Jesus and Mo are also discussing the C of E vote to say no women bishops. Jesus is quite frank about it.
The new book makes a great Xmas present. It gots a foreword by Dawkins.
Nov 21 2012
Ancient sexist notions
Leave a Reply
About the Author
Nov 21 2012
Jesus and Mo are also discussing the C of E vote to say no women bishops. Jesus is quite frank about it.
The new book makes a great Xmas present. It gots a foreword by Dawkins.
:)
13 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Andrew B.
November 21, 2012 at 4:46 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“The fundamental misogyny which lies at the heart of all the abrahamic religons.”
That and authoritarianism/excessive demand for obedience. These things aren’t bugs, they’re features. Religions aren’t being “hijacked” or “perverted,” they’re rotten at the core.
Winterwind
November 21, 2012 at 11:37 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Weren’t there female bishops/religious leaders in Saint Paul’s time? If I recall correctly, this isn’t even misogyny invented by the founder of their religion, it’s misogyny inserted afterwards and then stubbornly clung to.
peterh
November 22, 2012 at 5:42 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The misogyny attributed to Paul is found in epistles now reasonably well believed to have been forged in his name – it’s doubtful he ever heard of them. Google “dutero-Pauline epistles” for an introduction to the six letters in question. Elsewhere in the NT, one finds “foremost among the Apostles” as describing a woman; outside the six mentioned above, women get sympathetic treatment. Even as it struggled to find direction in the early years, Xianity was being perverted and hijacked by those with an agenda.
Timon for Tea
November 22, 2012 at 6:57 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“That and authoritarianism/excessive demand for obedience. These things aren’t bugs, they’re features.”
I don’t think that describes early Christianity very well and I don’t think the Roman or Jewish authorities would have either. So it looks more like a bug to me.
And it was a small minority who scuppered the vote on women. That’s the problem with democracy (sometimes) but let’s not dismiss it all for its occasional failings.
Rutee Katreya
November 22, 2012 at 7:54 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
IIRC, there’s some evidence that the earliest abrahamic traditions were a polytheistic matriarchy. Much like Christianity, they purged all that blasphemous material relatively early on (by our reckoning), but it lasted a while. Butt hat’s purely off memory and that’s not my period.
And while there were female priests, at least, there was still misogyny. How would there not be, in the Roman Empire?
I’m going to highlight this and remind you that your piece of shit fictitious book does not accurately transcribe what Jews said or did to the church. Similarly, your church overblows its myths of roman oppression greatly. Some emperors did in fact do so, most did not care.
Moving along, even if everything you just said were true, it’s irrelevant to the religion that was actually installed, which was not ‘Early Christianity’. When put in power, the people who ran that early church clearly opted for authoritarianism; which doesn’t say much about the religion’s ‘true’ desires for freedom or anti-authoritarianism.
In what parallel universe do you hail from? If this is about the CoE, it was a minority that *backed* women gaining the vote. The highest ranks voted for it. It was the wide majority that rejected it. If this is about your oh-so-precious early church, a decision handed from on-high is not a vote.
Erp
November 22, 2012 at 11:07 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Strictly speaking the majority of the CoE supported allowing women to become bishops. However the measure required two-thirds in support in all three houses (bishops, the rest of the clergy, and the laity) and then get approved by Parliament. It passed the bishops and the clergy and lost by six votes in the laity. Parliament is now asking questions (and as this is an established church, the state is fully entitled to interfere). My guess is a measure will be passed and possibly one even less to the liking to the ultra-conservatives (the measure that loss had a few bits that made female bishops not quite as equal as male bishops). Failing that disestablishment becomes very much a live issue.
F
November 22, 2012 at 11:19 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Erp
Oooh. I’d like the second option. As much as I think equality in all zones of life is a good thing, I find I care less when equality in stupidity is what is at stake.
Timon for Tea
November 22, 2012 at 2:13 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Rutee, calm down, a clear majority of all voters wanted women bishops, it just wasn’t quite a large enough majority for the rules.
As to the history of the early church, well I think your interpretation is unorthodox. The bible, by the way, is a collection of books, but I guess most people do just call it a book.
Crommunist
November 22, 2012 at 4:15 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Rutee said “butt hat”.
That is all.
Ophelia Benson
November 22, 2012 at 4:36 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hahahaha
Winterwind
November 22, 2012 at 5:46 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Definitely, but at least not this particular form of misogyny (i.e. exluding women from senior leadership positions).
mnb0
November 22, 2012 at 6:00 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I only wish CoE would vote against male bishops as well.
Arakiba
November 27, 2012 at 6:26 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Any woman who wants to be part of any of the Abrahamic religions these days is just an Uncle Tom. They’ll never be seen as true equals.