Sarah:
You are right. We do have to say that certain behavior in the workplace (promoting only men or only women) is sexist. However, that same behavior in a religious context (only men can be priests) is not sexist in the religious perspective; only from a secular one. I think we can forbid the first but have to hold our noses while tolerating the second.
Timothy Lillie, PhD
Dept. of Curricular & Instructional Studies
The University of Akron
Akron OH 44325-4205
330-972-6746 (Voice)
330-972-5209 (Fax)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sarah Supple [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 11:16 AM
> To: Lillie,Timothy H; DISABILITY-RESEARCH
> Subject: Re: Blair and Bush call themselves christians
>
>
> Dear Timothy, I see the dilemma of balancing wanting to
> embrace diversity
> whilst passionately caring about what I feel to be right.
> However regarding
> religion I feel you cannot separate it from culture and
> context, I believe
> all religion , including the Christian one I grew up in is
> moulded by the
> cultures it exists in. Thus I don't think you can separate
> something as a
> religious doctrine and thus make it immune to the same
> critique that is
> applied to the culture in which it evolved. If we do this we
> risk saying
> it's ok to be sexist in the name of God, but not in the
> workplace. Sarah
> Supple.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lillie,Timothy H" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 6:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Blair and Bush call themselves christians
>
>
> Let me try to clarify:
>
> First, I think that those within a faith community are always
> justified in
> suggesting changes or modifications; these are precisely the
> people who need
> to be let alone by those outside the community. However, religious
> governance and procedural systems vary widely; some rely on
> what (to them)
> is a necessary model where those most learned in the faith
> control things.
> This might look to outsiders (in particular) as
> paternalistic, patriarchal,
> and non-democratic. So we are then faced with a challenge:
> do we, in the
> name of religious freedom, not only tolerate but celebrate
> the "diversity"
> evident in a form most of us dislike, or do we encourage
> either from the
> outside or by encouraging insiders to change their (in this
> case) form of
> church governance to a form we like better.
>
> The example of Catholics not ordaining women is rooted in the
> 2000 year
> understanding of what God wants, at least according to
> Catholic tradition
> and theology. The fact that you don't like that (neither do
> I, but I am not
> Catholic) makes no difference. Now, if you challenge the
> church's current
> system and beliefs as a Catholic, you are in a sense
> rebelling against a
> sacred system. The system would then be justified in disciplining you
> because in ITS JUDGEMENT, and according to its rules, you deserve
> discipline.
>
> >From the outside, I would see such action as harsh and perhaps
> discriminatory, but I am basing that judgement not on
> religious principles
> but on post-modern secular constructions of how the world
> should be. In
> doing that, I am trying to impose my principles on others.
>
> What I am trying to argue is that we should not be quick to
> judge religious
> rituals and beliefs, based on what are essentially secular
> principles. It
> is a fact (whether or not we like it or agree with it) that
> most religions
> in the world today, believe as fundamental principles that
> the role of women
> (and children) should be limited or supportive only; this is at base a
> religious doctrine. In fact, I have relatives who (in church matters)
> strictly limit the role of women; the women see this as part of their
> religion and as ordained by God. They do not see it as
> discrimination, they
> see it as a sort of division of labor. Now: I find this
> attitude to be
> foreign and problematical and for that reason don't practice
> the same kind
> of religion anymore. BUT (and I am as family by definition
> NOT an outsider)
> I do respect that they have chosen to live this way and I do
> NOT go on and
> on about their deficits. Out of mutual respect, they don't
> go on and on
> about what they view as MY religious shortcomings.
>
> I don't know if this helps; I have found that we often tend
> to believe that
> OUR deeply-held, principled beliefs are THE good, and right
> and true ways of
> looking at things. They may be but I think that if we truly value
> diversity, we need to know that some forms of diverse
> expression may not be
> ones we like, particularly.
>
> Timothy Lillie, PhD
> Dept. of Curricular & Instructional Studies
> The University of Akron
> Akron OH 44325-4205
> 330-972-6746 (Voice)
> 330-972-5209 (Fax)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Freewood, Madeleine J [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 12:22 PM
> > To: Lillie,Timothy H
> > Cc: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: RE: Blair and Bush call themselves christians
> >
> >
> > Hi Timothy,
> > I don't fully understand your line of argument here, which is
> > probably more to do with me than the way you have expressed
> > your comments!
> > Are you suggesting that challenging perceived discrimination
> > is the same as "imposing" your beliefs on others?
> >
> > I could probably be described as a 'practising Catholic'
> > however I consider the institution that is the 'Catholic
> > Church' discriminatory in
> > numerous areas - the fact that women cannot be ordained as
> > priests being such an example. I seek to challenge this
> > discrimination but I see
> > that as different from "imposing" my view. Related to that,
> > your argument seems to suggest that those wishing to
> > challenge discrimination
> > are always outside the faith community/religious group in
> > which the perceived discrimination takes place. I don't
> > think this is always the
> > case.
> >
> > Regards Madeleine
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lillie,Timothy H [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 05 December 2002 16:46
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Blair and Bush call themselves christians
> >
> >
> > The notion that disabled people might be "excused" or
> > excluded from performing some religious tasks, is not (I
> > believe) necessarily
> > "fundamentally discriminatory." Certainly, from a secular
> > perspective such exclusions look discriminatory, when
> > evaluated especially using
> > our "civil rights" sensibilities. I believe, very strongly,
> > that excluding someone from a PUBLIC good or service or
> > opportunity because of
> > a disability, IS fundamentally discriminatory.
> >
> > However, if we REALLY believe in the principle that church
> > and state ought to be separate, then we have little right to
> > intervene into bona
> > fide religious expression and principles, practices or
> > rituals, just because such practices somehow offend our
> > sensibilities. Those who
> > practice the religion are those whose expression (while we
> > may or may not understand it) of it ought to be left alone by
> > government or even
> > by principled "outsiders." Many in this country, at least,
> > would become incensed if a particular religious group
> > undertook to "impose" its
> > beliefs on others, as well they should. By what right, then,
> > do we have the right to attempt to change those religious
> > principles to conform
> > to our secular ones? If we do so have we not "imposed our
> > beliefs" on people?
> >
> > Perhaps there are concerns that would arise in states which
> > have, in practice and/or in theory, established churches:
> > Iran is a theocracy;
> > so is, to all intents and purposes, Saudi Arabia. Israel has
> > a strong and powerful Orthodox Jewish population which
> > controls some aspects
> > of life in Israel. Nominally, the United Kingdom (or at
> > least England) still has an established church, but I suspect
> > (subject to
> > correction from UK residents) that its function and influence
> > is much less than it once was.
> >
> > I am not defending any particular religious practice, nor am
> > I defending EVERY principle that is labeled as religious.
> > What I am saying is
> > that we need to be careful in this area.
> >
> > Timothy Lillie, PhD
> > Dept. of Curricular & Instructional Studies
> > The University of Akron
> > Akron OH 44325-4205
> > 330-972-6746 (Voice)
> > 330-972-5209 (Fax)
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Herkiran Toor, [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:03 AM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: Blair and Bush call themselves christians
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm currently (trying) to write a book on the meaning and
> > construction
> > > of disability within Sikhism. My interest was raised by the
> > fact that
> > > the current Moral Code for the Sikhs (Rahit Marayada),
> > which outlines
> > > the duties and practices of Sikhs, states that the
> > initiation ceremony
> > > into the religion must be undertaken by five learned people
> > > (theoreticall both men and women) who must not be, in
> > > English translation, disabled. The fact that these
> > > positions are theoretically open to anyone who has a good
> > > understanding of the religious texts, the exclusion of the
> > > disabled is fundementally discriminatory.
> > >
> > > At the moment it is very difficult to ascertain why this
> > injunction is
> > > in place as the basic tenant of Sikhism is social equality.
> > The fact
> > > that the current code was not formally accepted until the
> > 1950's may
> > > be a factor.
> > >
> > > As to the fact that there may be more "opportunities" in Western
> > > Christian societies depends upon how one defines "opportunities".
> > > Within Sikhism, even though the facts stated above may seem as
> > > evidence of the lack of opportunities, the fact that (a)
> most Sikhs
> > > are not practicising and, (b) within a wider social context,
> > > outside the religious, Punjabi society is no more or less
> > > discriminatory than other cultures - it's just that they
> > > have different explanatory models.
> > >
> > > Kiran
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 15:06:29 -0500 "Lillie,Timothy H"
> > > <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It might be interesting here to see if there are
> > > comparative studies on the treatment of disabled people in
> > > so-called Christian countries as compared to the treatment of
> > > those in so-called Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, atheist, (have I
> > > missed anybody?) countries.
> > > >
> > > > My guess is that while one is likely to find a wide range
> > > of conditions in most countries, it will be the (mostly, but
> > > not exclusively) Western, Christian countries where disabled
> > > people have the best opportunities. Much more needs to be
> > > done, of course, in the whole world, but wouldn't it be
> > > ironic if the worst-treated disabled people were found, say,
> > > in the Muslim part of the Sudan or in Hindu India?
> > > >
> > > > Actually, Hazel Jones wrote a piece for _Disability Studies
> > > Quarterly_, Winter 2000, which I edited, exploring how
> > > disabled childen's issues are viewed in some parts of the
> > > world with regard to the UN's Convention on the Rights of the
> > > Child. It is at:
> > > >
> > > http://www.cds.hawaii.edu/dsq/_articles_html/2000/Fall/dsq_200
> > > 0_Fall_07.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Timothy Lillie, PhD
> > > > Dept. of Curricular & Instructional Studies
> > > > The University of Akron
> > > > Akron OH 44325-4205
> > > > 330-972-6746 (Voice)
> > > > 330-972-5209 (Fax)
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: ColRevs [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 2:56 PM
> > > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > > Subject: Blair and Bush call themselves christians
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > How can Tony Blair and President Bush call themselves
> > Christians ?
> > > > > Do 'real' true Christians believing war and oppression of the
> > > > > underclass's ?
> > > > >
> > > > > If they are true Christians, then how can they engage in the
> > > > > politics of the new-right neo-liberal politics ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Col R
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________End of message______________________
> > > > >
> > > > > Archives and tools for the Disability-Research
> > Discussion List are
> > > > > now located at:
> > > > >
> > > > > www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> > > > >
> > > > > You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________End of message______________________
> > > >
> > > > Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion
> > List are
> > > > now located at:
> > > >
> > > > www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> > > >
> > > > You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------
> > > Herkiran Toor,
> > > BT Project Manager
> > > Centre for Access & Communication Studies
> > > University of Bristol - Union Building
> > > Queen's Road
> > > Bristol BS8 1LN
> > > 0117 954 5717
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > > ________________End of message______________________
> > >
> > > Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion
> > List are now
> > > located at:
> > >
> > > www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> > >
> > > You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
> > >
> >
> > ________________End of message______________________
> >
> > Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion
> > List are now located at:
> >
> > www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> >
> > You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
> >
>
> ________________End of message______________________
>
> Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> are now located at:
>
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
>
>
>
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|