Mel's "Murder is Murder" comment

Submitted by Claire (United States), May 9, 2008 at 19:31

Mel,

I apologize for your feeling insulted by my post.

My own conclusion is that, until a religion sheds its folkloric patriarchal skin, women will not be equals in that religious system. Of course, they've been indoctrinated to believe it *is* a certain way, irrespective of the religion.

Up until the mid-1960s, women were mostly pregnant and nursing throughout their child-bearing years, and it made biological sense for them to focus primarily on those things associated with female biology. We also know that, over time, a few women dismissed the traditional role and became everything from top scientists, to computer programmers, to even religious leaders in their own right.

I think our breakthroughs in science and technology have finally opened up a world where women can operate as full humans without the deference to males from patriarchy. In fact, many modern faiths, and even Christian, Jewish, and Islamic sects allow women to participate at all levels without any negative consequences. Of course, indoctrination tends to cross generations, so it can be difficult for an individual to see past his or her own in order to evolve or do something different than the parents, close family, or community.

We understand today that we can have strong family and community ties without everyone holding the same religious beliefs. On the other hand, some people who are steeped in tradition, and whose personalities predispose them to do so, seek to force their own doctrine on others. It's only a recent phenomena that people have looked at it from a more objective perspective and allowed people to choose their own doctrine as long as it doesn't injure or limit another.

I think a breakthrough in human thought has occurred and is spreading. We are seeing a lot of hunkering down by religious ideologues, a very predictable regression based on what we've learned through science about human nature.

Many modern religions accept both genders as full participants in church-life at all levels, with no harm to the community, and much empowerment of all. The number of "New Thought", "Unity", "Divine Science", "Religious Science" and even secular groups that offer the same fellowship, opportunity to serve others, milieu for teaching ethics, etc. ("Ethical Culture", "Unitarian-Universalism", "Secular Humanism", "Brights", etc.) is spreading. Many of these groups encourage their members to read all of the ancient sacred writings as well as modern ones in order to understand the history and evolution of religious thought as human thought also evolved.

I think that, if a given system works for you, then it's right for you. However, I reserve the right to advocate for the freedom of all people to participate fully at all levels of society, not as a religious belief, but as a perceived insight of how to make a more just and compassionate world.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".