Thanks, I really enjoyed The Golden Compass, etc. I will happily put that one on my list.

Moreover, I’ve actually seen a fair number of articles talking about marriage practices in rural India, especially regarding to how they relate to hygiene standards. And in that example, you seem to be saying that being told to “check your privilege” would be a bad or invalid response whereas you end your comment with an assertion that feminists are reluctant to criticize “certain religions” due to privilege. So, at this point I’m not really sure what your complaint is.

Anyone *can* criticize anything.

If that’s true anywhere, it’s true on the internet.

All major religions are patriarchal and sexist to some degree and open to feminist criticism, at least in theory. In actual discussions, different religions receive different amounts and types of criticism. My comment reflects these patterns as I have seen them. Certainly, no one is consciously following any taxonomy.

But if Catholics then decide that they can control women and prevent them from getting needed health care, for instance, then I feel like it’s fair game for everyone to comment on it.

You probably won’t get many negative responses in any feminist forum by criticizing the Vatican’s global policies on reproductive rights. If instead you complained about marriage practices in rural India, you might be told to “check your privilege”, even if you complained on health grounds.

@baraqiel:

metatroll, you seem to have conflated nationality and race in your statement

Yes, my categories are vague. Discussions of religion in the West often conflate nationality, race, culture, and sect. Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are often addressed monolithically. Discussions of Catholics in America tend to ignore the large number of non-white and non-English-speaking Catholics.

…sometimes, a problematic choice is the only choice available.

I don’t think the reluctance to criticize certain religions is just about options and circumstances. I think it relates to deeper issues within feminism such as race and privilege.

I am absolutely bewildered by people whose lives and essence of being are so intertwined with one particular religion. Having grown up with an Athiest father (who practices traditional Chinese Animism) and a mother who was a non practicing Thai Buddhist while attending a private Italian Catholic school in Thailand, I was extremely confused about my religious identity but I was also able to take the good part of all of them and do my little adolescent mishmash.

Definitely, I felt lonely to not truely belong to any larger spiritual, but I had Buddha, Saint Dominic (the school’s patron saint, Saint Don Bosco (his teacher) and god by my side.

As I grew up, that spiritual loneliness persisted as I went through a nonpracticing Wiccan Agnostic phase, until this moment where I consider myself an Agnostic practicing Buddhist with no denomination.

I think the question is so much simpler when it comes to Buddhism because it does not in anyway define one’s relationship with “god(s)”, though it might help shine a light on the true nature of god but that’s definitely not its stated purpose.

As to community, yes I do feel that pang of spiritual loneliness or Nihilism sometimes, but I have a loving political & personal community which can often reach a level of spirituality I’ve never felt with the churches and the temples; I no longer see organized religion as significant to human life, except for the art it produces.

It’s possible to recognize that a choice is problematic even as one recognizes that sometimes, a problematic choice is the only choice available. In fact, that is true much of the time. I think that we can talk about making responsible and educated choices while recognizing that sometimes the resources aren’t available to enable those choices to be made. To properly evaluate the ethics of someone’s actions, it is necessary to understand what other choices they could have made. It seems to me to be the case that in the developed world, people generally have more viable choices regarding the Church, and this is why I hold citizens of developed nations to a higher standard regarding their relationships with the Church.

Anyone *can* criticize anything. Whether every spiritual movement needs or deserves to be criticized on feminist grounds is another question. I must admit that I’ve never seen your taxonomy in practice by anyone.
I think we also have to distinguish between doctrine and practice. Criticizing a religion’s doctrine without a thorough knowledge of its belief system as a whole can be offensive. But criticizing the religion’s behavior, which can and often does have wider ramifications, is a different story. If Catholicism wants to establish a male-dominated doctrine and internal hierarchy and Catholic women are okay with that, it’s none of my business. But if Catholics then decide that they can control women and prevent them from getting needed health care, for instance, then I feel like it’s fair game for everyone to comment on it.

IM(Undereducated)O true Buddhism, as in the Buddhism created by Buddha when he reached enlightenment was a practice and not an organized religion; he did not want any structure, scriptures or dogmas: just truth, some guidelines and practice practice practice; so when I’m fed up with the Patriarchal Thai Buddhist hierarchy, I can just practice on my own or with my friends and never ever worry about the monks and their cohort.