Pages

Showing posts with label Women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Women. Show all posts

Thursday, 17 January 2013

A BINDER-FULL OF WOMEN? How to Unravel the Romney Ramble

Now that the 2012 general election is passed we have a chance to free up space in our craniums to focus on matters that are ongoing. Now we can even isolate topics that emerged from the debris of the debates. We can isolate topics that were not sufficiently topical for in-depth discussions because of the center-stage concerns about the economy, but are nonetheless too vital to ignore.

One of such topics was the idea of "A Binder-full of Women", a tongue-in-cheek comment made by the Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney about equal rights and pay for women in the workplace. There are two issues to consider from the comment: 1) to what extent was the statement colored by the governor's religious beliefs? And 2) can a man really separate his religion from his politics?

In general, the comment may be considered in the context of how society tends to marginalize some of its citizenry; since it is a historical fact that women, for example, often reaped the bane of such marginalization in the home and workplace. Renown feminist activist, Gloria Steinem, in her heyday made the point that: "No man can call himself liberal, or radical, or even a conservative advocate of fair play, if his work depends in any way on the unpaid or underpaid labor of a woman at home, or in the office."

Today, the social gap between the sexes is narrowing; to the extent that even in a recent presidential debate a woman sat in the high chair as moderator. But it is well known that the marginalization of the fairer sex is not only socio-political, but theological as well.

Hence, it is largely within a theological framework that the statement should be weighed; considering governor Romney's Mormon worldview; and with particular consideration to how women function within the system compared to their male counterparts. Howard P. Kainz, Professor Emeritus at Marquette University, in his article titled, Mormon and Christianity: Asking the Right Question, offered that, "Mitt Romney... is not only bishop in the LDS church but a High Priest of the highest echelon (the 'order of Melchizedek).'"

Indeed, it is difficult to separate ones religion from ones politics and the main issue that juxtapose the governor's religion with his politics is the Mormon fundamental belief system and the role women play in it. Though with good intention, to say "a binder-full of women" is to use a term that is marginalizing; and in this context may be received mainly according to how women are marginalized in the movement.

To unravel the undercurrents of the statement it is necessary to examine 1) the dominance of the priesthood, 2) the ideological or covert practice of polygamy and, 3) the inseparable connection between the priesthood, polygamy, and celestial marriage.

First, the dominance of the priesthood. Although much of what may be known to outsiders about Mormonism is shrouded in secrecy, the male-dominated priesthood itself is no secret, since it forms the bedrock of the Mormon culture. With little or no distinction between clergy and laity (pastor and parishioner) Mormon men hold an ordained priesthood with absolute authority over both spiritual and temporal issues.

It is considered their divine appointment to preach, prophesy, heal, baptize, and speak for God -their counsel to be respected and adhered to as tantamount to the voice of God. This authority begins at age twelve where a boy is assigned to the (lesser) Aaronic order of priest, then after age eighteen is inducted into the (higher) Melchizedek order of priests.

To see the extent to which women are marginalized within the system, one must understand that it is found that a pubescent boy of thirteen, as an Aaronic order of priest, is seen to be more qualified to give counsel to his mother than the mother at any age to give counsel to him.

When biblical Old Testament scripture is used in conjunction with the Book of Mormon to justify this practice it takes the priestly authority to an even higher level. A Protestant Christian is often swift with the Pauline outcry, "We're no longer under law, but under grace."

Second, the ideological or covert practice of polygamy. When it comes to the teachings and practice of polygamy (plural marriage) the LDS (Latter Day Saints) today express the view that they no longer sanction polygamy and its members no longer practice it, although there are still elements of the doctrine in its theology.

As late as 1904 after the practice was legally abolished 1890, President Joseph F. Smith (nephew of the founder), explains that, "The doctrine is not repealed, the truth is not annulled, the law is right and just now as ever, but the observance of it is stopped." Concurring with the Mormon belief that polygamous celestial marriage will continue in heaven, he remarked in his book, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol 2, p. 67 that "My wives will be mine in eternity."

It is not hard to believe that the overt practice of polygamy is no longer tolerated today. It doesn't fit well with contemporary political expediencies. When it comes to change the movement has a lot in common with other religious movements like Seventh Day Adventist (SDA), Salvation Army, Church of God, etc. that began about the same time in modern history. The early nineteenth century was an era of religious daring and pioneering. And all these movements have gone through radical changes in their doctrines over the years.

LDS, along with other movements has experienced rifts, and fragmentations with their memberships --members siding with whichever dissenting leader they choose. But with each group holding on to varying interpretation of the core beliefs, the Mormon core belief of polygamy is indeed a diehard value.

It is insightful that it is stated in their articles of faith that, "We claim the privilege of worshipping the Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." (mormon.org/articles of faith -#11)

Even though the practice of polygamy is outlawed today, the LDS priesthood honors the practice ideologically and theologically, if not covertly, perhaps with many amongst them pining after the 'the good old days' when a house full of women was the norm.

Third, the inseparable connection between the priesthood, polygamy, and celestial marriage. It would seem the triple connection is a means to an end. With the core belief that God was once a man, it follows, according to this theology, that man is destined to become god. Integral to this theology is that God after being spirit at first, He then underwent a successful probationary human experience on earth from which He gained the right to the exalted position of Almighty God who rules over the planets and universes.

Since a man is expected to follow a similar path to the afterlife, this is where the Mormon doctrine has its deepest significance. Unlike Pauline theology which says that all the saints are joint heirs with Christ, the Mormon view is that a woman cannot gain salvation unless married to a holder of the priesthood. And since all Mormon male members are priests, the idea of female members needing and wanting to be married to one is intrinsic to the church's theology.

The temple ordinance of sealing "celestial marriages" (eternal marriage), represents, for women a doorway into the afterlife where such marriages is expected to survive death, and be perpetual throughout eternity. Hence, the logic of plural marriages is that the more wives, the greater the possibility of male children, and the greater the number of male children, the higher the possibility of many more gods to populate the planets throughout eternity.

Admittedly, the idea of man becoming god is not exclusive to Mormonism. The Worldwide Church of God, which began about a century later also promoted a similar gospel of profundity, but have changed in recent decades. And judging from the information on their website, the Mormons are changing as well. To the average person looking for a church, the articles of faith appears to be main-stream fundamental Christian doctrine. But as always one cannot judge a book by its cover.

It is to the future that society may look to see how much of LDS core doctrine can be masked in order to be validated within a fundamental Christian worldview. And when it comes to religion vs. politics, the truth is that in America religion has always been a part of politics. But the rule of thumb is discretion and subtlety. The idea of "a binder-full of women" was rife with subtlety. But not subtle enough to escape the scrutiny of the curiosity it inflamed.

______________________________________________________________

Ken McCarty Bird is an author and speaker, award-winning poet, and consultant on neuromuscular health issues. The two most recent titles of his four books are, Somatic Sensibility and Caribbean Spell. Ken can be reached at (727) 388-3424 or drbird@caredimensions.org. website: http://www.caredimensions.org/

Discover the Healing Attributes of Poetry!

More than just a collection of poems, Caribbean Spell compiles the richness of thoughts gleaned from the lush and pristine landscape that cuddles a moment of reminiscence. As a well-crafted selection, the author's ingenuity helps the reader relive treasured moments and etched them in the recurring cycle of endless remembrance. That the reader is carried into the intrigue and suspense of the poem right from the start, is what makes Caribbean Spell worth having.Make Caribbean Spell a treasured gift for your friend or family.


View the original article here

Monday, 14 January 2013

Liberal War on Women

Why do liberals see everyone as victims? Could it be that this approach increases the number of people who need "protecting", thus those who are dependent on Big Brother for that "protection"? It has also turned out to be an effective way of deflecting any criticism of the actions and positions of those on the left.

This past week Republicans began to back off their critique of Susan Rice's refusal to speak truthfully in the weeks following the despicable terrorist strike on our consulate in Benghazi, having been accused of being racist and/or sexist for questioning Ms. Rice's testimony to Congress about the attack. As a woman, I am deeply offended that liberals think Rice (and, by extension, all women) is too fragile to withstand criticism as she executes her role as US ambassador to the UN and Obama administration and foreign affairs spokesperson. Susan Rice is an accomplished woman who has held a variety of national security and foreign policy roles in the US government; she is not some tittering sorority girl requiring protection from big bad bullies questioning her judgement.

I do not believe Rice sees herself as a victim; however, this tactic has been used increasingly by those on the Left as a way to deflect attention away from actual policy matters. Liberals will scream from the rooftops when the stated positions or job performance of anyone of color and/or women are questioned. If you voted for Romney over Obama you're a racist. If Congress questions why Susan Rice presented an inaccurate briefing, clearly intending to deflect acknowledgement of acts of terrorism before the election, then they are both racist and sexist. Far from acknowledging that she was set out as a sacrificial lamb and put in that position then hung out to dry by the administration, they decry the questions as sexist. Maybe Nancy Pelosi isn't woman enough to take criticism, but the rest of women in America certainly are.

Unfortunately, this tactic is working. Over the weekend on the Sunday morning news shows, John McCain was definitely reacting to the Democratic name-calling when he clearly tempered his comments on Rice's potential nomination for Secretary of State. If Republicans are going to give into this nonsense and back off, then off course it validates the Left's position and strengthens this line of attack. Republicans need to man up and refudiate these claims for the outrageous and spurious accusations they are, and condemn Demorats for the scurrilous vagabonds they are.


View the original article here

Tuesday, 20 November 2012

The Pandering to Women Voters in US Presidential Elections - Observations From the 2012 Election

Apparently, the pollsters for the 2012 presidential election had noted that many women voters are still undecided, and a good many of them are leaning left, rather than right. Therefore there is a big fight and charge to pander to these women voters, and address all the issues they feel important. Now then, you must understand that women voters make up half of our country, so they are the largest and most important group for these candidates. Nevertheless the amount of pandering going on between the candidates and their women voters is getting to be laughable. Let's look at some examples shall we?

We noted on the first debate that President Obama came right out and stated it was his anniversary and he'd rather be spending it with his wife, rather than in front of 45 million people, which was the assumed number of people who would be watching the debates, it turned out it was quite a bit more. Nevertheless, that was a planned statement, and it was geared towards speaking to the women voters, it was a political strategy. I find that a little unnerving, even though it is plausibly deniable that the Obama reelection campaign strategists didn't plan it, but sure they did and we all know it.

There were several other attempts to pander to women during the debates, and it is quite evident in all of their stump speeches. It is as evident as the 10s of millions of dollars being spent on advertising to purely Spanish-speaking Hispanic news outlets by the Obama campaign. If we really are a great melting pot, and we are all considered equal, we should all be spoken to as adults, and this pandering needs to stop, it's getting to be pathetic. Indeed, in many regards it's happening on both sides so we shouldn't just pick on the Obama campaign, although they are ahead with the women voters currently due to their focus on this voting demographic segment.

Another thing we notice is many of the commentators on TV who are women and the women anchors are saying that they were offended by the belligerent attitude and debating style that they had witnessed. That's interesting because women in politics have always been rather hard-hitting, and all the women I know who are involved in politics are pretty intense themselves. Are the TV news commentators trying to mold the election and the process, or are they just as tired as I am about turning our national discussion on very important matters into nothing more than a two-minute tit-for-tat cat fight? Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow is the Founder of the Online Think Tank, a diverse group of achievers, experts, innovators, entrepreneurs, thinkers, futurists, academics, dreamers, leaders, and general all around brilliant minds. Lance Winslow hopes you've enjoyed today's discussion and topic. http://www.worldthinktank.net/ - Have an important subject to discuss, contact Lance Winslow.


View the original article here