I just found this gem: "And these people complain that religious life, and they, aren’t taken seriously in our culture? They want to know why their witness, their social justice work, their spiritual values and insights, aren’t respected?

Big, floppy camp shirts with sleeves that stick right out from the arm and hair cut just like a little boy’s when you’re a grandmother? Big, home-made jewelry on top of T-shirts and comfy little play pants? Dirty toes peeking out of sandals?"

From the blog, Beauty Tips For Ministers - http://beautytipsforministers.com/ What an excellent website for female ministers, they have names like "ChaliceChick", etc. But the fashion advice is great for everyone.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find the idea of female ministers to be like Jewish Nazis? It seems odd that people (in this case women) would seek to join an institution (in this case religion or the church) which has always sought to oppress them. Religion teaches women to be submissive to their husbands. If a woman receives a calling to perpetuate such an idea, a new outfit or shade of lipstick isn't going to help her get taken seriously.

Yes, I think Thornton is thinking of fundamentalist sects, but not all religions suppress women.

And the fundamentalists are getting worse - now they're editing the bible to get rid of the "librul" stuff:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/conservative-bible-projec_n_310037.html - hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

I think you're twisting some things around to make your point, TL - Some churches evolving may not have anything to do with some Unitarian Church members being atheists. I think some denominations are inherently more progressive, it's a big part of their tradition. Others, not so much. But you seem to be saying that working from within an organization to effect change is a copout somehow. I don't get that, because it seems to me change has to come from within. Am I missing something?

A religious institution only needs to be 'religious', charitable and not for profit, as well as absent a political agenda to receive a tax exempt status. Churches are supposed to be outside of the political arena and therefore separate from government interference and taxation. Regarding Atheists, a wise church would welcome them and all other 'non-believers' in order to show or demonstrate the love and inclusion of a house of worship. What is inside a man or woman's heart is not always clear. Giving labels to people is also not wise. An atheist may be so because they did not care for a previous dogma. Being welcomed into a UU forum, may provide the impetus for worship. I know a woman, who goes to 'church' because it feels good and it validates her identity. Maybe, one day,
she will go there for other reasons. Again, because someone says they believe or does not believe is a matter of interpretation. What WE believe they should believe is not relevant. How they feel is relevant. A church or any house of worship...may only be a place of study. As far as I know there is no mandate that the worship of God is integral...although clearly the association with a religion is expected. And organization which does not profit and is registered as being for charitable or educational purpose may have a tax-exempt status without prayer. The 'house' built for prayer does not have to mandate prayer from all attendees, neither does it have to require that you pray in order to join. Regarding women ministers. Wonderful! Let them be for good, let them be for education and leadership, let them inspire! Churches evolve and even the dictum evolves. Change is what we are talking about. Going from Latin to English is an example. Religion is personal. Prayer is personal. If you like conservative values, you can find that. If you prefer the more reform, you can find that. The reformation was about change. Ministers may be dressed in black or white. Jesus wore sandals as did Moses. Inclusion is the best form of conversion.... Love without 'shoulds'.

I think that Thornton Lacey only meant to point out a strange contradiction in terms, like why would a jew be a nazi, and why would a woman seek to help society within the church as opposed to going elsewhere, where she might be more respected? The problem is more relevant to traditional western religions where they have ministers and preachers. In eastern religions it's been more an opression by the culture than the religion. But I think it's true that the church has kept women out of the ministry in the past because men can't take guidance from someone who is supposed to be subservient to them, and people don't respect the church for that reason. Then it really is like a big contradiction to see a woman up there supporting the good old boys' church. But at the root of the controversy is the fear of being on our own. If religion isn't good for women, we must doubt god's wisdom, or even doubt that god exists, and then we'd be all alone. Who would handle things then? Historically, the male leaders haven't been very moral or just, have shoved aside the elderly, disabled, people of color, have raped women. What about us? Women always think they are ill-equipped to solve problems, from fixing the car to fixing the economy. The original discussion thread was about women ministers and how they might dress or modernize their makeup to be more visible to a population that doesn't think much of them. But really, we all need to do that. The crowd still doesn't respect any of us over a certain age. Men still don't think we're worth a listen.

Oops! I meant to say "you doubt that a church-going atheist can be produced".

Please don't use the Ad Hominem argument. It goes like this: 1) Person A makes claim X. 2) Person B makes an attack on Person A. 3) Therefore Person A's claim is false. Asserting or implying that Thornton Lacey is ignorant or must not personally know a broad spectrum of religious people doesn't make her claim false. Don't substitute abusive remarks for evidence.

Please don't use the Hasty Generalization fallacy either. When you relate an anecdote about a minister you know who was a woman, that doesn't disprove the argument that women have been kept down in the church, because your statistical sample is too small to sufficiently refute the argument, even if the original argument itself contained generalizations such as "the church".

Well, now I see it didn't go away, it just skipped a lot of lines!