Up Front: Are We There Yet?
777 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 19 20 21 22 23 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
It's one thing to talk about the history of world religions and the way in which their (possibly anachronistic) ideologies affect modern society. It's another to tell a specific Catholic who is going to great lengths to be sensitive that you think it would be better if they were some kind of fish. Which is a long way of saying that it seems a touch harsh, and I can't imagine it would be okay if the roles were reversed?
Hah! See, my English strikes again. Sorry, I see now that pike also means a kind of fish. Delicious misunderstanding. I meant pike strictly in the sense of what you stick the heads of your enemies on. Which doesn't refer to Tess, of course, polite and kind mouthpiece to the oppressors. But if my compatriots were to stage an armed insurrection against the Vatican, I'd be on the first plane.
-
But if my compatriots were to stage an armed insurrection against the Vatican, I'd be on the first plane.
You wouldn't pike out, then?
-
You wouldn't pike out, then?
I guess there's only one way to find out. Do you hear him, Roman insurrectionists?
-
I could have sworn that already existed
But I don't want arseholes in my church.
We had a Singaporean writer at Bardic Web for a few years, she was a really lovely woman. She had to give it up because her family and her boyfriend found out she was using the internet recreationally and made her stop.
Wait, there are other reasons for using the internet?
-
@Deborah
Yes... but I can't help but think that people spouting bigotry and hatred rely on our good manners not to call them out on it. As long as everyone is polite and civilised and above all nice in their manner, you can say quite vicious and nasty things.
But hasn't Tess simply been restating, in a thoughtful way, the tenets of a church to which you at one point subscribed? This isn't to diminish your rotten experience with the Catholic church, but it's going to be hard to have a discussion if the harsh words get thrown around all the time.
It's all academic to me: I don't feel any connection to any church, but I do want to try and understand why people do.
-
It's all academic to me: I don't feel any connection to any church, but I do want to try and understand why people do.
That is possibly a discussion for another day. What's being discussed here is gay marriage, and by extension the inclination of some religions to regulate the life of people who don't subscribe to their faith. Your equanimity and detachment may have something to do with perhaps not having heard the "I don't hate anybody, but" argument quite as many times as some of us.
-
but it's going to be hard to have a discussion if the harsh words get thrown around all the time.
It's also hard to have a discussion where people say things which are, no matter how gently and lovingly expressed, really offensive. I find the suggestion that gay people do some kind of invisible damage to children really offensive. I have, however, restrained myself from a massive sarcastic rant about how gay you have to be, and how close to the child, for that damage to happen, because Tess's behaviour just hasn't warranted it.
But.
It's also quite hard to have a discussion that goes:
"I believe X"
"But research says X isn't true"
"I still genuinely believe X"
"..."
And yeah, I've had that discussion with people who aren't religious as well. And I think it's disingenious to accuse people of 'refusing to thoughtfully engage in dialogue' after 24 pages and about three rounds of 'nobody is forcing you to do anything'.
-
Catholic friends (more accurately: friends who were raised Catholic) all have that 'don't ask, don't tell' thing going on with regard to stuff they know they're not meant to be doing.
Isn't that the whole point of catholicism, lots and lots and lots of rules so you can pretty much get excited about doing anything, because ya know it's naughty.
And then this cool reset button so you're all good again and can get another boner from doing something naughty again.
-
It's all academic to me: I don't feel any connection to any church, but I do want to try and understand why people do.
I've tried really hard and failed.
I cannot grasp what drives people to deliberately segregate themselves from each other - under the auspices of faith in a supernatural entity - and then create conflict around the vagaries of their different belief systems.
I'm agog.
And that's putting it politely :)
-
And then this cool reset button so you're all good again and can get another boner from doing something naughty again.
I believe the workaround for that is that if you don't confess something bad you did, or if you confess it without any intention of avoiding doing it again, it doesn't count.
George Carlin had a good line on shifting rules: "They let you eat steak on Fridays now, but you just know there are guys still in Hell on a meat rap."
-
some kind of invisible damage to children
Luckily, at this point in the conversation - the point where we've established God's assholitude - I don't think 'distancing the kids from Him' is actually damage. Win!
-
Lapsed Catholics are the best.
Maybe, though I think lapsed Catholics provide ample evidence to justify slapping a big red R18 sticker on every church door. Never mind the pedophile priests and sadistic nuns - that's some heavy shit they're dumping on the vulnerable minds of children every week.
-
Luckily, at this point in the conversation - the point where we've established God's assholitude - I don't think 'distancing the kids from Him' is actually damage. Win!
I like to picture God in his big chair, at his PC*, headdesking and going "That's not what I said!".
To be a little more general than my comments before, I think there comes a point in every discussion where you have evidence-based theory on one side and religious theory on the other (ie evolution, young earth, etc) where you just have to concede that, no matter how genuine or polite, the two sides are speaking completely different languages and have no hope of convincing each other.
*Alright, yes, God is probably a Mac user.
-
It's also hard to have a discussion where people say things which are, no matter how gently and lovingly expressed, really offensive.
So do you want Tess to stop posting? I'm just a bit puzzled.
-
It's also hard to have a discussion where people say things which are, no matter how gently and lovingly expressed, really offensive.
So do you want Tess to stop posting? I'm just a bit puzzled.
No, not at all. With the caveat that, if anyone feels this thread is in danger of becoming like the copyright thread let me know, and I'll... post some Kirk-Spocking videos or something.
It's the idea that 'harsh language' is getting in the way of a constructive discussion, where I think we might actually be all out of constructive discussion at this point. But then, as I think is pretty obvious, I/S and I have done this very dance with Tess a few times in the past, and maybe other people are still learning stuff that we're taking for granted.
-
I would like to express my support of comments made by Emma and Giovani.
Emma you've got us all talking/posting and that can only be a good thing. Maybe Tess will be won over by your eloquence.
-
It's also hard to have a discussion where people say things which are, no matter how gently and lovingly expressed, really offensive.
So do you want Tess to stop posting? I'm just a bit puzzled.
I disagreed with much of what Tess was writing, but don't think she was expressing bigotry and hatred in the slightest degree. Clearly separate matter from the point that the Catholic Church is responsible for much bigotry and hatred, in both directions. So she very skilful, and worth the discussion I reckon give the importance of the many subjects.
-
No, not at all. With the caveat that, if anyone feels this thread is in danger of becoming like the copyright thread let me know, and I'll... post some Kirk-Spocking videos or something.
No need! I've got something that'll do the job quite nicely.
Have a nice weekend everyone.
-
No need! I've got something that'll do the job quite nicely.
I love you.
-
And the question of whether churches should pay taxes or not is different from the question of whether there should be a concept of "civil marriage" distinct from the existing rituals such as "Catholic marriage", with the State only recognising the former.
Seems very sensible to have an all-inclusive, merged CU/civil marriage, and let the sky-fairy-folk do their own thing until such time as either:
a) Tess converts everyone to Catholicism, at which time "civil marriage" is abolished and replaced with "Catholic marriage", or
b) Giovanni and his pike have finished their work. -
Sorry to drag so far back, but ...
That’s what you said: “Everybody must obey the law, regardless of their religion.”
No, that's not the same. The same level of obligation, which is not absolute. I think the obligation and the consequences should be the same whether you break the law for religious reasons or not. I don't think, for instance, that protesters who trespass or do physical damage should be treated differently on the basis of whether or not I agree with their cause.
I don’t see how it’s not the same, other than whether you agree or don’t agree with the law in question. You’re saying to Tess that people of her religion need to obey the law, not their conscience. You wouldn’t have said that to gays prior to the 80s, nor apparently to Rastafarians who smoke marijuana today.
We don't need to be moral absolutists just because we are arguing with moral absolutists, you know.
I’m not a moral absolutist. I think you might be interpreting me to be saying that everyone should always obey the law (e.g. you should have served your training). I’m actually saying what you probably agree with: that some laws are shit and should be disregarded. The state can be wrong, too. However, in good conscience, I don’t tell other people I disagree with that they should behave a certain way because it’s the law, which is how Emma’s statement read to me.
-
Hah! See, my English strikes again. Sorry, I see now that pike also means a kind of fish. Delicious misunderstanding.
I always assumed you meant pike as in what Vlad was fond of using. WH had me very confused for a minute there.
-
I disagreed with much of what Tess was writing, but don't think she was expressing bigotry and hatred in the slightest degree.
I would say she is expressing a degree of bigotry: many of us are saying to her that we accept her church should not have to marry gays if they don't want to, but outside of that church let gays marry in their own civil proceeding. That's a real "each to their own" approach. But that's not good enough for Tess; she still doesn't want gays to marry even though her church won't have to bless it or have anything to do with it. That's a kind of bigotry. (Though it does seem she's at the minor end of the spectrum - she seems somewhat less anti-gay than the Pope.)
I agree that saying she doesn't seem to be expressing hated, though.
-
You’re saying to Tess that people of her religion need to obey the law, not their conscience.
No, Steve, I'm saying
I think the obligation and the consequences should be the same whether you break the law for religious reasons or not.
My first comment read as if I thought everybody should obey every law all the time no matter what. That wasn't right, which was why I changed it. So my position is pretty much the same as what you state in your last paragraph, with the caveat that if you openly break the law, you should be prepared to accept the consequences of that, and not say 'oh, but I deserve a special dispensation to not have that law apply to me'. I'm not sure if I can make that any clearer.
I always assumed you meant pike as in what Vlad was fond of using.
Nah, Giovanni just hits people with fish. Especially those guys in the stripy costumes outside the Vatican.
-
Nah, Giovanni just hits people with fish.
Damn I thought Gio was advocating GE to put their heads onto fish.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.