I've been a member of a Catholic forum for a few months now.
I am appalled by their acceptance and promotion of sexism.
Their church tells them that god and Jesus didn't want females to be ordained, hence an all male priesthood. They derive this not from scripture but from the tradition of their church whom they promote as being guided by god, hence infallible.
The woman followers tell me its fine because they don't want to be priests anyway. With their symbolism they liken the church to Jesus's bride and then they say that the priests are married to the church. The nuns are married to Jesus apparently.
Some state that a priest must perform "Persona Christi", become the person of Christ and since Jesus was a male and god is a male then this can only be performed by a male, (even though god is all powerful).
But then it goes beyond this.
Within the structure of the church, Priests are seen as leaders, they have subordinates that are responsible to them. Nuns are sub-ordinates of priests. Priests or any man within the church is never a subordinate of a nun. Mother Superiors are only leaders to women.
The majority of the forum members suggest that girls shouldn't be allowed to participate as alter servers. Possible only allowed if there were a shortage of boys. They see it as a training ground for boys to eventually become priests and hence see no purpose for girls in this role.
When some church breaks away from this and ordains woman then the forum members (men and women) create threads within the forum and ridicule and berate these ordained women.
What kind of message does this give to the children? Girls are second fiddle to boys? Boys are more important and girls should only ever dream of a support role?
Anyway, this post isn't to bitch and moan.
My intent is to ask the following:
Does anyone know of a country that fights this sexism, that won't allow religions to reserve roles for men and to subjugate women?
Why do countries fight sexism in the work place, in the public but not on the religious front?
Do you ever think it will happen, that a government will grow the courage to tackle this appalling behavior?
You know I see the problem lying squarely on the shoulder of mothers and future mothers etc. In general women. Women need to stop accepting this. They need to be the ones that start the change of the children who will eventually become the adult males and females of this religion. But what happens is that they don't want to rock the boat. They will wait for the next group of women to deal with it. They pass the buck. I was raised in a Hispanic Catholic family. If women just decided to stop altogether over night taking this crap from the Catholic church I really wonder what exactly would happen. Women are THE meat and bones of the Catholic money if you really think about it. Most fathers aren't packing up the kids every Sunday for service. Or ever Wed for church bible studies or pot lucks or charity events. It's the women. When that goes the whole system will go.
Sorry I ranted. :P
As for govt interfering in religion. I don't want any govt interfering in my religion (I'm a Satanist). Religion is a choice once you are an adult. If you want to be indoctrinated into a religion and don't want to stand up for yourself, go right ahead. I can't stop you. The same way I don't want someone stopping me from practicing my religion because they might find it (fill in the blank with whatever the govt is against for that voting year)
Quote from: Medusa on August 29, 2011, 11:09:34 AM
As for govt interfering in religion. I don't want any govt interfering in my religion (I'm a Satanist). Religion is a choice once you are an adult. If you want to be indoctrinated into a religion and don't want to stand up for yourself, go right ahead. I can't stop you. The same way I don't want someone stopping me from practicing my religion because they might find it (fill in the blank with whatever the govt is against for that voting year)
Why do you see a religous organisation as something special, something above the law?
Could we then suggest that a corporation that only wants crusty old men in the board be allowed to continue with this policy? People choose to work for this company, does this choice as an adult give the company the right to implement a sexist policy?
Quote from: Stevil on August 29, 2011, 11:21:51 AM
Quote from: Medusa on August 29, 2011, 11:09:34 AM
As for govt interfering in religion. I don't want any govt interfering in my religion (I'm a Satanist). Religion is a choice once you are an adult. If you want to be indoctrinated into a religion and don't want to stand up for yourself, go right ahead. I can't stop you. The same way I don't want someone stopping me from practicing my religion because they might find it (fill in the blank with whatever the govt is against for that voting year)
Why do you see a religous organisation as something special, something above the law?
Could we then suggest that a corporation that only wants crusty old men in the board be allowed to continue with this policy? People choose to work for this company, does this choice as an adult give the company the right to implement a sexist policy?
I guess I don't want anyone telling me how I can worship in my religion. Especially an entity that has no idea what my religion is about. The same way I don't want them to stick their business in how I run my relationship. Should they then make sure I'm not a sexist woman? I want to be a stay at home wife and have my Muslim husband support me and our family. Now I can't because he's the patriarch of the family? The govt is going to start telling me how I should make my decisions too? I just don't like that one bit. Let them poke around your personal life.
Quote from: Stevil on August 29, 2011, 11:21:51 AMWhy do you see a religous organisation as something special, something above the law?
Could we then suggest that a corporation that only wants crusty old men in the board be allowed to continue with this policy? People choose to work for this company, does this choice as an adult give the company the right to implement a sexist policy?
Though I find the sexism built into the structure of the Catholic church (and some others) disgusting, I agree with
Medusa that it isn't the government's place to dictate the policies of religious groups as long as those policies aren't directly physically harmful. One might say that rigidly sexist religious groups are harmful to the mental and emotional well-being of their followers, and I would agree. The thing is, in my opinion, the government shouldn't be in the business of deciding what constitutes mental health. Once we go down that road, it's conceivable that we have a government deciding what is and isn't proper thinking. That isn't something which I think we should give the government the power to do. So it isn't that religious thinking should be exempt from government control, it's all thinking.
In the US, there are plenty of private organizations which are still run by "crusty old (white) men" and that is perfectly legal, so I'm not sure where you're going with that analogy. Now when you're talking about employment, rather than membership, a company can't have an overtly racist or sexist hiring policy, but it's still possible to only promote men to the highest level. Though there are laws which attempt to do away with this "glass ceiling" effect, many companies still follow such a policy, only changing it when forced to. However, an organization which doesn't serve the public, and which the public is not accepted into (a private club, which in my opinion religious organizations are) may have very restrictive policies, and would be within its rights to have such policies. It can be seen as a gray area, though; when an organization solicits members of the public to join, and when it allows the general public to participate in some of its events or use some of its facilities, then its status as truly private starts to become blurred. This sort of thing can also vary from state to state in the US.
Still, I think that (at least in the US) the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment is really the final defense of sexist religious organizations. All they have to do is define the practice of their religion as being one in which only men are allowed to be ordained, and the wall between church and state protects them.
I guess I took the easy route by looking at it from a law rather than a morality viewpoint, but then again, in my view nearly all religious organizations are promoting at least some actions and views which I consider contrary to my personal moral code. *shrugs*
I think the difference as far as government regulation comes in (at least this is what I see) when you discuss choice. They implement non-discrimination policies in workplaces, because people have to be there. Black, white, yellow or green, you have to pay your rent and feed your kids, so you have to work. It's a choice where you worship, or if you worship. As far as Catholic sexism, i haven't ever been a Catholic, so I don't know firsthand, but I hear it's pretty serious. A forum I was on recently for laughs (God Hates Sinners) were hardcore to the point they complained that Catholics weren't "real" Christians. They were sexist enough that they feel rape victims deserve it for not being modest enough. Nuts, I tell ya.
It's a complicated issue because really secularism implies that the government can't interfere with religion and how people ultimately choose to live their lives in regards to religion...the downside to this is that it helps religions to thrive ::) It's ironic (based on the complaints that some have against the seperation of churches and State).
Truth is that the Church does depend on believers to exist, and there will always be people who seem to accept every word that comes out of that pope's mouth on any aspect of their lives. The impression that I get is that the Catholics posting over there (Phatmass) are not representative of the majority, those are the ones who really want to uphold both tradition and doctrines and make sure that other "true" Catholics don't stray from the Path, of course. In some cases it looks like they worship their dogmas, even. Whatever change would have to come from Catholics themselves, and preferably those that are on the inside...maybe in a few centuries they'll catch up with the times.
I guess it comes down to choice: people choose to be part of a religion that maintains strong traditions such as those. I don't see the sexism in the Church as going so far as to being criminal (unlike other things that the Church does). Just a bit outdated, like their entire religion...
It would really be bad if they started preaching inequality in other non religious aspects of life, to those who aren't loyal to the Church in any way.
I don't think seclarism implies that government can't interfere with religion.
Seclarism is an approach to be all inclusive, regardless of many factors (religion being one of them). This means a countries policies can represent all the people that belong to the country. These policies then ought to apply to all the countries members.
I think they turn away their sights on the church because they know that represents a lot of voters and so they are scared.
Lets say instead of being sexist, they were racist. Swap men for whites and women for blacks. Do you think it would be OK for a private organisation (a church) to allow all people as members but only allow top jobs to white people. Have policy that meant that whites are never subordinate to blacks and that blacks can only manage other blacks but must ultimately be accountable to a white. Certain roles have priority for white children, only allowing blacks if there where not enough whites.
It's an approach to be all inclusive, and as a consequence not favour any one religion over another but it also serves to protect religious institutions from governmental influence and vice versa, though in practice religions are getting their infected claws into matters that have nothing to do with them), including getting them to be free from paying taxes that any other non religious institution would have to pay. It's not all good, and so in this sense it does protect religion from the State and is a double-edged sword.
I think the points you've raised are tricky issues, because it does involve three things:
A religious organisation in a secular State, people being free to choose to follow that religion, and the traditions of that institution in particular (Catholic Church) who have laws and rules of their own.
I think the real weight of the issue lies with the Catholics, and they're the problem just as they're the solution. Any government trying to change religious rules won't do much good, especially when dealing with masses of people who feel that they (and their Church) are divinely justified in their beliefs and will bow down to religious authority before any "earthly" one. Forget the discrimination (sexism, racism or whichever other), play the persecution card, get people to become more conservative in their beliefs and the Church has a strong foundation.
On a thread I started there I also mentioned the condom problem and pasted a link to a more liberal Catholic site where it mentioned that many high ranking Church officials were starting to press for change. If it depended on the people posting on Phatmass, those would be excommunicated. ::) Again, all they had to offer were under researched and poorly thought out excuses. It's a tough problem.
Before you know it we will just have a state religion. Won't that be grand?!
Quote from: Medusa on August 30, 2011, 12:05:01 AM
Before you know it we will just have a state religion. Won't that be grand?!
While I am all for government not intervening in our lives unless absolutely necessary, I am also aware that people often behave in a way that is detrimental to our society.
Bigotry must not be tolerated.
Government have systems in place to remove bigotry.
An apartment owner or bed and breakfast supplier cannot turn away a person because of gender, race, sexual orientation, religious belief etc.
An employer cannot reject an application for employment based on gender, race, sexual orientation, religious belief etc. Unless special circumstances apply e.g. a TV, Movie role may require specific attributes in a person.
Religion ought to fall into these systems as they are part of our society.
I would be keen to know if the governments have given them special dispensation with regards to the perceived sexism of an all male priesthood.
Quote from: Stevil on August 30, 2011, 01:45:12 AM
Quote from: Medusa on August 30, 2011, 12:05:01 AM
Before you know it we will just have a state religion. Won't that be grand?!
While I am all for government not intervening in our lives unless absolutely necessary, I am also aware that people often behave in a way that is detrimental to our society.
Bigotry must not be tolerated.
Government have systems in place to remove bigotry.
An apartment owner or bed and breakfast supplier cannot turn away a person because of gender, race, sexual orientation, religious belief etc.
An employer cannot reject an application for employment based on gender, race, sexual orientation, religious belief etc. Unless special circumstances apply e.g. a TV, Movie role may require specific attributes in a person.
Religion ought to fall into these systems as they are part of our society.
I would be keen to know if the governments have given them special dispensation with regards to the perceived sexism of an all male priesthood.
bigotry now. It was just earlier in this thread it was sexism. Are you sure you aren't Big Brother. You are starting to sound sorta scary. Before you know it you won't like Satanists, Cat lovers...people opposed to fish....
I hate alot of things. I'm allowed to.
Quote from: Medusa on August 30, 2011, 01:48:04 AM
Quote from: Stevil on August 30, 2011, 01:45:12 AM
Quote from: Medusa on August 30, 2011, 12:05:01 AM
Before you know it we will just have a state religion. Won't that be grand?!
While I am all for government not intervening in our lives unless absolutely necessary, I am also aware that people often behave in a way that is detrimental to our society.
Bigotry must not be tolerated.
Government have systems in place to remove bigotry.
An apartment owner or bed and breakfast supplier cannot turn away a person because of gender, race, sexual orientation, religious belief etc.
An employer cannot reject an application for employment based on gender, race, sexual orientation, religious belief etc. Unless special circumstances apply e.g. a TV, Movie role may require specific attributes in a person.
Religion ought to fall into these systems as they are part of our society.
I would be keen to know if the governments have given them special dispensation with regards to the perceived sexism of an all male priesthood.
bigotry now. It was just earlier in this thread it was sexism. Are you sure you aren't Big Brother. You are starting to sound sorta scary. Before you know it you won't like Satanists, Cat lovers...people opposed to fish....
I hate alot of things. I'm allowed to.
Huh?
Sexism is a subset of bigotry.
There are laws against it, and these laws are good laws in my opinion.
If you hate a certain type of person and behave in a way that discriminates e.g. if you sell a product to the public, but refuse to sell the product to women, then you deserve to face legal consequences
I agree with Stevil. If the catholic chutrch were promoting racism instead of sexism, it wouldn't be ignored by laws.
I don' get why the sexism issue wouldn't bother any woman. No one is attacking satanism or any belief, but PROMOTING/ENCOURAGING sexism is wrong, wrong.
People can hate whatever privately, but when you are raisng generations of people to opress a gender, it is disgusting. It should not be ignored, not allowed to proceed.
It is outdated. And it is time for churches to stop thinking thry are above the law.
So you are ok with the govt making your rules for your religion?
Quotebut PROMOTING/ENCOURAGING sexism is wrong, wrong.
I'm pretty sure promoting (list something YOU agree with and I don't) is wrong too. So stop it! Because I don't like it. I don't care if it's your right to believe religion is wrong. I don't care. I want you to now change your opinion. And don't be out and about on the street telling people you dislike religion. Or else the state is gonna arrest you! ;)
No. I ain't liking where this line of thinking goes. We all think oh yeah one this is ok but DONT YOU DARE do or think the other thing! That's wrong.
*I don't mean you you. I mean the general you.
Quote from: Medusa on August 30, 2011, 03:56:45 AM
So you are ok with the govt making your rules for your religion?
Religion needs to fit within the confines of the law. If they are to exist and participate within a society then they must abide by the laws of that society. For example pedophilia is a criminal offense and so is knowing about a crime and not reporting it to the police.
I think this has become a serious matter; churches feel they are above the law.
Funny you should mention pedophilia, as victims of sexual assault by catholic preists have finally been stepping up.
The vatican has been covering up these crimes for decades.
In Ireland, finally there is a little justice. They made new laws so no criminal is protected by confessions at the catholic church.
There is even a convention for victims of sexual assault by their preist.
Churches and religion need to be changed. They are not immune to law.
Quote from: Stevil on August 30, 2011, 04:20:46 AM
Quote from: Medusa on August 30, 2011, 03:56:45 AM
So you are ok with the govt making your rules for your religion?
Religion needs to fit within the confines of the law. If they are to exist and participate within a society then they must abide by the laws of that society. For example pedophilia is a criminal offense and so is knowing about a crime and not reporting it to the police.
I agree. Is it against the law to think I am better than a man?
^
No one gender is better than the other. e_e
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 30, 2011, 07:13:46 AM
^
No one gender is better than the other. e_e
I know. It's an example. I can think it all I want...at least for now.
I don't. It's an example. Cats are better then dogs. There. Send me to jail.
The point in there somewhere?
When you start pointing and picking...someone's gonna start pointing and picking at you. And one day you too will be on the other side of the fence.
Quote from: Medusa on August 30, 2011, 05:27:20 AM
I agree. Is it against the law to think I am better than a man?
Hmmm, going to jail for impure thoughts, what a great idea.
Actually, if you had been paying attention to my posts rather than simply arguing you would understand that I am against the actions and policies with regards to bigotry and sexual discrimination.
Quote from: Medusa on August 30, 2011, 07:38:36 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 30, 2011, 07:13:46 AM
^
No one gender is better than the other. e_e
I know. It's an example. I can think it all I want...at least for now.
I don't. It's an example. Cats are better then dogs. There. Send me to jail.
The point in there somewhere?
When you start pointing and picking...someone's gonna start pointing and picking at you. And one day you too will be on the other side of the fence.
What the crap are you even talking about? o_o
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 30, 2011, 08:08:26 AM
Quote from: Medusa on August 30, 2011, 07:38:36 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 30, 2011, 07:13:46 AM
^
No one gender is better than the other. e_e
I know. It's an example. I can think it all I want...at least for now.
I don't. It's an example. Cats are better then dogs. There. Send me to jail.
The point in there somewhere?
When you start pointing and picking...someone's gonna start pointing and picking at you. And one day you too will be on the other side of the fence.
What the crap are you even talking about? o_o
Medusa is talking about 'The tyranny of the majority', the situation that occurs when one majority group of people control society at the expense of the rest. Take Saudi Arabia for example, the vast majority of the population think homosexuality is wrong and it is illegal there. This is perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the majority of the Saudi population, but I doubt you would agree with their opinion would you? So what happens when the majority of people follow an atheist code, as it was in communist China and Christians and Buddhist are intimidated, imprisoned and killed? The job of good government is to promote an environment where all world views are accommodated, up to the point where those world views impinge on the secular law of the society. So in the UK however much a Muslim man would like to follow Islamic law (the Saudi version) that has no age of consent (but the two people must be married) they can not.
I think the point Medusa is making is, 'live and let live, lest you be told how to live by others.' Society's should be tolerant of variation and protect the freedom of the individual. Sweetdeath, go to Holland for a holiday and you'll never want to leave. It the most laid-back place I have ever been to and my wife and I may retire there as we both like it so much.
Quote from: Tank on August 30, 2011, 08:35:14 AM
Medusa is talking about 'The tyranny of the majority'
Yeah, but what has that got to do with this conversation?
Quote from: Stevil on August 30, 2011, 08:46:12 AM
Quote from: Tank on August 30, 2011, 08:35:14 AM
Medusa is talking about 'The tyranny of the majority'
Yeah, but what has that got to do with this conversation?
When does society have the right to overrule the desires of the individual? That's the question I think is being discussed here. In the UK secular law has been shown to override Catholic homophobia in the case of the Bed-and-breakfast provider who would not allow two gay men to stay in the same room. They sued and won. However, if a group of individuals wish to organise themselves in a way that some outside that group would call sexist, what right does each group have? Should the group prevail or the outsiders prevail? Suppose the minority group wished to profess their lack of belief in god, while the majority of people in society felt this was wrong and in-fact seriously jepadised the wellfare of society. Who would be right then? The minority of atheists or the majority of theists? In Sweden the vast majority of the population are atheists, but you don't see them oppressing theists do you?
So if a group of adults get together and wish to govern themselves where does society have the right to intervene if the majority in society disagree with the minority. That's really the question here and I'm not sure there is an answer yet.
All I care about is sexism. It shouldn't exist and sucks that it does.
What rights do women or men have when sexism still exists and opresses?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 30, 2011, 09:12:21 AM
All I care about is sexism. It shouldn't exist and sucks that it does.
I agree 100%.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 30, 2011, 09:12:21 AM
What rights do women or men have when sexism still exists and opresses?
Not as many as they should. But the problem is that some people have been brought up and indoctrinated in particular ways of thinking that you consider wrong but they consider right. The issue is how to determine what is right, what is wrong and how to change the minds of those one considers to be doing wrong. Legislation is a brutal and very un-subtle tool and it's use can alienate people. They can feel disenfranchised from society and that can make things a lot worse. So I agree with the principle that religious sexism is wrong, but personally I'd rather persuade the religious person that their world view is wrong than legislate against it, in their own environment. You can almost always force somebody to do what you want but that is wrong in itself.
Quote from: Tank on August 30, 2011, 09:02:42 AM
So if a group of adults get together and wish to govern themselves where does society have the right to intervene if the majority in society disagree with the minority. That's really the question here and I'm not sure there is an answer yet.
Its about understanding the place of government within society and also the place of organisations within society governed by a government.
Apart from providing infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals etc, a governing body is required to set our rules of co-existence.
With a much more global aspect to the world our governements now need to represent a multi cultural, multi religious, multi racial society. There job is to represent the people and to provide a means where by a society can function effectively.
It is not a governments place to define a moral society, but merely a functioning society.
A society where people can refuse to hire or provide services to people based on discrimination e.g. gender, race, skin colour, religion, culture, class etc simply promotes conflict and oppression. To reduce oppression there are certain rights which must be afforded as a birth right to a human. these can be classified as human rights. The right to be treated fairly and as an equal regardless of gender, race, skin clour, religion, culture, class etc is one of those human rights. Government must punish people who look to violate this human right.
I understand what you mean, Tank. Break the chain and stuff. :)
It's true, ganging up on the religious circle itself won't help, but damn it, they frustrate me.
Quote from: Stevil on August 30, 2011, 09:30:22 AM
Quote from: Tank on August 30, 2011, 09:02:42 AM
So if a group of adults get together and wish to govern themselves where does society have the right to intervene if the majority in society disagree with the minority. That's really the question here and I'm not sure there is an answer yet.
Its about understanding the place of government within society and also the place of organisations within society governed by a government.
Apart from providing infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals etc, a governing body is required to set our rules of co-existence.
With a much more global aspect to the world our governements now need to represent a multi cultural, multi religious, multi racial society. There job is to represent the people and to provide a means where by a society can function effectively.
It is not a governments place to define a moral society, but merely a functioning society.
A society where people can refuse to hire or provide services to people based on discrimination e.g. gender, race, skin colour, religion, culture, class etc simply promotes conflict and oppression. To reduce oppression there are certain rights which must be afforded as a birth right to a human. these can be classified as human rights. The right to be treated fairly and as an equal regardless of gender, race, skin clour, religion, culture, class etc is one of those human rights. Government must punish people who look to violate this human right.
Spot on. So you see no differentiation to culpability under the secular law should be made because of religious affiliation?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 30, 2011, 09:30:48 AM
I understand what you mean, Tank. Break the chain and stuff. :)
It's true, ganging up on the religious circle itself won't help, but damn it, they frustrate me.
Me to.
Quote from: Tank on August 30, 2011, 09:34:40 AM
Spot on. So you see no differentiation to culpability under the secular law should be made because of religious affiliation?
These people are entitled to have their places of worship, they are entitled to meet and discuss or teach their religion, they can print their books, they can promote their religion. They can have their private schools. I am fine with this.
But I feel they ought to be held accountable under the laws of our society just like everyone else.
Quote from: Stevil on August 30, 2011, 10:35:01 AM
Quote from: Tank on August 30, 2011, 09:34:40 AM
Spot on. So you see no differentiation to culpability under the secular law should be made because of religious affiliation?
These people are entitled to have their places of worship, they are entitled to meet and discuss or teach their religion, they can print their books, they can promote their religion. They can have their private schools. I am fine with this.
But I feel they ought to be held accountable under the laws of our society just like everyone else.
Understood.
Stevil, I would be one of the last people to defend any religious institution, but I think that in the first example (sexism) they themselves are choosing to enter a career which promotes it, in a secular State. If they were trying to push that same idea of sexism onto other non-religious institutions and groups, then there would be a real problem. I don't see any real harm there in that restricted example, because people are choosing and not pushing that on others. It is distasteful and outdated, I agree. Maybe in a few centuries they'll catch up...
As for crimes which clearly harm others such as pedophilia or even obstruct the justice system such as hiding people who confessed to a crime, I think that secular authorities need to step in. Criminals should not be hidden just because they're affiliated with any religion.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 30, 2011, 04:15:01 PM
Stevil, I would be one of the last people to defend any religious institution, but I think that in the first example (sexism) they themselves are choosing to enter a career which promotes it, in a secular State. If they were trying to push that same idea of sexism onto other non-religious institutions and groups, then there would be a real problem. I don't see any real harm there in that restricted example, because people are choosing and not pushing that on others. It is distasteful and outdated, I agree. Maybe in a few centuries they'll catch up...
As for crimes which clearly harm others such as pedophilia or even obstruct the justice system such as hiding people who confessed to a crime, I think that secular authorities need to step in. Criminals should not be hidden just because they're affiliated with any religion.
I think the issue is the Catholic kids who have no choice whether they are brought up in a sexist environment.
Quote from: Tank on August 30, 2011, 04:20:51 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 30, 2011, 04:15:01 PM
Stevil, I would be one of the last people to defend any religious institution, but I think that in the first example (sexism) they themselves are choosing to enter a career which promotes it, in a secular State. If they were trying to push that same idea of sexism onto other non-religious institutions and groups, then there would be a real problem. I don't see any real harm there in that restricted example, because people are choosing and not pushing that on others. It is distasteful and outdated, I agree. Maybe in a few centuries they'll catch up...
As for crimes which clearly harm others such as pedophilia or even obstruct the justice system such as hiding people who confessed to a crime, I think that secular authorities need to step in. Criminals should not be hidden just because they're affiliated with any religion.
I think the issue is the Catholic kids who have no choice whether they are brought up in a sexist environment.
Right, until they're old enough to think for themselves, which I concede, doesn't happen too often. Are Catholics (in general) as sexist in other areas of their lives? As in, does Church hierarchy have that sort of mental influence on people?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 30, 2011, 04:41:06 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 30, 2011, 04:20:51 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 30, 2011, 04:15:01 PM
Stevil, I would be one of the last people to defend any religious institution, but I think that in the first example (sexism) they themselves are choosing to enter a career which promotes it, in a secular State. If they were trying to push that same idea of sexism onto other non-religious institutions and groups, then there would be a real problem. I don't see any real harm there in that restricted example, because people are choosing and not pushing that on others. It is distasteful and outdated, I agree. Maybe in a few centuries they'll catch up...
As for crimes which clearly harm others such as pedophilia or even obstruct the justice system such as hiding people who confessed to a crime, I think that secular authorities need to step in. Criminals should not be hidden just because they're affiliated with any religion.
I think the issue is the Catholic kids who have no choice whether they are brought up in a sexist environment.
Right, until they're old enough to think for themselves, which I concede, doesn't happen too often. Are Catholics (in general) as sexist in other areas of their lives? As in, does Church hierarchy have that sort of mental influence on people?
I don't know, but there are loads of ex-catholics here who will know theanswer.
Quote from: Tank on August 30, 2011, 04:20:51 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 30, 2011, 04:15:01 PM
Stevil, I would be one of the last people to defend any religious institution, but I think that in the first example (sexism) they themselves are choosing to enter a career which promotes it, in a secular State. If they were trying to push that same idea of sexism onto other non-religious institutions and groups, then there would be a real problem. I don't see any real harm there in that restricted example, because people are choosing and not pushing that on others. It is distasteful and outdated, I agree. Maybe in a few centuries they'll catch up...
As for crimes which clearly harm others such as pedophilia or even obstruct the justice system such as hiding people who confessed to a crime, I think that secular authorities need to step in. Criminals should not be hidden just because they're affiliated with any religion.
I think the issue is the Catholic kids who have no choice whether they are brought up in a sexist environment.
Yes, you CAN consent as an adult, but trust , being raised in a highly secist religion... It is hard to break away from that way of thought.
At a young age, especially likr 6/7, yout personally is developing. Teaching a child acceptance, tolerance and diversity is crutial for their skills going into young teenage year.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 30, 2011, 04:15:01 PM
Stevil, I would be one of the last people to defend any religious institution, but I think that in the first example (sexism) they themselves are choosing to enter a career which promotes it
Hundreds of millions of people around the world belong to the Catholic church. They get brought up seeing this as acceptable behaviour.
I am just amazed that my own country allows this organisation to practice sexism in my own country, when clearly it is against the law. But it seems that every country lets them do this, despite their own laws.
I think in order to remove sexism from Catholicism, or any form of Christianity really, you'd pretty much have to throw out the bible. It is a completely male dominated book and belief system to its very core. As an ex-catholic myself, I'm not surprised that sexism has been persistent in Catholicism and it'll probably always be there in one form or another as long the roots stay the same.
That being said, I was an altar server when I was a kid and I was never made to feel that I was sub-par because I was a girl. I've never even heard of Catholics taking issue with female altar servers until today, actually! Not that that negates everything else, but I had a pretty positive experience, for the most part, when I was involved with the church, so you can take that for what you will :)
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 30, 2011, 08:08:26 AM
Quote from: Medusa on August 30, 2011, 07:38:36 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 30, 2011, 07:13:46 AM
^
No one gender is better than the other. e_e
I know. It's an example. I can think it all I want...at least for now.
I don't. It's an example. Cats are better then dogs. There. Send me to jail.
The point in there somewhere?
When you start pointing and picking...someone's gonna start pointing and picking at you. And one day you too will be on the other side of the fence.
What the crap are you even talking about? o_o
What Tank said.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on August 30, 2011, 10:19:47 PM
That being said, I was an altar server when I was a kid and I was never made to feel that I was sub-par because I was a girl. I've never even heard of Catholics taking issue with female altar servers until today, actually!
Just to ensure you don't think I am making it up, here are some quotes. Of course I am only posting the sexist ones, there are some people there that are supportive of femal alter servers. But I just find it difficult reading some of this stuff.
Quote
I've always been against female altar servers, though you make a valid point.
But the girls that are altar serving should first understand, that priesthood is a guy thing. And so is altar serving.
Quote
I don't believe in female altar servers, and I agree with the Church's position that preference should be given to male altar servers.
However,I don't think altar girls will in themselves destroy vocations to the priesthood or make little girls all want to become priests. I see altar girls as more symptomatic of bigger problems in the Church.
Quote
More problematic is that the whole original push for altar girls was driven by a feminist agenda of "gender equality" (believing that men and women should have exactly the same roles in society and the Church) rather than by any genuine religious need, and that this practice was carried out for many years in blatant opposition to Church discipline
Quote
There are not supposed to be girl servers in Byzantine Churches, although I've heard of at least one priest who permits it... Anyway, they're not supposed to
Quote
Serving at the altar as an alter boy was meant to be almost like an apprenticeship. The idea was the guide young men into the service of the Liturgy, and almost all priests came from them. This was the norm for centuries, perhaps millenia. It was changed probably due to new thoughts on gender and feminism
Quote
Having women serve at the altar serves no necessary purpose
Quote
from a liturgical perspective, it's absolutely a mistake to have female altar servers. everyone here is looking at this from a practical perspective, almost a marketing perspective: "what will attract more vocations?" et cetera. while that is an interesting subject, and I do think having altar boys act as apprenticeships, as it were, do help foster vocations, that is not the only thing to consider.
Quote
Boys serve at the altar partly as a way to introduce youths to the priesthood, which is for males only. Currently, the vast majority of altar servers do not become priests. However, this trend can and should change. Boys should be encouraged to consider the priesthood from an early age. And they should be encouraged to become altar servers as a good first introduction to the priesthood. But if girls serve along side boys, the role of altar server will not be viewed by the children or their parents as an introduction to the role of a priest. One might say that the role of altar girl can be an introduction for the girls to the religious life, so that boys would see serving at the altar as a precursor to the role of a priest, and girls would see it as a precursor to the role of a religious sister. This view is incorrect. It is not the role of women religious to serve at the altar. Nuns are called to the consecrated life for prayer, self-sacrifice, and works of mercy. Nuns are not called to take those roles which are most fitting only for the ordained, but which do not absolutely require ordination. There are certain roles in the Church which require ordination, and other roles which, while not absolutely requiring ordination, are most fitting only for the ordained.
QuoteBoys serve at the altar partly as a way to introduce youths to the priesthood...
Precisely. Where else would the priests get 'em? ;D
I find those examples pretty annoying, but I comfort myself with the knowledge that the Catholic church is dying a slow death in a lot of areas. My father is pretty "old school Catholic", and when he gets on with his foolishness about gay marriage or abortion or whatever, I just remind myself that that particular legacy in our family dies with him (neither of my sisters are religious, either). Unless Catholicism really starts pushing evangelism (which I don't think it will), I'm willing to bet that it going to be close to extinct, in the western world, at least, in the next couple of generations.
I think the way to win people over is by continuing to show good sense and reason. I think that goes for religious ideology and sexist ideology (or, in this case, both)
That's hard to read indeed. I do take a bit of hopefulness that college has opened ip many minds. I think a lot of children of religious parents go out into the REAL world and see that not everyone follows an outdated mythology.
I really want to see the fall of religion. Or at least the fall of Catholosim before I die...
People are still allowed to choose what they want to believe religiously or non.
Quote from: Medusa on September 01, 2011, 07:00:29 AM
People are still allowed to choose what they want to believe religiously or non.
Believe yes, act on dogma, no. 50 year old men in the west can't marry 9 year old girls and bed them. Cultural relativism is a thorny issue that becomes more problomatical as the world 'shrinks' exposing different cultures to each other. Some Japanese comic books have content that would have them banned in the west. But Japanese society is so repressed they use fantasy as a pressure release and escape. There isn't a 'sound bite' answer to this question IMO.
Quote from: Tank on September 01, 2011, 09:42:59 AM
Quote from: Medusa on September 01, 2011, 07:00:29 AM
People are still allowed to choose what they want to believe religiously or non.
Believe yes, act on dogma, no. 50 year old men in the west can't marry 9 year old girls and bed them. Cultural relativism is a thorny issue that becomes more problomatical as the world 'shrinks' exposing different cultures to each other. Some Japanese comic books have content that would have them banned in the west. But Japanese society is so repressed they use fantasy as a pressure release and escape. There isn't a 'sound bite' answer to this question IMO.
Agreed. Which is why I chose the word believe carefully. Doing things you want without regard to the law you end up like Warren Jeffs in jail! (thank Gawd). I know quite a few Pagans who follow a more matriarchal old religion. I can't tell them not to.
Quote from: Medusa on September 01, 2011, 07:00:29 AM
People are still allowed to choose what they want to believe religiously or non.
Medusa, I want to understand your position a bit better.
Do you think people should have complete freedom within a society to act however they like with regards to bigotry?
e.g
1. Should a person be able to start a private, members only golf club where there is a membership requirement that members be 100% European white?
2. Should a person be allowed to operate a private school, where no teachers will be hired if they are gay, and can be fired if they get found out as being gay?
3. Should a person who owns an amusement park be allowed to refuse entry to Muslims because they are worried that Muslims might blow themselves up?
or do you think it is only OK to have discriminative policies for a religious organisation?
Good questions. Thanks for allowing me to clarify my position.
1) No
2) No
3)No
I think people are allowed to BELIEVE whatever they want. And what they do must be in compliance with the law of the country they are residing. If not they are going to face the justice of that country. I believe you can believe and do absolutely anything you want with the caveat that you will be 100% responsible for your actions and take the consequences. This is a Satanic principle that I hold dearly to.
As to this thread and specifically the Catholic church. Is it a patriarchal religion? Yes. Is it a choice for people? Yes. If the group in general wants women in it, they will be in it. The Catholic church is NOT simply the church 'employees' and the Pope. It IS the congregation. For things to change the congregation must make the steps to change it from the inside out. I cannot change the religious affiliation YOU as a Catholic person CHOSE to be a part of. I disagree with a lot of things the Catholic church does (as a former Catholic member I understand deeply how the male dominated religion flows). The Catholic church has had rumbles in its organization before. When the congregation rumbles enough, things will change. To the Catholic church they believe what they believe. You cannot put your opinions on their belief system. As tacky and backward their beliefs may seem to some...they have, you have, I have a right to believe what I want to believe. Not just what is deemed on the 'ok' list by Stevil. Or any other person who wants to make things fit their way. Some alternate Stevil believes ALL people should believe in God. What would you tell him? That you are right? I should be believing in something I don't!
As abhorrent as some beliefs are, you can't push your own belief on them. Because someone is going to push it on you. I have to tolerate other's beliefs. Not just the ones I am ok with. That's my stance.
My question for you is:
What exact changes would you make the to Catholic church that would ease your mind AND be respectful to the people who choose to follow the religion the way they want?
(who knows. I may agree with you on some of your changes)
Quote from: Medusa on September 01, 2011, 10:20:14 AM
My question for you is:
What exact changes would you make the to Catholic church that would ease your mind AND be respectful to the people who choose to follow the religion the way they want?
(who knows. I may agree with you on some of your changes)
I would like the church to be subject to the laws of our society, just like everyone else is subject to those laws.
I don't understand why they seem to be exempt. Do all countries give them exemption from bigotry laws or are there some countries which uphold these laws irregardless. If some countries do uphold the law, I would like to know what happens to the church within these countries. Does it leave, does it remain defiant and go underground? does it arrogantly hold its head up in defiance? or does it tow the line as the bible instructs its followers to abide by the laws of the governing bodies?
Quote from: Stevil on September 01, 2011, 11:14:10 AM
Quote from: Medusa on September 01, 2011, 10:20:14 AM
My question for you is:
What exact changes would you make the to Catholic church that would ease your mind AND be respectful to the people who choose to follow the religion the way they want?
(who knows. I may agree with you on some of your changes)
I would like the church to be subject to the laws of our society, just like everyone else is subject to those laws.
I don't understand why they seem to be exempt. Do all countries give them exemption from bigotry laws or are there some countries which uphold these laws irregardless. If some countries do uphold the law, I would like to know what happens to the church within these countries. Does it leave, does it remain defiant and go underground? does it arrogantly hold its head up in defiance? or does it tow the line as the bible instructs its followers to abide by the laws of the governing bodies?
Hmm I'm wondering the logistics of something though. The Catholic religion here is ran by the Vatican over there. Each country is different. And what might be not ok here is ok there. Especially when the edicts are coming directly from Da Pope!
Also I wanted to know specifically what things you want to see change. And are the things you want to see change the things they want to see change? I mean I have to ask, but as a Satanist, I don't want anyone else butting in my religion and how it should be followed. That sorta sits all kinds of wrong with me.
Quote from: Stevil on August 31, 2011, 11:04:35 AM
Just to ensure you don't think I am making it up, here are some quotes. Of course I am only posting the sexist ones, there are some people there that are supportive of femal alter servers. But I just find it difficult reading some of this stuff.
Quote
I've always been against female altar servers, though you make a valid point.
But the girls that are altar serving should first understand, that priesthood is a guy thing. And so is altar serving.
Quote
I don't believe in female altar servers, and I agree with the Church's position that preference should be given to male altar servers.
However,I don't think altar girls will in themselves destroy vocations to the priesthood or make little girls all want to become priests. I see altar girls as more symptomatic of bigger problems in the Church.
Quote
More problematic is that the whole original push for altar girls was driven by a feminist agenda of "gender equality" (believing that men and women should have exactly the same roles in society and the Church) rather than by any genuine religious need, and that this practice was carried out for many years in blatant opposition to Church discipline
Quote
There are not supposed to be girl servers in Byzantine Churches, although I've heard of at least one priest who permits it... Anyway, they're not supposed to
Quote
Serving at the altar as an alter boy was meant to be almost like an apprenticeship. The idea was the guide young men into the service of the Liturgy, and almost all priests came from them. This was the norm for centuries, perhaps millenia. It was changed probably due to new thoughts on gender and feminism
Quote
Having women serve at the altar serves no necessary purpose
Quote
from a liturgical perspective, it's absolutely a mistake to have female altar servers. everyone here is looking at this from a practical perspective, almost a marketing perspective: "what will attract more vocations?" et cetera. while that is an interesting subject, and I do think having altar boys act as apprenticeships, as it were, do help foster vocations, that is not the only thing to consider.
Quote
Boys serve at the altar partly as a way to introduce youths to the priesthood, which is for males only. Currently, the vast majority of altar servers do not become priests. However, this trend can and should change. Boys should be encouraged to consider the priesthood from an early age. And they should be encouraged to become altar servers as a good first introduction to the priesthood. But if girls serve along side boys, the role of altar server will not be viewed by the children or their parents as an introduction to the role of a priest. One might say that the role of altar girl can be an introduction for the girls to the religious life, so that boys would see serving at the altar as a precursor to the role of a priest, and girls would see it as a precursor to the role of a religious sister. This view is incorrect. It is not the role of women religious to serve at the altar. Nuns are called to the consecrated life for prayer, self-sacrifice, and works of mercy. Nuns are not called to take those roles which are most fitting only for the ordained, but which do not absolutely require ordination. There are certain roles in the Church which require ordination, and other roles which, while not absolutely requiring ordination, are most fitting only for the ordained.
Were those quotes taken from Phatmass? If yes, that would hardly be surprising, since most there aren't liberal Catholics.
It really is odd hearing those sorts of justifications coming from people nowadays though. Makes you wonder if in fact the date is centuries off.
I get the impression however that people are leaning less and less on rituals and ancient and outdated traditions. I'm curious to see what will happen to Catholicism in about 50 years...
Hopefully in the next few decades religion as we know, and its ridiculous rituals; which include prayer, attending mass, etc, will be extinct.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 30, 2011, 05:34:32 PM
Yes, you CAN consent as an adult, but trust , being raised in a highly secist religion... It is hard to break away from that way of thought.
At a young age, especially likr 6/7, yout personally is developing. Teaching a child acceptance, tolerance and diversity is crutial for their skills going into young teenage year.
Quote from: Stevil on August 30, 2011, 07:49:28 PM
Hundreds of millions of people around the world belong to the Catholic church. They get brought up seeing this as acceptable behaviour.
I am just amazed that my own country allows this organisation to practice sexism in my own country, when clearly it is against the law. But it seems that every country lets them do this, despite their own laws.
Yeah...I think that just about sums up the worst problem that this topic brings, but once again, legally interfering with an institution as powerful as the Catholic Church is easier said than done. You're basically telling millions of people how they should practice their religion of choice (or indoctrinated "choice", but they can still leave if they want to).
The way I see it, if people want to have bigoted opinions, that's their problem as long as those thoughts don't leave the realm of their heads and actually negatively affect other people outside their religious clubs. When those kids who have been indirectly taught that sexism is ok grow up and run companies of their own, or have to deal with a diverse group of people, they're subject to secular law. I think it's an important distinction to make.
I think that the fact that some people are splitting off the Catholic Church and opening more liberal (and heretic) churches of their own with female priests as a good sign. These things are very slow to change, especially when dealing with religion. It only evolves when it's been gasping for air for decades and close to death.
Quote from: Medusa on September 02, 2011, 06:01:16 AM
Hmm I'm wondering the logistics of something though. The Catholic religion here is ran by the Vatican over there. Each country is different. And what might be not ok here is ok there. Especially when the edicts are coming directly from Da Pope!
There are many globally dispersed organisations/companies, the non-religious ones must abide by the laws of the country that they are operating within, as well as the country whose stock exchange they are listed on.
In my opinion religion does not override the authority of government. I don't abide by the stance of status quo and certainly don't think anyone should be held above the law.
Quote from: Medusa on September 02, 2011, 06:01:16 AM
I wanted to know specifically what things you want to see change. And are the things you want to see change the things they want to see change?
Quite frankly I don't care whether the church or the congregation want these changes or not.
I want to see my government upholding the law for everyone.
I want church authorities to be held accountable for sexist policies, be it with regards to employment of staff for ministerial positions, teaching positions or any other position, or even with regards to selecting children for volunteer work as alter servers etc.
This accountability should have consequences suitable under the laws of my country and should encompass all discrimination, not just sexism.
If the government deem it important enough to create and enforce anti discrimination laws within our society then these rules should also apply to any religious outfit operating within this society.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on September 02, 2011, 06:33:49 AM
Hopefully in the next few decades religion as we know, and its ridiculous rituals; which include prayer, attending mass, etc, will be extinct.
Care to place a wager on how long they last? How about dinner at that Serendipity place? I DO love how it seems that (the smarter part of) the world seems to be migrating toward some form of agnosticism. Except Texas. But they're slower about most things.
Quote from: fyv0h on September 12, 2011, 05:25:56 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on September 02, 2011, 06:33:49 AM
Hopefully in the next few decades religion as we know, and its ridiculous rituals; which include prayer, attending mass, etc, will be extinct.
Care to place a wager on how long they last? How about dinner at that Serendipity place? I DO love how it seems that (the smarter part of) the world seems to be migrating toward some form of agnosticism. Except Texas. But they're slower about most things.
Haha! Sure. :)
I would love to see it happen before I die. Realistically I say it's going to take another 30 years or so. So hopefully before 2050.
Serendipity better still be around.