Catholic ban on women priests 'illegal under Harriet Harman equality bill'

[miss fortune]

I've seen that!

also, Machiavelli advocated seperation of church and state, claiming that the church would weaken the state and the state corrupt the church, or something like that- it's been over 10 years now since I read The Prince

never that big of a Machiavelli fan- he had no plot

 

[Sniffles]

Machiavelli, like many other writers of that, advocated for the supremacy of the State over the Church, although noted religion served its purposes of social utility.

 

[Mole]

So did everyone until they realized Galileo was onto something. Sure, the Church reacted like idiots, but they didn't invent this opinion. What's your point.

If the Church was wrong about the Sun going round the Earth, perhaps they are wrong about women priests.

 

[Bubbles]

If the Church was wrong about the Sun going round the Earth, perhaps they are wrong about women priests.

No shit, read my post. :rolli:

 

[Mole]

The Old Misogyny

it's Peter and the Apostles--men who, due to the culture of their time period, would never even consider women being priests--who had that choice to make.

Yes, Peter, the apostles and Jesus were misogynists. And so they created a misogynist religion.

It was only with the publication of, "The Female Eunuch", by Germaine Greer, the great Australian woman, that we discovered that men hated women.

And it is no accident that Germaine Greer is an Australian, for women gained the vote for the first time in Australia and New Zealand.

Yes, the New World is new.

And Australia Felix was founded on the English and Scottish Enlightenment while the Church remains with the old misogyny.

 

[Bubbles]

Yes, Peter, the apostles and Jesus were misogynists. And so they created a misogynist religion.

It was only with the publication of, "The Female Eunuch", by Germaine Greer, the great Australian woman, that we discovered that men hated women.

And it is no accident that Germaine Greer is an Australian, for women gained the vote for the first time in Australia and New Zealand.

Yes, the New World is new.

And Australia Felix was founded on the English and Scottish Enlightenment while the Church remains with the old misogyny.

First of all, I really am not in the mood right now to debate whether or not Jesus was sexist. If someone else would like to, fabulous. But I hope you realize that wasn't the implication of my post. You, most likely, already know this, as I did not imply Jesus being sexist once. Peter and the Apostles, sure, possibly, most likely. But if I'm going to believe that God and Jesus are the same person, I don't expect God to have the same belittling mindset, man or no. Call me naive, but I think if Jesus had built the Church himself, that problem wouldn't exist.

Secondly, I was referring to the point of mine you quoted earlier. The Church's reaction to Galileo was wrong, absolutely. But I feel as if you're implying the Church's former belief that the world was the center of the earth is something stupid, when at the time it sounded quite sound until one person spoke out. Reaction? Bad. Idea? Understandable.

You've caught me in a nasty mood, and it's not your fault, and I think we've detracted enough from the OP.

 

[Mole]

First of all, I really am not in the mood right now to debate whether or not Jesus was sexist.

The simple fact remains that Jesus chose only men to be his disciples. Jesus excluded women from the apostles.

And for that reason the Church excludes women from the clergy today.

And just as Jesus was misogynist, so is the Church.

 

[Mole]

at the time it sounded quite sound until one person spoke out.

And just as misogyny sounded like a good idea until Germaine Greer spoke out.

Of course you would like to silence us in the name of Jesus, but the cat is out of the bag.

From now on, defending misogyny will have diminishing returns.

 

[Bubbles]

The simple fact remains that Jesus chose only men to be his disciples. Jesus excluded women from the apostles.

And for that reason the Church excludes women from the clergy today.

And just as Jesus was misogynist, so is the Church.

Jesus had female disciples. Not Apostles, I will agree, but disciples.

Also, there were female deaconesses in the early Church.

 

[Bubbles]

And just as misogyny sounded like a good idea until Germaine Greer spoke out.

Of course you would like to silence us in the name of Jesus, but the cat is out of the bag.

From now on, defending misogyny will have diminishing returns.

May I ask you a question? Are you implying Catholics are misogynists?

 

[Mole]

Jesus had female disciples. Not Apostles, I will agree, but disciples.

Also, there were female deaconesses in the early Church.

But it still remains that the Church excludes women from the priesthood because Jesus excluded them from the apostles.

The Church keeps telling us that the reason they exclude women is because Jesus did.

The Church understands that Jesus was misogynist so how can they do any less? After all, Jesus is the Son of God. Who could gainsay Him?

 

[BlackCat]

These people aren't thinking that maybe the people who wrote the bible just didn't include Jesus's female disciples/apostles whatever. Maybe the writer was sexist; it seemed prominent back then. How can we ever know for sure?

It doesn't make rational sense for Jesus to sacrifice himself for humanity; but to not let females from being a disciple/apostle.

 

[Mole]

It doesn't make rational sense for Jesus to sacrifice himself for humanity; but to not let females from being a disciple/apostle.

It doesn't make any sense for Jesus to be a blood sacrifice so why should it make any sense for Jesus to exclude women from the apostles?

 

[Kasper]

To me the difference is you can choose your faith but not so much your government.

Ever heard of elections?

My Government limits religious freedom by separating the Church and State.

And my Government limits religious freedom by criminalising infibulation.

And my Government limits religious freedom by criminalising mass murder in the name of Jihad and martyrdom.

And my Government limits religious freedom by criminalising child sexual abuse in religious institutions and its cover up.

And my Government limits religious freedom by criminalising the blood sacrifice of animals.

And my Government limits religious freedom by banning corporal punishment of children in religious institutions.

And who knows, they may yet limit religious freedom by banning discrimination against women.

For my Government is a liberal democratic Government based on the limitation of power. As my Government knows that power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.

I for one am glad of all that.

A church shouldn't be above the law.

 

[Lark]

These people aren't thinking that maybe the people who wrote the bible just didn't include Jesus's female disciples/apostles whatever. Maybe the writer was sexist; it seemed prominent back then. How can we ever know for sure?

It doesn't make rational sense for Jesus to sacrifice himself for humanity; but to not let females from being a disciple/apostle.

There's loads of stuff about the female following in the bible, it just depends on the reader.

He had his mother, Mary Magalene (who is credited by some historians as introducing Christianity to the peple tho took it to Europe), there's a number of stories about women, I can think of two or three right away, they arent named but then all of the disciples and apostles arent given equal credit either.

I dont know what the big deal is, there are female religious orders, there are female scholars, to be equal does not imply uniform and ultimately there are and always will be differences, women have wombs and men dont.

 

[Katsuni]

Been forever since I've remembered to step foot in here (always on the bus when I remember XD ), but I'd like to point something out about this...

The reason why the government has ANY say on this matter at all, despite seperation of church and state, is that religions recieve tax exemptions and other benefits. If yeu are going to be given benefits by the government such as these, yeu then are therefore required to play by the rules set by the government to earn those benefits.

In short, the government can't FORCE the catholics to allow female priests... but they CAN say if yeu want to get tax breaks for operating here, yeu need to prove yeu're not just a third world hate club locked in the 1600's, for which we're not going to pay yeu to be stupid anymore.

Part of a country is having people of the same views and beliefs in general, not exacting, but in general. If the general populace believes in the rights of women, or other races, and believes them to be equal... then that government authority has every right to state that anyone who can't play by those rules shall not be rewarded for failure to comply; be this government bodies, individuals, corporations, or religions.

As such, if the catholic church insists on their antiquated traditions, and insists that women do not deserve equal recognition (look for the jews to be targeted next due to their own racist and sexist background, though they'll only be targeted later due to people screaming 'zomg anti-seminism!' when it's really an overall general sweeping motion not targeted), then they shall not be afforded equal recognition that other religions may be rewarded with.

I see nothing wrong with this. They're just saying, if yeu want to exempt women, then that's yeur choice, but we won't pay yeu to do it any longer because we don't believe in that as a country. We're not directly asking yeu to change, we're just saying if yeu don't change, then it's yeur loss. If yeu DO change, great, thanks for not being stupid anymore. If yeu don't, then we get more money out of the deal.

I don't see why anyone would find it strange at all that the government would be annoyed at not receiving taxes from someone who broke the most basic of founding principles and laws as part of their traditional beliefs. Yeu don't normally pay someone to effectively be a criminal. If this were a corporation, people would be screaming that it took them this long to do it, except the government CAN force a corporation to change their policies; they can't change a religion's, but they can revoke benefits provided to such.




So all this is regardless of my personal views on the matter, because that would make sense no matter which religion or government was in power at the time.

My personal views hold that "Tradition is no excuse for mediocrity; just because yeu did something wrong for 100 years doesn't provide excuse to do it wrong for another 100." which's been my belief for a long time now. The catholic church in particular holds traditions very high in regard, beyond all common sense, as any changes would mean that they were wrong all this time, and they have an awfully difficult time admitting they were wrong about the "word of God".

The sooner they can admit that the bible was written by humans, and therefore has human error embedded in it from day one, the sooner they can get around to trying to realize that, if there is a god, he's probably a hell of alot smarter than we are, and if he loves everyone so much, he wouldn't discriminate like that either, and that they've been preaching national propaganda for thousands of years of countries that don't even exist anymore, rather than even consider that such may not be absolute truth.

Personally, I view the catholic church as little more than a cult, considering their worshipping of idols, saints, and virtually anything but god. The idea of having to pray through a saint or angel rather than directly to god kind of goes against the whole "god is omnipotent" thing, and in general most of their stuff is either bigoted or just nonsensical. But that's personal views and I can't really hold that against them in this case.

Whot I can hold against them is that they are literally breaking the law of Britain, and should not be afforded benefits by the government of Britain for doing so.

 

[Lark]

Personally, I view the catholic church as little more than a cult,

I dont view as objective as a result.

 

[CJ99]

I don't agree with the bill but for different reasons entirely!

However when the cultural values of a country clash with the values of a religion then that religion must change or leave.

 

[Lark]

I don't agree with the bill but for different reasons entirely!

However when the cultural values of a country clash with the values of a religion then that religion must change or leave.

Yeah, I dont believe that, I suspect you dont either but you're thinking of a religion which is foreign to your own personal experience.

There should be a division, properly recognised, between the temporal and other powers, however we've had two great examples of what happens when the state is the only source of moral authority, communism and Nazism, not humanity's high points wouldnt you agree?

 

[CJ99]

Yeah, I dont believe that, I suspect you dont either but you're thinking of a religion which is foreign to your own personal experience.

There should be a division, properly recognised, between the temporal and other powers, however we've had two great examples of what happens when the state is the only source of moral authority, communism and Nazism, not humanity's high points wouldnt you agree?

Actually I was raised a Roman Catholic with parents who met in church and I live in britian so when it comes to personal experience in this thread I reckon I am one of the most experienced.

As to those two examples Nazism yes horrible, but communism I actually agree on in areas but seperate discussion.

If the state wants to make something illegal and the people of the country agree then thy have the right too. If a non-religious institue complained they would be made to give logical reasons. But because its a church complaining suddenly the "buts its our traditions" reason is good enough. It wouldn't be for a non-religious institution. Thats double standards!