UN? I don't think the folks down in LaVerkin are going to like this one
Article: "Violence against women isn't just physical, it can be
structural..."Eubanks, quoted in article: "[W]e look for
partnering organizations that have a commitment to address this gender bias...
We can find ways for inclusion..."What great sentiments and
great work. It is amazing that there are stil enclaves in the world where
social instutions and cultural mores deny women and girls access to positions of
power and authority simply on the basis of their sex. Good to see the LDS
church working against this inequity.
@Lagomorph"It is amazing that there are stil enclaves in the
world where social instutions and cultural mores deny women and girls access to
positions of power and authority simply on the basis of their sex. Good to see
the LDS church working against this inequity."Huh? Are you being
critical of the Church's denial of priesthood and leadership positions to
@MapleDon:If the shoe fits... It's human nature to see the faults in
others while overlooking our own (motes and beams). We easily find bias in
other cultural and faith traditions to be alien and shocking while accepting
similar bias in our own as right and natural and ordained by God. We abhor the
inequitable gender distribution of wheelchairs in Botswana, the limits on
education of girls in Pakistan, the burka in Afghanistan (all practices rooted
in religion), yet we freely accept sex discrimination in our own culture and
faith traditions. There is an irony there. Why is another society's sex
discrimination something to be reversed, but our own something to be revered?
Catholic charities do much much to benefit humanity around the world, and that
should be commended, yet not a single nun is being considered to fill the
current vacancy at the Vatican. How is that a good thing? Why are we
comfortable with it?
Don't solve the problem of equal status by asking that women and men fill
identical roles. Let's rather develop a situation where different,
complementary roles enjoy equal status.
1- Where are the DN monitors here? Lagomorph's comments are off-topic and
disruptive.2- This is a serious world problem. Kudos to the LDS
Church for their work here.3- Yes, @SLC Shakespeare: We have
serious abuse problems of women and children within our own borders and purview.
I would encourage trying all we can to help lower the high infant mortality
rate in Hilldale and Colorado City. Their gravesites tell a sad tale. Escapees
chronicle tragic abuse on many levels. Are we helpless to intervene?
Thank you for reporting on this issue and the efforts to help the abused. Lots
of good work being done together.@SLC posters: This article
has nothing to do with religious hierarchy, traditions or supposed deference to
male clergy. Those issues are in other articles. Women who take issue with
their clergy are free in many countries to register their protests. Obviously
they are in the minority in the USA. Bible-believing women do not seek to usurp
God's position, to speak for Him, or supplant themselves in another's
designated position. If you don't like your denomination, go start your
own.Thinly veiled inferences to off-topic concerns should be
monitored here so that substantive discussion on this serious tragedy can be
@John C.C."Don't solve the problem of equal status by asking that
women and men fill identical roles. Let's rather develop a situation where
different, complementary roles enjoy equal status."So...
separate but equal?
@Lago-FYI: No nun, female or Pope WannaBe feminist is being
considered by the Vatican because Jesus called His (male) Disciples to fill
certain positions in His Church. Women are called for many other ministries.
Take it up with Him, or start your own religion. Imposing your cultural bias on
others is coercive and unbecoming of a modern citizen.I'm not
Catholic, but I understand their tradition and dogma. I am a Bible-Believer, so
I understand Paul's epistles' on Christ's ecclesiastical
structure. You don't have to believe or accept it. Why do you expect
others to swirch to your bias?You should go to an Islamic country
and try to change their religious beliefs. After all, they are much younger
than Judaism or Christianity. While those religions have groups within which
have acquiesced to modern pressure, some remain true to their founder.
So why doesn't the church's two senators from Utah support the
violence of woman act here at home? I'm not buying Orrins position that he
thinks it's unconstituional. Violence against any innocent person, male or
female, Indian or White, is just wrong and I don't need to read the
constitution to understand that.
It's disappointing to see Sister Eubank using an insanely broad definition
orf "violence against women" here.
The dogmatic statement "Take it up with god" is such a copout and a
coward's refusal to engage in rational discourse.Surely
believers can do better than this.
A Scientist,It's not very becoming of a "scientist" to
be purposefully obtuse. You know the answer but you make comments meant to prod
someone into engaging in an argument that will only end in impasse. Surely, a
"scientist" can do better than this.
Coach Biff,What an obtuse comment...
With all due respect, I thought it sounded rather absurd to call poor road
conditions a condition of violence against women. I also think it is rather
absurd to speak as if people have the idea that women should be denied wheel
chairs. Is it just me, or does it seem like someone has lost their capacity to
reason? What scares me is to think that someone with this kind of mentality has
a significant level of control of a large amount of resources given in good
faith to be used in strict accordance to the will of the Lord. This begs the
question, since when does the UN merit our favor and encouragement as a church?
I looked at its charter and it is almost a complete inversion of the
Constitution. It has government as the master and people as the dependent
subjects. This type of structure was Lucifer's brainchild, not the
HS Fan,I think a little checking will show that while the 2 Utah
senators voted negatively on the Violence Against Women legislation, the other 4
U.S. Senate members who are also members of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints voted in favor of the measure. That appears to be a
substantial 2/3 majority which is pretty close to the 69% vote in favor by the
entire U.S. Senate. Of course none of these individuals specifically represent
the LDS faith.