Who Decides What God Wants? Equity and Religious Power

By Janice Selbie, MPCC

Before talking about religion and fairness, it helps to clarify an important distinction.

Equality means treating everyone the same, regardless of circumstances or starting point.

Equity, by contrast, recognizes that people begin with different levels of power, access, and protection, and that fairness often requires responding differently to different needs. Equality asks whether the rules are identical. Equity asks whether the outcomes are just.

In conversations about religion, equity is the more useful lens because religious systems do not affect all bodies, identities, or communities in the same way.

I did not first learn this distinction in a classroom. I learned it inside religion itself by watching how the same rules landed very differently on women, children, and men; and how questioning those differences was labelled disobedience rather than concern. At the time, I did not have language for power. I only had a persistent sense that something felt off, and that naming it carried consequences.

Religion and Equity: The Difference Is Power

When people ask whether religion can be equitable, the question is often framed as a theological debate. Which scriptures are kinder? Which beliefs are more progressive? Across history and cultures, however, a clearer pattern emerges.

Equity is shaped far less by what a religion claims to believe and far more by how it organizes power.

Some religious communities foster dignity, inclusion, and accountability. Others reinforce hierarchy, control, and exclusion. The difference lies in how authority is claimed, enforced, and challenged.

The Architecture of Inequity

The least equitable religious systems tend to share a recognizable structure. They rely on claims of divine authority that place rules beyond question and leaders beyond accountability. When moral authority is framed as coming directly from a god, dissent is often reinterpreted as defiance rather than curiosity or care.

They are commonly governed by patriarchal leadership, with power flowing downward through rigid hierarchies that are typically dominated by men. In these systems, gender inequality is treated as sacred order rather than a social problem.

They promote moral certainty, reducing complex human realities into absolutes such as pure or sinful, obedient or corrupt. Certainty can feel stabilizing in uncertain times, yet it leaves little room for nuance, compassion, or ethical growth.

They enforce conformity through punishment for dissent, including shunning, shame, fear of eternal consequences, or legal penalties. Belonging becomes conditional rather than relational.

Finally, they seek control over bodies, sexuality, and belief; regulating reproductive choices, gender expression, sexual orientation, and even private thought.

These outcomes are not accidental. Together, these features create systems in which inequity becomes embedded and self-reinforcing.

Religion, Othering, and the Manufacture of Inequity

Religious inequity does not operate only through gender or sexuality. It also reinforces racism, xenophobia, and ethnic hierarchy through the process of othering. Many religious systems divide the world into insiders and outsiders, the saved and the lost, the chosen and the fallen. Once a group is framed as morally inferior or spiritually dangerous, unequal treatment becomes easier to justify.

Historically, religious narratives have been used to sanctify racial hierarchy and colonial domination. Biblical interpretations were invoked to defend slavery, segregation, and Indigenous dispossession. Missionary frameworks often portrayed non-European peoples as spiritually deficient and in need of “civilizing,” collapsing culture, race, and morality into a single judgment. These dynamics grew from religious certainty intertwined with political and economic power.

Conditional Compassion and Narrowed Moral Concern

Othering also operates at the interpersonal level. When children are taught that their family, faith, or nation is uniquely favored by a god, difference can begin to feel threatening. Empathy narrows. Care and concern are extended primarily to those inside the group.

In my own religious upbringing, belonging was never something you simply had. It was something you kept earning, often by staying silent.

This dynamic becomes especially powerful when religious identity overlaps with whiteness, nationalism, or cultural dominance, creating a moral shield around inequality.

Reducing Othering Through Shared Humanity

More equitable religious communities tend to resist this pattern by loosening rigid in-group boundaries. They emphasize shared humanity over chosenness, humility over supremacy, and accountability over moral exceptionalism. When religious identity is held lightly rather than defended fiercely, there is more room to face racism honestly rather than spiritualize it away.

Racism and othering thrive in systems that require enemies in order to feel righteous. Equity becomes possible when belonging is no longer contingent on belief, lineage, or purity, and when moral worth is not assigned by religious gatekeepers.

What More Equitable Religious Communities Do Differently

More equitable religious communities adopt a different posture toward authority.

Movements such as Unitarian Universalism are often cited as among the most equitable because equity is an explicit organizing principle. There is no fixed creed or infallible scripture. Governance is democratic. Dissent is protected rather than punished. Commitments to gender equality, LGBTQ inclusion, racial justice, and bodily autonomy are openly stated. Power is shared rather than concentrated.

Many branches of Quakers offer another instructive example. Historically, Quaker communities advocated early for abolition, pacifism, and women’s spiritual leadership. Their emphasis on inner conscience over external authority reduces reliance on hierarchy. Leadership structures remain relatively flat, and social justice is woven into religious life. While equity varies by branch, many Quaker communities remain comparatively egalitarian because authority is decentralized.

Similarly, Reform Judaism and some Reconstructionist communities show how equity can emerge through reinterpretation rather than literalism. Women and LGBTQ people serve openly in clergy and leadership roles. Sacred texts are engaged through historical and ethical lenses, and debate is encouraged rather than feared. Moral authority grows through dialogue rather than decree.

Across these examples, shared features stand out. Texts are treated as symbolic or historical rather than infallible. Dissent is permitted without punishment. Spiritual meaning is separated from political power. Consent, autonomy, and evolving ethics are centered.

When Religion Becomes Inequitable

Inequity becomes most pronounced when religion fuses with state power and rigid hierarchy.

In Islam, equity varies widely across cultures and sects. In the most conservative interpretations, legal and social restrictions on women, criminalization of LGBTQ identities, and severe penalties for apostasy or blasphemy can emerge. These harms arise from the fusion of religion with patriarchal legal systems and state enforcement.

The Roman Catholic Church provides another example of institutionalized inequity. Women are barred from priesthood and leadership. Doctrinal opposition to contraception, abortion, and same-sex relationships is codified. Authority is centralized and resistant to reform, making inequity structural rather than incidental.

Hinduism, while extraordinarily diverse, has also included caste-orthodox forms that sanctified social hierarchy. Caste divisions and gender inequality were reinforced through religious tradition, restricting social mobility for centuries. Reform movements continue to challenge these systems, yet the legacy of inequity remains a lived reality for many.

Secular Humanism

Taken together, these examples point to a deeper truth. Equity depends on how moral authority is constructed and constrained. When ethics are treated as fixed, divinely mandated, and immune to challenge, inequity is more likely to take root. When ethics are understood as human responsibilities shaped by evidence, compassion, and lived experience, equity becomes more attainable.

This is where secular humanism enters the conversation, not as a rival to religion, but as a framework that makes explicit many of the equity-supporting principles found in the most just religious communities.

Secular humanism centers ethics on human wellbeing, shared responsibility, and evidence rather than obedience to sacred texts or religious authorities. Because moral authority is understood as human-made and revisable, dissent becomes a strength rather than a threat. Values such as consent, bodily autonomy, gender equality, LGBTQ inclusion, and freedom of conscience are foundational. Beliefs are expected to evolve as knowledge and understanding grow.

The Real Divide

Any system, religious or otherwise, becomes inequitable when it claims moral infallibility, suppresses dissent, and governs bodies without consent. Even religious communities can support equity when they practice humility, pluralism, and accountability.

Equity grows where power is held carefully, and human dignity remains at the center. Wherever those conditions exist, equity has room to take root.