Female Anglican deacon rejects ordination

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by MrFun


And the reason you haven't responded to my analogy with white slaveowners' argument in one of my posts, is because deep down, you know you would lose that argument as well.

Don't forget my slaveowner analogy.

[Ben Kenobi]

And the reason you haven't responded to my analogy with white slaveowners' argument in one of my posts, is because deep down, you know you would lose that argument as well.

I'm in San Antonio. I have some free time, but other priorities.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I'm in San Antonio. I have some free time, but other priorities.

Well aren't you special.

[Ben Kenobi]

That hardly seems disparaging of homemakers. The NOW charter also clearly advocates that it's about women having choices, not them being forced to work. Advocating full choices for women includes the choice to be a homemaker. It would be nonsensical to believe otherwise.

It's not nonsensical, particularly if you believe that woman are being oppressed when they are homemakers, even if they choose to do so, that they have not had the option of anything else.

No. Do you have any offical quotes from mainstream feminist orgs stating this? I've no doubt some radicals have stated it, but it's by no means the majority sentiment, and is in flat contradiction to the stated purposes of such organizations.

Ah, thank you. That's what I was looking for. Why are the folks you label 'mainstream' and 'radical' to be treated differently from each other? Why are the folks you consider 'mainstream' more correct than the 'radical' folks? The other question, which I think pertains even more to the argument is what status do groups have that accept the equality in value of women, but reject that women ought to perform the same functions in the church as men? Even if they disagree with other feminists, that is not, in itself, enought to decry them as opposed to feminism.

I could care less about what a church does, honestly, but you broadened the scope beyond simple church dogma to society at large on page 1. That's wherein my critique lies.

Nope, I haven't gone beyond the church at all in this thread, since that point is not being contested either by me, or the lady who wrote the original article. I was waiting for someone to go this route, so that I could ask the question, as to why would she make the distinction she does between society in general, and roles within the church?

[Ben Kenobi]

There is monastaries that perform the same role, but if there wasn't, then yes, it'd be unequal treatment.

Are, imran, but my point is that even given the freedom to select similar missions, we see differences in the roles between the monasteries and the nunneries. Certainly there are similarities, but the fact that there are differences, seems to me evidence that given freedom, men and women will choose to do different things.

If they don't even have the oppertunity to be ordained, then NO, they can't have equal position in the Church. The author is wrong, there IS a glass ceiling. It was born out of a time where the religion was strongly mysogynistic (one of Joan of Arc's "crimes" was that she dressed like a man and did things that men were supposed to do).

Actually, that's a prohibition, regulating the dress of men also. I'm sure they would have treated the men who dressed like women in the same way.

Secondly, regarding the charge of misogyny of the church, was it the Catholic church who burned their St. Joan, or the English soldiers? The blame for her death cannot be laid at the foot of the Catholic church.

Third, about the glass ceiling, that again, presumes that the heirarchy of the church works in the same way as a business. I say there are fundamental differences between the two, and this disagreement comes out in your further comments.

And since you are a Catholic now, you should stop spouting Protestant dogma . Everybody isn't equal in the position they hold in the Church. This isn't Calvinism. The Priest, the Bishop, the Pope are far more important in the corporal body of the Church than the lay person... even after Vatican II.

Okay, two statements here. People may not have equal positions in the church, the same is true for 'calvinists' as it is for Catholics. Calvinists have elders and deacons, the only difference between them and the Catholic church is in their model of the church, not in having a heirarchy. In fact, I could nitpick, and say that my position has been more of a Arminian than Calvinist, but that is neither here nor there.

Secondly, you are assuming that because they have different roles, that they are not considered equally important in the body of christ. Once again, you are assuming that for people to be equal in value, they must be equal in function, which is diametrically opposed to what the church teaches. In fact, the Catholic church, even given their heirarchy, cannot ignore what Christ says, that the greatest among you must be servant to all, and that even Christ did not come to lord it over others, but as a meek and humble servant. That is to be the model of leadership in the church, which is profoundly different from how the world sees leadership.

This is the primary reason why there is no glass ceiling, for there can be great authority and responsibility even for those who never stand up on top of a pulpit.

And this 'each is equal regardless to their position' is nonsense. It's the same justification for the Hindu caste system. Oh, each person is equal in the eyes of Vishnu, but they have their own position that they must stay in and their position is dicatated by the Gods and the karma you have undertaken.

Ah, where are the Christian untouchables then? Why then are the priests anointed based on their own decision and vows, and not upon the status of their birth? There are no brahmins in Christianity, nor are there untouchables.

[Ben Kenobi]

White slaveowners used to argue the same thing against abolitionists when arguing over the issue of slavery. Slaveowners would cry out that whites would have to be brought down to some imagined lower level with freed blacks!!

Have you ever read Harrison Bergeron, Mr. Fun? It exposes the problem behind equality of function.

Actually, the slaveowners used to argue against abolition by saying that abolishing slavery would cause widespread economic disaster. The argument of the abolitionists was that they were persons, and that it was immoral to bind them into slavery.

The only way this argument has any merit to my point, is if you believe that not letting women be a priest is the same as slavery. I think many black folks would be appalled at the comparison.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The only way this argument has any merit to my point, is if you believe that not letting women be a priest is the same as slavery. I think many black folks would be appalled at the comparison.

Black people who want real freedom would not. Blacks did not become free with the abolition of slavery. They were merely given hope.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

The only way this argument has any merit to my point, is if you believe that not letting women be a priest is the same as slavery. I think many black folks would be appalled at the comparison.

What both cases have in common is that a determined group is excluded from equal opportunities based on a supposed "natural destiny", don't twist the words.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
\Why are the folks you label 'mainstream' and 'radical' to be treated differently from each other? Why are the folks you consider 'mainstream' more correct than the 'radical' folks?

Hmm. Why are extremists like you more correct than Unitarian Christians? Or vice versa?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Have you ever read Harrison Bergeron, Mr. Fun? It exposes the problem behind equality of function.

Actually, the slaveowners used to argue against abolition by saying that abolishing slavery would cause widespread economic disaster. The argument of the abolitionists was that they were persons, and that it was immoral to bind them into slavery.

The only way this argument has any merit to my point, is if you believe that not letting women be a priest is the same as slavery. I think many black folks would be appalled at the comparison.

To claim that I mean to compare slavery and the discrimintation of women within religion as if they are of the same in terms of suffering is absurd.

[Dr Strangelove]

Why can't a bishop be nurturing? Most of the bishops I've known have been gentle men. OK granted I've never known any bishops closely.

[Provost Harrison]

I get criticised for being intolerant of religion, yet as this thread demonstrates, it is a mode of thought that is millennia behind the times and is permeated with misogyny...of course, this doesn't surprise me in the slightest...I come to expect no better!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's not nonsensical, particularly if you believe that woman are being oppressed when they are homemakers, even if they choose to do so, that they have not had the option of anything else.

If the stated objective of feminist organizations is that women should have whatever options they want, deriding the option of homemaker is indeed nonsensical. The thrust of feminism isn't that women shouldn't be homemakers, it's that women should be free to choose whatever path they desire. If they were to object to the path of homemaker, it would be antithetical to their aims.

Ah, thank you. That's what I was looking for. Why are the folks you label 'mainstream' and 'radical' to be treated differently from each other?

Hmmm, I don't know...why is Eric Rudolph treated differently than Ralph Reed?

Why are the folks you consider 'mainstream' more correct than the 'radical' folks?

Uh, because I happen to agree with their opinion? Because their opinion reflects more on the majority of people's views?

Now, on the other hand, your bull**** assetions about feminist groups have been blown out of the water. I'm inclined to think you're even being less than honest about what the feminists on your campus thought about homemakers. Care to provide any evidence, other than your "word," as to this?

The other question, which I think pertains even more to the argument is what status do groups have that accept the equality in value of women, but reject that women ought to perform the same functions in the church as men? Even if they disagree with other feminists, that is not, in itself, enought to decry them as opposed to feminism.

If a religious group wants to relegate women to a subordinate role, that's up to them, but don't expect people to think it's anything other than sexist, no matter what Biblical trappings you put around it.

The role of a preacher, as far as I can tell, is to give spiritual guidance to others. I see no reason to see why women can't do this just as well as men. I've yet to see you give an explanation as to what it is about the role of the priesthood that would make women less suited for it than men.

What is it about the role of a priest that makes only men suitable for it? And I don't want circular arguments saying that Paul said it should be so. I want real reasons as to what the difference is between men and women when it comes to the spiritual realm.

Nope, I haven't gone beyond the church at all in this thread,

Oh please.

The post I responded to on page 3 was all about society, not the church. Otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered to respond to it.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Why can't a bishop be nurturing? Most of the bishops I've known have been gentle men. OK granted I've never known any bishops closely.

Nail on the head, Doc, nail on the head.

In fact, to suggest that "leadership" and "nurture" are not only some kind of binary opposition but a gendered binary opposition is really, really bizarre.

[Kuciwalker]

... and thus par for the course