In essence if one allows of free will, one is free to chose whether to be
oppressed or not, to be a slave or a free person, to self harm or not to
self harm.
The principle is the old one of John Stuart Mill, at what point does ones
private practice impinge upon the liberties of ones fellows.
One should be allowed to chose by social contract a lifestyle of adherence
to that which outside society condemns be it one of strict religious
observance or of libertarian indulgence.
Those of us who uphold a social model of disability in any form should
recognise this, that society has no right to determine what is deviant and
sanction it so long as one is not forcing ones will upon others
The point in both cases is that society is temporal and mutable and that in
chosing a religios faith one surrenders to the inevitable judgement and
trusts one has made the right choice.
Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Lillie,Timothy H
> Sent: 13 December 2002 18:33
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Blair and Bush call themselves christians
>
>
> 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)
>
>
________________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.
|