Women Can't Teach Men...

[BVS]

Sunday school teacher dumped for being female

Monday, August 21, 2006; Posted: 10:43 a.m. EDT (14:43 GMT)


WATERTOWN, New York (AP) -- The minister of a church that dismissed a female Sunday School teacher after adopting what it called a literal interpretation of the Bible says a woman can perform any job -- outside of the church.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/21/menonly.sundayschool.ap/index.html







I've discussed this issue before with Bible literalist. I was always curious as to why some things were taken literally and others ignored.

So what's your take?

 

[AussieU2fanman]

The old testament of the Bible was notorious for its misogyny.

 

[BVS]

The old testament of the Bible was notorious for its misogyny.

This actually from NT...

 

[Liesje]

I've discussed this issue before with Bible literalist. I was always curious as to why some things were taken literally and others ignored.

So what's your take?

Me too, and I never get solid answers.

I took a Group Communication class and one project was to pick a random issue that's controversial within our college's community and host a debate. It wasn't required, but it was obvious that the project would be easier if everyone in our group was in agreement on the issue. Someone suggested women's roles in the church, assuming we all agreed it was ludacris to ban women from participating, but one girl goes "well, I think the Bible is very clear on this issue that women can't have leadership roles in the church, so I'm not sure it's worth discussing." Everyone looked at everyone else like and when we realized she was serious, the topic was immediately dropped.

 

[AussieU2fanman]

It almost seems contradictory. You're claiming to be Christians, and yet the Christian stance on women is made very clear in the Bible (in the old testament predominantly but apparantly also in the new testament). How can you keep picking and choosing what rules to adhere to or not? After all God wrote the Bible.

 

[deep]

Churches are and should be exempt from discrimination laws.

So what if this church has this belief or policy.

If one is a member and wants to voice a concern
that is their business.

It is not my business.

A member is always free to leave.

 

[deep]

After all God wrote the Bible.

I believe any research on the subject
proves that God did not write the Bible.

 

[nbcrusader]

First, a church board has taken a passage of Scripture that speaks to the conduct of affairs within the Church and applied it to affairs conducted outside the Church. (The passage is from 1 Timothy 2, for those who care to read the context).

So, this is not a matter of “literal” interpretation, but clear misapplication of Scripture.

Incidents like this also are destructive in that they can drive people away from Scripture instead of drawing people to Scripture (even the passages with which we struggle). I’m afraid that the actions of Rev. Timothy LaBouf will act as a stumbling block that will result in further misapplication or rejection of Scripture.

 

[JCR]

I believe any research on the subject
proves that God did not write the Bible.

I would hope so, for if not, God's not only a petty, misogynistic, jealous asshole, but a horrible writer as well.

 

[JCR]

In regard to the topic: I think every religious organization that uses its doctrine (or interpretation thereof) to justify the oppression of women should be made illegal, as should any religious org. that teaches hatred of "other" (Hamas comes to mind). Freedom of religion ought not include the right the discriminate or marginalize their perceived "other."

 

[deep]

within the Church and applied it to affairs conducted outside the Church.

I read the article and I do not see where he applies it to outside of the church?

 

[martha]

I think every religious organization that uses its doctrine (or interpretation thereof) to justify the oppression of women should be made illegal, as should any religious org. that teaches hatred of "other" (Hamas comes to mind). Freedom of religion ought not include the right the discriminate or marginalize their perceived "other."

wtf?

Who decides then?

 

[BVS]

First, a church board has taken a passage of Scripture that speaks to the conduct of affairs within the Church and applied it to affairs conducted outside the Church. (The passage is from 1 Timothy 2, for those who care to read the context).

 

[anitram]

She taught sunday school for 54 years! Suddenly now she's incapable?

Loons. Why anyone would stay a member of that Church is beyond me.

 

[deep]

She taught sunday school for 54 years! Suddenly now she's incapable?

well

the country has been going down hill for about 50 years or so they keep saying

 

[JCR]

wtf?

Who decides then?

A rational democratic republic ought to be able to decide... the Congress can pass a law forbidding religious organizations from indoctrinating their members with principles or ideologies that promote the oppression or anhilation of their perceived "other." For example, it's against the law to kill yet it's okay for hamas and hezbollah to teach--brainwash--its followers that it's honorable to kill in the name of their god...and they are allowed to do this because why? because it says so in their "scriptures"? I'm merely saying that a law should be made forbidding religions from using scripture that incites violence such as this, from being taught. They can teach any other mumbo jumbo they want, but when they cross the line into denying the human rights of others, they need to be stopped.
Granted, the woman being fired from her sunday school position seems silly in comparison, but when religious organizations are allowed to use their "scripture" to justify any form of discrimination it's a slippery slope into religious anarchy.

 

[martha]

A rational democratic republic ought to be able to decide... the Congress can pass a law forbidding religious organizations from indoctrinating their members with principles or ideologies that promote the oppression or anhilation of their perceived "other."

Wow. So much for the Constitution where you live.

 

[JCR]

What good is a constitution that doesn't protect its people from religious fanatics?

 

[martha]

You're going to have to give better reasons for advocating completely elimninating a key component of the Constitution.

 

[JCR]

How am I advocating for completely eliminating a key component of the Constitution? I'm allowing for freedom of religion. I'm not saying religions can't teach that Alpha Centauri is the right eye of god, they just can't advocate "death to the infidel". The first amendment protects free speech up to the point that it incites violence, so why not freedom of religion up to the point where it advocates death or discrimination against their perceived other.
Personally I'm sick of religion hiding under the umbrella of free speech. They ought not be allowed to preach hatred in any form. I don't want to shred the constitution (that's bush's job), i merely want laws protecting people from religion if that religion is advocating violence or discrimination against perceived others.

 

[martha]

They ought not be allowed to preach hatred in any form.

Who gets to decide what violates your law? You mentioned Congress. Do you really want this Congress to decide what religions can preach? What if they decide to outlaw whatever it is you believe? You yourself mentioned the "slippery slope." You're on one right now when you start clamoring for Congressional control of what religions may preach.

i merely want laws protecting people from religion if that religion is advocating violence or discrimination against perceived others.

People have choices about what religion they want to follow. People also have protected speech in the country. You claim to support that, but apparently only if you agree with the speech. How Bush-like of you.

 

[BVS]

You yourself mentioned the "slippery slope." You're on one right now when you start clamoring for Congressional control of what religions may preach.

 

[JCR]

Again, I'm not saying that Congress should make a law forbidding the mainly harmless mumbo jumbo that is religion, it's when they cross the line and advocate/praise/pressure its members to KILL those who are "not them" that rule of law should intercede. I want secular laws that protect human life against religious FANATICISM.
And unfortunately, there are many in the world who do not get to choose their religion...in Islam if you are born muslim you stay muslim or die. I guess you have no problem with the oppression of your fellow woman? I guess it's okay that millions of women are killed by their father or brothers for getting raped...guess you've never seen the images of women buried up to their necks with a bag over their head whilst being pelted with stones for breaking religious law.
The Bush remark was a nice jab--ouch!

 

[BVS]

Again, I'm not saying that Congress should make a law forbidding the mainly harmless mumbo jumbo that is religion, it's when they cross the line and advocate/praise/pressure its members to KILL those who are "not them" that rule of law should intercede. I want secular laws that protect human life against religious FANATICISM.
And unfortunately, there are many in the world who do not get to choose their religion...in Islam if you are born muslim you stay muslim or die. I guess you have no problem with the oppression of your fellow woman? I guess it's okay that millions of women are killed by their father or brothers for getting raped...guess you've never seen the images of women buried up to their necks with a bag over their head whilst being pelted with stones for breaking religious law.
The Bush remark was a nice jab--ouch!

You do realize Congress only write laws for the US don't you? You are clouding many different issues here.

 

[JCR]

No. I'm retarded BonoVOX. (You are pretty suave with the underhanded ad hominen attack though.) I was responding to martha's notion that I'm proposing a law that would damage the constitution. It got "cloudy" when martha claimed I was advocating something unconstitutional.
That said, you also realize that what the US does (the laws it makes) has an effect on the rest of the citizens of the world do you not? The french have realized too late that islamic fundalmentalism reeks havoc on democracy as do all extremist views found in religious dogma. I know it seems I'm picking on the muslim religion, but I'm talking about all organized religions. None of them should be allowed to preach doctrines that advocate violence or oppress a particular group of people based on their interpretation of "scripture."
The original pastor who fired the "church lady"is punishing her for HIS interpretation of scripture. If the ACLU doesn't step in she gets reduced to the lowly female that he and his literal interpretation perceive her as. This is the slippery slope. basically, I'm sick of people using religion and their interpretation of "scripture" as an excuse for the inhumane treatment of others.

 

[BluRmGrl]

basically, I'm sick of people using religion and their interpretation of "scripture" as an excuse for the inhumane treatment of others.

This exact thing has been going on since BEFORE the time of Jesus & I don't see it stopping anytime soon. It's the nature of the human species to find ways to feel superior to others - and subjugate those 'others' to punishment suitable for their 'crimes'. I don't think it's right, but I don't see how to stop it either. I can tell you this though - bringing Congress into the mix ain't the way to stop it!

 

[BVS]

I was responding to martha's notion that I'm proposing a law that would damage the constitution. It got "cloudy" when martha claimed I was advocating something unconstitutional.

Well you advocating something unconstitutional.

As far as advocating violence we do have laws against that.

 

[martha]

Again, I'm not saying that Congress should make a law forbidding the mainly harmless mumbo jumbo that is religion, it's when they cross the line and advocate/praise/pressure its members to KILL those who are "not them" that rule of law should intercede. I want secular laws that protect human life against religious FANATICISM.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/]; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here's your Constitution for ya. My italics.

Again, who gets to decide what's acceptable and what isn't? Be careful here; many like you have advocated for oppressive change, and then had the tables turned on them. You might want to limit your arguments to the US. You seem to really have it in for Muslim fundamentalists in other countries.

 

[Irvine511]

good or bad, the US has room for religious crazies; they are as entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as much as anyone else. just so long as they don't break our laws or infringe upon anone else's rights.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Incidents like this also are destructive in that they can drive people away from Scripture instead of drawing people to Scripture (even the passages with which we struggle). I’m afraid that the actions of Rev. Timothy LaBouf will act as a stumbling block that will result in further misapplication or rejection of Scripture.

And that's a big part of why 'outsiders' I suppose you'd say, do not understand how this gels in Christianity. Just another way of convoluting and contradicting it's beliefs in things.