There has been a lot of ink and pixels spilt over the topic of the CDF’s investigation into the LCWR. The large brunt of the media coverage has used the “War on women” narrative as if the fact that the only thing these religious sisters and nuns are guilty of is the crime of being a women and daring to help the poor.
If this narrative is true then why is the Vatican investigating the LCWR and not the parallel group the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR)? After all they are women also and help the poor.
Why does the Vatican investigate women religious who look like this:
pro-abortion Sisters
or
And not ones that look like this:
or
Well the answer might surprise you. It has nothing to do with the fact that orthodox religious women generally wear habit and ones with more dissident tendencies don’t. Nope, no correlation at all.
The real reason the Vatican is “cracking down” on the LCWR and some women theologians in the United States is because they are noticeable as women. Everyone knows the patriarchal all-male hierarchy is totally misogynistic. The thing is that when women religious wear full habits they become invisible to the Vatican and the CDF. Their women parts and hair are totally hidden in their habits and the CDF forgets they are women and thus leave them alone. The LCWR and all the so brave dissident women theologians are instantly viewed obviously as women without the covering habits.
Now these habit-less religious women did try some camouflage by wearing pantsuits, but this did not go far enough to fool the CDF. This did not work even with the attempts at mannish hairstyles.
Here is Sister Simone Campbell making the classic mistake in not hiding herself in a habit and thus opening herself up to crackdowns from CDF troops.
In fact I expect the CDF paratroopers to descend from the skies and put a stop to this bus tour any day now. After all the signs should say “Religious Sisters on a Bus” and not “Nuns on the Bus.” There should certainly be fines for those who continue to confuse the terms nuns and sisters.
You just got to love the priorities of these women religious:
- Federal money for abortion – No need to organize a bus tour.
- Catholics being forced out of adoption and helping victims of human trafficking – Nope no bus tour needed.
- Attack on our religious freedom and forced support of intrinsic evils – No need for a bus tour.
- A Republican budget that is going nowhere – Organize a tour immediately.
46 comments
Did you see this blast from the past–quite relevant for today? http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350241?eng=y
Though I agree that there are many nuns belonging to the LCWR, that have gone bizerk, I think its fair to say that not all of them have. There are many of the non-habit-wearing sisters that do good work with the poor and needy. I know some of them. Also, there are older nuns in some of these congregations that never gave up wearing the habit – even when all the younger sisters did. I admire them and think about how lonely they must have felt as their orders changed before their eyes. We have to keep all these sisters in prayer and pray for true renewal. Thank God for sisters like the Nashville Dominicans, the Sisters of Charity, The Poor Clares, The Sisters of Life etc.
>Everyone knows the patriarchal all-male hierarchy is totally misogynistic.
I assume you meant the Holy See’s patriarchal all-male hierarchy is totally misogynistic? I also assume this is another one of your attempts at satire but as usual you have the mechanics down but not the technique as the Vatican and your religion in general is quite misogynistic.
So you’re not be satirical at all.
The first clue is the limiting of women’s role in that hierarchy. In the church power structure a woman can only rise so far and never enjoy the wealth and power that comes with being a Cardinal, Bishop or other ranking management because why?
Because they have breasts, vaginas and wombs I would assume as from what I can tell there is no upper-body strength needed to serve your god. Rabbis have to lift those heavy scrolls so they at least have a practical argument for their female exclusion.
That’s also why your church is so rabidly against birth control, allowing women to have that much power, even over themselves? That will not do.
It all goes back to Eve of course, all her fault that she ate the magic fruit that your god made and left in a place were that she could eat it while it turned off its omnipotence for the time it took the snake to talk her into it.
The rich irony being that when Christianity started off women made up most of its early membership. It was also popular with slaves and the lower orders. Made sense that the oppressed would seek new gods as the old ones clearly did not care for them.
Also in Roman society women were pretty much property of fathers and husbands and that tradition like so many others from the ancient pagans, was retained by Catholicism.
Still I do enjoy the schisms and I urge y’all to keep fighting these battles you lost in the 1960’s, bit before my time so it’s neat to see the reenactments.
So savage…when are you gona convert? Cause you know, all you ever do is troll Curt all the time, I just figure it’s a matter of time.
Well I suppose I would convert if I somehow lost the ability to tell reality and fiction. Some sort of blow to the head? Perhaps witnessing a traumatic event?
I wonder if you’d complain about the frequency of my posting if you agreed with what I said?
But nah, better and easier to call names then point out where I’m in error.
Best to stick to what you know, eh Salvage? Just beating the drum, sooner or later they’ll listen.
So what is it you do believe in? You don’t support the Catholic Church, do you support these fine Christian ladies?
>So what is it you do believe in?
Real stuff? If you want anything beyond that you’d need to get specific.
>You don’t support the Catholic Church
Well they helped pedophiles rape children so how could I? How could anyone?
> do you support these fine Christian ladies?
As much as I “support” anyone who has nothing to do with anything I do.
I am fascinating by the schisms however because it reminds me of “Life of Brian’s” best scene where the followers of the hapless Brian split over where to worship his gourd (fish) or his shoe (cross). That’s the real reason why the Vatican hated that movie, it showed just how silly religion is. If you’ve ever seen it you’d know it doesn’t say a mumbling word about Jesus save from scenes lifted straight from the Bible.
Proverbs 23:9 Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words. Matthew 7:6 Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
With this one, I would say that you should just shake the dust off your feet in testimony against salvage and move on! Mark 6:11
(((Still I do enjoy the schisms and I urge y’all to keep fighting these battles you lost in the 1960′s, bit before my time so it’s neat to see the reenactments.)))
Gee, I’m starting to think that you’re not the Jack of all trade that I thought you were because this person “I’M” thinking about is a LOT older but then again salvage, as far as “I’M” concerned, you’ve gone way beyond where even witchcraft would dare go.
Anyway, long story short salvage, no one but a true God (Good Old Dad) could safely look into your heart of heart and know what your brain cells are really thinking then give you the proff that you truly need and all me, myself and i can say is keep on trying and in the long run why wouldn’t HE help U>S (usual sinners) no matter what schisms we might all find ourselves in? 🙂
Peace
(((As much as I “support” anyone who has nothing to do with anything I do.)))
Panda Rosa,
In regards to your post in the other comment thread about making a palpable hit against salvage, I do have to concur.
Of course it was not aimed at salvage himself. When I lead my students in a debate, I remind them that no one wins a debate but wisdom. No one loses a debate but ignorance. Salvage’s decision not to debate tells me that he has turned away from the harsh light of reason.
I tried to ask salvage about his positions. But since he could not give me the simplest definitions, it would appear as though he has no answers. That is not to say that he may not be ultimately correct, but that even if he is, he does not understand why.
And Matt, I believe you are correct. His investment in the Catholic faith is significant. Someone, I forget who, once said that those who hate the faith are closer to it than those who are indifferent. What a wonderful grace his passion will be when done for the greater glory of God!
Let us continue to lift our fellow child of God up in prayer.
It’s amazing the shapes your delusions take.
only outstripped by yours…
Jeff,
You do realize that Salvage, Savage, or whatever is determined to destroy your blog. What’s the point of including his endless stream of nonsense here? I am NOT suggesting that all dissenting views be censured – just his.
@ Salvage: I have seen “Life of Brian”, and will muse on the Vatican’s reception. Still, the film did feature a glimpse of Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount, and did so with respect. I’d love to see it again. For the record, I was raised Unitarian.
I only ask what motivates your life, what causes you believe are indeed devoting yourself to. But what do I know?
@CatholicSkywalker: Saw your blog, respect what I see. You sound like a man willing to carry his faith into battle. God Bless Bishop Sheen!
Here is my take on Nuns on the Bus – not as funny as your, though — for Catholic Exchange:
http://catholicexchange.com/nuns-on-the-bus/
Panda Rosa,
Thank you for your kind words, and I appreciate your feedback. I agree: God Bless Bishop Sheen!
Deacon Ed,
May I suggest that letting salvage spew his endless stream of nonsense is a way of showing that he does not have any reason behind his positions or he would answer basic questions. To leave the Author of Reason is, for many, to leave Reason itself.
Also, by his constant presence, we are reminded to always lift up salvage in prayer to our Heavenly Father.
Let us continue to pray for our fellow Child of God and wish salvage happiness…
> only outstripped by yours…
Really? Could you provide an example? Otherwise it’s sort of like a child screaming “I know you are but what am I?!?” which in the 1st grade was a devastating retort but for older people not so much.
>Salvage, Savage, or whatever is determined to destroy your blog.
ahaahha! Yes! My words on your screen are destroying this blog! I AM THAT POWERFUL!!!
>What’s the point of including his endless stream of nonsense here?
If it’s such nonsense how can it have this destructive power?
That’s one of the fun things about theists, your beliefs are always so strong and true yet under constant threat. Like how your god gives you religious freedom yet an insurance company paying for contraception will destroy it.
I guess when your so used to dichotomies you just stop noticing them.
> I am NOT suggesting that all dissenting views be censured – just his.
AHAHAHAHHAH! Awesome! What other dissenting views are there? Arguments over who loves Jesus more? I don’t see much Opus Dei here so really I think I’m it.
It’s a shame it’s not the good old day when you could have folk like me burned alive to be sent to your god for more punishment isn’t it?
This is of course why the Holy See condemned the American Revolution and democracy, they knew how dangerous free speech and thinking could be to their power structure. They too would demand my banishment.
>Still, the film did feature a glimpse of Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount, and did so with respect.
Well that was the joke, not what Jesus was saying (which btw was cribbed from Buddha) but rather the people listening and getting it all wrong. Blessed are the cheese-makers is up there with the shoe and the gourd in regards to the mocking of religion.
>I’d love to see it again.
That and Holy Grail can never be overwatched.
>I only ask what motivates your life,
Life! What more motivation does anyone need?
>what causes you believe are indeed devoting yourself to.
Well mostly me and mine. There are many causes I believe in but don’t really do anything to help them along. I used to but in my older age have gotten a touch cynical. My charity of late is mostly chequebook and pro bono work.
>But what do I know?
Why do you keep saying that?
>he does not have any reason behind his positions or he would answer basic questions.
I think I do and I think I state them but you seem to have trouble understanding stuff but that may be a choice.
You do know that during out little debate you completely decided not to answer any of my questions about your theism and when I did the same you declared victory.
Theists are clown cars of delusion; they just keep pouring out, one after the other, each more bizarre and hysterical than the last.
HA! HA!
I’m a blithering idiot TROLL!!!!
I AM SO BEYOND YOU THEISTS!!!
I am the master of the clown car of delusion!!
I SET THE DEBATE!!
ALL you post is WRONG!!! YOU HAVE TO MEET MY STANDARDS AND BY MY DEFINITION YOU CAN NOT!!!!
HA! HA! I AM THE BLITHERING IDIOT CLOWN CAR DELUSIONAL TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well that certainly shows me how wrong I am!
Well done anonymous copy of me, very compelling counterpoints.
I just read the piece and laughed out loud. You would think that the liberal nuns would suck it up and wear the habit to trick the Pope Police. But alas, their pant suits and close cropped hair do’s just radiate radicalism!
(((I’m a blithering idiot TROLL!!!!)))
Why do you keep saying that? 🙁
I hear ya salvage! I’ve always said that “I” was a TROLL but NOW, in my old age, “I’M” a blithering idiot master of the clown car of delusional troll!!!
That will be enough out of ya sinner vic cause salvage is entitled
to his opinion and I’m sure that you’re not in position to be throwing the first rock. Are ya? 🙂
Peace
Victor,
Notice that salvage keeps shouting his posts. This of course implies a strong emotional reaction, rather than a calm, rational one. He is yelling at us, at God, at the Church. He is not interested in any kind of interaction to find truth, or he would answer simple questions. He is here to “hit back.”
While not good in and of itself, that can be part of his journey. In “A Grief Observed,” CS Lewis wrote his thoughts and feelings after the death of his wife. At one point he became so angry at God near the point of despair. When he reflected back, he said that his thoughts at the time were “more of a yell, than a thought.” When looking back at his rants against God, he said that it fulfilled his desire to “hit back” at a God.
Of course, none of us can judge salvage’s goodness or badness. The state of his soul is in God’s hands, not ours. But we know that he will be happier when he finds God.
So let us once again raise our fellow child of God in prayer and wish him happiness…
>Notice that salvage keeps shouting his posts.
Um.. no… not really… can you provide an example of this?
>This of course implies a strong emotional reaction, rather than a calm, rational one.
Yes, I never provide any rationale for my points!
>He is yelling at us, at God, at the Church.
No, not really at you guys and mos def not at your god, it not being real makes that problematic at best. As for your Church, well if I could i certainly would. They protect child rapists, I think that’s yell worthy.
>He is not interested in any kind of interaction to find truth, or he would answer simple questions.
You do know that your refused to answer any of my questions that you didn’t like right? Do you know what “projection” is?
>He is here to “hit back.”
Ha! Ha! Yes! Posting comments on a blog is really hitting back! Why this accomplishes all kinds of stuff!
You’re a teacher? Really? What kind?
There is really no need to worry or quibble about the investigation into the LCWR or why the more younger traditional nuns are not, because the latter are the wave of the future for the Church because of the “biological solution” Don’t Worry Be Happy!
@ Salvage: You get on the posts and start interrupting, you keep asking about “proof” we can’t give, you poke at “we theists” like a naughty child with a feather, you dismiss our ideas and then jeer when we get annoyed…. gee, yes indeed why don’t we like you more? But what do I know?
(((It all goes back to Eve of course, all her fault that she ate the magic fruit that your god made and left in a place were that she could eat it while it turned off its omnipotence for the time it took the snake to talk her into it.)))
Well done anonymous copy of me, very compelling counterpoints.
STOP “IT” sinner vic! THAT’S NOT YOURS! YOU’RE WAY OFF TOPIC CAUSE SALVAGE ONLY ASKED WHAT KIND OF TEACHER CATHOLICSKYWALKER REALLY WAS SO SMARTEN UP IF YA KNOW WHAT’S GOOD FOR YA?
What’s that you say Victor? He was happily married – but his wife wasn’t. Well “I’M” Sorry but http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTThTZ6bHJo BUTT Time Marches On and “I’M” sorry if http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IHQ7EGlnec you miss back when but that’s no reason for ya to yell! 🙂
Peace
>You get on the posts and start interrupting,
I don’t think that’s possible in this medium, what I cut off your keyboard as you’re typing? You know if you see “salvage” in bold at the top of a post you can just skip over it right? Like there is no law that says you have to read it much less respond.
>you keep asking about “proof” we can’t give,
Not exactly, I ask questions and what I ask for are answers. Believe me I know you can’t provide proof.
> you dismiss our ideas
No, I answer your ideas, if I dismissed them I just ignore them.
>and then jeer when we get annoyed….
No I jeer when someone says something silly like “He is yelling at us, at God, at the Church” while ignoring the points I actually make.
>yes indeed why don’t we like you more?
Huh, I thought y’all loved me in that Christian way? Of course I know that’s phony platitudes so no, I didn’t think that and I am indifferent to your opinions of me as a person I’m more interested in stuff like why you think women can’t be priests.
If you scroll up to my first post you will see that I was on topic, asking questions that 28 comments later no one has bothered to answer despite the fact that I’m sure you think you have answers.
It’s you lot that “thread jack” and steer the topic away so heal thyselves yeah?
>But what do I know?
I don’t know, what I would like to know is why you keep saying that.
Call it folly, but let me give salvage another chance…
I concede every point of theism.
Now:
What are the metrics of happiness?
What are “positive results?”
>What are the metrics of happiness?
I concede every point of whatever you think the metrics of happiness are.
>What are “positive results?”
I concede every point of whatever you think “positive results” are.
Oh, salvage…
Let’s try this again.
You say you understand theism, and know that it is incorrect.
I do not understand your position.
By this Socratic standard, you are knowledgeable, I am ignorant. Before we debate, I need you to teach me what you know. And as a good student, I wish to ask clarifying questions. These are not trick questions. I truly wish to understand how your understand your philosophy so I can better answer your questions.
An objection can be conceded, but a inquiry cannot. An objection posits that something is wrong, and so the person given the objection can give in. An inquiry is a request for knowledge. To concede a request for knowledge does not give any knowledge. I am requesting knowledge.
Can you give it?
Wishing you happiness…
>You say you understand theism, and know that it is incorrect.
Theism: the belief that there are such things as gods and that they demand mortal attention.
What have I got wrong there?
And I’ve already conceded that whatever you think the metrics of happiness and “positive results” are is correct.
What I want to know is why you think the mythology of ancient cultures has any chance of being real, I don’t really need to teach you anything about myself for you to answer that question. Certainly not anything about happiness.
So no, this is a dodge, you guys will cheerfully talk about the specifics of your superstitions with fellow believers but when a non-believer talks about them with any sort of critical thinking not so much.
It’s simple, there are no such things as gods, never have been never will be. If I were to list all the gods you don’t believe in you would agree right up to the point that we got to yours. Suddenly all the reasons not to believe in gods would vanish but you would refuse to explain why.
SIBLING RIVALRY:-
The Holy Bible talks about it at length…..
Maybe the attitude on the part of “THE MALE ” is thus…….
“it’s mine, it’s mine, it’s all mine, I am the one, just me, you are nothing, they are all looking at me, I did it, I would have if they had not stolen it from me”
Muslim me are thus:-
Cover yourself lest you are noticed, for I am everything to all of it.
You only exist to serve me, not even, you are nothing.
>Muslim me are thus:-
And sects of Christianity both past and present are the same, ditto Judaism, Hinduism and pretty much all of them. Women are usually viewed by most cultures as second class citizens at best and chattel at worst. It’s only been in the last 50-80 years that Western attitudes have changed. Still a lot of work needs to be done.
As for males being greedy, well I think women are the same it’s only we penis bearers have been in the position of power more often to act upon the impulse. Once full equality has been achieved women will be free to be as avaristic as you like.
Salvage,
This is why clarifying questions are important. You misunderstood my use of the word “incorrect”
What I meant by “incorrect” is that you believe that theism as a philosophy is incorrect.
You say you know theism, and you know the belief of theism to be incorrect.
I don’t know what you believe, so I cannot know if you are incorrect.
In order for us to have any kind of dialogue I have to understand you. You claim to understand me. I do not understand you. When you say that theism is not good, for example, I need to know what you mean by “good” before I can answer you properly.
So I propose that we do a quid pro quo: I ask one question that you must answer and then you ask a question that I must answer. And so on and so forth. One question will hopefully keep us from diverting to tangents.
The one rule must be no dodging. If I ask you what you mean by “positive results” you may not respond “results that are positive.”
So I will be gentlemanly and let you ask the first question.
Your move.
Wishing you happiness…
> is that you believe that theism as a philosophy is incorrect.
Because theism is not a philosophy, philosophy can certainly have aspects of theism in it but the second you introduce anything supernatural like a god it stops being philosophy and becomes theism.
I know theists like to pretend that they’re being philosophical when they pray to their god(s) and perform rituals so they don’t feel quite so silly in this modern world but you can give my grandmother wheels, that don’t make her a wagon!
>You say you know theism, and you know the belief of theism to be incorrect.
Well if it has some sort of element of magic, supernatural or myth it can’t be anything but incorrect.
> You claim to understand me.
There you go again, filling those gaps with whatever you think will help you. No, I don’t claim any such thing, I don’t know you anywhere near enough to say such a thing.
What I do know is that there are no such things as gods however and if you think there are then I understand an aspect of you but nothing more.
> When you say that theism is not good, for example,
Are you getting my posts confused with someone else’s because I don’t recall saying anything like that. Theism is neither good nor bad, it’s an idea, it’s wrong of course in the sense that it’s factually in error but it doesn’t actually do anything.
Now, people on the other hand? Well they can be bad and they can use theism to be bad.
Mother Teresa is an excellent example of this. Her theism teaches that your god loves misery and will reward suffering and those who ease suffering in the afterlife. So with that “logic” her “charity” was geared towards not solving problems of poverty in India that lead to suffering but rather maintaining them so she and her fellow travellers could work toward their ticket to Heaven.
That is of course bad and quite mad.
> So I propose that we do a quid pro quo:
Nah.
Salvage,
Thank you for your response. I am sad that you have chosen not to engage in rational dialogue. You choice here is the best answer I can receive regarding your philosophy.
I will keep you in my prayers.
Wishing you happiness…
>I am sad that you have chosen not to engage in rational dialogue.
Interesting how you get to decide what is rational. The problem being that since you say stuff like “I will keep you in my prayers.” it’s clear you don’t quite get what rational is.
When you pray are you telling your god what to do? A lot of prayers seem to be like that, making requests, polite but still weird a mortal guiding an omnipotent being. Wouldn’t your god already know what to do? Who to bless? etc?
And what difference would it make to me or anyone if I am in or out of our prayers? Does prayer ever have any impact beyond the person with the closed eyes and clasped hands?
And I guess it is sad to you that I won’t join you in your delusion that philosophy and religion are compatible beyond the superficial but alas I am a bit pedantic in my insistence that words mean what they mean rather than what you want them to mean.
Sounds to me like CatholicSkywalker has made several decent stabs at asking you what you want, and you keep shifting your definition. So it’s the entire concept of gods and deities you want to uproot and put aside? Interesting how you stick philosophy next to religion, as if there’s something wrong with people thinking there is something greater than themselves, that there may be more to life than just being here. Besides, if prayer is really the futility you say it is, then why worry if someone includes you in your prayers? If it’s just wasted words then it shouldn’t affect you, just water against the rock. But what do I know?
Keep plucking away, Salvage, just keep plucking away.
>Sounds to me like CatholicSkywalker has made several decent stabs at asking you what you want, and you keep shifting your definition.
Huh? What? What I want are answers to my questions, I think I’ve made that pretty clear and if not well I have now. What definition have I shifted? Can you please cut and paste and example into your response?
>So it’s the entire concept of gods and deities you want to uproot and put aside?
Um no, I that’s what CatholicSkywalker wants. What I want is to understand why you think such things are real when clearly they are not.
>Interesting how you stick philosophy next to religion,
If by next to you mean completely separate it’s not be its everyone because they are different things.
When you go to church do you say “I’m going to be philosophical today.”?
>as if there’s something wrong with people thinking there is something greater than themselves, that there may be more to life than just being here.
Thinking is fine but thinking without reason to? Well surly you can see the problem there.
>Besides, if prayer is really the futility you say it is, then why worry if someone includes you in your prayers?
Once again where did I say it worries me? Why can’t you guys read what I say and respond to it rather than just, well make stuff up? You notice how I take what you actually say, put a > beside it then respond? That way it’s clear what I am responding to. You should try it that way it won’t look like you are answering points that I don’t make.
And I know prayer is futile but I asked someone who does it what effect it has, nothing about “worry” at all!
So what is the point of prayer?
@salvage *sigh* Okay, nobody’s going to win here. I would recommend you check out the following link: http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on.html
Sure, I’ve read that article, it’s weird how Cracked sucked as a magazine but has an amazingly entertaining site.
Too bad your god wouldn’t agree with most of that, it is going to throw all atheists into Hell right?
And once again my question goes unanswered. For people who are sure of stuff you sure don’t seem to be able to articulate why.
Salvage, I read this post from the bottom up, so I decided to answer your question. After reading through the post and all the comments, I still don’t see the “question” that you posed. I do see a great deal of ad hominem and personal opinions. If you are genuinely interested in having your question answered, pose it clearly. There’s a thing on your computer called the tab key: use it.
Incidentally, those personal opinions you are so fond of throwing out are not exactly quantifiable or provable either, just based on emotionality. Yes, every civilization has oppressed women and viewed them as inferior, and somehow you view this as a bad thing, why? Wouldn’t the logical mode of thinking be that misogyny is the natural order, either through a systems theory perspective or an evolutionary one?
>After reading through the post and all the comments, I still don’t see the “question” that you posed.
Really? Um, well look for the “?” thing at the end of some of my sentences, that could signify a question.
> I do see a great deal of ad hominem and personal opinions.
What ad hominem? Do you mean the way people here keep calling me a troll?
And sure, my opinions are there… point is what? If you are genuinely interested in having your question answered, pose it clearly.
Generally I find that people here who say they don’t understand the questions are just using their feigned ignorance as a way of not answering them.
> There’s a thing on your computer called the tab key: use it.
Actually it’s on my keyboard and if I use it on the comments form it skips to the “submit” button as part of the standard accessibility GUI of most web browsers.
>Incidentally, those personal opinions you are so fond of throwing out are not exactly quantifiable or provable either, just based on emotionality.
Really? Can you provide an example of this? Are you sure saying stuff like this isn’t easier than actually answering my questions and addressing my points?
>Yes, every civilization has oppressed women and viewed them as inferior, and somehow you view this as a bad thing, why?
Well first and foremost it shuts out half the population’s talents and abilities limiting civilization’s advance. We’d probably be that much further ahead if we hadn’t repressed women for the last several thousand years. Who knows what engineering, medical, scientific, cultural and other breakthroughs we would have made if some chick wasn’t stuck in the kitchen? The cure to cancer could have been discovered by a woman who was only given the opportunity to feed her husband and children. A terrible waste.
And it’s simply not fair, we’re all equal our reproductive genitalia notwithstanding.
>Wouldn’t the logical mode of thinking be that misogyny is the natural order, either through a systems theory perspective or an evolutionary one?
In a way, everything we do can be viewed through an evolutionary lens, rape for instance could be argued as “natural” but of course we abhor it for obvious reasons.
But just because we are the children of evolution that doesn’t mean we’re slaves to it. Misogyny in this case, like the sort practiced by the Vatican is just another expression of dread, ignorance and avarice.
Women are feared and hated for the influence they can have over men so they are kept down and powerless by certain entities who want it all for themselves. Yes, like your Pope on his gold throne.
But I assure you I want the Vatican to continue with these policies, anything that makes it clear just how antiquated and rotting theism really is meets with my approval.
Like I said you guys lost this battle decades ago, it’s a delight to see you lose it again.