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

[Sniffles]

And what about the "Forgotten Australians" Victor? Hmmmn....what about them? At the very least are you going to do the honest thing and retract your statement denying they were abused?

You stated:

But I would like to correct the record.

There were a couple of thousand, certainly not 500,000, brought to Australia for a better life.

Many were properly cared for and did achieve a better life here. And although they could choose to return home by paid passage, most chose to stay.

Sorry but history tells a slightly different story:

The people who identify as Forgotten Australians are generally now aged from around 40 up. They are the survivors of the roughly 500,000 children who found themselves in orphanages or Homes in the 20th century, between 1930 and 1970.

All these children suffered from deep and lasting feelings of abandonment. The loss of family, including usually separation from siblings, caused grief, feelings of isolation, guilt, self-blame and confusion about their identity.

The Senate report also revealed a history of neglect and cruelty by institutional staff and management, of abandonment and exploitation that have left at least half a million Australians, as well as many child migrants, physically and psychologically scarred.

Physical deprivation was common. Children were cold and hungry. Hard physical work was part of their daily lives. Particularly demeaning and very difficult tasks were given as punishments.

Who are the Forgotten Australians?

And then the official report by the Austrialian Parliament states: "Such abuse and assault was widespread across institutions, across States and across the government, religious and other care providers."

And yet for some odd reason you only wish to focus in on Catholic priests, and ignore these ugly facts.

 

[onemoretime]

Come on, you must know some Latin other than "tu quoque"

 

[Mole]

off limits

And what about the "Forgotten Australians" Victor? Hmmmn....what about them? At the very least are you going to do the honest thing and retract your statement denying they were abused?

The problem we have, Peguy, is that I have promised the moderators not to engage in contretemps with you.

So I read all your posts and I am interested in what you have to say, and of course I am interested in how you say it as this reveals your feeling state at the time.

But alas, Peguy, contretemps are off limits.

 

[Sniffles]

ahhh that's too bad.

 

[CJ99]

So the state is the ultimate authority now is it?

No but it definatly trumps religion.

The ultimate authority for an individual is their own judgement in my opinion.

 

[CJ99]

If I'd posted either of the two posts that you've posted I'd be embarrassed, leave these up here sure and come back in 2012 or a bit there after and see what you think then will you?

I'm not going to argue with ignorance when its as easy as what it is to get access to libraries or books.

Please enlighten me then!

 

[CJ99]

I'll say right up front that I'm not religious, so take that as you may. But this argument seems incredibly specious. That's like saying "Women can do *almost* anything they want to for a living -- well, unless they want a career outside the home. That's for men." It doesn't mean that making an "allowed" choice isn't a good one, but it *is* a restriction of employment based solely on gender. In any other context, that's called sexual discrimination. And isn't sainthood generally only a posthumous thing?

Religion in general seems to "benefit" (and I use the term loosely, if not sarcastically) from a huge double standard here. Say that I were to start an organization focused on counseling, history, charity, and social activities and put meeting places in neighborhoods all over the country. Then say I were to dictate that the head of each and every one of these local groups, as well as every decision-maker in the administrative hierarchy, *must* be a man, no questions, no exceptions, irrespective of other qualifications, because men and women have different biological roles. I'd get raked through the coals, quite likely sued into oblivion, and potentially prosecuted. Yet religions get a pass on this (granted, there are many that don't adhere to this these days). Why?

Thank you Kelric!

Thats Lark was the point I was trying to make.

 

[Ivy]

It's a good point. If the church operated on an all-volunteer basis (as many other religious organizations do, btw) it would be one thing, but once business gets added to the mix with official employment and salaries and benefits, it gets sketchy to claim religious exemption from discrimination laws.

 

[Sniffles]

No but it definatly trumps religion.

How so? The state derives its authority from God, who is the author of the order of being. Henry de Bracton even explained that English common law was based upon the concept of the king ruling the realm on the behalf of Christ. Centuries later, Richard Hooker(in citing St. Thomas Aquinas) noted that divine law and human law could not be seperated but were rather twins. And a vibrant sense of religiousity is key to the long-term longevity of any polity.

Without reference to a higher authority(God, providence, etc), the state rules basically by mere arbitrary might and thus anything it does is pretty much alright. Under such a system, you cannot have the concept of "Civil Rights"; for as Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out clearly that they can only exist once you acknowledge that "any law that violates the laws of God is an unjust law." Like Hooker, this is also based upon St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

[wank]

1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

 

[Bubbles]

1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

^ Exactly why solo scriptura is a no-go in my book.

 

[kelric]

How so? The state derives its authority from God, who is the author of the order of being.

I know that you feel very strongly about this Peguy, but practically, no it doesn't. Now it may be true that people, even early on in the nation's history (more debatable than commonly thought, I believe) may have said this. But it's not true. The state derives its authority from the consent of the governed, the codification and rule of law, and (preferably) as a last resort, the overwhelming advantage that the military has in any application of force. People may take examples from tribal communities in religious texts when it comes to formulating laws, etc. -- but that doesn't mean that the authority of the state comes directly from God.

Unless you're also willing to admit that states that have committed atrocities did so with the backing and authority of God. Many have claimed to, I'm sure.

 

[lowtech redneck]

It's a good point. If the church operated on an all-volunteer basis (as many other religious organizations do, btw) it would be one thing, but once business gets added to the mix with official employment and salaries and benefits, it gets sketchy to claim religious exemption from discrimination laws.

What about religious non-profit schools, charities, adoption agencies, orphanages, or just plain centralized religious organizations? To label such enterprises as the equivalent of secular businesses in this instance is to effectively, and deliberately, hinder the free exercise of religions one disapproves of (regardless of whether such disapproval is based on doctrine or organizational structure).

Anti-discrimination laws pertaining to non-government organizations, despite their good intentions, are basically necessary evils at best; applying them to private businesses is already problematic and potentially detrimental to fundamental civil liberties, but applying them to not-for-profit enterprises that need the services of salaried workers to function creates a blatantly undue burden and constitutes a violation of both religious liberty and freedom of association.

 

[Lark]

I don't know how many priests have told me that the Church is not a democracy. So in reality, your chances of fixing it from within are slim.

The Church has apologized for giving Galileo short shrift - 500 years later.

And the Church has said the Inquisition was a mistake - some mistake, it ran for 600 years.

And the Church has apologized for child sexual abuse but it still continues in the Philippines and South America.

The Church has apologized for being anti-Judaic for 2,000 years but denies anti-semitism and any responsibility for the shoah.

And the Church keeps on telling Africans that condoms are worse then AIDS.

You'll fix it from within? Tell that to Galileo, the victims of the Inquisition, the victims of child sexual abuse, Africans and Jews.

I don't think women should hold their breath.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

If we balance any of this against the accumulated collective crimes of rationalism and the enlightenments bastards it seriously pales by comparison.

Now you're getting your kicks from bashing Catholicism and I get that, its not a taboo like Jew baiting or even islamophobia but dont pretend your heart bleeds for the victims of abuse or unordained women.

It smacks of insincerity because you KNOW that all these instances are not intrinsic to Catholicism, otherwise they would still be happening, they wouldnt be a source of scandal, shame or reproach, they are all the crimes of individuals who've abuse their office and, frequently, the public (not just RCs) who let them.

 

[matmos]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

If we balance any of this against the accumulated collective crimes of rationalism and the enlightenments bastards it seriously pales by comparison.

Now you're getting your kicks from bashing Catholicism and I get that, its not a taboo like Jew baiting or even islamophobia but dont pretend your heart bleeds for the victims of abuse or unordained women.

It smacks of insincerity because you KNOW that all these instances are not intrinsic to Catholicism, otherwise they would still be happening, they wouldnt be a source of scandal, shame or reproach, they are all the crimes of individuals who've abuse their office and, frequently, the public (not just RCs) who let them.

That's another one for your ever-expanding, balloon-like Ignore List.

Say what, buddy. Why doncha put everyone on your Ignore List and enjoy the Zen experience...

Of course you can't read this. Because I'm on yer Ignore List.

Keep skimming!

 

[Lark]

^ Exactly why solo scriptura is a no-go in my book.

Solo scriptura is one of the pillars of protestantism not roman catholicism.

 

[kelric]

What about religious non-profit schools, charities, adoption agencies, orphanages, or just plain centralized religious organizations? To label such enterprises as the equivalent of secular businesses in this instance is to effectively, and deliberately, hinder the free exercise of religions one disapproves of (regardless of whether such disapproval is based on doctrine or organizational structure).

They *are* the equivalent of secular, non-profit organizations under the law -- any other condition would be a violation of the separation of church and state. I work for a (secular) non-profit organization. If my employer were to say "sorry, we won't hire women for supervisory positions", an army of bright-eyed fire-breathing litigators would be on our doorstep within the hour. And they'd be right. Just as our right to free speech doesn't extend to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, our right to freedom of religion doesn't extend to using it as a justification to discriminate against people in situations that would otherwise be considered against the law.

Anti-discrimination laws pertaining to non-government organizations, despite their good intentions, are basically necessary evils at best; applying them to private businesses is already problematic and potentially detrimental to fundamental civil liberties, but applying them to not-for-profit enterprises that need the services of salaried workers to function creates a blatantly undue burden and constitutes a violation of both religious liberty and freedom of association.

How does expanding the population of people who are "eligible" for employment create a "blatantly undue burden" for enterprises that "need the services of salaried workers?" I don't think for an instant that you'd propose that refusing to consider people of various ethnic groups for employment to be an expression of religious liberty -- why would gender not receive the same respect?

Sure, there are some positions where gender is paramount in determining if someone is a viable candidate. Those positions are "sperm donor" and "surrogate mother". There might be one or two more, but you get the idea.

 

[Sniffles]

I know that you feel very strongly about this Peguy, but practically, no it doesn't.

Because you say so?

People may take examples from tribal communities in religious texts when it comes to formulating laws, etc. -- but that doesn't mean that the authority of the state comes directly from God.

It certainly undermines the notion that religion and law have nothing to do with each other. After all, the notion that authority derives from the consent of the people derives in large part from the Biblical concept of the convenant between God and the nation of Israel; and was later further formulated during the Medieval period.

Unless you're also willing to admit that states that have committed atrocities did so with the backing and authority of God. Many have claimed to, I'm sure.

Many have certainly claimed so, but in the case of Christian teachings that's only so when the state actually conforms to God's laws. If not, then they're not operating with the backing of god. Simple as that.

 

[onemoretime]

It certainly undermines the notion that religion and law have nothing to do with each other. After all, the notion that authority derives from the consent of the people derives in large part from the Biblical concept of the convenant between God and the nation of Israel; and was later further formulated during the Medieval period.

We wouldn't have modern inorganic chemistry without alchemy, either. Should I keep looking for the Philosopher's Stone?

 

[Ivy]

Because you say so?

In the absence of concrete proof of a particular religion's correctness it will always come down to because someone says so. Not everyone is confident that the opinion of people who said so many generations ago continue to be 100% relevant and applicable to the world as it is today.