Return to: Home | Culture | Books

Does God Hate Women?

By Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom

Reviewed by Johann Hari - 02 July 2009

Authors Benson and Stangroom dismantle the logic of those who cite religion to justify the perpetuation of misogynistic abuses around the globe

A directory of divine misogyny

After all the arguments for subordinating women have been shown to be self-serving lies, what are misogynists left with? They have only one feeble argument that is still deferred to and shown undeserving respect across the world, even by people who should know better: “God told me to. I have to treat women as lesser beings, because it is inscribed in my Holy Book.”

Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom are the editors of Butterflies and Wheels, the best atheist site on the web. In Does God Hate Women? they forensically dismantle the last respectable misogyny. They argue: “What would otherwise look like stark bullying is very often made respectable and holy by a putative religious law or aphorism or scriptural quotation . . . They worship a God who is a male who gangs up with other males against women. They worship a thug.”

Every major religion’s texts were written at a time when women were regarded as little better than talking cattle. Their words and commands reflect this, plainly and bluntly. This book starts with a panoramic sweep across the world, showing – with archetypal cases – how every religion has groups today thumping women down with its Holy Book.

In Zamfara State in northern Nigeria, a pregnant 13-year-old girl called Bariya Ibrahim received 180 lashes of the cane in 2001 after being pimped by her father. The state’s attorney general said: “It is the law of Allah, so we don’t have anything to worry about.” In Jerusalem, ultra-Orthodox Jews have set up “modesty police” who terrorise young women who talk to men or show ordinary parts of their bodies. They break into their homes if they are seen with men; they force them to sit at the back of the bus, away from the men; and they even, in one recent instance, sprayed acid in the face of a 14-year-old girl.

In the areas of India still dominated by orthodox Hinduism, a widow is still expected to commit suicide when her husband dies, or go into isolation in an ashram. One – a septuagenarian woman named Radha Rani Biswas – fled and now begs on the streets of Vrindavan. She said: “My son tells me: ‘You have grown old. Now who is going to feed you? Go away.’ What do I do? My pain has no limit.” And on the directory of divine misogyny goes, running through Catholicism, Mormonism and more. Benson and Stangroom note: “Religion doesn’t necessarily originate ideas about female subordination, but it lends them a penumbra of righteousness, and it makes them ‘sacred’ and thus a matter for outrage if anyone disputes them.”

Methodically, they go through the excuses offered for these raw abuses of human rights by the religious, and their apologists.

The first – especially beloved of the Vatican and Islamists – is that women are not being treated worse, just “differently”. They claim that it accords a woman special “dignity” to trap her in the home. But this is an abuse of language. As the authors note: “Permanent consignment to a limited and lesser role in the world is not what ‘dignity’ is generally understood to mean . . . The smallness and intimacy and relatedness of home are fine things, but not if one is confined to them permanently.”

The religio-misogynists then claim that it is “racist” or “imperialist” to oppose such abuses. This merrily ignores how women within these cultures protest against their treatment – very loudly. They aren’t objecting to being imprisoned in their homes, or having their genitalia cut, or being stoned for having sex, because a white person told them to. Benson and Stangroom put it well: “Multiculturalism by definition makes a fetish of cultures, and it is almost impossible to do that without treating them as monolithic. As soon as you admit that all cultures have internal dissent and nonconformity, the whole idea of protecting or deferring to particular cultures breaks down into incoherence.”

Then the gentler, nicer apologists for religion arrive. They say that misogynists are simply misinterpreting the holy texts, which are in fact about love and compassion and kindness. But the authors point out this is certainly not the God of the texts who orders his followers to commit mass murder, including of women and children, and explicitly says women are inferior beings.

So, in order to defend their God, the apologists often have to lie about what He and His Prophets “say” in the texts. Cherie Blair, for example, claimed in a lecture: “It is not laid down in the Quran that women can be beaten by their husbands.” But it quite plainly is. The Quran says: “If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teachings of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them.”

Karen Armstrong – one of the most egregious defenders of superstition – repeatedly claims that Muhammad was an emancipator of women. Yet it is explained in the Hadith (the sayings and traditions of the Prophet) that he married a prepubescent child, and that when he was given two slave girls he gave the ugly one away to a friend and kept the beautiful one, Maryam, to use sexually. It is a strange model of female emancipation, to sleep with children and slaves.

There are people in all religions who have – through theological contortions – managed to leave behind literal readings of the text and invent a less foul God to believe in. It is not for atheists to say that one group of believers is right and the other is wrong, as we think they’re all wrong. We can note that the less literalist a believer is, the easier he is to live beside, but we will only discredit literalism and force reform if we are honest about the words of the texts, rather than trying to soft-soap believers.

By the end of this book-length blast, Benson and Stangroom have left religious hatred of women in rubble. Anybody not addled by superstition will have to conclude that such bigotry deserves neither respect nor deference. It does not deserve the taboos that today surround it. It deserves the opposite: contempt – and relentless, unyielding opposition.

Does God Hate Women?
Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom
Continuum, 208pp, £14.99

Related Content: Ophelia Benson Q&A

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

42 comments from readers

Carl Packman
02 July 2009 at 18:09

"It is not for atheists to say that one group of believers is right and the other is wrong, as we think they’re all wrong."

Calvin, the Protestant reformist, encouraged his followers to pick at the bible, and on the way promoted the incoming phenomena we now call science. As an atheist I feel I have the right to point this out, and also feel that often the words in "those" texts provide much more than the drivel promulgated by the new atheists - Hari I suppose being a tag along to.

Intellectual certainty is a dangerous thing in the debate between religion versus science, and both teams have members claiming dibs on the "truth".

William
02 July 2009 at 18:24

Human kind was created in the image of God, therefore neither Man or Woman is the true likeness but together forms the Union.

The abuse is augumented by those that believe themselves to be greater, more knowlegeable than Holy Scripture. Almost as if Licifer has corrupted the tenure of religion and will harvest souls into entity.

Carl Packman
02 July 2009 at 22:51

@ William;

this is sounding rather too like the story of Androgynous. The arguments of the book/review can kind of put your arguments to one side also, can't they?

Bo Gardiner
03 July 2009 at 15:23

Thank you, thank you, for this, Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom. May it make a difference.

It is sad to predict that this important strike against bigotry will undoubtedly be dubbed bigotry itself by the self-righteous and the apologists, even and most ironically, by my fellow progressives.

And thank you, Johann Hari, for an insightful review that brings this work to light.

syedmakki
03 July 2009 at 16:22

the atheists are the true zealots of the modern era, they make the religious zealots looks silly. the argument always rolled out is of all the crimes committed in the name of religion, but what of all the crimes committed in the name of democracy, freedom and liberty, all the wars fought for these noble reasons...and all the wars fought when these reasons were given but their motives was impure and wrong...shall we then dispense with democracy, freedom and liberty... all religions have at their core a moral compass to guide their adherents towards a noble and just way of living...atheist would have us trust their 'own, inbuilt morality sat nav's''...i wouldn't trust any device that lives as long as an individual's mood....

musafir
03 July 2009 at 16:48

God, if he is up there, does not hate women.

Bigots do.

Perhaps in Islamic countries more than others, for some men it is important to maintain a dominant role. They feel threatened by sexually liberated women and cite the scriptures to justify suppressing them.

Laure Tallot
03 July 2009 at 18:10

at long last an article that does not bow to the usual "respect" for religious nonsense! I thought I would never read such a clear, clever & well- argumented article in he NS any more.

What is the cause of that very British disease which consists in bending over backward to accomodate any foolish idea as long as it claims to be "religious"?

A

Daniele
04 July 2009 at 00:35

Well said!! And how refreshing to read atheist comments by people not shying away from denouncing the absurdity of all religions and the harm that these persisting ancient superstitions still brings to societies throughout the world.Women in particular have and are still suffering today from abuse by men justifying their bullying and their brutality towards women by claiming this is God's or Allah's will.God's will have been the justification for the oppression of poor people by their kings and Lords throughout history and religion was precisely invented to subjugate the masses and control their behaviour by threatening them with divine punishment. The burning of the heretics was the ultimate sanction for those who refused to conform. The truly amazing thing is that so many people are still fooled by religion in this scientific age.I find it incomprehensible that some seemingly educated, intelligent people still choose to believe in such ludicrous fairy tales and such farcical divine creatures as told and portrayed in the so-called holy texts.

It is high time that atheists start speaking out loud and clear and campaign for religion to be denounced for what it is: a fraud and a means of oppression.We should show no more respect for the present world religions than we have for ancient Greek or Egyptian mythology. It is ALL mythology! And it is time to tell the deluded that there is no more angels in Heaven than there are little fairies at the bottom of my garden!

Hammad
04 July 2009 at 13:01

It is allowed to beat woman in the Quran, but the hadith

explained prophet Muhammad show a tooth stick by

which you can slightly hit on the head of the woman,

another hadith explained prophet Muhammad urged

followers to treat woman gently, things like divorce and

beating woman by toot stick is allowed in the QUran

but it is totally detestable in the eyes of ALLAH..

rayner
04 July 2009 at 18:08

I am an animist, and as such, believing God is everywhere and in everything would not marry a minor and subject her to sex before she is able to ovulate. When she does ovulate as in several cultures which are religious, she will immediately become pregnant.

This can be a disaster as usually she is malnourished, has too narrow a pelvis to give birth and will either die in childbirth in total agony, along with her unborn child.

Or she will get a fistula leading to her being thrown out of her home; and in cultures such as Nigeria which has virtually no medical staff in the villages, that means a desperate struggle for survival.

There is a very good reason why young girls as young as 5 are not permitted in most Western cultures to marry or experience sex, they are just not ready physically or emotionally.

We have laws that deal with the minimum age of sexual consent, and they are there with a basis of physiological and anatomical fact apart from the emotional considerations of being unready for such a momentous change in their lives.

In many other countries which worship various religions, widespread paedophilia is permitted under the guise of God permits! Why is this? This aspect of certain religions has always puzzled and appalled me.

Angelus
04 July 2009 at 22:35

Does the flying spaghetti monster hate woman?

digbydolben
08 July 2009 at 06:30

There is not an iota of misogyny in the actual words of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. He consorted with all varieties of women, defended them and their interests, and, as a matter of fact, His liberalism regarding women, matters of gender and sexuality was probably one of the reasons He was so despised by the scribes and pharisees.

The actual words of Christ regarding these matters prove definitively, in my opinion, that He was nom more understood by St. Paul than He is by the modern Christian Church.

jonjermey
08 July 2009 at 08:12

An interesting mix of responses:

"Does the flying spaghetti monster hate women?" Only if they're not pirates.

"the atheists are the true zealots of the modern era..." Why were so many Christians hiding behind the door when capital letters were handed out?

"It is allowed to beat woman in the Quran..." In Jordan recently a man shot down his sister in cold blood because she had been raped. He obviously hadn't been told about the 'toothed stick' part. Is being 'slightly hit' like being slightly pregnant, I wonder?

ramesh1
08 July 2009 at 08:42

Hate always arise from fear.From ancient time man are afraid to woman.This fear arise from woman different physical body her monthly period, her viva , child birth.Woman is physically weak.these are the factor man treat woman as a lower. Main reason is he fear the woman, may be she have power to harm man.

stoat100
08 July 2009 at 10:51

syedmakki : 'all religions have at their core a moral

compass to guide their adherents towards a noble

and just way of living'

I can't decide which was more noble and just: 9/11 or

7/7 - please advise as I'm an atheist and this have no

moral compass!!

Pablo Guzman
08 July 2009 at 11:15

The comments by Muslims on this list are fatuous.

They are trying to rationalise the totally irrational.

Women have every right to be their own being.

Syxresident
08 July 2009 at 12:41

I am a christian yet found the article so spot on that I'll also

buy the book. It is completely shameful that we use any

part of our beliefs, or quotations from the Bible, to defend

sexism (or racism etc) in any way at all. Anything less than

total equality is intolerable.

My only gripes are

a) that you didn't have to be an atheist to write the article or

the book - the inference somehow is that it springs only

from an atheist standpoint.

b) (perhaps not really relevant here) with those militant

atheists that deride believers. It is so easy to mock what

can't be demonstrated or proved in any way. Yet, I confess

that is embarrassing when some branches of my faith

manipulate miracles to delude their followers, water

changing conveniently into blood on demand, ailments

apparently cured.

Rebbic
08 July 2009 at 13:59

Alas, I think this article misses the point the same way that literal readers of the bible do. You see, the bible is not a text book. It is a book about how people live together.

You may see a lot of the blood and strife and what appear to be arcane laws as nonsense, but it was the best you could get out of people in the time and place in which it was written.

There were more sexual restrictions place on women in those ancient text most likely because sex is much more dangerous for them.

The author of this article, as well as the people he is writing about, is looking back on an era with 21st century glasses.

That was a time when paternity could not be found with rock solid certainty, when venereal disease was a death sentence and wars were most often won by the guy with the most troops.

If you want to make sure that men are willing to run out into a field and chop other men to pieces, or suffer the same, you have to make sure the women they come back to are not screwing around on them.

Most such critiques of -21st century societies are made by imposing the morals of the +21st century. You might be surprised to learn that 4 millennium makes a difference

markinminnesota
08 July 2009 at 16:28

With the history of the 20th century proving beyond all doubt the bloody-mindedness of atheism when joined with state power, one would think any European who craves a reimposition of atheism should be questioned for judgement. Yes, doctrinaire theism imposes pain and suggesting otherwise is dishonest., but atheistic Communism murdered millions. Ahistorical thinking really is dangerous, and the arrogance of the atheist lobby is astonshing. At least they could begin their negative distribes with a moment of silence for the many who lost their lives because they believed.

SDG
08 July 2009 at 16:52

@Rebbic: 'Most such critiques of -21st century societies are made by imposing the morals of the +21st century. You might be surprised to learn that 4 millennium makes a difference'

The point of the article is that there are too many people making decisions today based on the mores and morals of those ancient texts. This is why it is necessary to impose 21st century morals on "-21 century" texts: because those texts are being used to justify immoral behaviours that, as you say, may have belonged in the times and places in which they were written, but which have no place in our world.

frshprnz
08 July 2009 at 19:22

Humanity is much older than most think or dare to believe. There was an era in pre-history that women dominated men. Religious societeis have been in backlash because of this. Fortunately it is ending. Teachings held secret for thousands of years are being/have been revealed. We need to heal and move on. Equality, love, understanding, responsibility, caring, stewardship... these are the morals/values/traditions/directions we need to embrace now, to survive as a species, to flourish in a new interstellar culture, to move beyond the material lust domination stagnation we are currently mired in. Just a thought. I looked at my kingdom

I was finally there

To sit on my throne as the Prince of Bel Air

Joanna
08 July 2009 at 21:25

'every religion has groups today thumping women down with its Holy Book' ?

This sounds like a fascinating and convincing read. However, it is a shame that Benson and Stangroom did not take the time to investigate the rapidly growing minority of new religious movements such as Neopaganism which take it as one of their basic tenets that the divinity should be acknowledged in both masculine and feminine aspects and that women and men should be accorded absolutely equal respect.

If the authors are truly convinced that God hates women, maybe they should have spent some time asking a wider variety of Western women about the identity of their God.

cbscanlon
08 July 2009 at 23:58

All true enough — although atheism hasn't

necessarily been any better:

'Woman is not yet capable of friendship: women are

still cats and birds. Or at best cows...' Nietzsche in

Thus Spoke Zarathustra

'[E]verything about woman has one solution:

pregnancy... Man should be educated for war, and

woman for the recreation of the warrior; all else is

folly... Let woman be a plaything... The happiness of

man is: I will. The happiness of woman is: he wills...

You are going to woman? Do not forget the whip!' -

Thus Spoke Zarathustra - On Little Old and Young

Women

'One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick,

changeable, inconstant... she needs a religion of

weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being

humble as divine: or better, she makes the strong

weak--she rules when she succeeds in overcoming

the strong... Woman has always conspired with the

types of decadence, the priests, against the

"powerful", the "strong", the men' -- Nietzsche, The Will

to Power.

While some contortionists have tried to explain away

these ideas, they're about as convincing as intelligent

design.

Freud and the psychoanalytic tradition, similarly, has

been criticised by feminists scholars — as has

Marxism.

This suggests that patriarchalism can't be reduced to

the religion

(And claiming that Marxism is a form of messianic

thought — and therefore, religion is the root of the

problem — won't wash. The only intellectually honest

conclusion is that messianic/transcendental thinking

can take many forms, either theistic or atheistic.)

amanda
09 July 2009 at 01:26

lets see if you'll post my comment if i use the word erection instead...cultures where men cannot control their erections tend to imprison women and keep them low...

sciencenerd
09 July 2009 at 01:34

@SDG: Thank you. I agree and was about to say the exact same thing in responce to Rebbic. You probably said it better that I could have, though!

sciencenerd
09 July 2009 at 01:35

@SDG: Thank you! I totally agree and was about to say the exact same thing in response to Rebbic. Although, you probably said it better than I could have!

Dante Lucianos
09 July 2009 at 02:29

Which all goes to show that fundamentalist atheists and

religionists can be as bigoted as each other. The mark of

a truly educated person? Understanding comes before

criticism. Our two authors would be more persuasive if

they actually understood what they were criticizing.

Gggg
09 July 2009 at 03:29

Right on. I'd like to ask you to consider something

related:

You talk about genital cutting. In the United States major

surgery on the genitals of unconsenting human beings

happens all the time. I beg you to, as you consider and

protect the rights of women, to also care about the basic

human rights of men.

Circumcision is a procedure that was designed in the

Victorian era specifically to reduce sexual pleasure. It has

no place in the 21st century, and I hope that as you

continue to fight for women you don't overlook the right to

genital integrity that's being denied to men.

patro
09 July 2009 at 03:55

The authors are so predictable in their usung such

well worn and exaggerated arguments against all

Religion. Ignoring the human desire and need to

explain the unknowable, and describe life as it is

lived in our human skins. I agree with their assertions

of the misogyny of organized religions, but they can

not be seperated and analyized apart from their time

and place in history[her-story].This prejudice against

women is also regretably present in natureThere isn't

much stoning going on in the modern world now, nor

burning of witches where it is present it should be

condemned.Women are by and large smaller than

men and often take a subservient or secondary role

in the family structure, but not always.It will be so less

frequently as time goes on, but many women will

asser5t that the role of stay at home ,and nurturer is

not the lesser role, but every bit as important as the

hunter-gatherer husband.Ophelia and Jeremy are

behind the times and might be considered 'posers'

as this is certainly a stereotyped message every bit

as ridiculous as the previous male-dominated

patriarchy. Yes the authors show themselves to be

quite stylish and not ordinary fools as the rest of us

pedestrian thinkers! I don't subscribe to the religious

orthodoxy, but these kids simply trash anybody not in

their little weisenheimer club.

Apologianick
09 July 2009 at 15:26

Let's see. We have two books of the Bible named for women. In both books, the women are the main characters of the story worthy of emulation. We have the Bible saying men and women both bear the image of God. We have Jesus acknowledging women, which was out of step with the Judaism of his day. We have Paul telling husbands that they should be willing to die for their wives, something else out of step with his tradition. We have women being the first eyewitnesses of the resurrection. Paul tells us that in Christ there is no male or female as all may equally come to Christ.

Oh yeah. Obviously pure hatred of women.

Oberon Zell-Ravenheart
09 July 2009 at 20:19

Yes, I think it is pretty clear that the God of the monotheistic religions hates women. I entirely agree with the essential premise of this book, insofar as it applies to the religions it is referring to.

However, there are other religions--particularly the Neo-Pagan ones--in which the primary deity (Goddess = Mother Nature; Mother Earth; Gaia) not only doesn't hate women; She IS a woman.

And in these religions, women are honored as Priestesses (only Pagans have Priestesses--a crucial litmus test) and avatars of Divinity. In these religions, women are honored, respected, revered and adored. And most importantly--they are empowered. Check it out.

I hope that someday people writing important critiques about "religion" such as this one can look beyond their own little mythos and recognize that Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism are not the only religions. And that the God of the monotheistic religions isn't the only deity posited. That there are in fact many deities worshiped by different religions--and some of them are Goddesses, not Gods.

I am proud to be a Pagan Priest in a religion of glorious Goddesses and wonderful women.

Bright Blessings,

Oberon Zell-Ravenheart

Church of All Worlds (www.CAW.org)

lincolndavid
09 July 2009 at 21:36

All eastern based religions have always treated women poorly. Muslim, Hinduism, Judaism, and Christianity. Yes Christianity, even now in this modern age, women are not alowed to be priests, because religous law says that they are lesser beings. There is a better path, the religions of the west. The Druidic religions veiwed women as equal in every aspect. Women were wariors, cheiftans, polititians, priests, and teachers. Women were the heads of their housholds. Women were the keepers of royal title and lineage. Druidic society held that a person's lineage could be passed from their mother. That is because the mother was a child's only definate parent.

babywhale
10 July 2009 at 17:12

The very title of this article is intellectually flawed.

Religion many indeed be the last refuge of misogynistic abuse, just as the roman catholic church has been for pedophile and other abuses for all the centuries since its very inception. Yet knowing religion to be false, a humanly created theological illusion is not licence to indict God, only religion as having nothing to do with such a reality.

This is the error and dishonesty that atheists so easily fall into. Having rightly condemned what is no more then the institutional, intellectual prejudices which describe religious ideas, they can do or offer no more then create their own collection of counter prejudices. The intellectual fashion of our time. But fashion is very short lived.

So while misogyny makes its last stand within various religious forms, those very forms are now under threat as are the counter assumptions, founded upon and equally empty set of prejudices and called atheism.

However unexpected or seemingly implausible, for the first time in history, a new religious tenet exists and is spreading on the web, offering access by faith, to absolute proof for its belief. And this is going to blow both religious tradition, misogyny and atheism right out of the water.

saracobra
10 July 2009 at 19:22

as a woman i am outrage about this we are not cattle or second class citizens. and we need to speak up for the women who dont or cant have a voice. this is not right. this shouldnt be going on in the 21 century. it should of never gone on. we are the same as men. and should be treated the same. aimee

Santiago Nacquarrie
10 July 2009 at 22:48

No doubt Johann is right. Misogyny is an abomination. But there is a small problem: can

communities in which women enjoy equal rights survive for long unless they agree to to the trouble and

expense of giving birth to and raising enough children? Recent experience suggests that they can't.

If this is so, the scum who mistreat women will inherit the earth. Santiago Macquarrie

Jerzyk
11 July 2009 at 22:02

This isn't really about religion...

Modern religions ARE misogynist, there is little reason to doubt that. After all, religion is just another way of imposing man-made order on the universe and in the case of modern monotheism this also means the objectification of women. The question we should be asking isn't " Does God hate women ?" but rather "Should women be objectified?" I for one think that they should.

History is full of examples showing the unequivocal treachery and utter pragmatism with which the world ( including men, of course) is treated by Women. Mostly that behaviour is classified as reaction to the patriarchy, but how much credit can we give that claim? I assert (along with Betty Friedan in 'The feminine mystique') that women don't really need or want equal treatment (and this also means equal treatment under the law, custom, religion, at the bank teller line) when they've already managed to hold a privileged position through the exercise of usual female passive-aggressive manipulation.

There are at least two of life's greatest jokes here ( excluding the author, I know I'm a joke).

The first is the peter-pull-simple assertion that women would want equality when they already hold the superior position

The second is that intelligent as some feminist have been, they are too dumb to see that they are working against the better interest of their gender.

This is the conclusion Betty Friedan came to; I can ony agree.

mortysmith
12 July 2009 at 09:52

Hari behaves as if it is somehow splitting hairs to make a distinction between religion and what people have done in its name. Obviously, this is not the case.

Perhaps he is too young to remember the flying pickets during the miners' strike who dropped a breezeblock onto a taxi that was taking two miners to work, killing the driver. Presumably they would say that left-wing politics inspired their action. Does Hari blindly accept this, and conclude that left wing politics is barbaric, or does he take their claim to be acting on left wing principles with a pinch of salt?

For that matter, do the monstrous crimes of Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge, the Kims of North Korea etc put Hari off left wing politics? Or does he make a distinction between true left wing principles and barbaric acts justfied in its name?

Anan Sudanomos
14 July 2009 at 19:40

From one unbeliever to another: the belligerent atheist routine is incredibly tiresome and juvenile.

You say:

"There are people in all religions who have – through theological contortions – managed to leave behind literal

readings of the text and invent a less foul God to believe in. It is not for atheists to say that one group of believers is

right and the other is wrong, as we think they’re all wrong."

I would have thought that the rejection of misogynistic beliefs and practices to be an unqualified good no matter

what the particular theological provenance. Probe your conscience and ask yourself what truly troubles you more: 1)

That women everywhere be treated with proper respect and dignity? or 2) That the widespread growth of a liberal

theology of the sort advocated by your "apologists" might somehow deprive you of a favored argument to be wielded

against the believer like a club?

We unbelievers should be concerned humanists first and atheists second.

commoncents
17 July 2009 at 23:01

I don’t believe G-d hates women. In the beginning Adam was created in the feminine. Eve was the masculine. It is still that way. All fetus’ are created feminine. The “good book” was translated with the roles reversed.

Men, thousands of years ago, changed the genders in the Bible to try and take that power away from women. Men have no internal power and they must kill other men and have war to get the power and the riches they seek. It has always been that way.

Women still posess the power that G-d gave them at the beginning. It isn’t G-d who hates women. It’s men who hate women.

mbraaheidner
19 July 2009 at 23:41

Fear Based Marketing Dates Back Five Thousand Years!

Why would anyone subscribe to a religion that, instead of relying on its merits for recruiting followers, relies on the threat of burning in hell for eternity?

amys_eye
21 July 2009 at 11:43

@Jerzyk: I think it's fair to point out that history is only "full of examples showing the unequivocal treachery and utter pragmatism with which the world is treated by Women" because until recently history was WRITTEN by men. The instances in which women act bravely or nobly seem to end up being left by the wayside in favour of stories about men (or the world, whichever you like to think) being betrayed by women etc. I'd hate to be predictable and say this seems to be yet more justification for female subjugation, but when reasoning that there is too much dirt on women for them to be complete victims realise that for every story about women "betraying" men there are three times as many about men failing or committing as many crimes.

As for the article, I enjoy seeing someone who criticises religion without paddy-footing around it, attempting not to offend its members. Religions may be evolving to deal with the 21st century but they're not changing fast enough. It seems impractival to use a text written aeons ago and under completely different social bias as a guide on how to treat anyone.

mount
26 September 2009 at 22:11

"...we will only discredit literalism and force reform if we are honest about the words of the texts, rather than trying to soft-soap believers"

A fine point that cannot be made too often - because the more one observes that it is an impossibility to, say, follow the Old and the New Testament alongside each other - the more one realises that it's ALL just a matter of choice(s).

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

Read More

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker