16 Jul 10
Originally posted by Conrau KYour "argument" has much in common with those who advocated "separate but equal". If that offends you, then come up with an argument that doesn't. For example, the bit about clerics having the sanctuary and lay people having the pews is very reminiscent of the front and the back of the bus.
Yes, thank you for repeating everything you have already said. I however disagree with your assumption that discrimination equals inequality.
And the comparison with racial discrimination was really great. Really engaged with the argument I was making. Really great stuff. Perhaps a reference to Hitler would have rounded it off.
Let me try this a different way. Has it occurred to you that only men are allowed to be clerics while BOTH men and women are allowed to be lay people? As such no matter how much "collaboration" might exist between clerics and lay people, women still would not have the same opportunities as men. Why you continue to insist on trying to defend and preserve an intrinsically discriminatory all male clergy is beyond me. Perhaps your indoctrination in the RCC has left you unable to be objective.
16 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanziequality doesn't mean we all get the same jobs and responsibilities.
actually, no. your "If clerics and lay people were ever truly equal, it would be absurd to keep the distinction. The distinction is kept precisely because they are not truly equal." is incorrect. equality doesn't mean we all get the same jobs and responsibilities. equality means that each of us have equal opportunity to get a certain job. removing the priest job leads nowhere.
Not sure why you think I'm making that argument. You have to read what you quoted in context of the entirety of my post as well as CK's post.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
16 Jul 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYour "argument" has much in common with those who advocated "separate but equal". If that offends you, then come up with an argument that doesn't. For example, the bit about clerics having the sanctuary and lay people having the pews is very reminiscent of the front and the back of the bus.
Your "argument" has much in common with those who advocated "separate but equal". If that offends you, then come up with an argument that doesn't. For example, the bit about clerics having the sanctuary and lay people having the pews is very reminiscent of the front and the back of the bus.
Let me try this a different way. Has it occurred to you that ...[text shortened]... is beyond me. Perhaps your indoctrination in the RCC has left you unable to be objective.
I don't think it is at all. Firstly, you're a bit confused about your own argument. The separation of the sanctuary from the pews is not gender discrimination; it is again the clerical/laydistinction. There are many men sitting in the pews too. Secondly, it is nothing at all reminiscent of racial segregation. The laity are not a persecuted minority. They exercise power in the secular world, perhaps owning their own businesses or holding political office -- not at all comparable to the position held by black people.
You fail to understand the whole purpose of the liturgy too. The priest does not enter the sanctuary for his own self-exaltation. He enters their to celebrate the Mass, ultimately for the reward of the laypeople themselves. It is as St Augustine said 'I am a Christian with you and priest for you.'
Has it occurred to you that only men are allowed to be clerics while BOTH men and women are allowed to be lay people? As such no matter how much "collaboration" might exist between clerics and lay people, women still would not have the same opportunities as men.
Yes, it has occurred to me. Again, I accept that there is discrimination; I accept that there is inequal opportunity. I do not, however, accept the conclusion of unjust discrimination or inequality. In the past, women were excluded from military service and work such as mining. I do not believe that this especially was indicative of inequality. The reason was to protect women from dangerous situations. Ultimately it was intended for their advantage. Again, there has to be a consideration of values -- you have to prove that v(a)>v(not-a).
Why you continue to insist on trying to defend and preserve an intrinsically discriminatory all male clergy is beyond me. Perhaps your indoctrination in the RCC has left you unable to be objective.
I didn't say I was trying to preserve an all-male clergy. The issue of women's ordination is all together different and would require substantial historical and theological investigation which is beyond my competency. The issue here is whether discrimination necessarily constitutes inequality. I do not believe it necessarily does and I have provided counterexamples, such as military service, which illustrate this. The onus on you is to prove two things: 1. that sacerdotal ministry is a more valuable work; 2. that a lay woman does not have access to work of equal value.
16 Jul 10
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Klol. Well, maybe when one tries to defend the indefensible, one can only call on the absurd. You're killin' me.
[b]Your "argument" has much in common with those who advocated "separate but equal". If that offends you, then come up with an argument that doesn't. For example, the bit about clerics having the sanctuary and lay people having the pews is very reminiscent of the front and the back of the bus.
I don't think it is at all. Firstly, you're a bit confus ore valuable work; 2. that a lay woman does not have access to work of equal value.[/b]
The separation of the sanctuary from the pews is not gender discrimination; it is again the clerical/laydistinction. There are many men sitting in the pews too.
But there are no women clerics. The point is that women are EXCLUDED from being clerics. Not that men aren't "sitting in the pews".
Secondly, it is nothing at all reminiscent of racial segregation. The laity are not a persecuted minority. They exercise power in the secular world, perhaps owning their own businesses or holding political office -- not at all comparable to the position held by black people.
Are you serious? The point is that WOMEN are EXCLUDED from being clerics in the RCC and are discriminated against by the RCC. Whether or not they "exercise power" in the secular world is irrelevant. Women being excluded from "the sanctuary" is quite reminiscent of blacks being excluded from the "front of the bus".
You fail to understand the whole purpose of the liturgy too. The priest does not enter the sanctuary for his own self-exaltation. He enters their to celebrate the Mass, ultimately for the reward of the laypeople themselves. It is as St Augustine said 'I am a Christian with you and priest for you.'
Never said the priest does "enter the sanctuary for his own self-exaltation." Once again, the point is that women are EXCLUDED from being clerics.
I do not, however, accept the conclusion of unjust discrimination or inequality. In the past, women were excluded from military service and work such as mining. I do not believe that this especially was indicative of inequality. The reason was to protect women from dangerous situations.
Seems like I shouldn't need to comment on this, but I will anyway. Evidently women not only NEED to be PROTECTED by men from "dangerous situations", but need to have that decision made for them.
No wonder you can't be rational about this subject. You have deeply prejudicial views on women in general. You're a Neanderthal. You have a lot of growing up to do kid. If you ever wonder how racists hold on their views in the modern world, I suggest you look at how you hold onto your views toward women.
17 Jul 10
This is insanity squared.
I understand that the attitude to women in Christianity (and in Islam) is intolerable. I do not understand why women find a possible solution in women gaining equal treatment.
Why do they want anything to do with the thing? Why can't they see that this invalidates its claims?
It's sexist. It oppresses women. That is not a good sign. Get out now while you still can.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
17 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne]But there are no women clerics. The point is that women are EXCLUDED from being clerics. Not that men aren't "sitting in the pews".
lol. Well, maybe when one tries to defend the indefensible, one can only call on the absurd. You're killin' me.
[b]The separation of the sanctuary from the pews is not gender discrimination; it is again the clerical/laydistinction. There are many men sitting in the pews too.
But there are no women clerics. The point is that women are EXCLUDED fr dern world, I suggest you look at how you hold onto your views toward women.[/b]
Actually, your point was that the distinction is comparable to racial segregation. I have acknowledged that women are excluded from the priesthood (um, duh) but the fact is that it is not the same as racial segregation.
Never said the priest does "enter the sanctuary for his own self-exaltation." Once again, the point is that women are EXCLUDED from being clerics.
Yes, as I have explained, I do not deny this point. I quite understand that women are excluded from the priesthood. What I deny is that this necessarily equals unjust discrimination or inequality.
Seems like I shouldn't need to comment on this, but I will anyway. Evidently women not only NEED to be PROTECTED by men from "dangerous situations", but need to have that decision made for them.
I never said that women needed to be protected. The point I made was that exclusion from military service does not constitute inequality; in fact, it may be an act of favoratism. Now you might contend that such an exclusion is paternalistic -- valid point but quite irrelevant. I am not arguing that women ought to be excluded from military service, only that such exclusion does not mean inequality.
Please, do try to stay on point. I never said women needed protection.
No wonder you can't be rational about this subject. You have deeply prejudicial views on women in general. You're a Neanderthal. You have a lot of growing up to do kid. If you ever wonder how racists hold on their views in the modern world, I suggest you look at how you hold onto your views toward women.
You do not know me. In fact, you can barely understand me. Please, take a college education, perhaps develop your literacy. Perhaps then you might acquire the basic skills to interpret what I am saying. Otherwise, get a translator.
17 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasWell there actually was a woman pope.
When I see a Mother Pope, then I will change my mind.
Until then (or when hell freeze to ice, whichever comes first) I will remain in my opinion that the Catholic Church is discriminating women and see them as inferior beeings.
Pope Joan. Some claim it's a legend, but then again some also claim Moses is a legend.
But the good thing is she was killed by an angry mob when the deception was revealed (she apparently gave birth to a child during a procession)
17 Jul 10
Originally posted by Conrau KI would say that if women are denied full voice in deciding such matters, that is discrimination in itself, regardless of the rationales given by men for what roles to which women are, or are not, permitted to effectively aspire—and this is a discrimination that results in inequality, so long as it denies equal voice in matters that (actually or potentially) affect women. Some women may freely (without religious conditioning or coercion) decide that women should not be priests; that is not my point—in fact my point is not about the priesthood per se at all.
[b]]But there are no women clerics. The point is that women are EXCLUDED from being clerics. Not that men aren't "sitting in the pews".
Actually, your point was that the distinction is comparable to racial segregation. I have acknowledged that women are excluded from the priesthood (um, duh) but the fact is that it is not the same as racial segreg ...[text shortened]... t acquire the basic skills to interpret what I am saying. Otherwise, get a translator.[/b]
My point is about full and equal access to whatever forum by which such matters are decided, whatever institution we are talking about. To say that access to that forum is itself the issue does not remove discrimination, if men reserve access to that forum, or control of that forum, for themselves—again, by whatever rationale, including religious doctrine. If women are denied equal access to any forum that makes decisions affecting the lives and life-choices of those women, then I would say that that itself is unjust, and certainly represents a discrimination that enforces a de facto inequality.
I want to note that by “coercion”, I include “spiritual coercion”—i.e., that any attempt by women to secure full voice, or to escape the discriminatory institution (whatever that institution may be: church, family, community) is subject to threats concerning their “spiritual state”. I also want to add that it matters not one whit to me whether or not the discriminators believe they are right—either about the reasons for discrimination or the consequences for women not submitting; they likely do believe that they are right.
17 Jul 10
Originally posted by shorbockThere are so many legends in the Catholic world that they believe in as facts.
Well there actually was a woman pope.
Pope Joan. Some claim it's a legend, but then again some also claim Moses is a legend.
But the good thing is she was killed by an angry mob when the deception was revealed (she apparently gave birth to a child during a procession)
17 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KActually, your point was that the distinction is comparable to racial segregation. I have acknowledged that women are excluded from the priesthood (um, duh) but the fact is that it is not the same as racial segregation.
[b]]But there are no women clerics. The point is that women are EXCLUDED from being clerics. Not that men aren't "sitting in the pews".
Actually, your point was that the distinction is comparable to racial segregation. I have acknowledged that women are excluded from the priesthood (um, duh) but the fact is that it is not the same as racial segreg t acquire the basic skills to interpret what I am saying. Otherwise, get a translator.[/b]
Evidently all you can think to do is to continue to embarrass yourself. What I said was, "Your "argument" has much in common with those who advocated "separate but equal".
Yes, as I have explained, I do not deny this point. I quite understand that women are excluded from the priesthood. What I deny is that this necessarily equals unjust discrimination or inequality.
Try rereading my post. You seem to have lost the context of my remarks.
I never said that women needed to be protected. The point I made was that exclusion from military service does not constitute inequality; in fact, it may be an act of favoratism. Now you might contend that such an exclusion is paternalistic -- valid point but quite irrelevant. I am not arguing that women ought to be excluded from military service, only that such exclusion does not mean inequality.
Please, do try to stay on point. I never said women needed protection.
Once again, reread my post. I didn't say the you "said women needed protection". What I said was, "Evidently women not only NEED to be PROTECTED by men from 'dangerous situations', but need to have that decision made for them", which was in response to the following remark by you, "In the past, women were excluded from military service and work such as mining. I do not believe that this especially was indicative of inequality. The reason was to protect women from dangerous situations." The point being that in your example, men took it upon themselves to make decisions for women in order to "protect" them.
You do not know me. In fact, you can barely understand me. Please, take a college education, perhaps develop your literacy. Perhaps then you might acquire the basic skills to interpret what I am saying. Otherwise, get a translator.
I understand you just fine. Seems that rather than accept the fact that thus far all your arguments have been non-starters, you try to assign blame elsewhere.
The fact is, no matter how many rationalizations you come up with, you'll still be a bigot trying to defend the indefensible.
Hopefully someday you'll be able to wrap your mind around the fact that even if women were treated equally to men in the laity and there was some sort of "equality" between the laity and the clerical, the fact that women are excluded from clerical positions means that they do not have the same "access to work of equal value" as men (unless you're arguing that the value of the clerical is zero which is absurd, but no more absurd than any of your other arguments thus far).
Hopefully someday you'll be able to wrap your mind around the fact that not allowing women the same opportunities as men because of gender is unjust in and of itself.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
17 Jul 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOnce again, reread my post. I didn't say the you "said women needed protection".
[b]Actually, your point was that the distinction is comparable to racial segregation. I have acknowledged that women are excluded from the priesthood (um, duh) but the fact is that it is not the same as racial segregation.
Evidently all you can think to do is to continue to embarrass yourself. What I said was, "Your "argument" has much in co ...[text shortened]... same opportunities as men because of gender is unjust in and of itself.[/b]
Then why exactly do you accuse me of "deeply prejudicial views of women"? If you acknowledge that I do not say that women need protection, what exactly is your problem?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
17 Jul 10
Originally posted by vistesdTo say that access to that forum is itself the issue does not remove discrimination, if men reserve access to that forum, or control of that forum, for themselves—again, by whatever rationale, including religious doctrine.
I would say that if women are denied full voice in deciding such matters, that is discrimination in itself, regardless of the rationales given by men for what roles to which women are, or are not, permitted to effectively aspire—and this is a discrimination that results in inequality, so long as it denies equal voice in matters that (actually or potentially) ...[text shortened]... ation or the consequences for women not submitting; they likely do believe that they are right.
By this comment, I think you well understand that the issue really is about the priesthood (or more strictly ordination.) In Christian churches which claim apostolic succession, only the episcopacy has teaching authority. It is the role of bishops to teach and, when there is need for forum, to resolve issues of doctrinal dispute. To say that women should participate in that forum would require them to be ordained in the first place.
17 Jul 10
Originally posted by Conrau Klol. You either have serious difficulty in following the thread of a discussion or are being completely disingenuous.
[b]Once again, reread my post. I didn't say the you "said women needed protection".
Then why exactly do you accuse me of "deeply prejudicial views of women"? If you acknowledge that I do not say that women need protection, what exactly is your problem?[/b]
Well, I've tried a number of ways to explain things to you to no avail. Evidently your prejudicial view toward women runs so deeply that you are unable to see things from anything other than that viewpoint. No sense in trying to have a rational discussion with a bigot.
18 Jul 10
4 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KEDIT: complete re-write.
[b]To say that access to that forum is itself the issue does not remove discrimination, if men reserve access to that forum, or control of that forum, for themselves—again, by whatever rationale, including religious doctrine.
By this comment, I think you well understand that the issue really is about the priesthood (or more strictly ordination.) In C ...[text shortened]... hat women should participate in that forum would require them to be ordained in the first place.[/b]
Understood (though I really hadn’t thought that through at the time of posting). I wanted to treat the broader issue of discriminatory exclusion of women from a forum that affects women’s life choices (not limited to the issue of ordination—e.g., birth control).
I think that such an exclusion is pernicious discrimination (unjust, de facto unequal treatment). I also do not think that pernicious discrimination ought to be excused—or treated as somehow less pernicious—simply because it follows from cherished tradition (e.g., apostolic succession).
Explaining the facts of the case, and how that particular form of discrimination came to be institutionally embedded, does not constitute an argument as to why such discrimination is not pernicious or why it is not objectionable.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
18 Jul 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWell, I've tried a number of ways to explain things to you to no avail. Evidently your prejudicial view toward women runs so deeply that you are unable to see things from anything other than that viewpoint. No sense in trying to have a rational discussion with a bigot.
lol. You either have serious difficulty in following the thread of a discussion or are being completely disingenuous.
Well, I've tried a number of ways to explain things to you to no avail. Evidently your prejudicial view toward women runs so deeply that you are unable to see things from anything other than that viewpoint. No sense in trying to have a rational discussion with a bigot.
You're right. I am having trouble understanding the thread of this discussion. I do not see how I have argued anything prejudicial. I have been at pains to stress that I myself am not arguing the issue of women's ordination per se, rather the meaning of inequality.
I would at least like you to explain why you thought I had a 'deeply prejudicial view of women'. I suspect you hastily read my post, inaccuarately thought I was arguing male paternalism, and made a flippant judgment. But, please, do at least try to justify yourself this time.