World Affairs

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

Eh, hold on there: wolves, what's left of them, are an endangered species in north-eastern Afghanistan..quote>

Too bad.  Ori just invoked a traditional curse.  Would you prefer "as Taliban are?"

[DocRorlach 25]

Page-flip bug?? And so it was.

Taliban: a tricky subject at the best of times. And we are nowhere these times. Basically they are the equivalent of Calvinists in Islam. The tie-in with Al-Queda came long after they took over Afghanistan, and was cemented only when NATO decided to rid the country of them.

Like most poorer and overly-rigid societies, they looked towards the West as an easy enemy in order to control the local populace. During the reign of the last King of Afghanistan, many of the tribal leaders were afraid that Kabul was going to "sell" them out to the West. When the Russians moved in, the same tribal leaders did a 180 degree turn and hit the West, mainly the US, for money and armaments. Rumsfeldt, so eager to shot everything that moved between Herat and the Khyber, was instrumental in supplying these warlords. It was out of their orthodoxy that the Taliban grew, long before the world had even heard of Bin Laden.

What we have achieved now in that country is to turn those guys into almost freedom fighters, primarily because NATO, and its current leadership want to turn Afghanistan into a western ally, something that simply is never going to happen. Just as it will not happen anywhere within the Islamic Crescent. The reason for this is not western versus eastern values (in fact Islam - if going by the book - is far more liberal than any western church organisation), but because Islam is in the midst of the throws know as Reformation to Christians. We had ours nigh five-hundred years ago. They have theirs now.

Moreover, as long as the West continues its unquestioning support for Israel  out of guilt over its failures towards the Jewish people world-wide since the middle-ages, the Arab world will, openly or clandestine, support anyone opposing the West.

[DocRorlach 25]

Page-flip bug?? And so it was.

Taliban: a tricky subject at the best of times. And we are nowhere these times. Basically they are the equivalent of Calvinists in Islam. The tie-in with Al-Queda came long after they took over Afghanistan, and was cemented only when NATO decided to rid the country of them.

Like most poorer and overly-rigid societies, they looked towards the West as an easy enemy in order to control the local populace. During the reign of the last King of Afghanistan, many of the tribal leaders were afraid that Kabul was going to "sell" them out to the West. When the Russians moved in, the same tribal leaders did a 180 degree turn and hit the West, mainly the US, for money and armaments. Rumsfeldt, so eager to shot everything that moved between Herat and the Khyber, was instrumental in supplying these warlords. It was out of their orthodoxy that the Taliban grew, long before the world had even heard of Bin Laden.

What we have achieved now in that country is to turn those guys into almost freedom fighters, primarily because NATO, and its current leadership want to turn Afghanistan into a western ally, something that simply is never going to happen. Just as it will not happen anywhere within the Islamic Crescent. The reason for this is not western versus eastern values (in fact Islam - if going by the book - is far more liberal than any western church organisation), but because Islam is in the midst of the throws know as Reformation to Christians. We had ours nigh five-hundred years ago. They have theirs now.

Moreover, as long as the West continues its unquestioning support for Israel  out of guilt over its failures towards the Jewish people world-wide since the middle-ages, the Arab world will, openly or clandestine, support anyone opposing the West.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

Page-flip bug?? And so it was.

Taliban: a tricky subject at the best of times. And we are nowhere these times. Basically they are the equivalent of Calvinists in Islam. The tie-in with Al-Queda came long after they took over Afghanistan, and was cemented only when NATO decided to rid the country of them.

Like most poorer and overly-rigid societies, they looked towards the West as an easy enemy in order to control the local populace. During the reign of the last King of Afghanistan, many of the tribal leaders were afraid that Kabul was going to "sell" them out to the West. When the Russians moved in, the same tribal leaders did a 180 degree turn and hit the West, mainly the US, for money and armaments. Rumsfeldt, so eager to shoot everything that moved between Herat and the Khyber, was instrumental in supplying these warlords. It was out of their orthodoxy that the Taliban grew, long before the world had even heard of Bin Laden.

What we have achieved now in that country is to turn those guys into almost freedom fighters, primarily because NATO, and its current leadership want to turn Afghanistan into a western ally, something that simply is never going to happen. Just as it will not happen anywhere within the Islamic Crescent. The reason for this is not western versus eastern values (in fact Islam - if going by the book - is far more liberal than any western church organization), but because Islam is in the midst of the throws know as Reformation to Christians. We had ours nigh five-hundred years ago. They have theirs now.

Moreover, as long as the West continues its unquestioning support for Israel  out of guilt over its failures towards the Jewish people world-wide since the middle-ages, the Arab world will, openly or clandestine, support anyone opposing the West.

quote>

I fixed one obvious typo.

My dear friend, we are on the same wave length.  History repeats and repeats until someone gets it right.  You have only to read the history of the British Raj in India and their adventures in the Khyber to understand that Afghanistan is a place unto itself, and ever shall be.  The land is harsh for the most part, and the people tougher than dried camel sinew.  In fact, many of them are desiccated to the point of being jerky, but they will fight like the dickens given provocation. 

For a gentle evaluation of these people try Kim by Rudyard Kipling or by the same author, The Man Who Would Be King, which is a little less flattering to the Afghani people.  Dealing with them takes extreme honesty accompanied by an easy going tendency to be corrupt.  It is the way.

America can never understand these people.  When it comes to spreading their brand of democracy, the Yanks are a bit on the Pollyanna side, don't you think.  It results in the Ugly American stories.  Most American do-gooders are not bright enough to come in out of the sun, or the rain either, for that matter.  I am afraid that you Brits have lost one of your great sayings.  It is now "Mad dogs and Americans stay out in the noon day sun."

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

Page-flip bug?? And so it was.

Taliban: a tricky subject at the best of times. And we are nowhere these times. Basically they are the equivalent of Calvinists in Islam. The tie-in with Al-Queda came long after they took over Afghanistan, and was cemented only when NATO decided to rid the country of them.

Like most poorer and overly-rigid societies, they looked towards the West as an easy enemy in order to control the local populace. During the reign of the last King of Afghanistan, many of the tribal leaders were afraid that Kabul was going to "sell" them out to the West. When the Russians moved in, the same tribal leaders did a 180 degree turn and hit the West, mainly the US, for money and armaments. Rumsfeldt, so eager to shoot everything that moved between Herat and the Khyber, was instrumental in supplying these warlords. It was out of their orthodoxy that the Taliban grew, long before the world had even heard of Bin Laden.

What we have achieved now in that country is to turn those guys into almost freedom fighters, primarily because NATO, and its current leadership want to turn Afghanistan into a western ally, something that simply is never going to happen. Just as it will not happen anywhere within the Islamic Crescent. The reason for this is not western versus eastern values (in fact Islam - if going by the book - is far more liberal than any western church organization), but because Islam is in the midst of the throws know as Reformation to Christians. We had ours nigh five-hundred years ago. They have theirs now.

Moreover, as long as the West continues its unquestioning support for Israel  out of guilt over its failures towards the Jewish people world-wide since the middle-ages, the Arab world will, openly or clandestine, support anyone opposing the West.

quote>

I fixed one obvious typo.

My dear friend, we are on the same wave length.  History repeats and repeats until someone gets it right.  You have only to read the history of the British Raj in India and their adventures in the Khyber to understand that Afghanistan is a place unto itself, and ever shall be.  The land is harsh for the most part, and the people tougher than dried camel sinew.  In fact, many of them are desiccated to the point of being jerky, but they will fight like the dickens given provocation. 

For a gentle evaluation of these people try Kim by Rudyard Kipling or by the same author, The Man Who Would Be King, which is a little less flattering to the Afghani people.  Dealing with them takes extreme honesty accompanied by an easy going tendency to be corrupt.  It is the way.

America can never understand these people.  When it comes to spreading their brand of democracy, the Yanks are a bit on the Pollyanna side, don't you think.  It results in the Ugly American stories.  Most American do-gooders are not bright enough to come in out of the sun, or the rain either, for that matter.  I am afraid that you Brits have lost one of your great sayings.  It is now "Mad dogs and Americans stay out in the noon day sun."

[DocRorlach 25]

While this one veers away from the Mid-East & Near Asia, the following is still "World Affairs" since it will affect Catholics the world over (although the organisation behind it is just as fundamental and dangerous as the Taliban):

"

Women's groups describe Vatican's decision on female ordination as 'appalling'

 

It was meant to be the document that put a lid on the clerical sex abuse scandals that have swept the Roman Catholic world. But instead of quelling fury from within and without the church, the Vatican stoked the anger of liberal Catholics and women's groups by including a provision in its revised decree that made the "attempted ordination" of women one of the gravest crimes in ecclesiastical law.

"

From The Guardian (UK)

 I am neither a Catholic nor a Christian of any faith, but to me this absolutely takes the cake! after all the scandals concerning celibate priests, the Vatican is still doing the ostrich, and then - to really make matters worse, the Mother Church comes up with this corker, designed to return to somewhere just before the 12th century.

One wonders how many of the faithful will abandon the Roman Catholic organisation now.

NB: The Arch-Villain of Canterbury, head of the Anglican Church in the UK, uttered something quite similar recently, just to let everyone know that the schism instigated by Henry VIII was never really meant to be taken seriously.

[DocRorlach 25]

While this one veers away from the Mid-East & Near Asia, the following is still "World Affairs" since it will affect Catholics the world over (although the organisation behind it is just as fundamental and dangerous as the Taliban):

"

Women's groups describe Vatican's decision on female ordination as 'appalling'

 

It was meant to be the document that put a lid on the clerical sex abuse scandals that have swept the Roman Catholic world. But instead of quelling fury from within and without the church, the Vatican stoked the anger of liberal Catholics and women's groups by including a provision in its revised decree that made the "attempted ordination" of women one of the gravest crimes in ecclesiastical law.

"

From The Guardian (UK)

 I am neither a Catholic nor a Christian of any faith, but to me this absolutely takes the cake! after all the scandals concerning celibate priests, the Vatican is still doing the ostrich, and then - to really make matters worse, the Mother Church comes up with this corker, designed to return to somewhere just before the 12th century.

One wonders how many of the faithful will abandon the Roman Catholic organisation now.

NB: The Arch-Villain of Canterbury, head of the Anglican Church in the UK, uttered something quite similar recently, just to let everyone know that the schism instigated by Henry VIII was never really meant to be taken seriously.

[Duke87 1,070]

If I may... Catholic doctrine stipulates that only men are ever called to be priests. Attempting to ordain a woman is thus abuse of a sacrament and, like desecrating the eucharist, is a grave sin indeed. This is nothing new, all that's changed is how it's handled.

As for how this affects parish enrollment, well... those who are mildly faithful will be driven away by things like ths. On the other hand, those who take their faith seriously prefer that the church be consistent with its own teachings and would be driven away if they started ordaining women as priests. So, it isn't as much of a losing move as one might assume.

[Duke87 1,070]

If I may... Catholic doctrine stipulates that only men are ever called to be priests. Attempting to ordain a woman is thus abuse of a sacrament and, like desecrating the eucharist, is a grave sin indeed. This is nothing new, all that's changed is how it's handled.

As for how this affects parish enrollment, well... those who are mildly faithful will be driven away by things like ths. On the other hand, those who take their faith seriously prefer that the church be consistent with its own teachings and would be driven away if they started ordaining women as priests. So, it isn't as much of a losing move as one might assume.

[DocRorlach 25]

Originally posted by: Duke87

If I may... Catholic doctrine stipulates that only men are ever called to be priests. Attempting to ordain a woman is thus abuse of a sacrament and, like desecrating the eucharist, is a grave sin indeed. This is nothing new, all that's changed is how it's handled.

As for how this affects parish enrollment, well... those who are mildly faithful will be driven away by things like ths. On the other hand, those who take their faith seriously prefer that the church be consistent with its own teachings and would be driven away if they started ordaining women as priests. So, it isn't as much of a losing move as one might assume.

quote>

You may indeed, but I am afraid my response to you will not please you. Your faith is - of course - your own and hence nobody can deride you over it.

Yet I hold with Bertrand Russell when he says:

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."

We are writing in the year 2010. Doctrines and opinions which found the churches around the globe were formed at a time when even the simplest fragment of information from beyond the narrow circles of a person's area of living and thinking was impossible to obtain.

Like pretty much all religions, the Catholic Church early on became an amalgam of local, very local folklore, festivals, habits and ideas. It absorbed these and made them its own largely out of self-defense; a measure to ensure its survival. This is true of most of it high holidays, including Christmas and Easter, both of which were pagan holidays before Christianity corralled them.

None of this runs contrary to the basic human doctrine that we are purportedly all equal. What the Vatican implements now, however, runs completely against that equality - and it makes no difference whether this is an old idea in a new, harsher dressing, or something a synods dreamt up yesterday. It is basically an evil act.

[DocRorlach 25]

Originally posted by: Duke87

If I may... Catholic doctrine stipulates that only men are ever called to be priests. Attempting to ordain a woman is thus abuse of a sacrament and, like desecrating the eucharist, is a grave sin indeed. This is nothing new, all that's changed is how it's handled.

As for how this affects parish enrollment, well... those who are mildly faithful will be driven away by things like ths. On the other hand, those who take their faith seriously prefer that the church be consistent with its own teachings and would be driven away if they started ordaining women as priests. So, it isn't as much of a losing move as one might assume.

quote>

You may indeed, but I am afraid my response to you will not please you. Your faith is - of course - your own and hence nobody can deride you over it.

Yet I hold with Bertrand Russell when he says:

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."

We are writing in the year 2010. Doctrines and opinions which found the churches around the globe were formed at a time when even the simplest fragment of information from beyond the narrow circles of a person's area of living and thinking was impossible to obtain.

Like pretty much all religions, the Catholic Church early on became an amalgam of local, very local folklore, festivals, habits and ideas. It absorbed these and made them its own largely out of self-defense; a measure to ensure its survival. This is true of most of it high holidays, including Christmas and Easter, both of which were pagan holidays before Christianity corralled them.

None of this runs contrary to the basic human doctrine that we are purportedly all equal. What the Vatican implements now, however, runs completely against that equality - and it makes no difference whether this is an old idea in a new, harsher dressing, or something a synods dreamt up yesterday. It is basically an evil act.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

On the ordination of women, the Vatican is right.  There can be no female priestesses in the Catholic Church.  A priest is an avatar of Christ, so how can a woman fulfill this role?

Even when one of the Hindu gods raises up an Aspect and appears as an Avatar, there is no gender change.  Wake up, people!  Proper Christian clergy cannot be female if they assume the title of Priest.  Nor should they ever be allowed to play at the Consecration.  Holy Orders for women is a sacrilege, period, end of discussion.  The rest of you can yammer as much as you like, but I speak ex cathedra from my navel.

---

Now, something of major note in the world.  The western Greenland ice shelf dropped several tonnes of fresh water ice into Davis Strait.  Not only do these bergs that resulted pose a danger to shipping, but the dilution of the sea will be significant as the ice melts.  Cross fingers and hope this doesn't constitute a tipping point for the currents in the north Atlantic.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

On the ordination of women, the Vatican is right.  There can be no female priestesses in the Catholic Church.  A priest is an avatar of Christ, so how can a woman fulfill this role?

Even when one of the Hindu gods raises up an Aspect and appears as an Avatar, there is no gender change.  Wake up, people!  Proper Christian clergy cannot be female if they assume the title of Priest.  Nor should they ever be allowed to play at the Consecration.  Holy Orders for women is a sacrilege, period, end of discussion.  The rest of you can yammer as much as you like, but I speak ex cathedra from my navel.

---

Now, something of major note in the world.  The western Greenland ice shelf dropped several tonnes of fresh water ice into Davis Strait.  Not only do these bergs that resulted pose a danger to shipping, but the dilution of the sea will be significant as the ice melts.  Cross fingers and hope this doesn't constitute a tipping point for the currents in the north Atlantic.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

Your faith is - of course - your own and hence nobody can deride you over it.quote>

Just to clarify: I am not a member of the Catholic church.

We are writing in the year 2010. Doctrines and opinions which found the churches around the globe were formed at a time when even the simplest fragment of information from beyond the narrow circles of a person's area of living and thinking was impossible to obtain.

{...}

What the Vatican implements now, however, runs completely against that equality - and it makes no difference whether this is an old idea in a new, harsher dressing, or something a synods dreamt up yesterday. It is basically an evil act.quote>

The church isn't exactly known for its forward thinking. Religions tend to be very rigid and traditionalist. And, like it or not, that's a huge part of what makes the church what it is. They have their principles and they stick to them.

In this case, the problem is that the role of a priest is that of a spiritual father figure (they're called "Father" for a reason). Thus, no woman can be a priest because no woman can be a father. Instead, if she wants to join the clergy, she becomes a nun - the role of a spiritual mother, which, naturally, is not available to men.

So, yes, the church has defined gender roles. A more modern school of thought would disapprove of this... but again, Catholicism is not a modern school of thought, and it can't be expected to become one. Fortunately, membership is entirely optional, and so if you don't like it, no one is forcing you to be Catholic.

And that is why this is a non-issue for me. The church has every right to teach what they want to teach and run their operation as they see fit. Those who do not approve need not associate themselves with it.... and need not get hot and bothered about it, either. Tolerance. 

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

Your faith is - of course - your own and hence nobody can deride you over it.quote>

Just to clarify: I am not a member of the Catholic church.

We are writing in the year 2010. Doctrines and opinions which found the churches around the globe were formed at a time when even the simplest fragment of information from beyond the narrow circles of a person's area of living and thinking was impossible to obtain.

{...}

What the Vatican implements now, however, runs completely against that equality - and it makes no difference whether this is an old idea in a new, harsher dressing, or something a synods dreamt up yesterday. It is basically an evil act.quote>

The church isn't exactly known for its forward thinking. Religions tend to be very rigid and traditionalist. And, like it or not, that's a huge part of what makes the church what it is. They have their principles and they stick to them.

In this case, the problem is that the role of a priest is that of a spiritual father figure (they're called "Father" for a reason). Thus, no woman can be a priest because no woman can be a father. Instead, if she wants to join the clergy, she becomes a nun - the role of a spiritual mother, which, naturally, is not available to men.

So, yes, the church has defined gender roles. A more modern school of thought would disapprove of this... but again, Catholicism is not a modern school of thought, and it can't be expected to become one. Fortunately, membership is entirely optional, and so if you don't like it, no one is forcing you to be Catholic.

And that is why this is a non-issue for me. The church has every right to teach what they want to teach and run their operation as they see fit. Those who do not approve need not associate themselves with it.... and need not get hot and bothered about it, either. Tolerance. 

[DocRorlach 25]

Duke87:

"No woman can be a father.." - I take it you are writing this down figuratively; because all those single moms out there in the world will be rather surprised to hear that they cannot fulfill both roles.

Quite apart from that, women have been priestesses for millennia. And even apart from that, Moose's point of the priest as the "avatar" of Christ will certainly not be welcome by the Vatican. As an emissary, a representative - yes, but certainly not as the embodiment of Jesus. Even the pope does not make that claim and sticks to trying to convince everyone that he's here as St. Peter's man on the planet. Only a handful of religions truly claim that someone on Earth is the embodiment of a god - which is what an avatar is - the embodiment of someone who cannot be there physically.

It is peculiar that so many in the modern christian world will think nothing of waging war on another belief system (not aimed at you, Duke), yet at the same time propound that a Christian church doctrine is unassailable.

I realize I am the odd fellow out here, but tolerance is one thing, letting an organization - regardless of its credo - getting away with declaring a woman's chosen occupation as unlawful and equal to the pedophile practices of its own members is not tolerance. That is revisionism of the vilest kind. Or should we also be tolerant of the long standing Islamic practice (found in all three major religious books) of stoning women to death?

And, incidentally, it falls into even a worse category than France & Belgium's recent decisions to ban the Islamic veil.

[DocRorlach 25]

Duke87:

"No woman can be a father.." - I take it you are writing this down figuratively; because all those single moms out there in the world will be rather surprised to hear that they cannot fulfill both roles.

Quite apart from that, women have been priestesses for millennia. And even apart from that, Moose's point of the priest as the "avatar" of Christ will certainly not be welcome by the Vatican. As an emissary, a representative - yes, but certainly not as the embodiment of Jesus. Even the pope does not make that claim and sticks to trying to convince everyone that he's here as St. Peter's man on the planet. Only a handful of religions truly claim that someone on Earth is the embodiment of a god - which is what an avatar is - the embodiment of someone who cannot be there physically.

It is peculiar that so many in the modern christian world will think nothing of waging war on another belief system (not aimed at you, Duke), yet at the same time propound that a Christian church doctrine is unassailable.

I realize I am the odd fellow out here, but tolerance is one thing, letting an organization - regardless of its credo - getting away with declaring a woman's chosen occupation as unlawful and equal to the pedophile practices of its own members is not tolerance. That is revisionism of the vilest kind. Or should we also be tolerant of the long standing Islamic practice (found in all three major religious books) of stoning women to death?

And, incidentally, it falls into even a worse category than France & Belgium's recent decisions to ban the Islamic veil.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

"No woman can be a father.." - I take it you are writing this down figuratively; because all those single moms out there in the world will be rather surprised to hear that they cannot fulfill both roles.quote>

Well, yes, in recent years we have discovered that gender roles need not necessarily be as rigid as they traditionally have been.

The church, on the other hand, will stick to its tradition and insist that a woman cannot be a father... they're very unwilling to change things. A flaw? Probably, but it's who they are.

Quite apart from that, women have been priestesses for millennia.quote>

In the Catholic church?

It is peculiar that so many in the modern christian world will think nothing of waging war on another belief system (not aimed at you, Duke), yet at the same time propound that a Christian church doctrine is unassailable.quote>

The fun thing about devoutly religious people is that they tend to be convinced that they are right and those who disagree with them are wrong. So, yeah, they'll readily criticize the faith of others but at the same time automatically consider criticism of their own faith illegitimate. It's inconsistent if one approaches the matter logically, but there is an inherent bias involved in these cases, so it gets conveniently overlooked.

tolerance is one thing, letting an organization - regardless of its credo - getting away with declaring a woman's chosen occupation as unlawful and equal to the pedophile practices of its own members is not tolerance.quote>

From this perspective, yeah, it seems rather unfair. Let's consider the church's perspective, though.

The problem with the argument, then, is this: being a priest is not merely an "occupation", like any other job a person might have. It is a calling, a way of life. You have to think of it less like employment and more like being a member of a sacred order.

What's more, according to the church, no one ever decides to become a priest... rather, they are called upon by god to do so. And god doesn't call upon women to do so. Other evidence offered for this is that according to the bible, Jesus never ordained any women, only men.

should we also be tolerant of the long standing Islamic practice (found in all three major religious books) of stoning women to death?quote>

Well, first of all, there is no matter of life or death involved here. Nor is there a matter of any harm being done to anyone... so there is a huge difference in magnitude, if nothing else.

And, as I pointed out before - women can't be priests, but men can't be nuns, either. So, really, it's not so much misogynistic or sexist as it is simply having defined gender roles. I know that's politically incorrect these days, but it's the way it is.

Besides which, it's not as though priest and nun are the only gender-specific career paths out there. Most major professional sports do not hire women to be players. Likewise, they do not hire men to be cheerleaders.

And, incidentally, it falls into even a worse category than France & Belgium's recent decisions to ban the Islamic veil.quote>

On that note... there is a functional problem with face coverings. Namely, they prevent anyone from being able to readily identify the wearer. If a cop pulls you over, he's going to need to see your face to be able to compare it with the one on your driver's license. Similarly, you need to show ID when you go to vote. This isn't a problem in places like Saudi Arabia because women there simply do not have any roles in society that would require their identification in public. But it is a problem here in the west where they do.

All that said, there is no reason why a woman could not simply be compelled to temporarily remove her veil if she needs to be identified. 99.9% of the time, it's not a problem, so why make an issue of it when it's not? A blanket ban is overkill.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

"No woman can be a father.." - I take it you are writing this down figuratively; because all those single moms out there in the world will be rather surprised to hear that they cannot fulfill both roles.quote>

Well, yes, in recent years we have discovered that gender roles need not necessarily be as rigid as they traditionally have been.

The church, on the other hand, will stick to its tradition and insist that a woman cannot be a father... they're very unwilling to change things. A flaw? Probably, but it's who they are.

Quite apart from that, women have been priestesses for millennia.quote>

In the Catholic church?

It is peculiar that so many in the modern christian world will think nothing of waging war on another belief system (not aimed at you, Duke), yet at the same time propound that a Christian church doctrine is unassailable.quote>

The fun thing about devoutly religious people is that they tend to be convinced that they are right and those who disagree with them are wrong. So, yeah, they'll readily criticize the faith of others but at the same time automatically consider criticism of their own faith illegitimate. It's inconsistent if one approaches the matter logically, but there is an inherent bias involved in these cases, so it gets conveniently overlooked.

tolerance is one thing, letting an organization - regardless of its credo - getting away with declaring a woman's chosen occupation as unlawful and equal to the pedophile practices of its own members is not tolerance.quote>

From this perspective, yeah, it seems rather unfair. Let's consider the church's perspective, though.

The problem with the argument, then, is this: being a priest is not merely an "occupation", like any other job a person might have. It is a calling, a way of life. You have to think of it less like employment and more like being a member of a sacred order.

What's more, according to the church, no one ever decides to become a priest... rather, they are called upon by god to do so. And god doesn't call upon women to do so. Other evidence offered for this is that according to the bible, Jesus never ordained any women, only men.

should we also be tolerant of the long standing Islamic practice (found in all three major religious books) of stoning women to death?quote>

Well, first of all, there is no matter of life or death involved here. Nor is there a matter of any harm being done to anyone... so there is a huge difference in magnitude, if nothing else.

And, as I pointed out before - women can't be priests, but men can't be nuns, either. So, really, it's not so much misogynistic or sexist as it is simply having defined gender roles. I know that's politically incorrect these days, but it's the way it is.

Besides which, it's not as though priest and nun are the only gender-specific career paths out there. Most major professional sports do not hire women to be players. Likewise, they do not hire men to be cheerleaders.

And, incidentally, it falls into even a worse category than France & Belgium's recent decisions to ban the Islamic veil.quote>

On that note... there is a functional problem with face coverings. Namely, they prevent anyone from being able to readily identify the wearer. If a cop pulls you over, he's going to need to see your face to be able to compare it with the one on your driver's license. Similarly, you need to show ID when you go to vote. This isn't a problem in places like Saudi Arabia because women there simply do not have any roles in society that would require their identification in public. But it is a problem here in the west where they do.

All that said, there is no reason why a woman could not simply be compelled to temporarily remove her veil if she needs to be identified. 99.9% of the time, it's not a problem, so why make an issue of it when it's not? A blanket ban is overkill.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

"No woman can be a father.." - I take it you are writing this down figuratively; because all those single moms out there in the world will be rather surprised to hear that they cannot fulfill both roles.quote>

Well, yes, in recent years we have discovered that gender roles need not necessarily be as rigid as they traditionally have been.

The church, on the other hand, will stick to its tradition and insist that a woman cannot be a father... they're very unwilling to change things. A flaw? Probably, but it's who they are.

Quite apart from that, women have been priestesses for millennia.quote>

In the Catholic church?

It is peculiar that so many in the modern christian world will think nothing of waging war on another belief system (not aimed at you, Duke), yet at the same time propound that a Christian church doctrine is unassailable.quote>

The fun thing about devoutly religious people is that they tend to be convinced that they are right and those who disagree with them are wrong. So, yeah, they'll readily criticize the faith of others but at the same time automatically consider criticism of their own faith illegitimate. It's inconsistent if one approaches the matter logically, but there is an inherent bias involved in these cases, so it gets conveniently overlooked.

tolerance is one thing, letting an organization - regardless of its credo - getting away with declaring a woman's chosen occupation as unlawful and equal to the pedophile practices of its own members is not tolerance.quote>

From this perspective, yeah, it seems rather unfair. Let's consider the church's perspective, though.

The problem with the argument, then, is this: being a priest is not merely an "occupation", like any other job a person might have. It is a calling, a way of life. You have to think of it less like employment and more like being a member of a sacred order.

What's more, according to the church, no one ever decides to become a priest... rather, they are called upon by god to do so. And god doesn't call upon women to do so. Other evidence offered for this is that according to the bible, Jesus never ordained any women, only men.

should we also be tolerant of the long standing Islamic practice (found in all three major religious books) of stoning women to death?quote>

Well, first of all, there is no matter of life or death involved here. Nor is there a matter of any harm being done to anyone... so there is a huge difference in magnitude, if nothing else.

And, as I pointed out before - women can't be priests, but men can't be nuns, either. So, really, it's not so much misogynistic or sexist as it is simply having defined gender roles. I know that's politically incorrect these days, but it's the way it is.

Besides which, it's not as though priest and nun are the only gender-specific career paths out there. Most major professional sports do not hire women to be players. Likewise, they do not hire men to be cheerleaders.

And, incidentally, it falls into even a worse category than France & Belgium's recent decisions to ban the Islamic veil.quote>

On that note... there is a functional problem with face coverings. Namely, they prevent anyone from being able to readily identify the wearer. If a cop pulls you over, he's going to need to see your face to be able to compare it with the one on your driver's license. Similarly, you need to show ID when you go to vote. This isn't a problem in places like Saudi Arabia because women there simply do not have any roles in society that would require their identification in public. But it is a problem here in the west where they do.

All that said, there is no reason why a woman could not simply be compelled to temporarily remove her veil if she needs to be identified. 99.9% of the time, it's not a problem, so why make an issue of it when it's not? A blanket ban is overkill.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Getting rather far afield aren't we?  Maybe this part of the discussion should be moved elsewhere, House of Worship, perhaps?  As far a world affairs is concerned, the Vatican has made its pronunciamento, the world has reacted in a predictable uproar.  Whether this will resolve itself into a dew is a matter of time.

Looking over the current hot stories on the web feeds, I find nothing as exciting as this except for the BP story which has its own thread.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

This is the 65th anniversary of nuclear warfare.  The Japanese city of Hiroshima was destroyed using a rather small fission bomb, leaving many thousands dead, many more affected by radiation and fall out sicknesses.

A further demonstration of awfulness was conducted two days later when the city of Nagasaki was similarly destroyed.

Let us study war no more.

[DocRorlach 25]

Nice sentiment, but it would require that the species called humans ceases to exist. While this is entirely in the realm of possibilities within the next to centuries, cessation of human affairs is most likely to result from said war studies. As long as man (and woman) has a neighbor, and that neighbor possess something different, war is inevitable. We are a petty species with arelatively large body the brain capacity of which unfortunately is utterly insufficient when it comes to figuring out what would constitute reasonable, sustainable behaviour.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

What a cynical old man you are.  Too bad I am one too.  We can hope for the best, but I certainly expect the worst.  If everything was sweetness and light after the mess in Japan, why bother with testing the H-Bomb, inventing the N-Bomb, and going on to MIRVs.

Out neighbours, over the pole, were not at all friendly at the time, so I suppose this justified carrying the biggest stick we could invent.  Now, however, we live in the threat that some or any of these may fall into the wrong hands.  Being in the nuclear club is fraught with danger, and there are active idiots out there that want to join.  If that turkey in Iran gets his bomb(s), want to bet it finds its way into Tel-Aviv?  Hate is so stupid, and so human.  *sigh*

When WW III is over, I hope I am not around to see what's left.  If I am lucky, I'll pre-decease it.  We have had the longest period of relative peace in recorded history, and I don't want to live in interesting times.

I guess we know why the ISS is not called Tsiolkovsky Station.  That would be giving away too much, eh?

[DocRorlach 25]

BTW: A cynic is merely a realist making light of a dire situation.

Simply look at the facts: as the ice caps around the poles disappear and the oceans rise - for whatever reasons - the planet has an ever increasing shortage of water. The drinking kind. This years record temperatures in such odd places as Russia contribute to a resurrgence of draughts, reducing the overall food supplies and reserves worldwide. Naturally, down the street lined with KFC and McDs that is hardly noticeable among the obese minorities of the west. Meanwhile, the global locations with the least food keep on reproducing fastest (heck, with no 24-hour sports channel and no midnight snacks, what else is there to do?)!

Nature not only abhors a vaccuum, it also gets really p****d off about imbalances: so a time will come when we'll have the industralised world populated largely by those too fat to fight back, and those too weak to fight. While that may sound like a perfect formula for world peace, it leaves the planet in the hands of a few nutcases like the current chiefs of staff in Iran, Israel, Russia, and the US.

The good part is that it will be over so fast, the Four Horsemen won't even have time to get their nags out of the stable.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Doc, you are expecting a vast potlatch of nuclear give and take.  I am sorry, but I think we are more likely to go out in a less spectacular fashion as the Western World freezes to death in the dark.  They can't maintain the power grid much longer, and it is constant danger of collapse.  The dependence on the lowly electron is absolute.  If there was no power for an extended period, the whole of North America would be subject to invasion, if necessary.  It is much more likely that we would commit some kind of mass suicide in some kind of bizarre Chinese fire drill.  Our world will end, and the third world will be in ascendant.  I expect that the superpowers of the next century will be India and China, with Japan following along a distant third (no resources).

The so-called first-world has been busy overconsuming everything in sight since WW II, and will now get its come uppance.  I am going to enjoy seeing horse-drawn Cadillacs.  May Henry Ford and his ilk burn in their particular circle of Dis forever and ever.  Mass production has produced mass starvation, and the time has come for all this to end.  History will record this, if there is any history, as the era of conspicuous consumption and waste.

[DocRorlach 25]

Your idea of the third world rising to the top of the heap - although it follows the pattern of rise & deline of civilizations throughout history - fills me with dread nonetheless. There as many morons in the third as there are in the first world. I am not at all certain that we will get as far as a final, apocalyptic battle. Extinction of the human races is a far more likely (and desirable) course for nature to take. There has always been a simple principle at work, all through the eons of evolution: a bigger fish is already in the making! We seem to have broken that chain of events by making ourself the biggest fish around. I cannot see that going on unpunished forever. Even on the simplest level, that of the dinosaurs which evolution itself made into the biggest "fish", the final chapter was written rather swiftly and with - for nature - a happy ending. It is just a matter of time.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[DocRorlach 25]

Don't you think, Barbarossa, that the human species has been guilty of enough crimes against nature - pretty much since the days it dropped out of the trees - to warrant "punishment"? The nature of nature appears to be one of enormous tolerance when viewed from our own, short-lived perspective of the past 200,000 years. Seen from a wider angle of the eons of time itself, nature strikes me as pretty short-tempered. And it always seems to rectify what does not fit in. And when you look at the collective damage we have done to this one tiny planet, it must be clear that we do not fit in.

The idea that we might export this type of wanton destruction on another planet makes me shudder.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I agree with Doc.  All we have ever done is throw junk all over the place.  It is a fact of biology that no organism can survive in an environment of its own waste.  Just look at the "limitless" oceans, the land denuded of forests and plains, and ask yourself, why did we do this?  The answer is human greed.  In the long run of geologic time, you either live with nature, or nature will find a way to live without you.