What Would it Take to Change your mind on ...

[packsaddle]

About the island, not yet. Still working on the final details, but even then, those long tendrils of the internet reach to remote places too.

But one thing caught my attention, "I think those making a 'not natural' argument are arguing from a position of natural law, which is a long, deep, rich philosphical and ethical tradition that underpins much of western thought and jurisprudence, both religious and secular."

I am now reminded of that part of the underpinning you mention in which animals were literally dressed in suits and tried in regular courts...and executed for crimes under human law. Sometimes they were pardoned or in the case of wild animals caught, they sometimes were tried by church courts and excommunicated, literally, from the church. This bizarre history ranks way up there on my weird-xxxx-o-meter and it does indeed mark in my mind - the truth of your statement.

 

"In France in the early 1500s, a lawyer named Bartholom Chassene was appointed to represent some rats that had eaten and destroyed some barley (a felony). Chassene used a series of clever legal maneuvers to delay the trial as long as possible. At one point he convinced the judge that it was too dangerous for his clients to come to court on the appointed day because of the many cats in the neighborhood. Chassene became famous throughout France for his excellent legal skills."

 

The legal equivalent of Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber. Such a deep, rich philosophical and ethical tradition indeed.

 

Read more: The History of Human-Animal Interaction - The Medieval Period - Animals, Cats, Europe, Ages, Middle, and Church http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2149/History-Human-Animal-Interaction-MEDIEVAL-PERIOD.html#ixzz0wzxiHoHd

 

[DanKroh]

"Yah, do yeh really want to go there? Justifying arguments based on stereotypes because they have a correlational basis?"

 

Again, not what I said at all. I MADE no arguments based on the stereotype, so I don't know how I can justify such an argument. All I did was refute that someone else's assumption (again, not *my* assumption) based on such a stereotype is not necessarily a character attack, as you wanted to label it.

 

That's twice now that you've tried to put words in mouth, Beavah. Gee, I guess it's not really a good day for you on that account.

 

"I reckon you're only going to get me to make fun of da professional competence of psychologists again."

 

Somehow, I imagine that you will do that again anyway, since the only one controlling your actions is you.

[Beavah]

Yah, let me add that it sure seems like da lawyers and engineers have a better sense of humor, eh? Unlike da psychologists, we can laugh at and mock ourselves, and appreciate da mocking delivered by others.

 

Packsaddle, wherever did yeh find that little bit of trivia. That was hysterical. Poorly written and I suspect only weakly researched, but really funny nonetheless. I want to be a successful rat lawyer! (come to think of it, I reckon quite a few lawyers are successful at defending rats )

 

I think da natural law I was referring to was a bit different, eh? But I stand before yeh appropriately mocked.

 

Beavah

[evmori]

come on Ed,

Women as property, subservient to men, the whole Catholic church treatment of women in subordinate roles, its all in the scriptures.

 

How does this equal hatred of women? It doesn't.

[Eagledad]

 

>>Definition of misogyny (several different sources)- "the hatred of women">but I think the term applies when hatred is not the motivator to the prejudice.

[GernBlansten]

If you have another word that describes the systematic oppression of women, I'll be more than happy to substitute it.

[Trevorum]

Patriarchy might be a better term for most contexts.

[Beavah]

 

If you have another word that describes the systematic oppression of women, I'll be more than happy to substitute it.

 

Interesting version of tolerance and scoutly reverence yeh have. Just curious, have yeh looked up what da Catholics really say themselves about da role of women? Whether oppressing women is OK?

 

Or are yeh deliberately avoiding factual data to maintain your prejudice?

 

B

 

[GernBlansten]

Well Beav,

when a woman can hold the same positions of power as a man in the church, I'll consider them enlightened. Until then, I'll consider them patriarchal.

[BadenP]

Beav

 

What Gern is getting at is that the Catholic Church does not view women as equal to men when it comes to the ordination of priests. The Church has the tradition that since Jesus only chose men as apostles women can never be ordained, the same is true in Orthodox Judaism and the catholic position is probably a carryover from that tradition. It is no secret that the Catholic faith is a male dominated and controlled tradition, and quoting scriptures out of context does not change that fact. The churches elevation of Mary to a demigod status was to help appease their female members and to attempt to make them feel as equals. Religious historians have shown the financial support of Jesus' ministry came from a number of well placed women, and that Jesus did have many women followers who are hardly mentioned in the Bible. Mary Magdalen for example which the Catholic clergy has branded and still refers to as a prostitute, even though the Bible never refers to her as such, was in fact one of these wealthy women who were part of Jesus entourage throughout his ministry. At the crucifixion the only ones there through the entire ordeal were John and three women.

 

Yet the Catholic Church still holds onto their archaic concept to this day that women are not worthy to be ordained to the priesthood, if that is not the ultimate sign of the oppression/supression of women by the church then I don't know what is.

[sherminator505]

"Yet the Catholic Church still holds onto their archaic concept to this day that women are not worthy to be ordained to the priesthood, if that is not the ultimate sign of the oppression/supression of women by the church then I don't know what is."

 

Really?!(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[GernBlansten]

No, what I'm getting at is there is institutionalized discrimination of females being practiced by the church based on biblical scriptures. The church is actually being very consistent in this regard to discrimination of both homosexuals and women.

 

However, most enlightened societies have moved beyond that sexism.

 

I wonder why some who do not prescribe to the scriptures of sexism, seem to want to follow the ones against homosexuality. Just seems inconsistent.

[Beavah]

BadenP, I think yeh must have lived such a sheltered, Western life that yeh no longer understand what da real definitions of oppression and suppression are. Da GSUSA won't let me be a unit leader, but that's not even close to oppressing, suppressing, or hating men.

 

I had lovely young intern from a Catholic college spend an hour this afternoon doing Gern's homework for him. Shame he couldn't to it himself before maligning her faith. That whole "mentally awake" thing.

 

Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. "Being man" or "being woman" is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator. Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity "in the image of God." ... God created man and woman together and willed each for the other... The woman God "fashions" from the man's rib and brings to him elicits on the man's part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: "This at last is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh." Man discovers woman as another "I," sharing the same humanity. - Catechism of the Catholic Church 369-372.

 

Fundamentum ergo tollitur omni theoriae vel praxi quae inter hominem et hominem, inter gentem et gentem, discrimen quoad humanam dignitatem et iura exinde dimanantia inducit. "No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between human and human or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned." - Nostra Aetate, #5. Declaration of the Second Vatican Council.

 

Yah, "perfect equality as human persons". "Both with one and the same dignity." "No foundation for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination."

 

That sounds like da definition of "oppression" and "suppression" to me, eh?

 

I gotta tell yeh, as a non-Catholic and scouter, that I find da prejudice and slurs about da faith of fellow scouters quite disgusting. If that's what some of you are conveying to youth in da BSA, I wish you'd quit da program and go crawl back under whatever rock yeh came from.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Eagledad]

>>I wonder why some who do not prescribe to the scriptures of sexism, seem to want to follow the ones against homosexuality. Just seems inconsistent.

[packsaddle]

I really don't know much about GSUSA but their policy must have changed recently because I know a man who WAS a unit leader for the duration of his daughter's tenure in the unit. His name wasn't 'Sue', either. Or maybe local option is alive and well in GSUSA.