Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Ruth Whippman

GET UPDATES FROM Ruth Whippman
 

When Religion Enters Politics Women are the Losers

Posted: 02/03/2012 00:00

There are few arguments more pointless than the on-going battle between religious groups and so-called 'new' atheists trying to 'out-atrocity' each other.

"Call yourselves moral? What about the Crusades?"

"Ha! But your side has Stalin!" Kerpow.

The whole thing is reminiscent of Godwin's Law, the truism that states that all altercations on the internet, no matter what their topic, invariably end up with someone being compared to a Nazi.

This game of war-crimes Top Trumps that constitutes much of the current debate about religion sheds little light on the real, more subtle issues at stake. Given the fact that most people, in my social circle at least, aren't genocidal maniacs, the more pressing concern about the role of religion in public life is the very real threat that religious influence poses to equality between men and women.

Matters of faith have been high on the agenda on both sides of the Atlantic in recent weeks. In the US there have been the bitter wrangles between religious organisations and the government over Obama's Birth Control Mandate, a law requiring health insurance companies to provide free contraception. Meanwhile, back in the UK, Conservative peer Baroness Warsi has been firing off odd editorials in the Telegraph attempting to stem a force she is calling "the rising tide of militant secularisation" and arguing that in order to create a more just society, "faith should have a seat at the table in public life."

I am, at least nominally, a religious person. I was married in a synagogue, observe religious holidays and even once, in a weak moment, attended something called 'rock and roll Shabbat.'

I am certainly not anti-religion and believe that at its best, it can offer a combination of community, comfort, tradition and awe that is hard to find elsewhere. As a matter of private conscience, religion has a lot to offer, but when faith finds its way into politics, the results usually don't look good for women.

Take employment law for example. In both the US and the UK, religious groups have secured a sweeping exemption from anti-discrimination laws. In short, this means that they are not required to abide by the laws of secular society that guarantee equal treatment for women in the workplace. As a result, there is no major organised religion in either country in which women are permitted to hold the top jobs.

This isn't just bad luck for the individuals concerned. Religion carries vast influence in society generally. Religious groups run a third of all Britain's schools and a significant proportion of other state-sponsored services, and the current government are pushing hard for this to expand. Religious leadership roles are positions of moral authority and faith leaders are role models who shape conduct and societal norms. The exclusion of women from positions of power within religion lessens our status in society as a whole.

This legally sanctioned sexism is a particular problem in the Church of England. In the House of Lords, the highest legislative body in the country, there are 26 seats reserved for Bishops.

Seats which, by default, can be filled only by men.

In the US, the religious objections to Obama's Birth Control Mandate are another case in point. The mandate stipulates that health insurance companies be required to provide free contraception. The controversy comes when religious groups, not just churches and their equivalents, but also faith-funded schools, hospitals and the like have to provide health insurance for their staff, but don't want it to cover birth control.

There have already been lawsuits filed against the government and it looks extremely likely that eventually the administration will provide significant concessions to religious groups.

A woman's ability to choose for herself whether or not to get pregnant is a basic condition of equality. The religious view of her boss (which she may well not share) shouldn't determine whether or not she can afford to go on the pill. If religious interests are allowed to steer policy-making in this area, it will be a serious blow for women's rights.

The same goes for abortion. Last week, in deference to religious campaigners, the state of Virginia passed a law requiring any woman who wants an abortion to submit to an ultrasound and an 'opportunity' afterwards to view pictures of the foetus (they should count themselves lucky that they weren't forced to have the ultrasound performed by vaginal probe, part of the original legislation, but discovered to be prohibited by sexual assault laws) Similar, or even sterner abortion laws exist in twenty-one other states.

Baroness Warsi's idea that an increased role for religion will lead to a more just society is simply not borne out by the evidence. When religion enters the murky world of politics, all too often, women are the losers.

 

Follow Ruth Whippman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ruthwhippman

FOLLOW UK POLITICS
There are few arguments more pointless than the on-going battle between religious groups and so-called 'new' atheists trying to 'out-atrocity' each other. "Call yourselves moral? What about the Cru...
There are few arguments more pointless than the on-going battle between religious groups and so-called 'new' atheists trying to 'out-atrocity' each other. "Call yourselves moral? What about the Cru...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 39
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
18:16 on 03/03/2012
All religious belief involves some loss of contact with objective reality. I am afraid that in the unfortunate case of this Warsi woman, it seems to have gone to extremes.
17:03 on 03/03/2012
"A woman's decision when and if to get pregnant is a basic condition for equality." The more Feminists make such statements for abortion, the more they hurt the chances of women getting into positions of power in many religions. Most religions and churches, unless they are heavily secularized, still oppose abortion, and it isn't just because the male leaders want to "oppress" and control women. In the US during the 1980's, the Catholic Church's leadership was strongly pro-Feminist, but the unbreakable link between Feminism and abortion eventually caused the RC leadership to turn strongly to the right. Many groups of people, not just right-wing "white males," have a tremendous lust for power. This includes people on both sides of the political spectrum.
photo
goatini
We are two-legged wombs, that’s all
01:55 on 04/03/2012
"A woman's decision when and if to get pregnant is a basic condition for equality."

ABSOLUTELY.

And ANYONE who dares attempt to argue against this most basic of tenets of essential human dignity and humanity for females, desires to discriminate against and oppress females.
16:36 on 03/03/2012
"IN neither the USA nor the UK do women hold the highest seats in any religion." Not accurate. In the Episcopal Church, the US branch of the Church of England, the presiding bishop is a woman. The moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland is also a woman, who boasted that she broke the stained-glass ceiling.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FaithIsIgnorance
God is fiction.
15:40 on 03/03/2012
When religion enters politics, everyone loses. Not just women.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nathan0316
TrueBlueTory Age quod agis
14:55 on 03/03/2012
There is a fundamental difference between faith and religion. To have faith is to believe in a higher power, hopefully try to live a life that would please that higher power through it's decency and worth and treat others as we would wish to be treated ourselves. Religion is the pratice of giving names to certain things, deciding a specific set of rules and beliefs and proclaiming those beliefs (and ONLY those beliefs) to be the one true path to an afterlife.

More faith, less religion please.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fwdinsight
11:37 on 03/03/2012
I do not know about other religions, however The Bible makes it clear that women could inherit wealth. Prior to and during all the pagan religions women have no rights. They were and still are treat like slaves and chatels. In Rome women had little or no rights. We see examples of that today in most religions that are not bible based. In Africa Asia Middle East plus in many Catholic Based countries in South America.
15:16 on 03/03/2012
In the ancient British Pagan tribes women had many more rights over Roman women until they were crushed by the Romans. They even fought against the Romans as they destroyed the sacred home of the Druids and its well documented. Its only once the Roman Christians got their teeth well and truly stuck into the local population, which they had to convert twice, that women's rights were finally ground down.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:40 on 03/03/2012
Sex has long been more recreational than pro-creational, one should pay for one's own fun! Other acceptable forms of recreating have physical risks, both to the individual and other participants, should tax payers and employers be forced to provide benefits for all. Life choice options in employer provided health benefit packages soon coming for those who smoke and other similar habits, with rates higher for those who chose to indulge, should sexual activity be different?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
crowepps
18:33 on 03/03/2012
So your plan is that people should only be able to use their health insurance when receiving treatment for genetic diseases? That ill health due to drinking, smoking, sex, over eating, lack of exercise, poor diet, sports injuries, enjoying expressing anger towards others, etc., should all be paid for out of peoole's own pocket as part of their life choices? I suppose since it's the consequence of the "fun" the cost of delivering babies ought to be considering part of recreation as well.

I can certainly see how your plan would bring down health costs -- only a few people would be able to afford to go to the doctor and the rest could just drop dead.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
00:11 on 04/03/2012
Certainly not my plan, but one that is coming, there will be 'life choice' clauses in the near future. Health screening questionnaires increasingly invasive and detailed, collecting information that will help determine prognosis. Many people make poor health choices and suffer consequences, some, what most would consider pre-mature, death. I think we should prepare for medical services to be determined by tha pateints's life choices, even addictive personality disorders. To reiterate, not my plan, just facts. Somehow recreational sex should be included.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
xenubarb
Nebulon V
18:00 on 02/03/2012
There are more women than men, and we vote. Go figure.
17:50 on 02/03/2012
At least females are protected from even a pin-poke to the genitals (to draw a ceremonial drop of blood) with no religious exemption. 94% of the world's people benefit from anti-FGM laws (although enforcement is spotty).

No males are protected from forced genital cutting and this is due in large part to it being a religious tradition. If childhood foreskin amputation was never discovered until today and somebody tried to introduce it as a "medical" practice, that person would be shouted down as a monster, and probably brought up on charges.

Foreskin feels REALLY good. Protect boys too.
17:23 on 02/03/2012
This was a well written and reasonable article about the concerns when church and state collide and I applaud Ms. Whippman for writing it. However, it seems to me that what Ms. Whippman, and most individuals who consider themselves moderately religious don't understand is that the most recent controversies are built upon many years of religious intrusion into government. The new fight over birth control can be added to a litany of these intrusions by faith into the public realm and, the conglomeration of these intrusions is what should concern any and all reasonable people or we will be living in a theocracy. I know many religious individuals who would love to see this happen and many who believe that "freedom of religion" does NOT mean freedom from religion, which is the accepted definition of course.

Also, Ms. Whippman distorts the actual debate between atheists and theists into a "he said/she said" argument. Not only is this a distortion, it is a tacit brushing off of the argument as unimportant or unanswerable. This, however, is not the case and speaking as an atheist, as a country and world we need to have open and honest communication with people of faith and not be accused of attacking religion when it is questioned. It has been impolitic to ask people to justify their faith in logical terms or to justify what their particular religion professes to believe and how it affects the world but it is a conversation we MUST have.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
20:16 on 02/03/2012
Well said. religion is so ingrained in our culture that we tolerate the inequalities that it enshrines far too much.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
17:11 on 02/03/2012
It is some truth behind religion entering politics. Many ways religion is a political segment of itself using the identy of a God for power. Women are created equal, and they have just as much rights then men in the world society. As religions text was dictated or written. It was by men. It is said God is niether man or woman by the creator. I am a Muslim, and I believe in the Qur'an and Islam. I ask myself do men have the authority to dictate to society of women. Men are born from women. The Torah and Old Text of the Bible. God creator them both as equal. Laws of religion is the same as the law by man. Man law is racist to women and other race of peopel whom arenot white or European. Slavery is racist, sex exploitation is racist. What is the true law of the world? My mother, sister and daughter are women. Where are thier legal rights? The Creator (God) gave are human Beings rights and his creation.

AMajid
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
16:26 on 02/03/2012
I agree when government and religion mix, women's rights are the first victim, but it isn't some magical chemical reaction by two benign ingredients, as the author seems to be suggesting. It is 100% religion and 0% government causing the caustic effect, and it would be nice if accommodationists would admit the plain reality.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Connie Concepcion
Subverter of paradigms.
15:58 on 02/03/2012
The last time religion and politics mixed, people were burned at the stake. Enough said.
13:37 on 02/03/2012
Whippmann is incorrect... what she should have stated is...

............ "When religion enters politics ALL are losers!".........
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marianproletarian
16:06 on 02/03/2012
Very true.
lastpost
see biography
13:15 on 02/03/2012
"your side has Stalin"
While agnostics have?

"Godwin's Law"
For an atheist to be absolutely certain that god does not exist, they would have to be all knowing. Only a god is all knowing. Thus they would have to be the god that they know for certain does not exist. Godwins again?

"much of the current debate about religion sheds little light on the real, more subtle issues at stake."
Just pose some inappropriate questions then.

"the very real threat that religious influence poses to equality between men and women"
Some say that marriage is the religious way. Were Adam and Eve married?

"faith should have a seat at the table in public life."
Certainly. But to avoid the whole thing being turned into a barren farce, let us first test the quality of that chosen one’s understanding of reality.

"In the House of Lords, the highest legislative body in the country, there are 26 seats reserved for Bishops."
(Unelected) Bishops. Some Unquantifiable Force, Is Our Right?

"any woman who wants an abortion to submit to an ultrasound and an 'opportunity' afterwards to view pictures of the foetus"
In return, is she free to show those staff pictures of children starving to death? Before asking them, if they might be more gainfully employed doing something constructive about that.

"Baroness Warsi's idea"
runs free within a rendition whose delimiters bear a striking resemblance to ears. Is it not time then to seek its release into reality?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
16:29 on 02/03/2012
Most atheists are agnostics also. I so tire seeing this false definition.