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.
|
