Yes, that is right. Wendy Doniger, “distinguished” professor of the history of religions at the University of Chicago, states that “[Palin's] greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.” That is right. We have reached a point where for some academics, a person’s gender is not defined by biology, but by her politics. Read the whole article.
However, I think Doniger really misses the point when she writes this, demonstrating that she really is saying that religious beliefs have no place in public:
But I object strongly when anyone (and especially anyone with political power) tries to take their theology out in public, to inflict those private religious (or sexual) views on other people. In both sex and religion (which combine in the debates about abortion), Sarah Palin’s views make me fear that the Republican party has finally lost its mind.
I have multiple issues with this. First, it is impossible for a person to compartmentalize religious beliefs and other beliefs. It can be attempted, but religious beliefs will shape a person’s views on society and government, even if he or she claims otherwise. After all, deciding to publicly go against your Church (as Pelosi has), or downplaying your personal beliefs, are still decisions that are, if not rooted in theology and morals, significantly touch on theological and moral matters. So is Doniger really suggesting that any belief that is derived from our theology shouldn’t be taken out in public? If we read between the lines, it almost looks like she is saying that religious belief itself is pointless, and shouldn’t have any role in shaping society. If these uncritical assertions were applied throughput our history, the arguments for our independence and against slavery would have been forced to have been kept private. Second, why not apply this standard to all strongly held beliefs, unless there is some real distinction I don’t know of between religious beliefs and beliefs stemming from other influences? Then, nobody could say anything in politics unless we (or at least the academics) all agreed on it first. In a county with a high degree of religiousity, this sort of argument is bound to play into the hands of Republicans.
David Bennett
Jennifer
asimplesinner
Fr. J.
Chad Toney
Jorge Flores
Jonathan B
carmelbennett
nicenehobbit
Jason S
jaybird68
papaz
Dave Hartline
September 11, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
But I object strongly when anyone (and especially anyone with political power) tries to take their theology out in public, to inflict those private religious (or sexual) views on other people.
The apparently mindless John Quincy Adams must have been a closet republican long before the party was founded; he once said that the American Constitution “was made only for a moral and religious people.”
September 12, 2008 at 7:14 am |
Or Doniger herself — sounds like her theology has made its way into politics.
I’m also wondering: in her view, is Obama a woman?
September 12, 2008 at 11:15 am |
I think her insistence on a strong distinction between public and private is anti-feminist but I suspect she thinks I’m not a woman, either.
meanwhile, she actually makes the constitution the key religious or theological document of the conversation. it’s the core of an american civil religion, I guess, but I don’t know…her rhetoric sounds a bit outdated to me. Obama is leading the party in the direction of direct engagement with and embrace of religious ideas–liberal religious ideas that support the agenda. Abortion because it is what Jesus wants, not abortion because Jesus is irrelevant. That’s what seems different about Obama to me. Doniger is still working on the older model where the right is religious and the left is secular.
September 12, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
All this religious left, right, under, over, between and not–BS. The power of religion got its juices going full force when the Soviet Union fell. Think about it, we have had snake charmers, dancers, holy rollers for quite some time but to come to the forefront of everyday conversation is bizzare. I stand by my statement of the fall of the Soviet Union it begat the holier then thou crap. Agnostic forever!!!!
September 12, 2008 at 6:45 pm |
“But I object strongly when anyone (and especially anyone with political power) tries to take their theology out in public, to inflict those private religious (or sexual) views on other people.”
Let’s put aside the fact that, as an academic, Doniger’s job is to publish and persuade others of her viewpoints (involving religion). Palin has not said or done anything that indicates she would use religion as the force behind her decisions. Still, it’s amazing that as a professor of theology, she fails to comprehend the impact of Christianity on the West and how much its basic tenets influence people’s behavior EVERY DAY.
Liberals hear “God” and assume there will be a burning of witches in Massachusetts immediately after. I am sick of hearing these secularists make Christian beliefs into some kind of approaching tornado that needs to be evaded.
September 12, 2008 at 6:46 pm |
Doniger is apparently a professor of the history of religions, not theology.
September 12, 2008 at 6:55 pm |
Is Wendy a human at all? It would appear she is just a mass of cerebration devoid of any “spirit” human, holy or otherwise. She could have fooled me!
September 12, 2008 at 7:22 pm |
Everyone takes their religious view into the public. A person’s worldview on God/origin of life/evil and suffering is the centerpiece of all decisions concerning law and order. If the law is made to protect the innocent and condemn the guilty, someone’s definition of wrong/evil has to be adopted as the line that legally can not be crossed. The idea of God determines the route of your thinking process. So when she says “religious” view then she probably means Christian. If Christian thought is unacceptable then we must eliminate the past 2000 years of healthcare, charity, education, and science which all started within Christiandom.
If never ceases to befuddle me that the modern professional educators are so upset that their brainwashing and contempt for all things holy does not rub off on common sense citizens that they have to resort to kindergarden name calling to win their arguement.
http://www.movetheearth.org
September 15, 2008 at 9:18 am |
“tsfiles Says:
September 12, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Doniger is apparently a professor of the history of religions, not theology.”
Nor is she a biology professor.
September 17, 2008 at 2:19 pm |
SHAME: Liberation theologian commits public heresy…
You, Madame Doniger, are not only a heretic, but are probably a leftist, baby killing, treasonous capitulator, feminista-spinster, misandrist….
September 17, 2008 at 5:44 pm |
David,
“play into the hands of Republicans”…? David, David, David…as if that were a bad thing! Frankly, I can’t see how any thinking Christian could vote for anyone BUT a Republican…and yes, I’m serious.
September 17, 2008 at 10:22 pm |
Hobbit,
I didn’t say playing into the hands of Republicans was a bad thing ;)!
December 18, 2008 at 8:36 am |
Just have a look at some photos of ‘Ms’ Doniger; that is the academic left’s idea of womanhood. Worse, Doniger isn’t a real scholar — as numerous real scholars in her alleged field, like M. Witzel, have publicly shown. Her sole task in Sanskrit studies is to completely sexualize, or better Freudianize, ancient Sanskrit texts like her abominable, almost universally-discredited (from California to Bangalore) mockery / translation of the Rig-Veda. Penguin set her up with an edition to further the cause of the anti-’Aryan’ agenda in academia. See also Bruce Lincoln, renowned Marxist Indo-European scholar.
No words are sufficient to put this ‘woman’ and all she represents, the whole ugly old academic lesbian crusade against beauty and decency, down where they belong. To call this woman a fraud, a token provocateur, a supporter of baby-killing and perpetrator of freudian misreadings of literature and art, is to but scratch the surface of her infamy.
March 12, 2009 at 10:57 pm |
This woman Wendy Doniger is truly a devils advocate who has made her name in the academic circles. The media and academia are truly in the grips of the devil, who has made it fashionable to discredit GOD any everything decent. It is people like this who are tuly responsible for the moral decadence in our nation.
April 12, 2009 at 11:44 pm |
She is a fraud. She and her students have made hinudsim look so bad that cannot be explained.
Her focus at looking at things from sexual point of view is just crazy. Was she molested as a child or she had some crzay sex experince who knows.
It does seem that she is day and night of sexual meaning of sanskrit texts and when you think like that you can find sex in almost every thing.
Hope we dont have Professors like this in Academic Circle.
Please see the Rajiv Malhotra blog about her works