|
Post by Sue on Nov 20, 2008 17:54:11 GMT -5
And yet, I think the balance of a 2 party system is still a good thing. If we only had liberals and liberal-ers who knows what the world might be like. I'm a big fan of checks and balances and moderation in most areas of life. But I take your point. It sucks to be vilified for actions that have ultimately benefitted everyone. Mostly, it speaks to my frustration with "liberal" being a dirty word, somehow. I have respect for conservativism, of the "government out of my life" type...but somehow liberalism gets equated with being "immoral" and "irresponsible". Valid point. Best thing to do, IMO, is refuse to be defensive about the label---exactly as the author points out. This is part of the whole "new civility in government" part of Obama's "platform" that I am hoping works out. Lots of stress out there so it will be hard, but let's try to work together, when possible, for the greater good instead of demonizing one another. It's tough, though, when one man's "greater good" is another man's "hell in a handbasket."
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Nov 20, 2008 18:21:46 GMT -5
And yet, I think the balance of a 2 party system is still a good thing. If we only had liberals and liberal-ers who knows what the world might be like. I'm a big fan of checks and balances and moderation in most areas of life. But I take your point. It sucks to be vilified for actions that have ultimately benefitted everyone. Mostly, it speaks to my frustration with "liberal" being a dirty word, somehow. I have respect for conservativism, of the "government out of my life" type...but somehow liberalism gets equated with being "immoral" and "irresponsible". I get that, and I think the anger is valid. What bothers me more, personally, is how I'm unable to hear the phrase "family values" without cringing. I'm mean, I feel like "family values" is supposed to be a positive thing, but it's come to be a catchphrase for censorship and homophobia more than anything else nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Nov 20, 2008 18:34:29 GMT -5
And yet, I think the balance of a 2 party system is still a good thing. If we only had liberals and liberal-ers who knows what the world might be like. I'm a big fan of checks and balances and moderation in most areas of life. But I take your point. It sucks to be vilified for actions that have ultimately benefitted everyone. Mostly, it speaks to my frustration with "liberal" being a dirty word, somehow. I have respect for conservativism, of the "government out of my life" type...but somehow liberalism gets equated with being "immoral" and "irresponsible". Gotta agree with that. Worse, over the last few years, "liberal", or any disagreement with those in power has been equated with unpatriotic and even treasonous. Two (or more) party systems are great as long as there's discussion and not vilification. You need checks and balances on (of?) everybody.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 22, 2008 13:15:05 GMT -5
So, am I the only one to notice that Obama's committment to diversity includes choosing a Vulcan American as Secretary of the Treasury? Julia, hey, we deserve some fun on this thread, right?
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Nov 22, 2008 19:52:27 GMT -5
So, am I the only one to notice that Obama's committment to diversity includes choosing a Vulcan American as Secretary of the Treasury? <snip> Julia, hey, we deserve some fun on this thread, right? LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Nov 22, 2008 19:54:42 GMT -5
Now I love this Change.gov site and the blog that keeps everyone updated about the goings on. But was it really necessary to post that Obama stopped by a deli and what he bought and so forth? He got 2 cherry pies and 3 corned beef sandwiches, in case anyone was wondering.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Nov 23, 2008 11:54:45 GMT -5
Now I love this Change.gov site and the blog that keeps everyone updated about the goings on. But was it really necessary to post that Obama stopped by a deli and what he bought and so forth? He got 2 cherry pies and 3 corned beef sandwiches, in case anyone was wondering. I'm waiting for the photos that show he is sneaking ciggies.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 23, 2008 12:21:42 GMT -5
Now I love this Change.gov site and the blog that keeps everyone updated about the goings on. But was it really necessary to post that Obama stopped by a deli and what he bought and so forth? He got 2 cherry pies and 3 corned beef sandwiches, in case anyone was wondering. I'm waiting for the photos that show he is sneaking ciggies. How about xxx xxx xx xxxxx sipping a Pisco SourJulia, what the article doesn't say is that pisco is aged in coca leaves, at least the traditional stuff is.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 24, 2008 14:45:37 GMT -5
From Salon's Broadsheet:
Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Squeemonster on Nov 24, 2008 15:11:49 GMT -5
Rachael, that picture: Guh.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Nov 24, 2008 18:29:38 GMT -5
From Salon's Broadsheet: Indeed. Wow. It will be interesting to see how this develops.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 24, 2008 22:02:38 GMT -5
From Salon's Broadsheet: Indeed. Wow. It will be interesting to see how this develops. I'm gonna guess it's not going to develop in any way. I mean, it's over. The church isn't going to be reconsidering anytime soon. The church is all about contrition and confession when it comes to sin. It may be phony, of course, but you can be the world's most horrific serial killing cannibal, and you can stay in the Catholic church if you express what appears to be genuine remorse, and ask for forgiveness, and say you understand the evil of your ways, and promise that you won't do it again. And then, you can do it again, but you'll still get another chance if you again express your contrition, etc. Is this wrong, really? I dunno. But these aren't easy or obvious things, at least not to me. I'm not defending the church's "blind eye" or behavior in regard to the sexual abuse. here. No way, no way, no way. That is a horror that can't be minimized. I'm just explaining that this comparison - "they let admitted pedophiles stay, but they don't let me" is somewhat disingenious in my opinion, because surely, this priest knows it's not about how horrible the sin is, as it is about being defiant and unrepentant. There is absolutely no way he doesn't know that. I'm talking about theory here; about the tenets invovled- ideal world. No one is saying that supporting ordination of women is worse than abusing children. The problem is that the church sees this (supporting ordination of women) as sinful, and that the priest involved does NOT see it as sinful. He'd make a more legit point if he pointed out how many parishoners are not excommunicated even though they openly practice birth control. Here, the church is truly being hypocritical. They say that using birth control is sinful, but if they insisted on excommunicating everyone who does that, they wouldn't have a congregation left. Well, I don't know how well I explained this. My point is simply that this guy will not get anywhere making this comparison, and though I am only guessing, I would be stunned if anything whatsoever developed from this.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Nov 25, 2008 7:31:13 GMT -5
Wow. It will be interesting to see how this develops. I'm gonna guess it's not going to develop in any way. I mean, it's over. The church isn't going to be reconsidering anytime soon. The church is all about contrition and confession when it comes to sin. It may be phony, of course, but you can be the world's most horrific serial killing cannibal, and you can stay in the Catholic church if you express what appears to be genuine remorse, and ask for forgiveness, and say you understand the evil of your ways, and promise that you won't do it again. And then, you can do it again, but you'll still get another chance if you again express your contrition, etc. Is this wrong, really? I dunno. But these aren't easy or obvious things, at least not to me. I'm not defending the church's "blind eye" or behavior in regard to the sexual abuse. here. No way, no way, no way. That is a horror that can't be minimized. I'm just explaining that this comparison - "they let admitted pedophiles stay, but they don't let me" is somewhat disingenious in my opinion, because surely, this priest knows it's not about how horrible the sin is, as it is about being defiant and unrepentant. There is absolutely no way he doesn't know that. I'm talking about theory here; about the tenets invovled- ideal world. No one is saying that supporting ordination of women is worse than abusing children. The problem is that the church sees this (supporting ordination of women) as sinful, and that the priest involved does NOT see it as sinful. He'd make a more legit point if he pointed out how many parishoners are not excommunicated even though they openly practice birth control. Here, the church is truly being hypocritical. They say that using birth control is sinful, but if they insisted on excommunicating everyone who does that, they wouldn't have a congregation left. Well, I don't know how well I explained this. My point is simply that this guy will not get anywhere making this comparison, and though I am only guessing, I would be stunned if anything whatsoever developed from this. Actually, I thought you explained it excellently. Although that may be because with my background I already knew what the issue was. (Not the sin, but repentance from the sin. ) And your comparison to the use of birth control was also excellent. There is a real "don't ask, don't tell" attitude about that, because it's in the Church's self-interest not to be forced to force those people out.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 25, 2008 10:11:21 GMT -5
Wow. It will be interesting to see how this develops. I'm gonna guess it's not going to develop in any way. I mean, it's over. The church isn't going to be reconsidering anytime soon. The church is all about contrition and confession when it comes to sin. It may be phony, of course, but you can be the world's most horrific serial killing cannibal, and you can stay in the Catholic church if you express what appears to be genuine remorse, and ask for forgiveness, and say you understand the evil of your ways, and promise that you won't do it again. And then, you can do it again, but you'll still get another chance if you again express your contrition, etc. Is this wrong, really? I dunno. But these aren't easy or obvious things, at least not to me. I'm not defending the church's "blind eye" or behavior in regard to the sexual abuse. here. No way, no way, no way. That is a horror that can't be minimized. I'm just explaining that this comparison - "they let admitted pedophiles stay, but they don't let me" is somewhat disingenious in my opinion, because surely, this priest knows it's not about how horrible the sin is, as it is about being defiant and unrepentant. There is absolutely no way he doesn't know that. I'm talking about theory here; about the tenets invovled- ideal world. No one is saying that supporting ordination of women is worse than abusing children. The problem is that the church sees this (supporting ordination of women) as sinful, and that the priest involved does NOT see it as sinful. He'd make a more legit point if he pointed out how many parishoners are not excommunicated even though they openly practice birth control. Here, the church is truly being hypocritical. They say that using birth control is sinful, but if they insisted on excommunicating everyone who does that, they wouldn't have a congregation left. Well, I don't know how well I explained this. My point is simply that this guy will not get anywhere making this comparison, and though I am only guessing, I would be stunned if anything whatsoever developed from this. Yeah, I didn't really think any change would come of it...this year, anyway. I posted it mostly as a newsworthy item, because I find it interesting that there are now priests who are willing to be excommunicated in order to ordain women.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 25, 2008 10:43:04 GMT -5
I'm gonna guess it's not going to develop in any way. I mean, it's over. The church isn't going to be reconsidering anytime soon. The church is all about contrition and confession when it comes to sin. It may be phony, of course, but you can be the world's most horrific serial killing cannibal, and you can stay in the Catholic church if you express what appears to be genuine remorse, and ask for forgiveness, and say you understand the evil of your ways, and promise that you won't do it again. And then, you can do it again, but you'll still get another chance if you again express your contrition, etc. Is this wrong, really? I dunno. But these aren't easy or obvious things, at least not to me. I'm not defending the church's "blind eye" or behavior in regard to the sexual abuse. here. No way, no way, no way. That is a horror that can't be minimized. I'm just explaining that this comparison - "they let admitted pedophiles stay, but they don't let me" is somewhat disingenious in my opinion, because surely, this priest knows it's not about how horrible the sin is, as it is about being defiant and unrepentant. There is absolutely no way he doesn't know that. I'm talking about theory here; about the tenets invovled- ideal world. No one is saying that supporting ordination of women is worse than abusing children. The problem is that the church sees this (supporting ordination of women) as sinful, and that the priest involved does NOT see it as sinful. He'd make a more legit point if he pointed out how many parishoners are not excommunicated even though they openly practice birth control. Here, the church is truly being hypocritical. They say that using birth control is sinful, but if they insisted on excommunicating everyone who does that, they wouldn't have a congregation left. Well, I don't know how well I explained this. My point is simply that this guy will not get anywhere making this comparison, and though I am only guessing, I would be stunned if anything whatsoever developed from this. Yeah, I didn't really think any change would come of it...this year, anyway. I posted it mostly as a newsworthy item, because I find it interesting that there are now priests who are willing to be excommunicated in order to ordain women. Yep - real change can't happen without the pioneers. I do admire the guy for his outspokeness and it may make a difference, someday.
|
|