One aspect of the Schiavo case, that simply doesn't make any sense to me, is the fact that conservative Christians are coming out of the woodwork to argue AGAINST the right of the husband to decide the fate of his wife. This from the very same people who, in almost ANY other situation, would argue the exact opposite.
One of my many criticisms of fundamentalist Christians has always concerned the way they view the roles of the genders. They always point to Biblical verses that THEY say gives a husband the right to rule the roost in any way he sees fit. Not only that, but the wife doesn't have the right to question or criticize the man of the house because God has ordained that husbands come before wives in the sacred order of things.
Yet, in this singular instance, this long held belief is being tossed aside. The conservatives are insisting that THIS husband has not been granted the right that THEY say has been bestowed upon any other Christian husband for the past 2,000 years!!
For me, this is why fundamentalist Christians are so maddening. They will rail against or for something on supposedly bedrock divine principle and then turn around to argue the other side, when fancy suits them. And they will refuse to acknowledge that any kind of contradiction exists!
It just boggles my mind.
One of my many criticisms of fundamentalist Christians has always concerned the way they view the roles of the genders. They always point to Biblical verses that THEY say gives a husband the right to rule the roost in any way he sees fit. Not only that, but the wife doesn't have the right to question or criticize the man of the house because God has ordained that husbands come before wives in the sacred order of things.
Yet, in this singular instance, this long held belief is being tossed aside. The conservatives are insisting that THIS husband has not been granted the right that THEY say has been bestowed upon any other Christian husband for the past 2,000 years!!
For me, this is why fundamentalist Christians are so maddening. They will rail against or for something on supposedly bedrock divine principle and then turn around to argue the other side, when fancy suits them. And they will refuse to acknowledge that any kind of contradiction exists!
It just boggles my mind.
Contradictions abound in all religions and in Taoist thinking/beliefs, both the religion and the philosophy, contradiction and paradox are paramount. The difference, of course, is that in "Male God" religions, it is a sin to contradict teachings! Not so in Taoism. No where in the literature are we told we HAVE to follow the writers/authors/inspiration or we will go to Hell! China, though, has a long history of putting the man first in their social hiearchy (Confucian certainly and appears in some Taoist literature as well)however in Taoism the yin aspect is highly regarded and valued. Each person, male and female, is taught to balance energy and then symbolically return to pure yang. This still can be interpreted as preference for the active or the male. As a woman, I believe there is truth to the passive and active difference in men and women, but rather than seeing them as better or worse, I see them as complimentary and know, that at times, a man can be higher in yin (balance)and a woman higher in yang (balance) and that these energies vary from moment to moment and person to person.
ReplyDeleteBut best of all... as a woman... I know... through Taoist teachings... that I can be up to the gills in the yang yang but won't get sent to hell because of it! :))) In fact, it would be considered a good thing. LOL Unfortunately, I happen to be a somewhat passive fish.