My comments are interspersed, below. Thanks for the discussion.
Timothy Lillie, PhD
Dept. of Curricular & Instructional Studies
The University of Akron
Akron OH 44325-4205
330-972-6746 (Voice)
330-972-5209 (Fax)
> Tim,
>
> I think we're basically on the same wave length on this issue.
> When people impose their views on others, this a form of
> oppression. It makes no different when the justification is wrapped
> in the language of "progress" than when it's advanced in dictatorial
> rhethoric; in either case, it is imposing a particular point
> of view on
> group of people. I'm against oppression of all types -- be that, from
> within and without. But, I am not an absolute relativist -- that is,
> don't ascribe to the belief that all forms of behaviour are
> acceptable.
Neither do I. I have said several times that my comments don't, in my view, justify every activity or belief labeled "religious." The religious violence between Hindus and Muslims in India is a case in point. It is not (nor should it be) acceptable to engage in violence against someone on the basis of their religion.
> Just as I'm against western government's dictating policy to so-
> called Third World countries, I'm equally against dominant
> members of a society imposing their will on others --including
> dictating how a religious group should conduct itself. The tricky
> thing is determining when oppression is occuring and when it is
> not, and when it is appropriate to allow the "oppression" to
> continue (e.g., sexism within a religious organization) and when it
> is necessary to take action to stop it. I would think that there is
> no straight forward answer to these difficult quesitons. Perhaps, a
> possible criterion to use is whether the behaviour negatively
> impacts the "common good". Yet, then the quesiton becomes: who
> determines what is the comon good? The issue becomes even
> more complicated when applied outside of a religious context
> (e.g., cultural oppression within a culture).
Another problem is who says when a behavior or tradition is "sexism" and when it is an expression of a group of people being faithful to God's will? I write this because I know of such cases. Motherhood as the highest calling for women is honestly and joyfully accepted by many of my relatives; they don't see this -- at all -- as sexism (and yes, they do understand what sexism is). They see it as what God wants for them. I come along and call it sexism and have, automatically, cast them as villains or at least put them on the defensive.
> Another useful criterion might be to say that when a group-
> behaviour is deemed exceptable by the majority of its members, it
> should be acceptable to society; and conversely that it should be
> deemed unacceptable by society when the members of the group
> consider it so . In a religious context, it means that when, for
> example, a few members of a group prohibit women from holding
> high-level positions within the organization, that is, inspite of
> considerable dissension, or when these same members prohibit
> homosexuals from partaking in religious ceremonies, again
> against the wishes of the majority, then this should justifiably be
> labeled oppressive. The question then becomes: what actions
> should be taken? For example, is government intervenntion
> necessary; for example, legislation prohibiting said forms of
> discriminaiton from continuing? My answer would be to say: no. As
> alluded to above, outside intervention always carries the
> possility of
> translating into oppression. It becomes a matter of substituting one
> form of oppression for another.
Yes, I think we generally agree here. However, I would remind you that the majority is not always right or just. I think about the racial discrimination in the US, most notably in the South but (having lived in both regions) worst in the Northern part of the US. The majority, until the 1960s thought that racial discrimination was just fine. The MINORITY held to another view of justice and, to a large extent in the civil rights struggle of the time, what God wanted. In fact, the tyranny of the majority is precisely the problem.
Who are the majority in disability research and disability studies? Are they tyrannical or do they genuinely accept diversity? Do the answers to these questions depend on whether you are in the UK, the US and/or elsewhere in the world?
But, I do think that providing
> government funding to religious organizations that engage in such
> behaviours is wrong. In fact, I'm against funding of any kind to
> religious organizations. As it stands, there is a myriad of social
> problems -- many of them government created -- currently needing
> attention: funding for schooling, funding for affordable housing,
> funding for health care, etc. Religious groups should be free to
> practice their religious beliefs, within particular
> parametres, but, I
> don't think government should play a role in funding these groups.
I agree. Religious groups should never be funded as religious groups. On the other hand, I can recall an excellent day care center that was operated by a Presbyterian church in North Carolina and that provided state-of-the-art care for my daughter, years ago. Why shouldn't such a program receive state funds, provided no attempts to convert are going on? Maybe a Muslim-run temperance program (it being well-known that Muslim are forbidden to drink alcohol) would be a model for the community. Provided no attempts to convert are going on, why not fund it with state funds?
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> From: "Lillie,Timothy H" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Copies to: <DISABILITY-
> [log in to unmask]>
>
> > 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.
