|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Christian Group has bank account removed due to "unacceptable views" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I thought I was clear that celibacy is not a good thing, but I added that nevertheless it may have taken the growing permissiveness in teh culture to bring out the evils that had been dormant or suppressed. I think it was a decent point and clear enough as is, Augustine notwithstanding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Well I'm glad you feel qualified to criticise an article you haven't even read.
You seem to be heading into another of those unfortunate directions which leads you to extoll the virtues of a man who blackmails cancer charities. You are now arguing that it is a bad thing that the state or people's parents no longer arrange their marriages, that women are no longer considered mere extensions of their husbands and that women are no longer automatically assumed to be obliged to provide their husband with sexual favours on demand. Is that actually your position? TTFN, WK P.S. If you use firefox then the Bug-me-not extension could obviate many of your news service registration hassles, including for the NY Times site.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thank you for the summary. It wasn't what I thought it might be, but if you'd represent me fairly, you'd acknowledge that I didn't criticize what it says but only suggested that it might mean what I had been saying all along. If it doesn't it doesn't. I don't have Firefox.
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-05-2005 06:14 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Quite right, criticise was not the right term.
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I added that nevertheless it may have taken the growing permissiveness in teh culture to bring out the evils that had been dormant or suppressed. I think it was a decent point and clear enough as is, Augustine notwithstanding. But the point I made is that yoru conclusion is likely not true, and is backed by at least one Xian Saint. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So you don't see the inherent contradiction in these statements?
faith, msg 7 writes: I certainly think the bank is unjust. What people believe is nobody's business. faith, msg 233 writes: I'm for allowing businesses to refuse service to whomever they please. Especially when 233 is in response to service being refused based solely on beliefs? Enjoy. {{edited to fix quote box}} This message has been edited by RAZD, 07*05*2005 07:05 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Not only do I not see that there is a contradiction I very consciously made both statements in light of each other. It's not that hard to resolve. I support businesses rejecting the business of anyone for any reason; nevertheless I may think their choice unjust and that people's beliefs are none of their business, without desiring that they be legally prevented from rejecting people of such beliefs. There is no contradiction. It isn't rocket science.
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-05-2005 09:03 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I guess I'm not being clear. One more attempt. Augustine doesn't like repressing sexual sins. Fine. I said something similar when I said celibacy has never been a good idea. Maybe you didn't grasp the implication that what's wrong with it is that it forces repression of sexuality. So I'm agreeing with Augustine. Nevertheless priests of all kinds of sexual persuasions may succeed at suppressing it to an extent that makes doing their job without eruptions of their inclinations at least outwardly possible. Since all this molestation seems to have come down in the last few decades (I'm assuming this as the evidence is accumulating for this particular period and not so far for any previous periods -- presumably earlier generations could now be liberated to get their two cents in, fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty year old victims coming forward to report on elderly or deceased priests, no?) ANYWAY since all this testimony has come out about sexual molestations of children over the last few decades I thought, well perhaps the general Sexual Liberation mentality of the last few decades MIGHT have something to do with egging it on, that is, provoking what they might otherwise have successfully suppressed and controlled, Augustine notwithstanding. It's simply a conjecture. Seems to me it couldn't be proved one way or the other.
If you still don't get it I give up. This message has been edited by Faith, 07-05-2005 08:43 AM This message has been edited by Faith, 07-05-2005 09:03 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4157 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
A very very simple question - you keep talking about a period when respect for marriage and sexual liberation was not out of control.
WHEN was this period? Not of your usual dodges, give us a timeframe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Any time before the 60s anywhere on earth it was in better shape than it is now since the 60s in the West.
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-05-2005 08:54 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4157 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
I think the first thing we need to tackle is your simplistic wiggish (well reverse wiggish I would guess but I'm not a historian by trade) analysis of the last century (1)
quote: But..but..it was the 1880s! It was better wanna it.. Those women were fighting against something that wasn't a problem until the 1960s! (2)
quote: Sheila Jeffreys, 'Free from all uninvited touch of man': Women's campaigns around sexuality, 1880-1914, Women's Studies International Forum, Volume 5, Issue 6, 1982, Pages 629-645. And yes people saw "traditional" marriage as a wonderful thing..oh wait...
quote: Fawcett. Millicent. 1892. On the amendments Required in the Criminal law. Amendment Act 1X85. Women’s Printing Society. London. I think you are at the stage where you really need to provide a convincing case why you should be sitting on the top table. Your discourse is weak and limited. I could go on for hours and hours but frankly it's pearls before swine. (1) I say analysis but it's actually just "It was better wanna it" (2) if you want to argue that it's just worse now - I want some figures. This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 05-Jul-2005 09:23 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Look, I have NOT "analyzed the last century." I am confining my remarks to ONE particular trend, a highly identifiable trend, of explicit ideology-driven Sexual Liberationism which has had a destructive effect on the status of marriage.
I have not claimed that things were hunky-dory at any previous time. I haven't even MENTIONED *how things used to be* for that matter. You brought that up. My topic has been specific trends SINCE THE 60s. These are identifiable. They are the result of the specific LIBERATIONISMS that were aggressive, belligerent and vociferous starting in the 60s, all the "RIGHTS" movements -- Sexual "Freedom" in a variety of expressions including militant feminism, gay rights, and abortion. Divorce statistics started growing. People started living together without marriage openly to an extent that had never previously existed. "Blended" families have become just about the norm by now. They were an oddity in the 50s. Promiscuity has escalated, and teenage promiscuity particularly. There has always been pre and extramarital sex, and unwanted pregnancies and homosexuals living together, and the whole works, but IT WAS NEVER SANCTIONED BY SOCIETY UNTIL RECENTLY. Now it is all openly flaunted and made the subject of RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS ACTIVISM. THIS IS BRAND NEW ON PLANET EARTH. IT HAS NEVER BEFORE EXISTED AND IT IS WIDESPREAD, AFFECTS EVERYBODY. One thing I think may have also increased a great deal in this period is child molestations and rapes and sexually inspired murders but I don't know the statistics. Do you? You gave statistics that purport to show no big change from 1957 but that makes no sense. Something is wrong with that picture and I don't know how to track it down. In 1957 unmarried mothers were ostracized. There were a few in every high school, but they were whispered about. They often got married and hid their pregnancies somehow, or went away somewhere to have the baby and give it up. Yet a couple of decades later women were starting to openly SEEK to have babies without benefit of husbands and that's a trend that has been growing since. This is an ENORMOUS SEA CHANGE in the basic moral worldview of our culture. Again, I have NOT claimed that such things never previously existed. Considering my emphasis on human fallenness why would you think I'd think anything was ever perfect? What I am claiming is that what we have now is the result of an ideology-driven attack on traditional morality that has become the rule of the land, is openly expressed. This is absolutely new. Since you have mischaracterized my argument you can hardly declare it weak. You haven't even grasped what it is yet. P.S. Demonizing patriarchy is part of what has given the current state of affairs its big boost. This message has been edited by Faith, 07-05-2005 09:50 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5844 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
In 1957 unmarried mothers were ostracized And that's a good thing!!?? Let's go back to the 1950s where people were unfriendly and unsupportive!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4157 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: But it's implicit in your argument, otherwise in what context are you judging the effects of sexual liberation? how can you understand the "now" if you don't understand the past? If you haven't done the analysis and you clearly don't know any of the numbers then your argument is based upon "I fink".
quote: Do we really want to explode your idea that the "blended" is a new idea? I take it you are suggesting that the "nuclear" family or something similar has been the accepted norm for a significant period of history?
quote: The sanctioning of those things has never existed before? you really want to claim that?
quote: Well you are suggesting it - how about you change the habit of a lifetime and actually do some research. I know you perfer just to talk out of the top of your hat but you may actually enjoy it.
quote: You need to work on your basic reading and understanding skills - I'll have to check but I'm 99% sure that I never said such a thing. I merely noted that your fabled 1950s was a period in which teen pregnancies boomed. The rest of your reply is your normal "I fink". Here let me give you an example, if I did say that there was no big increase (and I don't remember), I was wrong - there was a decrease:
quote: Boonstra, H. Teen Pregnancy: Trends And Lessons Learned U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under grant FPR00072. So we seem to have teen pregenancy peaking in the 1950s and declining since......
quote: So you wish to claim that this is a position that has only existed in the last 20 years? I would love to dicuss this all day but I suggest you go away and try and find some supporting material for your argument that extends beyond "I fink". This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 05-Jul-2005 10:07 AM This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 05-Jul-2005 10:09 AM This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 05-Jul-2005 10:19 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: I guess I disagree with this, although my disagreement may be due to misunderstaning what you mean. There is no ideology driving this, except, perhaps, the "ideology" that all people have the right to live content, fullfilled lives and that it is up to the individual to determine how she should live her life to be content and fullfilled. --
quote: I guess this is where we really disagree. I have no problems with any one of these things on this list.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024