Why do religions get a pass when it comes to gender discrimination?

[True Earthling]

Why are religions held on such a lofty pedestal? Shouldn't religious values conform to U.S. Law? Our discrimination laws are supposed to reflect the will of the majority of the people and it's only fair that the law is applied equally to all organizations regardless if the organization is a corporation, institution or religious entity. Why should religions operate under a separate set of rules? If enforcing discrimination law is akin to telling religions how to worship then what are all the other laws that religions must abide by in order to operate? When religions are clearly out of touch with reality i.e. women do not deserve equality... then it's time to either change or enforce existing laws or enact new laws.

**********************************************************************************************************

In a 2005 publication, "Women Friendly Mosques and Community Centers," written by two American-Muslim groups — the Islamic Social Services Associations and Women In Islam — the authors confirmed that "many mosques relegate women to small, dingy, secluded, airless and segregated quarters with their children," some mosques "actually prevent women from entering," and others "discriminate against women by denying them the rights of membership, voting, or holding office." The report, supported by leading national Muslim groups, further noted, "These practices are unjust and degrading," and they "contradict" the teachings of Mohammad.

To me, they also contradict the spirit of our land. The IRS has ruled that "tax exempt organizations may jeopardize their exempt status if they engage in illegal activity." Political activity is covered in the "illegal activity" doctrine. Applying this doctrine in 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that the IRS could deny Bob Jones University tax exemption because of racial policies at the evangelical Christian university (kicking students out for interracial dating). Tax attorneys say the ruling established public policy that tax-exempt organizations can't racially discriminate in educational institutions. Meanwhile, in 1984, in a case against the Jaycees civic organization, the Supreme Court held that a private organization cannot discriminate based on gender.

So far, though, gender rights aren't protected at places of worship." Muslim women are essentially in the same place as Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1950s and 1960s" when the courts hadn't yet established public policy against racial discrimination, says Marcus Owens, a tax attorney at Caplin & Drysdale and former director of the IRS' exempt organizations division. It's the same for our sisters in other faiths.Who would stand in the way of reform? Catholic churches, for one, and other places that get exemptions in employment law so they can practice gender inequity (think priest jobs). Alan Goldberger, a non-profit attorney in Millburn, N.J., is a former member of a conservative synagogue that integrates women, but he has attended orthodox Jewish synagogues that segregate women and says that it could be "more prudent with public policy" to enforce non-discrimination in places of worship, but the courts "like to stay away from intervening in the affairs of a private organization." Daniel Dalton, 46, a non-profit attorney in Farmington Hills, Mich., says the IRS has taken the position "it's not going to look at ecclesiastical, doctrinal issues." He grew up in the Missouri Lutheran Church, which limits women's roles in leadership positions. "I don't understand it. I don't agree with it," says Dalton. "But that's a doctrinal issue." I understand the difficulties in having the state intervene in worship issues. I believe in a separation of church and state, but I've come to the difficult decision that women must use the legal system to restore rights in places of worship, particularly when intimidation is used to enforce unfair rules.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-07-10-muslim-women-mosques_n.htm

[pnwmom]

1. Freedom of religion. And they're voluntary organizations. Anyone is free to leave. n/t

[True Earthling]

2. Free to discriminate - how nice. What if they believed in human sacrifice?

[pnwmom]

7. Then the criminal justice system would step in.

But the solution for people who are upset with gender discrimination is to leave their church or to work within it for change. Not to ask the government to step in and change it. Freedom of religion is guaranteed in the Constitution.

I think it's ironic that you're criticizing churches for gender discrimination when our own Constitution doesn't guarantee equal rights for women. Such an amendment was attempted -- and failed -- a few decades ago. Maybe that's where you should be putting your efforts.

[kwassa]

48. Great reply.

Succinct identification of the issues.

[damntexdem]

And because they're powerful.

So they are free to discriminate far beyond their own "religious freedom" territory -- e.g., can also do so with public funds.

[fivepennies]

3. That's why its called

patriarchy. Wimmins are evil, they tempt the poor patriarchs into doing bad things they wouldn't otherwise do. The wimmins must be punished for eternity.

:spank:

[riderinthestorm]

4. I've never understood it either. They get tax perks too from the govt for discriminating

er, being a religious organization.....

It's taken a long time to "shame" some places into stopping their discriminatory practices against African Americans for example. There are very few (none?) that would be AA's in a segregated airless secondary space for worship in this day and age. Recognizing basic civil rights has made some strides.

But towards women? Not so much.

[pnwmom]

6. delete (wrong post)

[Deep13]

5. They don't get a free pass from me...

...and I am not alone in this (obviously, since I am responding to your complaint.) I think as time goes on the tolerance for bigotry--misogyny in particular--erodes. As far as paid employment goes, religious establishments should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.

[Nye Bevan]

8. YES. I want to be a male nun. This is DISCRIMINATION (nt)

[harun]

9. Where do you attend services?

[RebelOne]

14. I don't. I am an atheist. n/t

[cordelia]

29. I don't. I am not an atheist. n/t

[kestrel91316]

10. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

THAT'S why. The FIRST AMENDMENT say there shall be no federal regulation of religion, and for good reason. Religions are voluntary associations, the same as a group of friends getting together to play poker.

You don't like a particular religion's teachings? Don't be a member, and don't give money to them. It's exceedingly simple.

[Bill McBlueState]

13. we sort of all give money to them, though

if they have a tax exemption.

The rest of us could have lower taxes if the churches, etc., contributed their fare share.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. But the WH runs a 'Faith Based Initiatives Office' so what gives?

They get help from Joshy to figure out how to discriminate and still get the Government Gravy. So, why are they in the WH is they are just like a poker game? Is there a WH 'Office of Ongoing Card Clubs'? Of course not.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

46. What if your belief system does not rely on faith?

For example, I study Buddhism. There is no faith there, just philosophy about what is reality and what our purpose is.
There are no gods and no faith there. Yet it is a recognized ancient religion.

So does that mean that the White House doesn't believe Buddhists need any government help?

[Goblinmonger]

41. They have certainly stuck their noses into

plenty of religions when it has come to non-Christian ones. Peyote? Animal sacrifice? There are SCOTUS decisions that limit regulate religion. Why are the Christian sects given a wide berth?

[WatsonT]

11. People are weary of government and religion mixing

at least some people are.

/they also discriminate based on religion, which other entities aren't allowed to do.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. And note, the 'Churches' are the most segregated places in

America. They volunteer to discriminate against each other as well. They dig the discrimination thing.

[Bill McBlueState]

12. beats me.

Religious organizations hold themselves up as some kind of example in morality for the rest of us. But the Christian* denominations that disallow female clergy can't even meet the fairly low standard of gender equality we've converged on in American society. They should have to either meet our society's standards or take their business elsewhere.

On Edit:*And Muslim and Jewish organizations; let's not forget anyone.

[patrice]

15. I recall a few minutes in which I considered he possibility that I'd miss out on heaven & go to hell

if I didn't do/say/think/feel what my church wants me to. Then I laughed.

Some people just simply CAN'T get clear of their fear and figure things out for themselves. They HAVE to have that power figure or else!

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Because Gawd is in the Mix, and Staight Males are supreme

They are allowed to couch horrible things in mumbo jumbo, unquestioned.

[WinkyDink]

19. "But that's a doctrinal issue." There's your answer. Now get over it. You really want govt to get in

religions' beeswax?

[snooper2]

20. Because their "holy" books say so....

Still waiting to find out if jesus is made up of matter :P

[Lucian]

21. Excellent question.

[Quantess]

22. Religion is the scourge of humanity.

Especially the fundamental, extremist kind.

[Igel]

23. Because they had their rights extended to them and guaranteed long before you were born.

Nobody's come along to say, "That right you had, it's not a right we're going to honor any more. You have to do what we want, you have to think like we say. We're on the side of liberty and freedom, so do and say what we think or else, buster, you'll be freedomed right into penury and libertied to prison."

Look at cliques at schools, social groups, communities. When you're done, you can put a giant prison wall around the US and decree that everybody serves a life prison for unwarranted animosity and hatred--it's just a question of who we irrationally hate but find irrational rationalizations for.

[True Earthling]

24. There is no inherent "right" to discriminate in religious freedom laws..

Religions should be free to believe and practice whatever they want as long as what they practice doesn't violate the law. Religions are not "free" to practice human sacrifice, polygamy or ingest or distribute drugs. Why should religious laws override other government laws?

[jberryhill]

27. They are free to distribute drugs

In fact, most states provide an explicit exemption to their alcohol laws in relation to religious services involving minors.

If the "religion" is merely a front for distributing drugs then, no.

However, the right to use peyote in certain groups is well established. The Native American Church has established its right to use peyote.

If you find a religion in which the use of some other drug is a longstanding central practice, then have at it.

[Goblinmonger]

42. Not if you're brown

and want real Peyote from Mexico. Then we aren't going to loosen up any laws for you.

[okasha]

43. "Real" peyote grows and is harvested and distributed

by licensed dealers in South Texas. It doesn't need to be imported from Mexico.

On what basis is one peyote button "real" when it grows a quarter of a mile away from another that, according to you, is not "real?"

[Goblinmonger]

44. We ran peyote as a debate case in college debate

about a decade ago. I can't remember the sources off-hand, but the stuff in Mexico is apparently better than in the US due to growing conditions, etc. But the feds won't relax the controlled substance ban an allow them to bring it across the border. Again, don't remember the citations, but the sources we had were pretty serious about it.

[okasha]

45. Growing conditions are pretty much identical.

Peyote has been declared endangered in Mexico, largely due to poaching to feed the illegal (non-NA) American demand. Mexico will not export it legally at this point, never mind US policy. Poaching has also adversely affected the South Texas crop, as has damage done by oil and gas exploration companies.

I'm not a member of the NAC, but several friends are. They have no complaints about quality, only dependability of supply. I've also been to conferences where this concern was expressed.

[aikoaiko]

25. 1st Amendment.

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.

[Iggo]

26. Well, I don't give them a pass...

...if that makes you feel better.

(Yeah, me neither...lol.)

[Raschel]

28. Same reason White supremacist groups do.(except for the one Dave Chapelle was in)

[PurityOfEssence]

30. Religions get a pass on everything because religions are ABOUT getting a pass

Religion is the ultimate shortcut: quick answers, the end of doubt, "special" status, being above justification, the whole lot.

People point out that someone is devout, and we don't really question that they're "good" people, even when much of the meat of the major religions is rather selfish stuff. To view religion as neutral or bad is to invite instant ostracism.

[spanone]

31. 2nd question, why don't they pay taxes?

[patrice]

32. Because SaintCo has our elected representatives by the short hairs. nt

[okasha]

33. Simple answer; 1st Amendment.

Not so simple answer; our society is patriarchal, and gender discrimination remains deeply entrenched in virtually all its aspects. Make discrimination less acceptable in politics, in the workplace, in application of the law, and religions that still discriminate will either follow suit or be marginalized. Passing the ERA is a good place to start.

[dimbear]

34. In conformity with my policy of noncombative posting, I ask you

why women would date or worse yet marry men who belong to oppressive religions? Perhaps if we modified all Holy books so that the first chapter was replaced with Lysistrata we could make some progress.

[skepticscott]

35. Why would women marry men

who beat them or cheated on them?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

36. Dominant males enjoy being dominant, and don't want challenges to their power.

My definition of Christianity: Cannibalistic Death Cult + Penis=Wisdom

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[struggle4progress]

37. I give Asra two cheers: I like feminist women, and I like people who stand up for

what they believe. I support the idea of gender equality, and I consider out-of-date traditions, that accord women an inferior place

But I deducted a cheer for her view that US should by law interfere in religious traditions

That view isn't informed by an understanding of the historical development of US civil rights law, and it's not informed by an understanding of US politics

The US has usually been hostile to civil rights legislation, and such legislation has only been possible when a large sector of the US becomes convinced that existing prejudices limit people's abilities to access essential services (such as food or housing) or to participate fully in the larger society (through meaningful employment, for example). US civil rights law has never demanded that persons been treated equally in all circumstances. Of course, I do think people should be treated equally, but social pressure can be as effective, or more effective, than law for obtaining some changes

The political danger is backlash: anti-integrationist sentiment played a huge role in the election of Nixon and Reagan, and this sentiment was wrapped in anti-government language, due in part to conservative hostility to the Warren Court. The justices of the Warren era are some of my great heroes, but the era left many Americans with the curious view that the courts could solve more problems than the courts can actually solve. Judicial rulings requiring conservative mosques to treat women equally, or requiring the Catholics to ordain women as priests, would simply not have the desired effect: such rulings would merely produce great backlashes

I hope Asra continues to push an understanding of Islam that respects women, instead of relegating them to a second-class role. But I'm not as enthusiastic if she wants the law to do the work for her

[Jim Lane]

38. I'm an agnostic who believes in religious freedom, and I agree with you.

Churches should be given a pass -- at least to some extent. The problem is that there's no bright line.

The courts have tried to strike a balance between two absolutist positions:
(1) Complete free pass: Anything that anybody wants to do in the name of religion must be allowed, under the Free Exercise Clause.
(2) Utter disregard of religion: Religious individuals and groups are fully subject to all of the same laws as anyone else, regardless of religious beliefs.

Position 1 would lead, as some posters here have noted, to allowing religions to practice human sacrifice. Position 2 would end all accommodations, such as the current practice of allowing Native American religions to continue to use peyote (see jberryhill's comment in #27 above), and would presumably mean requiring the Catholic Church to ordain women as priests.

If you believe in religious freedom, then you should recognize that the freedom isn't meaningful unless we sometimes make limited accommodations for churches and other religious groups. My version of agnosticism doesn't require me to be anti-religious at every opportunity and in every context.

[CJvR]

39. A better question is:

Why would anyone want to be part of a religion that considers you to be a second class citizen?

[trotsky]

40. Yup, that's the real mystery.

Because if those who cared about equality left the churches that fight against it, those churches would wither on the vine.

[dimbear]

49. Usually wanting isn't the problem. It's being born in and can't get out.

Not many gays clamoring to become Mormons, for instance. On the other hand, pursuing them after they leave the church isn't really sporting. Not cricket (heh) for those that know Mormon history.

[skepticscott]

51. I guess the same reason

that some homosexuals belong to a political party that would see them all burn in hell.

[Klietzlander]

50. Well the first amendment among other things

First there it the First Amendment which defends the free exercise of religion.

Second, clubs can be formed with specific gender rules and even roles. For example there exists women's only gymnasiums and health centers. Likewise the boy scouts is entirely for males.

Third, these beliefs are voluntary. For example the Orthodox Jewish Synagogue is not the only Synagogue. One can form their own Synagogue and compete with them. If one wants Judaism without the Orthodoxy of gender specific rules and regulations then one should go reform.