Episode 16 The Big Questions

Questions, live from King Edward VI Handsworth School in Birmingham. I'm

Nicky Campbell. It took more than a century of argument, but now British

women have the right to be educated, to marry the man of their choosing,

the right to own their own property, to borrow, to manage their own

money, to vote on the right to work at whatever profession they choose.

Women can be Queens, prime ministers, they can win prizes for

science and Olympic medals for boxing, but they can still be a

bishop or Catholic priest or need men in prayer in a mosque or an

orthodox synagogue. So this morning, we are asking one big question - are

religions unfair to women? To debate this, we have distinguished

theologians and writers, campaigners and converts, believers and

apostates from four faiths. And they will be encouraged I our lively

Birmingham audience. You can also join me by Twitter macro. Last

month, the Dalai Lama said he would be pleased if his successor were to

be female. Now we are compassion. Well, it might happen in Tibet, but

we are a long way from Archbishop of Canterbury or chief rabbi in

Britain. Our religion is unfair, theologian looking at the

Scriptures, how do they portray women in general? Has there been a

bit of cutting and pasting by men? Not really. The way in which women

tend to be portrayed the Scriptures, both Hebrew Old Testament and new,

women are defined in terms of their relationship to men, whether they

are a wife, mother, sister or daughter. That is always the way

women are defined. Women are not the main targets of the Scriptures

anyway. The Scriptures were not written for women, they were written

by men for men about their male God. So ignored, basically? They are baby

machines. They are celebrated in terms of bringing in new life and

perpetuating the generations. is probably only one biblical book

that celebrates what it is to be a woman and a sexual being, and that

is the Song of Songs, but even that text is written from the point of

view of a male writer and a voyeur's days, looking at this sexy

woman. Quite erotic. When I say cutting and pasting, has some of it

been interpreted within patriarchal societies to be even more male

orientated? Some argue that we have conflicted views on what women

should be doing in Christianity. Some say that according to the

Gospels, Jesus was quite pro-women. He had women followers. Some of the

earliest church leaders were wealthy women. On the other hand, in some of

the writing of Saint Paul, he is not keen on women. Women should not talk

in church, they should cover their heads, they are secondary to their

husbands. " I do not permit a woman to teach a man. She must be silent".

You have broken that already! would not like me much anyway.

Wives, submit to your husbands, and all that stuff in Leviticus about

women being unclean. Do you just skip those bits? Not at all. We

can't skip bits, but when they were written and who it was mainly

written by men for men so we have to use the understanding we have now.

Since everything in the Bible, both the Old Testament and New Testament

were written, we have had the Enlightenment. We now understand

reproduction in a different way. So the taboo laws in Leviticus, talking

about how women had to be separate and were literally seen as unclean

when they were menstruating and after giving birth, even though the

vestiges of that carry on... Do you not find that offensive? Know, those

are the texts, that is the understanding that people had then,

and we don't know it all now. But we know enough to make the changes that

we can. Paul wrote as a good Jewish man in first century Palestine. If

he were alive today, he was passionate about helping people

understand who Jesus was, who he saw as the Messiah. He would be

different now? If he were here today, he would be scolding the

Church of England, my beloved church, that still discriminates

against women. He would be saying, we don't see women in the way we

used to see women any more, as the property of their fathers or

husbands. Allow women to be bishops. Do you think Paul would be saying

all that? I don't think he would. There was no sense of two genders in

the ancient world. In ancient Jewish and Christian societies, women were

seen as a deviant form of a man. All would find that hard to let go of.

But there were two macro sides of Paul. He was doing the best he could

with his understanding. Anyone who was baptised into Christ, all the

old barriers came down. Liz, tell us about Eve. Whether you take it as

little or figurative, Eve was the first woman. And she was created to

be Adam's helper. It says clearly in Genesis that both male and female

were created in the image of God. Genesis one or Genesis to? These

people know better than I! She was a helper, which is equal. Eve was

taken from Adam's rib, which is from the side, not from the head or from

the feet, so not a rule be oppressed, but from the side, to be

an equal partner in life. Eve was Adam's partner, but God also did say

that Adam was first and Eve was to be his helper. And in the fall,

which was when sin entered the world, that was turned on its head.

It was meant to be God ruling people and people ruling creation. And in

the fall, you have the serpent tempting and leading Eve, the woman,

a straight, and then her leaving her husband. So it was her fault? No,

Adam should have said no. He chose to follow Eve, and in so doing, he

said, I know better than God. Unfortunately, that is what you are

saying. And if women do become leaders in the church, you think

there are problems? There are potential problems. Particularly on

the issue of bishops. The Church of England is doing its best to be

inclusive, to avoid division. is a secondary issue. I am not

saying people who disagree are not Christians, but as a layperson, I

can choose to go to a church with a male vicar or a female vicar. I have

that freedom of choice. If you are a male vicar who has doctrinal reasons

why you are not happy to have a woman in leadership over you because

you believe those teachings, that is where the problem comes. So you

believe as God is head of Christ, so man is head of woman. What about a

woman prime minister? There is no prohibition, because the Bible only

refers to marriage and church. that could be a problem, because you

have to ask about the dynamic of that relationship with her husband.

When she goes home, if she had been ruling the country, is her husband

still had of the marriage? This is where it falls to bits. We have six

angry people over here. We have got plenty of time. There are political

Muslim leaders in Bangladesh. Women have two X chromosomes on the Y

chromosome is a mutation. If only they had known that, they might have

written a different story. In the womb, they are all female and they

become male. Talking about Prime Minister's, the obvious thing to say

is that we have just lost Lady Thatcher. I would love to have seen

you argue with her that she was not supposed to be in a position of

leadership. I did not say that. when Lady Thatcher got home, there

might have been problems? There is no problem. I have no problem with

women holding positions of responsibility at any level, I am

just saying it might cause tensions. If it doesn't for her, relate. When

she went to speak to the Church of Scotland, as somebody who had been

raised a Methodist, you would have said sorry, prime minister, you

cannot interest the Church of Scotland because you are woman?

don't know what happened at that meeting. We are talking about

teaching the word of God. Your interpretation. It is about church

and marriage, that is what the Bible talks about. I would say your

interpretation of male and female roles really under cells what the

resurrection of Jesus Christ accomplished. My view is much bigger

than the view you are selling. I am a fan of the verse, and I want to

ask you your interpretation of this. It says there is neither male nor

female, Greek nor June, slave nor free. The resurrection of Jesus has

done away with these divisions. So I would look at the divisions you are

putting up and say the resurrection is not enough to cancel out those

barriers, then what has it accomplished? It is a great verse to

bring up, but you are twisting its meaning. There is neither male nor

female, slave nor free. That is not the first time I have heard that

phrase, you are twisting its meaning. That passage is talking

about salvation. In Jesus's resurrection, every person is

equally saved. That does not mean we are no longer different. Is there

headship in heaven? I don't know. Headship does not appear in the

Bible. There is no word headship in the Bible. It is not there. It is an

accretion put on by Paul using the word head. There is a biblical

expert beside you. It has ambiguous meanings. We don't know what it

meant. Paul was trying to have order. He even said himself that

there are some things that he appeals to nature about, like men

having short hair and women having long hair and things like that. He

always finished those passages by saying nevertheless, I said to you,

in Christ, you are both equal. drawing on the idea that in the Old

Testament, idolaters and rebellious Israelites were the adulterous wife

of God. In the new Testament, writers are drawing on that Old

Testament image and transferring it to say that the Church is the wife

of God. And it has to be obedient. It is all about obedience. Saint

Thomas Aquinas said after Eve that women were in some way defective.

Let me bring the rabbi in. You are shaking my hand, but you would not

shake our female research's hand this morning. Why not? We don't have

a problem with separate roles. There is such a thing called

collaborative. But she put her hand out to shake your hand and you would

not. It is not something I do. Why not? Because I don't touch things

that don't belong to me. That doesn't belong to you. Nicky doesn't

belong to you! It is something I was taught from a young age. Do I belong

to you? I respect a woman, and as such, I will not touch her. Then you

don't respect Nicky? I don't have an issue. I don't have a problem

shaking a man's and will stop shaking a woman's hand to be

misconstrued. Misconstrued? Who is doing the interview here? It could

be taken as an affront. She might take it as an affront that you

didn't want to shake her hand. I said that that is my sensitivity. Is

it because she might be menstruating? Nothing to do with

that. In other feasts, like Islam, the shaking of the hand is more to

do with steps. So if you shook a woman's hand or mail's hand or vice

versa, that is one step. So in Islam, it is about prevention. It is

not shaking the hand, it is like having different rules. For example,

if you don't have a particular reason to be in a room with a man if

you are woman, you should not embrace men. These are different

steps to prevent things from happening. We'll come to it later. I

want to ask you, sir, about the prayer, Rabbi. Tell us about the

prayer that Orthodox Jewish men say every morning. "Blessed be God, King

of the Universe for Thou hast not made me a woman." Judaism presents a

view of creation, Adam and Eve. Let's go back to that for a minute

as a preamble to answer the question. When Adam was created, so

was Eve, and according to many traditions they were actually joined

back to back. They were then separated. So the clear Jewish

traditional view of the roles of man and woman are as absolute equals.

And as collaborative equals. Because when a man and a woman come

together, then they become a whole. And that's the whole pattern which

creates Jewish law and Jewish thought. So a man says I'm happy

I've been created the way I am as a man, even though as a man it has its

downside. A woman says I'm happy I've been created as a woman and,

you know, to try and give a Hebrew Bible Jewish Christian nomenclature,

the Old Testament view, of women being the underdogs, there were

women prophetesses, there was a matriarch. If a woman has a boy

child she is unclean for thirty three days. When she has a girl

child she is unclean for sixty six days. Why is that? This is because

you're dealing there - when you talk about unclean, it doesn't mean

dirty. You are using a Hebrew word that has a context to it, the

context is within temple time society. If, for example, you trod

on a creepy crawly, you would become unclean. Why is it less so if you

have a boy and more time if you have a girl? I don't know the answer to

that. There is no other explanation whatsoever. Unclean means impure and

I'm sure Francesca will know. sorry, you took that very

categorically. I spend about maybe ten hours a day studying the

sources. I'm very interested in the source. A categorical statement

which clearly runs contrary to everything I understand. I spend the

same amount of time in my reading of the Torah and understanding, how

else is - when men and women commit sins it takes exactly twice as long

for the woman to become pure and clean again than it does for the

man. And Nicky talked about thirty three days after a boy child and

then sixty - in Leviticus, don't look confused, it's in there.

There's a wide variety of sins. about the double standards on

apologistsblood -- on blood? There's a double standard in blood

regulations in Torah and it's based on male and female, so when a woman

gives birth to a male child, that male child is circumcised on the

eighth day. The blood of the circumcised penis, male circumcision

blood in a way hastens her impurity process so she's only impure for a

short amount of time, 33 days Whereas if she had a female child,

there's no penis to circumcise so therefore she stays impure for

longer. That is a very particular construction placed on verses which

are taken out of context. Nowadays, restrictions which applied to temple

sacrifice don't apply any more. But circumcision does. So to try and

draw a comparison between the blood of circumcision, which we don't make

a great big deal out of... But you make a big deal out of Passover, it

is picking and choosing. Nowadays there is no blood involved in

sacrifice, so the comparison between circumcision and the laws...

women being displaced while they are menstruating is a part of Judaism.

Why do women have to be removed when they are menstruating? I wish I

could be removed while I am menstruating! Some Samaritan men and

women came over to do a concert in London, they have this singing

tradition and when they start to sing it is incredible. They have

very low divorce rates, because I was interested in what this ritual

impurity means, I thought it might mean something helpful. They said

when we are menstruating, we have a special flat, we stay there and read

and pray, the men do everything. I had a view of this, I am going to

ring a bell next month and stay out of the way. What do you make of

this? I am genuinely appalled and horrified. Which bit?Everything. I

cannot help thinking these deities should have written more clearly,

and in the meanwhile if we look at the real world, there are thousands

of women, millions of women around the world who are being denied the

right to vote as a result of religion, being denied the right to

leave the house and get the job they want, young girls having their

clitoris removed, having their lives ruined and we are bickering about

what the verses mean. Look at the real world, religion is incredibly

damaging. I would go so far, not the whole way, religion is not doing

that to women, men are. You are using that as an excuse. Let's look

at this in the broadest context, this has been happening throughout

history but we have to put it into that context and say not only

religion is doing this. We already have enough men trying to keep women

down in this world and yet you are supporting this. How can you do

that? Before we move on, let's speak to our Muslim guest. It is not the

fault of religion, it is the fault of those interpreting the religion

so a clear distinction needs to be made and you need to understand

that. The gentleman back there. are looking at Islam in the first

century of Islam it was a woman. One of the biggest scholars of Islam was

again a woman. The greatest woman in creation is Mary. You have given us

mark a diversion, what do you mean? What is a human person? What is the

greatest thing a human person can be? Is it a virgin and other

question --?! That's a big question to ask. But the Catholic church

would say in profound communion with God and therefore in profound

communion with each other, and in profound communion with creation and

using all their talents for love. Now the Virgin Mary is the greatest

woman in creation because she listened to God. She's pure? Pious?

She's obedient, totally. She was open to receiving the gift that she

was given, and when we respond to the gift given us that God gives us

we grow as people. You did some nice cutting and pasting before and I

wanted to add to your queries about women must submit to their husbands.

Straight after, it says husbands must submit to their wives in

Christ, the bigger picture... Sexually? No, that's not at all what

it means. Why do I know that? Because when a husband submits to

his wife, he has to behave, as it says in The Bible, as Christ behaves

towards the Church. Laying down his life is a beautiful word to describe

what Christ did, and is the inspiration for all men. And it is

kinosis which is complete self emptying. I'd like to see some more

of that. Mary is the ultimate in human creation because she is

totally open to God. What I want to say, just to step back one point,

when you talk about kinosis and I totally agree, it's a great point,

but it feels like when we look at The Bible we have to actually go so

deep in explaining it and on a superficial surface reading of The

Bible I can understand why people think it's patriarchal. Do you agree

about Mary? I do, but when I get to Heaven I will be saying to God why

did you not explain things more clearly? And I think it's important

that we can be honest about The Bible. I respect it, I honour it,

but I think it's a very difficult book and I think some such structure

is very black and white, very clear, it's not anti-women. It looks

anti-women. Let's be honest. But if you look a bit deeper if you put it

in context. That's a really important point there. Before

Christianity came along it was in a particular society. The Greeks were

still studying to work out whether women were human. If a woman does

not want to submit in that way and be pure and be virginal, is she a

failure if she doesn't want to be like Mary? Oh absolutely not. I

agree with the point about Song of Songs, beautifully erotic. The

beautiful thing about the Song of Songs is that reality is revealed as

marital, sparital, whether you're single, married, you are living a

spousal reality with a very deep feeling of sexuality. What is your

sexuality? What is your masculinity? It's espousal and it's deep. It's

worth thinking about. In the Christian tradition, it is men in

power using the religious institution to determine what is

normal and what goes, and throughout our Christian tradition, very

sadly, the cutting edge theologians of the day saw sexuality not

something to be celebrated, they were terrified it. They were

terrified. Is this the legacy of Eve? Women were temples over

sewers, and in the same breath they taught things about the Christian

faith which have stood the test of time. What I am saying is that the

too long in the Christian tradition run by men, they said to be a good

Christian man you had to divorce yourself from your sexuality, and

what is the one thing they couldn't control? Sexual desire and women, so

they tried to separate it out. was bursting to come in. We have

talked about Mary the virgin, and many of the main focuses of religion

continually seems to be controlling women's bodies, access to

contraception, and the reality is that when you take away the right to

control fertility from women, you take away their opportunity to

escape poverty and get an education and have control over their own

lives. That single cause is led by major religions is preventing women

from leading better lives and escaping poverty. Alison, good

morning. As an ex-Muslim, there is a phrase in the Koran you were very

uncomfortable with. Chapter four, verse 34, it talks about obedient

women who obey their husbands and they are perfectly fine, but it

talks about rebellious women and it addresses their husbands and tells

them if they rebel against you, you shouldn't sleep next to them on the

same bed and you are allowed to punish them. This word punish can be

interpreted as whipping. Why are you in disguise? Because I come from a

Muslim background and my parents still live in Iran. I come from

Iran. The punishment for apostasy is capital punishment, as you may

know. So I have to be in disguise because of my parents' security.

What about sura in the Koran? are certain things. No doubt we will

get corrected on this by the Muslims over here. Women are fields. Go into

your fields, whichever way you like. What does that mean? Women are

objects. Women are your property. Your you can be however you want.

Actually, it is just talking about sexual positions. At the time, there

were issues and beliefs that certain sexual positions were not allowed.

The Koran was just saying actually, within sex, you are free to

experiment and be together. Other verses in the Koran address both men

and women, not men separately. They say you are from the same soul. It

has to be taken within context. That was about sexuality. A couple of

other things to put on the agenda. lot of Muslims argue that Islam is

fairer to women than other religions. But I have a devout

Muslim friend who is campaigning on this vigorously at the moment. He

thinks men get a double share of inheritance. They do. He says this

is an outrage. You also need two women witnesses to be equal to one

male witness in case one of the women forgets. It is quite

patronising. These might be certain rules. The word of God? At the

beginning of the programme, you talked about women get the right to

education,, to wealth, to work, this was all established 1400 years ago

by Islam. At the time, it was revolutionary. All the things we

were talking about being clean or unclean or whether the Koran was

written to men met it was not. It was written to men and women and

Muslims and non-Muslims. An inheritance, this was written at the

time when men were financially responsible for women. At the time,

a woman was more likely to be having children, not like now.

Traditionalists say we should still cleave to that. As a modernist, I

would argue that we have a different context. And he witnessed in?With

that, again, it was a time when women might be putting their lives

in danger if they were standing up to be witnesses. The holy books have

parts of them which were written in the context of The Times. Other

parts were written for all times. This is the discrimination we need

to make. So even though it was the Word of God, it was the Word of God

in the context of the time? God actually says, I am using similes.

You have to see beyond the words I am using. Beautifully explained, if

I may say so. Thank you! These are such contentious sura. On the

inheritance law, in Islam, if a wife is as a way and leaves she a

daughter and a husband, the daughter takes half and the husband takes a

quarter. You tell me which one is more. But the sun takes more than

the daughter. Not in this circumstance. The daughter takes

more than the father. You claim that this book is written for all time.

The Islamic governments of Iran, Saudi Arabia and many more

governments use the same book, and they have different interpretations

of it which are more conservative. They have different interpretations.

It goes beyond Islam. Women have been put down or oppressed in many

different contexts, and men will use whatever comes to hand. The

interpretation of this... Allison, what else troubles you about the

context of that time and the way Muhammad -- the Prophet Muhammed led

his life? Could you repeat the question? The way the Prophet

Muhammad led his life, does anything about that trouble you? I think it

is completely misogynistic. In what way was it misogynistic? There is a

verse in the Koran, I can't run under the chapter on the number, but

it addresses Muhammad and says, this is true only for you and not other

believers. If you are at war with a country, you can marry women from

that country if you like. And you are free to marry your cousins. You

can marry anyone you want. This is only true for the Prophet macro.

That is completely untrue. The fact is, at the time of 1400 years ago,

the Prophet had nine wives. But you could have endless wives. In his

case, we are not saying every man can have nine wives. Is that not

unfair to women? The rules of marriage in Islam are that the man

marries a woman. We do have dispensation for more than one wife,

but the Koran says you have to be just, and to be just, you can only

have one. So the advice is to just have one. Let me just add to this,

the fact is that religion makes its own rules. It is not for secular

society to tell me what my faith's rules should be. But secular society

says you can't be a bigamist. That is fine. Of course you cannot have

more than one wife here. As a British citizen, state law goes

above Islamic law, and I accept that. But the Islamic countries are

not accepting that. OK, everybody! Yunis, you are a recent Muslim

convert. Why did you choose is love? -- Islam? The reason I chose it was

more to do with the knowledge that I found inside the Koran, which

totally blew my mind. But going back to what we are talking about, as

somebody who was born in Britain and raised to do whatever I wanted, I

was brought up as a Christian and used to go to church to pray

everyday, loved it. It is funny, because I found that I had more

office of womanhood and sisterhood as a Muslim and I have 100 times

more female friends as a Muslim than I ever did as a Christian or in

general British society. A sense of belonging. The simple situations,

meeting with 15, 20 sisters and going for coffee. It just doesn't

happen. The culture that I grew up with in Britain, women tend to

compete against each other. This is interesting if we are talking about

Islam. What I love about it, if we are talking about womanhood and

sisterhood... Is that cultural? There can be other Christian

countries where there is a better sense of sisterhood as well. We are

quite atomised in our society. Totally. You asked me what I thought

about it. What is interesting about Islam, we were talking about this

concept of covering, or your hijab, which goes both for men and women.

Growing up in British culture, it is kind of minimising the aesthetic or

focus. Taking that out actually brings women together more. When

people think about Islam and they think about women in Islam, the

Prophet, his first wife was a very rich businesswoman. That is

important, because what that is saying to men, they can sometimes be

intimidated by rich and powerful women. The fact that he chose one as

his first wife... He chose it to help spread his faith. His first

wife was really rich and a rich businesswoman. But part of the

marriage was that he could use the money. And she was fine with it. I

am not saying she was against it. But he used her money to spread the

word. What about slavery? You are missing the point. You are basically

saying he almost chose his first wife only because she had money. In

our culture, there can be this thing where if you are a woman and you are

strong and you have a major job, maybe you are prime minister, like

we said earlier, certain men might not like their wife to be in that

situation. I am saying in Islam, the fact that he has done that, it sends

a powerful message. Are you genuinely suggesting that Islamic

men are more tolerant of women in high-powered jobs? I didn't say

that. It is the exact opposite. Wait, wait, wait! In order to change

gear, we will go to the audience. just wanted to say that before, you

were saying that a man might get intimidated by a powerful woman.

Surely that is the man's problem, and he needs to get over that.

the lady over here? People find it easier to put the blame on men and

say that men use religion to control women. They fail to realise that in

a lot of cases, women are reluctant to review the situation for

themselves and bring up the debates that need to be had so that people

can look at what the true religion says and where culture has affected

it in a negative way. And you? There is a thread in a lot of faiths that

underlines this. When faiths have to be observed through religious

institutions, those are, by and large, run by men. I am coming to a

word called patriarch you. It is putting the interests of men over

the interests of women. A lot of the things we are talking about affect

men, but they also affect women. Let me address the fascinating issue of

Hinduism. Bharti, hi. Thousands of years ago, you had many gods. God is

often portrayed in peoples minds a man. But you had goddesses. You have

God essence. Is that because it predates a nomadic and arguably

patriarchal society? The Vidic traditions originate in India.

Hinduism sees God as female. So there are traditions which have God

as male, and there are traditions which have God as female. I have

been listening to this Abrahamic debate wondering when our traditions

come in. We have a different perspective. It is not a male God,

it is a female God. We follow scripture is which are also written

by females. Why is that? It must have grown up in a different kind of

society from the dozen societies that gave rise to the Bible and the

Koran. Yes, it was a tradition from India. But the Abrahamic traditions

did have goddesses as well. But we still worshipped God as female.

it is a living tradition currently. One of the things that I would point

out is sometimes what happens in faith is different from what happens

in culture. So even within Hinduism we have women who have to fight to

become priests. Interestingly, there are more women priests in India, and

being ordained in India, than in Britain where a lady has been

waiting for two and a half years even to get a hearing to join the

English priests. So I think we need to also put that in context and it

doesn't surprise me at all, the statement that the Dalai Lama made

because he is also part of the Rivic tradition, and women are more

accepted, women have that opportunity and I myself work at a

national and international level in fields where traditionally perhaps

only men would sit. I sit on the European Council of Religious

Leaders. Seen as more equal, not just a vessel to have children. And

my winding you up, Sarah? Just a bit. I will speak after this lovely

lady! We are transplanting a lot of secular constructs onto faith. From

a Jewish point of view, God is neither male or female. The whole

debate lowers the whole understanding of what God is.

just said He! In answer to your point, you are absolutely right.

There is a mindset that gives you the language. You have to get beyond

the language. We are not in a religious debating programme, we're

in a programme that's debating about the way we live in this country at

the moment, and the way we should be. Talking about leaderism, one of

the really fascinating things that's happening in Britain at the moment,

the institutional influence of Christianity is fading, it's near

paganism, and near paganist ideas, are forming more and more the

mainstream. People ask why are you interested in this? At whatever

level. They always consistently say, and this is a kind of an

understanding of spirituality, that has a goddess and a male and female

spirit and it deals with God in a way that Hinduism does. I'm really

intrigued by what Francesca said as a footnote, when I was speaking to

you Bharti, I think the camera picked it up, we use in the

Abrahamic tradition there used to be goddesses, but they've been kind of

airbrushed out, a kind of cut and paste. Cut, paste, delete, is that

what happened? Essentially, yes. The ancient Israelite society from which

the Biblical traditions of the Old Testament and from again which New

Testament traditions have emerged, and then some Koran traditions, it

was a polytheistic society. So in other words, it wasn't just one god

that was worshipped, it was many gods. It just so happens the God of

The Bible who had a consort, the goddess Asha, we've got inscriptions

attaching to this, we've got figurines attaching to this, various

neighbouring cultures have similar sort of traditions about this

goddess, she, as monotheism becomes preferable to certain Biblical

writers, against polytheism, so she's basically divorced. In strong

traditions, traditions, the practice of Christianity as you know, there's

a strong tradition of women celebrating their relationship with

God and celebrating the female side of God as well. Let's not pretend

that this doesn't exist in Christianity, it's a very powerful

part of it. But what about the institutions? We must, in the last

few minutes available to us, get on to the institutions, Sarah I'll

allow you to kick off on this. I did promise to come to you a couple of

moments ago. Look at the Papal Conclave, all those old men. Those

wonderful old men and they were very inspiring. Would it be good to have

someone men in there? We need to think about two things here. What is

the priesthood, and what is the role of men and women working together.

And we often conflict priesthood with leadership and it's not

necessarily the same thing. Lady here is so desperate to come in,

unless I let her in I fear something dreadful is to happen! I've come to

here from the Catholic church, and I spoke to my priest before coming

here and I said to him, this is the debate, and the issue is are women

treated unequally in religions? In the Church, women run the Church,

apart from at the top. And if women run the Church, apart from at the

top, and it is paradoxical because institutionally as a leadership

consultant, I know that institutionally, in terms of

leadership we'll never have a Pope that's a leader, or a priest? Think

about Mother Theresa and the kind of influence that Mother Theresa has

had over the world, globally, it is paradoxical. You said Mother Teresa,

then you said incredibly damaging. She gave people medical treatment

and made people 's lives worse because she thought suffering

brought people closer to God. She was a terrible woman. Saying about

how women are struggling. I am a Sikh and as far as I know, from what

I know, Sikh or whatever, women have always been encouraged to join in.

Never any impediment that women can't be in positions. But then

again, if you go into temples you find that no women are in top

positions, and why is that? Not right at the top. I see many men

monopolising my place in society that's creeping in to temple, and we

have to separate the two. Women are allowed to do whatever they want in

temple. They can join in and sing hymns, but in the committee, the top

jobs who make all the decisions, women aren't there. Why can't we

have mixed prayers and women leading mixed prayers in mosques? We have

mixed prayers. The reason why women do not lead prayers is because our

prayers, Muslim prayers, are very physical and if you ever watch the

Muslim prayer we have to put... Yes, our bottoms in the air. The thing

is, if you take apart the role of religious leader, and put prayer

aside, women in Islam can be and are religious leaders. Our women are

allowed to watchmen praying? Well preferably - well they can if they

want, but preferably not because the idea, you're supposed to avert your

eyes when something physical is there. But when it comes to

religious leadership there is no impediment in Islam for women to be

religious leaders and the Prophet said take two thirds of your faith.

I was 18 at the time, and women can be religious leaders, and are

religious leaders. I would just like to say personally my faith in Islam

is completely - there's a couple of different things going on here. It

is important to differentiate between the religions, and

understand how the different religions treat people. In my

experience of Islam, all the people I come into contact with, all the

people who have taught me anything, are female. Most of the events,

99.9% of the events and things that I attend, are mixed. There's never

like just women or just men. Your introduction to Islam has been very

liberal. One at a time, children. There is a different between culture

and what is written in the Koran. If you see a certain practice, muslin

people not wanting women to lead, that is them, not the faith. You

need to understand and study the difference. Because we see Islam

running a very different way and theocracy coming in here, and many

people tell me this is a very good place to be a Muslim. Even in Africa

where I come from, it is completely normal to have a church and a

mosque, whereas in Britain that is not the case. You tend to find the

culture of the country you are and will impact. Cole Moreton, does the

law need to nudge religions towards conditions of equality? The law was

fine for a very long time in this country by Christianity, church and

the state working together. That nexus is fading, it's dismantling

and what the law, and the state, needs to find a way of mediating

between the many different faiths and belief systems that we now have

in this country. And so the law, and the state, need to find a way to

make it possible for us all to live respectfully in a land in which the

Rabbi will not shake the hand of a woman. You know, because actually

the majority of people in society would be appalled by that and we

would also be appalled by an attack on the Rabbi's faith. So how do we

mediate that? When you read secular feminist books, they are crying out

for respect and I think we are asking where is women's spirituality

going to flourish? Is it in the new brutalism or the new secularism? I

agree we need to find an environment in which things are being respected.

The new brutalism? I have no idea what is brutal about secularism.

you read this rather interesting book called Living Dolls she cites

fantastic evidence about how young women today are feeling more

objectified, more demands to have sex. This is not patriarch it, it is

the over sexualisation of children. Taking part in a culture and society

with the polar -- the privileges of the man over the woman. We did not

hear a word of that. I think that women are even being misled into

celebrating themselves as, say, the protagonists of hard core

pornography and they're finding themselves disillusioned with that

because it's not bringing them the depth and the freedom that they

wanted. So true respect is within the church? It is within the wisdom

within true sexuality, when it is allowed to flourish. I have been

writing a lot about sexualisation of children lately, something that

deeply concerns me, and when I read the research it shows that this is

happening in every kind of home. Muslim homes, Hindu homes, Christian

homes and in homes where people are not quite sure what they believe. It

is a problem with our society and culture, and religion is failing to

say anything about it. It is colluding and condoning of view of

women as primarily having value through our availability to men.

That is what contraception doors to women, it makes women available to

men all of the time. Thank you all very much indeed. This debate will