Letter: Religions abusive of women

Women are often thought of as second-class citizens. Too many men think it is appropriate and justified to physically abuse their wives or girlfriends. This mentality toward women as being inferior has its roots in religion. Almost all religions, and certainly the larger ones, such as Christianity and Islam, teach the inferiority of women. The teachings from their holy books are replete with the sanctioned abuses of women. In many religions, women cannot participate equally with men.

The Bible is full of statements that condone the subjugation of women. In that book women are subjected to beatings, rape and murder. Why any woman would want to be a part of such an oppressive cult is beyond my comprehension. I can no more understand that than I can, for example, a black person wanting to join the Ku Klux Klan.

Catholic bishops want to tell women how they can treat their bodies. The Catholic Church preaches that it is a sin to use contraception. All of the so-called Christian churches, especially those of the fundamentalist variety, want to impose their religious beliefs on women with regard to abortion. So even if a woman is raped, these loving religions would force that woman to give birth. It is hard to imagine that a religious group would have that much hatred and insensitivity toward a rape victim.

Unfortunately, religions seem to thrive on the hatred of those that do not live up to their standards. Homosexuals, atheists and people of other faiths routinely face the wrath of religious bigotry. Oh, you do not believe in what I believe? Then you are a sinner and will burn for eternity in hell.

Certainly there are individuals who are actually kind and loving who belong to these various religious institutions, but they did not get their kind and loving ways from those religions. While religious groups like to claim credit for morality, it actually comes from a simple evolutionary process. There are many scientific articles and books on the subject which clearly show morality without religion. We would be moral animals even if religion had not arisen.

A few particularly good books on the subject are: Marc Hauser, “Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong”; Matt Ridley, “The Origins of Virtue”; Robert Buckman, “Can We Be Good Without God?” Michael Shermer, “The Science of Good and Evil”; Robert Hinde, “Why Good is Good.” They are all very enlightening books.

I will end this letter by saying that people have the right to believe in what they want, but I object when religions want to impose their beliefs on others who do not believe as they do.

Michael Polito, Ph.D.

chemist

Clinton

Comments

1) Comment by chem - 08/08/2012

LSUinVail: Thanks for your kind comment. I take it that you are now in Vail, Colorado? If so, it must be nice up there. Unless you are around some of those wildfires, which I hope is not the case.

2) Comment by prbeav - 08/08/2012

krl777, recall that why-we-agree-not-to-lie is from Albert Einstein’s 1941 speech; I merely commented on his thoughts, often quoting him directly. I need to include that the first victim of a lie is the liar.>>>>My intense interest in Einstein’s essay is this: during my lifetime, I constantly lied to MYSELF. When I lie to myself, I create internal concerns and contradictions that compound and lead to my bad life; sometimes almost unbearably bad. When a person lies, no other human is involved in the psychological harm to the liar, especially when the sole victim is also the liar.>>>>To tie this to religious, self-justified abuse of women (and the rest of the family) by men, I suggest watching the documentary “Deep Water.” Rent online, for example, at http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Water/dp/B004EC8IMM/ref=sr_1_1?s=instant-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1344363800&sr=1-1&keywords=movie+rentals+Deep+Water .>>>>As a matter of fact, I am grateful to you krl777, for prompting me to realize that it is the combination of Einstein’s essay and “Deep Water” within the last month, that brought focus on my history of deluding and bemusing myself with the Bible and or Christianity. I have been recovering for more than a decade.>>>>I am a human being and member of the community of humankind, currently seven billion people. I am among the people including Christians who observe the no-harm rule; want to influence people who would harm others to reform their thinking; and don’t plan to reduce my social association again in my lifetime. When someone “dusts” me, I regretfully accept their behavior and await any future action by them but in the meantime keep my dialogue with them shallow.>>>>Thank you for your post.

3) Comment by LSUinVail - 08/08/2012

@chem-could not agree more with your posts on this subject. Thanks for the refreshing rationality.

4) Comment by nimby? - 08/08/2012

krl777 , thank you . as a people we tend to assume more than we should . this causes generalization , a label , grouping those with others they have nothing in common with , for category purposes ; we , us , those , them .....

5) Comment by gofigger - 08/08/2012

chem-No way, that would not make sense and would definitely go against my beliefs.

6) Comment by krl777 - 07/08/2012

It is a mistake for the letter to lump all religions together with regard to the status of women. The Sikh religion, victims of the (apparently neo-Nazi) attack outside Milwaukee last weekend, has equality of men and women as an official doctrine, giving women an equal role in worship, and is regarded by some as the first religion to proclaim gender equality (harder to achieve in practice, no doubt, than in doctrine). The Roman Catholic hierarchy, including the American bishops, explicitly subordinate women in many ways, but many American priests support gender equality in quiet and subtle ways. The Southern Baptist Convention declared in 1998 that a wife should submit to her husband's leadership, proudly aligning itself with fundamentalist Muslims on this issue. And the status of women seems to be particularly retrograde in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We should be wary of claims that religion does something, or that all religions do something, when there is so much diversity among world religions.

7) Comment by krl777 - 07/08/2012

Mr. Beaver (since you identify yourself), I think that attempts to axiomatize ethics are fascinating. My concern with your proposal to derive "One should not lie" from more basic utilitarian principles is that, while it may distinguish a socially destructive lie from an innocent "white lie" of the sort we are sometimes obliged to tell to minimize harm, it seems to make the wrong prediction in the following sort of case. Suppose that I am in circumstances in which I could mislead someone, to their detriment, but be guaranteed that nobody would ever know that any lie had been committed. I can imagine that my lie is so hermetically sealed off from the rest of reality that it has no negative utilitarian consequences. Yet, my intuition is that it is nevertheless wrong for me to lie in those circumstances. The underlying intuition for me is that there is something wrong with deliberately misleading someone to their detriment, even when there is no resulting unraveling of the social covenant. Although I am sympathetic to utilitarian explanations in general, I don't think it is so easy to reduce the "ought" or "ought not" of ethics to utilitarian axioms. I don't claim that it is necessarily impossible. Just not easy.

8) Comment by prbeav - 07/08/2012

chem, I agree. In fact, in my seventh decade. I feel that if I had been reared to focus on building my character instead of my religion i would be ethically better off by far. That is putting it mildly.>>>>But have you ever heard such convincing justification for not lying as Albert Einstein presented? If we lie we isolate ourselves!>>>>Yet lying is a common practice in my society. I think it is because I heard those religious commands and waited for my savior to kick in, but just kept on lying.>>>>No more, as of reading and modifying Einstein's 1941 speech.

9) Comment by chem - 07/08/2012

prbeav, you are getting at the essence of why religion is not needed for good deeds, morality, ethics. One of the problems with religion, apart from the hate and bigotry they entail, is that people can be evil their entire life and at the end, confess their sins and accept god, jesus, or some other surrogate, and all will be forgiven. You will go to heaven and "live" happily ever after. That should be offensive to anyone wanting to live a good, moral life.

10) Comment by prbeav - 07/08/2012

It seems this wonderful thread has become frustrated, and I'd like to revive it by focusing on people's agreement not to lie. THIS IS AN ESSAY I HAVE WORKED ON FOR A FEW WEEKS. >>>>Adapting Albert Einstein’s 1941 speech, The Laws of Science and The Laws of Ethics, Starting at http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/my-friend-einstein/ but corrected to the referenced book. >>>> My Title: Why We Humans Agree Not to Lie>>>> Humankind employs a process for understanding The process works in both physics and ethics; the searcher seeks comprehension of “relations which are thought to exist independently of the” searcher. For example, humankind holds that love is better than hate, even though some humans may disagree. In physics, comprehensions may be cosmic discoveries, for example, that the universe is expanding. Also, there are definitions, as in elementary mathematics: 2+2=4, as 2 apples plus 2 oranges equals 4 fruit. Understanding is not “supposed to” suffice in the intellectual world or social world, such as ethics, but does. For example, consider that we agree not to lie.>>>> The process for understanding “has a further characteristic. The concepts which [understanding] uses to build up [comprehension] are not expressing emotions. For the [searcher], there is only ‘being,’ but no wishing,” no praising, no agenda, no ideology; no pride; no comfort; no goal beyond understanding. Guided by understanding, we need not respond to doctrine, like, “’Thou shalt not lie.’” >>>> Yet, “we do not feel at all that it is meaningless to ask such questions as: ‘Why should we not lie?’ Lying destroys confidence in the statements of other people. Without such confidence, social cooperation is made impossible or at least difficult.” For example, after the lie, the liar fears dialogue with people who may discover the lie; or, judging from his own behavior, the liar may suspect the deceived party is also a liar. “[C]ooperation . . . is essential to make human life possible”, even worthy of appreciation. Thus, our commitment, We shall not lie, has been traced back to the demands: ‘Human life shall be preserved’ and ‘Pain and sorrow shall be lessened as much as possible.’” Our personal chance at life is so short. We agree not to lie to each other, because otherwise we cannot communicate—would become isolated.>>>> Thus, it seems as if the process for understanding can apply to ethics. “[E]thical directives can be made rational and coherent by logical thinking and empirical knowledge. If we can agree on some fundamental ethical propositions, then other propositions can be derived from them, provided that the original premises are stated with sufficient precision. Such ethical premises play a similar role in ethics, to that played by axioms in mathematics.”>>>> “Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the physical axioms. Understanding “is what stands the test of experience” and approaches the truth. Copyright: August 7, 2012. Phillip R. Beaver (Adapted from Einstein: Out of My Later Years, pp. 114-115)

11) Comment by nimby? - 07/08/2012

it's fairly obvious where the hate/intolerance on this thread is coming from . while the religion business has gotten out of hand a persons faith and their relationship with their higher power is a matter concerning only them . "put your faith in yourself , god and man will both disappoint " ....

12) Comment by chem - 07/08/2012

Are you going to hang yourself at that oak tree?

13) Comment by chem - 07/08/2012

I've said it before: Religions are the biggest impediment to peace on this planet. Religions teach hatred and prejudice, and we see it all over the world. People, from an early age, are brainwashed into this silly dogma and most can't seem to shake it even as they get older and supposedly wiser. If a god created us, and only us, why such a vast universe? For that matter, why all of the other planets in our solar system? Why the moon? Religion has no answer, but science does. And the apologists refuse to accept what is hard evidence with regard to the cosmos and our own backyard here on Earth.

14) Comment by gofigger - 07/08/2012

krl777,DMJ,chem......Thanks guys, you just tightened my faith one more notch, now where is that oak tree...

15) Comment by krl777 - 07/08/2012

gofigger, it was "common sense" that Africans are inferior to Europeans and could therefore be enslaved, and "common sense" was backed up by the Christian faith in support of slavery for centuries before abolition. (But see my comment at the very bottom of this thread.) Someone who says "It's common sense" simply doesn't have reasons to back up their views, or is too lazy to formulate them.

16) Comment by DMJ - 07/08/2012

Chem, you're spinning your wheels, bub. The more absurd a thing they believe, the stronger their faith is. The more evidence refuting what they believe, the more faith they have. It's circular logic and it's shamelessly self-serving, but it is effective. Am I wrong, believers?

17) Comment by chem - 07/08/2012

How sad that in 2012, people like gofigger and Fjsteven still cling to superstitious nonsense that was invented to control the unenlightened of 2000 years, and more, ago. Faced with hard evidence and logic, they would rather side with wild, preposterous stories of an omnipotent god. I cannot fathom why someone would cling to such improbable beliefs.

18) Comment by gofigger - 07/08/2012

klr777 - My reasoning falls between faith and common sense. I'm not wasting any skin to type my reasoning. Sorry, if you don't get it. You're right about the chinese opera, I'd rather sit under an oak tree and listen to the limbs grow.

19) Comment by krl777 - 07/08/2012

gofigger, you have shown no evidence that reasoning of any sort has gone into the formulation of your stance, so the rest of us should not expect that replies to your unreasoned declarations will have any effect on you. No need to apologize -- it is your loss if you choose to adopt positions and cling to them without reasons. Reasoned discourse (which, by its nature, is at least somewhat long-winded) must be like so much Chinese opera to you -- long and unfathomable.

20) Comment by gofigger - 07/08/2012

klr777 - your long winded excuse has no effect on my stance. Still.....sorry for you.

21) Comment by krl777 - 07/08/2012

So sorry, gofigger, but simply dropping the H-bomb (Hitler) does not cut it.

22) Comment by krl777 - 07/08/2012

Yes, Hitler viewed the Jews (and Slavs, and other "non-Aryans") as sub-human, and therefore expendable. Our reply to Hitler is to ostend a typical, normal Jew (or Slav, or other non-Aryan) and say, "Behold, this person has thoughts, feelings, hopes and dreams, loves and fears, just like you and me. This person is a human being like you and me, and has a right to live." When I say that a two-cell zygote, or an embryo, or early fetus, is not a human being deserving the protection of morality and the law, the comparable defense, which gofigger alludes to but conspicuously fails to provide, is something like, "Behold, this clump of cells or fetus has X, Y and Z," where X, Y and Z are to be filled in with something that is supposed to compel us to admit that the zygote, embryo or early fetus is also a human being, deserving of the protection of morality and the law. gofigger doesn't even try to make this case. But more enterprising abortion opponents have done so. For some religious opponents of abortion, the humanizing criterion might simply be, "This entity has a human soul," but that obviously doesn't carry any weight for those who don't believe in ghosts. Otherwise, X, Y and Z typically turn out to be things like, "Has a human genome," or "has ten fingers and ten toes (for a fetus), or "will be a laughing lovable baby one day." These are all true, but none of them makes the zygote, embryo or early fetus a human BEING at the present point in time when the woman carrying it might be considering an abortion.

23) Comment by nimby? - 07/08/2012

seeing more instances where women are getting tired of the abuse and fighting back , good ....

24) Comment by gofigger - 07/08/2012

chem - just a comparison of klr777 comment. Obviously closer to my mindset than yours. I'm sorry for that.

25) Comment by chem - 07/08/2012

What, exactly, does Hitler have to do with this discussion?

26) Comment by gofigger - 07/08/2012

krl777 - That must be how hitler viewed the Jews

27) Comment by krl777 - 07/08/2012

A zygote is not a baby. An embryo is not a baby. An early fetus is not a baby. There isn't a baby in the womb, with human neurology to support anything remotely resembling human feeling, until some five months into gestation. If you want to say that nevertheless the zygote, embryo and early fetus are all human beings, deserving the protection of morality and the law, that's your business, but those of us who don't believe that a human being is a bit of ghost stuff injected into matter at conception are not obliged to credit that view. By the way, the video "The Scream" is a fraud, manipulated to suggest that a pre-neurological fetus is recoiling in pain from the abortion knife. If you believe that zygotes and embryos are human beings, then you must admit that God is the biggest abortionist in the world since the rate of spontaneous loss of zygotes and embryos is higher than the total abortion rate.

28) Comment by chem - 07/08/2012

Fjsteven: Unfortunately, you offer the same circular arguments that all religious apologists offer -- it is in the bible, therefore it must be true. How naive and delusional. No one is talking about killing babies. As I said, a lump of developing cells is hardly a viable human. No one, has advocated killing people with improperly functioning lungs. You are just making an outrageous statement that has nothing to do with the discussion. I think that current guidelines for abortion are sufficient based on science. There is no need to bring superstitious nonsense into something that requires a logical, reasoned, scientific solution.

29) Comment by Fjsteven - 07/08/2012

Chem, your hypocrisy is astounding. You begin by talking about the problem is that religious people want to impose their morality on the rest of us, and then you finish by wanting to impose your morality on all religious people by telling them that they have not right to offer an opinion based on their world view about anything. As you've stayed in previous posts, you precious atheistic morality wants all religious people to disappear. The same Darwinian ethic advanced by Hitler (a devout Darwinist, not a Christian as you suppose). Also, pro lifers are in support of laws that make murdering babies illegal. What is immoral about that? You and your secular humanist ethic are exposed. You advocate the killing of the most innocent because you have determined they are not human because they don't breathe and look like us. Babies in the womb do exchange blood gases, just not through the respiratory system yet. Do you advocate the killing of other humans whose lungs don't function properly or are dependent on other people to survive? Hitler did. Chem, when is it okay to kill a baby in the womb?

30) Comment by gofigger - 07/08/2012

chem - killem' all, let God sort them? I don't think it takes just religion to guide our lifestyle, common sense should also lead us down the right path.

31) Comment by Fjsteven - 07/08/2012

Chem, He did stop by, and our sin nailed Him to a cross. Before He came to visit, though, He made himself known through the wonders of creation, he called out the nation of Israel and demonstrated His reality through that nation. He also sent His Prophets, but they were also killed, and He left us a book written by over forty authors from diverse backgrounds over centuries of time that all testify of Him. There's plenty of evidence, but it seems you've already been indoctrinated by atheist intellectuals, and are, therefore, prevented from ever considering the evidence in support of theism, and more specifically, Christianity.

32) Comment by chem - 07/08/2012

Back to the letter, the problem with too many people, especially the current crop of far-right Republicans, is that they want to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us. Take abortion. This should not be debated in terms of religion, but rather, does a woman have the right to determine the destiny of her own body. I say she does. A lump of developing cells does qualify as a born, breathing human. As was stated in the letter, Catholic bishops don't even want people to use contraception to PREVENT a pregnancy. How outrageous is that! Laws should not be passed that are born of a religious consideration. We should not even allow debate of laws based on relgious underpinnings.

33) Comment by krl777 - 06/08/2012

At least the Bible is somewhat organic, taking old Sumerian myths and refashioning them. The Book of Mormon, in contrast, seems to have been fabricated out of whole cloth by somebody who sat down and decided to simply concoct a "Bible-like" history for the New World. The Koran fulminates, though it is said that its fulminations are great poetry in Classical Arabic (as are some of the Bible's psalms in the King James Bible). Since a majority of people throughout history have been illiterate, it isn't clear why a God who wanted to reach them all wouldn't just whisper the whole work (whatever it was) in each person's ear, or broadcast it out loud in every language of the world, simultaneously. It's suspicious that in every instance, God does things in exactly the way a person would do them if the person wanted to make it seem like there was a God. It does seem to be excessive apologizing to say that this is to test the faith of the believer.

34) Comment by Chucky - 06/08/2012

OK semantics , police ,civilian, I do not believe mayoralty and ethics are synonyms, two different ideas, nuff said later , keep up the post.

35) Comment by chem - 06/08/2012

There is absolutely no proof that anything in any holy book is true.  The bible, for example, is full of contradictions.  If the bible was written by an omnipotent, infallible god, then why all of the contradictions?  And if you tell me that it has been rewritten by man, than how do you know that it was not written by man from the beginning?  The stories in the old testament are very similar to the old Sumerian stories that were written thousands of years earlier.  The writers of the bible plagiarized those stories.  Put aside what the priests and pastors tell you.  Put aside your belief in the bible.  Do you really think Noah put all of those animals, plants, bacteria, food on a boat that he built out of wood?  Do you really believe that a virgin gave birth?  Do you really believe that the dead can rise from the grave?  That people lived 900 years?  These things are preposterous.  Not to mention the fact that there has been not one sign of a god in all of these years.  You would think he'd stop by to say hi now and then.

36) Comment by chem - 06/08/2012

The fact that morals can be different is one of the problems with religion. The christian bible teaches its own set of "morals" and another religion, islam, teaches another set. And the teachings of the religion are used to justify incredibly vicious acts.

37) Comment by nimby? - 06/08/2012

couldn't ethics and morality be subject to opinion ?

38) Comment by DMJ - 06/08/2012

Chucky, your whole argument boils down to semantics? Pretty thin, in my opinion. Also, if you're acting immorally yet ethically (or vise versa) you should probably reconsider your actions. In my book (and Roget's) "moral" and "ethical" are synonymous. Only in religion could be unethical and moral at the same time. Weird.... And if your god requires you to do immoral...excuse me...unethical things, you should reconsider your god.

39) Comment by Chucky - 06/08/2012

@ chem- if your God said do this( Holy writings , kill all who do not believe) and you did,d then you would be moral , But ethically i would condemn you.

40) Comment by chem - 06/08/2012

Chucky: Morals differentiate from right and wrong, good and evil. Clearly, depending on the culture, someone doing something that in my eyes is wrong, might be perfectly fine in that persons culture. An example that I gave earlier is that of "female circumcision." In some African cultures, it is moral to perform that ritual. In my eyes, it is immoral, amounting mutilation of young women. If the "ritual" is done according to their tenets, then it would be considered ethical. Again, in their culture. The point is, morals can differ, but ethics, the system of moral judgements, remains the same. Morals and ethics are often interchanged and are considered synonyms, so this whole moral/ethical discussion is splitting hairs. As for your example of the missionary killing the child, without more information, it is difficult to say. From a Western perspective, and certainly mine, that act would be neither moral nor ethical.

41) Comment by RationalOne - 06/08/2012

Excellent letter, Dr. Polito. It's astonishing that in our current age people still believe in ancient myths from thousands of years ago. But what's really funny is that they never seem to understand the absurdity of it all, such as how much death & evil is in the bible, which is commonly called the "good" book.

42) Comment by Chucky - 06/08/2012

@chem-A short story. A missionary would adopt children that a tribe left in the forest as orphans, and he would baptize them into the life of Christ.. At the age of nine the tribe would take back the child and over the years the child would take on the religion of the tribe thus ( in the eye of the missionary) losing their soul. To solve this dilemma he would after baptism kill the child thus sending their soul to haven. Was he a Moral man or an Ethical man?

43) Comment by chem - 06/08/2012

Ethics is a system for making logical, reasoned statements about morality. Morality is what an individual believes is right or wrong. To say that morality is between a persons god is too narrow of a definition. Peoples morals can differ, but how they carry out those beliefs is based on ethics.

44) Comment by Chucky - 06/08/2012

@DMJ- I agree except that ( as I have been pushing) it is not Morality but Ethics , Morality is between a persons God and them self, as Ethics is between you and another (me) I may not want you to treat me according to you religion but I may wish you to treat me ethically.

45) Comment by DMJ - 06/08/2012

I think Mr. Polito's point was that OF COURSE we pick and choose what to believe from the christian bible. If we didn't, we'd all have killed and enslaved lots of people by now. We pick and choose from the bible and other texts just as we do from say....the writings of the founding fathers. Not everything Thomas Jefferson did and thought was moral or relevant to today's times. It's all relative. I know that makes believing christians cringe, but deep down, even they must know it's true. The fact of the matter is...we all pick and choose from the bible, even us atheists. You don't need to believe in the obviously untrue things (Noah's ark) or the clearly immoral things (selling your daughter to her rapist) in order to believe the good things (being generous, having empathy, forgiveness, love, etc.) The natural desire to exclude certain parts of holy texts and adhere to others is proof of the inate morality that exists, in varying amounts, in all people. It's the human condition. Relgion didn't invent morality; it merely expresses it in laws and codes, often incorrectly. Religion is a manifestation of man's inate morality (and immorality). We shouldn't even need to have silly arguments about whether or not something really happened 4000 years ago. Silly myths and legends are distractions; they keep us divided and they are used as sociopolitical wedges. Enough already...

46) Comment by nimby? - 05/08/2012

there are questions which will never be answered , such is the great mystery . to respect/fear the unknown is human ...

47) Comment by chem - 05/08/2012

Religion was invented millennia ago to try to understand things that humans at the time could not understand -- thunder, lightning, storms, rain, earth quakes, night, day, and so on. At some point, a few enterprising humans figured out that they could control others with religion by becoming "priests." They preyed on the fears of the masses and this has continued to today. Organized religion has done an excellent job making itself important to society. It still preys on the fears of people by promising that everything will be ok if only they will "believe." Religion offers no evidence whatsoever except that "it says so in the bible (koran, etc)." If it were not for the inculcation of children into religion, there would be very little religiosity today. As people become more educated, they believe less in religion. There have been a number of polls/studies that show this to be true. Religious organizations pay no taxes and like to think that they are exempt from many laws in the name of "religious freedom." I do not think they should be tax exempt. On the contrary, they should be taxed like any other business in this country. Religious organizations and their members/apologists have also done a good job vilifying anyone that criticizes religion. For some ridiculous reason, the general attitude in this country and in most of the world is that religion cannot be criticized. Obviously, I disagree with that. I will continue to point out the lies and hypocrisy of religion.

48) Comment by prbeav - 05/08/2012

Chucky. Yes indeed. Although I feel prepared for my afterdeath, that vast time after my body stops consuming oxygen, I may be wrong!

49) Comment by Chucky - 05/08/2012

@prbeav – the no harm rule also applies to your self. Blessed Be. and really thanks for sharing.

50) Comment by prbeav - 05/08/2012

Chem and all, it seems to me religion is the practice of inculcation away from nature into a doctrine, an intellectual construct that contradicts nature and what-would-be were it not for the construct. For example, human beings would be co-operative members of humankind if they did not divide themselves over what they would believe about things they don't know. As a consequence, humans are satisfied to deny other humans the opportunity to live in peace. Modifying a metaphor from Emerson, "The American Scholar," humankind is dysfunctional like a hand with fingers that would be thumbs. >>>> I declared change to recovery from indoctrination in my fifth decade; but better late than never. One of the perplexing memories was a sign, in sky-blue paint with about four foot tall letters, my dad had in the basement, where mom always passed to store or retrieve canned goods. It read, "God is the boss in this house." The unwritten part of the sign we siblings had to figure out was, "As husband, I speak for God, and the wife must submit to me." Fortunately, I was not as forceful. >>>> Regardless, my dear wife stayed around long enough for me to appreciate her instead of what I imagined she would become. I withdrew from Christianity, admitting to myself that its doctrine contradicts my natural goodness. Now, I work diligently to be a human being and member of the community of humankind. In that capacity, I bluntly state my opinion, leaving the other party the appreciation (without restriction) and opportunity for free thought that I needed before I recognized my indoctrination. >>>> We are each on a path and must be free to pursue it on our own, as long as we observe the no-harm rule: do not harm other people, without exception. Speaking my opinion while admitting I do not know the truth is helpful.

51) Comment by Chucky - 05/08/2012

Oops . 34 just seems like 44.

52) Comment by chem - 05/08/2012

GoldenSage: Christianity is the religion of the U.S. so the letter reflects that. There is no doubt that islam is the most vile religion in the world and it is especially oppressive toward women. In muslim countries, women are treated worse than the dog or other animals. But just because islam is so oppressive, that in no way excuses the religions that follow the bible for treating women as they do. Businesses, while not religions, discriminate against women also, paying them less than male counterparts, firing them for wanting to take off for giving birth, and in general, just being plain sexist. And of course, that attitude comes from centuries of oppression by religions.

53) Comment by Chucky - 05/08/2012

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

54) Comment by nimby? - 05/08/2012

spending the day with my wife , a beautiful day ....

55) Comment by prbeav - 05/08/2012

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

56) Comment by Chucky - 05/08/2012

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

57) Comment by Chucky - 05/08/2012

@nimby?- Well please try and feel free to us blanks , so many songs by that great song writer(which one you have in mind). keep up the good post.

58) Comment by nimby? - 05/08/2012

this opinion reminds me of a John Lennon song , I'm sure the title would be censored if I used it , quite true , peace be with you ....

59) Comment by GoldenSage - 04/08/2012

Well, the biggest weakness of this article is that it doesn't go far enough, besides the fact it only uses Christian religion as an example and not Islamic, anyway, the point is "cultures", society, developed with women being the weaker sex. Cavemen hunted; women did the home work. So, to blame religion as a whole, and just the Christian religion, is another example of so-called enlighted people being focused only on the ones they want to nail to the cross. If anyone is to blame for women being abused they are, then one has to start with women, in general. Until they stand up to abusive male societies and cultures, without becoming part of those male societies and cultures, then they will always be the 2nd sex. The female leaders today are like their male counterparts, e.g. Now and how they have double-standards, support liberal women and throw conservative women underneath the bus, like Sarah Palin. The way many women curses and threw insults at her is an example women are still abusing themselves and letting the male society/cultures to do the same. It will take a special 'man' to lead them out of the wilderness, and that is the truth, and a shame.

60) Comment by krl777 - 04/08/2012

Of all the peculiar arguments offered by teacherguy today, the following has to be the most bizarre: "Mr. krl...Christians don't see their God as a tyrant....sinners do. Case in point, the German people did not see Hitler as a tyrant...but everyone else did... " <end quote> Really? That's your reply? Let me understand. Everyone else, including anti-Nazi Germans, saw Hitler as a tyrant. And of course, they were right. But Germans sympathetic to Naziism didn't see Hitler as a tyrant, presumably because their values were warped in exact degree to their sympathy for Hitler and the Nazis. So you are comparing yourself to a German sympathetic to Hitler, and those like me, who find your conception of God to be abominable, are akin to all the anti-Nazi Germans, Jews, Americans, and Britons who correctly saw that Hitler is a tyrant? What were you thinking?

61) Comment by 8point6 - 04/08/2012

Political and religious debates are a no-win situation. The final truth will be revealed at death.

62) Comment by krl777 - 04/08/2012

teacherguy, it is utterly silly to ignore the significance of the genome guiding ontogenetic development, which marks the difference in behavior and significance between an embryo versus random warts, scabs, etc. And you repeat one of the most deceitful items in the anti-abortion arsenal -- that because a couple of who lost an expected child with the miscarriage of an embryo or fetus feel the loss of that prospective child, that therefore the embryo or early fetus is itself a child. You are free to assert your conviction that the embryo or early fetus is a human being deserving the protection of morality and the law, but don't think that merely asserting it with confidence makes it any more plausible to those of us who think that a human being develops gradually during ontogenetic development. We can argue the two views at length, but you seem to be under the misconception that merely stating your view dogmatically serves to make it so. If you really think we should respect one another's views, don't insult our intelligence with arguments of the caliber you have deployed on this issue.

63) Comment by chem - 04/08/2012

Still waiting for anyone to explain how, if the bible states that women should be silent, that they should submit to their husbands, etc, and that is the word of your god saying that, how can you ignore that and say that the religion has evolved, or no one thinks like that anymore, or some other excuse to ignore your own god's edicts. That is just more of the same irrationality. Are you not going against your own god? And if that is the case, the whole religious thing is bunk.

64) Comment by teacherguy - 04/08/2012

gotta go...sorry.

65) Comment by teacherguy - 04/08/2012

chem...because although God is perfect, men are not...it isn't changing what the religion believes...it is understanding it given "enlightenment" called wisdom...trial and error...kind of a scientific process if you think about it.

66) Comment by teacherguy - 04/08/2012

chem...that is where you are wrong...religions have millions of eye witness changes to the natural environment as a direct correlation to their prayers...but it is dismissed by the scientific world....I'd be wary of a science that dismisses millions of unexplained reports, to the natural world, that so many people have been "duped" into believing with religion....remove the opinion from the "duped" and accept the difference of evidence the "religious' people have evidenced with their natural environment. the fairy tale characters you speak of are imaginary, religion exposes itself as real to those that have witnessed it. It is something science can't explain except to accuse ignorance, abuse of leaders, and scientific outlying phenomena. My goal is to try to get people to accept that people think differently about a host of issues, and respect them as humans...no matter how stupid we think they are. Cause in the end, they may not be as stupid as we thought...

67) Comment by chem - 04/08/2012

teacherguy: Once again, if the bible is the word of god, how can you change what your religion believes? Is that not saying that your god was wrong? And if that's the case, then it is not omnipotent and perfect and the whole religion goes down the tubes.

68) Comment by teacherguy - 04/08/2012

...the Christian religion as a whole have come to embrace women's rights at faster rates than any other grouping despite the differences between men and women. This doesn't make Christians better, ...I need to slow down and read my postings before submitting.

69) Comment by chem - 04/08/2012

No one believes in santa claus or the easter bunny. Why not? Because it is a ridiculous story that is irrational and preposterous to the nth degree. How can santa fly around to every home in the world in one night and deliver toys to all of the kids? As improbable and impossible as that story is, it is no less improbable/impossible than the bible's flood story, the bible's virgin birth story, people living to be 900 years old, talking burning bushes, etc.

70) Comment by teacherguy - 04/08/2012

Thanks chem...but my point is that for the simple fact there are differences between men and women...the Christian religion as a whole have come to embrace women's rights at faster rates than any other grouping. That doesn't make them better, but it could be argued, using different studies than Mr. Polito that Christians have done more to bring equality to women than any other "evolutionary" process.

71) Comment by teacherguy - 04/08/2012

Mr. krl...Christians don't see their God as a tyrant....sinners do. Case in point, the German people did not see Hitler as a tyrant...but everyone else did...

72) Comment by chem - 04/08/2012

in the current context, when talking about equality, we are talking about the worth of a person as a human being. Clearly we are not equal in many respects. We don't look alike, we are different heights and weights, etc. But that is not the type of equality being discussed in this context. The bible discusses the subservient nature of women compared to man. That is just wrong. For me, I wish men were more like women. There would be less violence in the world, less prejudice and more cooperation. Men have messed up this world in a magnificent manner. Way too much testosterone.

73) Comment by teacherguy - 04/08/2012

Look krl777...skin, blood, and other cells form warts, scabs, etc....a zygote, embryo, and other gametes form babies...not skin tags...ask any woman, and man, that were looking to have a child...and got a positive reading for a BABY...then lost it...to test my "theory" that these organisms were less than human life.

74) Comment by krl777 - 04/08/2012

Some Christians may "believe to their core they are showing love by helping someone not lose their eternity," in teacherguy's words, and I think he's right -- IF you are Christian and believe that there is a God and that we are ghosts (souls) and that God will send the souls of all nonbelievers in Christianity to eternal suffering, then indeed, striving to convert all nonbelievers is the loving, compassionate thing to do. The question is, why believe in such a vicious tyrant god? There are plenty of conceptions of God available, but not all of them equate God with Hitler, an insecure tyrant who demands the worship of all people. Can't you do better than that? The source of all good, the creator of the universe, and you must conceive of him/her/it as a lousy human tyrant?

75) Comment by prbeav - 04/08/2012

I think the community of commentators has responded wonderfully to Poiito's letter. Unfortunately, a couple of times people have cited the OT "dust off" metaphor. I like it when "dusters" identify themselves. But so far, I have not seen anyone quote "hate." It's in Luke 14:26, attributed to Jesus: (NIV) “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple." Now, I do not think Jesus said this. God would not have the doubt, fear, and desperation to so threaten what has evolved. It does not matter who wrote it. No one who would choose to advocate hate regarding family members and self can be a lord of mine. Furthermore, in a civic function, such as voting, I am suspicious of people who follow such teaching: either they take hate for granted, in which case they find it easy to dust me, or they take it literally, in which case I fear for them and their family members. This is a minor reason I am no longer Christian. That's for me only. However, my regard for "dusting" might be of interest to them. Dusters take themselves out of the equation, for me. I will talk to them about the latest LSU football score, or the weather, or the traffic.

76) Comment by Chucky - 04/08/2012

@ teacherguy- "(I feel like a parent in a car of unruly kids!) LOL " The unruly kids are telling you that the off ramp was two miles back."(do nuns take advantage of altar boys?" No, never in the history of the Church has that ever happen. I watched my dog chase her tail for 10 min. thought how easy she is entertained , then realized i had just watched my dog for .................(brevity)

77) Comment by teacherguy - 04/08/2012

to pretend we doesn't seem "educated" should read to pretend we do not seems uneducated...

78) Comment by teacherguy - 04/08/2012

Due to requests for brevity, you can read my initial writing for full understanding of my thoughts: 1. Abortion as birth control is murder. 2. Women cannot claim rights to their body when arguing abortion rights, except in "special conditions" including medical emergency, rape, and incest. 3. If morality is an evolutionary process, as this article claims, and religion came after evolution of man...religion STARTED with women already being treated terribly. Not a wise argument to pose. 4. Stereotyping all Christians for the poor delivery of a few is as closed-minded as the people Mr. Polito wishes to admonish. 5. Most Christians believe to their core they are showing love by helping someone not lose their eternity, so calling them hateful is inaccurate. 6. Many Christians deserve to be attacked the way Mr. Polito attacks them. (no one ever answered my question on whether nuns take advantage of altar boys). 7. There IS a difference between men and women as evidenced by the money drawing power of the NFL vs Hooters. We are NOT equal, to pretend we doesn't seem "educated". 8. In today's hostile environment...it would seem we need to figure out a way to allow people to be true to themselves, come together as AMERICANS, and stay on each other's side of "the car" and leave each other alone! -----------------Before replying to this, please see my fully expressed ideas below first. Thanks.

79) Comment by Whatnow - 04/08/2012

Chem, I don't ignore the what you call bad things in the Bible. I feel I am just trying to clarify the reasons behind the questions as briefly as I can. What Jesus taught is my guide. The Old Testament has so much Jewish views, laws and God's governance of his people entwined that, yes, it is understandable that people find it hard to justify and easy to question. I am not an Old Testament literalist. But, like I said, Jesus came to show me the way to salvation and the love and forgiveness that God offers. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. There is no way to the Father but by me." But, he still viewed the sins appointed by God as still sin. And you may think me delusional all you like, but, I want that salvation and eternal life with my Creator and my Savior, Jesus Christ. That is my choice. Just as it is your choice not to believe. Why do you want to try to deny Christians that right? I have never tried to subjigate anyone into believing what I do nor put anyone down for believing what they want or pick to death a person's beliefs. But, I will try to show Christians beliefs when non-believers uses the Holy Bible to argue a point. I may not be that great at doing so, but I feel that I have to try. That is if anyone wants to try to understand this Christians perspective. But, most just look for more ammo to shoot it down. So sad. So, I hope you understand when I end this conversation with wiping my feet and walking away. I am wasting my time. You win or lose depending how we see things. Peace be with you and you have my prayers.

80) Comment by Chucky - 04/08/2012

Morality is between you and your God, Ethics between you and other humans.

81) Comment by ex-louisianian - 04/08/2012

Religion was invented by H. habilis to answer two questions: "Why do things (i.e., fire and lightning) exist?", and "Where do babies come from?" As the letter writer shows, modern science has answered both questions to satisifaction, yet the superstructure of religion still exists. I see two reasons why: religion itself has become a corporation that uses violence and group coercion to enforce its beliefs. The other reason why is that mankind still functions at the reasoning level of H. habilis.

82) Comment by ex-louisianian - 04/08/2012

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

83) Comment by nimby? - 04/08/2012

in order to properly translate the bible one must be fluent in Aramaic , latin or ancient greek , translate to roman/italian , then Gaelic , old english , eventually to whatever it has become , amended for denominational purposes , it has fallen victim to man . the bible is no longer gods' word ...

84) Comment by chem - 04/08/2012

Whatnow: That's not at all what I am saying. I was taken to task for cherry picking quotes in the bible and stated that, yes, in this instance, the quotes I cited were to show that indeed the bible looks at women in an unflattering light. So if that is cherry picking, then guilty as charged. But the quotes were posted to show a particular message in the bible concerning women, so I do not consider that cherry picking. My comments that people of faith only quote the "good" things in the bible does seem to be cherry picking. If you believe in your faith and what is in the bible, please do not ignore all the bad things and the contradictions. If, indeed, you believe that the bible was written by god and that god is perfect, you cannot logically claim that only the good parts of the bible are worthy of consideration. God justifies the subjugation of women, the genocide of non-believers, the murder of innocents, and death for what is now considered very minor crimes or lapses of ethics/morals.

85) Comment by krl777 - 04/08/2012

So, yes Whatnow, it is okay for chem and others to pick and choose Biblical passages to show how crazy it is to be a Biblical literalist, or how hypocritical it is to claim to be a Biblical literalist without actually embracing everything in the Bible. It is up to you to clarify your own position, or not, as you choose. But note that if you are not a literalist, then there are hundreds of alternative views you could take, all the way up to the view that all of the Bible is allegory. You can't expect people to read your mind about which of these views you might accept, so you can't blame them for assuming that you are a literalist, crazy or hypocritical as the case may be, if you cite the Bible as the foundation of your beliefs and don't clarify your perspective on it.

86) Comment by krl777 - 04/08/2012

Biblical literalists claim to believe EVERYTHING in the Bible on the grounds that it is divinely inspired. It is therefore enough for chem and others to pick and choose a few passages to show that the literalists are thereby committed to believing things which are obnoxious or ridiculous, such as that women should be subordinate to men, or that people should not eat shellfish or wear clothing made of two different kinds of cloth, to say nothing of the Old Testament's casual endorsement of slavery and genocide. If Whatnow is not a Biblical literalist, then it is up to Whatnow to decide for him or herself what in the Bible they believe is literally true, and what not. We have a right to be suspicious if, in doing that, Whatnow should happen to designate as literally true just those passages which support Whatnow's own contemporary prejudices, and to reject as false just those parts that would be embarrassing in the contemporary context. In short, we can have respect for a true literalist, but a genuine literalist would be a crazy and dangerous person. We can have respect for those who deny Biblical literalism, but make reference to the Bible as a product of fallible humans attempting to illuminate an incomprehensible divine nature in the context of their own time. But we can't really have respect for those who claim that the Bible is their guide, and who then proceed to pick and choose what in the Bible to follow.

87) Comment by chem - 04/08/2012

prbeav, an excellent post. I think that the definitions of ethics and morality overlap considerably. Morals seem to be derived from allegory and ethics are the actual practice of morals. As humans have defined good and evil, morals and ethics typically refer to acting for the good of others and self. But as you know, culturally, good and evil may be defined differently. For example, genital mutilation. In those cultures that practice that "ritual", it is looked at as perfectly moral. People in our culture, hopefully, see it as nothing more than the mutilation of young women and is an abomination. I certainly think that way about it.

88) Comment by Whatnow - 04/08/2012

@Chem, Naysayers have an annoying habit of cherry picking quotes from our Holy book. It's okay when you do it for your own argument but we are not allowed to use it for ours. Is that what you're saying? Sounds hypocritical to me. And yes, you do have your own opinion and beliefs and we have ours. But, just as you are tolerant of our beliefs, we will be tolerant to yours.

89) Comment by prbeav - 04/08/2012

Without doubt, Michael Polito’s letter is so positive I am reluctant to add a half cent, yet would like him and others to consider two points. First, I do not wish to accept society’s confusion over “ethics” as “morality.” For example, on dictionary.com, we have to resort to the fourth usage of “ethics” to escape “moral” or rules or principles. Happily, I would agree that usage four describes the ethics I’d like to discuss. Turning now to dictionary.com’s “morality,” the five entries seem useful and instructive. It seems to me “morality” addresses conformance to doctrine, whereas “ethics” addresses consequences of human conduct and motives. Authors of the books Polito cited do not delineate “morality” and “ethics.” At least two of them discuss the Golden Rule, which is ruinous in its egocentricity, no matter how you state it. And when the doer reverses the emphasis to focus on the receiver, she is bound to encounter circumstances that would require self contradiction. For example, she would not be able to blow the whistle on someone planning suicide-murder. The ego-centric Golden Rule is one among many moral ideas that are unethical. By separating these two terms, perhaps we can agree that morality may be relative, but ethics is absolute. For example, breaching the ethic not invading a country that has neither attacked us nor an ally was justified on the doctrine of God's guidance, yet unbearable consequences continue to mount. Second, I would like to suggest two more books: H. A. Overstreet, The Mature Mind, 1949; and James Q. Wilson The Moral Sense, 1997 (ethical sense would not have worked for his historical reference, even if he had wanted to use it). Quoting Dr. Wilson, “We must be careful of what we think we are, because we may become that.” Quoting Dr. Overstreet, “the human being is born ignorant . . . irresponsible . . . inarticulate . . . a creature of diffuse sexuality . . . self-centered . . . to a world of isolated particulars.”

90) Comment by chem - 04/08/2012

The topic is the subjugation of women in the bible, so yes, I am picking out the instances where the bible states such things. As far as religion goes, I am of the opinion that religions are dangerous and that people are delusional for believing in such superstitions. Understand that I am not calling religious people stupid. I say they are delusional. The bible is so full of contradictions that on a rational basis, it cannot be taken seriously. The arguments given for the validity of bible statements are always circular. There is no logical or rational basis for the belief in a deity.

91) Comment by nimby? - 04/08/2012

as a figure of speech there is a heaven and hell , here on earth ; we live it everyday . it is of our own actions , not gods' will ....

92) Comment by Whatnow - 04/08/2012

@Chem, you are picking and choosing, too. But, I guess that's okay.

93) Comment by chem - 04/08/2012

With all of the justifications in the bible and koran for killing people and reducing women to less than human status, I cannot understand how people think these "religions" are a good thing. I call them delusions. If someone were on a bus and they started talking to "god", I will bet that anyone within earshot would be concerned that they might be in danger and would move to another part of the bus or simply get off and wait for the next bus. Again, you can't take a few good things from the bible or koran and throw out the rest. If so, you are invalidating your own religion.

94) Comment by nimby? - 04/08/2012

chem , certain words , combination of letters connected , all I can tell ...

95) Comment by nimby? - 04/08/2012

christians , like any other group will have a vocal fringe. they tend to be overly passionate in their cause , overlook details , and make it a point to step on as many toes possible . within the native peoples of this continent women were equal in all aspects , in cases their word/wisdom valued more . one of the most effective chiefs of the western cherokee nation was a woman , Wilma Mankiller , ironic name . she passed a few years ago . an honest , generous person and a good friend ....

96) Comment by Whatnow - 04/08/2012

christopherf3 is right. You can't just look up Bible verses and take them out of context. Plus, you have to remember that Jesus didn't tell us to condemn women. I for one, try to live up to Jesus's teachings. It's hard, but I am human, and fall short plenty of times, but I keep trying. He condemned sin, which is clearly stated in the Bible. (Leviticus 18:22 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.) These were words from God spoken to his people. Now for the argument about not being allowed to eat some foods in the Old Testament, Jesus said Mark 7:18 And [Jesus] said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” Thus he declared all foods clean." I know this was not in the letter, but some will throw this argument out there. Not all churches treat women as second class citizens. That was the way of the times back then within the Jewish laws and culture and yes, in some churches today, but, Jesus taught differently. Women in my church are just as equal as men. So to put all Christian churches into one lump is erroneous. As far as Catholic bishops wanting to tell women how they can treat their bodies, that is in the Bible, too. (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-abortioninthebible.html) Women have the choice to follow the Bible or not. No one is forcing people to seek the Church. There are fanatics on both sides who push their beliefs on others. I am not trying to PUSH my beliefs on others. I am just trying to state the other side of the coin. I find this letter to be a ploy by a liberal to divide the believers VS the non-believers, and trying to stir up controversy. It is just the other side of the coin, and Christians are berated and are subjected to the other side of that coin just as much from the non-believers. He is trying to make Christianity a dirty word. Mr. Polito has the right to believe what he wants, just as Christians do, and it is protected by the Constitution.

97) Comment by chem - 04/08/2012

The automatic censor evidently doesn't like the language that comes straight from the bible, so here are just the citations for a few, of many, instances in the bible that subjugate women. (1 Timothy 2:11-12) (Leviticus 21:9) (Deuteronomy 25:11-12) (Leviticus 12:2 (Leviticus 12:5) (I Corinthians 11:3) (Judges 19:24-25) (I Timothy 2:11-14) (Ephesians 5:22-24).

98) Comment by chem - 04/08/2012

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

99) Comment by krl777 - 04/08/2012

Hell is the concentration camp of God conceived in the image of a human tyrant. The consignment of unbelievers to hell is comparable to the Soviet Union consigning dissidents to concentration camps just because they won't swear allegiance to the Communist faith. Who would embrace the idea of God as Stalin?

100) Comment by chem - 04/08/2012

So true christians are the only folks who will be "saved." What arrogance. What makes the christian religion the only "true" religion? All of the other major religions and their subsets, which by some estimates number in the 1000s, think that their particular brand of religion is the "only true" religion. You see, that's the problem with all of them. They all think they are correct. Apologists have an annoying habit of cherry picking quotes from their holy books. They like to present the "nicer" sayings and leave out all of the hate and bigotry in the rest of the book. You can't just pick and choose, otherwise your "religion" is not worth anything.

101) Comment by Whatnow - 04/08/2012

Jesus said "And whoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." Matthew 10:14. True Christians don't condemn souls to hell. That is God's judgement, not ours. They spread the word of Jesus and the way to eternal salvation. John 1:9-13

102) Comment by Chucky - 04/08/2012

Bring back matriarchy , the only true way to know the decedents in a family. Winners, as they say write history. Blessed Be Mother Goddess.

103) Comment by tradewinns - 04/08/2012

didn't any of ya'll read a prior letter on how smart women are, smarter than men? i'm trying ti figure out what women have in mind when i read about all these religious dictates.

104) Comment by chem - 04/08/2012

All anyone has to do is read the bible or koran. But since the bible is the overwhelming holy book in the U.S., let's use it as an example. In the bible, there are passages that address the inferiority of women, silencing of women, stoning of women, etc. I take it christopherf3 never read the bible, because if he had, he would know that such things are in it. Just do a an internet search and many sites will give chapter and verse.

105) Comment by christopherf3 - 04/08/2012

The writer makes general statements regarding subject matter he believes exists in the Bible concerning the subjugation of women then offers no evidence to support it. True Christianity never condones hatred of anyone, in fact it encourages blessing those who persecute and hate us. Secular love is defined as accepting anything and everything but Biblical love calls us to shine light into the darkness that is sin. Is that being judgmental? YES! Not everything that calls itself "Christian" is Biblical Christianity. The most loving thing anyone can do is to show someone that they've offended a holy God but that that God's love has made a way for them to be washed to perfection. Subjugation? No. Hatred? No. That all comes from man-made religion and not from faith and trust in Jesus Christ.

106) Comment by krl777 - 04/08/2012

teacherguy conveniently demonstrates why the live-and-let-live approach favored by Polito's last paragraph will never be realized. If you believe that all human zygotes, embryos and fetuses are human BEINGS, and that all abortion is murder, including the abortion of a two-cell zygote by an abortifacient soon after the union of gametes, then you are, by that very fact, committed to intervene in the lives of those who use abortifacients or seek any kind of abortion. I'm surprised, actually, that teacherguy admits that he "could not tell [his] little sister, or [his] wife, that she HAD to carry that baby to term," since he thinks abortion is murder, and he would presumably (I hope) stop his sister or wife from going out and killing a delivered baby. --Perhaps that is an inadvertent admission that, deep down, teacherguy recognizes that aborting a zygote, embryo or fetus (at least in the early going when the fetus is insensate), is not the same as killing a baby.

107) Comment by krl777 - 04/08/2012

I can only begin to answer Bighug's question to me, but it has to be said that we should not regard our local Judeo-Christian variety of religion as representative of all religion. Buddhism and Hinduism, as far as I know, do not consign unbelievers to an eternity of suffering after death. Rather, failure to practice, as well as misdeeds in this life, will have consequences for one's prospects and forms of reincarnation. Note that they do not even buy into the view, so prevalent in the Western monotheistic religions, that we have one life on earth followed by one afterlife. Even within Christianity, there is great variation in views of hell. Many churches in the Anglican communion do not believe that unbelievers are condemned, and many do not believe in hell at all. Many Catholic theologians are skeptical of hell. Only Christian fundamentalists and Biblical literalists uniformly believe in the mother of all revenge fantasies that is the Judeo-Christian hell.

108) Comment by gvm - 04/08/2012

Yet another example of CBCS' legendary stupidity. Why is he so preoccupied with race? I bet he doesn't even like chocolate milk because it isn't white. He's the poster boy for all that's wrong with LA education.

109) Comment by lovemykids - 04/08/2012

CountryBoysCanSurvive the few times that you say things that are funny do not make up at all for the trash that you put in your comments.

110) Comment by DMJ - 04/08/2012

Excellent letter, as always, Michael.

111) Comment by Elderly Man - 04/08/2012

My former regional minister engages in an homophobic rant this past week. Religion is delusion and hidden prejudice. Read the story of Micah in Judges 17 for a funny biblical take on how we create our gods. Teacherguy, much too long.

112) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 04/08/2012

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

113) Comment by bourbon-soda - 04/08/2012

An atheist position that I have read is that man actually created God in his own image. Religion therefore mirrors man's nature. Therefore subjugation of women is man's nature, and not to be thwarted any more than, say, hereditary sexual orientation.

114) Comment by potkcalb - 04/08/2012

Sorry teacherguy but I could not finish reading your tome, falling asleep toward the end and could not remember the beginning.Brevity if you would be heard!

115) Comment by teacherguy - 04/08/2012

Using abortion as a form of birth control after consensual sex is murder; it is not the sex act that Christians take issue with on abortion, it is the murder of a human being. A woman's claim that it is "her body" is erroneous, because it was her body when she chose to risk conceiving a child (consensual sex)...and now a child that did not ask to be created is being given a death sentence. Also, she chose to offer her body to a man...and the result of that event could create offspring that the father should be able to claim as his own...but a father is not allowed to stop an abortion if the mother chooses to do so, to my knowledge. The natural consequence of having sex is possible conception...I think most Christians feel that if one wishes to be pro-choice, be pro-choice before having sex. Heck, use three forms of contraception...but accept the consequences of the life that is formed. Abortion is simply a woman's answer to walk away from the responsibility of a child as men have been allowed to walk away...and even a moral atheist should be able to understand this baby saving argument without seeing hate, discrimination, and whatever else one may throw at a Christian. In special conditions where child birth would kill the mother, Is it really considered abortion if you do everything in your power not to let the baby be taken? That seems more like failed medical care as opposed to abortion. In cases of rape and incest...that would be a tough decision to make. However, most Christians, I think, would side with the baby again...did the mother do wrong? No. Did the baby do wrong? No. Why punish the baby with a death sentence for what the father did? This does not mean she must keep the baby, but I think most Christians would like to see that baby have a chance in an adoption home (as with consensual sex abortions). But I have to confess, I could not tell my little sister, or my wife, that she HAD to carry that baby to term, either. Next comes the claims about who started morality first...the argument posed in this article is that treating others with respect is a simple evolutionary process...if religion came about after the evolution of man, then religion simply recorded the world as they evolved from it. It would seem religion, by this argument, brought about morality in a moral-less world. Not that I care...I'm just saying! About burning in Hell, the Christian position on this is something Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. There is no way to the Father but by me." It doesn't get any plainer than that...either one believes it and does something about it or they don't. Those shouting and promoting damnation mean well...but their 2012 delivery needs some refining to be more effective. I personally take offense to someone calling religious people bigoted, hateful, and those other insults when a Christian/Muslim's opinion is different from, say, a homosexual's and an atheists (which wouldn't be worried about a threat of burning in hell, I would think). Most Christians, Muslims, etc. put their neck out in love of human kind to point them in the direction of not suffering an eternity in damnation. Their attitude is to throw a lifeline to people who do not know they are in trouble. Calling them hateful is an inaccurate term considering the spirit of their actions. However, many of these "religious" people have definitely lost credibility as they live worse, at times (some of them rubber band - religious Sunday but not Friday night) than those they are trying to save and the impact of their actions become meaningless. The Christian religion, in particular, have a graveyard of fallen preachers/priests as evidence of the "best" being the "worst"... (do nuns take advantage of altar boys? Countryboyscansurvive, please try not to get tagged with an answer to this question!) Religions may not treat men and women equally, but that is because men and women are not equal...I can't remember the last time thousands of people crammed into a packed stadium and huddled around TVs to watch women's professional football and it would be a cold day in you know where before I signed up to give childbirth! I think it would be better if EVERYONE quit beating each other up, accept that we think differently about a host of topics, figure out a way to let people stay true to themselves, leave each other alone, and get to 2013 . (I feel like a parent in a car of unruly kids!) LOL

116) Comment by Bighug - 03/08/2012

Great letter, Dr. Polito. I agree with all you say. I also agree with some of what you say, krl777, but would you please tell us which religions you refer to that aren't guilty of damning the rest of us to hell?

117) Comment by krl777 - 03/08/2012

And yet, their interpretation of their Christan faith was integral to the opposition to slavery of many abolitionists in 19th century America (despite the prominence of slavery in the Old Testament), as well as for many suffragettes marching for the right of women to vote, and many in the American Civil Rights movement of the 1960's and 1970's. Instead of tarring all of religion with responsibility for male chauvinism, Dr. Polito should sharpen his focus on those who "want to impose their beliefs on others who do not believe as they do." Gene Mills, the Iranian ayatollahs, and other fundamentalists represent something more childish, perverse, and threateningly insecure, than is recognized in this letter. A major indicator is whether a religion takes the dignity and equality of all people as a premise, or whether it is essentially tribal -- singling out a chosen people, gender, country, or community of believers as favored by God or Fate. Those are the people to watch out for.