(Warning: Rambling ahead that is almost guaranteed to offend somebody. These are definitely thoughts-in-process, intended to begin a discussion, not end one.)A discussion over at Shakesville in the comments from a post Melissa wrote regarding some of the GOP's presidential candidates and their differences over religion has got me to thinking, once again, about the relationship between the sorts of feminism I ascribe to, and my own atheism. For me, feminism and atheism are inextricably intertwined, but I understand that I am most likely in the minority in that regard. When I look at the tenets of Judaism, Islam and Christianity, I see so much misogyny. Of course, different people (and different denominations) find ways around the misogyny that burdens their main religious scriptures, and many people of different faiths do their best to reform their religion along feminist ideals.
But you have to do so much work to do so, it seems to me. You have to do a really interesting interpretive dance, for instance, to explain how the idea that, if you think your daughter is whoring around, you ought to take her out so that everybody can stone her to death:
...then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you. Deuteronomy 22:21
I'm sure you can come up with Xtian interpretations of this that don't seem as misogynist, but why do the dance? At what point does one's faith itself come under scrutiny, rather than one's interpretation of that faith?
Are there any readers out there who agree with some of my feelings here? On the other hand, are there any readers out there who have come to feminism through religion? In what ways do you find your religion to be compatible with feminist principles? Incompatible? (He said, sounding like the short essay question on a feminism and religion class...)
24 comments:
1) I don't really see it as necessary to come up with a different interpretation of that passage from Deutronomy, but rather it is more important to recognize that it was a work that was written within a given time period with very different concerns and historical conditions than many of us face now.
As long as you don't believe everything in the Bible is the literal word of God, there isn't really much of a problem of reconciling those passages. You basically just ignore them, and take them as historical context of a time long gone, interesting to see as the concern of the Ancient Israelites, but very little to do with the thoughts of the modern Israelites.
After all, I don't see too many Jews going out and stoning their unchaste daughters these days. So it's basically a total non-issue for the most part.
2) I think growing up with "Jewish Values" as my mother put it works very well with most so-called mainstream "feminist values." I say so-called because I don't see my "feminist values" as being grounded in "feminist philosophy" or a feminist world-view (which I ultimately reject), I see them attached to my Jewish values and Libertarian values to a certain degree and general Humanism.
For example, a central tenet of my Jewish Values is that it is my job on this earth to help people, the centrality of relationships (especially family) in my life, and to treat all people fairly.
I don't really see anything about my Judaism to be misogynist.
There are more religions than Islam, Judaism, and Christianity -- Wicca is pretty easily compatible with feminism, for example, as are (IIRC) Buddhism and Taoism. And even within the big monotheisms, there are traditions that are willing to outright disagree with scripture.
Eric--
What standards are you using to decide which passages to ignore (and, by the way, choosing what to ignore is, in my book, coming up with an interpretation)? Maybe you and most people who are Jewish (rightly) don't stone their daughters to death, but how do you respond to the people who say you shouldn't be ignoring that passage? (Daughters do get stoned to death today based on theological writings, after all.) Do passages about homosexuality count as historically interesting but ignorable? Well, to you they might, but to some they are very important.
Couple that with the idea that religious books are supposed to be standards for morality, rather than something that has to be judged against some other standard (which you're doing when deciding what to ignore), and I think you run into problems that, to me, seem insurmountable.
Of course, I'm speaking of religion (and Judaism, in this case) as if it were monolithic, and I know it's not--your interpretation of Judaism, for instance, is obviously different from the Judaism wherein a man thanks god every morning that he is not a dog, and that he is not a woman, among other things. But the reasons that your interpretation is different from others then become really important--I am curious as to your reasons for not agreeing with aspects of your holy books, but agreeing with other aspects...if so much of it is ignorable, why believe it is in any way the word of god, rather than an old book with lots of right things and lots of wrong things?
I'm with eric. I believe in my religion because for me it is a source of transcendent truth and love. I don't see the ancient books as the literal, exact word of God. Rather they are the stories of men who had a sense of God, but an imperfect one that was clouded by their times.
As far as reconciling this with feminism: To me many of the modern justice movements are built on Western notions of justice and equality - the legacy of our Judeo-Christian heritage. The movements (with some exceptions, like MLK) don't acknowledge religion as their source, but the core belief that the poor and the meek - the "victims" - are closer to God is what animates them.
So I have no need to believe every word in the Bible is the literal truth, or that any religion is its exact manifestation. I believe mine is closest, but I have no rational basis for this beleif. That is faith.
So where I believe that feminists are really motivated by justice and fairness I'm with them. And there are many. Where I believe feminists are motivated by self-aggrandizement and revenge, I'm against them. And there are some.
stentor--
You're of course right that I've ommitted lots of other religions. This sucks on my part, but it's a tough row to hoe, because once I also talk about Buddhism, Taoism and Wicca, I'll have the Confucianists, Hindus and Jains piping up. And after I talk about them...there's still a lot of other religion to bring into the discussion. I'm not saying it shouldn't be brought in, just that, for one post, I had to draw a line--I should have done it more explicitly and cautiously, and for that I'm sorry.
Regarding Wicca, Buddhism and Taoism: It at the very least seems that there are controversies around sexism in each of them as well. With just a cursory google search, they're easily spotted. Some links follow.
On Buddhist sexism:
Tenzin Palmo In 1964 English born Diane Perry, in pursuit of ‘perfection’, travelled to India by boat. After meeting Khamtrul Rinpoche, the man who was to become her teacher, she became ordained as a Buddhist nun at the age of twenty-one and took the name of Tenzin Palmo. She was one of the first western woman to ever do so. Just over a decade later, after battling with blatant sexism within the monastic order, she secluded herself in a remote cave, 13,200 feet up in the Himalayas, cut off from the world by mountains and snow. There she engaged in a twelve-year intensive retreat.
More on Buddhist sexism:
Japan also has a vibrant avant-garde tradition that includes many female artists. Yet such artists are unlikely to identify with Buddhism since it is so associated with the patriarchal institutions and belief systems against which their art is reacting.
On Taoist sexism:
Yet, this totally neglects the situation of family abuse of women and assumes that the male head of the family would not benefit more from the domination of women. It seems to me this correlative sexism could over sexist essence by edmpahsizing its mutual interests, needs and affection. According to Cheng-Zhu instruction, a wife must submit herself to the will of a husband; if that is the case, how can the mutualization be true to women?
Wicca is a fascinating example, because, in part, the current popularity of the Wiccan faith owes a debt to feminism itself:
Largely due to its rejection of Christianity and its focus upon feminine power, Wicca attracted interest in the emerging feminist movement. By the 1990s, thousands of radical feminists had identified themselves as Wiccans, and Neo-pagan rites and practices had been incorporated into several streams of feminist thought. I'll have to think some more on Wicca (and learn a lot more!).
I hope it's clear that I don't thing that there's something inherent in religious belief itself that leads to misogyny--just that, historically, religions have been misogynist, and that it's hard (for me) to see them otherwise, given the evidence of holy books, as well as actions of believers.
The usual excuse given by at least some Christians is basically "Jesus said that we don't have to obey the Jewish laws any more." (There's a pretty good argument that Jesus said the exact opposite, but arguing with Bible quotes is conceding the terms of debate to the theists and the literalists.)
Remember: God hates shrimp!
What standards are you using to decide which passages to ignore (and, by the way, choosing what to ignore is, in my book, coming up with an interpretation)?
Honestly when it comes to Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and parts of the Law section of Exodus, I take most of the "Biblical Laws" and "Rituals" with a grain of salt.
They are better for a reflection of the concerns, practices, habits of the Israelites and the larger Mesopotamian (Near East) region of the time than laws that must be practiced forever and ever amen.
After all, I'm not too worried about my pet Ox goring people(see Exodus 21:28-32).
The parts that have a defined ritual reason (eating only unleavened bread on Passover to commemorate our ancestors' journies in the desert during Exodus for example) can be easily seperated from arbitrary laws that offer no historical-cultural-religious explanation for its practice. You can usually tell which ones these are: Does this give an explanation for why I need or should do this or is it just telling me to do it?
So one standard is to bounce the laws off modern standards and also consider their centrality to the faith as it developed. I mention this because I recently got into an argument with MRAs about male circumcision from a Jewish religious viewpoint (it might be abhorent from certain modern standards, but ultimately it is central to the faith and really doesn't bother too many of the males as far as I can tell). So I would argue it has to meet both standards. Centrality to the faith forces us to basically ask: why is this in the book and why are you telling me to do this?
Stoning women is not central to the Jewish faith last time I checked.
Basically the Decalogue, what are known as the Ten Commandments (but are really more like thirteen) are what is centrally important for ethical behavior and what should be followed.
From the Jewish perspective, one of the most important sections of Deuteronomy is 6:4-9:
Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. Take to heart these instructions with which I charge you this day. Impress them upon your children. Recite them when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up. Bind them as a sign on your hand and let them serve as a symbol on your forehead; inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
It underscores first that concrete action is more important than words, an extremely important concept from Jewish belief.
Secondly, it reflects the larger historical context of when the book was most likely written. Marc Zvi Brettler in his book How to Read the Jewish Bible points to George E. Mendenhall's theory that Deuteronomy is best understood as a Theologized version of an Assyrian Vassal treaty and was probably initially written while Judah was an Assyrian vassal. In other words, it was written as a response to foreign Assyrian gods suddenly coming into their view and Assyrian rule and strange customs. It's a document responding to this situation and reminding the people about their duties to God, their culture, to basically not get sucked into these foreign ways.
This explains the extremely important quote above, and why it is so adamant about its passion for God, to not forget your faith, and most importantly to TEACH IT TO YOUR CHILDREN. But it also gives a whole new context to the statement you quoted as well from the same book since the whole book should be read in this historical context.
Why would you want to prevent your daughters from having sex with strangers (most likely Assyrians or Canaanites)?
Probably for a lot of the same reasons many African Americans, Asians, Jews, Christian whites and others today aren't always too keen that members of their "groups" marry outside of their culture to people from other cultures.
I'm not saying this stops it from being misogynistic or abhorent from a modern viewpoint, but I think it also gives us more perspective on what the authors might have been thinking, what were the issues for them at that time.
I also believe there is a similar passage in Exodus since most of the "laws" that appear in Deuteronomy are revised laws from Exodus. Even though, the historical conditions are slighty different, there are still similarities, the Israelites are surrounded by a bunch of strange (from their perspective) peoples and Empires (Egypt and whatever culture reigned supreme in Mesopotamia at the time, plus the local Canaanites).
Maybe you and most people who are Jewish (rightly) don't stone their daughters to death, but how do you respond to the people who say you shouldn't be ignoring that passage? (Daughters do get stoned to death today based on theological writings, after all.)
I hopefully get the opportunity to have a rational discussion with them and try to convince them they are wrong, otherwise really what else am I supposed to do?
I also suspect that more than likely such a person (without naming names) would come from a different faith than mine, which adds a whole other dimension. It's extremely problematic for me to criticize and attack other faiths.
People take things to extremes, but that doesn't poison the entire religion or its beliefs or ethical views.
It also isn't my job to hunt down and argue with religious extremists twenty four seven. No more than it is your job as a feminist to argue with Radical Feminists or other Feminists who may disagree with you and whose views you might find abhorent twenty four seven.
Do passages about homosexuality count as historically interesting but ignorable? Well, to you they might, but to some they are very important.
Passages such as?
I've only encountered one passage that comes to mind that might fit this description in the Sodom and Gommorah section of Genesis, and I have a very interesting interpretation of the passage. That I'll share if you're interested.
Otherwise, see my response above.
Couple that with the idea that religious books are supposed to be standards for morality, rather than something that has to be judged against some other standard (which you're doing when deciding what to ignore), and I think you run into problems that, to me, seem insurmountable.
Religious books are supposed to be standands of morality? Which books do you mean?
Genesis is filled with all sorts of people doing things they shouldn't be doing. Noticing this behavior I think is part of the point those books are trying to make I think.
From a Jewish perspective this suggests that even people chosen by God still sometimes fail to reach the benchmark of how they should act, they still do bad things or things they aren't supposed to do at times, plus they still owe certain ethical considerations to people with different beliefs than them. Because Genesis should be read as myth rather than literal history, it also picks up a lot of practices from the original myths I suspect many of the tales were based on.
Christianity takes this idea further and calls it Original Sin.
Of course, I'm speaking of religion (and Judaism, in this case) as if it were monolithic, and I know it's not--your interpretation of Judaism, for instance, is obviously different from the Judaism wherein a man thanks god every morning that he is not a dog, and that he is not a woman, among other things.
That is a practice of Orthodox Judaism as I understand it. This is given further context here. It should be noted that I do not endorse all the views of the blog's author, many of the entries seem particularly from an orthodox/conservative perspective, but it also does a nice job at explaining Jewish beliefs in general if you browse the various entries on the site.
But the reasons that your interpretation is different from others then become really important--I am curious as to your reasons for not agreeing with aspects of your holy books, but agreeing with other aspects...if so much of it is ignorable, why believe it is in any way the word of god, rather than an old book with lots of right things and lots of wrong things?
I grew up as a "secular" reform Jew. So basically Judaism for most of my life represented my culture and heritage rather than religion.
Jewish Movements throughout History
A lot of my holy books were really cultural books more than they are holy scripture to me. Or at least they used to be.
In my old age of twenty four years, I have been having a change of heart. My religion not just my culture has been calling to me. I find myself wanting to learn more about my faith, even to the point of wanting to attend syanagogue again and more frequently than I ever did as a child. I still self-identify as "Reform", but I don't see that as incompatible with having religious beliefs (like believing in God, thinking about his nature, thinking about how the ethics of Judaism tie into a deeper spiritual understanding of my relation with God, etc.).
The theme here is it is what underlies these books ethically and spiritually is what matters more than their literal words. Judaism unlike many other religions is not particularly dogmatic on many issues that other religions are very dogmatic about.
There is A LOT of room for personal interpretation, the religion itself is geared that way. So my understanding of the holy scriptures sees them as an amalgam of cultural myths, religious and spiritual truths/revelations, literary wisdom, philosophical debates, historical documents situated in both a particular culture, time, and place.
I think where problems come in is when people start from the assumption that things have to be either/or.
Regarding faith, I'd like to refer you to statements made by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris: http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/10/13/dawkins/index1.html
http://www.truthdig.com/dig/page2/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/
Speaking for myself, I'd like to ask you a few questions to see where you stand:
1) Do you believe that the God of Abraham, as described in the Old Testament, exists?
2) Do you believe that your answer to #1 is justified by evidence?
3a) If your answer to #2 is no, then what is your justification?
3b) If your answer to #2 is yes, could you describe the nature of the evidence?
Oh, and I'd like to give one more quote:
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Changed my mind, Doug. I will answer in brief.
1) Yes, I believe in God.
2) I do believe there is evidence for God's existence.
You hear stories all the time about miracles. People who saw Angels who saved them. Sometimes these people are looney, other times they seem like fairly normal people as far as I can tell, which makes me pay more attention.
Ditto Near Death Experiences. There is a part of me that remains skeptical about them, but there is another part of me that notices certain similarities across religion about these experiences that cannot be entirely ignored.
I've had my own prayers answered within days of making them. I also realize and partially accept this could be coincidence. I've also had prayers denied, but I see this as God chosing what he/she answers and what she/he doesn't answer.
Ultimately, though, it comes down to faith, which has very little do with a lack of scientific evidence. The two have different natures and functions. For me it's like trying to talk about whether an apple or an orange is better; they both taste good, but I like them both and for different reasons and they offer me different things I need.
I'll now end with a quote of my own:
Richard Dawkins: Evolution doesn't happen by chance. You see its bound to happen.
Mrs. Garrison: That's right kids. So you see there is no God.
Richard Dawkins: Careful, darling. The school board doesn't like it when we . . .
Stan Marsh: Well, there can still be a God.
Mrs. Garrison (suddenly annoyed): WHAT!
Stan Marsh: Couldn't evolution be the answer to how and not the answer to why?
Mrs. Garrison: Uh-oh retard alert! Retard alert, class! Do you believe in a Flying Spaghetti monster too, bubble-head?
Stan Marsh: I wasn't talking about spaghetti . . .
- South Park, Season 10, Go God Go!
"The usual excuse given by at least some Christians is basically 'Jesus said that we don't have to obey the Jewish laws any more.'"
That's what I was taught in the Baptist church I was raised in.
Ok, here's my rambling, thoughts-in-process. Please feel free to call me out on any nonsense that I may write. I'm all about the discussion.
I'm an atheist as well, and so it's hard for me to see religious texts as anything other than literature. And honestly, it's literature that I tend to enjoy. There are a lot of good stories in the Bible, for instance. Yes, there are instances of misogyny all over the place in the bible, but I find myself agreeing with Eric that,
"They are better for a reflection of the concerns, practices, habits of the Israelites and the larger Mesopotamian (Near East) region of the time than laws that must be practiced forever and ever amen."
Of course, I'm coming to this conclusion as an atheist English major, and so when you add in the politics of translation...well, I can't even be sure that what I read in my King James Bible is even an accurate reflection of the Mesopotamian region at the time. It's easily as much a reflection of England in the early 17th century.
All of my English major pretensions aside, I've done a lot of activist work with ministers and priests, and I've always found them to be sincere in their work against sexism, racism, anti-war activism, etc. The question for me isn't how people with faith in their religion reconcile ancient religious texts with anti-oppression work. The question, for me at least, is how to combat those that seek to use ancient religious texts as a means to further spread and justify anti-woman and other oppressive sentiments.
Will you answer a few more questions?
4) Which of these is most likely to be true:
a) The God of Abraham exists, and Ahura Mazda (the God of Zoroaster) does not.
b) The God of Abraham exists and Ahura Mazda exists - and these two terms do not refer to the same
thing.
c) The God of Abraham exists, Ahura Mazda exists - and these two terms do refer to the same thing.
d) The God of Abraham does not exist, and Ahura Mazda exists.
e) The God of Abraham does not exist, and Ahura Mazda does not exist.
5) "Faith is the license that religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail. To keep believing in the absence of evidence." - Sam Harris
Is this an accurate description of faith?
Hey Jeff,
I was going to respond to your post but then I saw your reply to Eric and was a bit horrified. It's pretty clear you don't know much about the current practice of Judaism and you are spreading misinformation.
Although the Torah is a/the holy text in Judaism, the majority of the practice of Judaism is found in the Mishnah and Talmud. That is part of the reason that there are no rabbinic Jews calling for a literal approach to the Torah.
Also, considering the Torah a straightforward 'standard for morality' is problematic even from traditional Jewish points (yes, plural) of view. For example, the Rambam said that the Temple system of sacrifice, so central to the Torah that it takes up about 3/5ths of it, was a compromise, temporary form of practice to help the Israelites move from ancient forms of religion to a truer form of worship.
Also, there's no prayer thanking God for not being a dog. The traditional formulation is for not being a slave, for not being a gentile, and for not being a woman.
This is so nuts because I am a huge critic of misogyny and sexism in Judaism, but in response to your post I feel compelled to defend it because when the misogyny in Judaism is fought from ignorance, it ends up looking and feeling a lot like anti-Semitism. In fact, early Christian feminism was somewhat fraught with anti-Judaism, as I think much Wiccan and Pagan feminism is.
For myself, I have to say that as entwined as atheism and feminism are for you is probably as entwined as Judaism and feminism are for me. And you know what, we do have a lot of work to do (not that I trust you to define it, at this point). But you know what else? So does the rest of the world.
Maybe if the rest of the world, the rest of the institutions and ideologies and communities were free of sexism, I would agree that religion has proven itself to be the last intractable battlefield and can be abandoned.
But hello, get back to me when you've cleaned up the sexism from the secular world!
In the mean time, scrutinize whatever you want, but don't expect to be taken seriously unless you do your homework, and especially don't expect that ignorant scrutiny which borders on anti-Judaism and that comes from a still very sexist secular world is going to convince Jewish feminists to abandon their identities and come fight the battles *you* think they should be fighting.
I heard a woman on a radio programme saying that those religions which depict one God avobe all of us "his children", are inherenty patriarchal in nature because they open the door to men doing the same thing with women, ie: men take the place of "God" and women are relegated to "children" who have to obey.
I agree with this, so you are definitely not alone ;)
(I can give you the link to this radio programme if you are interested)
"I hope it's clear that I don't thing that there's something inherent in religious belief itself that leads to misogyny--just that, historically, religions have been misogynist, and that it's hard (for me) to see them otherwise, given the evidence of holy books, as well as actions of believers."
To me this seems to be linked with Religions old(?) place as a form of social control. Many religious teachings, are as eric has said, a thin veneer of god over what was at the time simply law or common sense. So take a patriarchal society, extract it's socially accepted laws, shove them in a form that's incredibly resistant to change and it's not surprising you've a lot of patriarchal material and attitudes left over.
There has been a lot of good chatter on this thread, and I appreciate everybody taking the time to write. As I said in the post, I wanted this to be the beginning of a conversation, not the end of one. After my initial response to eric, I thought I'd take my time responding again, especially after having come thisclose to being called an anti-Semite. I take criticisms like that one from Tara seriously, even when they are couched in tentative language. I'm going to work on a post in response to what you've said, Tara, because I think it deserves a more lengthy response. I will say, however, that there's going to be a way in which I'm an anti-Semite in some people's minds, just as many Xtians are going to call me anti-Xtian, many Muslims would undoubtedly call me anti-Islam, etc., simply because I am an atheist. And, not only do I think that the gods of these people don't exist, I think that their various religions do a lot of harm (this is a complex claim to defend, and I'm not doing it here...yet), even though they do some good.
I will say now that, if I were forced to believe in one of the big three religions, I'd pick Judaism hands down, mostly because of the lack of fundamentalist interpretation. One of my favorite jokes ends with three Rabbis telling God to stay out of their argument, and I think the history of doing work of interpretation gives Judaism a leg up on Islam and Xtianity because it fully acknowledges, as part of the very process of being religious, that interpretation is happening.
There are, of course, myriad ways that I am ignorant regarding various religions (most of what I know about Judaism comes from friends and from a course on postmodernism, Derrida, and Judaism(!), for instance), and there is danger there--I certainly don't want to spread misinformation--but as I said, this is the beginning of a conversation, not the end of one. I should be more careful how I begin, perhaps.
Oh, and Tara, if you're still reading:
Also, there's no prayer thanking God for not being a dog. The traditional formulation is for not being a slave, for not being a gentile, and for not being a woman.
According to several formulations I'm finding online, one traditional formulation includes not being a dog. But let's say I'm totally wrong on that one. Doesn't the formulation of that prayer without the dog bother you, as a feminist? I'm confused...
Tara said:
In fact, early Christian feminism was somewhat fraught with anti-Judaism, as I think much Wiccan and Pagan feminism is.
Tara, it's more than a little hypocritical of you to school Jeff for spreading what you consider to be misinformation on Judaism and then throw out a rather hateful and unsupported statement like that.
Frankly, while I, myself, am an atheist Jew, I have a lot of friends who are Wiccans and other forms of pagans and I have a passing interest in the Wiccan community. While I obviously can't speak for the pagan community as a whole, I have never, ever, seen anti-Semitic comments thrown around.
If you're going to tarnish an entire set of beliefs -- one, I might add, that gets a whole lot of flack and is subject to some nasty misunderstandings in the mainstream because it's not an Abrahamic/monotheistic religion -- then you should at the very least back it up. Because right now I don't see any difference between you and all the other monotheists who have nothing but nasty, ignorant things to say about paganism.
Doug S., Jeff, and anyone else who might be interested, instead of responding to your questions here I ended up writing a much longer blog post sharing my thoughts on Atheism (particularly extreme atheism) and what I see as some of their false assumptions, general thoughts about features of Judaism, political ideology, and other thoughts that interconnect to the topic:
Atheism Vs. Faith (Round 1 . . . Ding! Ding!)
My Blog is a free-speech zone, so anyone is invited even if they disagree with me, but I urge any potential posters to keep a respectful tone.
I also realize it might be considered bad form to post with an entry from my own blog, but that is how I decided to respond to Doug S. questions in this thread, so it made sense to me to post it in this thread.
Hi Jeff, I'm hoping this isn't too horribly rude and that you've not already devoured all the content, however there's a lot of interesting reading material to be found on http://www.ebonmusings.org (not mine I hasten to add, just fascinating reading)
Thanks for the links, y'all. Eric--We get few enough comments here so far that I don't think it's bad form at all..I love linky goodness, and it's certainly better form than novel-length comments, I think. I'll try to read your post and respond over there when I can.
rycuda--thanks for the link.
tekanji--That's an interesting point that I hadn't even picked up on, in the midst of tangling with other issues.
Tekanji,
I'm so pleased that you've only had positive experiences. I definitely did not mean to 'tarnish a whole religion.' On the other hand, I'm hardpressed to believe that there really is a tradition that is unblemished - even paganism and neo-paganism. What I specifically had in mind was blaming Judaism for the death of the goddess, the rise of patriarchal religion, etc. It is definitely not my impression or my contention that that's a dominant stream of thought in either Christian or religious non Christian feminism, thank goodness. Anyway, I'm happy to be schooled by you, especially if it's to show that there's less anti-Judaism in the world than I thought.
Jeff: I'm tremendously bothered by that formulation and many other aspects of traditional Judaism. I didn't mean to imply that I wasn't! It's not my contention that Judaism is untarnished either.
Also, the 'joke' you mentioned - I'm pretty sure you are, or at least you could be, accidentally referring not to a joke at all but to a story/midrash in the Talmud - the oven of Ak'nai - does this look right? http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1989/v46-1-article2.htm (I haven't looked at the rest of the page so have no idea what it's saying, just linking it to quote the story).
Also, could you point me towards where you found the dog thing? I've never heard of it and I have done a fair amount of reading about that set of prayers (because I find it so problematic!). Thanks!
Tara--
I can't find the link to the version of the prayer thanking god for not being a dog--which is strange, because it was one of the first links when I googled 'judaism thank god I'm not a woman' yesterday. I apologize for not being able to cite it--I obviously should have linked to it the other day.
I don't think you've responded to Tekanji's criticism. You say "I'm so pleased that you've only had positive experiences. " What if I responded to your claims by saying, "I'm so pleased that you've had positive experiences with Judaism." Not much of a response, and sort of condescending, don't you think?
The link you provided is to the story that I had in mind. It was told in the context by a cultural Jew who was my prof for a course on Derrida and the Jewish tradition, and was used to illustrate the importance of interpretation of the text in Judaism, and of the interpretation being never final, like the literal word of god would be. If you don't think people telling god that he should stay out the interpretation of his own book(s) funny, I don't know what to tell you. I'll stick by that it's (at least) a joke, or humorous story, though it may be more than that (a commentary on interpretation of texts, for instance, as the site you link to says).
Post a Comment