place as other traditions.  But he had an
incredable blind spot towards other religious traditions.  All too
human.  *sigh*  

There are some traditions (Krishimurta and Toni Packer (who is a
wonderful (female) teacher that has a meditation center is NY state))
that ask if any ritual, any ideas, and teachers are needed at all.
They look and see the incredible suffering when the idea is mistaken
for the reality.  These ideas must be let go off at some point I
think.  If you have an idea about something, then by definition, there
is no longer complete freedom to see.  There is an automatic
separation between the object and the subject.  The is a perceiver and
something to be perceived  What is before this separation???  Probally
we have all had moments where this duality did not exist and one just
lived fully perfect and functioning and in a wonderful appreciation
and love for everything in the universe.

This question of whether any teachings are needed at all is an
interesting one for me.  Certainly some have helped along the way.  If
they must be thrown away at some point (hence the Buddhist saying, "If
you see the Buddha on the road, kill him.") why not just skip it from
day one and get right to the essence of things?

Certainly, there is alot of arguing about who's tradition is better,
who's symbols and rituals are better.  This is one thing I noticed
both in the Catholic and pagan traditions.  The Catholics (Merton) and
other denigrating pagans and pagans denigrating Christians (Starhawk
and Adler in my reading).  Given history, I can see why the pagan
traditions are angry but still!  I saw a lot of commonality of pagan
and Native American traditions with my own but don't experience things
in such a male/female separated way as the pagan traditions seem to.
One has one male god the other a male and a female.   I wonder if it
is necessary to personify god at all in our own images?  I guess I
experience god as something in everything and in the relationship
between everything and not a an externally envisagned form be it male
of female.  But that's my experience and I hope I am not denigrated
the way other perceive things.  Even talking about it all is lost!
"He/She who knows do not speak of it."  Tao De Ching

This is one thing I admire about the Buddhist teachings.  There
doesn't seem to be much of this comparing.  It is only stated what the
teaching is.  I think this is a mark of the stength of one's practice.
That there is no need to denigrate others beliefs.  I think this is
true of anything, even one's opinions.  The people I see that are
really confident and comfortable with their own opinions and beliefs
don't seem to need to convince everyone else that their way is the
right way.  

Buddism, unfortunately, has had its own share of sexism which is well
documented in Turning The Wheel and Meeting With Remarkable Women and
another book from Hawaii which I forget the name of at the moment.
But there are a lot of women Buddhist teachers in America today and I
believe Zen traditions like the UU's are at the forefront of the
movement to uproot harmful gender based conditioning for both genders.
I am currently practicing at Cambridge Buddhist Society with Maurine
Stuart, Roshi.  Let's hope so.

peace,
john

    I recently posted in another conference the following excerpt from an
    article in "Friends Journal".  The author discusses the implications of
    the biblical myth of Cain and Abel, and suggests an interpretation that
    has some rather interesting implications for women and others.  The
    final few paragraphs of the articles are as follows:


    The world in which Eve bore children does not seem very different from
    the world in which we bear children today, a world where most of the
    foundational images of God are of a being who has the right to do and
    say *whatever*.  Amen.  No explanation given.  We bear children in a
    world where blind obedience to this God is expected of us, no matter
    how unjust this may be.  And upon these foundational images, we have
    built elaborate hierarchies, teaching our children both to obey their
    "superiors" and to demand obedience from their "inferiors."  It is
    difficult to imagine a world without hierarchy.  What would a religion
    of justice and mutuality be like--mutuality among people, mutuality
    between human beings and God?  It is difficult to imagine a world where
    the so-called ordinary tasks such as child rearing were understood as
    sacred.  What would a religion of celebration of the ordinary, the
    repetitive, the mundane be like?

    It is difficult to imagine this, but we *must* imagine it, else our
    world will never become "fit for human habitation."

    And we *are* imagining this new world.  From those at the bottom of the
    hierarchies there is motion and speech of such power that the whole
    structure is trembling.  The pictures of God as arrogant and willful
    are being shaken.  Women and other "inferiors" are celebrating the
    reality of their own experience and re-imaging Christianity, learning
    from other traditions, from Wicca, from native American, and African
    spirituality.  Standing on the earth together, arm in arm, raucous and
    joyful and disruptive, we are learning what mutuality means.  Lillian
    Smith says, "Freud said once that woman is not well acculturated; she
    is, he stressed, retarded as a civilized person.  I think what he
    mistook for her lack of civilization is woman's lack of _loyalty_ to
    civilization."  We will no longer be loyal to the images that have made
    our world not fit for human habitation.

    Let us imagine a story about two siblings who bring to God their
    offerings.  And God has regard for one offering, and for the other God
    has no regard.  By their example and by their words, the parents
    of these siblings had taught them well about justice; and so the one
    whose offering was accepted says, "Now wait a minute--that's not fair! 
    What's so special about me, and why is my sibling rejected?"  God has
    no answer for this, so the favored sibling turns to the rejected one
    saying, "Come on.  Let's go fishing."  But the siblings see that God's
    countenance has fallen and that God is cast down.  So they return and
    invite God to go fishing too.

                         Alice Hildebrand Rudiger

    	From the article "Cain & Abel", in the October issue of
    	"Friends Journal"

    This pointer may also tie in with the Wicca discussion...
    
    womannotes-v1
    257 - feminist thealogy
    
    -Jody
    

    I always got the message that priests who are fighting poverty and
    injustice in the third world are doing it for humanity in general, and
    not for a specific religion.  If a child is hungry and neglected, they
    will help because they feel that no human being should have to suffer,
    rather than because the child may be a future convert to the priests
    church.
    
    What bothers me is when a politician (especially in the US) will vote
    a certain way because their religion dictates that they should, rather
    than the way their constituents would like them to vote.  It is my
    personal conviction that such and such is bad therefore I voted against
    it, and it doesn't matter what you think. Politicians should reflect
    the people they represent, rather than their own religion. 
    
    As for religions and women, I can give some insight on the Jewish
    faith.  (Although I no longer practice).  There are three major 
    factions of Judaism, orthodox, conservative and reform.  Orthodox
    Judaism is extremely sexist, women don't study.  In conservative
    Judaism, women are more equal to men, they are allow to have a bat
    mitzvah (coming of age), but are not allowed to read from the Torah.
    In reform Judiasm, women have the same privileges as men.  So the
    amount of sexism really depends on what type of Judiasm you're
    referring to (I'm not sure of the relative numbers of one type with
    respect to another).
    
    I hope this makes sense, I'm taking an antihistamine right now and am
    not at my most coherent state.
    
    Lisa

    RE: .36 second paragraph Votes over convictions?

    So if a politician represents an area of sexist racists than she
    should vote against feminist and pro-minority legislation no
    matter if her religious convictions say she should support such
    legislation? 

    So if an area of 98% pro-life people elected Maggie Tarbet to office 
    you believe she should vote against abortion?

    ~Cliff

    They wouldn't.

	 RE: .37
	 
>    So if an area of 98% pro-life people elected Maggie Tarbet to office 
>    you believe she should vote against abortion?

	 First off, (assuming that Maggie is not "pro-life") they
	 would not have voted for her.

	 Second off, yes, she should vote against abortion if 98% of
	 her constituents (sp?) where against abortion.


	 Government officials are elected by the people for the
	 people, and should vote the conscience of the majority
	 (especially a vast majority like 98%).  REGARDLESS of her
	 personal feelings.

	 Unfortunately this does not happen as often as it should.


	 kath

    I agree with Kath:  presuming that the opinions of my constituency
    changed out from under me (which I believe is the only way I could find
    myself in such a position) it would be my duty to either represent them
    or find other work, period.
    
    						=maggie

re .39:

>	 Government officials are elected by the people for the
>	 people, and should vote the conscience of the majority
>	 (especially a vast majority like 98%).  REGARDLESS of her
>	 personal feelings.
>
>	 Unfortunately this does not happen as often as it should.

The relation of representatives to their constituents is an interesting
question in political philosophy, and the conclusion is by no means so
obvious as suggested by this passage.  In particular, a good argument
can be made that if the function of representatives was purely to vote
the conscience of the majority, then we wouldn't need representatives
at all, and might as well revert to pure democracy:  that the electorate
chooses a representative, not just as a mouthpiece for their opinions,
but for the quality of her judgment.  I am not convinced that a 
representative is obliged to represent her constituents opinions to
a greater extent than is implied by the fact that if she is too far 
out of line, she won't be (re)elected.

	-Neil

    I agree  with  Neil on this one. A representative is morally bound
    to  state  his position on issues, and to then vote that position.
    It  is  acceptable  to change one's views, and to say so, but if a
    representative  always  seems  to  be  changing  to agree with the
    populace, I wouldn't trust him.

--David

>    I agree  with  Neil on this one. A representative is morally bound
>    to  state  his position on issues, and to then vote that position.


	 Is not a representative there to REPRESENT?  I feel that a
	 respresentative of the people is also morally bound to allow
	 the beliefs of his/her constituency to weigh very heavily in
	 his/her decision.


	 I would not take kindly to a representative of mine always
	 voting his/her position merely because it was what he/she
	 believed without letting the thoughts of the people weigh
	 heavily on the decision.

	 So, in this hypothetical situation....which was do you
	 beleive she should vote?  Her way?  Or the 98% of the
	 people's way?

	 
	 As a side note:

	 See, so politics is NOT easy (as many people believe).  It's
	 a personal battle, does a representative vote what he/she
	 believes, or what the people believe?  Who is right?  Who is
	 wrong?

	 I'm tired of the politician bashing that goes on...I don't
	 feel someone could get to an influential position in
	 government, and HOLD that position without some smarts and
	 abilities.  


	 kath

    See also (just rediscovered this one - and it's pertinent)
    
    Womannotes-V1
    topic 805 - Progress
    
    -Jody
    

    If I vote for someone knowing that I disagree with him, I'd rather
    that he vote his belief than mine. If he's just reading the polls,
    we  don't  need representatives, and why should I vote for someone
    who  will  change  his  mind  every time the polls change. We have
    representatives  (and  a  constitution  and  all  sorts of similar
    structure)  to  buffer  government  from  the  fickle  will of the
    majority.

    A congresscritter  should  vote for what he believes is right, and
    try to persuade his constituency. If he fails to convince you, you
    can vote to replace him.

--David

	 This is really hard to understand.


	 In one note/conference/discussion I see people bashing
	 politicians right and left saying they are not worth the body
	 they reside in......

	 then in here I see people willing to put the decisions having
	 to do with their lives, into the hand (and the opinion) of
	 the above stated individual.


	 I'm really confused.  I feel there is a semi-happy medium.
	 Personal opinion can never be a voting factor for a
	 representative, but rather what is best for the people
	 (whether the people understand what is best for them or not
	 still remains to be seen).


	 kath_very_confused

    You're not confused; you understand it perfectly.

    With as many people as exist, large-scale democracy (� la Town
    Meetings) is impossible, so we are compelled to hire (elect)
    representatives.

    The nature of what it takes to actually get elected means that anyone
    who manages to *get* elected should a priori be thrown in jail.

    We *know* this kind of person will *never* vote with our best interests
    in mind, so the only "middle ground" which is possible is to try to
    elect politicians whose self-interest (whether self-promotion or
    self-aggrandizement) most closely matches our own, however
    accidentally.

    I think I spoke too quickly in writing my previous response.  Let me
    see if I can clarify some stuff.

    I still think that, given the length of time between elections and the
    difficulty of evicting someone who gets elected by fraudulently
    claiming to hold a particular view, a politicritter should *represent*
    the will of her constituency WHENEVER the ultimate cost to society of
    either position seems equivalent or is unknowable.

    Where the w.o.t.c. would appear to lead to a position that would not be
    chosen were all facts in hand, then I'm with Napoleon:  the duty of a
    general [politicritter] is to argue, explain, and ultimately resign
    rather than be the instrument of the army's [society's] destruction.

    So, going back to the hypothetical:  should I vote pro-life?  No
    abortion, no contraception, no sex edu, no divorce, heavy stigma for
    extra-marital sex, limited career opportunities, etc.?  (I'm not making
    this up, you know; this is how the world was for women when I was a
    child,  scarcely 2 generations ago!)

    Hmmm...for the short term, at least, I still have to answer Yes if 98%
    of my constituency wants me to.  Being unable to obtain a abortion [in
    my personal opinion, Marge's mileage differs] when needed to prevent
    economic or emotional collapse is a disaster for the individual
    woman...but it is probably a short-term good thing for the state as a
    whole, these days, since it will more often than not result in the
    birth of a child and we're coming into a time when we're going to lack
    a source of cheap, docile labor.  Moreover, if women must spend their
    time in childrearing, they will have less energy available for rocking
    the social boat generally and society will be much more stable.

    Now, the long-term prospects (let's say 2 generations) of that course
    are probably awful and I should by no means vote the immediate desires
    of my constituency.  Women still have 52% of all the cognitive
    horsepower in the world, the standard of living in the US would go
    straight to hell if we had to support enough people [220M + 130M =
    350M] to make up the shortfall if women's skills aren't used to
    capacity...well, I suppose they could start a program of gynacide to
    reduce the surplus but I'm quite sure Marge and I would be arm-in-arm
    at the barriers protesting that...and the countries who utilise women
    in the professions rather than as baby factories (China and the USSR
    notably) will positively eat our lunch if we try to get by just on what
    men can do:  being just about the only country not to have had our
    industrial infrastructure wiped out by WWII, we've had a roughly
    40-year free ride which is now coming to an abrupt end.   

    Jeez, I'm in a real fix, here...do I vote the short term (and eat well)
    or the long (and sleep well)?  

    						=maggie           

    re .48
    
    You should study Russian society more closely if you think they
    have a more enlightened attitude to the role of women in it.  Women
    are treated a lot less equally in Russia than in the US.  I believe
    that you would find the same in China, except that the society there
    has taken the position to forbid a woman's choice to have more than
    one baby.  Russian women are where American women were twenty years
    ago, with a few very visible women in professional positions.
    
    Regarding the economy going to pot without the contribution of the
    women in it, that is true just as it would be true to remove the
    men.  The proposition is obsurd in either case.  
    
    Our government is representative government, not mass clone government.
    If a representative of the people were to be required to vote the
    will of the people, that representative would spend 80% of the working
    day finding out what the people wanted in order to vote.  Very little
    would get done.  
    
    This country is by very careful choice not a Democracy.  It is a
    Republic.  Funny that it is constantly referred to as a Democracy
    though.
    
    I think we're getting awfully far from the topic.  Don't you?
    
    Bud

�    You should study Russian society more closely if you think they
�    have a more enlightened attitude to the role of women in it.
    
    Sorry, Bud, but you're making that suggestion to the wrong person. :-)
    
    						=maggie

     Formal religious institutions have a history of oppression of
     women.    (paraphrase of the argument)


Agreed.  I doubt that anyone with an idea of history could disagree.
   The educational institutions, the institution of government and the
   institution of marriage have similar histories.  I have participated in
   each of them.


>   I have wondered how both men and women who are of liberal minds (i.e.
>   they support birth control, abortion, gay/lesbian civil rights, etc.)
>   can also support the Catholic church...perhaps another one of life's
>    strange paradoxes.
    

I am, by the above definition "of a liberal mind".  I am also, by my
   own adult choice, a Roman Catholic (although the Pope might disagree).
   Actually, since moving to Massachusetts I have not found a RC church
   that I am comfortable in, so I have joined a Lutheran church -- this in
   no way affects my arguments.

I consider myself a "salad bar Catholic"  that is, I take what I need
   from the religion, support valid works, and bypass items that don't "set
   well with me".  (Does this remind anyone else of the "Are You a
   Feminist" debate?)

Sunday mornings are the only time of the week that I consider BELONGS TO
   ME FOR MY OWN SELFISH NEEDS -- to evaluate how my life is going
   according to my goals -- am I doing the right things? the important
   things?  am I too bogged down in daily routine?    Some needs within me
   -- that are not addressed in our mobile, forward-looking, change is good
   for its own sake society -- are filled by participation in the Catholic
   church.  I like the symbolism and the traditions of an ancient Church; I
   like the organ music; I enjoy incense and Gregorian chants occasionally.
   I need the sense of connectness -- the sense of unity above
   political/personal differences.  


As for Authority . . . 
    I am an experienced microscopist.  If the Pope appeared in my lab
    one day and disputed the interpretation of a particular micrograph, I
    would (politely) laugh in his face.  This is my area of expertise.  I
    feel exactly the same about birth control.  Simply put, I know more
    about it than he does.  I do acknowledge his authority in some areas.


>     that there are so many of us who
>     now describe ourselves as "recovering Catholics."

     
And finally to those who haven't been in a Catholic Church for awhile,
   let me describe the ones I have belonged to -- maybe I've been on the
   "radical fringe" of Catholism.


Dissent in the churches . . .
   In college (Bozeman, Montana -- not a hotbead of liberalism), our
   priest, a godly man who was beloved by the congregation, was married.
   Eventually he was "unpriested" by the Pope, but the process took about
   six years.

In Tempe, Arizona, I belonged to a church near campus.  Our only
   nun made a point of rewriting all the Biblical readings so that no
   exclusionary language was used; she was supported in this.  


Valid Role for churches . . .
   We did some **good** work in that church.  We were officially (we voted
   on it) a Sanctuary Church.  Our congregation actively worked to bring
   political refugees (technically, illegal aliens) from Guatemala and El
   Salvador into this country and establish them here.  Because our
   government supports these repressive governments, political-refugee
   status is withheld from them.  But the people that we aided (carefully
   selected) were in justified **terror** for their lives.  All of them had
   relatives that had been murdered by the government -- some of them were
   the only survivors of the family (intimidation starts with your children
   and grandparents). 

We participated in fund raising events, prayer breakfasts for the
   priests and nuns on trial, candle-lit marches to the federal buildings,
   etc.  It was peaceful protest of our government's inhuman policies.
   This is an important and justifiable role for established religious
   institutions -- caring for those whom the government scorns. 

The small Lutheran church to which I now belong is addressing the social
    problem of day care by having a non-profit nursery school in the church
    building during the week.

 

One last disclaimer . . .
   I do believe that the **worst** thing that can happen to a religious
   institution is to become wealthy.  



Barbi
       -who-doesn't-believe-compromise-is-a-bad-word