Religious based sexism

[Stevil]

I've been a member of a Catholic forum for a few months now.

I am appalled by their acceptance and promotion of sexism.
Their church tells them that god and Jesus didn't want females to be ordained, hence an all male priesthood. They derive this not from scripture but from the tradition of their church whom they promote as being guided by god, hence infallible.
The woman followers tell me its fine because they don't want to be priests anyway. With their symbolism they liken the church to Jesus's bride and then they say that the priests are married to the church. The nuns are married to Jesus apparently.

Some state that a priest must perform "Persona Christi", become the person of Christ and since Jesus was a male and god is a male then this can only be performed by a male, (even though god is all powerful).

But then it goes beyond this.
Within the structure of the church, Priests are seen as leaders, they have subordinates that are responsible to them. Nuns are sub-ordinates of priests. Priests or any man within the church is never a subordinate of a nun. Mother Superiors are only leaders to women.

The majority of the forum members suggest that girls shouldn't be allowed to participate as alter servers. Possible only allowed if there were a shortage of boys. They see it as a training ground for boys to eventually become priests and hence see no purpose for girls in this role.

When some church breaks away from this and ordains woman then the forum members (men and women) create threads within the forum and ridicule and berate these ordained women.

What kind of message does this give to the children? Girls are second fiddle to boys? Boys are more important and girls should only ever dream of a support role?
Anyway, this post isn't to bitch and moan.
My intent is to ask the following:
Does anyone know of a country that fights this sexism, that won't allow religions to reserve roles for men and to subjugate women?
Why do countries fight sexism in the work place, in the public but not on the religious front?
Do you ever think it will happen, that a government will grow the courage to tackle this appalling behavior?

[Medusa]

You know I see the problem lying squarely on the shoulder of mothers and future mothers etc. In general women. Women need to stop accepting this. They need to be the ones that start the change of the children who will eventually become the adult males and females of this religion. But what happens is that they don't want to rock the boat. They will wait for the next group of women to deal with it. They pass the buck. I was raised in a Hispanic Catholic family. If women just decided to stop altogether over night taking this crap from the Catholic church I really wonder what exactly would happen. Women are THE meat and bones of the Catholic money if you really think about it. Most fathers aren't packing up the kids every Sunday for service. Or ever Wed for church bible studies or pot lucks or charity events. It's the women. When that goes the whole system will go.

Sorry I ranted. 
As for govt interfering in religion. I don't want any govt interfering in my religion (I'm a Satanist). Religion is a choice once you are an adult. If you want to be indoctrinated into a religion and don't want to stand up for yourself, go right ahead. I can't stop you. The same way I don't want someone stopping me from practicing my religion because they might find it (fill in the blank with whatever the govt is against for that voting year)

[Stevil]

As for govt interfering in religion. I don't want any govt interfering in my religion (I'm a Satanist). Religion is a choice once you are an adult. If you want to be indoctrinated into a religion and don't want to stand up for yourself, go right ahead. I can't stop you. The same way I don't want someone stopping me from practicing my religion because they might find it (fill in the blank with whatever the govt is against for that voting year)

Why do you see a religous organisation as something special, something above the law?
Could we then suggest that a corporation that only wants crusty old men in the board be allowed to continue with this policy? People choose to work for this company, does this choice as an adult give the company the right to implement a sexist policy?

[Medusa]

As for govt interfering in religion. I don't want any govt interfering in my religion (I'm a Satanist). Religion is a choice once you are an adult. If you want to be indoctrinated into a religion and don't want to stand up for yourself, go right ahead. I can't stop you. The same way I don't want someone stopping me from practicing my religion because they might find it (fill in the blank with whatever the govt is against for that voting year)

Why do you see a religous organisation as something special, something above the law?
Could we then suggest that a corporation that only wants crusty old men in the board be allowed to continue with this policy? People choose to work for this company, does this choice as an adult give the company the right to implement a sexist policy?

I guess I don't want anyone telling me how I can worship in my religion. Especially an entity that has no idea what my religion is about. The same way I don't want them to stick their business in how I run my relationship. Should they then make sure I'm not a sexist woman? I want to be a stay at home wife and have my Muslim husband support me and our family. Now I can't because he's the patriarch of the family? The govt is going to start telling me how I should make my decisions too? I just don't like that one bit. Let them poke around your personal life.

[Recusant]

Why do you see a religous organisation as something special, something above the law?
Could we then suggest that a corporation that only wants crusty old men in the board be allowed to continue with this policy? People choose to work for this company, does this choice as an adult give the company the right to implement a sexist policy?

Though I find the sexism built into the structure of the Catholic church (and some others) disgusting, I agree with Medusa that it isn't the government's place to dictate the policies of religious groups as long as those policies aren't directly physically harmful. One might say that rigidly sexist religious groups are harmful to the mental and emotional well-being of their followers, and I would agree. The thing is, in my opinion, the government shouldn't be in the business of deciding what constitutes mental health. Once we go down that road, it's conceivable that we have a government deciding what is and isn't proper thinking. That isn't something which I think we should give the government the power to do. So it isn't that religious thinking should be exempt from government control, it's all thinking.

In the US, there are plenty of private organizations which are still run by "crusty old (white) men" and that is perfectly legal, so I'm not sure where you're going with that analogy. Now when you're talking about employment, rather than membership, a company can't have an overtly racist or sexist hiring policy, but it's still possible to only promote men to the highest level. Though there are laws which attempt to do away with this "glass ceiling" effect, many companies still follow such a policy, only changing it when forced to. However, an organization which doesn't serve the public, and which the public is not accepted into (a private club, which in my opinion religious organizations are) may have very restrictive policies, and would be within its rights to have such policies. It can be seen as a gray area, though; when an organization solicits members of the public to join, and when it allows the general public to participate in some of its events or use some of its facilities, then its status as truly private starts to become blurred. This sort of thing can also vary from state to state in the US.

Still, I think that (at least in the US) the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment is really the final defense of sexist religious organizations. All they have to do is define the practice of their religion as being one in which only men are allowed to be ordained, and the wall between church and state protects them.

I guess I took the easy route by looking at it from a law rather than a morality viewpoint, but then again, in my view nearly all religious organizations are promoting at least some actions and views which I consider contrary to my personal moral code. *shrugs*

[DaemonWulf]

I think the difference as far as government regulation comes in (at least this is what I see) when you discuss choice. They implement non-discrimination policies in workplaces, because people have to be there. Black, white, yellow or green, you have to pay your rent and feed your kids, so you have to work. It's a choice where you worship, or if you worship. As far as Catholic sexism, i haven't ever been a Catholic, so I don't know firsthand, but I hear it's pretty serious. A forum I was on recently for laughs (God Hates Sinners) were hardcore to the point they complained that Catholics weren't "real" Christians. They were sexist enough that they feel rape victims deserve it for not being modest enough. Nuts, I tell ya.

[xSilverPhinx]

It's a complicated issue because really secularism implies that the government can't interfere with religion and how people ultimately choose to live their lives in regards to religion...the downside to this is that it helps religions to thrive It's ironic (based on the complaints that some have against the seperation of churches and State).

Truth is that the Church does depend on believers to exist, and there will always be people who seem to accept every word that comes out of that pope's mouth on any aspect of their lives. The impression that I get is that the Catholics posting over there (Phatmass) are not representative of the majority, those are the ones who really want to uphold both tradition and doctrines and make sure that other "true" Catholics don't stray from the Path, of course.  In some cases it looks like they worship their dogmas, even. Whatever change would have to come from Catholics themselves, and preferably those that are on the inside...maybe in a few centuries they'll catch up with the times.

I guess it comes down to choice: people choose to be part of a religion that maintains strong traditions such as those. I don't see the sexism in the Church as going so far as to being criminal (unlike other things that the Church does). Just a bit outdated, like their entire religion...

It would really be bad if they started preaching inequality in other non religious aspects of life, to those who aren't loyal to the Church in any way.  

[Stevil]

I don't think seclarism implies that government can't interfere with religion.

Seclarism is an approach to be all inclusive, regardless of many factors (religion being one of them). This means a countries policies can represent all the people that belong to the country. These policies then ought to apply to all the countries members.

I think they turn away their sights on the church because they know that represents a lot of voters and so they are scared.

Lets say instead of being sexist, they were racist. Swap men for whites and women for blacks. Do you think it would be OK for a private organisation (a church) to allow all people as members but only allow top jobs to white people. Have policy that meant that whites are never subordinate to blacks and that blacks can only manage other blacks but must ultimately be accountable to a white. Certain roles have priority for white children, only allowing blacks if there where not enough whites.

[xSilverPhinx]

It's an approach to be all inclusive, and as a consequence not favour any one religion over another but it also serves to protect religious institutions from governmental influence and vice versa, though in practice religions are getting their infected claws into matters that have nothing to do with them), including getting them to be free from paying taxes that any other non religious institution would have to pay. It's not all good, and so in this sense it does protect religion from the State and is a double-edged sword.

I think the points you've raised are tricky issues, because it does involve three things:

A religious organisation in a secular State, people being free to choose to follow that religion, and the traditions of that institution in particular (Catholic Church) who have laws and rules of their own.

I think the real weight of the issue lies with the Catholics, and they're the problem just as they're the solution. Any government trying to change religious rules won't do much good, especially when dealing with masses of people who feel that they (and their Church) are divinely justified in their beliefs and will bow down to religious authority before any "earthly" one. Forget the discrimination (sexism, racism or whichever other), play the persecution card, get people to become more conservative in their beliefs and the Church has a strong foundation.

On a thread I started there I also mentioned the condom problem and pasted a link to a more liberal Catholic site where it mentioned that many high ranking Church officials were starting to press for change. If it depended on the people posting on Phatmass, those would be excommunicated. Again, all they had to offer were under researched and poorly thought out excuses. It's a tough problem.

[Medusa]

Before you know it we will just have a state religion. Won't that be grand?!

[Stevil]

Before you know it we will just have a state religion. Won't that be grand?!

While I am all for government not intervening in our lives unless absolutely necessary, I am also aware that people often behave in a way that is detrimental to our society.
Bigotry must not be tolerated.

Government have systems in place to remove bigotry.
An apartment owner or bed and breakfast supplier cannot turn away a person because of gender, race, sexual orientation, religious belief etc.
An employer cannot reject an application for employment based on gender, race, sexual orientation, religious belief etc. Unless special circumstances apply e.g. a TV, Movie role may require specific attributes in a person.
Religion ought to fall into these systems as they are part of our society.
I would be keen to know if the governments have given them special dispensation with regards to the perceived sexism of an all male priesthood.

[Medusa]

Before you know it we will just have a state religion. Won't that be grand?!

While I am all for government not intervening in our lives unless absolutely necessary, I am also aware that people often behave in a way that is detrimental to our society.
Bigotry must not be tolerated.

Government have systems in place to remove bigotry.
An apartment owner or bed and breakfast supplier cannot turn away a person because of gender, race, sexual orientation, religious belief etc.
An employer cannot reject an application for employment based on gender, race, sexual orientation, religious belief etc. Unless special circumstances apply e.g. a TV, Movie role may require specific attributes in a person.
Religion ought to fall into these systems as they are part of our society.
I would be keen to know if the governments have given them special dispensation with regards to the perceived sexism of an all male priesthood.

bigotry now. It was just earlier in this thread it was sexism. Are you sure you aren't Big Brother. You are starting to sound sorta scary. Before you know it you won't like Satanists, Cat lovers...people opposed to fish....

I hate alot of things. I'm allowed to.

[Stevil]

Before you know it we will just have a state religion. Won't that be grand?!

While I am all for government not intervening in our lives unless absolutely necessary, I am also aware that people often behave in a way that is detrimental to our society.
Bigotry must not be tolerated.

Government have systems in place to remove bigotry.
An apartment owner or bed and breakfast supplier cannot turn away a person because of gender, race, sexual orientation, religious belief etc.
An employer cannot reject an application for employment based on gender, race, sexual orientation, religious belief etc. Unless special circumstances apply e.g. a TV, Movie role may require specific attributes in a person.
Religion ought to fall into these systems as they are part of our society.
I would be keen to know if the governments have given them special dispensation with regards to the perceived sexism of an all male priesthood.

bigotry now. It was just earlier in this thread it was sexism. Are you sure you aren't Big Brother. You are starting to sound sorta scary. Before you know it you won't like Satanists, Cat lovers...people opposed to fish....

I hate alot of things. I'm allowed to.

Huh?

Sexism is a subset of bigotry.
There are laws against it, and these laws are good laws in my opinion.
If you hate a certain type of person and behave in a way that discriminates e.g. if you sell a product to the public, but refuse to sell the product to women, then you deserve to face legal consequences

[Sweetdeath]

I agree with Stevil. If the catholic chutrch were promoting racism instead of sexism, it wouldn't be ignored by laws.

I don' get why the sexism issue wouldn't bother any woman. No one is attacking satanism or any belief, but PROMOTING/ENCOURAGING sexism is wrong, wrong.


People can hate whatever privately, but when you are raisng generations of people to opress a gender, it is disgusting.   It should not be ignored, not allowed to proceed.
It is outdated. And it is time for churches to stop thinking thry are above the law.

[Medusa]

So you are ok with the govt making your rules for your religion?

but PROMOTING/ENCOURAGING sexism is wrong, wrong.

I'm pretty sure promoting (list something YOU agree with and I  don't) is wrong too. So stop it! Because I don't like it. I don't care if it's your right to believe religion is wrong. I don't care. I want you to now change your opinion. And don't be out and about on the street telling people you dislike religion. Or else the state is gonna arrest you! 

No. I ain't liking where this line of thinking goes. We all think oh yeah one this is ok but DONT YOU DARE do or think the other thing! That's wrong.

*I don't mean you you. I mean the general you.