![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
franceslievensI'm not religious. For half of my life I have been, but then I forgot what it is to believe in a god and went on without one. This doesn't mean I frown upon people who don't follow my suit and still have faith and live according to it. I have put my faith elsewhere, but have a lot of regard for those that are able to find a higher meaning in all this. My meaning, on the other hand, is a mash-up of trying to do good and not being too good for this world: the golden road between altruism and egoism. It's a bumpy road and most people think it leads to relativism. On the contrary it leads towards constant criticism and questioning.
Religion provides those that belief with a view of what the world is and what it should be. They know how to behave within the boundaries set by their beliefs to reach that world-to-be. Those boundaries make me stop and look back and wonder: "Why are they there? Because god has told us we have to behave this way or because man has installed them?"
M. teaches Islam. As a good Muslim she wears a scarve to cover her hair and neck. It is her interpretation of the wants of god, of the words of her god written down by man. That's the difficulty: a book like the Koran is written by man (men) and gives an explanation for certain sociological conventions by telling they were god's will. According to the Islamic lore women can't take part in the Friday prayers because they have to look after the children when the men are away from home. Is this nowadays still necessary? Aren't there other possibilities to provide for the children, so the women can take part in prayers?
We see that in liberal Jewish congregations this strict separation of men and women has dissapeared. Women can become rabbi. This isn't considered strange, but is viewed as a step forwards for women within a too segregated community. Still we think it's strange and wrong that women should become Catholic priests. It isn't their place, because being a Catholic priest equals celibacy, which equals no children and women should have children.
Religions push roles onto their congregation. They perpetuate a certain state of things. In ancient religions (e.g. Greek or Roman) we see that the religious explanation of social structures changes over the course of centuries. It adapts itself to the changes that must occur within society.
The big religions, where there's only one god, where the regulations are written down in a book and considered unalterable truths, have fixed the roles of men and women without considering changing societies. It is god's words and god's will that both men and women behave in a certain way. For women this mostly means they should stay at home and look after the kids as their first duty. Men take the big decisions. A religion that proclaims this set of roles as the only roles that are available, is inherently out of date.
In our community men and women are political equals. They can do the same jobs, should be able to earn the same amount of money and still according to religion women are considered as caretakers and men as protectors of the family. Why?
I'm not allowed to criticise religious distinctions, like these, because there is freedom of religion. But religions make political decisions. They tell men and women how they should behave. You are pushed into a role and aren't able to change that role or give your own interpretation to it. When you do that last thing, you are considered a heretic. I cannot be relativistic towards these religions and I firmly believe I have the right to criticise, although I'm not religious, because of the simple fact I'm standing outside of their social group. Women should be able to choose the role they see for themselves. And so should men. Why should anyone be made to do something simply because of a biological determination to be able to have children or not? And why should what one believes be the enforcer of the way a society is built?
In class my pupils had to write down what they liked about themselves. D. wrote she liked being a girl who likes to do boyish things. I would be very greatful if she can write one day she likes to play football without it being considered a "boyish game to play".
Religion provides those that belief with a view of what the world is and what it should be. They know how to behave within the boundaries set by their beliefs to reach that world-to-be. Those boundaries make me stop and look back and wonder: "Why are they there? Because god has told us we have to behave this way or because man has installed them?"
M. teaches Islam. As a good Muslim she wears a scarve to cover her hair and neck. It is her interpretation of the wants of god, of the words of her god written down by man. That's the difficulty: a book like the Koran is written by man (men) and gives an explanation for certain sociological conventions by telling they were god's will. According to the Islamic lore women can't take part in the Friday prayers because they have to look after the children when the men are away from home. Is this nowadays still necessary? Aren't there other possibilities to provide for the children, so the women can take part in prayers?
We see that in liberal Jewish congregations this strict separation of men and women has dissapeared. Women can become rabbi. This isn't considered strange, but is viewed as a step forwards for women within a too segregated community. Still we think it's strange and wrong that women should become Catholic priests. It isn't their place, because being a Catholic priest equals celibacy, which equals no children and women should have children.
Religions push roles onto their congregation. They perpetuate a certain state of things. In ancient religions (e.g. Greek or Roman) we see that the religious explanation of social structures changes over the course of centuries. It adapts itself to the changes that must occur within society.
The big religions, where there's only one god, where the regulations are written down in a book and considered unalterable truths, have fixed the roles of men and women without considering changing societies. It is god's words and god's will that both men and women behave in a certain way. For women this mostly means they should stay at home and look after the kids as their first duty. Men take the big decisions. A religion that proclaims this set of roles as the only roles that are available, is inherently out of date.
In our community men and women are political equals. They can do the same jobs, should be able to earn the same amount of money and still according to religion women are considered as caretakers and men as protectors of the family. Why?
I'm not allowed to criticise religious distinctions, like these, because there is freedom of religion. But religions make political decisions. They tell men and women how they should behave. You are pushed into a role and aren't able to change that role or give your own interpretation to it. When you do that last thing, you are considered a heretic. I cannot be relativistic towards these religions and I firmly believe I have the right to criticise, although I'm not religious, because of the simple fact I'm standing outside of their social group. Women should be able to choose the role they see for themselves. And so should men. Why should anyone be made to do something simply because of a biological determination to be able to have children or not? And why should what one believes be the enforcer of the way a society is built?
In class my pupils had to write down what they liked about themselves. D. wrote she liked being a girl who likes to do boyish things. I would be very greatful if she can write one day she likes to play football without it being considered a "boyish game to play".
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-27 02:04 pm (UTC)Excuse me? Who said you aren't allowed to criticize religious distinctions or religions? If so this is the end of democracy.
Criticize anything, especially anything that has a certain power/influence, is a right!
It saddens me nowadays to see some associations suing people because they said something against Islam or Judaism...as if anticlericalism were a crime. If Voltaire were alive they would probably sue him!
I have no problem criticizing Islam for saying that men and women aren't equal nor The Pope and many priests for letting HIV spread in Africa...among other things.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-27 02:24 pm (UTC)But we should debate with religions and we should show every injustice in the world, be it religous, political or social.
I do notice a lot of people having problems criticising Islam. We should tolerate their way of life, even if we see injustice being done, like a woman completely subordinating herself to the men in her family. Some say it's her free choice. But it isn't, because she has no other way.
(I'm not saying this is the way for every Muslim woman, btw.)
no subject
Date: 2005-11-28 01:18 am (UTC)I like to make a distinction between religion and theology sometimes; but I guess in your example it doesn't matter. My point being that religions wouldn't be so bad if their theologies had not become so convolutedly involved and thus intolerance sets in. Oh well....
no subject
Date: 2005-11-28 07:18 am (UTC)In Belgium there are a lot of Catholic schools, where only Catholic religion is taught -- it's a private school, so they are allowed to do that. Some of these schools have become concentration schools, with mainly Muslim children attending. Do you know that these schools consider having an Islam teacher for these children, but not a morality teacher for non-religious children? They understand other religions better. Not having a religion is not good.
Your distinction reminds me of a distinction that's frequently made in Dutch between religie and godsdienst. Both are translated as "religion", but religie points more to the general feeling. You can be religious without having a god. Godsdienst otoh points to an institution based on a theology. I have way more problems with godsdienst than with religie.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-28 10:04 pm (UTC)