Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues.

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby EsotericWombat » Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:01 am UTC

Go fuck yourself. You've managed to pull an entire essay about my supposed attitudes towards the entire world directly from your ass based on a couple of sentences I wrote about a microcosm of the West. It's some top-class self-righteous bullshit there. Someone ought to pin a fucking medal on your chest.

As somebody who went to a Jesuit school, I happen to be well-versed in Catholic doctrine, particularly on this issue. But I don't need to prove my credentials to you.

The idea that we're going to see any kind of meaningful reform under this Pope-- no matter how nicely we speak of him-- is laughable. He's shown more interest in consolidating the power of the Vatican than just about anything else. Right now that means holding a hard line on social issues.
Image

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby Le1bn1z » Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:50 am UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:Go fuck yourself. You've managed to pull an entire essay about my supposed attitudes towards the entire world directly from your ass based on a couple of sentences I wrote about a microcosm of the West. It's some top-class self-righteous bullshit there. Someone ought to pin a fucking medal on your chest.

As somebody who went to a Jesuit school, I happen to be well-versed in Catholic doctrine, particularly on this issue. But I don't need to prove my credentials to you.

The idea that we're going to see any kind of meaningful reform under this Pope-- no matter how nicely we speak of him-- is laughable. He's shown more interest in consolidating the power of the Vatican than just about anything else. Right now that means holding a hard line on social issues.


Your explicit characterisation of anyone who doesn't believe in the equality of women in religious authority as "douchebags" indeed looks like it comes from someone's ass, but you're the one who wrote it.

The last sentence was the first reasonable effort of saying something that makes sense. Keep in mind, though, that the Pope is hardly the only Catholic and you're not trying to change just one mind. There's a difference between a hard line on social issues and dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as douchebags and telling them to fuck themselves.

All it does is make people angry. It comes off as a personal attack (because it is) and has little impact in helping to achieve meaningful reform.

In your last post, you try to weasle your way out of what has been a highly offensive series of posts with a lie, and more swearing. You say you were talking about a "microcosm in the West" when in fact you explicitly said"

EsotericWombat wrote:
If the vast majority of the world is actively seeking to disengage itself from institutions that practice tolerance, then I have no problem with saying that the vast majority of the world are douchebags, because it's actions and attitudes, not demographics, that inform my opinions of people. My guess is that you're full of shit, though.

Also, you misspelled "elitist."


That's your whole post, so hard to see how that's taken out of context. I mean, you talk about how anyone in the world who doesn't meet your standard of tolerance is a douchebag, even if that's everybody. Then you claim that this is probably not true based on absolutely nothing. You throw in some profanity, because you can't really express an opinion without it. You must be smart, to immediately dismiss anyone who disagrees with you with such condescension.

I don't know why you find it so hard to believe that the majority of the world might disagree with you. Let's go through the major religions and denominations of the world, shall we, and seek out the ones with male-female equality vs. those without.

Islam -- Unequal
Catholicism -- Unequal
Hinduism -- Unequal
Shinto -- Unequal
Bhuddism in most varieties -- Unequal
Daoism -- Unequal
Anglicanism -- Unequal except in marginal Canadian and American branches
Lutheranism -- Unequal
Judaism -- Equal in reform, unequal in other branches
Born Again Evangelism -- Unequal in vast majority of cases

So, I may be full of shit. Or I might not be a complete and utter moron who doesn't know that the fight for religious equality isn't restricted to some German bishop in Rome.

Where the vast majority of the world believes something, and has believed it for a long, long time, could be that they're all douchebags and the only virtuous person on God's Green Earth is some American whose chief qualification on understanding the subject is s/he learned it in high school.

Or, could be its a really difficult subject and changing the mind of the vast majority of the world will take more than the usual approach of uppity Americans/Europeans/whoever confusing what they figured out in highschool for eternal Gospel which seperates the real humans from the savages.
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:29 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:You've managed to pull an entire essay about my supposed attitudes towards the entire world directly from your ass based on a couple of sentences I wrote about a microcosm of the West.

That's generally what happens when you flamebait.

Maybe try not making offensive generalizations about large groups of people if you're unwilling to back them up with substantive arguments.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby EsotericWombat » Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:24 pm UTC

I was only characterizing one group of people who were running away from their churches because the Church was allowing female priests and gay priests. You know, the group of people that's actually fucking relevant to this discussion. You're the one who assumed I meant everyone else too. And who defined my supposed "standard."

I never said that I thought the majority of the world agreed with me. I said that I didn't think that they were behaving similarly to that group of people. Which is to say, I don't think that the vast majority of people on Earth are making changes in their lives in order to specifically detatch themselves from organizations they're a part of that have decided to become more tolerant. Changing religions in order to keep the female/gay priests away is different from belonging to a faith with weird ideas about women and gays. It represents an active choice to reject religious authority because it was being too tolerant.

And I never said anything about the worldwide fight for tolerance. This is still a thread about the Catholic Church, right? Rome doesn't care what the people think. At all
Image

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby Le1bn1z » Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:45 pm UTC

@ Esoteric Wombat

Your posts would have made a bit more sense if you'd said you were specifically talking about the Anglican Church. I don't understand why you say you were speaking of Anglicanism and then say that you are speaking strictly of Roman Catholicism. Your confusion and lack of clarity is still not helped by juvenile obscenity. It makes you sound silly and immature. First you say that

"I was only characterizing one group of people who were running away from their churches because the Church was allowing female priests and gay priests. You know, the group of people that's actually fucking relevant to this discussion."


Which could only really apply to the Anglicans or the United Church.

Then you say,

This is still a thread about the Catholic Church, right?


In the snide, sarcastic tone you do so well. Snide sarcasm works best when you can keep your story straight over the course of three sentences, preferably while speaking like an adult. Or at least an older teenager.

The Catholic Church of Rome does not permit women priests, nor does it tolerate active homosexuals. There has been no change in these doctrinal positions for millenia, so I don't understand how an exodus away from women priests has any bearing on the Roman institutions. The Anglican Church and Episcopalian Churches of the USA have suffered tremendous decline in recent decades for a number of reasons, the liberalisation of the church being only one of many factors. However, the exodus to more radical protestant sects like the Christian and Missionary Alliance, for example, points to liberal institutions playing a big role.

So, to be clear, nobody is fleeing the Catholics because of women priests. The opposite is true. You are clearly confused.

Then we come to this little nugget:

I never said the majority of the world agreed with me.


That's right. What you said was

EsotericWombat wrote:If the vast majority of the world is actively seeking to disengage itself from institutions that practice tolerance, then I have no problem with saying that the vast majority of the world are douchebags, because it's actions and attitudes, not demographics, that inform my opinions of people. My guess is that you're full of shit, though.


So while I appreciate a nice strawman as much as the next person, you'll remember that the problem was not any claim that the majority of the world might agree with you about anything, but the pbscene contempt you have repeatedly expressed for anyone who disagrees with you or your extremely narrow, priveldged, classist and bigoted worldview. Perhaps by "world" you meant "white Catholic people." Certainly, that would bring this post into consistency with your last post, but would still make you a complete fool.

Nobody has "invented" any worldview for you, you have expressed an abhorrent one clearly and explictly in repeated posts which look like they were written by an angry child.

Please clarify your last post as to what you are talking about. Are you trying to talk about

A) The Anglican Church and its impending schism over women's rights;
B) The Roman Catholic Church, which has never recognised women as having authority to become priests or bishops; or
C) A mythical Roman Catholic Church which only exists in your mind which is "Changling religion in order to keep female/gay priests away...", presuming that there was some mythic period in which they ever had women or openly gay priests.

Any clarification, or return to sobriety, on your part would, I think, help move the discussion forward.

Until then, I have no idea what you could possibly be talking about.
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:15 pm UTC

Dude, do you really think that you're somehow above personal attacks when you're addressing him as such?
Yes, he told you to fuck off. And you suggested:
Le1bn1z wrote:By your standards, the vast majority of the world consists of douchebags.

Most people who are not douchebags are wealthy, white, Christian or an atheist/agnostic breakoff therefrom and living in the USA, Europe or the Old Dominions.

Which is weird because he didn't say anything like that. Maybe I missed it?
That horse has some pretty tall legs but I think you could see the discussion better if you got down.
OF course, I might be crazy or drunk because his posts are full of sentences I can understand...
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5532
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby doogly » Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:44 pm UTC

Le1bn1z wrote:Second, where do you get off passing judgement simultaneously over billions of people representing dozens of ancient cultures and composing hundreds of countries, ranging from Martin Luther King Jr. to Ghandi?

That's not what "ranging" means. MLK and Gandhi are on the same side of the range you are talking about.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby Weeks » Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:47 pm UTC

I bet he meant "in a wide area range" or a "wide historical range"
TaintedDeity wrote:Tainted Deity
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Dthen wrote:FUCK CHRISTMAS FUCK EVERYTHING FUCK YOU TOO FUCK OFF

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5532
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby doogly » Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:54 pm UTC

Oh, OK. Then I can play too! Expressions of religious faith range from stoning women with small grey rocks to stoning women with slightly larger red ones. It truly is the most remarkable cultural edifice of humanity.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby Le1bn1z » Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:58 pm UTC

Meaux Pas, won't feed a troll.

Weeks, thank you.

Doogly, the range of individuals and religions who discriminate against women on a theological level within the church structure is very broad indeed. It includes heros, and people who for a wide variety of reasons are heroes. For example, there is a broad difference between a conservative-minded Catholic Saint, like Mother Theresa of Calcutta and a liberal reformer like Martin Luther King Jr. and a socialist leader like Rev. Tommy Douglas, former Premier of Saskatchewan and Baptist Minister.

When someone says "believe X or you're a douchebag," they run the risk of offending an extrordinarily broad number of people.

As it happens, the pro-women priesthood argument is most popular amongst the wealthy, well educated and predominantly white congregations of Canada, the USA and parts of Europe. The theologically conservative standpoint is more popular, well, basically everywhere else.

And as everybody seems to skim over this where I say it, I'll cheerfully repeat myself, just in case. I'm a proud Anglican very much in favour of female priests. There's one at my childhood church (where nobody goes anymore) and at my new church (which is still strong.) I take the topic seriously, and know how tenuous our victories are.

Which is why I take this seriously, and have little time for issue-shoppers or Trolls, like Meaux-Pas or yourself, who really don't care about it and consider those who do, including women fighting for equality, to be beneath your contempt.
Last edited by Le1bn1z on Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:01 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}

User avatar
beyondweird
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:41 am UTC
Location: Oxford/North West England
Contact:

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby beyondweird » Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:00 pm UTC

doogly wrote:Oh, OK. Then I can play too! Expressions of religious faith range from stoning women with small grey rocks to stoning women with slightly larger red ones. It truly is the most remarkable cultural edifice of humanity.


Funny enough, it also ranges to some of the most charitable human acts you can imagine, caring for people in situations that most people avoid, and encouraging people to "love your neighbour as you love yourself".

Not just stoning women, I'm afraid.
Everybody has a secret world inside of them...No matter how dull and boring they are on the outside, inside them they've all got unimaginable, magnificent, wonderful, stupid, amazing worlds. Not just one world. Hundreds of them. Thousands maybe.

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby Le1bn1z » Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:04 pm UTC

beyondweird wrote:
doogly wrote:Oh, OK. Then I can play too! Expressions of religious faith range from stoning women with small grey rocks to stoning women with slightly larger red ones. It truly is the most remarkable cultural edifice of humanity.


Funny enough, it also ranges to some of the most charitable human acts you can imagine, caring for people in situations that most people avoid, and encouraging people to "love your neighbour as you love yourself".

Not just stoning women, I'm afraid.


Would it be impolite to point out that the most death sentences in the world are handed out by an officially atheist government (namely, China)?

Or that, y'know, implicitly accusing MLK Jr and Mother Theresa of being murderers is sort of, um, stupid.

Wouldn't want a nasty fact to stand in the way of a.... woefully uninformed troll? Wait....
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5532
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby doogly » Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:11 pm UTC

"On a theological level." Right. Because what is easily recognized as sexism if it happens in any other context gets all confusing when there are enough beads and candles around.


Also, my point was not that religion ranges from one kind of stoning to another. I'm sorry if sarcasm is an advanced technique, but you'll have to excuse me, I'm from New York and this is my culture. I am saying that it is equally wrong to suggest religion ranges from Gandhi to MLK. It ranges from people who like to stone people on one end, to Gandhi and MLK on the other.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:12 pm UTC

Le1bn1z wrote:First you say that
"I was only characterizing one group of people who were running away from their churches because the Church was allowing female priests and gay priests. You know, the group of people that's actually fucking relevant to this discussion."
Which could only really apply to the Anglicans or the United Church.

Then you say,
This is still a thread about the Catholic Church, right?
Yes, he said that. And only an illiterate moron who wasn't paying attention to the thread would so completely fail to understand how the two are connected. Because, of course, we're talking about the Catholic Church making a specific conscious effort to attract those specific people who are running away from their own churches because those churches are letting in the wimminz and the gayz.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby EsotericWombat » Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:17 pm UTC

Watch out Gmal! You understood what I said and therefore must be a troll!
Image

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:18 pm UTC

Le1bn1z wrote:Meaux Pas, won't feed a troll.

Weeks, thank you.

Doogly, the range of individuals and religions who discriminate against women on a theological level within the church structure is very broad indeed. It includes heros, and people who for a wide variety of reasons are heroes. For example, there is a broad difference between a conservative-minded Catholic Saint, like Mother Theresa of Calcutta and a liberal reformer like Martin Luther King Jr. and a socialist leader like Rev. Tommy Douglas, former Premier of Saskatchewan and Baptist Minister.

When someone says "believe X or you're a douchebag," they run the risk of offending an extrordinarily broad number of people.

As it happens, the pro-women priesthood argument is most popular amongst the wealthy, well educated and predominantly white congregations of Canada, the USA and parts of Europe. The theologically conservative standpoint is more popular, well, basically everywhere else.

And as everybody seems to skim over this where I say it, I'll cheerfully repeat myself, just in case. I'm a proud Anglican very much in favour of female priests. There's one at my childhood church (where nobody goes anymore) and at my new church (which is still strong.) I take the topic seriously, and know how tenuous our victories are.

Which is why I take this seriously, and have little time for issue-shoppers or Trolls, like Meaux-Pas or yourself, who really don't care about it and consider those who do, including women fighting for equality, to be beneath your contempt.


om nom nom nom

personally I'm well educated, white, and also a woman. I think the pro-women priest idea is one whose time has long since come, but I also think that religion is just plain weird. I would choose to take this issue seriously except for that last bit- because religion is ridiculous. Specifically the Catholic Church (don't care which denomination because right now I'm mentally pointing at Darth Pope) with regard to actually treating human beings properly, is doing itself a disservice.
I believe that a lot of people are searching for God, and that some of those people happen to have vaginas, and having female priests actually probably matters to that search. Apparently though patriarchal tradition is too important to an infallible man like the Pope, I guess that makes sense. It is a very old religion.
But for the record, I apologize for having offended you. I mock because it's religion and I think it deserves to be mocked. Faith does not. There is somewhat of a difference there. Making women priests shouldn't and can't alter someone else's faith in their god.
Interestingly enough, I would bet that being a victim of hushed-up child abuse just might alter someone's faith in their god.


And you still put words in EsotericWombat's mouth that I'm pretty sure he didn't say.
Won't point out the hipocracy. It was either obvious before you wrote this, or will be lost on you regardless.
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby Le1bn1z » Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:21 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Le1bn1z wrote:First you say that
"I was only characterizing one group of people who were running away from their churches because the Church was allowing female priests and gay priests. You know, the group of people that's actually fucking relevant to this discussion."
Which could only really apply to the Anglicans or the United Church.

Then you say,
This is still a thread about the Catholic Church, right?
Yes, he said that. And only an illiterate moron who wasn't paying attention to the thread would so completely fail to understand how the two are connected. Because, of course, we're talking about the Catholic Church making a specific conscious effort to attract those specific people who are running away from their own churches because those churches are letting in the wimminz and the gayz.


Which is why I was talking about both. And was confused why s/he said s/he wasn't, and then said s/he was talking about only one, and then the other. Also that, globally, those who disagree are douchebags, for some reason.

And since when do universal principles or the global situation not matter in a case like this?

You might have noticed that the thread is considerably broader than simply the special episcopal structure set aside for disaffected Anglicans in North America and Britain.

Have you been following the discussion between me and him/her? Or are you just jumping in now?

Incidentally, this is one of the big reasons conservatives don't trust us liberals in the Chruch. They see us as the vanguard for, well, you, people who don't really care about anything to do with the issue or the church but insulting those with whom you disagree in order to feel superior. Which is kinda lame.

I never really understand ordinary, working-stiff reactionaries (of either gender, my grandma being one) until I hear the ignorant bile spouted by the likes of you three.

Or are you one of the "illiterate morons who wasn't paying attention to the thread [who] wouldn't understand how the two were connected." For the nth time. I am an Anglican. I regularily go to church. I have already seen one congregation nearly pulled apart by these issues. I am way, way more familiar with this issue and the relationship between Rome and the Anglican Communion than just about anyone here, so, frankly, I don't know where that's coming from. Unless you haven't been reading.
Last edited by Le1bn1z on Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:24 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:22 pm UTC

I'm glad that I could expand your understanding of the world, if only a little bit.
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:23 pm UTC

Le1bn1z wrote:For the nth time. I am an Anglican. I regularily go to church. I have already seen one congregation nearly pulled apart by these issues. I am way, way more familiar with this issue and the relationship between Rome and the Anglican Communion than just about anyone here
Swearing up and down how much you know about this issue doesn't make your posts make any more sense.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5532
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby doogly » Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:46 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Le1bn1z wrote:For the nth time. I am an Anglican. I regularily go to church. I have already seen one congregation nearly pulled apart by these issues. I am way, way more familiar with this issue and the relationship between Rome and the Anglican Communion than just about anyone here
Swearing up and down how much you know about this issue doesn't make your posts make any more sense.

I am willing to give leibniz three whole guesses as to the nature of my personal experience and education regarding this issue.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:03 pm UTC

Well clearly the Anglican who often goes to church knows way more about this topic than you ever could, regardless of whatever your personal experience happens to be.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby Jessica » Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:04 pm UTC

His anecdotal evidence is much more valid than yours.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
NecklaceOfShadow
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 7:40 pm UTC
Location: In the alchemical aether
Contact:

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby NecklaceOfShadow » Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:20 pm UTC

I realize that these aren't all of Le1bn1z's posts up to now, but I'm incredibly tired of wading through this right now and I think that 4 posts is more than enough. I'm quite sorry if I missed anything obvious and if anyone has anything to add, please feel free.

My responses are in bold. Enjoy!


Spoiler:
Le1bn1z wrote:
EsotericWombat wrote:The idea that misogyny deserves respect because it's wrapped in arcane theological rationalizations is an intellectual dead end. The fact is, the Vatican is actively choosing to court backward douchebags who don't like that the Anglican Church has become more tolerant-- at the expense of treating Catholic women like people.

Respect is earned, and the Vatican has been in deficit mode for some time now.


By your standards, the vast majority of the world consists of douchebags. Well... yeah. At times, it's a very reasonable assumption to make with quite a lot of proof behind it.

Most people who are not douchebags are wealthy, white, Christian or an atheist/agnostic breakoff therefrom and living in the USA, Europe or the Old Dominions. Where did this even come from? It wasn't anything EW said -- it's disingenuous to accuse him of holding a view he never expressed. If you want to make this point, support it somehow.

Eliteist much?

Also, you're sort of way, way, way overstating your case. Being able to become a priest is not the be all and end all of person-hood. No, it's not. However, just because it's not the be all and end all doesn't mean that it's not an issue worth discussing as you yourself should know because you're advocating for it yourself!


Spoiler:
Le1bn1z wrote:
EsotericWombat wrote:If the vast majority of the world is actively seeking to disengage itself from institutions that practice tolerance, then I have no problem with saying that the vast majority of the world are douchebags, because it's actions and attitudes, not demographics, that inform my opinions of people. My guess is that you're full of shit, though.

Also, you misspelled "elitist."


Ummmmmm.....OKKKKKK...

So, from your high pedestal where personal attacks pass for reasoned ethical arguments, and where you are one of the very, very few decent people in a world populated by "douchebags," do you have a plan for making the world a better place, or do you just intend to hurl obscenities and insults at anyone who agrees with you but encourages respectful engagement with those who don't? --- You know, it seems just a tad bit ironic that you're condemning his cursing and 'offensive language' by using condescension and having a smug attitude of "I know so much more than you"

You're sentence "...seeking to disengage itself from institutions that practice tolerance..." makes no sense. Much of the world is not tolerant. At all. China is a wildly intolerant place. India's religious elites are dominated by men in most, though not all, religions practiced there. Islam has stricter limits on women participating in religion than do Baptists or Romans. Most Christians in Africa and Latin America seem very comfortable with male leadership. So what are these institutions they're "disengaging" from? The institutions which have animated spiritual and political life for most of the world for millenia are explicitly intolerant, and remain so to this day. What do you mean that it makes no sense? If the rest of the world doesn't want to support institutions that want to be tolerant, EW has no problem with calling them douchebags. To be honest, I don't either. What you've done here is provide a whole lot of places that suck and aren't tolerant in the least. If anything, you're just proving EW's point -- most of the world, the wonderfully diverse and multifaceted world, is populated by douchebags. Just because their institutions have animated spiritual/political life for millenia doesn't make them immune to criticism.

"Tolerant" institutions are opposed in much of the world as modern-day imperialism. What does this mean? That we have to try a bit harder, I suppose, to promote ideas that are more tolerant. Especially since many of its proponents, like you, have all the grace, subtlety and genuine respect for these people as a bunch of Blackwater Mercs on a bender in Baghdad. I'm sorry. I'll go coddle the racist, sexist idiots of the world until my love and all-around rainbow charm makes them want to be better people.

As it happens, the African branches of the World Anglican Communion have been engaging in a campaign to have all of Canada's Anglicans (including yours truly) expelled for supporting women priests and gay rights. I'm sorry for your own hardships and difficulties. But aside from showing what a [url]horrible world we live in[/url], what was the point of that?

So, seeing as I'm more or less about to be excommunicated by a church that never excommunicates anyone for believing in the authority of women bishops, seeing as I've got a personal connection to this and, most of all...

seeing as I actually have studied this, know about this, thought about it seriously all far more than some snotty, western elitist out to civilize a world of barbarians through personal insults, Ad hominems don't make his points any less valid. I'll leave you with some advice:

Shut up, and don't reiterate this idiocy in public.

Its embarassing to you, and to those who actually take women's rights in the Chruch seriously and aren't just issue-tourists looking to show off. You make our job much harder, and weaken our position in a fight we could well lose.


Spoiler:
Le1bn1z wrote:@ thc

I think we're heading a wee bit off topic with the stoning of women and of gays thing. Bit of difference between stoning and not carrying a mitre.

But lets talk women in the priesthood.

The first question is, what do we do about it?

Well, we can yell, scream and call them names. This gets nobody anywhere, really. Not when it comes to cultural change. The stonning of women and of gays I'm right behind you on. The response from Canadian Christians to Uganda's proposed stoning of gays there was not kindly. Rage, I think, is the right term.

However, where people aren't getting hurt explicitly, anyways and where the vast majority of the normal population is onside, while I'm sure that you know this already, a bandwagon appeal is a sort of logical fallacy -- their view is made no more the valid just because a lot of people hold it taking your stance of playing condescending overlord, especially as a whitey marching into Africa, will not win you any kudos. In fact, the best thing that could happen for the women's rights movement within the Church, somedays, is if people like Esoteric Wombat just STFU. Having a different approach on a situation is not reason enough to tell someone to STFU, especially when they have valid points to make in that people who explicitly or implicitly support an intolerant system are not worthy of respect. Sometimes, it's necessary to push and to push hard. Waiting and doing nothing at times is a valid strategy and at times is nothing more than a silencing technique done by people who want to keep the status quo a bit longer.

Its sort of like the support William Wilberforce got from Jacobins and Republicans when he was trying to fight the slave trade. Great. Just what I always wanted. Help from traitors and enemies of the state.

So, trying to convince conservatives of the viability of a transformation of the church to be more inclusive, the last thing we need is people like you or E.W. screaming that religion is evil, and that you support reform to make the church more in line with atheism. I realize that my reading comprehension isn't the best but could you point me to exactly where either thc or EW said that? Because I can't find it for the life of me. If I didn't know better, that sentence seems a bit closer to an ignorant ad hominem. Well, that and to a woefully incorrect point of view that only atheists can be vocal about equality and the doucheyness of the world.

Great. I wonder who will read that at Synod? The female Bishop of Nova Scotia, or the Primate of Uganda?

Which is why I accused buddy of dishonest issue shopping. EW doesn't give a rat's ass about the church, and I doubt you do either. In fact, you want it dead and gone. So why are you pretending to care about reform of the faith? Because even if their hatred regarding the Church is true and they want it stricken from the Earth forever, which probably won't happen any time soon, the next best thing would be to have religious organizations that aren't as discriminatory and harmful in their actions. This sets up a bit of a false dichotomy -- either you want the church to reform slowly or you want the world to wipe its hands clean of it.

Unless you're thinking of mimicing the far-right strategy of polarising all of society into atheist and fanatical extremes, you're doing nobody and good.

Second, where do you get off passing judgement simultaneously over billions of people representing dozens of ancient cultures and composing hundreds of countries, ranging from Martin Luther King Jr. to Ghandi?

Now, I know you likely have a high school diploma, and maybe even a college degree. But pretending you have even the remotest credibility to pass such sweeping and total moral judgement over over MLK, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, the Underground Railroad, Equiano, W Wilberforce, John Newman, Tommy Douglas, the entire Salvation Army, the old folks working at the homeless shelters at churches, the soup kitchen people, the folks at Red Crescent, the courageous ladies working at womens' schools in Afghanistan, a whole lot of allied vets and dead from WWII, the Vatican resistance agents who smuggled Jews out of Rome during the holocaust, the priests who opposed Hitler and were killed in the Holocaust, bunches of Jews killed in the Holocaust, most Jews period and so many other people because you read a couple of books from the comfort of Hawaii in highschool.... well, it strikes me as arrogant and ridiculous. Neither of us are the moral or intellectual equivalent of many of those you so brazenly contemn.

I'm not saying we should agree with everything such people say. But as human beings, we owe them the respect and dignity of our opposition being as resolute as it is respectful and consciensious, and made in full knowledge of our own human fallibility. I also understand your discomfort with inequality. I share the same discomfort. But the character of a person is never black and white, and to cast one's judgement of people in those terms is utterly unfair.

Straw man. As has been said earlier, human religious culture goes not only to Ghandi and MLK but to ignorant douches who want homosexuals to be stoned to death or women to be subservient to any wishes made by her husband. It's nice how you only portray half of that spectrum and therefore want to make anyone who disagrees with you seem like a horrible human being. Can you say "lie of omission"?

And I never said "always trust people not to be evil." I said that humility and self-understanding dictate that we understand we are only human.

Being only human means that on average we are no smarter or better than humanity. Sometimes we're right, sometimes we're wrong.

When we come accross something we don't like or don't understand, we have a duty to understand first and judge only afterwards. As Dylan would say, "Don't criticise what you don't understand."

Ironically, you and EW are guilty of the same crime as the Catholic Church, lashing out with intollerance from a place of willful ignorance. I'm sorry but... Wanting a harmful, sexist attitude to be diminished from the world is intolerant? Is this just another way of saying "If you're so tolerant, why don't you tolerate my intolerance?" Because if it is, that is one of the most asinine things I've read lately. Kudos.

As a progressive, you of all people should know that it is such arrogance from which tyranny is born.

EsotericWombat wrote: @Le1bn1z: You admittedly didn't understand what I said, and then proceeded to extrapolate an entire attitude towards the rest of the world from it. Classy.


Your entire contribution thus far has consisted of personal attacks based on.... nothing from what I can see. If I had to guess, I'd say you know nothing of this subject save what you've read from others here and what you've checked on Wikipedia, if you've gone that far.

I understood what you said. Sweeping, obscene insults of whole civilizations are hard to miss, as are accusations of ignorance backed up by absolutely no positive contribution of your own.

So, if you have nothing useful to say, shut up and leave the topic to people who care enough to have a serious conversation about it. Because you, of course, are the sole arbiter of who cares enough to have a serious discussion, right?

thc is a far better advocate for your position than you. Leave it to thc.


Spoiler:
Le1bn1z wrote:
EsotericWombat wrote:Go fuck yourself. You've managed to pull an entire essay about my supposed attitudes towards the entire world directly from your ass based on a couple of sentences I wrote about a microcosm of the West. It's some top-class self-righteous bullshit there. Someone ought to pin a fucking medal on your chest.

As somebody who went to a Jesuit school, I happen to be well-versed in Catholic doctrine, particularly on this issue. But I don't need to prove my credentials to you.

The idea that we're going to see any kind of meaningful reform under this Pope-- no matter how nicely we speak of him-- is laughable. He's shown more interest in consolidating the power of the Vatican than just about anything else. Right now that means holding a hard line on social issues.


Your explicit characterisation of anyone who doesn't believe in the equality of women in religious authority as "douchebags" indeed looks like it comes from someone's ass, but you're the one who wrote it.

The last sentence was the first reasonable effort of saying something that makes sense. Keep in mind, though, that the Pope is hardly the only Catholic and you're not trying to change just one mind. That may be true but the Pope is the head honcho of the Catholics. When he says jump, a large amount of the Catholics will ask, "How high?" Don't treat him as if he were just anybody. There's a difference between a hard line on social issues and dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as douchebags and telling them to fuck themselves.

All it does is make people angry. And sometimes anger is a good thing. In the best case scenario, anger leads to people rethinking their views and actually having to fight to justify why they believe what they believe. It comes off as a personal attack (because it is) and has little impact in helping to achieve meaningful reform.

In your last post, you try to weasle your way out of what has been a highly offensive series of posts with a lie, and more swearing. You say you were talking about a "microcosm in the West" when in fact you explicitly said"

EstotericWombat wrote:If the vast majority of the world is actively seeking to disengage itself from institutions that practice tolerance, then I have no problem with saying that the vast majority of the world are douchebags, because it's actions and attitudes, not demographics, that inform my opinions of people. My guess is that you're full of shit, though.

Also, you misspelled "elitist."


That's your whole post, so hard to see how that's taken out of context. I mean, you talk about how anyone in the world who doesn't meet your standard of tolerance is a douchebag, even if that's everybody. Then you claim that this is probably not true based on absolutely nothing. You throw in some profanity, because you can't really express an opinion without it. You must be smart, to immediately dismiss anyone who disagrees with you with such condescension.

I don't know why you find it so hard to believe that the majority of the world might disagree with you. Let's go through the major religions and denominations of the world, shall we, and seek out the ones with male-female equality vs. those without.

Islam -- Unequal
Catholicism -- Unequal
Hinduism -- Unequal
Shinto -- Unequal
Bhuddism in most varieties -- Unequal
Daoism -- Unequal
Anglicanism -- Unequal except in marginal Canadian and American branches
Lutheranism -- Unequal
Judaism -- Equal in reform, unequal in other branches
Born Again Evangelism -- Unequal in vast majority of cases

So, I may be full of shit. Or I might not be a complete and utter moron who doesn't know that the fight for religious equality isn't restricted to some German bishop in Rome. Great... What you've done is, again, show us how much the world can suck at times. Still, just because this is more than a fight on one front doesn't mean that isolating a fight to one front for the moment isn't a valid strategy.

Where the vast majority of the world believes something, and has believed it for a long, long time, could be that they're all douchebags and the only virtuous person on God's Green Earth is some American whose chief qualification on understanding the subject is s/he learned it in high school.

Or, could be its a really difficult subject and changing the mind of the vast majority of the world will take more than the usual approach of uppity Americans/Europeans/whoever confusing what they figured out in highschool for eternal Gospel which seperates the real humans from the savages.

Or how about the middle route? Quite a lot of them are douchebags, influenced by a patriarchal system that places women below men in all things, including religion. There may have been attempts in the past to fight against it but it hasn't been possible because feminism and other forces to try to redress the state of women in the world haven't been as strong as they are now. It is ignorant to dismiss this out of hand and only to consider an approach which panders quite a lot to the existing douches who want to keep the status quo because not much progress will get made.
Significantly less weird than I used to be. Still pretty weird.

οὗτός ἐστιν Ἀγαμέμνων, ἐμὸς
πόσις, νεκρὸς δὲ τῆσδε δεξιᾶς χερός
ἔργον δικαίας τέκτονος. τάδ’ ὧδ’ ἔχει.

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby thc » Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:39 pm UTC

I think we're heading a wee bit off topic with the stoning of women and of gays thing. Bit of difference between stoning and not carrying a mitre.
...
The stonning of women and of gays I'm right behind you on. The response from Canadian Christians to Uganda's proposed stoning of gays there was not kindly. Rage, I think, is the right term.

There's isn't a qualitative difference; active discrimination against women is harmful as surely as a rock thrown directly at an individual woman. Why is it acceptable to express outrage and impose your westernly values on other cultures... but only when it's past your threshold?

Second, where do you get off passing judgement simultaneously over billions of people representing dozens of ancient cultures and composing hundreds of countries, ranging from Martin Luther King Jr. to Ghandi?

Now, I know you likely have a high school diploma, and maybe even a college degree. But pretending you have even the remotest credibility to pass such sweeping and total moral judgement over over MLK, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, the Underground Railroad, Equiano, W Wilberforce, John Newman, Tommy Douglas, the entire Salvation Army, the old folks working at the homeless shelters at churches, the soup kitchen people, the folks at Red Crescent, the courageous ladies working at womens' schools in Afghanistan, a whole lot of allied vets and dead from WWII, the Vatican resistance agents who smuggled Jews out of Rome during the holocaust, the priests who opposed Hitler and were killed in the Holocaust, bunches of Jews killed in the Holocaust, most Jews period and so many other people because you read a couple of books from the comfort of Hawaii in highschool.... well, it strikes me as arrogant and ridiculous. Neither of us are the moral or intellectual equivalent of many of those you so brazenly contemn.

This is a strawman in the extreme.

I fully understanding that people are multi-faceted and that good people can have bad qualities. For example, I understand and respect MLK's contribution to the civil rights movement, even if, say, he would be considered sexist by today's standards. He was a progressive and advanced society. Now what YOU don't understand is that it works both ways: bad people are capable of having good qualities. I'm sure the current Pope or the Ayatollah have some very good and charitable qualities. But they've done nothing of the sort in likeness of MLK or Ghandi. In fact, they've actively worked in regressing hard won civil rights. At the end of the day, their beliefs do far more harm to this world than their charity and I strongly believe that this world would be better off without them.

And I never said "always trust people not to be evil." I said that humility and self-understanding dictate that we understand we are only human.

Being only human means that on average we are no smarter or better than humanity. Sometimes we're right, sometimes we're wrong.

I never said that you said "always trust people not to be evil"?

The point that was being made is, conservative religious leaders tend to make poor decisions more often than others. Sure, sometimes they will get it right.

guenther
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby guenther » Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:04 pm UTC

NecklaceOfShadow wrote:It is ignorant to dismiss this out of hand and only to consider an approach which panders quite a lot to the existing douches who want to keep the status quo because not much progress will get made.

I have a hard time taking people's positions seriously when they can't explain it without resorting to name calling. And when people can make a case without name calling but refuse to do so, I can't help but see it as pandering to the people the are fueled by ugly intolerance and bigotry rather than as an honest effort to actually do something good.


thc wrote:There's isn't a qualitative difference; active discrimination against women is harmful as surely as a rock thrown directly at an individual woman. Why is it acceptable to express outrage and impose your westernly values on other cultures... but only when it's past your threshold?

Not allowing women to be priests is not comparable to stoning women in any way. Any moral system that equates the two is a bad moral system, in my opinion.

thc wrote:At the end of the day, their beliefs do far more harm to this world than their charity and I strongly believe that this world would be better off without them.
...
The point that was being made is, conservative religious leaders tend to make poor decisions more often than others. Sure, sometimes they will get it right.

Can you back up these statements or are they just meant to be opinions?

My problem with painting the opposition as bad people is that it breeds ugly intolerance that only differs from what the "bad" people do because it hasn't been given the time and opportunity to grow into a societal tumor. When the opposition is causing eminent harm, then having this extra bit of angry fuel is important. But if the goal is to move to a time when we aren't fueled by bigotry, there's only so much we can fight ugly intolerance with ugly intolerance before it does more harm than good. At some point we need a level of restraint when opposing social injustice.

Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen anyone actually defend the various churches' refusal to ordain women priests. So it seems the debate, at least of late, has been about how low our esteem should be for people and groups that refuse to do this. When people consistently argue against any lower bound, I can't help but wonder if this is fueled by an deep, unhealthy intolerance or by a sense of political expediency.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

User avatar
NecklaceOfShadow
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 7:40 pm UTC
Location: In the alchemical aether
Contact:

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby NecklaceOfShadow » Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:34 pm UTC

guenther wrote:
NecklaceOfShadow wrote:It is ignorant to dismiss this out of hand and only to consider an approach which panders quite a lot to the existing douches who want to keep the status quo because not much progress will get made.

I have a hard time taking people's positions seriously when they can't explain it without resorting to name calling. And when people can make a case without name calling but refuse to do so, I can't help but see it as pandering to the people the are fueled by ugly intolerance and bigotry rather than as an honest effort to actually do something good.


So... a tone argument? You don't like how I'm saying something and so you'll discount it without the consideration it merits? That seems disingenuous to me. Name calling might not be the best thing in which to indulge but it's also something that can be ignored easily. It might even be a logical fallacy to discount an idea for the way in which it is proposed instead of what it actually represents.

thc wrote:There's isn't a qualitative difference; active discrimination against women is harmful as surely as a rock thrown directly at an individual woman. Why is it acceptable to express outrage and impose your westernly values on other cultures... but only when it's past your threshold?

Not allowing women to be priests is not comparable to stoning women in any way. Any moral system that equates the two is a bad moral system, in my opinion.


But it's not just denying women the ability to be priests. It's the whole culture that embodies and represents. When women are considered unable to do something purely because they're women, it's as harmful as stoning a woman. Not allowing women to become priests is a symptom of this, not the whole disease.
Significantly less weird than I used to be. Still pretty weird.

οὗτός ἐστιν Ἀγαμέμνων, ἐμὸς
πόσις, νεκρὸς δὲ τῆσδε δεξιᾶς χερός
ἔργον δικαίας τέκτονος. τάδ’ ὧδ’ ἔχει.

guenther
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby guenther » Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:57 pm UTC

NecklaceOfShadow wrote:So... a tone argument? You don't like how I'm saying something and so you'll discount it without the consideration it merits? That seems disingenuous to me. Name calling might not be the best thing in which to indulge but it's also something that can be ignored easily. It might even be a logical fallacy to discount an idea for the way in which it is proposed instead of what it actually represents.

I will consider it's merits, but my judgment will be colored by how willing someone is to make efforts to not be intentionally offensive. I find those that make the effort generally have more valuable and better reasoned opinions.

And if you are willing to admit that name calling is not the best thing to do, why do you do it? Why don't you strive for the best thing, especially when it just involves substituting more appropriate words?

NecklaceOfShadow wrote:When women are considered unable to do something purely because they're women, it's as harmful as stoning a woman.

OK. I find this moral equation equally bad. It's like when people compare religous fundamentalists to extremists who actively blow up buildings and marketplaces. As far as I can tell, it only serves the purpose of fostering politically convenient hatred and intolerance. And if I were to make an ironically egregious moral comparison, I would say it's as bad as stoning women.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:07 pm UTC

guenther wrote:
NecklaceOfShadow wrote:When women are considered unable to do something purely because they're women, it's as harmful as stoning a woman.
OK. I find this moral equation equally bad.
Yeah, they may both come from the same underlying beliefs and tendencies, and are differences of degree rather than of kind, and there may be a slippery continuum between them, but they're not equally harmful. Saying they are is like saying male circumcision and female genital mutilation are equally harmful, because they're both unnecessary and painful procedures done to an infant's genitals for no good reason. Or like saying that moon landing denial is as harmful as Holocaust denial or HIV denial, simply because all kinds of denial employ similarly flawed argument tactics and illogic.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby 22/7 » Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:45 pm UTC

Le1bn1z wrote:So, from your high pedestal where personal attacks pass for reasoned ethical arguments
...
some snotty, western elitist out to civilize a world of barbarians through personal insults
My humanity gland hurts...
guenther wrote:My problem with painting the opposition as bad people is that it breeds ugly intolerance that only differs from what the "bad" people do because it hasn't been given the time and opportunity to grow into a societal tumor.
You know, I just don't think this passes the "walks like a duck" test. I think it's perfectly reasonable, required, even, for a society to brand a particularly harmful way of going about ones day as "bad" and the people who go about their day in that way as "bad people". For example, we as a society (the US, we're the only ones on the internets, after all) have decided that people shouldn't kill each other and that people who do kill each other should be removed from our society. They're also generally branded as "killers", which we've agreed is a bad thing, and thus, "bad people". Now, that's an unnecessarily extreme example, but it's applicable to our current predicament, I promise. We as a society have decided that people should be treated equally* and that, specifically, people should not be discriminated against because of their gender. We consider it unacceptable for someone to be denied the ability to, I don't know, apply for a job based purely on their gender. We refer to these people as sexists and send them fruit baskets full of vegetables to show our dissatisfaction not because we think they have no redeeming qualities or because they are evil incarnate, but because their actions are sexist. I'm not uncomfortable with extending a term with negative connotations (sexist, for example) to someone whose actions indicate them to be well defined by that term.

*offer not valid for non-white-straight-Protestant-middle or upper class-attractive-males in the contiguous United States or Canada. Some restrictions may apply. See official game rules online for more details.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby thc » Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:51 pm UTC

thc wrote:At the end of the day, their beliefs do far more harm to this world than their charity and I strongly believe that this world would be better off without them.
...
The point that was being made is, conservative religious leaders tend to make poor decisions more often than others. Sure, sometimes they will get it right.

Can you back up these statements or are they just meant to be opinions?

That depends. Do you believe socially conservative beliefs are generally harmful? If so, then the sentiment is self-evident - socially conservative leaders tend to make socially conservative decisions. Though the first statement, is of course, an opinion ("a strong belief").

But if the goal is to move to a time when we aren't fueled by bigotry, there's only so much we can fight ugly intolerance with ugly intolerance before it does more harm than good. At some point we need a level of restraint when opposing social injustice.

I agree completely. We need to be cautious how we engage these sort of people. But coming to the conclusion that these people are in fact, Bad People, is solely a logic-based conclusion and not at all relevant to what you just said.

guenther wrote:Not allowing women to be priests is not comparable to stoning women in any way. Any moral system that equates the two is a bad moral system, in my opinion.

What I said was that they were qualitatively similar, differing by degree. I didn't say that they were equal.

guenther
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby guenther » Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:14 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:I'm not uncomfortable with extending a term with negative connotations (sexist, for example) to someone whose actions indicate them to be well defined by that term.

If a group is going to disqualify women because they're unfit, then call them sexist. I'm not taking issue with that. I'm talking about vilification beyond that where we use language that blurs the line between these people and those that would throw rocks at women who step out of line.

thc wrote:That depends. Do you believe socially conservative beliefs are generally harmful? If so, then the sentiment is self-evident - socially conservative leaders tend to make socially conservative decisions. Though the first statement, is of course, an opinion ("a strong belief").

If you're relying purely on opinion to gauge "generally harmful", then it seems that the whole thing is just opinion based.

thc wrote:I agree completely. We need to be cautious how we engage these sort of people. But coming to the conclusion that these people are in fact, Bad People, is solely a logic-based conclusion and not at all relevant to what you just said.

It's logic-based when you introduce certain assumptions that are only supported by opinion. I could introduce different assumption and logically conclude they're good people. How we label people is a part of how we engage them, and that's certainly relevant to what I said.

thc wrote:What I said was that they were qualitatively similar, differing by degree. I didn't say that they were equal.

Stealing a candy bar and stealing a car might be qualitatively similar, but our moral response to those should be very different, even if we conclude they're both wrong and worth opposing.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby thc » Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:26 am UTC

guenther wrote:
thc wrote:That depends. Do you believe socially conservative beliefs are generally harmful? If so, then the sentiment is self-evident - socially conservative leaders tend to make socially conservative decisions. Though the first statement, is of course, an opinion ("a strong belief").

If you're relying purely on opinion to gauge "generally harmful", then it seems that the whole thing is just opinion based.

It must be nice to be able to approach issues of equality from a purely academic, disinterested standpoint. You are a married, white heterosexual male. Asking for proof that sexist and homophobic beliefs are harmful to minorities, is asinine in the extreme.

thc wrote:I agree completely. We need to be cautious how we engage these sort of people. But coming to the conclusion that these people are in fact, Bad People, is solely a logic-based conclusion and not at all relevant to what you just said.

It's logic-based when you introduce certain assumptions that are only supported by opinion. I could introduce different assumption and logically conclude they're good people. How we label people is a part of how we engage them, and that's certainly relevant to what I said.

You are splitting hairs. Ostensibly, you agree that females should be allowed priesthood. You also agree that stoning women is VERY wrong. However, you're not comfortable labeling these religious leaders promoting these institutions as Bad People? Fine, have your semantics victory. But don't you dare try to pretend that these people are not doing a great deal of harm.

thc wrote:What I said was that they were qualitatively similar, differing by degree. I didn't say that they were equal.

Stealing a candy bar and stealing a car might be qualitatively similar, but our moral response to those should be very different, even if we conclude they're both wrong and worth opposing.

On the other hand, you could be underestimating the amount of harm non-violent discrimination against women does to women, both physically and otherwise.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby 22/7 » Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:28 am UTC

guenther wrote:
22/7 wrote:I'm not uncomfortable with extending a term with negative connotations (sexist, for example) to someone whose actions indicate them to be well defined by that term.
If a group is going to disqualify women because they're unfit, then call them sexist. I'm not taking issue with that. I'm talking about vilification beyond that where we use language that blurs the line between these people and those that would throw rocks at women who step out of line.

Keep in mind that this is not the only beef that many people take with the Catholic church. Literally decades (probably more) of sexual abuse enabled and covered up, a policy of discouraging the use of condoms in what is probably the worst breeding ground for HIV/AIDS in the world, a record of supporting the restriction of rights based entirely on sexual orientation, using church-owned hospitals as bargaining chips for political sway...
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
Krong
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:49 am UTC
Location: Charleston, South Cackalacky

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby Krong » Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:36 am UTC

guenther wrote:Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen anyone actually defend the various churches' refusal to ordain women priests. So it seems the debate, at least of late, has been about how low our esteem should be for people and groups that refuse to do this. When people consistently argue against any lower bound, I can't help but wonder if this is fueled by an deep, unhealthy intolerance or by a sense of political expediency.

I'd defend it, but I have better ways to spend my time that being called stupid and sexist by people on the internet. I mean, Leibniz is even on the same side of this issue as the people in this thread, for crying out loud.

But you're right -- equating the traditions of the church with child molestation, sexism, and political control is ignorant to the point that it must be willfully so. It's not too ridiculous, though, for someone to go to such efforts to distance his/herself ideologically from people who've decided on a right way to live that's very different from the one the he/she has decided on. We all want to be "right" about what lies at the foundations of our lives and characters.
The answer to the question "What’s wrong with the world?" is just two words: "I am." -- G. K. Chesterton (attributed)

guenther
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby guenther » Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:11 am UTC

thc wrote:It must be nice to be able to approach issues of equality from a purely academic, disinterested standpoint. You are a married, white heterosexual male. Asking for proof that sexist and homophobic beliefs are harmful to minorities, is asinine in the extreme.

How lovely. I'll let the rest of my people know that the common folk are beginning to see through my guise of caring. Any other bigotry you want to ladle on there?

And am I asinine to notice that your goalposts are moving? Apparently asking for evidence that conservative beliefs do more harm than good is code for homophobic and sexist beliefs don't hurt anybody. That must be either whitespeak or straightspeak. I get them confused. Men get confused easily.

thc wrote:You are splitting hairs. Ostensibly, you agree that females should be allowed priesthood. You also agree that stoning women is VERY wrong. However, you're not comfortable labeling these religious leaders promoting these institutions as Bad People? Fine, have your semantics victory. But don't you dare try to pretend that these people are not doing a great deal of harm.

Are you just trying to berate me into agreeing with you? And what you call splitting hairs, I call fighting ugly intolerance.

thc wrote:On the other hand, you could be underestimating the amount of harm non-violent discrimination against women does to women, both physically and otherwise.

I get the feeling that unless I jumped on the Hate the Catholic Church bandwagon, you'd judge me as underestimating the harm.

22/7 wrote:Keep in mind that this is not the only beef that many people take with the Catholic church. Literally decades (probably more) of sexual abuse enabled and covered up, a policy of discouraging the use of condoms in what is probably the worst breeding ground for HIV/AIDS in the world, a record of supporting the restriction of rights based entirely on sexual orientation, using church-owned hospitals as bargaining chips for political sway...

I think there's a lot of valid criticism against the Catholic Church, and to be honest I'm not a big fan of the structure as a whole. But I see them as a big flawed organization rather than a group of bad people doing bad things. My point isn't to defend them, but to challenge the bigotry against them. I don't like to see hate used as a weapon.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby thc » Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:35 am UTC

guenther wrote:How lovely. I'll let the rest of my people know that the common folk are beginning to see through my guise of caring. Any other bigotry you want to ladle on there?

And am I asinine to notice that your goalposts are moving? Apparently asking for evidence that conservative beliefs do more harm than good is code for homophobic and sexist beliefs don't hurt anybody.


Your outrage is childish and sorely misplaced.

Socially conservative beliefs ARE largely homophobic and sexist. (Does that really need to be said?)

In denying the possibility that you lack perspective, you condemn yourself to never understanding others who have had different experiences than you. Not being the target of the bigotry of social conservatism, it is easy for you to fall on either side of the fence. It is easy for you to academically consider coming down on either side of the issue, because at the end of the day, it doesn't even affect you in the slightest. But literally every gay man will tell you that socially conservatives beliefs towards homosexuals are harmful. We know this almost instinctively, and when people like you begin to question whether or not this is true, under the guise of "tolerance" or "rational debate".... I'll tell you, it hurts.

Even more condemning, if you really were honest in asking whether social conservatism is harmful, all you'd need to do is visit any number of threads that you've already participated in and look for posts with citations and/or stats. Knowing that similar arguments have been made numerous times in any number of threads, I question your motivation for asking now? Could it be that you did it to "pwn" the debate, trapping a response so that you could express your fake outrage? Maybe even subconsciously... do you think that could be the case?

I am sorely disappointed, guenther.

In case you've forgotten, here is a list of socially conservatives beliefs (according to wikipedia):

    *favor the pro-life position in the abortion controversy and oppose public funding of embryonic stem cell research
    *support a traditional definition of marriage as being one man and one woman
    *oppose expansion of civil marriage and child adoption rights to couples in same-sex relationships
    *oppose secularism and privatization of religious belief
    *support the prohibition of drugs, prostitution, premarital sex, non-marital sex and euthanasia
    *and support the censorship of pornography and what they consider to be obscenity or indecency.
Which are motivated by sexist or homophobic biases? Which of these beliefs do you believe to be harmful? Personally, I'd say all of them.

Lastly, I'm reminded of words of Sonia Sotomayor: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

If you recall, controversy ensued when certain republicans began calling her a racist - completely denying the existence of white privilege, never considering that she could be right. Make of that what you will.

guenther
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby guenther » Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:49 pm UTC

@thc: You don't understand my position. I'm not arguing against harm that's caused. I'm arguing against the perspective that social conservatism does more harm than good, that they are a blight on society.

Believe it or not, in all my privilege, I really do care. I care a lot. I am pained when people act out in hate at other people. It really bothers me. And I think that in opposition to one type of hate, there's a real danger of fostering another type. On xkcd there are already many voices that oppose racism, sexism, and homophobia, and by the way, I oppose them too. But there are few voices that work to temper that opposition to keep any hatred or ugly intolerance from flowing back the other way. So a goal of mine is to be a voice for that.

Let me ask you in all sincerity and honesty. How could I present my case and concerns to you and others without making you think that I'm in opposition to your concerns? I've found that very few people respond well to my message, and it's easy for me to regard them as stubborn in their anger and intolerance. But I am trying to be open to the idea that the problem is in me. Perhaps the way I parachute into a thread challenging certain statements, I'm hindering my own agenda. Perhaps there's a way I could broach my topic that would help more people care about my message. Perhaps there's a way I could heed my own signature's advice and do a better job.

So tell me, how could I do a better job?
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby 22/7 » Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:29 pm UTC

guenther wrote:
22/7 wrote:Keep in mind that this is not the only beef that many people take with the Catholic church. Literally decades (probably more) of sexual abuse enabled and covered up, a policy of discouraging the use of condoms in what is probably the worst breeding ground for HIV/AIDS in the world, a record of supporting the restriction of rights based entirely on sexual orientation, using church-owned hospitals as bargaining chips for political sway...

I think there's a lot of valid criticism against the Catholic Church, and to be honest I'm not a big fan of the structure as a whole. But I see them as a big flawed organization rather than a group of bad people doing bad things. My point isn't to defend them, but to challenge the bigotry against them. I don't like to see hate used as a weapon.
I don't like to see it used as a weapon either, but at some point a person or an organization does terrible, terrible things X number of times and you're done giving them second chances. Your X may vary from my X or Necklace's X.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

guenther
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby guenther » Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:55 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:I don't like to see it used as a weapon either, but at some point a person or an organization does terrible, terrible things X number of times and you're done giving them second chances. Your X may vary from my X or Necklace's X.

X should be weighed against Y good things. I think people within the organization may think Y is so big that X is negligible. But people on the outside might see it just the opposite. It's hard to take an objective view, and the larger the emotional investment, either good or bad, the less objective we become. If someone can't make a case for why X outweighs Y without name calling, then I will assume there's very little objectivity in the evaluation.

Secondly, saying things like "We would be better off if that group didn't exist" is dangerous. I think it fosters hate and contempt without really doing anythig useful. Sometimes when an organization is built primarily out of hate (i.e. KKK, WBC, Al-Qaeda), then we do well by socially shunning them out of existence. But when the group has a healthy component that exists for good purposes, then they are harmed by focusing such negativity on the organization. This is true of the Catholic Church. We don't have to be their ally, but that's very different from openly pining for their elimination.

(I don't know if this is what you mean when you say "done giving them a second chance". If not then that last paragraph may not apply to you.)
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Vatican: ordination of women a crime. Controversy ensues

Postby 22/7 » Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:27 am UTC

guenther wrote:
22/7 wrote:I don't like to see it used as a weapon either, but at some point a person or an organization does terrible, terrible things X number of times and you're done giving them second chances. Your X may vary from my X or Necklace's X.

X should be weighed against Y good things. I think people within the organization may think Y is so big that X is negligible. But people on the outside might see it just the opposite. It's hard to take an objective view, and the larger the emotional investment, either good or bad, the less objective we become. If someone can't make a case for why X outweighs Y without name calling, then I will assume there's very little objectivity in the evaluation.

Secondly, saying things like "We would be better off if that group didn't exist" is dangerous. I think it fosters hate and contempt without really doing anythig useful. Sometimes when an organization is built primarily out of hate (i.e. KKK, WBC, Al-Qaeda), then we do well by socially shunning them out of existence. But when the group has a healthy component that exists for good purposes, then they are harmed by focusing such negativity on the organization. This is true of the Catholic Church. We don't have to be their ally, but that's very different from openly pining for their elimination.

(I don't know if this is what you mean when you say "done giving them a second chance". If not then that last paragraph may not apply to you.)
I don't wish they didn't exist, so it no, it doesn't really. But I do wish they'd stop actively trying to force the rest of the world to obey their laws, especially since they're entirely and arbitrarily based on the excerpts of a book that are most useful to them at the moment.

And I don't buy into the idea of weighing good against bad in all circumstances. Again, at some point you go beyond X terrible actions and you get written off. Your X may vary from mine, but you don't get to start a new charity and open a hospital and suddenly everyone is square again. In my view, the Catholic church seems intent on figuring out where that line is by trial and error and they're more often hot than cold.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bbluewi and 17 guests