Catholic Church vs gay marriage.
Martha H Adams
Catholic Church Says No to Gay Marriage.
They'd have better standing, in my book; or at least a little respect,
if they had ever said No to Pedophilia.
Cheers -- Martha Adams
Karl Johanson
news:bg777b$8ht$1...@pcls4.std.com...
I wonder how many people who call themselves Catholics, listen to what the
Church says. I expect at least some of the hundreds of millions of Catholics
still don't think evolution happens and/or are against nuclear energy.
Karl Johanson
Wilson Heydt
According to the report I read, it's a bit more interesting than
that. The story in _The (SF) Chronicle_ indicated that the Vatican
expects Catholic office-holders to toe the line oon the issue. It
also quoted an un-named priest saying that 'some fool of a bishop
asked Rome' about the issue. (And, yes, the article did use 'fool'
in there.)
--
Hal Heydt
Albany, CA
My dime, my opinions.
Priscilla Ballou
wrote:
Looks like the schedule for approval of gay marriages in the US just
moved up a bit.
Priscilla
--
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum,
minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
(thanks be to topfive.com)
Elias Redd
There's a nice dishonest rhetorical trick: Shut up your enemy when he
speaks the truth by calling him a hypocrite or tell him to take care
of some problem that's unrelated to what he's talking about.
Andrew Plotkin
> m...@TheWorld.com (Martha H Adams) wrote in message news:<bg777b$8ht$1...@pcls4.std.com>...
> > I noticed a big headline in today's Boston Herald, to effect that
> > Catholic Church Says No to Gay Marriage.
> >
> > They'd have better standing, in my book; or at least a little respect,
> > if they had ever said No to Pedophilia.
>
> speaks the truth by calling him a hypocrite or tell him to take care
> of some problem that's unrelated to what he's talking about.
Oh, grow up. "No to gay marriage" isn't a truth, it's a political
stance. When someone exhorts a political stance at me, it's entirely
sensible for me to look at everything else they say and do. You know,
to figure out whether they're worth listening to in the first place.
Now, labelling Martha's post an example of "shut up your enemy" is
dishonest, in an impressive number of different ways.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Mishalak
Eh, while the reports made me want to go by and moon the cathedral or
something equally disrespectful, I think bringing up the pedophilia
scandal in connection with this is a bit of a cheap shot. Not that they
don't deserve some cheap shots for what they did to thousands of
children for the sake of their image. (And may luck save us all from
what we deserve.)
However I think connecting up the two things does not weaken the
Church's position on this matter. A more substantive attack would
probably be more effective. Say, pointing out the silliness of the
Vatican's recent highhanded demands to governments on Christian
herritage being included in the European Constitution and now this.
Perhaps pointing out that this sounds more like something that the
Vatican could have expected to get back when the Papal States still
existed. They're living in a fantasy land, Catholics only pay attention
to the Pope when it suits them, and the rest of us don't give a fig for
what he thinks unless it is useful to one of our goals. What the
Vatican wants is irrelevant since marriage by the state is not a
Catholic sacrament; it's a secular property deal.
Mishalak
Martha H Adams
Catholic Church that I might have brought into my statement. But that
would have made my statement much longer, which I think is not
necessarily helpful for communication. I commented on gay marriage
and Catholic pedophilia for at least three reasons:
That both are much in the news recently;
That both concern large numbers of people;
That both rely upon Catholic moral dictums, parts of complex but
rarely if ever reality-tested theological construction.
A part of my thinking on these topics is, who gets hurt? How gay
marriage hurts *anybody* is not clear to me. And something of the
sort could helpfully stabilize many lives. I think the social need
for it is clear to see. Not all of us are made according to the
Proper Canonical Rules that seem to be all the Church (and many
others) respond to.
But this pedophilia thing: Martha's Rule says, if you see it in the
news, it's one or two orders of magnitude bigger than reported. But
let's just pass that and accept the reported estimate of 1,000 or more
children victimized. That's the tip of another iceberg, a very old
one, for not only are the victims hurt, their families and friends and
(if they turn that way) *their* victims are hurt.
I think that further, and perhaps not so obviously, it goes farther
than that. Coming from out of state into the Boston area, I gradually
got a feeling there was something in the very air, and it originated
from the Catholic Church. In fact, I was thinking in 1998 about a
book on the topic, "The Cross We Bear," about the Church; and I had
collected some materials for it.
So I conclude the hurt done by (apparently knowingly permitted)
Catholic pedophilia is a severe trauma to society, and it reaches all
of us. For instance, what sort of mind thinks, the abused children
are guilty because they seduced the priests? What other diseased minds
can pick up such an idea and find justification in it?
So here are these two things that seem to me to go together in time
and that I think grow out of a common institution and more. A cheap
shot is something trivial against an easy victim. I don't think
anyone even knows yet how big this Catholic pedophilia thing is; but
some good guesses may get published as soon as a decade from now.
And the Church is not an easy victim: so far, the only punishment they
are getting is smaller cash collections and a little political
discomfort. And they have friends in Big Money. So they still swing
major weight locally if not much farther out: just ask Reilly.
The whole thing of religious ideology and Washington -- faith-based
medical practice, for instance -- is a thing I'll pass by, because
it's too far off my immediate topic of how does the Catholic Church
have *any* authority concerning topics of gay marriage and pedophilia.
Cheers but kind of grumpy -- Martha Adams
Bernard Peek
<m...@TheWorld.com> writes
>Well, there are in fact a whole lot of pros and cons about the
>Catholic Church that I might have brought into my statement. But that
>would have made my statement much longer, which I think is not
>necessarily helpful for communication. I commented on gay marriage
>and Catholic pedophilia for at least three reasons:
>
>That both are much in the news recently;
>
>That both concern large numbers of people;
>
>That both rely upon Catholic moral dictums, parts of complex but
>rarely if ever reality-tested theological construction.
>
>A part of my thinking on these topics is, who gets hurt? How gay
>marriage hurts *anybody* is not clear to me.
Noted. But there are a lot of people who have put forward arguments that
gay marriage is harmful, and not all of those people are Catholics.
Saying that you don't understand the arguments doesn't inspire me with
any confidence in your assessment of the situation.
> And something of the
>sort could helpfully stabilize many lives. I think the social need
>for it is clear to see. Not all of us are made according to the
>Proper Canonical Rules that seem to be all the Church (and many
>others) respond to.
>
>But this pedophilia thing: Martha's Rule says, if you see it in the
>news, it's one or two orders of magnitude bigger than reported.
Stop reading newspapers and listening to the news.
In order to be considered newsworthy an event has to be rare. So your
rule of thumb will lead you to the wrong conclusions every time.
> But
>let's just pass that and accept the reported estimate of 1,000 or more
>children victimized. That's the tip of another iceberg, a very old
>one, for not only are the victims hurt, their families and friends and
>(if they turn that way) *their* victims are hurt.
If the number is as low as 1000 I'd be very much surprised. That would
make children safer with a Catholic priest than with a randomly selected
person. Pedophilia is much more common than you seem to think. There are
several million victims in the USA and only a small fraction of them
have any connection with the Catholic (or any other) church.
>
>
>I think that further, and perhaps not so obviously, it goes farther
>than that. Coming from out of state into the Boston area, I gradually
>got a feeling there was something in the very air, and it originated
>from the Catholic Church. In fact, I was thinking in 1998 about a
>book on the topic, "The Cross We Bear," about the Church; and I had
>collected some materials for it.
>
>So I conclude the hurt done by (apparently knowingly permitted)
>Catholic pedophilia is a severe trauma to society, and it reaches all
>of us. For instance, what sort of mind thinks, the abused children
>are guilty because they seduced the priests? What other diseased minds
>can pick up such an idea and find justification in it?
Catholic pedophilia can be almost nonexistent and still be a severe
trauma to society. The trauma is a product of the perceived risk.
Perceived risk is generally inversely proportional to real risks because
things that have high real risks aren't usually newsworthy.
Time for me to plug (yet again, sorry folks) the wonderful book _Living
With Risk_ published by the British Medical Association and John Wiley
in 1989.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
In search of cognoscenti
Theodore Jay Miller
> Catholic Church Says No to Gay Marriage.
Headline that might be misunderstood:
"Pope Says No to Gay Marriage"
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>In message <bg8ehs$jfe$1...@pcls4.std.com>, Martha H Adams
><m...@TheWorld.com> writes
>
>>marriage hurts *anybody* is not clear to me.
>
>Noted. But there are a lot of people who have put forward arguments that
>gay marriage is harmful, and not all of those people are Catholics.
>Saying that you don't understand the arguments doesn't inspire me with
>any confidence in your assessment of the situation.
>
I heard a bunch of argument -- maybe not the whole ideological spectrum, but a
lot of it - against gay marriage, and the main strands were "God's against it"
and therefore "it's a mockery of a real marriage" and "it dilutes the meaning
of my two-person heterosexual marriage if gay people marry" and, on the gay
male side "marriage is for lesbians; real gay men don't need that stuff" and
"why try to be like straights?"
I think I understood those arguments, but I don't agree with them. (Since
legalizing gay marriage wouldn't force gay men to marry, I don't really need
to dispose of those arguments. The others fall apart if you're talking civil
unions rather than sacraments.)
Are there other strains of argument I haven't heard (other than "the state
shouldn't be involved in marriages at all so extending the state's power to
marry people is bad" and "marriage should be a completely private matter" and
"marriage is bad" and "if they pass a law to legalize gay marriage it'll be a
law and laws are bad", which last is the LP position against any initiative on
the California ballot)?
>
>> And something of the
>>sort could helpfully stabilize many lives. I think the social need
>>for it is clear to see. Not all of us are made according to the
>>Proper Canonical Rules that seem to be all the Church (and many
>>others) respond to.
>>
>>But this pedophilia thing: Martha's Rule says, if you see it in the
>>news, it's one or two orders of magnitude bigger than reported.
>
>Stop reading newspapers and listening to the news.
>
>In order to be considered newsworthy an event has to be rare. So your
>rule of thumb will lead you to the wrong conclusions every time.
But I keep seeing headlines that say "Microsoft admits massive security flaw",
and that's just not a rare event.
Neither was seeing Ari Fleischer lying in a press conference. And yet that
stuff kept making the news.
So I think you're oversimplifying.
>
[snippage]
>Catholic pedophilia can be almost nonexistent and still be a severe
>trauma to society. The trauma is a product of the perceived risk.
>Perceived risk is generally inversely proportional to real risks because
>things that have high real risks aren't usually newsworthy.
First, I wish both you and Martha had referred to child molestation or
child rape rather than "pedophilia", since pedophilia is a thought crime
and what we're discussing are acts.
Second, the trauma for everyone of child molestation by a priest is
exacerbated by both the position of the perpetrator -- the priest is
supposed to be above that sort of thing, the priest is supposed to
counsel chastity -- and by the hierarchical reaction to finding out that
priests have done it. The Church has, in the past, closed ranks around
the offender, moved him to other parishes where he could do it again, etc.
That's so far from what they _ought_ to do as to call seriously into
question their moral authority on any issue.
But my point is that the trauma isn't solely, or even primarily, a product
of the perceived risk, it's a product of the degree of betrayal felt when
the appointed shepherd is buggering the lambs and when the shepherd's boss
protects the shepherd rather than the flock, including paying hush money
for the shepherd.
>
>Time for me to plug (yet again, sorry folks) the wonderful book _Living
>With Risk_ published by the British Medical Association and John Wiley
>in 1989.
I concede that people misunderestimate risk all the time, but that's not
remotely all of what's going on here.
-- Alan
--
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
Wilson Heydt
>If the number is as low as 1000 I'd be very much surprised. That would
>make children safer with a Catholic priest than with a randomly selected
>person. Pedophilia is much more common than you seem to think. There are
>several million victims in the USA and only a small fraction of them
>have any connection with the Catholic (or any other) church.
There was a recent estimate by the DA (or equivalent) in Boston that
there were 'at least 1000' victims in the Boston archdiocese.
Wilson Heydt
Paul Ciszek <pci...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>In article <vze23t8n-9E5F60...@news.verizon.net>,
>Priscilla Ballou <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>In article <HItEI...@kithrup.com>, whh...@kithrup.com (Wilson Heydt)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> In article <bg777b$8ht$1...@pcls4.std.com>,
>>> Martha H Adams <m...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>> >I noticed a big headline in today's Boston Herald, to effect that
>>> >Catholic Church Says No to Gay Marriage.
>>> >
>>> >They'd have better standing, in my book; or at least a little respect,
>>> >if they had ever said No to Pedophilia.
>>>
>>> According to the report I read, it's a bit more interesting than
>>> that. The story in _The (SF) Chronicle_ indicated that the Vatican
>>> expects Catholic office-holders to toe the line oon the issue. It
>>> also quoted an un-named priest saying that 'some fool of a bishop
>>> asked Rome' about the issue. (And, yes, the article did use 'fool'
>>> in there.)
>>
>>Looks like the schedule for approval of gay marriages in the US just
>>moved up a bit.
>
>The people who currently oppose gay marriage aren't going to oppose it
>any less, no matter how much some of them hate Catholics.
>
>Meanwhile, I don't see how this gives any sort of "weapon" to those
>fighting for gay marriage. The Catholic Church's stance on this issue
>was never in doubt. How will this announcement change anything?
I can think of one way that it might affect the debate... The
Vatican action, if adhered to by officeholders makes them agents of
a foreign power and subject ot registration as such. This, plsu the
general US wish to keep state and church separate will tend to
reduce the number of Catholic officeholders. Go back and examine
what was said and debated during the 1960 election about whether or
not JFK would adhere to Vatican policy.
Wilson Heydt
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr <win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
>Are there other strains of argument I haven't heard (other than "the state
>shouldn't be involved in marriages at all so extending the state's power to
>marry people is bad" and "marriage should be a completely private matter" and
>"marriage is bad" and "if they pass a law to legalize gay marriage it'll be a
>law and laws are bad", which last is the LP position against any initiative on
>the California ballot)?
Much too late to say that the sate shouldn't be involved. In
California, and the rest of the US so far as I know, marriage is
actually a civil contract. It's teh signatures on the documents
filed with the county that mean you're married for legal purposes.
Any religious cermonies are irrelevant to the issue.
As for the recognition of marraiges from other states, I think the
'full faith and credit' clause of the Constitution can be invoked to
get rid of that nonsense. The states are bound to honor the
official acts of other states. The international situation will get
into the fact that treaties rank higher than state laws (and Acts of
Congress too, IIRC).
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
Adams) wrote:
snip
>But this pedophilia thing: Martha's Rule says, if you see it in the
>news, it's one or two orders of magnitude bigger than reported. But
>let's just pass that and accept the reported estimate of 1,000 or more
>children victimized. That's the tip of another iceberg, a very old
>one, for not only are the victims hurt, their families and friends and
>(if they turn that way) *their* victims are hurt.
I grumpily must also point out that the pedophilia issue is hardly
limited to Catholic priests. Similar scandals have arisen in other
denominations and I suspect a careful examination of cases will show
that it's not just a Catholic phenomenon (religious leaders using
their power for pedophilia).
The problem lies in the size of the organization and the reality that
some very large dioceses spent too much time ignoring the issue.
But anyone who thinks this problem has sprung upon us without warning
hasn't spent enough time reading Andrew Greeley's thrillers. Greeley
had priestly pedophilia as a large aspect of several of his 90s-era
bestsellers.
jrw
Bernard Peek
SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr <win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes
>In article <cLlYbK$er8J$Ew...@shrdlu.com>, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> writes:
>>In message <bg8ehs$jfe$1...@pcls4.std.com>, Martha H Adams
>><m...@TheWorld.com> writes
>>
>>>A part of my thinking on these topics is, who gets hurt? How gay
>>>marriage hurts *anybody* is not clear to me.
>>
>>Noted. But there are a lot of people who have put forward arguments that
>>gay marriage is harmful, and not all of those people are Catholics.
>>Saying that you don't understand the arguments doesn't inspire me with
>>any confidence in your assessment of the situation.
>>
>
>I heard a bunch of argument -- maybe not the whole ideological spectrum, but a
>lot of it - against gay marriage, and the main strands were "God's against it"
>and therefore "it's a mockery of a real marriage" and "it dilutes the meaning
>of my two-person heterosexual marriage if gay people marry" and, on the gay
>male side "marriage is for lesbians; real gay men don't need that stuff" and
>"why try to be like straights?"
The main argument against it is that a lot of people find the idea
offensive. The precise reasons why they find it offensive may vary. This
isn't an argument based on closely reasoned logic, but many other
arguments over social policy aren't any more rational.
[...]
>>
>>> And something of the
>>>sort could helpfully stabilize many lives. I think the social need
>>>for it is clear to see. Not all of us are made according to the
>>>Proper Canonical Rules that seem to be all the Church (and many
>>>others) respond to.
>>>
>>>But this pedophilia thing: Martha's Rule says, if you see it in the
>>>news, it's one or two orders of magnitude bigger than reported.
>>
>>Stop reading newspapers and listening to the news.
>>
>>In order to be considered newsworthy an event has to be rare. So your
>>rule of thumb will lead you to the wrong conclusions every time.
>
>But I keep seeing headlines that say "Microsoft admits massive security flaw",
>and that's just not a rare event.
That depends on what you mean by rare. I've been tracking security
announcements on Windows and Linux. Right now there are many more
security announcements about Linux, but they get very little press
coverage.
>
>Neither was seeing Ari Fleischer lying in a press conference. And yet that
>stuff kept making the news.
>
>So I think you're oversimplifying.
>>
>
>[snippage]
>
>>Catholic pedophilia can be almost nonexistent and still be a severe
>>trauma to society. The trauma is a product of the perceived risk.
>>Perceived risk is generally inversely proportional to real risks because
>>things that have high real risks aren't usually newsworthy.
>
>First, I wish both you and Martha had referred to child molestation or
>child rape rather than "pedophilia", since pedophilia is a thought crime
>and what we're discussing are acts.
True.
>
>Second, the trauma for everyone of child molestation by a priest is
>exacerbated by both the position of the perpetrator -- the priest is
>supposed to be above that sort of thing, the priest is supposed to
>counsel chastity -- and by the hierarchical reaction to finding out that
>priests have done it. The Church has, in the past, closed ranks around
>the offender, moved him to other parishes where he could do it again, etc.
>That's so far from what they _ought_ to do as to call seriously into
>question their moral authority on any issue.
Yes, that's my point. The trauma isn't caused by the number of incidents
or by their severity. It's a product of our expectations. Behaviour that
doesn't match our expectations is newsworthy. We don't expect men to
bite dogs, and that's because men don't usually bite dogs.
Closing ranks is the normal way of dealing with molestation, it's how
most families deal with it. Almost all child molestation takes place
within the family. 80% of reported incidents are by family members. The
rest of the cases are unreported.
We expect churches to do something different. In particular we expect
the Catholic church, which has a strong central management, to handle
things differently from smaller churches. A small-town church hushing up
an abuse case wouldn't get into the national press.
>
>But my point is that the trauma isn't solely, or even primarily, a product
>of the perceived risk, it's a product of the degree of betrayal felt when
>the appointed shepherd is buggering the lambs and when the shepherd's boss
>protects the shepherd rather than the flock, including paying hush money
>for the shepherd.
You've got it the wrong way round. The sense of betrayal is because of
the expectation of a low actual risk.
>
>>
>>Time for me to plug (yet again, sorry folks) the wonderful book _Living
>>With Risk_ published by the British Medical Association and John Wiley
>>in 1989.
>
>I concede that people misunderestimate risk all the time, but that's not
>remotely all of what's going on here.
It's not the only issue, but it's the only reason why the issue is
newsworthy enough to be discussed here.
Priscilla H Ballou
>>wrote:
>>
>>> In article <bg777b$8ht$1...@pcls4.std.com>,
>>> Martha H Adams <m...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>> >I noticed a big headline in today's Boston Herald, to effect that
>>> >Catholic Church Says No to Gay Marriage.
>>> >
>>> >They'd have better standing, in my book; or at least a little respect,
>>> >if they had ever said No to Pedophilia.
>>>
>>> According to the report I read, it's a bit more interesting than
>>> that. The story in _The (SF) Chronicle_ indicated that the Vatican
>>> expects Catholic office-holders to toe the line oon the issue. It
>>> also quoted an un-named priest saying that 'some fool of a bishop
>>> asked Rome' about the issue. (And, yes, the article did use 'fool'
>>> in there.)
>>
>>Looks like the schedule for approval of gay marriages in the US just
>>moved up a bit.
>???
>The people who currently oppose gay marriage aren't going to oppose it
>any less, no matter how much some of them hate Catholics.
>Meanwhile, I don't see how this gives any sort of "weapon" to those
>fighting for gay marriage. The Catholic Church's stance on this issue
>was never in doubt. How will this announcement change anything?
Back when I was working in the Women's Ordination Conference, we noticed a
curious phenomenon. Every time the RC hierarchy spoke out against the
ordination of women, our side rose in the polls.
Priscilla
James Angove
@news.aracnet.com:
> The problem lies in the size of the organization and the reality that
> some very large dioceses spent too much time ignoring the issue.
>
"Ignoring" is not what the Archdiosese of Boston did. If all they had done
was ignore the problem, it would be merely contemptable. Rather, they
actively aided in child molestation and in permiting the molesters to
escape justice, which is actively malevolent.
--
James Angove
This is a usenet post. It is likely you will be eaten by a grue.
Kris Hasson-Jones
submitted the following for your consideration:
>Almost all child molestation takes place
>within the family. 80% of reported incidents are by family members. The
>rest of the cases are unreported.
Please clarify: are you making any assertion about what percentage of
molestation by family members goes unreported?
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
Karl Johanson
news:bg9806$bs0
> Back when I was working in the Women's Ordination Conference, we noticed a
> curious phenomenon. Every time the RC hierarchy spoke out against the
> ordination of women, our side rose in the polls.
I'm curious. Why try to ordain women into a clearly misogynist group. Why
not form a different non-sexist group instead?
Karl Johanson
Will Linden
--
Will Linden wli...@panix.com
http://www.ecben.net/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>In message <00A23A15...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, Alan Winston -
>SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr <win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes
>>In article <cLlYbK$er8J$Ew...@shrdlu.com>, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> writes:
>>>In message <bg8ehs$jfe$1...@pcls4.std.com>, Martha H Adams
>>><m...@TheWorld.com> writes
>>>
>>>>A part of my thinking on these topics is, who gets hurt? How gay
>>>>marriage hurts *anybody* is not clear to me.
>>>
>>>Noted. But there are a lot of people who have put forward arguments that
>>>gay marriage is harmful, and not all of those people are Catholics.
>>>Saying that you don't understand the arguments doesn't inspire me with
>>>any confidence in your assessment of the situation.
>>>
>>
>>I heard a bunch of argument -- maybe not the whole ideological spectrum, but a
>>lot of it - against gay marriage, and the main strands were "God's against it"
>>and therefore "it's a mockery of a real marriage" and "it dilutes the meaning
>>of my two-person heterosexual marriage if gay people marry" and, on the gay
>>male side "marriage is for lesbians; real gay men don't need that stuff" and
>>"why try to be like straights?"
>
>The main argument against it is that a lot of people find the idea
>offensive. The precise reasons why they find it offensive may vary. This
>isn't an argument based on closely reasoned logic, but many other
>arguments over social policy aren't any more rational.
>
Whether Martha's assessment makes any sense then depends on whether you think
"find the idea offensive" is equivalent to "is hurt by", which I don't.
>>
>>But I keep seeing headlines that say "Microsoft admits massive security flaw",
>>and that's just not a rare event.
>
>That depends on what you mean by rare. I've been tracking security
>announcements on Windows and Linux. Right now there are many more
>security announcements about Linux, but they get very little press
>coverage.
>
It's somewhat unfair to say "Linux" vs. "Windows", since there are a lot
more variants of Linux.
But it still depends what you mean by rare. I'm a VMS system manager, and
there just aren't a lot of security-flaw announcements about VMS? There have
been a few in the last ten years, but there are a lot more about Windows.
Nonetheless, VMS security announcements wouldn't make big headlines, despite
their rarity. It's too nichey.
But things do appear in the newspaper every day that are just not surprising,
which is why I think your statement that things have to be rare to be
newsworthy is an oversimplification.
>
>>
>>Second, the trauma for everyone of child molestation by a priest is
>>exacerbated by both the position of the perpetrator -- the priest is
>>supposed to be above that sort of thing, the priest is supposed to
>>counsel chastity -- and by the hierarchical reaction to finding out that
>>priests have done it. The Church has, in the past, closed ranks around
>>the offender, moved him to other parishes where he could do it again, etc.
>>That's so far from what they _ought_ to do as to call seriously into
>>question their moral authority on any issue.
>
>Yes, that's my point. The trauma isn't caused by the number of incidents
>or by their severity. It's a product of our expectations. Behaviour that
>doesn't match our expectations is newsworthy. We don't expect men to
>bite dogs, and that's because men don't usually bite dogs.
Okay, I agree that it's a product of our expectations, but it's more of our
expectation about how the _organization_ will behave post-molestation, rather
than necessarily as the expectation of risk of molestation.
>
>Closing ranks is the normal way of dealing with molestation, it's how
>most families deal with it. Almost all child molestation takes place
>within the family. 80% of reported incidents are by family members. The
>rest of the cases are unreported.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the last sentence in this paragraph.
(I'm not arguing with it; I just don't get it.) I'll accept that almost all
child molestation takes place within the family or home ("or home" so that we
also include Mom's boyfriend). Are you suggesting that with the various
disincentives to reporting, the percentage of unreported cases of molestation
which involve family members will be even higher than the percentage of
reported cases? Interesting but hard to prove, but in any case not necessary
to your argument.
>
>We expect churches to do something different. In particular we expect
>the Catholic church, which has a strong central management, to handle
>things differently from smaller churches. A small-town church hushing up
>an abuse case wouldn't get into the national press.
Agreed.
>
>>
>>But my point is that the trauma isn't solely, or even primarily, a product
>>of the perceived risk, it's a product of the degree of betrayal felt when
>>the appointed shepherd is buggering the lambs and when the shepherd's boss
>>protects the shepherd rather than the flock, including paying hush money
>>for the shepherd.
>
>You've got it the wrong way round. The sense of betrayal is because of
>the expectation of a low actual risk.
I think the deep-seated anger about this isn't that the kids got molested by
the priest (which is what they thought they had a low risk of) but that it was
covered up by the Church, which then endeavors to continue to exert moral
authority over the flock.
Maybe we're arguing about the same thing. Maybe you think the risk you're
talking about is the risk of the Church covering things up, and what I'm taking
exception to is that it's just the risk of the molestation occurring, and we
don't have an argument.
e...@panix.com
> I am shocked, SHOCKED to learn that the Pope is Catholic.
Then you do _not_ want to know what a bear does in the woods.
--
Ed Dravecky III - Addison, Texas
"With respect, sir, you know nothing of fish." Derek the Fishmonger
Bernard Peek
Hasson-Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> writes
Well I know a handful of women who were assaulted by members of their
family, in some cases over a period of several years. None of the cases
I know of were ever reported. So my wet-finger-in-the-air guess is that
somewhere between 95 and 99% of all assaults are by family members and
the majority of those cases are unreported.
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<wli...@panix.com> wrote:
>I am shocked, SHOCKED to learn that the Pope is Catholic.
At least one friend of mine argues that he can't be Pope because he's
not Italian.
She's at least half-serious about it.
jrw
Karl Johanson
> Will Linden <wli...@panix.com> wrote:
> > I am shocked, SHOCKED to learn that the Pope is Catholic.
>
> Then you do _not_ want to know what a bear does in the woods.
While doing night medic exercises in the woods near Tofino, one of our guys
wander off to find a bush to pee on. There was no moon that night, so it was
quite dark. Turns out the bush he chose to pee on was a black bear, who
wasn't overly happy about being peed on.
Karl Johanson
Cally Soukup
I'm just guessing here, but perhaps it's becuase they believe that only
the misogynist group has the power to ordain women (at least until
women get into the group and themselves get that power).
--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup sou...@pobox.com
Kris Hasson-Jones
submitted the following for your consideration:
>In message <2bcgivkjtiu0j0p28...@4ax.com>, Kris
>Hasson-Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> writes
>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 20:39:02 +0100, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com>
>>submitted the following for your consideration:
>>
>>>Almost all child molestation takes place
>>>within the family. 80% of reported incidents are by family members. The
>>>rest of the cases are unreported.
>>
>>Please clarify: are you making any assertion about what percentage of
>>molestation by family members goes unreported?
>
>Well I know a handful of women who were assaulted by members of their
>family, in some cases over a period of several years. None of the cases
>I know of were ever reported. So my wet-finger-in-the-air guess is that
>somewhere between 95 and 99% of all assaults are by family members and
>the majority of those cases are unreported.
Okay, so you are saying that the 80% of reported incidents are of all
reported incidents of child molestation, which would leave 20% of
reported incidents of child molestation perpetrated by
non-family-members? But at the same time, most family-member
incidents are not reported?
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
Bernard Peek
>>The main argument against it is that a lot of people find the idea
>>offensive. The precise reasons why they find it offensive may vary. This
>>isn't an argument based on closely reasoned logic, but many other
>>arguments over social policy aren't any more rational.
>>
>
>Whether Martha's assessment makes any sense then depends on whether you think
>"find the idea offensive" is equivalent to "is hurt by", which I don't.
OK. How about changing it to "many people believe they have been hurt".
>
>>>
>>>But I keep seeing headlines that say "Microsoft admits massive
>>>security flaw",
>>>and that's just not a rare event.
>>
>>That depends on what you mean by rare. I've been tracking security
>>announcements on Windows and Linux. Right now there are many more
>>security announcements about Linux, but they get very little press
>>coverage.
>>
>
>It's somewhat unfair to say "Linux" vs. "Windows", since there are a lot
>more variants of Linux.
>
>But it still depends what you mean by rare. I'm a VMS system manager, and
>there just aren't a lot of security-flaw announcements about VMS? There have
>been a few in the last ten years, but there are a lot more about Windows.
>Nonetheless, VMS security announcements wouldn't make big headlines, despite
>their rarity. It's too nichey.
That's true. The point of a news article is to attract readers to the
advertising. There aren't enough people who have an interest in VMS. It
might make the news if there was a high profile VMS site, like an
air-traffic control system.
>
>But things do appear in the newspaper every day that are just not surprising,
>which is why I think your statement that things have to be rare to be
>newsworthy is an oversimplification.
There are lots of things in newspapers that aren't rare. The weather,
the sports results and the advertising. Those aren't rare, but they
aren't really news either.
What I'm suggesting is that if the real numbers were available I'm
pretty sure that they would prove that on average it's safer to leave a
child with a Catholic priest than with their father.
>>
>>We expect churches to do something different. In particular we expect
>>the Catholic church, which has a strong central management, to handle
>>things differently from smaller churches. A small-town church hushing up
>>an abuse case wouldn't get into the national press.
>
>Agreed.
>
>>
>>>
>>>But my point is that the trauma isn't solely, or even primarily, a product
>>>of the perceived risk, it's a product of the degree of betrayal felt when
>>>the appointed shepherd is buggering the lambs and when the shepherd's boss
>>>protects the shepherd rather than the flock, including paying hush money
>>>for the shepherd.
>>
>>You've got it the wrong way round. The sense of betrayal is because of
>>the expectation of a low actual risk.
>
>I think the deep-seated anger about this isn't that the kids got molested by
>the priest (which is what they thought they had a low risk of) but that it was
>covered up by the Church, which then endeavors to continue to exert moral
>authority over the flock.
That's possibly true. There is another factor though. (Yet another.) in
that the stories that hit the headlines aren't just child molestation.
They are almost always molestation of boys. Men molesting young girls
isn't newsworthy. It's not rare enough to reach the national news. It's
not possible to get stories about eeeeevil faggots into the national
press either, because they aren't PC. So instead they use Catholic
priest as a synonym for eeeeeeevil faggot.
>
>Maybe we're arguing about the same thing. Maybe you think the risk you're
>talking about is the risk of the Church covering things up, and what I'm taking
>exception to is that it's just the risk of the molestation occurring, and we
>don't have an argument.
No, I'm talking about the real risks.
Wilson Heydt
Would you be at all surprised to find out that he's Polish?
(And please don't top post.)
Karl Johanson
news:bg9irr$rha$3...@wheel2.two14.net...
> Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote in article
<4PWVa.564490$ro6.12...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>:
> > "Priscilla H Ballou" <p...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message
> > news:bg9806$bs0
>
> >> Back when I was working in the Women's Ordination Conference, we
noticed a
> >> curious phenomenon. Every time the RC hierarchy spoke out against the
> >> ordination of women, our side rose in the polls.
>
> > I'm curious. Why try to ordain women into a clearly misogynist group.
Why
> > not form a different non-sexist group instead?
>
> I'm just guessing here, but perhaps it's becuase they believe that only
> the misogynist group has the power to ordain women (at least until
> women get into the group and themselves get that power).
I explained poorly. Why not ditch the misogynist group & form a new
(non-sexist) group & ordain their own people?
David Dyer-Bennet
That seems a remarkably sensible solution; unfortunately, if
Catholicism is your religion of choice, that's not an option. You
give up the legitemacy of descent from the Apostles. If you don't
believe in / care about that, no problem, but then you probably
wouldn't be a Catholic in the first place.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd...@dd-b.net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
Rebecca Ore
> j...@aracnet.com (Joyce Reynolds-Ward) wrote in news:3f2815b7.895360
> @news.aracnet.com:
>
>
>> The problem lies in the size of the organization and the reality that
>> some very large dioceses spent too much time ignoring the issue.
>>
>
> "Ignoring" is not what the Archdiosese of Boston did. If all they had done
> was ignore the problem, it would be merely contemptable. Rather, they
> actively aided in child molestation and in permiting the molesters to
> escape justice, which is actively malevolent.
And Fernald School covered up the rapes of a severely retarded woman.
Bernard Law was scum.
In Roanoke, Virginia, we had a psychiatrist who abused teenaged boys.
He talked his way out of the first prosecution, blaming his victim.
Then his other victims came forward -- and he was nailed.
California had let him keep his MD if he moved.
Some societies do the right thing; some don't.
--
Rebecca Ore
http://mysite.verizon.net/rebecca.ore
Karl Johanson
news:m2d6fr1...@gw.dd-b.net...
> "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> writes:
> > I explained poorly. Why not ditch the misogynist group & form a new
> > (non-sexist) group & ordain their own people?
>
> That seems a remarkably sensible solution;
Thank you.
>unfortunately, if Catholicism is your religion of choice, that's not an
option.
If one thinks Catholisism is wrong (say because they won't ordane women),
then Catholisism isn't that person's religion of choice.
> You
> give up the legitemacy of descent from the Apostles. If you don't
> believe in / care about that, no problem, but then you probably
> wouldn't be a Catholic in the first place.
Form the New Catholic Church 2003 TM. No sexists allowed.
Pete McCutchen
Adams) wrote:
>But this pedophilia thing: Martha's Rule says, if you see it in the
>news, it's one or two orders of magnitude bigger than reported. But
>let's just pass that and accept the reported estimate of 1,000 or more
>children victimized.
"Martha's Rule" has to be wrong, because news reports often exaggerate
dangers hysterically, rather than underplaying them. Example: the
McMartin preschool sexual abuse scandal, which now appears to have
simply been made up, and then accepted for a long time by a credulous
media. Satanic Ritual abuse has been taken seriously in some media
reports (though not as many now), despite the fact that not a single
case of actual Satanic Ritual Abuse has ever been documented.
I don't doubt that some priests are pedophiles.* Nor do I doubt that
the church hierarchy protected them, for reasons of group loyalty.
Frankly, I think that some of the bishops who protected these guys
ought to be charged as accomplices, and it's actually not clear to me
that the Catholic Church in America doesn't qualify as a criminal
enterprise. Still, I don't know that media reports understate the
extent of abuse, and I don't think you know that, either.
*Some of the so-called "pedophiles" are simply homosexual men who had
relationships with underage but post-pubescent males. Somebody who
has sex with the sexually-mature seventeen-year-old may be guilty of
statutory rape, but that person is not a "pedophile."
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>> > > I'm curious. Why try to ordain women into a clearly misogynist group.
>> Why
>> > > not form a different non-sexist group instead?
>> >
>> > I'm just guessing here, but perhaps it's becuase they believe that only
>> > the misogynist group has the power to ordain women (at least until
>> > women get into the group and themselves get that power).
>>
>> I explained poorly. Why not ditch the misogynist group & form a new
>> (non-sexist) group & ordain their own people?
>
>That seems a remarkably sensible solution; unfortunately, if
>Catholicism is your religion of choice, that's not an option. You
>give up the legitemacy of descent from the Apostles. If you don't
>believe in / care about that, no problem, but then you probably
>wouldn't be a Catholic in the first place.
But if you *are* Catholic, and seriously so, how can you dispute the
Authority of the church? Interpreting the Will of God is the job of
the Pope, and his designated subordinates. If you genuinely believe
in Apostolic succession, then you ought to just shut and do what
you're told.
--
Pete McCutchen
Heather Jones
Apostolic succession? (If I've got the theology right, it's a
concept that you can't bootstrap priesthood.)
Heather
--
*****
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*****
Priscilla Ballou
Heather Jones <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
As I recall, the predominant response to questions like that was, "It's
my church, why should *I* be the one who has to leave?"
Priscilla
--
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum,
minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
(thanks be to topfive.com)
Mark Atwood
> > give up the legitemacy of descent from the Apostles. If you don't
> > believe in / care about that, no problem, but then you probably
> > wouldn't be a Catholic in the first place.
>
> Form the New Catholic Church 2003 TM. No sexists allowed.
The problem is that that doesn't give you automatic access to
all those nice cathedrals, contacts, and installed user based.
Takeovers always seem more attractive than going to the effort of
growing a replacement, even when there are no or low barriers to
entry, it seems. I consider it one of the human irrationalities.
As another example, instead of people screaming and frothing and
picketing at the BSA, why don't they get together and start the
"Inclusive Young People's Group", with ranks, awards, and procedures
that are one to one compatable with the BSA, promise that existing BSA
awards and credits will be honored, and then try to sway and persuide
the existing troops to defect to them? It would do more good, and be
more likely to work, but it mean actually building something instead
of mindlessly picketing and chanting...
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right,
m...@pobox.com | people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> writes:
>> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
>>
>> > give up the legitemacy of descent from the Apostles. If you don't
>> > believe in / care about that, no problem, but then you probably
>> > wouldn't be a Catholic in the first place.
>>
>> Form the New Catholic Church 2003 TM. No sexists allowed.
>
>all those nice cathedrals, contacts, and installed user based.
>
>Takeovers always seem more attractive than going to the effort of
>growing a replacement, even when there are no or low barriers to
>entry, it seems. I consider it one of the human irrationalities.
>
>As another example, instead of people screaming and frothing and
>picketing at the BSA, why don't they get together and start the
>"Inclusive Young People's Group", with ranks, awards, and procedures
>that are one to one compatable with the BSA, promise that existing BSA
>awards and credits will be honored, and then try to sway and persuide
>the existing troops to defect to them? It would do more good, and be
>more likely to work, but it mean actually building something instead
>of mindlessly picketing and chanting...
I may have missed something, but the arguments I heard about it weren't
that the BSA shouldn't be allowed to exist, but that so long as they
discriminated, they shouldn't be supported from generic (United Way)
funds, and shouldn't receive government support.
Starting a competing organization (unless it quashed BSA completely)
wouldn't have solved what the complaints were about.
And incidentally, that's not "another example", unless you're aware of an
attempt/desire to take over the BSA.
Me, I think the US Military should probably allow admitted gays who want to
defend their country to do so. Does that opinion, not backed up my
starting a competing US military, mean that my actions are mindless? (I'm
not picketing or chanting, but if I were ...)
But I presume you approve of the anti-abortion groups that disapprove of
Planned Parenthood and have started competing "crisis pregnancy centers"
where abortion just isn't one of the options on the table. (That is, of
their tactics - I don't make any assumption about your position on
abortion.) They're not mindlessly picketing and chanting - they've got
other people to do that.
Del Cotter
Will Linden <wli...@panix.com> said:
>I am shocked, SHOCKED to learn that the Pope is Catholic.
Your absolution, my son.
--
Del Cotter
Thanks to the recent increase in UBE, I will soon be ignoring email
sent to d...@branta.demon.co.uk. Please send your email to del2 instead.
David G. Bell
<3F287394...@socrates.berkeley.edu>
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu "Heather Jones" wrote:
Yes, that's the problem. The Anglican church, while ordaining women, is
still part of the chain back to the apostles. What happens when a woman
is raised to a position to ordain priests is the tricky part, and that
could be seen as breaking the chain, if one believes that a woman can't
be a priest at all.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"History shows that the Singularity started when Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Bernard Peek
>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:05:37 +0100, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com>
>submitted the following for your consideration:
>
>>In message <2bcgivkjtiu0j0p28...@4ax.com>, Kris
>>Hasson-Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> writes
>>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 20:39:02 +0100, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com>
>>>submitted the following for your consideration:
>>>
>>>>Almost all child molestation takes place
>>>>within the family. 80% of reported incidents are by family members. The
>>>>rest of the cases are unreported.
>>>
>>>Please clarify: are you making any assertion about what percentage of
>>>molestation by family members goes unreported?
>>
>>Well I know a handful of women who were assaulted by members of their
>>family, in some cases over a period of several years. None of the cases
>>I know of were ever reported. So my wet-finger-in-the-air guess is that
>>somewhere between 95 and 99% of all assaults are by family members and
>>the majority of those cases are unreported.
>
>Okay, so you are saying that the 80% of reported incidents are of all
>reported incidents of child molestation, which would leave 20% of
>reported incidents of child molestation perpetrated by
>non-family-members? But at the same time, most family-member
>incidents are not reported?
Yes.
raycun
Presumably the response is, "Its not your church, it belongs to God.
If you don't like the rules He made, or the people He appointed, go
find another God".
One of the central questions of the reformation, and a core issue
dividing the Catholic and Protestant churches, is who gets to
interpret scripture, and who gets to decide what god wants. The
Catholic answer to both questions is "The Church". You don't have to
like it, but you do have to accept it, otherwise you're not a
Catholic.
Wouldn't it be a lot easier if you could get your god to have some
sort of question-and-answer session every now and again? Or at least
clear up some of the confusion over the competing FAQs?
Ray
Paul F. Dietz
>>I explained poorly. Why not ditch the misogynist group & form a new
>>(non-sexist) group & ordain their own people?
>
> That seems a remarkably sensible solution; unfortunately, if
> Catholicism is your religion of choice, that's not an option. You
> give up the legitemacy of descent from the Apostles. If you don't
> believe in / care about that, no problem, but then you probably
> wouldn't be a Catholic in the first place.
You could join a group that split off from the Roman Catholic
church, yet still holds this point of dogma. In the US, it's
called the Episcopal Church. It has plenty of former Roman
Catholics.
Paul
Manny Olds
> As another example, instead of people screaming and frothing and
> picketing at the BSA, why don't they get together and start the
> "Inclusive Young People's Group", with ranks, awards, and procedures
> that are one to one compatable with the BSA, promise that existing BSA
> awards and credits will be honored, and then try to sway and persuide
> the existing troops to defect to them? It would do more good, and be
> more likely to work, but it mean actually building something instead
> of mindlessly picketing and chanting...
Sorry to interrupt a good rant, but I point you to
--
Manny Olds (old...@pobox.com) of Riverdale Park, Maryland USA
"This information has been presented as a service to those who need
something to get upset about." -- Joy Beeson
Niall McAuley
> One of the central questions of the reformation, and a core issue
> dividing the Catholic and Protestant churches, is who gets to
> interpret scripture, and who gets to decide what god wants. The
> Catholic answer to both questions is "The Church".
While that is true, there is a difference between "The Church"
and "The Church Hierarchy". The Church is *all* of the people
of God, not just the Hierarchy.
--
Niall [real address ends in se, not es.invalid]
Arthur D. Hlavaty
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:43:41 +0000 (UTC), m...@TheWorld.com (Martha H
>Adams) wrote:
>
>>But this pedophilia thing: Martha's Rule says, if you see it in the
>>news, it's one or two orders of magnitude bigger than reported. But
>>let's just pass that and accept the reported estimate of 1,000 or more
>>children victimized.
>
>"Martha's Rule" has to be wrong, because news reports often exaggerate
>dangers hysterically, rather than underplaying them. Example: the
>McMartin preschool sexual abuse scandal, which now appears to have
>simply been made up, and then accepted for a long time by a credulous
>media. Satanic Ritual abuse has been taken seriously in some media
>reports (though not as many now), despite the fact that not a single
>case of actual Satanic Ritual Abuse has ever been documented.
>
Drug seizure reports usually exaggerate. "The perpetrator was
apprehended with a million dollars' worth of marijuana concealed on
his person."
--
Arthur D.Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius in Wile E. we trust
http://www.livejournal.com/users/supergee/
E-zine available on request
Kris Hasson-Jones
submitted the following for your consideration:
>In message <nnlgiv434n39dnmgc...@4ax.com>, Kris
>Hasson-Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> writes
>>Okay, so you are saying that the 80% of reported incidents are of all
>>reported incidents of child molestation, which would leave 20% of
>>reported incidents of child molestation perpetrated by
>>non-family-members? But at the same time, most family-member
>>incidents are not reported?
>
>Yes.
Thank you for the clarification. I don't have anything to add, but I
wanted to understand.
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
What Would Aragorn Do?
Kris Hasson-Jones
<hla...@panix.com> submitted the following for your consideration:
>On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 01:23:38 GMT, Pete McCutchen
><p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:43:41 +0000 (UTC), m...@TheWorld.com (Martha H
>>Adams) wrote:
>>
>>>But this pedophilia thing: Martha's Rule says, if you see it in the
>>>news, it's one or two orders of magnitude bigger than reported. But
>>>let's just pass that and accept the reported estimate of 1,000 or more
>>>children victimized.
>>
>>"Martha's Rule" has to be wrong, because news reports often exaggerate
>>dangers hysterically, rather than underplaying them. Example: the
>>McMartin preschool sexual abuse scandal, which now appears to have
>>simply been made up, and then accepted for a long time by a credulous
>>media. Satanic Ritual abuse has been taken seriously in some media
>>reports (though not as many now), despite the fact that not a single
>>case of actual Satanic Ritual Abuse has ever been documented.
>>
>
>Drug seizure reports usually exaggerate. "The perpetrator was
>apprehended with a million dollars' worth of marijuana concealed on
>his person."
Gnu seizure reports ditto. "We found an arsenal of weapons and
ammunition in the home" can mean two hand gnus and 100 bullets.
Kate Secor
Manny Olds <old...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > As another example, instead of people screaming and frothing and
> > picketing at the BSA, why don't they get together and start the
> > "Inclusive Young People's Group", with ranks, awards, and procedures
> > that are one to one compatable with the BSA, promise that existing BSA
> > awards and credits will be honored, and then try to sway and persuide
> > the existing troops to defect to them? It would do more good, and be
> > more likely to work, but it mean actually building something instead
> > of mindlessly picketing and chanting...
>
> Sorry to interrupt a good rant, but I point you to
>
> http://www.spiralscouts.org
Yes, but their philosophy statement is exclusively Pagan. When I did
some Girl Scouts stuff, it wasn't religiously oriented. (Girl Scouts is
co-ed, iirc.)
It'd be nice to have a program that was just for people of all stripes.
Aiglet
(Never joined Girl Scouts, just did their babysitting cert. for
"professional development" when I was in 8th grade.)
Jim Battista
KY...@dls.net:
Lutherans also maintain or claim apostolic succession. At least ELCA,
the big Lutheran church, does; I dunno about LCMisssouriSynod and
LCWisconsinSynod.
--
Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.
Per C. Jorgensen
news:Xns93C964B4E636...@216.168.3.44...
> Lutherans also maintain or claim apostolic succession. At least ELCA,
> the big Lutheran church, does; I dunno about LCMisssouriSynod and
> LCWisconsinSynod.
I seem to recall something (this is very much back of the
head knowledge, though) about apostolic succession
being deliberately broken in Denmark-Norway (where
the church didn't have bishops for a number of years,
just bishop-like "superintendents", who were very much
the King's men) but survived in Sweden, where some
bishops joined the Lutherans. I have, however, seen
claims that the Swedish claim of apostolic succession
is rejected by both the Roman Catholics and the
Orthodox churches.
Incidentally, I was in an APA with someone who was
a sort of "bishop without a church". Apparently, this was
some kind of international "movement" who claimed
apostolic succession through Catholic bishops who'd
left Church discipline. I must admit that I didn't get
all the details.
-- PC
Mark Atwood
That axiom being not a "fundamental truth", but just the axiom of a
given church. You end up with a self-reference problem.
Pete McCutchen
("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr") wrote:
>I may have missed something, but the arguments I heard about it weren't
>that the BSA shouldn't be allowed to exist, but that so long as they
>discriminated, they shouldn't be supported from generic (United Way)
>funds, and shouldn't receive government support.
Well, no. In the case that went to the Supreme Court, the state of
New Jersey claimed that the Boy Scouts were a "public accommodation"
within the meaning of their state's anti-discrimination laws, and
therefore were legally required to allow avowed gays to become
scoutmasters. It wasn't a question of government funding; it was
about their right to exist. If the Supreme Court had upheld the State
of New Jersey, the BSA would've had three choices: 1) withdraw from
New Jersey, 2) try to reconstitute their organization in a manner to
put them outside the purview of the New Jersey statute, or 3) admit
gays.
--
Pete McCutchen
Mark Atwood
> Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
> ...
> Sorry to interrupt a good rant, but I point you to
>
> http://www.spiralscouts.org
It's (somewhat agressively) religiously based. It is, in fact, the
equal opposite of the "Royal Rangers" (which is the same thing for xtain
fundies).
Both the SS's and the RR's seem to actually miss the damn point, IMO.
Loren MacGregor
>Manny Olds <old...@pobox.com> writes:
>> Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> Sorry to interrupt a good rant, but I point you to
>>
>> http://www.spiralscouts.org
>
>It's (somewhat agressively) religiously based. It is, in fact, the
>equal opposite of the "Royal Rangers" (which is the same thing for xtain
>fundies).
>
>Both the SS's and the RR's seem to actually miss the damn point, IMO.
I don't know. Given the "SS" connection, maybe they get the point
too well.
-- LJM
--
*************************************************************************
Loren J MacGregor - The Churn Works + churn...@att.net
Phone: (541) 338-0675 + In search of full-time or contract
work in systems administration or technical writing/editing
*************************************************************************
Dave Weingart
>Yes, but their philosophy statement is exclusively Pagan. When I did
>some Girl Scouts stuff, it wasn't religiously oriented. (Girl Scouts is
>co-ed, iirc.)
Irm. No.
*Girl* Scouts.
Venturers are co-ed, though.
--
73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK Sixteen Tones (16th UK Filkcon)
mailto:phyd...@liii.com Feb 6-9,2004, Bromsgrove, England
http://www.liii.com/~phydeaux GoH: Chris Conway, Bill Roper
ICQ 57055207
Mark Atwood
>
> Well, no. In the case that went to the Supreme Court, the state of
> New Jersey claimed that the Boy Scouts were a "public accommodation"
> within the meaning of their state's anti-discrimination laws, and
> therefore were legally required to allow avowed gays to become
> scoutmasters. It wasn't a question of government funding; it was
> about their right to exist. If the Supreme Court had upheld the State
> of New Jersey, the BSA would've had three choices: 1) withdraw from
> New Jersey, 2) try to reconstitute their organization in a manner to
> put them outside the purview of the New Jersey statute, or 3) admit
> gays.
And while I would prefer that #3 occur, it is MORE important to me
that the government lack the power to dictate the terms of membership
to private organizations.
Priscilla H Ballou
>Paul F. Dietz <di...@dls.net> wrote:
>>You could join a group that split off from the Roman Catholic
>>church, yet still holds this point of dogma. In the US, it's
>>called the Episcopal Church. It has plenty of former Roman
>>Catholics.
>Hmmm, yes, the ROman Catholic Church even recognizes priests from the
>Episcopal Church-- so long as they are male. Which would imply that
>the RCC recognizes the EC as having some apostolic succession-- but
>the EC ordains women. Interesting.
Actually, the RC hierarchy denies that ECUSA maintains apostolic
succession. Made a big stink about it in some document, as we are
continually reminded over in alt.religion.christian.episcopal. I believe
they re-ordain Episcopalian priests who d/e/f/e/c/t/ convert.
Priscilla
--
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum,
minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
(from topfive.com)
Wilson Heydt
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>As another example, instead of people screaming and frothing and
>picketing at the BSA, why don't they get together and start the
>"Inclusive Young People's Group", with ranks, awards, and procedures
>that are one to one compatable with the BSA, promise that existing BSA
>awards and credits will be honored, and then try to sway and persuide
>the existing troops to defect to them? It would do more good, and be
>more likely to work, but it mean actually building something instead
>of mindlessly picketing and chanting...
BE a bit of a problem to get a Congressional Charter like teh BSA
has.
--
Hal Heydt
Albany, CA
My dime, my opinions.
David Dyer-Bennet
> Wouldn't it be a lot easier if you could get your god to have some
> sort of question-and-answer session every now and again? Or at least
> clear up some of the confusion over the competing FAQs?
Question Time with Jesus Christ?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd...@dd-b.net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
Mike Swaim
"Dave Weingart" <phyd...@liii.com> wrote in message
news:bgbdbf$32s$1...@eri0.s8.isp.nyc.eggn.net...
>
> Irm. No.
>
> *Girl* Scouts.
>
> Venturers are co-ed, though.
I met a guy at Boy Scout Camp from Lichtenstein who claimed that
technically he was a girl scout. (Thanks to how the programs in his country
are affiliated with those in the US.)
Explorers are coed.
--
Mike Swaim sw...@hal-pc.org at home
mps...@mdanderson.org or msw...@odin.mdacc.tmc.edu at work
Disclaimer: Yeah, like I speak for MD Anderson.
Quote: "Boingie"^4 Y,W & D
lightning
news:b147c2a9.03073...@posting.google.com:
> Presumably the response is, "Its not your church, it belongs to
> God. If you don't like the rules He made, or the people He
> appointed, go find another God".
> One of the central questions of the reformation, and a core issue
> dividing the Catholic and Protestant churches, is who gets to
> interpret scripture, and who gets to decide what god wants. The
> Catholic answer to both questions is "The Church". You don't have
> to like it, but you do have to accept it, otherwise you're not a
> Catholic.
Yup. Mix 'n match doesn't cut it.
> Wouldn't it be a lot easier if you could get your god to have some
> sort of question-and-answer session every now and again? Or at
> least clear up some of the confusion over the competing FAQs?
I have a horrible feeling that it would look like a George W. Bush press
conference ...
Or you'd get answers like "the answer is written out perfectly plainly
in the Epistle of St Paul to the Gauls".
--
ligh...@toadmail.com http://lightningbug.blogspot.com
"I no longer want to change the world. I want to potty train the world.
Then we won't have to change it any more."
Andrew Plotkin
> ray...@hotmail.com (raycun) writes:
>
> > Wouldn't it be a lot easier if you could get your god to have some
> > sort of question-and-answer session every now and again? Or at least
> > clear up some of the confusion over the competing FAQs?
>
> Question Time with Jesus Christ?
Good point. Gods *and* natural forces need to be more responsive to
the public.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Karl Johanson
> >
> > > You
> > > give up the legitemacy of descent from the Apostles. If you don't
> > > believe in / care about that, no problem, but then you probably
> > > wouldn't be a Catholic in the first place.
> >
>
> The problem is that that doesn't give you automatic access to
> all those nice cathedrals, contacts, and installed user based.
Excellent point I hadn't considered.
Karl Johanson
Sandy Tyra
I was a Brownie leader for a year. GSA is NOT co-ed.
Sandy
Sandy Tyra
> ray...@hotmail.com (raycun) writes:
>
>
>>Wouldn't it be a lot easier if you could get your god to have some
>>sort of question-and-answer session every now and again? Or at least
>>clear up some of the confusion over the competing FAQs?
>
>
> Question Time with Jesus Christ?
Obviously, God needs to set up a WebPage so He can communicate directly
with all of us.
Jesus, could you upload a jpg of yourself so we can all see what you
look like?
Sandy
Heather Jones
>
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > ray...@hotmail.com (raycun) writes:
> >
> >
> >>Wouldn't it be a lot easier if you could get your god to have some
> >>sort of question-and-answer session every now and again? Or at least
> >>clear up some of the confusion over the competing FAQs?
> >
> >
> > Question Time with Jesus Christ?
>
> Obviously, God needs to set up a WebPage so He can communicate directly
> with all of us.
There's a form for submitting your questions at
<http://www.god.org>. (My browser reports that "www.god.org
cannot be found", however.)
Heather
--
*****
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*****
Del Cotter
raycun <ray...@hotmail.com> said:
>Priscilla Ballou <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote
>> As I recall, the predominant response to questions like that was, "It's
>> my church, why should *I* be the one who has to leave?"
>Wouldn't it be a lot easier if you could get your god to have some
>sort of question-and-answer session every now and again? Or at least
>clear up some of the confusion over the competing FAQs?
Messiah's Question Time!
(No, Tony, you're *not* the Messiah, you're a very naughty boy)
--
Del Cotter
Thanks to the recent increase in UBE, I will soon be ignoring email
sent to d...@branta.demon.co.uk. Please send your email to del2 instead.
Kip Williams
> In article <bgb3bh$5p9$1...@news1.radix.net>,
> Manny Olds <old...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>Sorry to interrupt a good rant, but I point you to
>>
>> http://www.spiralscouts.org
>
> Yes, but their philosophy statement is exclusively Pagan. When I did
> some Girl Scouts stuff, it wasn't religiously oriented. (Girl Scouts is
> co-ed, iirc.)
>
> It'd be nice to have a program that was just for people of all stripes.
Tiger cub scouts?
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"When I go in-to the wood / I see the lit-tle bun-nies, eat-ing
por-ridge as they should. / Those clev-er lit-tle rab-bits!"
--Mother Goosery Rinds
Cally Soukup
> "Cally Soukup" <sou...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:bg9irr$rha$3...@wheel2.two14.net...
>> Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote in article
> <4PWVa.564490$ro6.12...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>:
>> > "Priscilla H Ballou" <p...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message
>> > news:bg9806$bs0
>>
>> >> Back when I was working in the Women's Ordination Conference, we
> noticed a
>> >> curious phenomenon. Every time the RC hierarchy spoke out against the
>> >> ordination of women, our side rose in the polls.
>> > I'm curious. Why try to ordain women into a clearly misogynist
>> > group. Why not form a different non-sexist group instead?
>> I'm just guessing here, but perhaps it's becuase they believe that only
>> the misogynist group has the power to ordain women (at least until
>> women get into the group and themselves get that power).
> I explained poorly. Why not ditch the misogynist group & form a new
> (non-sexist) group & ordain their own people?
I explained poorly, not you. Because they believe that they *can't*
ordain their own people; only people who have been given the power of
ordination can, and until such time as those people start ordaining
women, then no women can be properly ordained.
--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup sou...@pobox.com
scott_sanford
>... Almost all child molestation takes place
>within the family. 80% of reported incidents are by family members. The
>rest of the cases are unreported.
?
Care to try that again? I don't think that came out the way you
intended it.
--
Scott Sanford <*> <*> <*> Antibot addresss: wyvern at agora dot rdrop dot com
GO/U h++ s++:+ g+ a- w++ v+/*/? C++ UB+/++ N++ K? !W M--(++) 5++ r+++ b+++ f?
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<aig...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
snip
>It'd be nice to have a program that was just for people of all stripes.
*cough* *cough* 4-H *cough* *cough*
(with explicit non-discrimination statement!)
jrw
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<Niall....@ericsson.moc.invalid> wrote:
>"raycun" <ray...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b147c2a9.03073...@posting.google.com...
>> One of the central questions of the reformation, and a core issue
>> dividing the Catholic and Protestant churches, is who gets to
>> interpret scripture, and who gets to decide what god wants. The
>> Catholic answer to both questions is "The Church".
>
>While that is true, there is a difference between "The Church"
>and "The Church Hierarchy". The Church is *all* of the people
>of God, not just the Hierarchy.
Exactly.
jrw
A.C.
news:klaeivkgg87c470rf...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 06:16:23 GMT, win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
> ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr") wrote:
>
> >I may have missed something, but the arguments I heard about it weren't
> >that the BSA shouldn't be allowed to exist, but that so long as they
> >discriminated, they shouldn't be supported from generic (United Way)
> >funds, and shouldn't receive government support.
>
> Well, no. In the case that went to the Supreme Court, the state of
> New Jersey claimed that the Boy Scouts were a "public accommodation"
> within the meaning of their state's anti-discrimination laws, and
> therefore were legally required to allow avowed gays to become
Actually, yes. I heard him refer to arguments in general, not "arguments
from the state of New Jersey".
Jenn Ridley
Assuming, of course, that you live somewhere where there *is* 4-H.
I've lived a number of places where there isn't 4H at all, and others
where it's pretty much limited to the livestock/raising animals end.
One of the girls in my daughter's Cadette (GSA) troop is in 4H as
well, and there's *no* overlap in activities, except for the community
fair.
(and where I grew up 4H was more of a 'community outreach'/social
service of the local fundamentalists .... not officially, but all the
leaders went to the evangelical/fundy churches.) It wasn't nearly as
popular as Scouts.
jenn
--
Jenn Ridley
jri...@chartermi.net
A.C.
news:m3adauu...@khem.blackfedora.com...
> Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >
> > Well, no. In the case that went to the Supreme Court, the state of
> > New Jersey claimed that the Boy Scouts were a "public accommodation"
> > within the meaning of their state's anti-discrimination laws, and
> > therefore were legally required to allow avowed gays to become
> > scoutmasters. It wasn't a question of government funding; it was
> > about their right to exist. If the Supreme Court had upheld the State
> > of New Jersey, the BSA would've had three choices: 1) withdraw from
> > New Jersey, 2) try to reconstitute their organization in a manner to
> > put them outside the purview of the New Jersey statute, or 3) admit
> > gays.
>
> And while I would prefer that #3 occur, it is MORE important to me
> that the government lack the power to dictate the terms of membership
> to private organizations.
I don't think many people would disagree. The problem is how exactly do you
define a public as opposed to a private organization.
Mishalak
> I mean, the Boy Scouts are a membership-based organization,
> just like the others in my examples. If the Boy Scouts can be
> declared a "public accommodation", then anyone can.
Yeah, but on the other hand they often get state support in the form of
cheap or free rooms and so on. If they are a private organization then
I think they should not be getting that state support. Two of the
requirements for DASFA if we were meeting at the library would be for
our meetings to be open to the public and we could not descriminate
against any of the city's protected catigories in giving out memberships.
Mishalak
Kip Williams
This is the fallacy known as "Ad Lantixity."
Niall McAuley
> "Niall McAuley" <Niall....@ericsson.moc.invalid> writes:
> > While that is true, there is a difference between "The Church"
> > and "The Church Hierarchy". The Church is *all* of the people
> > of God, not just the Hierarchy.
> That axiom being not a "fundamental truth", but just the axiom of a
> given church. You end up with a self-reference problem.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
The subject is the Catholic church, and the definition is right
there in the Catechism: "The Church is the People of God", not
just the Pope and his pals.
--
Niall [real address ends in net, not ten.invalid]
Niall McAuley
news:m2oeza6...@gw.dd-b.net...
> Question Time with Jesus Christ?
"I'm not touching *that* one with a forty foot pole!"
Wilson Heydt
That's what he's saying. It's the 'self referential' point. The
Catholic (and many other) Church states that it is the one and only
true church. If you doubt it, just ask them. Same problem with the
many other aspects of religion--there is an extreme shortage of
external means of checking claims.
Niall McAuley
news:3f29a3f4...@news.aracnet.com...
> *cough* *cough* 4-H *cough* *cough*
I was visiting relatives in Boise, Idaho not so long ago,
and we went to a fair with swings and roundabouts and...
livestock. Most of the beasts entered were prepared by
kids in some kind of 4-H programme.
Now, for myself, if I was offered the chance, aged 10, to
shovel shit, hose piss off cement floors or curry-comb a
very smelly cow in the hopes of winning a prize, I would
have deferred the honour to kids who really deserved it
but...
The 4-H kids at this show, with their show cow, looked to be
loving it, win or lose. And around the corner were 4H kids
with pigs, and chickens, and even goats. Good for them.
Query: what have Americans got against Sheep and Lamb?
Kate Secor
j...@aracnet.com (Joyce Reynolds-Ward) wrote:
My only exposure to 4-H is the camp that I LARP in, and it's full of
Jesus-statements. More info?
Aiglet
(I'm counting "religiously oriented" as "non-inclusive" for the purposes
of this discussion.)
Niall McAuley
news:HIx0x...@kithrup.com...
> In article <fgiWa.25624$pK2....@news.indigo.ie>,
> Niall McAuley <gnmc...@eircom.ten.invalid> wrote:
> >The subject is the Catholic church, and the definition is right
> >there in the Catechism: "The Church is the People of God", not
> >just the Pope and his pals.
>
> That's what he's saying. It's the 'self referential' point. The
> Catholic (and many other) Church states that it is the one and only
> true church. If you doubt it, just ask them.
Ask who? The Pope? The Vatican? You'll just get the Hierarchy's view,
the view of a bunch of celibate and officially heterosexual old men
who rose to their current positions in an environment where only people
like that (or people who pretended to be like that) could progress.
The views of the actual Catholic Church are very different, which is
a good thing for Catholicism, since the Hierarchy's authority is
evaporating.
David Dyer-Bennet
> Query: what have Americans got against Sheep and Lamb?
We get quite a few of them at the Minnesota State Fair.
Also Llamas and weirder things.
(Tangent: the MN State Fair is held here in the Twin Cities, and it's
actually a big deal for the urban population as well as the people
coming in from the farms. I believe this is relatively unusual,
perhaps because most states located their capitol somewhere other than
the major urban area of the state.)
Thomas Yan
I've caved in and have decided to read LiveJournals. I've started by
catching up on Pamela Dean's. I don't remember whose idea it was, but
I saw the suggestion that First Evil (from "Buffy") has a LiveJournal.
Marilee J. Layman
<aig...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>In article <bgb3bh$5p9$1...@news1.radix.net>,
> Manny Olds <old...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> > As another example, instead of people screaming and frothing and
>> > picketing at the BSA, why don't they get together and start the
>> > "Inclusive Young People's Group", with ranks, awards, and procedures
>> > that are one to one compatable with the BSA, promise that existing BSA
>> > awards and credits will be honored, and then try to sway and persuide
>> > the existing troops to defect to them? It would do more good, and be
>> > more likely to work, but it mean actually building something instead
>> > of mindlessly picketing and chanting...
>>
>> Sorry to interrupt a good rant, but I point you to
>>
>> http://www.spiralscouts.org
>
>Yes, but their philosophy statement is exclusively Pagan. When I did
>some Girl Scouts stuff, it wasn't religiously oriented. (Girl Scouts is
>co-ed, iirc.)
I'm a lot older than you, but when I was in Brownies/Girl Scouts, God
was in the motto.
>It'd be nice to have a program that was just for people of all stripes.
>
>Aiglet
>(Never joined Girl Scouts, just did their babysitting cert. for
>"professional development" when I was in 8th grade.)
--
Marilee J. Layman
Handmade Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Marilee J. Layman
Have you heard of the 4-H scandal here in VA?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43481-2003Jul24.html
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>>>I explained poorly. Why not ditch the misogynist group & form a new
>>>(non-sexist) group & ordain their own people?
>>
>> That seems a remarkably sensible solution; unfortunately, if
>> Catholicism is your religion of choice, that's not an option. You
>> give up the legitemacy of descent from the Apostles. If you don't
>> believe in / care about that, no problem, but then you probably
>> wouldn't be a Catholic in the first place.
>
>You could join a group that split off from the Roman Catholic
>church, yet still holds this point of dogma. In the US, it's
>called the Episcopal Church. It has plenty of former Roman
>Catholics.
But they are apparently about to precipitate a split by ordaining a
gay bishop:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A95-2003Jul29.html
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 06:16:23 GMT, win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
>("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr") wrote:
>
>>I may have missed something, but the arguments I heard about it weren't
>>that the BSA shouldn't be allowed to exist, but that so long as they
>>discriminated, they shouldn't be supported from generic (United Way)
>>funds, and shouldn't receive government support.
>
>Well, no. In the case that went to the Supreme Court, the state of
>New Jersey claimed that the Boy Scouts were a "public accommodation"
>within the meaning of their state's anti-discrimination laws, and
>therefore were legally required to allow avowed gays to become
>about their right to exist. If the Supreme Court had upheld the State
>of New Jersey, the BSA would've had three choices: 1) withdraw from
>New Jersey, 2) try to reconstitute their organization in a manner to
>put them outside the purview of the New Jersey statute, or 3) admit
>gays.
Thanks for this clarification. I hadn't heard about the Supreme Court case
(honest!); the arguments I heard locally were about United Way.
-- Alan
--
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>"Pete McCutchen" <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:klaeivkgg87c470rf...@4ax.com...
>> ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr") wrote:
>>
>> >I may have missed something, but the arguments I heard about it weren't
>> >that the BSA shouldn't be allowed to exist, but that so long as they
>> >discriminated, they shouldn't be supported from generic (United Way)
>> >funds, and shouldn't receive government support.
>>
>> Well, no. In the case that went to the Supreme Court, the state of
>> New Jersey claimed that the Boy Scouts were a "public accommodation"
>> within the meaning of their state's anti-discrimination laws, and
>> therefore were legally required to allow avowed gays to become
>
Perhaps it should have been "Well, yes, you missed something", but I don't
take exception to "Well, no, those weren't all the arguments."
Bernard Peek
Layman <mjla...@erols.com> writes
>>
>>Yes, but their philosophy statement is exclusively Pagan. When I did
>>some Girl Scouts stuff, it wasn't religiously oriented. (Girl Scouts is
>>co-ed, iirc.)
>
>I'm a lot older than you, but when I was in Brownies/Girl Scouts, God
>was in the motto.
In the UK the Brownies, Cubs and Scouts were strongly Christian when I
was of that age. It may have changed.
There was another organisation The Woodland Folk who had a similar
organisation but were explicitly atheist.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
In search of cognoscenti
Marilee J. Layman
Ciszek) wrote:
>In article <jnmjiv4clvq5257cb...@4ax.com>,
>Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:20:04 GMT, j...@aracnet.com (Joyce
>>Reynolds-Ward) wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:50:47 GMT, Kate Secor
>>><aig...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>snip
>>>
>>>>It'd be nice to have a program that was just for people of all stripes.
>>>
>>>*cough* *cough* 4-H *cough* *cough*
>>>(with explicit non-discrimination statement!)
>>
>>Have you heard of the 4-H scandal here in VA?
>>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43481-2003Jul24.html
>
>Couldn't get past the registration screen. Mind telling us what it's
>about?
Oh, sorry. Three of the teen-age counselors ran a "fight club" --
forcing boys to fight each other and having the other boys bid on the
outcome. The fighting boys had bruises and cuts and one had a broken
arm. Apparently no grownups were supervising at night.
David T. Bilek
>pci...@TheWorld.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
>>In article <jnmjiv4clvq5257cb...@4ax.com>,
>>Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Have you heard of the 4-H scandal here in VA?
>>>
>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43481-2003Jul24.html
>>
>>Couldn't get past the registration screen. Mind telling us what it's
>>about?
>
>Oh, sorry. Three of the teen-age counselors ran a "fight club" --
>forcing boys to fight each other and having the other boys bid on the
>outcome. The fighting boys had bruises and cuts and one had a broken
>arm. Apparently no grownups were supervising at night.
Apparently, someone broke the first rule of 4-H Fight Club.
-David
raycun
> "raycun" <ray...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b147c2a9.03073...@posting.google.com...
> > One of the central questions of the reformation, and a core issue
> > dividing the Catholic and Protestant churches, is who gets to
> > interpret scripture, and who gets to decide what god wants. The
> > Catholic answer to both questions is "The Church".
>
> and "The Church Hierarchy". The Church is *all* of the people
> of God, not just the Hierarchy.
But the catechism of the Catholic Church, the stuff you have to learn
and agree with before getting your full membership rights, says quite
clearly
"77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be
preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors.
They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed,
"the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the
inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession
until the end of time."36 "
"85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of
God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been
entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its
authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47
This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the
bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
"
The Church may be all of the people*, but a condition of joining is
that you recognise that all of the people don't get to decide on the
interpretation of the one true way, any more than all of the people
get to elect their bishops, or all of the people get to officiate at
masses. Its perfectly logically consistent** to have a church where
all of the people get to do these things, but such a church would not
be the Catholic Church.
Ray
* though the catechism does seem to refer to the Church as being the
priests, bishops, et al, and not the laity
** you know, for a religion
Lee Ratner
> "Priscilla H Ballou" <p...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message
> news:bg9806$bs0
>
> > Back when I was working in the Women's Ordination Conference, we noticed a
> > curious phenomenon. Every time the RC hierarchy spoke out against the
> > ordination of women, our side rose in the polls.
>
> I'm curious. Why try to ordain women into a clearly misogynist group. Why
> not form a different non-sexist group instead?
>
> Karl Johanson
Because they still want to be Roman Catholics, they do not want to
form a new Christian church that is essentially Roman Catholicism with
female as well as male clergy. Honestly, your question is ludicrous.
Its like asking a women's rights activist that since blank country is
clearly musongynist, why don't you form a new country instead.
People tend to be loyal to the group they were born into even if
mistreated by the group anyway. I have several homosexual friends who
are devout Catholics, who spoke about respecting and honoring the Pope
despite the possition of the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope on
homosexuality. People generally want to improve their group rather
than form a new group that suits them better.
Paul F. Dietz
> But they are apparently about to precipitate a split by ordaining a
> gay bishop:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A95-2003Jul29.html
Yes, quite exciting, isn't it?
Paul
Cally Soukup
> The Church may be all of the people*, but a condition of joining is
> that you recognise that all of the people don't get to decide on the
> interpretation of the one true way, any more than all of the people
> get to elect their bishops, or all of the people get to officiate at
> masses. Its perfectly logically consistent** to have a church where
> all of the people get to do these things, but such a church would not
> be the Catholic Church.
I'm not myself a Catholic, but a Catholic friend on another newsgroup
once posted this:
<quote>
There's a bit of Catholic doctrine which most people aren't informed of
- I only found out after doing some talking with my very cool college
chaplains. It runs something along the lines of "If you take the steps
necessary to inform your conscience - reading about doctrine, about
other issues related, praying, truly thinking about a decision, and
decide that it is truly not wrong, then nothing, not even the Church,
should deter you from this position. Not following your conscience is a
lot more wrong than not following Church teaching."
</quote>
If this is true, the Catholic church is less rigid than you think.
--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup sou...@pobox.com