 |
 |
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.