mikes@tekecs.UUCP (10/13/86)
I recently raised some questions regarding the redundancy of the ERA (given the Civil Rights Act, etc.). This isn't necessarily my point of view (I really am not sure what it is these days), but I would have appreciated a little more intelligent discussion rather than "that's just BS" type comments. Anyway, a new question: What about religious/social organizations that restrict or partition the rights, privileges, and/or responsibilities of one sex or the other? I can certainly see the need for having a society in which a man or woman cannot be told you can't work|live|eat|shop|etc here, and I think a good case can be made against things like the Kiwanis and Rotary clubs that are still all-male (are there similar all-female organizations?). But what about a group of people who say "we believe women do x and men do y, and this comes right from God[ess]"? Catholics, LDS, Jews, and many other religious groups do in fact partition/restrict members this way based on sex. If the ERA were the law of the land, would these people be obliged to obey? Could a woman take the Catholic or Presbyterian or LDS Church to court because she was refused ordination? Or are religious matters non-legislatable? I mean, if we're going to have religious freedom and a pluralistic society, then we have to be ready to accept the religions that say "women are the holders of responsibilities and the bearers of the secrets of the Goddess, and men are just the ones that help bring more women into the world" as well as those that keep the women in the back half of the church where they can't hear the religous instruction as well. (Or do we?) Well, what do you think? Is this just another "will men and women have to use the same bathrooms and wear the same style swimwear" type question, or is it valid? If it is a valid question (and I think it is), then what about legislation of religious practice wrt sex? Keep in mind the generally poor record Congress has on this type of thing: outlawing polygyny (with the the LDS church), restricting and outlawing peyote and marijuana use in some Amerind religions, mandating a Protestant Christian prayer at the beginning of its meetings, etc. I for one am not real confident of our legislators' ability to stay "in bounds" and not promote one flavor of religion over another, either for or against the rights of the members of either sex. -- Mike Sellers UUCP: {...your spinal column here...}!tektronix!tekecs!mikes Disclaimer: I'm trying to come up with something witty but our news software is limiting us to four line .signature files...
hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles Hedrick) (10/14/86)
> Could a woman take the Catholic or Presbyterian or LDS Church to court > because she was refused ordination? Just for the record, the Prebyterian Church (USA) has ordained women for a number of years. I know it was just an example, but ...
sunny@hoptoad.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (10/15/86)
Since we may incarnate as one sex in one lifetime and then may incarnate as the opposite in another, it is totally ludicrous to discriminate on the basis of sex. We are all the same. -- Sunny Kirsten POB 557 Monte Rio, CA 95462-0557 (707)865-2885 USENET: {sun,ptsfa,well,lll-crg,ihnp4,ucsfcgl,nsc,frog}!hoptoad!sunny