David:
Your argument would (not long ago) have been mine as well. And of course I agree that an outside or neutral analysis of any religion by anyone with a fairly consistent set of principles (be they "conservative" or "liberal" or "moderate") is going to find plenty of things that he or she thinks are "wrong" about the activities of a particular sect or religion. I, for instance, believe that men and women should have equal roles in religious matters. If I use that belief as the "correct" one, then my built-in bias automatically casts some (many, nearly all) religious sects as "discriminatory" to women.
I am not saying that religion is a private matter only. Far from it. Free religious expression in the USA and UK involves many practices and activities (snake handling; men-only priesthoods, men-only imams or rabbis in some groups) the offend the "public sphere," because they seem to violate our (essentially) secular values. These are then criticized as if they are ipso facto "wrong" and "discriminatory" and so forth.
An historical example from the UK: Quakers, in their early history in the UK (and elsewhere) practiced as religious activities which they believed divinely mandated, activities which were deeply offensive to not only those in power but to the common person as well, given the nature of the public manners of the time. They used the familiar form of terminology ("thee") to everyone, which was considered grossly offensive to many -- today, we might call it 'speaking truth to power,' but then it was rude and insulting. They believed that men and women married each other in a public meeting for worship, which specifically did not involve any "interference" by the state. As a result of this custom, in the early days, because of law and common belief, the unions were NOT considered legal marriages and, as a result, children were illegitimate and there were problems with inheritance and so forth. This is just part of the list. Yet, at the time, the authorities were merely trying to "correct" the "wrong" beliefs, activities, and choices of the Society of Friends. I wonder to what extent, when we condemn religious beliefs or expressions we don't share (within limits, as I have always said) we are doing in the 21st century what BOTH the Puritans and Restoration monarchists were doing to the Quakers?
I would like to see every religion have a "mechanism" to handle disagreements and I would like such a mechanism to include as many people as possible. But. If I insist (as "the state") that (say) I will only allow tax-exemptions to those Catholic churches that ordain female as well as male priests or to those Sikh groups who allow disabled people to engage in all religious rites, then I am imposing secular consensus beliefs on religious groups and by that fact itself, denying true religious freedom.
This has not been an easy thing for me to come to understand, but I think that it is essential to question ourselves from time to time to be sure that we haven't become (with the nicest possible intentions) oppressive in our thinking.
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: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 3:12 PM
> To: Lillie,Timothy H
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Blair and Bush call themselves christians
>
>
>
> Tim,
> one obvious problem with this argument -- which in its essence, I
> agree with -- is that its does not speak the issue of who determines
> the laws governing a religious insitution and therefore whether
> these laws are implemented inspite the wishes of the
> organization's members.If you stick to your argument about this
> being a private matter,the question becomes: do all the members
> within the institution consider it a private matter or what is the
> proportion of those who do and those who do not? And are there
> mechanisms for which to voice their dissaproval?
>
> In other words, you need to take account of the power structures
> within the organization, and how members themselves feel about
> its method of governance. The "Tradition" defense is a weak one
> b/c it assumes that there is unanimity within the organization about
> its procedures when, in fact, there might be considerable
> dissension.
>
> David
>
>
>
> > The issue of who has power within a religious community or
> access to the ladders of power is a very important issue. In my
> own religious expression, I would not feel (as I said earlier) that a
> church, mosque, synagogue, temple or other congregation that
> promotes differential treatment of people on account of gender and
> limits opportunities for one gender or the other is one I would care
> to be part of.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Date sent: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:33:23 -0500
> Send reply to: "Lillie,Timothy H" <[log in to unmask]>
> From: "Lillie,Timothy H" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Blair and Bush call themselves
> christians
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> > Thanks to Madeleine for her candid comments. I, too, appreciate
> this thread but more for what it says about the "correct" worldview
> of most (if not all) of us on this list, than for potential
> problems or
> not within a specific religious group.
> >
> > Who says that forbidding one gender to perform religious tasks is
> "discriminatory?" Generally speaking, it is someone outside the
> religion seeking to impose their (our) secular view of what
> constitutes the "correct" way to view gender divisions. What I am
> (and have been) arguing is that it is just as discriminatory and
> totalitarian for us to force our beliefs about the role of men or
> women in a particular religion as it would be if the situation were
> reversed and an established religion insisted (for instance) that in
> THEIR COUNTRY, women would not be allowed to drive and must
> wear chadors. Ooops, I forgot: we already went through that in
> Saudi Arabia a year or two ago.
> >
> > I say nothing about giving "room" inside faith communities to
> determine their rituals and creeds or procedures because that is
> not our business (with a few exceptions, as for example whether
> parents who are Christian Scientists can forbid needed medical
> care for their children) to tell them to abide by our norms. They
> have their own. Further, who says that if I am a member of
> Religion A, I have to abide by the rules for changing religious
> principles that the secular society thinks are correct? If I
> try to do
> that am I not then making a mockery of the principle of religious
> freedom? I think so. I think I said somewhere (and if not, I'm
> saying it now) that changes in religious principles need to be made
> according to the beliefs, practices, and preferences of those
> already within the religious community, not those outside. Many
> USA Protestant sects, for instance, have very clear and often
> democratic procedures for how religious principles and practices
> are to be established, reviewed, maintained, and changed. For that
> matter the (worldwide) Catholic Church does as well; they are just
> not seen as democratic or representative of "diversity," which is
> their business, I argue, not mine.
> >
> > Having said that, let me (I think) reiterate that "toleration" of a
> religious practice we find problematical is different from
> "endorsing"
> that principle. Toleration is actually the "hold your nose and put up
> with it" school, that (in my view) is the essence of the notion of
> "diversity." If we all operate according to the same principles and
> all believe the same things and all must behave in the same ways,
> where is the diversity?
> >
> > The issue of who has power within a religious community or
> access to the ladders of power is a very important issue. In my
> own religious expression, I would not feel (as I said earlier) that a
> church, mosque, synagogue, temple or other congregation that
> promotes differential treatment of people on account of gender and
> limits opportunities for one gender or the other is one I would care
> to be part of.
> >
> > But: I will not simply keep silent when I believe that we
> are being
> called to be dogmatic about what is what; disability studies did not
> get where it is today by doing that but by challenging dogma.
> Sometimes, I suggest, we need to do that to our own cherished
> and valued belief systems to determine if we hold them because
> "we always did it this way" or because they have some firmer
> foundation.
> >
> > Thanks for the discussion.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > 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: Friday, December 13, 2002 11:32 AM
> > > To: Lillie,Timothy H
> > > Cc: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: RE: Blair and Bush call themselves christians
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > > I know the discussion has moved on and this thread has gone
> > > way off beam... but I've been thinking about the last
> > > comments made by Timothy
> > > (see below) and I'm having real trouble holding my nose.
> > >
> > > I understand what is being suggested about secular norms and
> > > religious contexts, but still remain unsure it is so clear
> > > cut. In the example
> > > below there appears no room within faith communities for
> > > theological argument about how religious doctrines are
> > > interpreted by people and
> > > used to inform practice.
> > >
> > > The issue of power and who has access to contribute to any
> > > such theological arguments aside, I would suggest that often
> > > discriminatory
> > > practice (about roles of women, disabled people etc.,) that
> > > are woven into religious practice have in fact been
> > > influenced by secular norms
> > > in the first place and then reinforced by tradition.
> > >
> > > Saying that I don't wish to start a theological debate about
> > > the interpretation of religious doctrine etc. at least not on
> > > this list. It's
> > > just I feel troubled by the implicit suggestion that within
> > > religion there is only one correct interpretation of doctrine
> > > and it happens to
> > > be the one that maintains the status quo. This means no
> > > room for evolution, new understandings or theological
> discussion.
> > >
> > > OK I can breath a bit easier now, thank you for all your
> > > comments on this thread I have found it interesting and
> > > thought provoking.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Madeleine
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Lillie,Timothy H [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: 06 December 2002 17:22
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: Blair and Bush call themselves christians
> > >
> > >
> > > 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)
> > >
> >
> > ________________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.
|