Skip to main content

View Diary: Catholic priest: women bring sexual violence on themselves (295 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Religion haters should get their own house in (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JayRaye, Wee Mama, prgsvmama26


    It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too

    I spoke out about sexual harassment among atheists and scientists. Then came the rape threats.

    •  Yep and part of the split w/i the CPUSA (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      in 1992 had to do with sexual harassment(possible assault) at the top of the party.

      WE NEVER FORGET Our Labor Martyrs: a project to honor the men, women and children who lost their lives in Freedom's Cause. For Dec: Life so cheap; property so sacred.

      by JayRaye on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:59:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And there are plenty of sexist men right here (4+ / 0-)

      at Daily Kos also!

      WE NEVER FORGET Our Labor Martyrs: a project to honor the men, women and children who lost their lives in Freedom's Cause. For Dec: Life so cheap; property so sacred.

      by JayRaye on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 04:24:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Poor comparison. (0+ / 0-)

      Not believing in gods is not comparable to religion ... unless you think not collecting stamps is a hobby.  

      And of course anyone can be sexist.  But it takes a religion to elevate sexism (and homophobia, ignorance, tribalism, etc.) into a divine decree.  

      •  Sexism is not a divine decree in Christianity (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama

        (In Judaism and Islam, it is.) The sexism in the New Testament is restricted to a couple of short passages in Paul's letters. Since the gospels are anything but sexist—I would say that the Jesus of the gospels affirms women's equality to men—they override Paul's sexist remarks.

        As for a "divine decree" requiring ignorance: (1) the book of Genesis is just a story, not to be taken literally (that many Christians take it literally because they are idiots is neither here nor there); (2) by having his son save humanity, God forgave humanity for its transgression (eating from the tree of knowledge). So the divine decree requiring ignorance only applied to the mythical figures Adam and Eve; never to actual human beings.

        The point I'm trying to make is that there are sophisticated varieties of Christianity and primitive varieties; I prefer to hate only the primitive varieties.

        •  This makes no sense (0+ / 0-)

          Jesus teaches to obey the Torah commandments.  It is a contradiction to condemn the Torah as sexist while claiming Jesus taught equality.

          •  Jesus said there are two commandments (0+ / 0-)
            When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. ‘Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?’ He said to him, ‘ “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’ (Mt  22:34-40)
            With that, all of the Torah goes bye-bye. This is why many missionaries give out Bibles containing only the New Testament. The Old Testament is included in the Bible only to provide context for the New Testament. (Christian fundamentalists might not see things this way, but that is their problem.)

            Judaism and Islam are legalistic religions; Christianity is a theological religion. This is why Christians do not have dietary laws. Christianity is not about obeying arbitrary laws: it is about love.

            •  Interesting interpretation. (0+ / 0-)

              Similar to what Hillel said, except that Hillel wasn't throwing out the Torah:

              "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

              "I have more than two prablems" - The Coach Z

              by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:28:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I had to look up "Hillel" in Wikipedia (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I shall have to read the whole article.

                I don't think my interpretation is very eccentric. I think one can see that by comparing Christianity with Islam. Often, the point is made that Muslims' equivalent of Christ is the Koran. To Muslims, God revealed himself as a text; to Christians, he revealed himself as a human being.`

                Christianity centers around Christ, not the Bible. (Fundamentalists in effect raise the Bible to an equal level with Christ, thus making their version of Christianity resemble Islam more than mainline Christianity.) So a Christian uses the Bible as a means of getting to Christ, not an end in itself. This is why it's not that hard to dismiss whole portions of the Bible. (Luther did  that, by calling certain books non-canonical, because they did not "follow the gospel".)

                I'm speaking as an atheist who was raised Russian Orthodox. So although I stopped being a believer, I did not lose my affection for and fascination with Christianity, unlike many atheists.

            •  That is not why Christians don' t follow the law (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              They don' t follow the law because of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which says the law is "waxen old and ready to pass away".

              Jesus' statement about the two greatest commandments merely states that all the commandments derive from the principles of these two, not that he is cancelling all but these two. He was echoing Rabbi Hillel, who said that all the commandments can be summarized in the Golden Rule. Obviously, Hillel was not revoking the commandments! Neither was Jesus, for in Matthew 5:19, he said "whoever then relaxes  one of the least of these commandments shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven".

              The opposition to "legalism" comes from Paul, and, later from Luther.

              •  Fair enough - thank you (0+ / 0-)

                Still, if you read Mt 5:17-30, you will find that Jesus is saying in his unique way that the commandments are impossible to fulfill, so that legalism doesn't make any sense. Paul and Luther just worked that idea out more systematically. If you read the gospels as a whole, as opposed to taking a few passages out of context, I think it is hard not to conclude that Jesus himself, and not just Paul, rejected legalism.

                Jesus wasn't very clear about it because he thought of himself as a Jew, not as founding a new religion. (It was the same with Muhammad.) What Paul did was make clear that this is indeed a new religion. In my opinion.

                Your suggestion that Jesus may have known Hillel's formulation of the Golden Rule is interesting. This blog post indicates that there may be something to that.

                •  I disagree with your first paragraph... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...while agreeing mostly with the other two.

                  Matthew 5:17ff does the opposite of teaching that the law is too hard.  That idea is also Pauline. Actually, Jesus says "I have come not to abolish (the Torah and the Prophets) but to fulfill them".  Jesus is just illustrating the principle of the gezeira (fence around the Torah). His examples may be extreme, but we use them all the time. Adultery is forbidden, so the gezeira would imply don' t make a date with your neighbor' s wife either. That doesn' t abolish the law; rather it protects it by keeping you from temptation. I don' t accept that this is out of context interpretation, which for many modern Christians just means reading Jesus without the filter of Paul. i think it's better context interpretation, because I am putting myself in the place of someone actually listening to Jesus' sermon...someone who will not have read Paul' s epistles.

                  I agree that Jesus was not creating a new religion while Paul was. I have heard that same "Jesus was not as clear as Paul" from believing Christians, and find it odd that someone can simultaneously think the man was God incarnate and yet that he was so inarticulate that he needed Paul to clarify what he really meant.

                  I find it hard to see how to read 22:35ff and not think he's paraphrasing Hillel!

                  •  You may be right (0+ / 0-)

                    I don't mind reading Jesus through Paul, so if I am misreading what Jesus actually meant in that passage, I don't care. My two main sets of experience with Christianity come from Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism, and in both, religious belief is based on tradition as well as scripture (despite Luther's sola scriptura). Ąs a Christian, one does not start reading the Bible from a "cold start". One has already been enculturated into Christianity by belonging to a church. Christianity is Pauline Christianity. And if that makes Christians sometimes "misread" Jesus, well, that's how it is.

                    Again, I am not a believer, so there is nothing really at stake for me here. This is just how I understand Christianity.

                    I have had this argument with an actual believer, and she later told me that she doesn't believe in Christ's divinity. So your line of thinking is dangerous lol.

        •  and Judaism and Islam? n/t (0+ / 0-)

          "I have more than two prablems" - The Coach Z

          by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:54:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  That is a very sad essay - (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      thanks for the link, though.

      Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

      by Wee Mama on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 07:58:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So true (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I have a friend in a scientific company and the women their deal with awful treatment as a routine event.

    •  what "house" (0+ / 0-)

      are you referring to? Atheists are not members of an organized body, in general.

      "I have more than two prablems" - The Coach Z

      by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:56:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  sorry, hadn't read the link. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      very disappointing story.

      "I have more than two prablems" - The Coach Z

      by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:03:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (141)
  • Community (60)
  • Baltimore (45)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Civil Rights (35)
  • Culture (27)
  • Elections (21)
  • Freddie Gray (21)
  • Law (20)
  • Economy (20)
  • Racism (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Hillary Clinton (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Media (16)
  • Politics (16)
  • Environment (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Texas (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site