I cannot belive what i just read, is the author of this article serious.one of the most revered christian icons is marry the mother of jesus to say women are considered second class is ridiculous. Secondly saying women should be given leadership roles in the churches because they are entitled to equall rights, what has gender equality got to do with religon, it should be about your faith in god not about who gives the sermon on sunday morning. should we erase thousands of years of tradition just to satisfy the modern world, as far as i'm concerned its the same as chopping down an ancient forest to put up a theme park, sure it looks good but the cost far outways the benifit.

Ms Cannold wrote:

> "It is also unclear whether a guarantee of more realistic exit rights is a just response to unlawful discrimination by religious orders."

Normally I find the term "pro-choice" so offensive that I cannot use it without feeling angry. It is good, therefore, that Ms Cannold realises that there are limits to my sovereignty of choice; that simply imvoking individual freedom ("The Exclusive Brethren may choose to associate or not to associate with whomever they wish") can't justify every single instance of harm my "choice" imposes on other human beings. It is legitimate to ask whether the harm imposed on others (ie, ex-Brethoes being cut off from their families) is justifiable. I applaud Ms Cannold for taking this conceptual leap. She might be surprised where it leads her if she follows it consistently and with an open mind to re-examining her ideological presuppositions.

> "Would we deem "lump it or leave" an acceptable response to Aboriginal Australians who complained that their church was denying them leadership positions and demanding they sit in pews at the back?"

Would we tolerate public toilets that said "Whites Only" and "Blacks Only"? No. Do we tolerate public toilets that say "Males Only" and "Females Only"? Yes. Would Ms Cannold applaud if I, a male, were arrested and charged for loitering in a female toilet? I assume so.

Race is largely socially constructed. Gender is a biological fact. If I, as a male, tried to pull the Lisa Meldrum trick in reverse by demanding the state fund some willing woman to make me a single father using IVF, I'd be laughed at. Why, that's just... uh... it's not _natural_.

Again, this doesn't mean that "biological gender differences" becomes, like "individual choice", a get-out-of-jail-free card that stops all opposing arguments and trumps any harms it inflicts ("Because some women become debilitated when they're pregnant, no women may serve in the armed forces"). But it does neutralise equally absolutist arguments the other way.

Leslie has a point that said it amuses me to read the venom the superstitious and misogynists squirt in this thread as to be expected. Ironically for you who think because you are male you are better than women just because occult superstition says so, you have not considered what a real man is. A real man does not hide behind a god.

The truth is and maybe Leslie is trying to say it or not, is that Christianity is exclusionary. Christians believe only those who evoke god through the occult magic of prayer and share in the crime of murdering Jesus (real or imagined) as a human sacrifice as blood payment will be repaid in immortality. To be saved is to be god like, to be immortal to be god like the believer has to separate themselves from others; to be godlike requires others to be looked down upon from the dizzying heights of righteousness. Women, children, non Christian’s, animals, even other religious sects, everything, you name it are persecuted.

Should god believers be treated with kit gloves? Judging by the Exclusive Brethren, Opus dei, Protestant Evangelism in the U.S, NSW, QLD, VIC , SA, Mormons, Scientologists, Pentecostals, Jehovah Witness, Church of England , Branch Davidian, Catholicism, The Brand and the KKK, the ministry of Jim Jones, many of the Muslim sects and some of the Jewish sects it has been proved that such groups are highly destructive to the wider community left to their own devices. Being superstitious and thus offended by everything is getting far too old for the community to tolerate.

A measure of civilisation is the level of inclusion of women. If religion cannot both view and treat women as equals simply it is not civilised. Such barbaric ideals have no place in the 21st century and so should not be allowed to manifest in civil society. Governments should make them clean up their act or shut them down. If a particular god doesn’t like it, he /she /it /they can say so itself, having ignorant misogynists speaking for god hasn’t helped gods PR

anna52

You claim I have hatred? All I did was point out that the writer doesn't consider it possible for victims of racism to be white!

Isn't that racist?

What a bizarre sense of morals you must have to think that...I forgive you.

Benji Benji Benji - you are in no position to forgive any one - lets get that right from the start - and boy, do you get disgusted easily - perhaps you were a bottle fed baby.

You pointed out that the author linked directly rascism to people of colour - rightly so. That is what she writ. You by no means however proved that at the same time she doesn't concede that rascsim can occur from people of colour to those who arent - she just didnt say so - It reveals nothing about her thinking it merely reveals some room for a question asking her to clarify or expand her thinking on the subject.

You also concluded that the author was a horrible person - based on what? - she might be an intolerable bitch for all I know - but to draw such a conclusion from an essay of about 2,000 words is quite a feat - if it was based on her statement re rascism I you should slide to the edge of the pond coz you're on thin ice where you are standing now.

I think her contentions are well put and reasoned - churches do discriminate - and they are allowed to do so it seems - is that such a horrible truth to swallow?

Cannold, not my favourite person you understand, writes this article based on her evaluation of justice and equality - "There shouldn't be one law for religions, another for the rest", she writes

She also self declares connection to feminism and from her very own website - http://www.cannold.com/ - she presents a piece about being nominated by the sisterhood as a "feminist icon".

It reads -

"Leslie Nominated as Feminist Icon
25 Sep 2006
In the wake of the deaths of feminist icons Betty Friedan and Wendy Wasserstein, Book Standard reviewer Jessa Crispin nominates Leslie [Cannold], Susan Faludi and Laura Kipnes as likely successors."

Now she also claims to be an ethicist. That's what it says on her website header - "Writer, Commentator, Ethicist, Researcher".

Here is the bit that gets up my nose. How does this woman have the bald-faced temerity to come from both a place of sexist ideology, feminism AND at the same time declare that she is an ethicist? Surely immediately that IS a contradiction in terms. Perhaps she might call herself an ethical feminist, but then that would be an oxymoron.

Next, the final hypocrisy. She dares to challenge religion for having privilege when it comes to legislation and their exclusion from certain requirements of compliance. Yet, and this amazes me, she cannot see, nor realise that as a feminist she is more privileged than any of all the rest of us.

I put it to Cannold in terms she should understand - "There shouldn't be one law for women, another for the rest [men]. But there is, isn't there Leslie? An enormous great Sex Discrimination Act that grants privilege to some Australians over some other Australians. Now there's your law for ONE, but not for the rest.

How is it possible, that this woman, alleged to be learned, fails to see the ethical dilemma of her own position? No Leslie, you can't have it both ways dear.