In comparing the status of women and of gays and lesbians between “East” and “West,” it seems necessary to compare “apples to apples and oranges to oranges.” If America were a Christian theocracy in the style of many Muslim states, with biblical law providing the general standards for civil law in the same way as the Koran or the Sharia provides the general standards for civil law in many Muslim countries, I’m not sure the status of women or of gays or lesbians would be much better in the U.S., and quite possibly would be much worse.

In the Old Testament the status of women appears comparable to the status of women in the Koran. Women are accorded certain rights and status; divorce is permitted under certain circumstances. But the Old Testament protections are limited by the assumptions that women are more likely to be unclean due to menstruation; and the legal protections they are afforded are granted in the context that women are essentially the property of men. It is unclear how much this is improved under the regime of the New Testament. Women appear to have been involved in the leadership of early Christianity (though it is not self-evident in the Biblical texts). But Jesus denounced divorce as illegitimate (thus making divorce extremely difficult in most Christian countries until the last century); and St. Paul’s standard that women “should keep silent in the churches” has made it problematic for women to assume leadership roles in church or society. Many devout still consider the man to be the “head of the household.” The pedestal is a factor in Christianity as much as it is in Islam, and the greatest single contributor to the status of women in the West has been the rise of the secular state.

For gays and lesbians it is much worse. The Old Testament standard for the treatment of gay men is capital punishment. Lesbians can be grateful to have been largely ignored in the texts requiring that “they shall be put to death.” If the New Testament standard appears to be more merciful, the writings of St. Paul and the interpretations of early church fathers seem relatively clear that homosexuality is a violation of the natural order created by God. There is disagreement among Christians as to whether Old or New Testament standards should be applied to “homosexuals” (or whether Biblical standards of either New or Old Testament are appropriate, given ancient understandings of sexuality). But in practice, most Christian churches still openly discriminate against gays, exclude them from leadership, and have made only the most guarded pronouncements regarding civil or human rights for gays. Under the current legal regime in the U.S., in Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court of the U.S. has ruled that the state has a “compelling interest” in promoting traditional family values, and thus state laws criminalizing consensual same-sex activity are not unconstitutional. The entire argument in support of gay rights in the U.S. has so far been strongly premised on as complete as possible a separation between religious beliefs and standards and civil practice.

While it is not likely that the secular state will be overthrown in the U.S. in favor of some kind of theocracy, as has always been the case (and as Bowers seems to demonstrate), there is often a blurring of church and state. To the extent that the religious right is able to legislate and enforce its views or affect State, Federal and Supreme Court rulings, a whole range of laws directly relating to the welfare and status of women and gays and lesbians could be affected. Marriage and divorce law, abortion rights, sodomy laws, and anti-discrimination codes have all been targeted by conservative religious coalitions. In states where Fundamentalist or conservative Evangelical Christians, Mormons, or the Catholic hierarchy have more influence, there seems to be a corresponding decrease in the rights and welfare of women, gays and lesbians. We are still a long way from seeing full gender and sexual equality under the law guaranteed by the constitution, as is the case, say, in South Africa.

Fortunately, popular attitudes favoring gender or sexual discrimination have been dramatically transformed since the 1960s. But it is disquieting that Americans generally respond in polls that while they favor civil equality, they are not sure that their religious beliefs permit full spiritual equality. The battle for the hearts and minds of Americans is still on in the American church. The extent to which attitudes are changing within the church is largely due to the existence of strong secular feminist and gay rights movements. Women, gays and lesbians in the West can largely be grateful that, unlike in many Muslim countries, the evolution of civil institutions has gone toward separation of church and state. We have a vested interest in keeping things that way.