women and religion

Question

Currently reading "Women Without Superstition: "No Gods, No Masters", a collection of writings by women authors in the 19th and 20th centuries.  Among them are Susan B. Anthony, Mary Wollstonecraft, Frances Wright, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Annie Besant, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Emma Goldman, Margaret Sanger, and scores of other highly respected writer/activists.  They tended to support the environment, human rights, animal rights, etc.  One thing they shared in common was not basing their values on the words of any god or gods...

ahimsa32fa · Answer

The authors included in the book mentioned above could be jailed or ostracized in a variety of ways because of their stances against cruelty to non-human animals, destruction of the environment, misogyny and organized religion in general.  They had their lives threatened by Christians.
While I don't claim to be the writer/activist that they were, I've also had my life threatened when it was discovered that I was a vegan, an animal rights activist and an atheist.  Free thinking has never found favor with the ruling class and those who choose to obey rather than think for themselves...

Star the magic vegan · Answer

There is only one problem with being an atheist, a feminist, an animal rights activist and a vegan. This is the problem of self identification which limits one's free thinking, social mobility and social interactions. Self identification also causes a self clinging nature which can grow into a narcissistic tendency, ultimately leading to conflict with those who may have differing views. This problem is personal to the owner of such self destructive self identification tendencies, when no harm is inflicted upon others for the sake of this self identification. The harm it may cause to one's own free passage in life is one's own obstruction of one's own making.

There is a problem with being anti-god, anti- religion, anti-man, anti-Christian, anti-class and anti-culture to those with whom one may disagree. Such antagonism leads to conflict and harm. There may be cases when cultural or gender war, as such, is mandated but it certainly is never desirable. Conflict rarely convinces the other side, with one side experiencing victory and the other experiencing defeat or repression.

I personally view atheism, void-ism, nihilism and extreme pragmatism (often called scientific inductive reasoning) as another level of God/Goddess realization. To me it is perfectly acceptable when it causes no harm.

I view feminism as a healthy response to gender concerns when it does not enforce sole authority to emasculation,  lesbianism and castration. Feminism has played a very positive role in our social, political, cultural and economic history. Feminism has also caused harm when improperly applied causing gender confusion, divorce and feminine exploitation. To me feminism is another level of God/Goddess realization. To me it is perfectly acceptable when it causes no harm.

I view the vegan lifestyle as a normal function and the only correct way to live. All other dietary practices are an expression of mental illness due to mind conditioning, perversity of truth and life, harmfulness, anti-social and wrong thinking. This is not a view based on judgemental bias rather it is measured by the harm each dietary life practice causes. To me Veganism is another level of God/Goddess realization. To me it is perfectly acceptable when it causes no harm.

Some residual harm may be caused by all life's activities such as killing bacteria when we breathe. Certainly it harms plants to kill and eat them. It also may hurt a man or a woman to separate when a relationship is harmful. Life should always be a process of choosing pathways that cause the least amount of harm. 

This may mean that harm itself may have to be inflicted to avoid a much greater harm as a method of expedient means. However, such methods must be applied sparingly and only with the deepest insight into all subtle and complicated interactive results. 

It is indeed better for the environment, for health, for the gross aggregate of world suffering and for the cultivation of morality to eat plants than it is to eat animals. It is better not kill ever. It is also better if all relationships are fairy tales of love. Reality and Karma, however, may present variables that challenge this desired result. 

Being an activist that demands change, that demands results, that makes a stand and refuses to listen to the other side is to become the very thing one protests against. I see in the above comment that Christians, misogynists and a ruling class are singled out as problematic. Perhaps it would be better to view such beings as fellow Earthlings that are lost in their suffering and are acting out due to their own clinging self natures that developed from personal negative experience and conditioning. Making enemies is not a good idea. Healing the ill is compassionate and wise. Educating others as a method of sharing is always welcome. Neither a healer nor an educator exists in the heart of a narcissist. 

We need to rise above such self identifying dualism that identifies enemies and claims superiority.

ahimsa32fa · Answer

If you believe your last sentence, why are you so upset with why do you attack non-believers?

Seems to me that you're the one who "identifies enemies" and claims so have superior views.  You don't realize it, but when you denounce atheists and agnostics, you're helping organized religion maintain its brainwashing hold on the masses.  Much like them;, it appears you'd like to deny freedom of speech to anyone who disagrees with your personal religious beliefs.

Star the magic vegan · Answer

Ahimsa Darling,

How can you use the name "Ahimsa" when you denounce the very religions that created this concept and still teach it in their temples. By your acidic rhetoric it is clear that you are seeking to victimize others; this also is not Ahimsa in nature. You have denounced Christians, ruling elites, misogynists and me as your list of victims and scapegoats grow. 

I have not identified any enemies as you suggest, nor have I any unless, like you, others choose to manifest this unfortunate role for their personal growth.

I also do not claim to sustain a superior view. I think it is interesting that you see me this way. I guess the truth may seem that way.

I also made no mention of limiting freedom of speech. I suggest you reread my critique.

I have not denounced Atheists nor have I denounced Agnostics so perhaps you should read my critique rather than reread it.

I also do not think 'belief' is a central issue to this discussion. Belief, as I have explained in the past, is a complex human emotion. It may be applied to religious practices, but many religions do not employ belief in their practices. Belief also may be experienced by those who want to believe their life will get better, they will quit smoking or a loved one will return; these are but a few examples of how belief is commonly applied without religion.

I think we must now visit your concern over 'brainwashing.' Let us look to the Vaishnava tradition which employs highly repetitive mantras, often repeated over 1000 times per day to assist in opening the mind to religious visions. One might say that this is brainwashing because the adherents of such a practice seek to wash their minds from contemporary social conditioning and wrongful thought formations. On the other hand, ISKCON, a Vaishnava organization we can point to for example, has had law suits in the past concerning this practice and it's alleged 'brainwashing' impact on followers. This practice is followed by free willed adults as a proscribed method of transcendental realization. Such an experience is subjective and can not be measured. Who are you to attack their art of mind-scape transcendental bliss? Why do you care?

 It only matters to me if my interactions with them are negative or if they cause harm to others. ISKCON has a following of over one million people so statistically speaking there is going to be a certain percentage of people who are mentally ill, immoral or criminal; this is a human phenomenon not a religious phenomenon. One might argue that such religions bear a higher percentage of such people as they try to help them overcome their character flaws. 

Unfortunately, ISKCON seems to have a long list of criminal offenses, immoral activities and harm it has caused. This however does not mean all followers of this 500 year old tradition are this way nor does it mean the religion is to blame in every instance, although, in some instances reform may be necessary when the religious institution is to blame.

ISKCON is like any other corporate organization. Many have done worse. Look at oil spills, weapon sales, slaughter houses, incinerating rain forests, mountain top removal and other corporate wrong doings and compare it to ISKCON's track record with respect to a time line of organizational practice. ISKCON may seem to be impure in general, but it may appear innocent when compared to the producers of banned pesticides, for example.  

If you are an example of what atheist feminism does to women's demeanor, perhaps you should reconsider your approach to atheist feminism. I have not attacked anyone. I do argue your rhetoric, your logic and your attack on me. My original critique opposes harm only. This is the true essence of Ahimsa. you might take notice.

ahimsa32fa · Answer

Read more slowly, both my comments and yours.  You don't often resort to logic and every comment you make to me includes insults.

Interesting that my comments address the topics of religion, wisdom and spirituality, while you just write mostly about me.  

As I've told you before, my religious education includes (in addition to college) includes books by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, atheists, deists and agnostics.  I also read many books by women, and when I come across one that I like, I suggest it to others.  That this upsets you so, concerns me.

Star the magic vegan · Answer

Once again I will respond to your comments:

I do not get upset. This is but another projection. Ironic, coming from a self proclaimed rationalist.

In terms of insults, you have called me the following: insulting, illogical, needing of concern, attacking, making of enemies, denouncing, brainwashing, denying of free speech and arrogantly disregarding of others with whom I disagree. Truly such slander has tainted this discussion with venom. None of this is true. Nice try.

Why would someone 'resort to logic'??? You make logic seem like a last ditch effort. Is this another veiled insult or an attempt to unbind clear critiques of your topic?

Your method of addressing world religions is to blame them, insult them and repudiate them. This is not addressing religion but rather a failed attempt at redressing religion. You also never give any method for correcting the errors you perceive. Ironically by claiming to be an 'Atheist' you still define yourself with regard to the standards of religion. Even the title of 'Ahimsa' does this.

As I have explained in the past, I do not care to read your books. Your viewpoint espoused in this forum has not been inviting to that ends. 

I have not criticized your desire to recommend books written by other people. 

In fact, I will do the same. Here are more on the topic of feminism in religious cosmology; Hindu Goddesses: Vision of the Divine Feminine in the Hindu Religious Tradition, Tantric Visions of the Divine Feminine: The Ten Mahavidyas both by David R. Kinsley. 

Anyone can recommend books.

In terms of religious education, there is nothing you have studied I have not studied. I am amazed by your comments at how little you put into practice these noble traditions and how much outright rejection you implore of these disciplines. It is one thing to study a religion from a biased view point as you may have accomplished, it is quite another to live their truths. 

So far you have completely turned me off to your brand of feminism and atheism. Are you really a vegan or do you practice your dietary regime like you do feminist atheism? This is not an insult, it is a genuine question. If you are a vegan, then perhaps we can start there in this forum. Happycow is not an atheist forum nor a feminist forum, it is a vegetarian forum. It would be nice to see feminism and true atheism relate to veganism. 

I have already explained that I view atheist vegan feminism as a legitimate pathway to God/Goddess realization and so I neither repudiate it nor disavow it. I do not find your approach to these topics as legitimate. How does your feminine nature deserve adulation when it is so disrespectful to others? True feminist mystique does not abandon loving, nurturing kindness that accommodates others. True feminism is an art form that demands discipline and experience in wielding feminine power to reveal the strength and wisdom of gentleness. 

True atheism is defined by 'Theos' in it's absence. It does not abandon morality and is generally passive when correctly practiced. Atheism relies on logic and knowledge to resolve dilemmas, not name calling as you have done.

You shower blame on me for responding to you and your comments. This is your topic and you have misinterpreted my comments and attacked me. Your viewpoint appears unacceptable and seems hypocritical to what you seek to espouse. I am amazed that your discourse seems so self defensive that the criteria you establish as acceptable for responses to anything you think is to only accept accord and worship of what seems so obviously a projected false ego. Another irony coming from a self proclaimed atheist.

You are a living example of what you think in terms of this topic. This makes any dialogue on this topic personal to you. What a precarious position you have put yourself in without regard to your audience. At best, this is very humorous.

Tofulicious · Answer

'Star the magic vegan', what a patronising little patriarch you are! It always amuses me when boys are obsessively drawn to any topic about feminism, as though their flimsy egos might be shattered by the mere mention of a gendered power imbalance. The haughty, offensive tone of your diatribe is unlikely to attract anything other than hostility from others - but if that's what you seek, by all means, continue on your quest.

Star the magic vegan · Answer

'Tofulicious'

I am amazed at the level of hatred you seem to espouse to one you do not know. How lacking in subtlety and finesse.  To practice your brand of feminism ought one have absolutely no sophistication? 

You assume I am patriarchal when I am not. I even wrote God/Goddess to eliminate gender association bias. Can't you read?

As far as patronizing is concerned, spell it with a z next time. I am not condescending to those who are my equal. If you choose to fall far below the rigors of human decency then I probably seem quite elevated to you. The distance you have placed between us is your making and only through your practicing of decency can it be fixed. 

I never mentioned gender power imbalance, but I certainly hope it never imbalances in your favor with such a venomous tone to your writing. What ever happened to well mannered women? Your type of feminism belongs by the railroad tracks next to a tattoo parlor. Tell me, do you have more than one piercing on your face?

I have not sought to receive hostility if you read my first comment, even my second comment. By the time I wrote a third and now a fourth, my patience has run thin. If you think feminism has nothing to do with men and should be screamed on a loud speaker from a passing Harley Davidson, then continue your hateful rhetoric. I find it amusing.

Search HappyCow

Wisdom Forum