The mixing of religious and non-religious beliefs in an individual.

In Religion 2.0, Will The Role Of Women Change

First let this be an invitation to any sisters out there to share a thought or two . . .

What provoked the creation of this Discussion Forum was a TV commercial on CNN announcing
The Congress Of World and Traditional Religions that took place July 2009 in Kasakhstan.

So I Googled it and came across the list of presenters.
I found the list to be somewhat lacking so I posted a Blog entry entitled,
What's Wrong With This Picture - click for more.

As we move closer to Religion 2.0, what will be the role of women in defining the new spirituality. If we decide that the roles for men and women are to be equal, do you think women are better equipped to make some types of contributions then men? In order for woman to feel included, are there things what should change.

Girls, take it away!

Boys, if you have bothered to read this far, please conduct yourselves in a civil manner. Listen twice as much as you speak and don't forget to ask lots of questions. . . remember to breath and the wisdom of what your mother taught you - "LADIES FIRST".

For example - could we try for more gender balance. Would that be a good thing?

Tags: gender, religion 2.0, role, women

Attachments:

Whats-wrong-with-oicture.jpg, 347 KB

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rachel Marie McDonnell on September 7, 2009 at 9:06pm

My my. What a little brew stirring.

@James, it's not so much the assignment of roles but the opportunity to accept them, which you even stated later on: "The presumption that this or that office must be male or female regardless of the individual necessitates that the choice always have a lower probability of being the best choice that was available."

I love astrologer's point as well, for personal reasons, since 'I resemble that remark.' :) I also agree that that's a driving force behind pagan involvement- Britain or elsewhere- maybe not so much a woman's superiority but the equality and balance of the two sides.

I don't particularly like being pigeon-holed in to a set reaction. If it was that simple, I probably wouldn't've found my way here. There's always going to be fundamental differences, or similarities amongst a group. But I believe people are capable of evolving on a daily basis- just because it can't be seen doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Incidentally, I DO NOT think caring whether "God" is male or female makes anyone a lost cause, ever. That shows a remarkable ability to be willing to think outside the box. Isn't that what this site is about anyway? Or was there some fine print somewhere I missed or misunderstood? Esoteric spirituality aside ;) it's the exploration, the journey, the questioning that makes it worthwhile. Why shouldn't be "God" be part of everything, if "God" created it? I mean, really- the Force stands as a religion in some minds- so yes, that tree could be God. Then again, what would tree huggers know, anyway? O.o

BTW. Roman, thanks for that info. It's good reading. I remember reading quite a bit of that before in regards to child development; I recall something similar regarding whether or not it's scientifically possible to be 'born gay' or the like. Your last remark is however, what I mean by believing that people can evolve. We've changed so much already. It's not as if I worry about being stoned or burned or something. ^-^

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kernel John on September 7, 2009 at 10:07pm

Let me try to focus discussion a wee bit. When this was initially posted, the initial assumption was - as we move closer to Religion 2.0 (yet to be defined), what will be the role of women in defining the new spirituality." If Redefine God about Religion 2.0, then what will be the role of women in 21st century religion?

Earlier, James noted:

"The distinction between the male and female in ALL species is a matter of specialty, not superiority."

When it comes to Religion 1.0, women tend to support the endeavours of men rather than provide discrete leadership on their own. There are exceptions I am sure, but generally women do not head up religious institutions. Is this because women generally lack the specialities required to contribute to the direction of religious institutions?

Does anyone know the extent to which women are able to contribute to the leadership of major religious institutions? Fore example, what limitations are placed on the role of women in Judaism, Islam and Christianity and perhaps other religions - as well. Are there good examples where women are leading religious institutions?

Personally, I believe global spiritual advancement requires the balances participation of people with specialities represent by both genders. In Religion 2.0, will women continue to play a supportive role and to what degree does this supportive role really cover gender submission?

I think one of our members, RevLG King, is associated with a religious institution that can be led by women. I wonder what he might say on the matter.

Thoughts/Ideas?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roman Kozlowski on September 8, 2009 at 1:05am

James, I appreciate your ‘inclusive’ argument but am, as I’m sure many women have noticed, concerned about the tone in which it is set (your intentions ‘I know’ were honorable though your subliminal manifestation in this regard unwittingly came through), i.e.: “will women continue to play a supportive role and to what degree does this supportive role really cover gender submission?” --- ‘supportive role’ --- yikes man, careful how you tread.

Rachel, I agree, Astro touched on some valid points. And yes, people are born gay.

Roman Kozlowski DSc BSc(Hons)Psych (BPS, BABCP)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by doug on September 8, 2009 at 5:01am

How can you truly know that someone is born gay? You only see that tendency after they reach an age where is can be manifested. It sounds more like an assumption or inference to say someone is BORN gay. That remotely reminds me "research" (read: perversion) done by Kinsey.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roman Kozlowski on September 8, 2009 at 5:57am

1940s speculations? Update your research for God's sake or we'll resort back to the dark ages in criminalizing brilliant minds like DaVinci, Tchaikovsky and more recently Turing who broke the enigma code which helped to bring WW2 to a speedier end and who after was criminalised for having a homosexual affair and committed suicide. Don’t you know you’re doing harm with your ignorant banter? Shame on you.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roman Kozlowski on September 8, 2009 at 7:30am

Quite right doone. Thank God we can now understand that homosexuality is as normal as having green or blue eyes.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rachel Marie McDonnell on September 8, 2009 at 10:09am

oh bravo gentlemen! well done :)

Roman Kozlowski said:

Quite right doone. Thank God we can now understand that homosexuality is as normal as having green or blue eyes.

John, not that I ever specifically asked or looked, but it's been my impression that of all the religions mentioned, no place has been accorded to women outside of a supporting role. I'm sure nuns can rise to levels of authority within the church, but take Islam... aren't women still subjugated in all manner of things? Most standardized religions are not known for their ability to adapt. I can't see them suddenly opening up to the idea of a female priest- which would be a priestess, no? I think there's women pastors, possibly.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rachel Marie McDonnell on September 8, 2009 at 7:33pm

Ty Astro. Not as far off as I'd feared but closer than I'd've liked. and now I know where the term "flying bishops" comes from, though I'm going to research that a bit more.

I'd like to think that as things progress and younger generations assume the mantles of religion we'll see a greater acceptance of women- beyond bestowing titles to genuine welcome and acceptance.

I particularly enjoyed your last remark. Going to go stew over that for a bit. My best friend is gay and very political and I can't wait to share it with him. Been telling him about this site all day. :)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by doug on September 9, 2009 at 3:46am

Roman,
Rather than argue back, because of my "ignorance", I'll bow out of further discussion on this point to avoid contention. Apparently a differing opinion is not acceptable...(research or no research)...like much of what goes down in our current world of being politically correct. Finally, I find your remark about "thanking God" for this as rather paradoxical and misplaced, given God's "stated" opinion on the matter.

cite>Roman Kozlowski said:

Quite right doone. Thank God we can now understand that homosexuality is as normal as having green or blue eyes.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roman Kozlowski on September 9, 2009 at 9:58am

doug

Merely a poignant use of sarcasm, which here in England is generally viewed as part of polite satirical banter and was not meant to be offensive in the least. And fine with me if you feel you cannot constructively add anything further to your ‘argument’ (and here I mean ‘argument’ in the politest sense as in stimulating dialogue).

As you may have noticed and because of lack of time etc., I’m not one for walking on eggshells but prefer to get to the point of things. I’m sure you can understand. Neither am I here as a librarian to point people to evidence, but expect them to have already made some personal efforts within the areas of discussions they decide to enter and take part.

By the way, in the main I do enjoy your input and sincerely hope I haven’t upset you by my at times hard-nosed retorts. Busy world. I’m quite an amicable chap really and not the ogre I sometimes may come across as.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by doug on September 14, 2009 at 2:44pm

Indeed...no offense take, nor was I upset.

I've been out of internet reach for several days, having hiked a grueling 10 miles to the bottom of the Grand Canyon and then spent 2 days there before returning up.