Gender Identity in Religion

[Tao_Equus]

Many Christians and Islam especially have the ideology that any behaviour outside of standard monogamous heterosexuality is an abomination, evil or at best a mental illness. Yet study after study reveals that there are many gender variables and that they are usually linked to some observable genetic predisposition. Is it time for the law to step in and force religions to halt their ignorant discrimination? An employer is not allowed to discriminate, so why should a religion be allowed to?


tao

[leastone]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Is it time for the law to step in (and halt) the ideology that any behaviour outside of standard monogamous heterosexuality is an abomination

You mean, sir, that you want "the idea that any behaviour outsise of standard monogamous heterosexuality is an abomination" be outlawed?

Would you also have the same "authorities" ban all the sexually transmitted diseases that have, through centuries, afflicted humans because of "behaviour outside of standard monogamous heterosexual relationships"?

Respectfully,

Learner

[lunamoth]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[arthra]

Is it time for the law to step in and force religions to halt their ignorant discrimination? An employer is not allowed to discriminate, so why should a religion be allowed to?

That's an interesting slant.. There are some churches that seem to permit a wide variety of relationships outside monogamous relationships..Maybe more of them permit it today than previously.

But to compel other religious groups to change their institutions to say permit other than monogamous relationships is to me going a bit too far and may violate their rights to practise their religion.

- Art

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Two wrongs don't make a right.

The perfect response


tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by arthra

Is it time for the law to step in and force religions to halt their ignorant discrimination? An employer is not allowed to discriminate, so why should a religion be allowed to?

That's an interesting slant.. There are some churches that seem to permit a wide variety of relationships outside monogamous relationships..Maybe more of them permit it today than previously.

But to compel other religious groups to change their institutions to say permit other than monogamous relationships is to me going a bit too far and may violate their rights to practise their religion.

- Art

And what about the rights of those with non standard gender variables that wish to practice those religions?

tao

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

And what about the rights of those with non standard gender variables that wish to practice those religions?

tao

They could always form their own factions. Besides, religion has never been void of mavericks. Finally, why not practice the religion your way? Why do people always have to kow-tow to an establishment? Do they have a monopoly on the practice of the religion? What is there to say that these people have more divine illumination than you? (Pardon me, but to hell with these people!) In a post-modern world, is there no room for individuality and spontaneity?

What makes these priests, presbyters and pastors so special? To hell with these people who think they know our religion better than we do. Let every individual be his own creed and denomination.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

They could always form their own factions. Besides, religion has never been void of mavericks. Finally, why not practice the religion your way? Why do people always have to kow-tow to an establishment? Do they have a monopoly on the practice of the religion? What is there to say that these people have more divine illumination than you? (Pardon me, but to hell with these people!) In a post-modern world, is there no room for individuality and spontaneity?

What makes these priests, presbyters and pastors so special? To hell with these people who think they know our religion better than we do. Let every individual be his own creed and denomination.

Well, if you are a Baha'i and you are in a same-sex relationship you will not be allowed to attend Feast or vote within the faith. If you advocate for same-sex couples you could end up dis-enrolled. Creating factions within the faith is also forbidden, so you can't technically be a Baha'i and in a same-sex relationship.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

They could always form their own factions. Besides, religion has never been void of mavericks. Finally, why not practice the religion your way? Why do people always have to kow-tow to an establishment? Do they have a monopoly on the practice of the religion? What is there to say that these people have more divine illumination than you? (Pardon me, but to hell with these people!) In a post-modern world, is there no room for individuality and spontaneity?

What makes these priests, presbyters and pastors so special? To hell with these people who think they know our religion better than we do. Let every individual be his own creed and denomination.

What Luna said and...

The sexuality of the people I am talking about is a genetic fact, like being born black. Would you advocate that because someone is black they should be forced to start their own religion and just accept the colour prejudice of the establishment?


tao

PS remember this is tao, this is a question of principle not of religious truth.

[arthra]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

And what about the rights of those with non standard gender variables that wish to practice those religions?

tao

As far as I know it's quite possible for anyone to create a "church".. or join one that is let's say more open..to their practices. For me when you want to compel other religions to adopt practices that are contray or not allowed then you are telling others how to practise their religion.. and that could violate their rights of freedom and civil liberties.

- Art

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by arthra

As far as I know it's quite possible for anyone to create a "church".. or join one that is let's say more open..to their practices. For me when you want to compel other religions to adopt practices that are contray or not allowed then you are telling others how to practise their religion.. and that could violate their rights of freedom and civil liberties.

- Art

How is it "their" religion? Did they invent it before there were people with non standard gender expression? A belief in the doctrine of a church belongs to the individual not to that church and the church as an institution should receive no special privilege over any other type of institution when it comes to discrimination. If a university was to attempt such prejudice it would be sued. It is about time individuals started suing the churches for there is no justification, for unfounded prejudice is not a justification, to prevent or discriminate against a person for the genes they were born with. Do you also ban blacks or Eskimos or people with big noses?

tao

[arthra]

It is about time individuals started suing the churches for there is no justification, for unfounded prejudice is not a justification, to prevent or discriminate against a person for the genes they were born with. Do you also ban blacks or Eskimos or people with big noses?

So you would use courts to try to compel churches to change their institutions.. I think that's been done on occasion. What other means do you think should be used?

In Canada you may be aware that the Court decided it could not enforce same sex marraiges on churches:

"The Court also ruled that given freedom of religion in the Charter of Rights, and wording of provincial human rights codes, it was highly unlikely that religious institutions could be compelled to perform same-sex marriages, though because solemnization of marriage is a matter for provincial governments, the proposed Bill could not actually guarantee such a protection."

- Art

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

What Luna said and...

The sexuality of the people I am talking about is a genetic fact, like being born black. Would you advocate that because someone is black they should be forced to start their own religion and just accept the colour prejudice of the establishment?


tao

PS remember this is tao, this is a question of principle not of religious truth.

Sexuality is not necessarily a genetic fact. Identical twin studies show only a 40% correlation of alternative sexuality in both twins. This may be much higher than in unrelated people, indicating a possible influence of a genetic component, but the 60% non-correlation highlights how we are not bound by our genetics regarding sexuality.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by arthra

As far as I know it's quite possible for anyone to create a "church".. or join one that is let's say more open..to their practices. For me when you want to compel other religions to adopt practices that are contray or not allowed then you are telling others how to practise their religion.. and that could violate their rights of freedom and civil liberties.

- Art

FWIW, I agree here with Art that religions should not be compelled to accept members or behaviors they disagree with. I was was just pointing out that in most religions, for all intents and purposes, you can't really be a 'religion of one' and have it still be the same thing as being part of the larger religion. Not just Baha'i, but Christian, Muslim, probably most others. It seems a pretty reasonable thing to say that if you don't accept the teachings and principles of religion, then why wish to be part of it?

I disagree with excluding people because of sexual orientation, but I also disagree with laws that force religions to marry homosexuals or ordain women against their beliefs. This is the kind of thing that caused the Catholic Church in England to stop their work in adoption, which is a tragic loss to the children and families of adopted kids.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

What Luna said and...

The sexuality of the people I am talking about is a genetic fact, like being born black. Would you advocate that because someone is black they should be forced to start their own religion and just accept the colour prejudice of the establishment?

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

How is it "their" religion? Did they invent it before there were people with non standard gender expression? A belief in the doctrine of a church belongs to the individual not to that church and the church as an institution should receive no special privilege over any other type of institution when it comes to discrimination. If a university was to attempt such prejudice it would be sued. It is about time individuals started suing the churches for there is no justification, for unfounded prejudice is not a justification, to prevent or discriminate against a person for the genes they were born with. Do you also ban blacks or Eskimos or people with big noses?

Ok, I see that you want to talk about how it could be resolved within or involving the establishment.

My understanding is that the role of the State in democratic and Western societies is to ensure that every individual has the right to the basic requirements for living and functioning normally in (the whole of) society, such as shelter, a job, free speech, marriage and family life. These are all things that allow an individual to function normally in "the wider world" and are a part of that wider world. Being rejected by a religious community because you're homosexual doesn't prevent you from enjoying the "privileges of the wider world." "Homosexual marriage" is a part of the "wider world" but acceptance by a religious community isn't part of the "wider world." The jurisdiction of that religious community is fairly limited. Its authority doesn't dissipate out into the wider world.

There are atheists who don't have a religion, yet they are still able to enjoy these "wider world privileges."

The religious establishment may harbour bigotry, racism and prejudice. Everybody has the right to be a bigot, a racist and to prejudge others. It is just unlawful to project it out into the world, into the public sphere. Curse your grandmother in her own home and you probably won't be arrested. Do it out in the streets and it's more likely to happen.

What I was saying before (which is similar to what you just said above) is that a religious establishment is just a "coalition of men" who aspire to have the authority to decide what is right and wrong in their religion but that authority never really belongs to them. That can only aspire to it. They can only pretend that it belongs to them. They can only believe that they have it. But believing and asserting that it's true doesn't make it so.

A person who has been told he can't be accepted by the religion does not have to believe it. It was not a decision made by the religion itself, but a decision made by some who believed they could speak on behalf of the religion.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I was was just pointing out that in most religions, for all intents and purposes, you can't really be a 'religion of one' and have it still be the same thing as being part of the larger religion. Not just Baha'i, but Christian, Muslim, probably most others.

I thought Baha'i would have been a little more open because it combined Jewish, Christian and Islamic concepts.

But anyway . . . with regards to Christianity, I wouldn't agree with people who said you couldn't have a "religion of one," at least in the eyes of the world. This isn't to say community isn't important, as Christianity was quite community-oriented at the beginning, but I think there are individualistic and collectivistic aspects in Christianity and for a lot of its history, too much emphasis was put on collectivism, on the "group mentality." What I am talking about is people making rules on what it means to be "part of the group" as if to create a monopoly on membership, making rules that suit them but exclude other, somewhat innocent souls and I think that is wrong.

If I was to put a satirical twist on this "religion of one" thing, I would say that Jesus himself said that "my kingdom is not of this world, if it were, my disciples would fight to prevent my arrest." By making rules, creating an ideology and setting up an establishment to decide who is or isn't part of the group, people create a political system and set up "statecraft" to rival Jesus' spiritual kingdom which is divine and spiritual. They think they decide who has access to Jesus' kingdom, which isn't based on the structural and technical semantics all political systems in this world employ for their proper function and operation.

Continuing with the "satirical twist" on the "religion of one" thing in Christianity, Jesus also said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. Nobody comes to the Father except through me."

Ultimately, "the church" doesn't decide who has access to God. Jesus does. Nobody in the entire world of Christianity, no church, no denomination, no creed can decide where a person stands with God and Christianity. Only the individual, Jesus and God can decide.

A Christian individual should not be letting the Establishment decide his relationship with God, because the Establishment, which is no more than "a coalition of men" has no more divine illumination than the individual.

Jesus has set that person free from the Establishment. The Establishment doesn't have the authority to decide that person's fate. The church does not decide that. Jesus has set that person free from going to church. Jesus has saved that person from having to go to church. God can accept that person despite his/her lack of association with a local collective.

You may regard the separatist as someone who is self-centred, self-absorbed and narcissistic. But sometimes it isn't the separatist who is at fault. Sometimes it's because of the arrogant attitude of a group of people who think they're more entitled to the spiritual kingdom because of the way they interpret the Text. In this case, the separatist doesn't serve the blame. The blame rests on the shoulders of the collective that cannot see beyond it's own arrogance.

In Christianity at least, I believe, there is a way to "stay true" (so to speak) without having to conform to the tenets of any group ideology. Some of us are spiritual loners and orphans. For those of us who aren't associated with any local collectives (not saying that I am one), we are happy to be part of a Greater Collective, but are sorry that the local collectives reject, excommunicate and will not commune with us.