|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Nov 25, 2008 12:04:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 25, 2008 13:06:00 GMT -5
Ha! Yes, very "Willow & Buffy" and makes me think of Willow's mom, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 25, 2008 14:01:29 GMT -5
There's no simple way to think about this matter which isn't wrong (which I think Joss did a good job of covering in "Pangs") but my impulses are bent by peronal experience in that every alleged member of an Irquois Confederation tribe I've ever met has had a definition of "Indianness" at odds with the people I grew up with. Julia, the civil religion has its rituals, as opaque to fact as those of any theist sect
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 25, 2008 14:15:07 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. It seems to me that the "one church catholic and holy" as the sung creed has it (and by this I'm being all post-reformation and including the entire part of christianity which has bishops and says the creed) has entered another schismatic era. There are cracks showing everywhere- the sharp exchanges between both John Paul and Benedict and the RC members of the US Supreme Court over the death penalty are at least as significant as (multiple) ECA diocese (can't make a plural look right, sorry) denouncing the presiding bishop and entering into heirarchies outside the US (And Sue, if you want to take a whack at making a simple explanation for that madness, have at it). There is a sincere conflict of conscience behind these things- and those holding the conservative positions do not understand that their "opponents: are just as certain and convinced that they are acting according to scripture and virtuous conscience, just as outraged at behaviors that,to them, violate the word and the spirit. I'm going through one of my phases when I deal with these issues mostly as an Anthropologist and secondly as a Quaker. Which means I have srong opinions, but keep my silence because noting I can say will make anything better. Julia, but, yeah, hoo boy: history has its lessons
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Dec 3, 2008 10:51:59 GMT -5
Ben Stein has been complaining that RogerEbert was a bigot and that's why he hadn't reviered "Expelled." Roger Ebert takes up the challenge and in doing so makes P.Z. Meyers' earlier review look fluffy. Long article, make some tea. Maybe go to the bathroom before you start on the ride. Julia, Mr. Ebert and the excluded middle
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Dec 3, 2008 12:14:44 GMT -5
Ben Stein has been complaining that RogerEbert was a bigot and that's why he hadn't reviered "Expelled." Roger Ebert takes up the challenge and in doing so makes P.Z. Meyers' earlier review look fluffy. Long article, make some tea. Maybe go to the bathroom before you start on the ride. Julia, Mr. Ebert and the excluded middle Roger Ebert rocks.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Dec 3, 2008 13:55:56 GMT -5
Prop 8: The Musical. and Neil Patrick Harris is delightful beyond words. If only they'd thought of it before the election...
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Dec 3, 2008 14:02:55 GMT -5
Prop 8: The Musical. and Neil Patrick Harris is delightful beyond words. If only they'd thought of it before the election... Excellent. And Jack Black managed not to annoy me, so kudos to him.
|
|
|
Post by Michelle on Dec 3, 2008 15:31:33 GMT -5
Prop 8: The Musical. and Neil Patrick Harris is delightful beyond words. If only they'd thought of it before the election... Excellent.
|
|
|
Post by Squeemonster on Dec 3, 2008 17:35:01 GMT -5
Prop 8: The Musical. and Neil Patrick Harris is delightful beyond words. If only they'd thought of it before the election... Oh, that is AWESOME. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 5, 2008 20:39:59 GMT -5
I had been wondering about Obama's extra funds: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081206/ap_on_el_pr/obama_democrats(especially since I still get emails and they all still have the "donate" button in them). The final 2 sentences: Legally, Obama can donate the extra money to charity, transfer it to another political campaign, or dole it out in $2,000 increments to local candidates, Gross said.. 30,000,000/2000 per candidate = 15,000 local candidates. That's 300 Democratic campaigns per state-----do that many elected positions exist?
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Dec 5, 2008 21:18:48 GMT -5
I had been wondering about Obama's extra funds: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081206/ap_on_el_pr/obama_democrats(especially since I still get emails and they all still have the "donate" button in them). The final 2 sentences: Legally, Obama can donate the extra money to charity, transfer it to another political campaign, or dole it out in $2,000 increments to local candidates, Gross said.. 30,000,000/2000 per candidate = 15,000 local candidates. That's 300 Democratic campaigns per state-----do that many elected positions exist? Interesting. I vote for charity; also, it would be the best, PRwise.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 7, 2008 8:37:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 7, 2008 9:08:44 GMT -5
I thought at the time that it was truly amazing that William Ayers managed to stay off camera and off-mic in spite of what must have been tremendous pressure to "tell his side." Whatever else he is or was he write a mean op-ed: www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/opinion/06ayers.html?em
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Dec 7, 2008 10:11:11 GMT -5
I thought at the time that it was truly amazing that William Ayers managed to stay off camera and off-mic in spite of what must have been tremendous pressure to "tell his side." Whatever else he is or was he write a mean op-ed: www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/opinion/06ayers.html?emNicely done piece. Thanks for sharing this, and the SNL skit.
|
|