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]

[quote name='zionoverfire']Haven't we had enough pope threads by now?[/QUOTE]

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.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']
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.[/QUOTE]

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]

[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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]

[quote name='camoor']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.
[/QUOTE]

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]

[quote name='chunk']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).[/QUOTE]


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]

[quote name='camoor']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...)[/QUOTE]

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]

[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']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.[/QUOTE]

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]

[quote name='chunk']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.[/QUOTE]


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]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Also, scientific studies have shown that the vast majority of differences between men and women are socially constructed, and not biological.[/quote]

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?

[quote name='alonzomourning23']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.
[/quote]

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.)

[quote name='alonzomourning23']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".[/quote]

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.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']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.[/QUOTE]

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]

[quote name='chunk']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?[/quote]

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]

[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']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.[/QUOTE]


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?

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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]

[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

: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!

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='zionoverfire']: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![/QUOTE]

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]

[quote name='camoor']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.

[/QUOTE]

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

[quote name='camoor']
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.
[/QUOTE]

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]

[quote name='zionoverfire']: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![/QUOTE]


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

 

[zionoverfire]

[quote name='dmpolska']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[/QUOTE]

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

 

[dmpolska]

[quote name='camoor']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.[/QUOTE]


"If I only had a brain."

 

[zionoverfire]

[quote name='dmpolska']Stfu, I wasn't talking to you--please. I have enough trouble trying to educate one atheist, you can just wait in line.[/QUOTE]

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]

[quote name='zionoverfire'] Well congrats I do believe you've now replaced chunk as head zealot.[/QUOTE]


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.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='dmpolska']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[/QUOTE]

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"



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]

[quote name='dmpolska']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.[/QUOTE]

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

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

 

[dmpolska]

[quote name='zionoverfire'] 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.[/QUOTE]

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]

[quote name='dmpolska']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.[/QUOTE]

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

 

[zionoverfire]

[quote name='dmpolska']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 [/QUOTE]
, oh and I fixed it for you, it makes a lot more sense now.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='dmpolska']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 [/QUOTE]

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

 

[dmpolska]

[quote name='camoor']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"



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.[/QUOTE]


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]

[quote name='zionoverfire'], oh and I fixed it for you, it makes a lot more sense now.[/QUOTE]

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

 

[dmpolska]

[quote name='camoor']Interesting, I think the same thing about many Bush supporters.[/QUOTE]

What a coincidence.

 

[zionoverfire]

[quote name='dmpolska']Welcome to 1st grade. Let's change all the words around to try to be funny.[/QUOTE]

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]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']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).[/quote]

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.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']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.
[/QUOTE]

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]

[quote name='camoor']

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.[/QUOTE]

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]

[quote name='dmpolska']Stfu, I wasn't talking to you--please. I have enough trouble trying to educate one atheist, you can just wait in line.[/QUOTE]

oghhhhh! Another believer. So rare these days.

 

[chunk]

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'] but if you can't see that basically all organized have some bad aspects then you have a very narrow outlook towards the world.[/QUOTE]

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

 

[zionoverfire]

[quote name='chunk']All organized? I would say that pretty much anything involving people has bad aspects to it.[/QUOTE]

But religion is typically much more resistant to change.

 

[Duo_Maxwell]

[quote name='chunk']All organized? I would say that pretty much anything involving people has bad aspects to it.[/QUOTE]


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.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']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.[/QUOTE]

"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]

[quote name='chunk']
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.[/quote]

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; Fagot, 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 (Fagot & 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]

[quote name='camoor']"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.[/QUOTE]

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

[quote name='dmpolska']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?[/QUOTE]

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 .

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]

[quote name='alonzomourning23'] 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. [/QUOTE]

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).