Lam, Holly --- "Women's rights and religion: the disconnect between belief and practice" [2007] HRightsDef 15; (2007) 16(2) Human Rights Defender 10

• Women’s rightsand religion: the disconnect between belief and practice

Women’s rightsand religion: the disconnect between belief and practice

Holly Lam

The role organised religions have played in the development of law and society cannot be denied. Throughout history, wars have been fought, barbaric rituals adhered to and atrocities committed in the name of religious beliefs. In many societies, religion has dictated standards of behaviour and set the foundation for moral or legal systems with its assignment of particular roles and responsibilities to its followers. This is particularly evident with regards to the establishment of gender roles. Sadly, most mainstream religions have historically considered women not only different, but indeed inferior to men, with an underlying fanaticism associating a woman’s worth with sexual purity. By claiming that a religious belief stems ultimately from God, or that a practice upholds God’s word, clearly discriminatory practices are given a supposed legitimacy.[1]

Women have traditionally been viewed in a dichotomous framework of the untrustworthy, sexually and morally questionable temptress or the submissive, chaste maternal figure. Nowhere is this more strikingly obvious than in the Christian Bible with its two significant female figures - Eve and the Virgin Mary. Eve, the original woman, is generally associated with and interpreted as embodying Woman’s negative characteristics. It was her stupidity and doubtfulness that led her to listen to the snake and eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge and her sinfulness that led her to offer it to Adam. In addition, the emphasis placed on their subsequent awareness of their nudity is as much a reflection of the Christian discomfort with sensuality as it is a metaphorical description of the loss of innocence.[2]

By contrast, the Virgin Mary embodies the ideal woman, the woman to redeem mankind through her role as a mother. Yet still, the preoccupation with sexual purity continues by maintaining Mary as a Virgin, untouched and upholding the characteristics of paramount importance such as chastity, receptivity and submissiveness.[3]

The focus on a woman’s sexual purity is also present in some Islamic teachings, as most crudely articulated by Sheik Taj el-Din al-Hilaly, who likened scantily clad women to uncovered meat, implying that a man is not to be held responsible for acting on his sexual urges since the woman brought it on herself by provoking him with her bare flesh.[4] Sadly, despite the public outrage that greeted his comments, the concept itself is hardly unfamiliar even to those that do not submit to Islam.[5] Furthermore, the practice of female circumcision for opprobrious religious reasons is also underpinned by the value placed on virginity and chastity, and the idea that women are inherently and uncontrollably lascivious.[6]

These diametrically opposed views of women as, at one extreme, sinful whores to be feared by men and, at the other end of the spectrum, chaste docile maternal figures requiring male protection, lead to all kinds of sexual discrimination and human rights violations, frequently with no redress available. The punishment for deviating from ideals arises on multiple fronts. For instance, a woman viewed as promiscuous may be greeted with significant social derision and attacked with labels that reduce her credibility and perceived ‘worth’. In sexual assault trials, female victims are often as much on trial as the accused.

Particularly in the practice of Christianity and Islam, the suppression and subjugation of women is nothing new. Exclusion from decision making, the confinement of roles to the domestic sphere, obedience to family (and especially male family members) above the pursuit of self and individuality, a supposed mental incapacity for selfrepresentation, and dependency on men for protection are common characteristics of traditional Christian and Islamic approaches to women.

The subsequent effects of such gender based harassment occur on physical, mental and emotional levels. On a physical level, women may be made more vulnerable and less likely to take action to end violence such as battery, female genital mutilation and rape. How can they when there is nowhere else to go and the facts are manipulated in such a way as to place the burden of responsibility on the female victim who is then almost certainly cast out of society and possibly even stoned to death, while the male attacker is excused for his horrendous actions?[7] Choices become limited or even nonexistent as women are punished and cast out of society for deviating from what religion has set as the ideal woman. There is also the possibility of mental and emotional trauma as a result of isolation for non-conformity or the suppression of individuality and self-worth.

The development of law has been so heavily influenced by religion that the use of law to temper religious beliefs and protect women’s rights is often minimal. In societies with a separation of state and church, women’s rights often get little more than superficial attention and are far from substantive. Too often laws intended to benefit women yield opposite results or contain exclusions. For example, even in Australia, the exclusion of women for religious purposes is accepted as indicated by the exemption of the Church from the rules set out in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).⁸

Most Islamic states will ratify international instruments and in particular, human rights laws, but only where it does not clash with Shari’a law.[9] In Islamic states, Shari’a law is a branch of Islam and is therefore not a separate body of knowledge. As such, Islam is not only a religious belief, but also a strict code dictating behaviour.

Under traditional Islamic law, only mature free men enjoy full legal capacity. Women cannot hold public office, initiate marriages, obtain a unilateral divorce or leave the house to seek employment unless there is no other means of support. Wives may be punished for disobeying their husbands, and in the case of a property inheritance, women will generally receive half what a male would even though

they have the same relationship to the deceased. Further, a woman’s testimony in court is worth half of a man’s testimony.[10] This was evident in the debates leading up to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,[11] where it was argued that women did not require equal rights because discriminatory Islamic practices sufficiently protected women and, in any case, women would not know what to do with equal rights if they had them.[12] Islam can therefore be seen as creating a vicious cycle whereby the perception of women as helpless gives rise to the further loss of their rights and opportunities for self-determination.

Despite the disadvantages women suffer as a result of religious practices and the fact that religious practices arise as a response to a religious belief, it remains difficult to conclusively determine that gender inequality is inherent in Christian and Islamic beliefs. This is because the connection that exists between the original and fundamental belief and the actual religious practices undertaken is that of interpretation. That interpretation is formed in the context of the society at a particular point in time with its particular value systems and attitudes. It is thus possible to find quotes in the Holy books to support any position one cares to take.

The disconnect between belief and practice arises when particular passages are given more or less weight than they deserve, or passages are isolated and the context in which those passages are set in is ignored. For example, in the Quran the supposed justification of wife beating[13] is countered with a verse that states married couples should ‘live together in kindness or leave each other charitably’.[14] In Christianity, the oft quoted passage of the Bible that forms the traditional wedding vow dictates a wife’s complete submission to a husband. However, if the word ‘submission’ can be regarded as a mere limitation of language, the passage may be reinterpreted to imply that a wife’s offer is matched and returned by a husband’s duty to love his wife, to lead her wisely and to treat her as he would treat himself. A closer and complete reading of Holy books would therefore suggest that while these religions do indeed assign particular and different roles and responsibilities to each sex, men and women are in fact considered to be equal in worth. The relationship is thus one that is mutual and reciprocal between equal partners, rather than one of dominance and submission with women inferior to men. Jesus in particular had an surprisingly liberal attitude towards women. However, the Church has remained steadfastly patriarchal with an attitude upholding men as the head of the house and therefore playing a superior role to the women who follow.

On a very simplistic level, the application of the legal elements of mens rea (intent) and actus reus (the act) makes it possible to distinguish between a religious belief and a religious practice. The belief and the freedom to believe may be absolute, but the practice, in the form of a positive human action, must be regulated and its actors held accountable. This suggests that the individual’s right to hold their own beliefs (the mens rea component) should be left unregulated, while the manner in which this belief is physically manifested (the actus reus component) requires a degree of regulation.After all, how can such an enormously influential social institution be free from any system of accountability?

Unfortunately, these two elements are blurred in religion where the strength of one’s religious belief is directly reflected in their actions. In such a way, the belief cannot be separated from the act and the effectiveness of law, reason or logic as an alternate governing system to hold religious practices accountable is undermined.[15] The difficulty in addressing human rights violations and discrimination in religious practices is therefore that it implicitly contravenes the freedom of religion.

This is not to say that undesirable and sexist religious practices can never be changed. They can, and in many cases they have been. However, the power to change religious practices must come from open debate among diverse ideological groups.[16] When society pushes for change, change will occur. As part of a global community, we each bear responsibility for determining the balance between upholding women’s rights and respecting the right to religion. Women should not, and cannot continue to suffer like martyrs in today’s contemporary society.

Holly Lam is a graduate student at the Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales. She was the Managing Student Editor and Student Intern for the Human Rights Defender in the first half of 2007.

---

[1] Kathleen A McDonald, ‘Battered Wives, Religion & Law: An Interdisciplinary

Approach’ (1990) 2 Yale Journal of Law & Feminism 251, 253.

[2] Holy Bible, Genesis III:1-24

[3] See, eg, Lucinda J Peach, ‘From Spiritual Descriptions to Legal Prescriptions:

Religious Imagery of Woman as “Fetal Container” in the Law’ (1993-1994) 10

Journal of Law and Religion 73.

[4] ‘British cleric supports al Hilaly’, Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney), 27 October

[2006] <http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/british-cleric-supports-al-hilaly/2006/

[10] /27/1161749282710.html> at 31 July 2007.

[5] Modesty and sexual purity is stressed and imposed by the Bible and Christian

teachings. See, eg, <http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com> at 31 July 2007.

[6] See, eg, Harvard Law Review Association, ‘What’s Culture Got to Do With It?

Excising the Harmful Tradition of Female Circumcision’ (1992-1993) 8 Harvard Law

Review 1944.

[7] Cindy Chan, ‘Ethnic Sexual Assault Raises Broader Women’s Rights Issues:

Breaking the Silence around hidden abuses toward women in Muslim and Indo-

Canadian communities, The Epoch Times, 12 July 2007 <http://en.epochtimes.

com/news/7-7-12/57561.html> at 31 July 2007.

[8] Pru Goward, ‘Women, human rights and religion’ (speech delivered at the

Ordination of Catholic Women Annual Conference, Melbourne, 5-6 November

[2005] ) <http://www.ocw.webcentral.com.au/papers/Pru_Goward_Nov05.doc> at

[31] July 2007.

[9] Donna E Arzt, ‘The Application of International Human Rights Law in Islamic

States’ (1990) 2 Human Rights Quarterly 214.

[10] Ibid 208.

[11] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,

opened for signature 18 December 1979, 1249 UNTS 13 (entered into force 3

September 1981).

[12] Arzt, above n 10, 218.

[13] Quran, Sura 4, Ayat 34.

[14] Quran, Sura 2, Ayat 231.

[15] Goward, above n 8.

[16] See Mansoor Moaddel, ‘Religion and Women: Islamic Modernism versus

Fundamentalism’ (1998) 1 Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 108.