Pope's reign full of contradictions, critics say

[alonzomourning23]

VIENNA, Austria (Reuters) -- As world leaders hailed Pope John Paul as a force for peace, Catholic reformers critical of his traditionalist stand on Church dogmas took issue with his 26-year papacy, which ended with his death on Saturday.

Supporters credited the Polish pontiff with playing a major role in the fall of Europe's Iron Curtain, but liberal Catholics said his backing for human rights clashed with his opposition to married priests, women clergy, contraception and abortion.

"His pontificate was full of contradictions," We Are Church, an international network of groups aimed at reforming the Roman Catholic Church, said in a statement.

"John Paul II was an advocate of human rights in secular life, but he did not apply this belief to the church itself," it said.

"Among the human rights still crying out for recognition in the church are: gender equality -- including women's ordination, the right of priests to marry ... the right to be respected for one's sexual orientation, and the moral adulthood of the laity in decisions regarding reproduction and the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV-AIDS," We Are Church said.

Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff, a leading proponent of controversial liberation theology who was forced out of the priesthood after clashing with the Vatican over politics and religion, also said the Pope's views were paradoxical.

"I think this pope had some contradictory dimensions," Boff told UOL Internet television.

"To the outside, he was open and progressive. But inwardly, he was very rigid, very conservative, and for some doctrines, too strict, for example, his doctrines on sexuality, genetics, homosexuality."

We Are Church began after the then head of the Austrian Church, Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer, was accused in 1995 of sexually abusing boys. The Vatican replaced him months later.

The pope responded too slowly to similar scandals elsewhere during his rule, said We Are Church, which says it has members in more than 20 countries on all continents.

"The pedophilia scandal exposed a major breach of human rights in the life of the Church generally. Although John Paul II ultimately recognized it as a scandal, this scandal needed much stronger action at a much earlier time," it said.

Church reform groups also criticized the way the pope centralized decision-making in the Vatican and let its bureaucracy, the Curia, discipline critical theologians.

"Although he was deeply committed to reform and dialogue in the world at large, he strengthened centralized, authoritarian structures within the Church itself. This fostered a climate of fear and rigidity," We Are Church said.

The largest U.S. Catholic reform group, Call to Action (CTA), agreed.

"The Catholic church has unquestionably been helped by his strength and deep personal piety, but some of its energy and creativity have also been limited by the authoritative culture of the Vatican during recent decades," CTA spokeswoman Linda Pieczynski said.

Another U.S. group, FutureChurch, said authoritarian rule may have helped the Polish church survive Communism but it "has also limited worldwide Catholicism's ability to creatively meet the challenges of the 21st century."

Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, seen as a possible successor to John Paul, said the dead Pontiff stood by what he believed was right regardless of public opinion and could not be categorized as either conservative or progressive.

"He was simply too great a man for that," Schoenborn told Austrian state television.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/04/pope.contradictions.reut/index.html

[zionoverfire]

Haven't we had enough pope threads by now?

[alonzomourning23]

Haven't we had enough pope threads by now?

eh, maybe, I just liked that this one actually showed some of his faults

[RedvsBlue]

I refuse to believe that anything related to religion is contradictary.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Pfft...some extremely liberal Catholic organization didn't like a basically conservative pope (they should note the Church in general is conservative really), I'm absolutely shocked. Alonzo maybe you should join said organization for as much as you complain about John Paul II. This just goes to show you can't please all the people all the time, if this We Are Church organization had it's wish it seems like the Catholic Church would change drastically and I'm sure that wouldn't please a majority of the Catholic faithful either.

Most people aren't forced to be Catholic and I fail to understand why if they don't like the traditions and practices of the religion they would continue to practice it (I'm not really a practicing Catholic anymore myself). There are numerous Christian religions that allow pastors to marry, women in the clergy, and so forth and converting to them is not a life long ordeal.

[camoor]

Most people aren't forced to be Catholic and I fail to understand why if they don't like the traditions and practices of the religion they would continue to practice it (I'm not really a practicing Catholic anymore myself). There are numerous Christian religions that allow pastors to marry, women in the clergy, and so forth and converting to them is not a life long ordeal.

Maybe these practitioners think that Jesus Christ would not have appoved of spreading world suffering through fighting birth-control and methods that prevent the spread of STDs. Or maybe they think Jesus Christ would have advocated equal rights for women in the church. I could go on, but I think you get the point. Just because some old rich white hypocrites in the Vatican have thoroughly hijacked this religion, it doesn't mean that the damage can't be undone.

I for one am glad to see that the christians aren't splitting up again - because FYI it usually doesn't work too well (North Ireland being one example...)

[alonzomourning23]

Pfft...some extremely liberal Catholic organization didn't like a basically conservative pope (they should note the Church in general is conservative really), I'm absolutely shocked. Alonzo maybe you should join said organization for as much as you complain about John Paul II. This just goes to show you can't please all the people all the time, if this We Are Church organization had it's wish it seems like the Catholic Church would change drastically and I'm sure that wouldn't please a majority of the Catholic faithful either.

Most people aren't forced to be Catholic and I fail to understand why if they don't like the traditions and practices of the religion they would continue to practice it (I'm not really a practicing Catholic anymore myself). There are numerous Christian religions that allow pastors to marry, women in the clergy, and so forth and converting to them is not a life long ordeal.

Actually complaints come from many areas, even from the higher ranking members of the church. One of the main complaints is that the church under john paul wouldn't listen to anyone, and that comes from the cardinals. And besides, I have said good things and bad things about him, I like to show both sides of people. My problem is (if you think this is a problem) I don't get all sentimental when someone dies.

[chunk]

Maybe these practitioners think that Jesus Christ would not have appoved of spreading world suffering through fighting birth-control and methods that prevent the spread of STDs. Or maybe they think Jesus Christ would have advocated equal rights for women in the church. I could go on, but I think you get the point. Just because some old rich white hypocrites in the Vatican have thoroughly hijacked this religion, it doesn't mean that the damage can't be undone.


Oh come on. It's not like they sent priests with Oozies to hold condom factories hostage.

Honestly, I don't like cheese, but that doesn't make me responsible for all osteoporosis worldwide.

Also, if you read anything about the pope's stance on women in the church, he was a firm believer of equal rights for women in the church. He simply believed that men and women are different and should, therefore, fulfill different roles.

You may not agree with his stance on women, but at least he doesn't stick his head in the sand and try to pretend that men and women are the same like the politically correct stance dictates.

I also wouldn't say that this thread shows any of the pope's faults (not that he doesn't have any). Pretty much all of the criticisms are also things that other people praise the pope for. I think that a fault would be something that everyone (or almost everyone) agrees is a bad thing (like touching little boys).

[sblymnlcrymnl]

Oh come on. It's not like they sent priests with Oozies to hold condom factories hostage.

Honestly, I don't like cheese, but that doesn't make me responsible for all osteoporosis worldwide.

Also, if you read anything about the pope's stance on women in the church, he was a firm believer of equal rights for women in the church. He simply believed that men and women are different and should, therefore, fulfill different roles.

You may not agree with his stance on women, but at least he doesn't stick his head in the sand and try to pretend that men and women are the same like the politically correct stance dictates.

I also wouldn't say that this thread shows any of the pope's faults (not that he doesn't have any). Pretty much all of the criticisms are also things that other people praise the pope for. I think that a fault would be something that everyone (or almost everyone) agrees is a bad thing (like touching little boys).


No one gives a shit about you not liking cheese, you aren't the leader of one of the biggest religious organizations in the world. If you were the pope you can be damn sure that cheese would be out like a fat kid in dodgeball.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Maybe these practitioners think that Jesus Christ would not have appoved of spreading world suffering through fighting birth-control and methods that prevent the spread of STDs. Or maybe they think Jesus Christ would have advocated equal rights for women in the church. I could go on, but I think you get the point. Just because some old rich white hypocrites in the Vatican have thoroughly hijacked this religion, it doesn't mean that the damage can't be undone.

I for one am glad to see that the christians aren't splitting up again - because FYI it usually doesn't work too well (North Ireland being one example...)

I was tlaking about individuals not a an entire schism but that still doesn/t make a difference. You have free will in life and if you don't agree with something then you porbably shouldn't do it. It's not like politics where something is made a law and your going to jail or be executed (at least not in our time), even if you sin so to speak you can also be forgiven. You place way too much emphaisis on the Vactican's role of everyday life for an average Catholic. If you asked an average 30 year old Catholic churchgoer what changes the Vactican has made in their lifetime regarding Church doctorine and they'll probably stare at you blankly then give some vague reference to Vactican II which happened years before they were even born. I'll even bet most didn't didn't know Pope John Paul II was Polish and not Italian til he died at it was all over the news despite that fact that electing a non-italian happened for the first time in so long it was basically a historic landmark in the modern church.

Now granted, in many other countries this isn't always the case as they take the practice of their religion more seriously, but the church has it's reasons for its poisitons and no man or god can absolutely take away your freewill to disagree and not practice those same beliefs.

[chunk]

No one gives a shit about you not liking cheese, you aren't the leader of one of the biggest religious organizations in the world. If you were the pope you can be damn sure that cheese would be out like a fat kid in dodgeball.

You can't blame it on the pope though.

If people listened to him about only having sex with a single partner like they did about not using birth control then there wouldn't be a problem.

It's not his fault that people only listen to half of what he has to say.

[dmpolska]

You can't blame it on the pope though.

If people listened to him about only having sex with a single partner like they did about not using birth control then there wouldn't be a problem.

It's not his fault that people only listen to half of what he has to say.


EXACTLY

[alonzomourning23]

In many african countries, for instance, the church and priests have massive influence over their followers. Their teachings do have an effect on what the people do, use or don't do (condoms in this case). Also, scientific studies have shown that the vast majority of differences between men and women are socially constructed, and not biological. Though I would be interested in seeing what evidence you can come up with suggesting that he believed women should be equal in the catholic church, considering all the positions of power were dominated by men, and he rejected any attempt to change that.

And, besides, sex is part of human nature and condom use isn't. What they're doing is saying to people "don't drive, and don't use a seatbelt", instead of "don't drive, but if you do end up driving, use a seatbelt".

The church's role is to protect the weak, poor, uneducated and innocent. People who have unprotected sex should not have to pay for that with their lives, depriving their children of parents, their families of income and even infecting those who did not sin in the eyes of the church (children with aids, women raped, people whose partners had aids when they married). They are not doing a very good job of protecting the poor here.

[chunk]

Also, scientific studies have shown that the vast majority of differences between men and women are socially constructed, and not biological.

That is absolutely ridiculous. The distinction between men and women is by definition a biological one. What kind of differences are you talking about and how do you count them?

I've also heard that scientific studies have shown otherwise. However, I can't really cite them for you because I didn't look into it very thoroughly. Honestly, I didn't look into it because I have no problem believing it (I won't go into why unless you ask). In any case, it is no secret that men and women are different (men are from mars and women are from venus ;) ). Can you cite your studies?

Though I would be interested in seeing what evidence you can come up with suggesting that he believed women should be equal in the catholic church, considering all the positions of power were dominated by men, and he rejected any attempt to change that.


Because he didn't believe that, what you call, positions of power were positions of power, but positions of servitude. Here are some quotes from him regarding women:

"The creation of women is thus marked from the outset by the principle of help: a help which is not one-sided but mutual. Woman complements man, just as man complements woman: men and women are complementary. Womanhood expresses the 'human' as much as manhood does, but in a different and complementary way."
(I have also read elsewhere him note that the word "help" used in the bible regarding the role of woman is the same word used to say that god helps mankind. So it couldn't possibly be construed as a lesser role.)

"Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them."
(You should note that Mary is perhaps the most highly respected non-diety in all of catholicism.)

And, besides, sex is part of human nature and condom use isn't. What they're doing is saying to people "don't drive, and don't use a seatbelt", instead of "don't drive, but if you do end up driving, use a seatbelt".

They aren't trying to stop people from having sex entirely, but only within marriage and with one partner. So it isn't like they are completely denying human nature.

The church's role is to protect the weak, poor, uneducated and innocent. People who have unprotected sex should not have to pay for that with their lives, depriving their children of parents, their families of income and even infecting those who did not sin in the eyes of the church (children with aids, women raped, people whose partners had aids when they married). They are not doing a very good job of protecting the poor here.

Well maybe you think they aren't doing a good job and you certainly have a right to think that. But they don't see it that way and from their perspective they are doing the best job they can.

If you think you can do better than no one is stopping you.

[alonzomourning23]

That is absolutely ridiculous. The distinction between men and women is by definition a biological one. What kind of differences are you talking about and how do you count them?

I've also heard that scientific studies have shown otherwise. However, I can't really cite them for you because I didn't look into it very thoroughly. Honestly, I didn't look into it because I have no problem believing it (I won't go into why unless you ask). In any case, it is no secret that men and women are different (men are from mars and women are from venus ;) ). Can you cite your studies?

Quoting a saying is a poor way to end a scientific argument;) . Also, it is difficult to cite some of the studies I quote from, due to the fact I've read them in books which aren't in front of me or accessible to me at this time.

The physical distinction is biological (though various types of hermaphrodites and pseudo hermaphrodites challenge the distinction somewhat). Also, many biologically male people are socially recognized as female. If testosterone does not kick in, testes and scrotum do not develop, leaving their entire physical appearance as female. Now they can't reproduce, and often they don't find out until their attempts at having a child failed. There are also children who appear female until puberty, only then do testes and scrotum, along with facial hair and all the male characteristics (to their horror and confusion) develop.

Sociological differences are limited at best, and there is a wider difference between men and women, within their sex, then there is with each other. There is a wide differences in societies, some even where house keeping, gossip etc. are the domain of men, not women. Some where aggression is the domain of both. Differenes in, for example, math are quickly washed away when assurances are given that the test does not discriminate based on gender, but arise when it is stated that the test does discriminate (same goes with race). A great deal is often the result of how they are treated. From birth people are treated as women, and people are treated as men. Hermaphrodites are almost always raised as one or the other and, as long as the male genitalia isn't visible, they function perfectly fine as the sex assigned to them (despite often not be that sex biologically).



Because he didn't believe that, what you call, positions of power were positions of power, but positions of servitude. Here are some quotes from him regarding women:

"The creation of women is thus marked from the outset by the principle of help: a help which is not one-sided but mutual. Woman complements man, just as man complements woman: men and women are complementary. Womanhood expresses the 'human' as much as manhood does, but in a different and complementary way."
(I have also read elsewhere him note that the word "help" used in the bible regarding the role of woman is the same word used to say that god helps mankind. So it couldn't possibly be construed as a lesser role.)

"Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them."
(You should note that Mary is perhaps the most highly respected non-diety in all of catholicism.)



You said he believed they are equal. Semantics aside, the one with the decision make abilities is almost exclusively male, that is the side with power. It cannot be said, realistically, that the gender that makes the decision is treated equal to the one that doesn't. Outside the church he may have treated them equal, either the same or different but equal, but not inside. In the church women do not have any roles comparable to men, they are powerless.

They aren't trying to stop people from having sex entirely, but only within marriage and with one partner. So it isn't like they are completely denying human nature.

The amount of denial can be argued, but it is ridiculous to believe that you will ever get the majority of people not to have sex before marriage. Reality hasn't reached many of the anti-condom advocates.



If you think you can do better than no one is stopping you.

Yes they are, cardinals are stopping me because they won't make me pope.

[dmpolska]

I can see why they won't make you Pope... I think it's funny that so many athiests are trying to change the Catholic religion into what THEY want it to be. What they feel is "right." Why are the athiests always targeting Christianity instead of Judiasm or Hinduism... Maybe one they they will leave the church alone--they aren't a part of it, so they shouldn't have any voice in what is going on.

[alonzomourning23]

I can see why they won't make you Pope... I think it's funny that so many athiests are trying to change the Catholic religion into what THEY want it to be. What they feel is "right." Why are the athiests always targeting Christianity instead of Judiasm or Hinduism... Maybe one they they will leave the church alone--they aren't a part of it, so they shouldn't have any voice in what is going on.

I'd like to know where I said I was atheist. Though maybe when catholicism stops having an effect on society, then socieites members will stop trying to influence it. Church doctrine effects lives, particularly AIDs in the 3rd world, of course people are going to want it to spread a particular doctrine. Though I do have my opinions of far right judaism (zionism) and hinduism (promoting hatred against muslims, state officials turning a blind eye and failing to stop riots, covering up murderers of muslims etc.), though I've been heavily exposed to hinduism due to the many of my closest friends are hindu (one family particularly strong), so my criticism of it is more fierce than a religion I have little contact with. But the reason christianity often discussed is because it is the dominant religion in our culture, and effects the lives of everyone.

[dmpolska]

I'd like to know where I said I was atheist. Though maybe when catholicism stops having an effect on society, then socieites members will stop trying to influence it. Church doctrine effects lives, particularly AIDs in the 3rd world, of course people are going to want it to spread a particular doctrine. Though I do have my opinions of far right judaism (zionism) and hinduism (promoting hatred against muslims, state officials turning a blind eye and failing to stop riots, covering up murderers of muslims etc.), though I've been heavily exposed to hinduism due to the many of my closest friends are hindu (one family particularly strong), so my criticism of it is more fierce than a religion I have little contact with. But the reason christianity often discussed is because it is the dominant religion in our culture, and effects the lives of everyone.


The discussion is NEVER a good one. Atheists and the liberals alike are always calling church officials bigots and what not--and while doing that they really expect the Church to even consider them or be influenced by a bunch of atheists? No way.

So, you're not an atheist?

[camoor]

I can see why they won't make you Pope... I think it's funny that so many athiests are trying to change the Catholic religion into what THEY want it to be. What they feel is "right." Why are the athiests always targeting Christianity instead of Judiasm or Hinduism... Maybe one they they will leave the church alone--they aren't a part of it, so they shouldn't have any voice in what is going on.

Noone's going after Judaism? Are you kidding?

Anyway, maybe the athiests feel sorry for the Jews after all the horrible, despicable, and truly ungodly things that the christians have done to them.

As for the Hindus, well I don't see them making women live in a coma for 15 years, staying silent on horrendous abuse of animals in meat-packing plants while opposing humane birth control measures, or going on Jihads/Crusades.

[zionoverfire]

I can see why they won't make you Pope... I think it's funny that so many athiests are trying to change the Catholic religion into what THEY want it to be. What they feel is "right." Why are the athiests always targeting Christianity instead of Judiasm or Hinduism... Maybe one they they will leave the church alone--they aren't a part of it, so they shouldn't have any voice in what is going on.

:lol: Yes, damn those evil athiests and thier organization! I'm amazed how every day they collectively draft bills and file court claims all in wicked plot to destroy the cathollic church and murder billions of potential humans through their wicked use of condoms!

[camoor]

:lol: Yes, damn those evil athiests and thier organization! I'm amazed how every day they collectively draft bills and file court claims all in wicked plot to destroy the cathollic church and murder billions of potential humans through their wicked use of condoms!

LOL totally.

All these idiots read the DaVinci code and then feel that just because they belong to a church that somehow they're helping to foil the will of the Illuminati.

BWAHAHAHAHA all part of the master plan.

[dmpolska]

Noone's going after Judaism? Are you kidding?

Anyway, maybe the athiests feel sorry for the Jews after all the horrible, despicable, and truly ungodly things that the christians have done to them.



The beginning of atheist radicals spreading lies and half-truths... but then again, they're atheists, so what do I expect :)


As for the Hindus, well I don't see them making women live in a coma for 15 years, staying silent on horrendous abuse of animals in meat-packing plants while opposing humane birth control measures, or going on Jihads/Crusades.


There were many Christians that were on both sides idiot, including Muslims and every other type of person. People were split on the issue, I'm sure there were even atheists that thought the husband was a liar.

Crusades....? *sigh* more nonsense atheism

[dmpolska]

:lol: Yes, damn those evil athiests and thier organization! I'm amazed how every day they collectively draft bills and file court claims all in wicked plot to destroy the cathollic church and murder billions of potential humans through their wicked use of condoms!


Stfu, I wasn't talking to you--please. I have enough trouble trying to educate one atheist, you can just wait in line.

[zionoverfire]

The beginning of atheist radicals spreading lies and half-truths... but then again, they're atheists, so what do I expect :)



There were many Christians that were on both sides idiot, including Muslims and every other type of person. People were split on the issue, I'm sure there were even atheists that thought the husband was a liar.

Crusades....? *sigh* more nonsense atheism

:rofl: Well congrats I do believe you've now replaced chunk as head zealot.

[dmpolska]

LOL totally.

All these idiots read the DaVinci code and then feel that just because they belong to a church that somehow they're helping to foil the will of the Illuminati.

BWAHAHAHAHA all part of the master plan.


"If I only had a brain."

[zionoverfire]

Stfu, I wasn't talking to you--please. I have enough trouble trying to educate one atheist, you can just wait in line.

:rofl: Educate? I fail to see what your credentials are. If you plan on educating people you ought to try using logic, I'm afraid spouting dogmatic catch phrases doesn't work very well on the uninitianted.

[dmpolska]

:rofl: Well congrats I do believe you've now replaced chunk as head zealot.


Thanks, but sorry, camoor is still the king hypocricy. But the sad thing about you is that you don't even have an opinion... you're just... worthless.

[camoor]

The beginning of atheist radicals spreading lies and half-truths... but then again, they're atheists, so what do I expect :)



There were many Christians that were on both sides idiot, including Muslims and every other type of person. People were split on the issue, I'm sure there were even atheists that thought the husband was a liar.

Crusades....? *sigh* more nonsense atheism

dmpolska's idea of making an arguement

Refutation to point 1: Weak ad hominem attack, analogous to "athiests suck"
Refutation to point 2: almost a weak counter-arguement, no just another weak ad hominem attack analogous to "you suck and I think you are wrong, but I'm not sure"
Refutation to point 3: "athiests suck"

:applause:

In conclusion dmpolska, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

[zionoverfire]

Thanks, but sorry, camoor is still the king hypocricy. But the sad thing about you is that you don't even have an opinion... you're just... worthless.

Yes, everyone who doesn't spout their mouth off is completely worthless.:roll:

I'd just hate to see how much DDF is worth on your scale.

[dmpolska]

:rofl: Educate? I fail to see what your credentials are. If you plan on educating people you ought to try using logic, I'm afraid spouting dogmatic catch phrases doesn't work very well on the uninitianted.

You don't need credentials to educate an atheist. In fact, you could be a bum on the street and still teach an atheist something. It's just that atheists are so stubborn, ignorant, and arrogant at the same time--so the bums turn away :(

[sblymnlcrymnl]

Thanks, but sorry, camoor is still the king hypocricy. But the sad thing about you is that you don't even have an opinion... you're just... worthless.

It was mildly entertaining at first, but now I've tired of it. Congrats, you get my first ignore!

[zionoverfire]

You don't need credentials to educate a zealot. In fact, you could be a child on the street and still teach a zealot something. It's just that zealots are so stubborn, ignorant, and arrogant at the same time--so the children turn away :(
:rofl:, oh and I fixed it for you, it makes a lot more sense now.;)

[camoor]

You don't need credentials to educate an atheist. In fact, you could be a bum on the street and still teach an atheist something. It's just that atheists are so stubborn, ignorant, and arrogant at the same time--so the bums turn away :(

Interesting, I think the same thing about many Bush supporters.

[dmpolska]

dmpolska's idea of making an arguement

Refutation to point 1: Weak ad hominem attack, analogous to "athiests suck"
Refutation to point 2: almost a weak counter-arguement, no just another weak ad hominem attack analogous to "you suck and I think you are wrong, but I'm not sure"
Refutation to point 3: "athiests suck"

:applause:

In conclusion dmpolska, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.


Was that supposed to be funny? Using over-used phrases and lines? Maybe an atheist or two would chuckle at your moron remarks but surely not a sane person. I expose the truth and you shut the blinds. *sigh*

[dmpolska]

:rofl:, oh and I fixed it for you, it makes a lot more sense now.;)

Welcome to 1st grade. Let's change all the words around to try to be funny.

[dmpolska]

Interesting, I think the same thing about many Bush supporters.

What a coincidence.

[zionoverfire]

Welcome to 1st grade. Let's change all the words around to try to be funny.

Funny? I told you I fixed it, nothing funny about cleaning up your illogical mess.

[zionoverfire]

Sweet!!! Take a look in the who will you ignore thread, I guess some problems really do solve themselves.

[chunk]

Sociological differences are limited at best, and there is a wider difference between men and women, within their sex, then there is with each other. There is a wide differences in societies, some even where house keeping, gossip etc. are the domain of men, not women. Some where aggression is the domain of both. Differenes in, for example, math are quickly washed away when assurances are given that the test does not discriminate based on gender, but arise when it is stated that the test does discriminate (same goes with race). A great deal is often the result of how they are treated. From birth people are treated as women, and people are treated as men. Hermaphrodites are almost always raised as one or the other and, as long as the male genitalia isn't visible, they function perfectly fine as the sex assigned to them (despite often not be that sex biologically).

Hermaphrodites and other transgender people aside, the studies that you are reading don't agree with the ones that I am.

For example, one study found that when women were tested in the same room as men then they performed much worse on math tests then when they tested only with women. Men on the other hand performed equally well whether they tested in a room with only other men or in a coed room. (in both cases the men performed better)

Other studies find that men have a better sense of space and orientation while women have a much keener perception of color.

Additionally, men tend to have a much greater variation than women in all respects. That means that men are both the tallest and the shortest, the smartest and the dumbest, but women exhibit much less variance.

I really don't see how it could possibly be that men and women are treated differently because, frankly, they aren't. Where I grew up the girls were not treated any differently than the boys. In fact they were strongly encouraged to pursue traditionally male dominated fields such as math and science. I also know that most of the girls I grew up with were not treated any differently at home than their brothers were. Everyone played with guns and barbie dolls, both boys and girls. Still very few girls pursued math and science.

Honestly I think that your study isn't telling the whole truth and is playing some statistical tricks in order to enforce the politically correct perspective.

When it comes to body chemistry there is a great deal of difference between men and women. Knowing how sensitive the brain is to changes in body chemistry I don't find it surprising at all that men and women are different in most regards.

Quite frankly, the proof is in the pudding. For a long time society has made a conscious effort to be gender blind and everyone walks around scratching their heads, wondering why there aren't as many female steel workers or female engineers. Everyone walks around scratching their heads because they grew up being told that men and women are exactly the same, but the truth is that they aren't. Men and women are different.

You said he believed they are equal. Semantics aside, the one with the decision make abilities is almost exclusively male, that is the side with power. It cannot be said, realistically, that the gender that makes the decision is treated equal to the one that doesn't. Outside the church he may have treated them equal, either the same or different but equal, but not inside. In the church women do not have any roles comparable to men, they are powerless.


Why can't it be said, realistically, that the gender that makes the decision is treated equal to the one that doesn't?

Why do you consider a position of power more desirable? With power comes responsibility, but of course our whole culture is built around trying to avoid responsibility. So it is no wonder that when we look at a decision making position all we see are the positive parts (the power) and not the negative parts (the responsibility).

[Duo_Maxwell]

As for the Hindus, well I don't see them making women live in a coma for 15 years, staying silent on horrendous abuse of animals in meat-packing plants while opposing humane birth control measures, or going on Jihads/Crusades.

No, Hinduism just arranges marriage and the plan rest of their lives for women by age 12. That practice is old but still happens in rural parts of India, and Hindu religion is very partriarcal. Also, the crusades occured many moons ago, but Hinduism has killed plenty in the name of relgion...the caste system bred violence for a long time and the sati reituals killed many women when til they basically stopped 150 ot so years ago. I'm not attacking Hinduism, but if you can't see that basically all organized have some bad aspects then you have a very narrow outlook towards the world.

[masha]

Stfu, I wasn't talking to you--please. I have enough trouble trying to educate one atheist, you can just wait in line.

oghhhhh! Another believer. So rare these days. 8-[

[chunk]

but if you can't see that basically all organized have some bad aspects then you have a very narrow outlook towards the world.

All organized? I would say that pretty much anything involving people has bad aspects to it.

[zionoverfire]

All organized? I would say that pretty much anything involving people has bad aspects to it.

But religion is typically much more resistant to change.

[Duo_Maxwell]

All organized? I would say that pretty much anything involving people has bad aspects to it.


You're right...I should say all things organized. Religions, politics, soceity in general, none of them can be perfect because by nature humans are not perfect.

[camoor]

No, Hinduism just arranges marriage and the plan rest of their lives for women by age 12. That practice is old but still happens in rural parts of India, and Hindu religion is very partriarcal. Also, the crusades occured many moons ago, but Hinduism has killed plenty in the name of relgion...the caste system bred violence for a long time and the sati reituals killed many women when til they basically stopped 150 ot so years ago. I'm not attacking Hinduism, but if you can't see that basically all organized have some bad aspects then you have a very narrow outlook towards the world.

"This crusade might take a while." - President George W. Bush

I was comparing the practitioners of Hinduism to the practitioners of Christianity and Islam. In my opinion any damage done by the Hindus to a certain segment of their society is minor in comparison to the horrors done in the name of Christianity or Islam.

I don't know much about the Islamic faith, but the hypocracy of a great number of modern-day "Christians" is especially galling considering the peaceful teachings of their central religious figure.

[alonzomourning23]

I really don't see how it could possibly be that men and women are treated differently because, frankly, they aren't. Where I grew up the girls were not treated any differently than the boys. In fact they were strongly encouraged to pursue traditionally male dominated fields such as math and science. I also know that most of the girls I grew up with were not treated any differently at home than their brothers were. Everyone played with guns and barbie dolls, both boys and girls. Still very few girls pursued math and science.

Honestly I think that your study isn't telling the whole truth and is playing some statistical tricks in order to enforce the politically correct perspective.

This is absurd, both genders are treated the same? I admit I'm running out of steem tonight, so I'm getting a little lazy. Also, I'm getting aggravated at google. I get all this mass media and pop culture stuff, and find it nearly impossible to type in the correct combination of words to find the studies that are all over the place in journals and scientific books. Though I found one (my first quote), that I really liked.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_2002_July/ai_94775612/pg_1

Gender role stereotyping continues to be one of the most consistent domains in which adults, particularly parents, play an important role in children's socialization (Campenni, 1999; Idle, Wood & Desmarais, 1993; Lytton & Romney, 1991). Although some researchers have argued that boys and girls are innately predisposed toward selecting same-gender toys (e.g., Snow, Jacklin, & Maccoby, 1983), most believe that social--environmental events, and particularly the early influence of parents, produce toy selection preference (e.g., Caldera, Huston, & O'Brien, 1989; Eisenberg, Wolchik, Hernandez, & Pasternack, 1985; Mischel, 1966; Peretti & Sydney, 1984). Toy play and toy selection scenarios provide contexts for parents to share their knowledge and expectations regarding gender-appropriate behavior (Campenni, 1999; Idle et al., 1993). In fact, many researchers have suggested that both toy selection and parental responses to toy play serve as primary influences in the learning of "appropriate" gender roles (e.g. Calde ra et al., 1989; $$$ot, 1978; Peretti & Sydney, 1984)........

The world of a child is not gender-neutral. A child's social environment includes both the physical environments to which the child is exposed and the social interactions the child experiences with others. With respect to physical environments, gender-role stereotyping is evident in the decor of children's rooms and clothes and toys that match traditional color schemes: pink for girls and blue for boys (Pomerleau, Bolduc, Malcuit, & Cossette, 1990). Although color is one cue used to define the gender appropriateness of a toy, other features such as logos are also important (Fisher-Thompson, 1990). For example, the appearance of an airplane or a flower logo may further discriminate whether the toy should be perceived as masculine or feminine. In addition, the function of toys may also predict whether they are more appropriate for boys or girls. Traditionally, girls have more dolls and domestic items whereas boys have more tools, sports equipment, and large and small vehicles in their rooms (Pomerleau et al., 1 990).

Parents also reinforce this environmental information with explicit and implicit cues that are transmitted through play opportunities. Several studies have documented the more rigid stereotyped expectations of fathers relative to mothers, which suggests a difference between parents in the degree of gender role stereotyping that occurs during play (e.g., Snow et al., 1983). For example, in a free play situation, Bradley and Gobbart (1989) gave parents a selection of masculine (e.g., a hammer), feminine (e.g., a doll), and neutral (e.g., a cloth turtle) toys and recorded the first three toys the parents presented to their children. Parents also completed a scale that measured their gender role orientations. The researchers found that fathers with traditional gender role orientations offered more gender-typed toys than nongender-typed toys. Mothers, on the other hand, did not discriminate in their toy selection. Roopuarine (1986) found similar results after examining parents' responses toward children's gender-t yped toy play. Neither mothers' nor fathers' responses to the toy play of children included ridicule or physically prohibiting children from using certain toys. However, fathers were more likely to attend to the doll play of girls than the doll play of boys, and they were more likely to give dolls to girls than to boys. Mothers did not differ in their treatment of boys and girls. Other researchers have indicated that fathers' responses to boys who engage in typical girls' play are more likely to be negative ($$$ot & Hagan, 1991). In general, research on toy play interactions suggests that fathers tend to be less flexible and more gender-stereotypic than mothers.

In studies of the selection of toys rather than the context of interactive play, both mothers and fathers are more likely to buy gender-typed than nongender-typed toys. Fisher-Thompson (1993) explored the choice of toys purchased by adults who were exiting a toy store. Overall, toy store customers were more likely to purchase gender-typed than nongender-typed toys, especially when buying for a boy (Fisher-Thompson, 1993)...........

Research on the relative impact of parents, other parents, and nonparents in the gender role socialization of children is limited. In particular, no researchers have examined the relative influence of these various adults on interactive toy play situations. Given that play makes numerous contributions to children's developing understanding of gender and gender roles, and that play with toys contributes to children's ability to gender-label and act in gender-"appropriate" ways (Martin & Little, 1990; Smith & Daglish, 1977), it is critical to investigate gender role socialization in a play context. In this study we observed adults and children in a free play situation with traditionally masculine, feminine, and neutral toys; one child played separately with each of three adults: the child's parent, another child's parent, and a nonparent. Gender socialization was assessed through three measures: (1) the amount of time adult/child dyads spent engaged in play with each toy category; (2) adults' sorting of toys in to gender categories; and (3) adults' ratings of each toy's desirability. Thus, we used two methodologies (active observation and survey) in order to get converging evidence regarding gender role socialization.........

The shift in categorization of the toys, however, did not necessarily result in a change in actual play. The degree to which adults in the present study appear to be comfortable with the three categories of toys varied between situations where they were asked to evaluate the toy and the actual play situations. When we used the traditionally coded toy categories to examine gender stereotyping, masculine toys were perceived as more desirable for boys and feminine toys as more desirable for girls. The summary of the outcomes for boys' and girls' play is based on the patterns found in the independent analyses for boys and girls. This was supported during play sessions with boys where the majority of time was spent with the masculine toys. However, with girls there was more flexibility in toys used during play. Girls were equally engaged with feminine and neutral toys. When we used the revised gender categories to analyze play, girls' flexibility across toy categories became striking. There was no difference in th e amount of time spent with any of the three types of toys, whereas boys again were constrained to spending the majority of their time with masculine toys..........

In summary, the present study extends our understanding of gender typing in toy play situations. Traditionally, researchers have contrasted mothers and fathers; in the present study we explored the impact of other adults on gender typing. The key finding is that adults, for the most part, act in similar ways regardless of their parenting experience. The results also indicate that gender typing continues to be a prevalent feature of children's toy play interactions but that adults' understanding of what constitutes gender-appropriate toys is changing. This highlights the importance of assessing not only which features define appropriate gender roles but also what social changes precipitate the evolution of gender stereotypes.



http://www.indiaparenting.com/articles/data/art09_027.shtml

According to Dr. Mehrotra, " Femininity is restricted to girls." People tend to have a more indulgent outlook on girls acting like tomboys. However, the opposite is not true for boys. There is a stigma attached to a boy being effeminate. That is the reason why society has a tendency to doubt the masculinity of men who design clothes for women, or male make-up artists, or men who follow any profession that breaks away from the straight and narrow. Somehow, men who don't hold nine to five jobs with a salary cheque that puts food on the table are not deemed manly enough.

http://www.deebest.com/Teachertips.html

Teachers have been found to call on boys more often than girls; reward girls for being quiet and behaving well as opposed to taking risks and solving problems (as boys are encouraged to do); give boys more time to answer questions; and let boys interrupt girls and generally dominate the classroom conversation.
According to Susan H. Crawford, author of Beyond Dolls & Guns: 101 Ways to Help Children Avoid Gender Bias, “In studies of classrooms, many excellent teachers who were trying to be very fair were aghast to watch videotapes of themselves showing that, when their interactions with students were tallied, they had called on boys more often, given boys more and different kinds of encouragement, and reprimanded girls for the same behavior they overlooked in boys.”


http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/96/4.25.96/gender.html



American educators -- regardless of their gender or the grade level at which they teach -- continue to focus more attention on male than on female students, education expert David Sadker told 150 teachers and administrators on April 18 in Cornell's Biotechnology Building auditorium. And that's despite more than two decades of research, much of it conducted by Sadker and his late wife, Myra Sadker (author of 1973's groundbreaking book Sexism in School and Society), strongly suggesting that gender bias in the classroom diminishes girls' self-esteem, expectations and even opportunities later in life.



http://www.maec.org/beyond.html#bias



Although most teachers believe that they treat girls and boys the same, research indicates that they frequently do not. Studies show that teachers often exhibit differential behavior even though circumstances do not warrant it. The teacher' sex seems to have little bearing on the outcome; it is the sex of the student that seems to make a difference. For example:

Male students receive more of the teacher's attention (acceptance, praise, criticism, and remediation) and are given more time to talk in class from pre-school through college.8
Although differences among subject matter areas have not been well examined, recent research has found student-teacher interaction in science classes to be biased toward boys.9
Sex is a factor in the assignment of students to ability groups in mathematics, and males are more likely to be assigned to the high ability group.10
Males receive harsher punishment than girls even for the same or a similar offense.11
Teachers ask boys more higher order questions than they ask girls.12




Why can't it be said, realistically, that the gender that makes the decision is treated equal to the one that doesn't?

Why do you consider a position of power more desirable? With power comes responsibility, but of course our whole culture is built around trying to avoid responsibility. So it is no wonder that when we look at a decision making position all we see are the positive parts (the power) and not the negative parts (the responsibility).

Didn't take me that long to find a statement more absurd than the one above, that boys and girl weren't treated any differently. I was expecting that one to last at least a week or so. Why must you outdo yourself so quickly? ;) So basically, your argument, is that the sex that has no control over anything, no say, no decision making ability is treated as equal to the one that has total control over what is taught, the rules and their enforcement, the institutions hierarchy, and their interaction with the general public. Women can be nuns, men can be monks, both are essentially powerless, and that's the only real role women have in the church. In the church, whatever men say is church law, nothing other than men can change anything. It's like being a relationship, where the man has all the say over what he and the woman do, but yet you want to claim they are equal. Women are equal in the church in no way other than words. Maybe they treat them as relatively equal outside of the institution, but women have no control over what goes on in the church, their views have no influence over what goes on in the church, unless a man decides their view is worthwhile and adopts it himself.

This argument, that the one who is absolutely powerless is still treated as equal, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I can't even argue it, it's like someone telling me that a quarter, despite being made from the same material as a quarter, despite looking like a quarter, despite feeling like a quarter, and despite being made from a government mint, is not really a quarter. I just don't know how to argue it. I just don't understand how you can arrive at that conclusion.

[Duo_Maxwell]

"This crusade might take a while." - President George W. Bush

I was comparing the practitioners of Hinduism to the practitioners of Christianity and Islam. In my opinion any damage done by the Hindus to a certain segment of their society is minor in comparison to the horrors done in the name of Christianity or Islam.

I don't know much about the Islamic faith, but the hypocracy of a great number of modern-day "Christians" is especially galling considering the peaceful teachings of their central religious figure.

I was unaware that the war on terror was started in the name of God and even if you consider it so, countless wars have started in the name of religions other than christianity (which isn't the same as Catholicism anyways) and wars have also started for much more petty reasons.

The damage from aspects of Hinduism is minor to you only because you haven't experienced it and the hypocrisy of people in general is galling, yet I have yet to meet anyone that has gone through life without being hypcritical at some point (including me obviously).

[alonzomourning23]

And people said my pope topic was pointless ;)

The discussion is NEVER a good one. Atheists and the liberals alike are always calling church officials bigots and what not--and while doing that they really expect the Church to even consider them or be influenced by a bunch of atheists? No way.

So, you're not an atheist?

If I haven't stated I'm an atheist, why would you think I am one? Much like everything you say, the accusation is baseless.


The beginning of atheist radicals spreading lies and half-truths... but then again, they're atheists, so what do I expect :)

Wow, atheists are powerful. Just think, according to the most comprehensive poll on religious groups in the u.s. ever undertaken (http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/key_findings.htm) only .4 percent of the u.s. population identified themselves as atheist (most people who don't follow a religion still believe in god, or at least the possibility of one, though only .5 percent are agnostic). .4% of the population sure can do a lot, pretty soon they'll rival jews and the illuminati :roll: .

The damage from aspects of Hinduism is minor to you only because you haven't experienced it and the hypocrisy of people in general is galling, yet I have yet to meet anyone that has gone through life without being hypcritical at some point (including me obviously).

Hindu radicals profess just as much hatred of muslims and non hindus as do pretty much anyone other group (they just lack the essential will to conquer and convert that other groups often have). I have a friend who has a close relative with political power in Gujaresh (very poor province, many incidents of religious violents, often increased by the extremist BJP (think it's translated as hindu nationalist party) which is in power that province, and has sizeable support throughout india), I really should ask him what party his relative is a member of. The BJP has been instrumental in some of the more violent recent riots directed against muslims, and have been involved in allowing murderers to escape justice and threatening/killing witnesses who testify against them. Obviously this is only a minority of them, but the party has many such people in power. Oddly enough, they still seem to support many stereotypically muslim causes (such as the palestinians and are against the Iraq war). The father of that friend (no idea what his political leanings are in India), after 9/11, his first response (and response since) has been to nuke Pakistan. What pakistan has to do with any of it I don't know.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Also, I'm getting aggravated at google. I get all this mass media and pop culture stuff, and find it nearly impossible to type in the correct combination of words to find the studies that are all over the place in journals and scientific books.

Well it's a complete sidenote, one of my professors mentioned the Google Scholar search engine Beta the other day. Though I haven't tried it myself the website is
http://scholar.google.com/ (I have no idea how to insert a text link with this newer software).

[alonzomourning23]

Well it's a complete sidenote, one of my professors mentioned the Google Scholar search engine Beta the other day. Though I haven't tried it myself the website is
http://scholar.google.com/ (I have no idea how to insert a text link with this newer software).

I'll try that, thanks.

Edit: This is pretty good. My schools online library only posts about 30% of the journal entries online (which usually means that's all I see, since I'm too lazy to actually go to the library most of the time), this thing is huge. And I can reference journals so it looks like I actually went to a library instead of just going online (which usually isn't allowed).

Google has made me even lazier!

[RedvsBlue]

I just love how people like to villify atheists. Why can't people realize that freedom OF religion can mean freedom FROM religion?

[chunk]

But religion is typically much more resistant to change.

Religion is older than almost any other human endeavor. Once anything has been around for a while it starts to become resistant to change.

Furthermore, anything old usually attracts traditionalists, who themselves are resistant to change. I mean the very reason they are attracted to things that are old and established is because they view them as unchanging. The influence of these traditionalists adds to the inertia of the things they are attracted to, creating further resistance.

I don't think it is unique to religion. You can see the same mechanism at work almost anywhere. Religion just happens to be older than anything else, so it faces this problem more than anything else does.

[chunk]

This is absurd, both genders are treated the same? I admit I'm running out of steem tonight, so I'm getting a little lazy. Also, I'm getting aggravated at google. I get all this mass media and pop culture stuff, and find it nearly impossible to type in the correct combination of words to find the studies that are all over the place in journals and scientific books. Though I found one (my first quote), that I really liked.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_2002_July/ai_94775612/pg_1





http://www.indiaparenting.com/articles/data/art09_027.shtml

[/size]

http://www.deebest.com/Teachertips.html

[/size]


http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/96/4.25.96/gender.html




http://www.maec.org/beyond.html#bias



I don't get the impression that society is biased against females in any way from these links. I'm sorry but half of what those links say is just plain false and the other half seem to indicate that girls are in a better position to succeed than boys.

If anything, the first link shows that girls are much more adaptable in the play environment than boys are, which would imply that girls have the capacity to be more successful in the workplace.

The second link shows that girls receive more encouragement to do what they like (whether it is deemed masculine or feminine) while boys are restricted to being masculine.

The third link is just plain false. It is exactly the opposite of the way school classrooms really are. In real classrooms boys are generally too rowdy and are strongly encouraged to be quite while girls are encouraged to speak up.

The fourth and fifth links are partially true, but I certainly wouldn't call it societal bias. I went through the public school system and boys do not receive more encouragement than girls. However, we know that males have more variance than females in almost every measure. So it would make perfect sense if the boys were both the smartest and dumbest students. Guess which students get the most attention?

If I had to make a determination based on the information provided in those links then the last thing I would say is that society is biased against girls. I still think that they are treated pretty much the same, but any bias that is there is small and in favor of girls.

Didn't take me that long to find a statement more absurd than the one above, that boys and girl weren't treated any differently. I was expecting that one to last at least a week or so. Why must you outdo yourself so quickly? ;) So basically, your argument, is that the sex that has no control over anything, no say, no decision making ability is treated as equal to the one that has total control over what is taught, the rules and their enforcement, the institutions hierarchy, and their interaction with the general public.

Women can be nuns, men can be monks, both are essentially powerless, and that's the only real role women have in the church. In the church, whatever men say is church law, nothing other than men can change anything. It's like being a relationship, where the man has all the say over what he and the woman do, but yet you want to claim they are equal. Women are equal in the church in no way other than words.

No. The church is not a playground for priests to flex their egos. They can't just do whatever they want. Most of the are rules already established and they really have very little control over what is taught, the rules and their enforcement, the institutions hierarchy, and their interaction with the general public.

In fact it was the view of the recently deceased Pope that the church had "absolutely no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women".

And this is the Pope speaking! If he doesn't feel like he has control then certainly the average priest has almost no control.

You are really making the priesthood out to be a much more important than it actually is. Furthermore, even if it were such a desirable position, only a very small percentage of catholics are priests. The vast vast majority of male catholics are not priests and do not have any of this power that you think is so important.

I would list some things that women have that men don't in catholicism, but it really seems like absurd nitpicking. However, just to counter what you see as such a grave injustice (that only men are priests), why not consider the fact that the most important human figure in catholicism is a women (the virgin Mary)? If you want to talk about unconscious societal influence then I definitely think that gives women the upper hand.

Maybe they treat them as relatively equal outside of the institution, but women have no control over what goes on in the church, their views have no influence over what goes on in the church, unless a man decides their view is worthwhile and adopts it himself.

And the same is true for most man. If 10 women are catholic and 1 become a priest then how does that create equality for the other 9 or give them more influence? It doesn't.

I really don't understand how you are making this out to be some kind of equality issue when, even if women could be priests, it would not give the vast majority of catholic women any more power than they currently have.

You are nitpicking over minor details which I guess you view as symbolic?

This argument, that the one who is absolutely powerless is still treated as equal, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I can't even argue it, it's like someone telling me that a quarter, despite being made from the same material as a quarter, despite looking like a quarter, despite feeling like a quarter, and despite being made from a government mint, is not really a quarter. I just don't know how to argue it. I just don't understand how you can arrive at that conclusion.

Oh my god. So much drama. Now women are absolutely powerless in the catholic church? How did we go from "a handful of men on occasion make various administrative decisions" to "all the men are tyrannous overlords and the women are absolutely powerless"?

First of all the women are not powerless. Just because they aren't in the priesthood that doesn't mean that they don't have any influence over anything. They have a lot of influence. They just aren't as visible. Just because your mouth does all the talking that doesn't mean that the rest of your body is powerless.

Second of all even if women could be priests it would only affect a very small percentage of them. So the difference between what they have now and what you would consider "equal" is very very small.

I can't name any specific roles for you because I don't know any. But I can certainly say that the catholic church would not exist if it only consisted of monks, nuns, and priests. The church body is an essential part of the church and that is where women take a much larger role than men.

Also, I don't understand what you're obsession with power is and I don't see how power is a measure of equality. Not that power is even an issue here, but you seem to think it is and I don't understand why it would have anything to do with equality if it were an issue.

Do you feel like you don't have equality with your mailman because he has more power over your mail than you do?

[camoor]

Hindu radicals profess just as much hatred of muslims and non hindus as do pretty much anyone other group (they just lack the essential will to conquer and convert that other groups often have). I have a friend who has a close relative with political power in Gujaresh (very poor province, many incidents of religious violents, often increased by the extremist BJP (think it's translated as hindu nationalist party) which is in power that province, and has sizeable support throughout india), I really should ask him what party his relative is a member of. The BJP has been instrumental in some of the more violent recent riots directed against muslims, and have been involved in allowing murderers to escape justice and threatening/killing witnesses who testify against them. Obviously this is only a minority of them, but the party has many such people in power. Oddly enough, they still seem to support many stereotypically muslim causes (such as the palestinians and are against the Iraq war). The father of that friend (no idea what his political leanings are in India), after 9/11, his first response (and response since) has been to nuke Pakistan. What pakistan has to do with any of it I don't know.

Well, Pakistan is a muslim country that was split off from India by the English during the colonial period. The area around the border of India and Pakistan called Kashmir is in a situation similar to the one in Northern Ireland.

It would be very hard to blame the Hindu Indians for having a reactionary plan against Muslim radicalism, how comfortable would you feel if instead of having Mexico as a neighbor, America was next to Iran?

Radicals and mafia corruption like you describe above will occur in the name of any government administration / religion. I'm not trying to claim that all Hindus are as peaceful as a Tiebetan Buddhist, but IMO when you compare the results of actions by the majority of Hindus to results of actions by the majority of Christians and Muslims, there is far less war, killing of unbelievers, and general spreading of suffering/ignorance.

[alonzomourning23]

Well, Pakistan is a muslim country that was split off from India by the English during the colonial period. The area around the border of India and Pakistan called Kashmir is in a situation similar to the one in Northern Ireland.

It would be very hard to blame the Hindu Indians for having a reactionary plan against Muslim radicalism, how comfortable would you feel if instead of having Mexico as a neighbor, America was next to Iran?

Radicals and mafia corruption like you describe above will occur in the name of any government administration / religion. I'm not trying to claim that all Hindus are as peaceful as a Tiebetan Buddhist, but IMO when you compare the results of actions by the majority of Hindus to results of actions by the majority of Christians and Muslims, there is far less war, killing of unbelievers, and general spreading of suffering/ignorance.

Hindu radicalism did not begin with the formation of Pakistan, just like all radicalism it is long standing. Radicalism is not the domain of any particular religion, it is the domain of humans and whatever religion they follow, if it is in power, it almost certainly, at one point in time (and in some individuals at all times), will fall victim to it.

The formation of Pakistan is the result of long existing tentions between the muslim and hindu communities in India. During the split, millions of people left Pakistan and India for the other (muslims going to pakistan, hindus to India), and multiple clashes broke out even as people passed each other.

Today, religious riots and violence are very common in India, Gujaresh in particular.

Though Tibetan Buddhists have remained as peaceful due to their respect and reverence for the Dailau Lama (who, among other religious leaders, keeps rejecting calls for violence). That, and the fact that China has moved a massive amount of people into tibet, prevents much violence (though there has been some violence, including a major revolt that that led to the dailai lama fleeing Tibet, as he did not do so when Tibet was originally colonized). The youth is becoming more and more anxious, and many groups have looked towards palestine for influence, but no real action has been taken yet. Indeed, much of the ethnic tibetan youth in modern day tibetan population is on the same path that native americans on reserves today are.

Buddhism may have somewhat less violent radicalism than most other major religions, due to its explicit teaching of peace, but it's still there. And most of the time violence is simply attributed, by the people and groups committing it, to nationalist feeling instead of religion, divorced from religion the violence committed is not at conflict.

[alonzomourning23]

I don't get the impression that society is biased against females in any way from these links. I'm sorry but half of what those links say is just plain false and the other half seem to indicate that girls are in a better position to succeed than boys.

If anything, the first link shows that girls are much more adaptable in the play environment than boys are, which would imply that girls have the capacity to be more successful in the workplace.

The second link shows that girls receive more encouragement to do what they like (whether it is deemed masculine or feminine) while boys are restricted to being masculine.

The third link is just plain false. It is exactly the opposite of the way school classrooms really are. In real classrooms boys are generally too rowdy and are strongly encouraged to be quite while girls are encouraged to speak up.

The fourth and fifth links are partially true, but I certainly wouldn't call it societal bias. I went through the public school system and boys do not receive more encouragement than girls. However, we know that males have more variance than females in almost every measure. So it would make perfect sense if the boys were both the smartest and dumbest students. Guess which students get the most attention?

If I had to make a determination based on the information provided in those links then the last thing I would say is that society is biased against girls. I still think that they are treated pretty much the same, but any bias that is there is small and in favor of girls.

How convenient, any evidence you don't agree with you just dismiss as false, don't even bother providing counter evidence. Seriously, you rely on your own perception more than a science. When it comes to science, only a fool trusts their own perception as evidence.



No. The church is not a playground for priests to flex their egos. They can't just do whatever they want. Most of the are rules already established and they really have very little control over what is taught, the rules and their enforcement, the institutions hierarchy, and their interaction with the general public.

In fact it was the view of the recently deceased Pope that the church had "absolutely no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women".

And this is the Pope speaking! If he doesn't feel like he has control then certainly the average priest has almost no control.

You are really making the priesthood out to be a much more important than it actually is. Furthermore, even if it were such a desirable position, only a very small percentage of catholics are priests. The vast vast majority of male catholics are not priests and do not have any of this power that you think is so important.

I would list some things that women have that men don't in catholicism, but it really seems like absurd nitpicking. However, just to counter what you see as such a grave injustice (that only men are priests), why not consider the fact that the most important human figure in catholicism is a women (the virgin Mary)? If you want to talk about unconscious societal influence then I definitely think that gives women the upper hand.

And the same is true for most man. If 10 women are catholic and 1 become a priest then how does that create equality for the other 9 or give them more influence? It doesn't.

I really don't understand how you are making this out to be some kind of equality issue when, even if women could be priests, it would not give the vast majority of catholic women any more power than they currently have.

You are nitpicking over minor details which I guess you view as symbolic?

Oh my god. So much drama. Now women are absolutely powerless in the catholic church? How did we go from "a handful of men on occasion make various administrative decisions" to "all the men are tyrannous overlords and the women are absolutely powerless"?

First of all the women are not powerless. Just because they aren't in the priesthood that doesn't mean that they don't have any influence over anything. They have a lot of influence. They just aren't as visible. Just because your mouth does all the talking that doesn't mean that the rest of your body is powerless.

Second of all even if women could be priests it would only affect a very small percentage of them. So the difference between what they have now and what you would consider "equal" is very very small.

I can't name any specific roles for you because I don't know any. But I can certainly say that the catholic church would not exist if it only consisted of monks, nuns, and priests. The church body is an essential part of the church and that is where women take a much larger role than men.

Also, I don't understand what you're obsession with power is and I don't see how power is a measure of equality. Not that power is even an issue here, but you seem to think it is and I don't understand why it would have anything to do with equality if it were an issue.

Do you feel like you don't have equality with your mailman because he has more power over your mail than you do?

Considering men and women can become mailmen/women then there is gender equality.

Though this shows your hypocrisy. In evolution you want obsered evidence, you have it right here but you reject it because it does not match your perception. It does not match what makes sense to you, an argument you used against evolution (that making sense doesn't speak to its validity).

As it stands, men in church hierarchy represents a small minority, yet men still hold all the power. No group can be equal if they don't have say over their own destiny, if their opinions are not taken into account. That is what women have in the church. "well, only 2% of men are in positions of power in the church, so that means 98% of men and 100% of women are unequal, meaning there's only a 2% difference in equality", serious that's as ridiculous as what you are arguing. You cannot have a field 100% controlled by a particular group and say all other groups are treated equally in that field. Imagine if only white europeans were allowed in the church hierarchy, no one would suggest that other ethnic groups were treated as equal. When one group is denied the right to hold positions of power that the other group does, it is not treated as equal. That is the definition of inequality, it doesn't get much simpler than that.

And besides, there are positions of more power than priest, all of which are controlled by men.

Though it really said something when you suggested that mary is the most important figure in catholicism, ignoring jesus (who, in any religious debate, is never less than half human).

[camoor]

Hindu radicalism did not begin with the formation of Pakistan, just like all radicalism it is long standing. Radicalism is not the domain of any particular religion, it is the domain of humans and whatever religion they follow, if it is in power, it almost certainly, at one point in time (and in some individuals at all times), will fall victim to it.


Good point, I agree. My point was more that there are religions that lend themselves more easily to radicalism, war, and terror then others (For example, if taken from a relational viewpoint the religion of the Vikings provoked more war and violence then most other religions as practiced in it's time) I can't figure out why there are people who call themselves christian yet are also unabashedly bloodthirsty and greedy, but I suspect it has to do with the fact that the christian religion sets impossibly high goals for people, expects them to fail, and then forgives them for being human, thus engendering a cyclical sense of gratitude and instilling in certain shallow practitioners a guilt-inspired faith and trust in the "we talk to god for you" church authorites.

IMO a person completely misses the point whenever they only have a simplistic and literal viewpoint of myths/stories/holy texts that describe heavenly gardens, talking snakes, elephant-headed gods, or prophets talking to angels. There is always a lesson that should be learned from these texts, a person should strive to be enlightened, not just a "true believer".

I also agree that there are Hindus who aren't perfectly peaceful and that there are probably even a few violent people who profess to follow Tiebetan Buddhism. My point was that comparatively these religions appear to result in more peace and less suffering.

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description.”
- Albert Einstein

[alonzomourning23]

Good point, I agree. My point was more that there are religions that lend themselves more easily to radicalism, war, and terror then others (For example, if taken from a relational viewpoint the religion of the Vikings provoked more war and violence then most other religions as practiced in it's time) I can't figure out why there are people who call themselves christian yet are also unabashedly bloodthirsty and greedy, but I suspect it has to do with the fact that the christian religion sets impossibly high goals for people, expects them to fail, and then forgives them for being human, thus engendering a cyclical sense of gratitude and instilling in certain shallow practitioners a guilt-inspired faith and trust in the "we talk to god for you" church authorites.

IMO a person completely misses the point whenever they only have a simplistic and literal viewpoint of myths/stories/holy texts that describe heavenly gardens, talking snakes, elephant-headed gods, or prophets talking to angels. There is always a lesson that should be learned from these texts, a person should strive to be enlightened, not just a "true believer".

I also agree that there are Hindus who aren't perfectly peaceful and that there are probably even a few violent people who profess to follow Tiebetan Buddhism. My point was that comparatively these religions appear to result in more peace and less suffering.

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description.”
- Albert Einstein

Not really contesting anything with the vikings, and not nitpicking, just interested in mentioning them and some viking mythology (what I know of it anyway, which is very little). Essentially, their religion was very dark. That is why, in the few places where vikings settled in the main part of europe, they quickly converted to christianity. In viking mythology the "good" gods eventually are defeated by the "bad" gods, when that happens then the world would end. Not to much hope there. Though I don't think religion played much into viking raids and such, it didn't really influence it one way or the other. Vikings, for the most part, weren't very interest in conquest and even less interested in religious conquest, they were more interested in wealth and bribes.

Though tension between hindus and muslims goes back to the muslim invasion, and rule, over India. While not really forced to become muslims (converts weren't good financially since they became exempt from taxes), many did and were pressured, by heavy taxation, to do so. The resentment from that runs deep and, while I'm not sure how much of a conscious part that plays, it is the primary root of the often violent tension between the two.

From what I've seen the violence and conquest associated with many religions is prevalent in hinduism, judaism, islam and christianity. I would rank, in order of violence:
Christianity- it was the most violent of any other major religions at their height of their influence, and violence is still strong in places such as africa
Islam- I would rank it as more violent currently, but much more tolerant and less violent in its golden age than christianity and less violent when its total history is taken into account
hinduism- long history of ethnic and religious violence since time of muslim rule
judaism- oddly, their scripture is the most violent of the 3 western ones, but their history of being repressed, scattered and stateless holds them back, though they have been trying to catch up since the 50's, ushering in the modern age of terrorism in their struggly for a jewish state, and many other acts of violence committed by their military

Basically, the amount of violence seems to be directly linked to a religions belief in gaining converts.
Christianity- has been the most intolerant (obvious reasons, inquisition, crusades etc.)
Islam- historically clear distinctions and priveleges associated with religion, but other groups were often very prosperous and succesfull
hinduism- really all over the place, there are many different forms of it. It wasn't even viewed as one coherent, distinct religion by its followers until the british colonial period, and the gods worshipped and beliefs followed differ greatly. The ones I've encountered say its up to the person to decide, but I don't know if thats based in any religious stories and texts or modern opinion. There have been various religious wars in its distant past.
Judaism- has little concern over converts as well, and it seems conversion is difficult, though, again, their statelessness and repressed history makes them difficult to judge as the time of religion running amok was dead by the time they had real power.

Now, buddhism has had a few wars in its history (though can only think of one off the top of my head. The viet cong, while generally buddhist, mostly acknowledged that they were going against buddhist teaching and separated the conflict from religion, so you can't include them), but not much. Despite their size they tend to be the target of repression more often than not. This is partly due to that, in historical China, there was no great religious tradition to uphold. Relative to the rest of the world, it was always more secular. Yes there was mysticism and religious beliefs, but not when compared to everyone else, and no real, distinct god. And buddhism is an atheistic religion, their is no god to please, no god to fight for (some times elevate buddha to a somewhat godlike state, though most view him as a great teacher). It also, while very open to converts, is also very open to dissent.
Buddha himself said this: Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

That line of thinking, again, hasn't always existed. But there is no necessity to convert, there is no one to save. If you had simpled changed the belief behind that quote, to that there was an essential need for large numbers of people to follow his teachings, then a history of buddhism as generally free of war would not exist.

[chunk]

How convenient, any evidence you don't agree with you just dismiss as false, don't even bother providing counter evidence. Seriously, you rely on your own perception more than a science. When it comes to science, only a fool trusts their own perception as evidence.

I have counter evidence. I went to public school and it wasn't conducted the way the article said. Now maybe that isn't true about most schools, but it doesn't matter because the females at mine acted the same as they do elsewhere. That proves that it isn't the result of uneven treatment in schools.

Just because it is in some online article that doesn't make it more scientific than my own personal observations. On the contrary, statistical studies are dubious and should usually be checked on your own.

Are you kidding me? Believing what someone else tells you, even though it contradicts your own perception is not science.

I don't understand why you hold science in such high esteem because you seem to have no concept about what it is. One of the driving ideas behind science is peer review. You know, you read the article and you test it against your own perception.

Blindly buying into whatever you read is not scientific at all. "Relying on your own perception more than science" is an oxymoron. If you don't rely on your own perception then you aren't practicing science.

This should be quite obvious, but since you refuse to think for yourself I will have to appeal to some kind of scientific authority to convince you. What is the first step in the scientific method? That's right: observation. All scientific studies start with your own empirical perception of things. If you rely on anything else above your own perception of reality then you aren't practicing science.

Considering men and women can become mailmen/women then there is gender equality.

Why are you bringing the gender of the mailmen into this? I asked you if you feel that you don't have equality with your mailman because he makes all the decisions when it comes to your mail. I don't care if your mailman is a man or a women and I don't care if you are a man or a women.

Before we discuss gender equality we have to come to terms with the concept of equality in general. Before we can discuss groups of people we have to come to an understanding of what it means for two people to be equal.

You have made it clear that you think it is inconceivable for two people to have equality when one of them can make decisions that the other cannot. However, I'm not sure if you really believe that. If you do believe that, then our disagreement is much more basic than gender equality (in that case our disagreement is over the meaning of equality). So in an attempt to get to the root of our disagreement, I will ask you one more time. Do you feel like you don't have equality with your mailman because he has more power over your mail than you do?

Though this shows your hypocrisy. In evolution you want obsered evidence, you have it right here but you reject it because it does not match your perception. It does not match what makes sense to you, an argument you used against evolution (that making sense doesn't speak to its validity).

I want observed evidence with evolution because evolution claims to be a scientific theory. The catholic church does not claim that their stance on women is a scientific one. I would have no problem if evolutionists claimed that evolution is "just a theory" and not necessarily a scientific one. It may even be a true and valid theory, but it isn't a scientific one. You can't just go calling things scientific theories just because you happen to like a particular theory and you also happen to like science.

The problem is that some people refuse to accept anything nonscientific as valid. So they try to sneak nonscientific theories under the name of science in an attempt to achieve a more complete worldview. However, you can't do that just like you can't call gravity a mathematical theorem because it is not a mathematical theorem. There is a reason why we separate science from math from religion from politics from philosophy, etc. It isn't because all nonscientific things are false. It is because each category of thought has particular properties that are useful for certain situations. Calling evolution science is like putting waffles in the gas tank of your car. As great as waffles are, you just can't do that.

As it stands, men in church hierarchy represents a small minority, yet men still hold all the power. No group can be equal if they don't have say over their own destiny, if their opinions are not taken into account. That is what women have in the church. "well, only 2% of men are in positions of power in the church, so that means 98% of men and 100% of women are unequal, meaning there's only a 2% difference in equality", serious that's as ridiculous as what you are arguing. You cannot have a field 100% controlled by a particular group and say all other groups are treated equally in that field. Imagine if only white europeans were allowed in the church hierarchy, no one would suggest that other ethnic groups were treated as equal. When one group is denied the right to hold positions of power that the other group does, it is not treated as equal. That is the definition of inequality, it doesn't get much simpler than that.

But it isn't controlled by a group. It is controlled by a handful of particular people. You are getting all wrapped up in the symbolism of how you could categorize the people in charge. However, realistically speaking, neither group has a say over their own destiny.

Your whole problem is that you don't like the symbolism of the situation. However, symbolism is all in your head. Practically speaking, men and women are equal in catholicism.

Also, since the symbolism is so subjective, we could look at other symbols and come to entirely different conclusions. So your argument has more to do with which symbols you consider important (if any) than actual equality.

And besides, there are positions of more power than priest, all of which are controlled by men.

I don't think that control means equality. I have no problem with the fact that my mailman makes all the decisions regarding my mail. :)

Though it really said something when you suggested that mary is the most important figure in catholicism, ignoring jesus (who, in any religious debate, is never less than half human).

Catholicism does not teach that one should aspire to be like Jesus in every way. As you said, Jesus is only considered half human. So people are taught to follow his example in certain contexts, but they are never taught that they could reach the same level as him. Mary is the most important figure that people are taught, "look, you could be like her."

[camoor]

Buddha himself said this:

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

That line of thinking, again, hasn't always existed. But there is no necessity to convert, there is no one to save. If you had simpled changed the belief behind that quote, to that there was an essential need for large numbers of people to follow his teachings, then a history of buddhism as generally free of war would not exist.

People can be converted peacefully as well.

I have seen buddhists in the mall before (just as christians have come to my door), answering questions and offering more information. There is an aspect of Buddhism that seeks to help all of humanity reach enlightenment.

The thing about Buddhism is that it is hard to twist the philosophy to justify taking someone's life if they don't convert. Other religions lend themselves more easily to fundamentalists, zealots, and the evil men that control these misguided followers to commit atrocities in the name of the religions' gods and human god-figures.

[alonzomourning23]

People can be converted peacefully as well.

I have seen buddhists in the mall before (just as christians have come to my door), answering questions and offering more information. There is an aspect of Buddhism that seeks to help all of humanity reach enlightenment.

The thing about Buddhism is that it is hard to twist the philosophy to justify taking someone's life if they don't convert. Other religions lend themselves more easily to fundamentalists, zealots, and the evil men that control these misguided followers to commit atrocities in the name of the religions' gods and human god-figures.

While I agree it's there's more to it (particularly the ability to take religious words in a violent context), but the primary motivation, I feel, in violence and religion is the need to convert, or at least expand territory (jewish extremists). The buddhists in the mall, in their view, are trying to make you more at peace in your life. If you don't agree with them then fine, nothing will come of it. That's not true for other religions, such as what is described in the bible. They could be the only buddhists in the world and never spread their teachings, god isn't going to punish the nonbelievers, they're not going to be penalized for not spreading the "word of god", the society is not going to be punished for being immoral, nothing will come of it.

On a side note, most religions are much more "in your face" than buddhism. One of my favorite places to eat (and it's really cheap too) is the greater boston buddhist cultural center in cambridge, it's all vegetarian and wicked cheap. They have this great "fresh fruit tea", and sticky rice with mushrooms. It's kinda small, and all that's there is a small restaurant, gift shop and meditation room. It's all very passive, what you take from there entirely depends on what you want, no one tries to talk to you about buddhism or anything unless you start the conversation. There aren't any posters about "how to convert a heathen", or "do you know buddha?" etc.