Do you agree with this quote? I found it on another site...

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Presuming this is the case, then I don't see the point of making it about religion if sexism is universal to all humans and all human institutions.

If you're assuming that religions are all human institutions, then that makes sense. However, many people - i.e. many of the adherents of revealed religions - believe as a point of faith that their religions are *not* human institutions.

I'm skeptical that 100% sexism free is what the OP was going for, given the impossible standard that represents. It'd be a rhetorical or trollish POE of an OP were that the case. It seems you and other contributors to this thread have very different ideas regarding what this thread is about.

I think there are also different ideas about what "religion" means. I get the sense that the OP is talking about sexism in the "official" teachings and beliefs of a religion, distinct from the personal views of its members and I've been approaching the thread on that basis... i.e. making a distinction between sexist beliefs of an individual member of a church and sexist teachings of the church itself.

 

[Quintessence]

If you're assuming that religions are all human institutions, then that makes sense. However, many people - i.e. many of the adherents of revealed religions - believe as a point of faith that their religions are *not* human institutions.

I can't comprehend how a human cultural phenomena could be anything other than a human institution... and I can't say I've heard of anyone claiming such ridiculous things. As far as we're aware, humans are the only animal species that have religions, ergo all religious institutions are human institutions, as in composed of human beings, and not, say "squirrel institutions" composed of squirrels. The only groups I imagine making such a claim would be the teeny tiny portion of people who think they are not human for some reason, such as the otherkin community or people who believe they're aliens from space or something.

I think there are also different ideas about what "religion" means. I get the sense that the OP is talking about sexism in the "official" teachings and beliefs of a religion, distinct from the personal views of its members and I've been approaching the thread on that basis... i.e. making a distinction between sexist beliefs of an individual member of a church and sexist teachings of the church itself.

If this is the case, that presents a problem for evaluating any religion that has no official teaching regarding these things, or non-creedal/non-dogmatic religions in general. It also creates problems for assessing a category like "Christianity," which does not have any central official teaching about the sexes that govern all of its affiliates. There are branches of Christianity that allow female clergy, I think? And there's some female Rabbis now and such?

An important thing to remember at any rate is that religions shouldn't be understood in isolation from the cultural morass they developed in. Seems to me that sexism present in some religions is a reflection of the overall norms of that culture. As women's rights have been championed in various areas, new religious movements developing during or after such movements tend to reflect the normalization of women's rights in that culture. Neopaganism makes a particularly interesting case study for this, because it's well-established that feminism had a huge influence on its development in North America. A religion like Wicca - which scandalously honored female divinity and had priestesses - likely could not have developed without women's rights movements. Personally, I don't think that original Wicca went far enough, but credit should be given its due considering at the time, what they were doing was extremely countercultural and cutting edge. Hell, the movement as a whole is still countercultural and cutting edge - valuing pluralism and the inclusiveness that goes with is hallmark, with exceptions here and there that prove the rule.

 

[roger1440]

No religions in their true forms condemn someone for their gender.

They are just "equal but separate".

 

[Riverwolf]

How is that inaccurate? Are you saying that no Neopagans subscribe to his teachings? You could probably find a few right here on RF.

Key phrase: "a few." My entire exposure to Crowley has been through that Ozzy Osbourne song.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

"I'm a guy and I feel bad for women because every religion I've known was sexist in some way. If God was real, he shouldn't condemn someone because of their...gender..."

But is the fact that a religion originated in an ancient patriarchal culture a good reason for marginalizing women in modern times? I don't think so.

I suppose to answer to your statement accurately as possible would require a 'truth means test' and/or a definition/clarification of the meaning of "marginalizing women in modern times," By truth test I mean how true is it that women are marginalized by Christianity? Actually as I said in an earlier reply women were revered in that era. However both women and men were punished far more severity for moral and ethical transgressions compared to today.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

"I'm a guy and I feel bad for women because every religion I've known was sexist in some way. If God was real, he shouldn't condemn someone because of their...gender..."

Not every religion and from a personal perspective, certainly not Islam. I think some people need to read and research more.