Is Christianity the FIRST religion that recognized that all human beings are of equal worth and should therefore be treated equally?

[PRmerger]

Today the Church has very little power in the Western world, but in the past it was very powerful.

Agreed. But it never had the power to change the cultural norms. That happened slowly, through the Church’s influence.

The reason you understand the dignity of women* today *is because the Church has influenced you to understand the “feminine genius”.

I didn’t say the Church was oppressing women,

Excellent! One less battle to be fought!

I said the Church didn’t fight for women to be treated equally.

I will amend your statement above to “The Church didn’t fight enough for women to be treated equally” and then we are agreed.

The OP alleges Christianity is the first religion that recognized all human beings should be treated equally, and I only saw Christianity recognize that with respect to women after it lost power to secularists and liberals who fought for women’s rights.

Can you name these secularists and liberals who weren’t Christians? Sources, please. (Something which indicates they were promoting this view of the dignity of women contrary to the Church’s “teaching”, please.)

 

[Digitonomy]

Of course it did! Do you think it was the government of Spain that elevated St. Teresa of Avila to the title “doctor of the Church”?

St Teresa was not elevated to “Doctor of the Church” hundreds of years ago, which was the qualifier flyingfish used in asking his question. She was not elevated until after Vatican II.

 

[jfoges]

In another thread, an atheist claimed that Buddhism recognized–500 years *before *Christ–that all humans were of the same worth and therefore should be treated equally.

Is this true?

I had read Christian thinker Dinesh D’Souza argue that it was *Christianity *that first promoted this revolutionary concept of the inherent dignity of the human creature.

Wouldn’t it be Judaism that first promoted this idea? After all, all of the teachings of Christianity can be found in the Old Testament.

 

[PRmerger]

St Teresa was not elevated to “Doctor of the Church” hundreds of years ago, which was the qualifier flyingfish used in asking his question. She was not elevated until after Vatican II.

I stand corrected then.

 

[PRmerger]

Wouldn’t it be Judaism that first promoted this idea? After all, all of the teachings of Christianity can be found in the Old Testament.

Indeed. Genesis, to be exact.

 

[flyingfish]

Can you name these secularists and liberals who weren’t Christians? Sources, please. (Something which indicates they were promoting this view of the dignity of women contrary to the Church’s “teaching”, please.)

Liberals can be Christians as well, but of the cafeteria variety.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women’s_rights

In 1791 the French playwright and political activist Olympe de Gouges published the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen,[17] modelled on the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789. The Declaration is ironic in formulation and exposes the failure of the French Revolution, which had been devoted to equality.

Some things about her: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympe_de_Gouges

She chose to cohabit with several men who supported her financially. … In 1784, she wrote the anti-slavery play Zamore and Mirza. For several reasons, the play was not performed until 1789. De Gouges published it, however, as Zamore et Mirza, ou l’heureux naufrage in 1788. It was performed as L’Esclavage des nègres in December of 1789, but shut down after three performances. Subsequently, it was published in 1792 under the title L’Esclavage des noirs.[3]
She also wrote on such gender-related topics as the right of divorce and argued in favor of sexual relations outside of marriage.

Doesn’t sound like a faithful Christian to me, of course back then it might have been dangerous to declare yourself as secular.

Mary Wollstonecraft, a British writer and philosopher, published A Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792, arguing that it was the education and upbringing of women that created limited expectations.[19][20] Wollstonecraft attacked gender oppression, pressing for equal educational opportunities, and demanded “justice!” and “rights to humanity” for all.[21]

She also had affairs, including a child out of wedlock.

In his 1869 essay The Subjection of Women the English philosopher and political theorist John Stuart Mill described the situation for women in Britain as follows:
“We are continually told that civilization and Christianity have restored to the woman her just rights. Meanwhile the wife is the actual bondservant of her husband; no less so, as far as the legal obligation goes, than slaves commonly so called.”[3]

The Seneca Falls Convention of 1848 formulated the demand for women’s suffrage in the United States of America and after the American Civil War (1861–1865) agitation for the cause became more prominent. In 1869 the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gave the vote to black men, caused controversy as women’s suffrage campaigners such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton refused to endorse the amendment, as it did not give the vote to women.

Believing that men should not be given the right to vote without women also being granted the franchise, Sojourner Truth, a former slave and feminist, affiliated herself with Stanton and Anthony’s organization.[62] Stanton, Anthony, and Truth were joined by Matilda Joslyn Gage, who later worked on The Woman’s Bible with Stanton. Despite Stanton’s position and the efforts of her and others to expand the Fifteenth Amendment to include voting rights for all women, this amendment also passed, as it was originally written, in 1870.

The Woman’s Bible challenges religion: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Woman’s_Bible especially traditional Christianity.

Though granted not all fighters for women’s vote spoke out against traditional religion, in large part because it was impractical for them to do so as they needed the religious majority to support the rights of women to vote.

All this is very recent by the way, can you find anything from an older for example where a Pope or another high ranking member of the Church reprimands universities for not accepting women as students?

 

[PRmerger]

Liberals can be Christians as well, but of the cafeteria variety.

Of course. So their fight for women’s rights were influenced by their Christian principles.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women’s_rights

Some things about her: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympe_de_Gouges

Doesn’t sound like a faithful Christian to me, of course back then it might have been dangerous to declare yourself as secular.

I saw nothing in the article which stated she fought against the Christian principles of the inherent dignity of the human person. In fact, if she understood that at all it was because of the Church’s influence.

Though granted not all fighters for women’s vote spoke out against traditional religion, in large part because it was impractical for them to do so as they needed the religious majority to support the rights of women to vote.

Do you not see the irony in that statement, flyingfish?

All this is very recent by the way, can you find anything from an older for example where a Pope or another high ranking member of the Church reprimands universities for not accepting women as students?

I will see what I can find.

 

[flyingfish]

Do you not see the irony in that statement, flyingfish?

Yes and no. I won’t deny that of the big Abrahamic religions Christianity seems the friendliest to women, from the obvious fact that Western nations with a Christian past treat women best. (Though there are also smaller religions that worship goddesses and are friendlier to women. Maybe one such big religion is the ancient Egyptian religion, Hinduism as far as I know also has goddesses. Some of the first religions were fertility cults.)

However, Christianity was around for the last 2000 years, and it fairly quickly became the official religion of Roman Empire. In all that time, women weren’t treated much differently from the way they are treated in Muslim countries now, and the Church was far more influential than it is today. The treatment of women changed only recently, and seemingly at the same time as Western societies became more secular.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes and no. I won’t deny that of the big Abrahamic religions Christianity seems the friendliest to women, from the obvious fact that Western nations with a Christian past treat women best.

Yes. Except “friendliest” is a little lame, but…ok.

(Though there are also smaller religions that worship goddesses and are friendlier to women. Maybe one such big religion is the ancient Egyptian religion, Hinduism as far as I know also has goddesses. Some of the first religions were fertility cults.)

Yes, in those religions women were valued essentially for their fertility.

However, Christianity was around for the last 2000 years, and it fairly quickly became the official religion of Roman Empire. In all that time, women weren’t treated much differently from the way they are treated in Muslim countries now, and the Church was far more influential than it is today.

But women were treated better because of Christianity. Because of the idea that we are all created in God’s image and likeness.

The treatment of women changed only recently, and seemingly at the same time as Western societies became more secular.

The concept of women as human persons with inherent dignity has evolved, yes–but clearly under the influence of Catholicism.

 

[Leela]

WHAT??? Please tell me you’re giving a hypothetical! Otherwise, source?

“In 1488, Pope Innocent VIII accepted the gift of 100 slaves from Ferdinand II of Aragon, and distributed those slaves to his cardinals and the Roman nobility.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery
Luis M. Bermejo, S.J. (1992). Infallibility on Trial. Christian Classics, Inc… p. 315. ISBN 0-87061-190-9.

 

[PRmerger]

“In 1488, Pope Innocent VIII accepted the gift of 100 slaves from Ferdinand II of Aragon, and distributed those slaves to his cardinals and the Roman nobility.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery
Luis M. Bermejo, S.J. (1992). Infallibility on Trial. Christian Classics, Inc… p. 315. ISBN 0-87061-190-9.

EEk! Clearly, this was wrong!

 

[PRmerger]

I will see what I can find.

Here you go:
Schools for young boys and girls were conducted by the nuns in the villages and cities where they were located. In 889 the Bishop of Soissons ordered the boys and girls to be kept apart. The Council of Cloveshoe, held by Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury in 749 , insists that abbesses as well as abbots, provide for the education of their households.
books.google.com/books?id=6q4hbkVdX7MC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

The education of French colonial women was overseen by the Ursuline nuns (Robenstien 193). They taught all French colonial girls regardless of class. All students were taught reading, writing, and basic math skills. All students were educated in the Catholic religion (Robenstien 199). They were also taught to sew, knit, as well as other skills thought valuable in running a colonial household (Robenstien 200). Women educated at the school were seen as given a “seal of approval” by the Ursuline nuns and therefore more desirable for marriage (Robenstein 206).
en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Social_and_Cultural_Foundations_of_American_Education/History/18th_Century#The_Gender_Divide

In the Roman Catholic tradition, concern for female education has expressed itself in the foundation of religious orders, with ministries addressing the area. These include the Ursulines (1535) and the Religious of the Sacred Heart of Mary (1849)[19]. A convent education is an education for girls by nuns, within a convent building. This was already being practised in England before 1275, and later become more popular in France during the seventeenth century, and thereafter spread worldwide
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_education#The_Catholic_tradition

 

[Leela]

Allow me to submit an example that may fit with the original poster’s intentions.

What about the equal worth of human beings regardless of the belief system they uphold?

In particular different epochs of the Church’s history, this has a tendency to fluctuate.

I believe in the City of God, St. Augustine made a rather stern argument that anyone practicing a different religion outside of Christianity (and Judaism of course is given a pass) was actually worshiping some sort of demon.

That particular statement would definitely lead to all sorts of trouble regarding Christianity’s relationship with other religions, much less inter-denominational strife.

Flash forward to the present time - everyone’s singing a bit of a different tune wouldn’t you say? Last time i checked, while they may not agree with say Tibetan Buddhism, no one within the hierarchy nor any serious theologian is saying that the Dalai Lama when he praises Palden Lhamo is actually talking to a demon, or worshipping Satan (now, the Evangelical contingent of Christianity on the other hand…)

Where do you think that drive for, if not ecumenicalism, than religious tolerance comes from? From within, or from the changes that occurred to the environment around them?

I don’t know that we can say whether the change came from within the Church or from pressures exerted on the church from the outside, but I also don’t think it matters since I make no distinction between “religious truth” and other kinds of truths. Either something is true or it is not, and it doesn’t matter who says it first.

My comment directed toward you was about what I thought was your skepticism toward the notion of moral truth. Perhaps I have you confused with someone else, but I can’t see how one can argue that the Church has been wrong about morals if you don’t think morals are the sorts of things that someone can be right or wrong about.

Best,
Leela

 

[flyingfish]

Here you go:
Schools for young boys and girls were conducted by the nuns in the villages and cities where they were located. In 889 the Bishop of Soissons ordered the boys and girls to be kept apart. The Council of Cloveshoe, held by Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury in 749 , insists that abbesses as well as abbots, provide for the education of their households.
books.google.com/books?id=6q4hbkVdX7MC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

The education of French colonial women was overseen by the Ursuline nuns (Robenstien 193). They taught all French colonial girls regardless of class. All students were taught reading, writing, and basic math skills. All students were educated in the Catholic religion (Robenstien 199). They were also taught to sew, knit, as well as other skills thought valuable in running a colonial household (Robenstien 200). Women educated at the school were seen as given a “seal of approval” by the Ursuline nuns and therefore more desirable for marriage (Robenstein 206).
en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Social_and_Cultural_Foundations_of_American_Education/History/18th_Century#The_Gender_Divide

In the Roman Catholic tradition, concern for female education has expressed itself in the foundation of religious orders, with ministries addressing the area. These include the Ursulines (1535) and the Religious of the Sacred Heart of Mary (1849)[19]. A convent education is an education for girls by nuns, within a convent building. This was already being practised in England before 1275, and later become more popular in France during the seventeenth century, and thereafter spread worldwide
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_education#The_Catholic_tradition

Right, all these things are great, however what I was thinking about was the Church using its enormous influence to demand that male-only universities accept women as equals, allow women to become professors (teach men and all that), Church insisting that women be permitted to occupy the highest positions of governments.

For example, the Pope of the time writing encyclicals to condemn universities for being male-only, condemn secular governments for not having women in the highest positions of authority. Call them immoral. Demand they change, etc. (Or alternatively, once the very first democracies came into being and only men could vote, similar Papal encyclicals condemning the system for not including women.)

That nuns taught girls doesn’t address any of these issues.

 

[Leela]

Right, all these things are great, however what I was thinking about was the Church using its enormous influence to demand that male-only universities accept women as equals, allow women to become professors (teach men and all that), Church insisting that women be permitted to occupy the highest positions of governments.

For example, the Pope of the time writing encyclicals to condemn universities for being male-only, condemn secular governments for not having women in the highest positions of authority. Call them immoral. Demand they change, etc. (Or alternatively, once the very first democracies came into being and only men could vote, similar Papal encyclicals condemning the system for not including women.)

That nuns taught girls doesn’t address any of these issues.

The problem could be that the Bible says that women ought to be silent and cannot teach or have authority over a man.

1 Timothy 2:
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved** through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.**

 

[PRmerger]

Right, all these things are great, however what I was thinking about was the Church using its enormous influence to demand that male-only universities accept women as equals, allow women to become professors (teach men and all that), Church insisting that women be permitted to occupy the highest positions of governments.

As I’ve already stated, the Church does not have–*nor did it ever have *“enormous influence”–in changing the cultural norms. Did it once have political power? Perhaps. Could it have changed the culturally established attitude towards women? :nope:

For example, the Pope of the time writing encyclicals to condemn universities for being male-only, condemn secular governments for not having women in the highest positions of authority. Call them immoral. Demand they change, etc. (Or alternatively, once the very first democracies came into being and only men could vote, similar Papal encyclicals condemning the system for not including women.)

That nuns taught girls doesn’t address any of these issues.

I agree that it would have been nice for someone to do that.

 

[flyingfish]

As I’ve already stated, the Church does not have–*nor did it ever have *“enormous influence”–in changing the cultural norms. Did it once have political power? Perhaps. Could it have changed the culturally established attitude towards women? :nope:

I don’t know why you say this, when the Church was very close in power to the King. The Church certainly could have tried to change those things as well.

I think it’s hard to argue that Christianity recognized that human beings should be treated equally when ~50% of all human beings weren’t treated equally for much of Christian history.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know why you say this, when the Church was very close in power to the King. The Church certainly could have tried to change those things as well.

Perhaps the Church was “very close in power to the King.”
Not close enough, in the case of King Henry VIII, to change him.

I think it’s hard to argue that Christianity recognized that human beings should be treated equally when ~50% of all human beings weren’t treated equally for much of Christian history.

“The Church would just as soon canonize a woman as a man and I suppose has done more than any other force in history to free women.”* -Flannery O’ Connor, as quoted here.

 

[PRmerger]

The problem could be that the Bible says that women ought to be silent and cannot teach or have authority over a man.

1 Timothy 2:
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved** through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.**

I think that’s a pretty good apologia you just proposed for why there shouldn’t be priestesses.

 

[Leela]

I think that’s a pretty good apologia you just proposed for why there shouldn’t be priestesses.

How does the salvation through childbearing work?