Female Anglican deacon rejects ordination

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil

Whether or not swordfish are kosher?

Pardon my ignorance. Is there really such a debate?

Only fish that have fins and scales are kosher. (why we dont eat crabs, lobster, etc) The swordfish has scales in its youth, but loses them in adulthood. Orthodox rabbis consider the Swordfish to not be kosher. The Conservative rabbinate has declared they ARE kosher. Next question.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You've missed the point. The point is not could a woman be a bishop, the question is should a woman be a bishop. She tackles the argument that St. Paul's letter to Timothy ought to be rejected, since our culture is different from the culture then, but then she goes on to make her point that women and men do not fulfill the same role.

Well, if BAMing is what you call "making a point", then yes she did
Her only theological opposition to women being priests (not only bishops) is a letter from St Paul. This man wasn't the son of God. This man was responsible for the earthly organization of God's worship. I don't see any valid reason to believe that his word is more intemporal than the word of the current leaders of the Church.

I think this letter from St Paul is actually a rationalization of more deep-seated attitudes toward genders. To her, "The father figure stands for leadership, the mother figure for nurture", and she strongly binds this attitude with what she believes is the natural order of the family.
The reason I think the St Paul's argument is a mere rationalization is because the Bible can be used to rationalize pretty much everything if you quote it out of context, and because she couldn't pick anything that came directly from God's or Jesus' mouth (despite the many cites in the Bible)

The part that I bolded, is where I think she makes the strongest argument. To say that equality in value requires one to be equal in function is a horrible kind of equality. It's like in Harrison Bergeron, where everyone needs to be brought down to the same level, so that everyone can be truly equal in function.

Nobody ever argued that all humans should hold the same function. The supporters of gender equality argue that everybody should have access to the same functions. Big difference.

She's basically saying that men and women should be hindered from holding a role they wish, because they were born with the wrong sexual organs. In order to make her belief look more palatable, she wraps it in a nice and fuzzy equality talk. She also rationalizes it with a weak argument.

She is entitled to her opinion that comes from her preconceptions about gender-roles in family. But her opinion isn't backed by reason, and it seems to me that it isn't backed by any solid theology. It's a good thing that the Anglican Church took the other way.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm confused ben, arent you a former Mennonite turned RC? Shouldnt it be up to anglicans to determine what the proper Anglican way to interprate a disputed biblical text is?

Which is why I cited an Anglican, and her reasons for disagreeing with the interpretations. What caught my attention is the arguments that she used, are precisely the same as the ones that the Catholic church uses. I don't know about the tradition within Judaism, since they don't have St. Paul to argue in favour of the separation of roles.

Secondly, the problem is one of unintended consequences. Even if the intent is to make up for the shortage, you run into the problem in how people believe equality should work. Unless people are equal in function, they are not considered to be equal, and that's a real problem for any church that chooses to ordain women, regardless of their reasons for doing so.

[Gatekeeper]

Her argument can be boiled down to this: "Because the Bible says so."

Gatekeeper

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Thank you! So 'tolerance' simply means that you tolerate those who agree with you.

I apologize for not elaborating my post. What tolerance means is that you embrace the idea that there are different opinions of equal worth, and do not descriminate against one particular opinion. For this to work on a systematic level, individual freedom is critical. To use your example, the woman has every right to express her opinion, and woe to whoever would try to restrict that. However, if based on her opinion, she and others band together to make sure that women who feel that they entitled to be bishops cannot achieve that position, she is infringing on others, which cannot be tolerated.

The basic fact is that intolerance is poison to the system of tolerance. Rightists maintain that certain actions are morally wrong and must be punished or prohibited, and that mechanism cannot be in place in a tolerant system.

In other words, you're wrong. We will tolerate your belief in anything. We only speak up when you try to inflict and enforce your beliefs upon others who may not agree with you.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Only fish that have fins and scales are kosher. (why we dont eat crabs, lobster, etc) The swordfish has scales in its youth, but loses them in adulthood. Orthodox rabbis consider the Swordfish to not be kosher. The Conservative rabbinate has declared they ARE kosher. Next question.

Very interesting. Thank you.

I had no intention to threadjack but the statement caught my attention.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I think she makes a solid point, that there are differences between men and women, and that one can be different in function, yet equal in value.

Ok, then let's have a female pope and female bishops and male nuns.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

OH lordy lordy lordy, I do I say I do insist that a woman's place is in the kitchen. She bettah be makin grits or I will I say I will slap some Jesus into her!

[Ben Kenobi]

The basic fact is that intolerance is poison to the system of tolerance. Rightists maintain that certain actions are morally wrong and must be punished or prohibited, and that mechanism cannot be in place in a tolerant system.

Only rightists believe that? What you are saying is precisely the same thing. Some beliefs are wrong and ought not to be tolerated. The disagreement is which actions ought to be considered right or wrong.

In other words, you're wrong. We will tolerate your belief in anything. We only speak up when you try to inflict and enforce your beliefs upon others who may not agree with you.

Is it wrong then to prevent someone from killing another person, since you are inflicting your beliefs that murder is wrong upon that person?

For this to work on a systematic level, individual freedom is critical.

Granted. However, you are inflicting your beliefs that individual freedoms are necessary. To someone who rejects that, why couldn't they say that you ought to tolerate their actions since to do otherwise, means you need to force your beliefs on them.

To use your example, the woman has every right to express her opinion, and woe to whoever would try to restrict that. However, if based on her opinion, she and others band together to make sure that women who feel that they entitled to be bishops cannot achieve that position, she is infringing on others, which cannot be tolerated.

Why should one be tolerated and the other should not? Who are you to restrain one individual and loose the other? Is it because there are some things that are right and some things that are wrong for everyone?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ok, then let's have a female pope and female bishops and male nuns.

That's the second question. If there is to be a difference in roles, what should that difference be? This is where the woman makes the argument that the women are better nurturers. Now, do you agree or disagree with that, bebro?

[BeBMan]

I don't agree that there should be a difference in roles per se, because it does not follow from general differences between man and woman, certainly not as general rule. After all we have women in more extreme positions (army for example), so I don't see that those differences consequently lead (in every case) to differences in roles, except maybe in the mother/father thing, but this is rather irrelevant to me here, since it is a biological function, while the discussion here is about roles in society, which are not biologically pre-determined.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Is it wrong then to prevent someone from killing another person, since you are inflicting your beliefs that murder is wrong upon that person?

That doesn't apply here. The murderer is inflicting their beliefs upon someone else, which must be prevented in this system. I could also invoke the harm principle, and state that it supercedes the system of tolerance, and that we must ensure that no one is causing harm to others.

Granted. However, you are inflicting your beliefs that individual freedoms are necessary. To someone who rejects that, why couldn't they say that you ought to tolerate their actions since to do otherwise, means you need to force your beliefs on them.

Because if you concede that point, tolerance is impossible to achieve. My point is that once again, individual freedom is a value that supercedes the tolerance system, and is a prerequisite for the construction of that system.

Why should one be tolerated and the other should not? Who are you to restrain one individual and loose the other? Is it because there are some things that are right and some things that are wrong for everyone?

Of course there are. I referred to the harm principle above. But that isn't the point. The point is the idea of a level playing field. If everyone is equal, what grants one group the right to tell another group what they can and cannot do? Once you concede that certain groups have that power, there is no equality, and the system is destroyed. You insist on saying that tolerant people are only tolerant of like-minded views. This is simply not the case. Anyone can believe anything. But allowing one group to act on their belief by disallowing another group to act on theirs is a de-facto tilting of the ground in favor of the first group. While it is true that this system favors people who believe that they can act as they see fit over people who believe that everyone should act in accordance with their beliefs, maybe that is the way it should be. We fought wars against monarchies to establish our freedom. How is this that different?

[Ben Kenobi]

That doesn't apply here. The murderer is inflicting their beliefs upon someone else, which must be prevented in this system. I could also invoke the harm principle, and state that it supercedes the system of tolerance, and that we must ensure that no one is causing harm to others.

Good. This is what I was driving at earlier, and it's nice to see it come out. Tolerance cannot be the principle good, because then one would have to tolerate intolerant people. .

Of course there are. I referred to the harm principle above. But that isn't the point. The point is the idea of a level playing field. If everyone is equal, what grants one group the right to tell another group what they can and cannot do?

Society does this for many things, in restrictions, regulations, laws and principles. There are various arguments behind each of these, that permit one group to restrict another.

While it is true that this system favors people who believe that they can act as they see fit over people who believe that everyone should act in accordance with their beliefs, maybe that is the way it should be. We fought wars against monarchies to establish our freedom. How is this that different?

The idea of freedom, is balanced by the thought that those who are willing to act however they see fit over people need to be restrained from doing so. You cannot have freedom without restraints of some kind, otherwise, those who, as you said, act in accordance to their beliefs are apt to lose their freedoms.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't agree that there should be a difference in roles per se, because it does not follow from general differences between man and woman, certainly not as general rule.

Sure it does. That's why the argument is that women, in general, are said to be better nurturers. Granted, there will be exceptions to this, but the general case remains true.

except maybe in the mother/father thing, but this is rather irrelevant to me here, since it is a biological function, while the discussion here is about roles in society, which are not biologically pre-determined.

Okay, there's quite a few things that are bundled up here. First of all, is there a relationship to the social role, and the biological role?

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sure it does. That's why the argument is that women, in general, are said to be better nurturers. Granted, there will be exceptions to this, but the general case remains true.

And given that bishops are usually exceptional people, saying women should stick to the general role is stupid.