X1One of the "concrete" evils of Religion, which has for some time been the "current one", is the way in which it considers women; and, in turn, the child.

The woman, despite the beautiful words and passages of the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran, which refer to her place in a theological society, is each time considered inferior to man. It is only intended to generate offspring; male, preferably. When one follows the dogmatic precepts as described, the woman is the temptress, the one who influenced Adam in the Garden of Eden to seize the forbidden fruit. And, therefore, who sentenced him to be cast out of Paradise. God punished him by forcing him to give birth in pain; to remind him of his seductive condition. A creature who diverts man from the right path and his privileged bond with the Divine.

How many examples such as this one are reproduced after this episode in the Bible, whether in the Old or the New Testament. In fact, and whatever the monotheistic religion to which reference is made, the woman is first and foremost the property of the father. In the Islamic world, as in the Western Christian world until a few decades ago, it is the Patriarch who chooses the future husband of his daughter. The mother, she is only there to inculcate a household education or marital that she will need once married: know how to hold a house, prepare meals, be a devoted and submissive lover, know how to properly care for his offspring until the father decides otherwise. For the boy, to introduce him to the arts highlighting his manhood, find a gainful job to provide for the needs of his future family. For the girl, find her a "good party", that she remains respectable - "virgin" - until the day of her union, and get a comfortable dowry.

This is how the woman was considered for several thousand years with the support of Religions. It has only been in recent decades that it has begun to emancipate itself and to gain freedom in Western countries; although there is still a lot to do. For until the seventies, a woman was not allowed to have a bank account without the consent of her husband. The right to abortion did not exist. The choice to marry for love was almost forbidden. Sex before marriage was seen as a disgrace to the whole family. And often, the young woman was forced to hide to go to give birth - or to abort - clandestinely. Then, then, forced to abandon his child. But this shame remained and she had great difficulty finding a man who wanted to marry her. She was often destined to remain an "old maid."

Currently, Islam - and more specifically the so-called "fundamentalist"; but sometimes not only - follows this same ideology. The women are veiled not to tempt the men that they cross in the street. As if the men they meet were wild animals ready to jump on them. Lovers are forced to hide in order to spend a more or less intimate moment together. Often, there is sexual relation, but annal or oral, so that it is not visible at the time of the marriage. Or, if there is a vaginal intercourse and the hymen is torn, the family forces the girl to undergo surgery to repair it and the future husband does not notice it. When this young woman is sent to France for one reason or another, once the age of marriage is reached, it is not uncommon for her to be required to return to "the country" in order to marry her. to a man she has never known or seen.

These practices of another age are strangely reminiscent of those of Catholicism until the early to mid-twentieth century. It must be admitted that, among his attributions, Christianity has had a stranglehold on marriage and the vision that society must have had for nearly two millennia. It was only at the beginning of the 20th century, with the separation of Church and State, with the advent of secularism, that things began to change. The First World War only amplified this movement. In England, from that time, the suffragettes won the day by acceding to the right to vote; in France, it was not until the end of the Second Planetary Conflict that they obtained this right.


For a long time, too, the Church had a say in the education of children. Until the 1905 law, she ran the majority of schools. It was not until the middle of the nineteenth century that girls were able to enroll in schools specially reserved for them. And, as for the education they received within the family unit, the latter was exclusively oriented towards her future "occupation" of mother's wife. It was not until the 1950s, and especially 1960s, that schools gradually became mixed.

Nevertheless, this belief in the predominance of men over women remains deeply rooted in the collective consciousness. It's not for nothing that women's wages are lower than men's. It is not for nothing that there are fewer women ministers, deputies, business leaders, and so on. In sensitive cities, where the weight of Islam and tradition is powerful, as soon as a young woman with the desire to emancipate herself, she is considered as a trail shaming her family, her clan. Or, she is designated as a "prostitute" whose young men have the right to use and abuse at their pleasure; they then drag them into the cellars of their buildings to be the victims of revolutions or rapes because, according to them, by clothing themselves, they showed them that they were consenting.

Or, again, in India, these young women attacked with acid by rejected pretenders, and marked for the rest of their lives without his aggressor being condemned - or little - by the justice of their country. This report that I saw a few days ago, and evoking these quasi-prepubescent teenagers in Lebanon, married to men older than them, and who bear when they have only fourteen, fifteen, or sixteen years ... to often try to divorce several years later because unhappy. What about the niqab imposed in the Arab Emirates, or in other countries of the Near and Middle East, in some circles in Europe and France. That these gentlemen consider normal because their wife is their personal "object" on which no one has the right to lay eyes. Who are reclusive in places - including in public places - that are specifically reserved for them so they do not have the temptation to look at anyone other than their "master".

When I think about it, summing up in a few words all this, I have the impression that the woman is considered as a commodity destined, from her cradle to her death, to be the possession of Man. First of his father; of his brothers or cousins, if he dies prematurely. Then, from her husband, and finally, from her son or sons who put her under guardianship. While the Caliphs possessed harems consisting of dozens of concubines, or that Muslims of yesterday or today are allowed to be polygamous. While nothing is said, neither in the Torah, nor in the Bible, nor in the Koran, about this systematic submission inflicted upon it. I do not even speak of this hypocrisy of the Catholic Church which had nothing against the fact that clerics have wives or concubines, as well as children, until around the beginning of the eleventh century. Who granted dispensations to the sovereigns so that they could remarry if their wife died prematurely; while divorce or a second union was proscribed by the ecclesiastical hierarchy for ordinary people. Or who veiled his eyes modestly vis-à-vis mistresses or other favorites; when they themselves - the Borgias in particular since they are the best known, but which are far from being an isolated case - did not indulge in lust, or did not place their offspring in high-paying positions of the highest quality. Catholic authority.


No word, or so little, of the reasons and justifications for this masculine and domineering behavior with disastrous or monstrous excesses. The most recent news is echoed when we discover with horror that pedophile priests rage for years or decades in their dioceses. When we know that their superiors have been informed for a long time, and that they do not take any serious sanction against them. Just when it's time to get to know each other, and to headline the newspapers, move them away from their original parishes until the affair is over. When we know that these superiors prefer to "settle" the history within the Church, without referring to the judicial authorities of their country. Since quite recent years, the revelations in this field are multiplying, without the Church taking the measure of the evil that this image refers to the general public. And that the latter, in territories where faith is in decline, where vocations to the priesthood are reduced to a trickle, where worship sites are populated by majorities only people of the third age, discredits a little more every day.

When we know, again, that many priests have women and children hidden. That there is no text that explains that carnal love is in contradiction with divine love. But it is a tradition developed in the middle ages so that the financial or earthly legacy of the clergyman does not return to his relatives after his death, but is passed on to the Church. Yes, we can say, really, all this is hypocrisy, compromise, arrangements between friends, arrangements with dogmas, faith and the divine, in the name of personal and material interests.

And who are the first victims? The women, whom the various denominations wish to see as submissive and obedient creatures, women with more than limited culture and knowledge, in order to better control and dominate them. Put out of the male society, Religion has, since the birth of the great monotheistic dogmas still in force, subjected the woman to their Laws. She has fabricated around her a form of myth where she is seen as the one that prevents the link between Man and God to create, or to continue. All the subterfuges and all the instruments are good in order to make it a less accomplished being. All of this, in the name of traditions born of what Religion enacts as being "THE" Truth.

While neither in the Torah, nor in the Bible, nor in the Koran, is there any expressly written affirmation that woman is a creature inferior to man, because they are men who govern spiritually and materially. the world, this one has no right of city. Worse still, men will find all possible justifications imaginable to maintain their hold, to enslave it, to lower it to the state of object or genitor. Why evolve? It is so beneficial for those who hold the levers of power to stay on these gains. Since Tradition and Religion, which we, the Men, have modeled in our image, allow us, why should we give them an ounce of our privileges?

And I am asked to approve all this; to applaud with both hands and say: "continue, that's good"; whereas all that I have just described goes against the fundamental values ​​that are mine. While I am for the right of everyone, whether man, woman, or child, to be respected. That he has the right to dignity, to the freedom of his actions, his thoughts, his ambitions, his hopes here below. I am asked to accept this millennial diktat for those without whom we men would be nothing. Everything according to the name of Religion and Teachings from the Divine that Himself did not write. All this in the name of archaic precepts and dogmas, enacted in remote times when the stranglehold of Religion was all powerful, and it was unthinkable to question.


However, the world is changing. The West has learned the lessons of this institutional and religious barbarism. Obviously, there is still much to do to sweep away these thousands of years of old-fashioned customs and mentalities. Many fights are still to be fought. And vigilance remains in the hands of those who would like us to go back. These traditionalists or Islamists who see in the emancipation of the woman, in the freedom which accompanies it, a danger for the faith. This faith, I do not want it. I push it with all my strength. I fight, and I will fight against them until I have a breath of life left. It is a fight against a backward, misogynistic, retrograde vision of the world and of humanity. This religion, it makes me want to throw up. This God who allows man to behave thus in relation to an essential fraction of his creation - if one follows the sacred texts, of course - I reject him. And it is I who vows it to the flame of Hell; like those who adhere to all this.

Do not tell me that Religion is a blessing, that it is necessary, useful, a vector of love, sharing, harmony, tolerance, etc. For what it teaches in the relationships between men and women, sometimes adults-children, is everything except a vector of spiritual fulfillment ...