|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Anti-Christian prejudice in LGB community
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Taking the bishops in the House of Lords and the whole question of establishment (both of which only effect the Church of England) out of the equation for a moment: of what specific "influence and tools" do you insist that Christians must be stripped? The right to seek - individually or collectively - to influence public opinion by (currently) legal means? The right to lobby parliamentarians and other decision-makers? The right to voice their opinions publicly? The right to vote the "wrong" way? Genuinely, I'm stumped.
Other than the bishops and the recent state visit by the Pope?
The major legal change I want to see is to remove "The advancement of religion" as a charitable act from The Charities Act.
Then there's the religious control of a depressing number of state schools and state academy schools. The obvious one being Peter Vardy's creationist Academies. But I want all faith schools gone and the idea that you can take government money to run a state service, and then give priority to a subset of people based on their religion rejected. (I'd further point out that the faith schools as currently implemented take a disproportionately low number of the poor both when looked at nationally and locally).
And while on the subject the Collective Act of Worship that is wholly or broadly of a Christian character that is mandated in state schools should be scrapped.
Enough of a start?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Then there's the religious control of a depressing number of state schools and state academy schools. The obvious one being Peter Vardy's creationist Academies. But I want all faith schools gone and the idea that you can take government money to run a state service, and then give priority to a subset of people based on their religion rejected. (I'd further point out that the faith schools as currently implemented take a disproportionately low number of the poor both when looked at nationally and locally).
And while on the subject the Collective Act of Worship that is wholly or broadly of a Christian character that is mandated in state schools should be scrapped.
Enough of a start?
1. Most of the CofE faith schools are the best schools in England, I can't see parents being happy with your plan to close them down, and the legality of being able to do this is questionable as many faith schools maintain their status based on the endowment conditions etc. that formed the school in the first place.
2. Do you have figures for your statement on 'the poor'? I'm interested since some figures from Wales give an impression that CinW schools are not as selective as you must think faith schools are as they take a disproportionate number of non-Churchgoers than they do actual Churchgoers.
3. Collective worship has been so watered down and twisted that your desire already exists. However a collective act of something is important and good for raising a better society so I wouldn't be to quick to get rid of the whole practice.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
If you reduce the number of faith schools, then you will inevitably increase the number of Christian parents (and those from other faiths) who will home-school. Happy with that?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
If you reduce the number of faith schools, then you will inevitably increase the number of Christian parents (and those from other faiths) who will home-school. Happy with that?
I have my suspicions that the sort of parents who are likely to home school on faith grounds are unlikely to be satisfied with the average CofE primary anyway.
I think a more likely occurrence might be the re-emergence of Sunday School as a movement, or evening classes like some parts of the Muslim community have.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps some Christians want everyone to have equal rights, and love all others as themselves, while at the same time holding the view that marriage means the union between a man and a woman.
It is blatantly NOT equal rights if a couple are not allowed to marry simply because they are same sex.
You can't have your cake and eat it. You want to be able to say you believe in equal right, but the simple fact is, you don't.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
1. Most of the CofE faith schools are the best schools in England, I can't see parents being happy with your plan to close them down, and the legality of being able to do this is questionable as many faith schools maintain their status based on the endowment conditions etc. that formed the school in the first place.
Endowments. Yes, those help - money always does. But there was a specific reason I mentioned Academy schools - they are creating new faith schools. And the ability to filter your pupils so they look like nice people helps.
The best evidence I have been able to find on the effectiveness of faith schools is a large census seven years old. It says that faith schools lead to about a 1% improvement in pupils as compared to the national average at primary level - and nothing at all at secondary. It was unable to take account of the level of parental involvement (the single factor most responsible for educational achievement) - and any parents who have selected a school further from their nearest are going to be more involved than the average. And any parents willing to sit in a pew for weeks on end so their kids get a better school again are going to be more involved than average.
Skimming the cream so you only get the most motivated parents and their kids is going to do even better than skimming the cream so you only get parents willing to pay.
And I'm curious as to where your claim about most faith schools are the best in the country comes from.
quote:
2. Do you have figures for your statement on 'the poor'? I'm interested since some figures from Wales give an impression that CinW schools are not as selective as you must think faith schools are as they take a disproportionate number of non-Churchgoers than they do actual Churchgoers.
Yes - for England. For the record "Free School Meals" is the orthodox proxy used for poverty in almost all British educational data. I'd be curious to see the Welsh figures you have.
And the selection for faith schools is, as I said, about Parental Involvement. The parents willing to work to put their children in Faith Schools are those who care about education - and it's a far better predictor than simply those willing to pay. Faith Schools, as they stand, are a way for some schools to select for the kids of the parents who care about education. If the Welsh are almost nakedly doing this to the point that they get fewer children of parents of their faith than expected, this doesn't refute the hypothesis.
quote:
The Guardian's summary of the data:
Some 73% of Catholic primaries and 72% of Catholic secondaries have a lower proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals than the average for the local authority.
It is the same for CofE primary and secondary schools. Some 74% of these primaries and 65.5% of secondaries have a smaller proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals than is average for the local authority.
In contrast, non-religious schools tend to reflect their neighbourhoods. Half (51%) of non-religious primaries and 45% of non-religious secondaries have a smaller proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals than is representative for their local authority.
Faith schools fared no better when examined at a more local level. We compared the proportion of poor pupils in each postcode with the proportion of poor pupils in faith schools and non-faith schools studying in that postcode. The data shows 76% of Catholic primaries and 65% of Catholic secondaries have a smaller proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals than is representative of their postcode. This is the case for 63.5% of CofE primaries and 40% of CofE secondaries.
Non-religious primaries and secondaries are far more likely to mirror the proportion of poor pupils in their postcode – just 47% of non-faith primaries and 29% of non-faith secondaries take a smaller proportion of free school meals than is representative for their postcode.
As I said, free school meals is the orthodox proxy used in national data for poverty.
And much more of this and we'll need another thread.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I rest my case on this thread.
Prejudice is always a bad thing, it fosters hatred which fosters violence which escalates in retaliation.
Without prejudice there would have been no holocaust or KKK. Only love overcomes the root causes of evil, prejudice being one of them. I accept that Christians are prejudiced too, everyone is to some extent without always knowing it, but I appeal to all whether Christian or not to see other people as fellow human beings worthy of being loved, whatever their faults.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I rest my case on this thread.
Prejudice is always a bad thing, it fosters hatred which fosters violence which escalates in retaliation.
Without prejudice there would have been no holocaust or KKK. Only love overcomes the root causes of evil, prejudice being one of them. I accept that Christians are prejudiced too, everyone is to some extent without always knowing it, but I appeal to all whether Christian or not to see other people as fellow human beings worthy of being loved, whatever their faults.
If you're resting your case then those of us on the other side have the chance to sum up our own case.
Love is indeed powerful and overcomes the root causes of evil. And love should be encouraged by society. The way our society respects, acknowledges, and encourages monogamous love is through the institution of marriage. And by opposing a subset of consenting adults being able to receive the social and legal recognition and encouragement of marriage, you are actively working against the cause of love and making it a weaker force within this society than it otherwise would be.
Love matters. Stop opposing it.
And prejudice fosters violence. We can see which way the violence is going. And it is not being directed against the Christians. It is being directed by those you call your brothers and sisters in Christ (and others) against gay people.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Taking the bishops in the House of Lords and the whole question of establishment (both of which only effect the Church of England) out of the equation for a moment:
"But aside from all that, what did you think of the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
Official endorsement by the state is a pretty big thing to overlook. Why is this something you feel should be ignored? And in what sense do acts of Parliament "only effect the Church of England"? Isn't the whole point of having a seat in Parliament the ability to effect the rest of the country?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Taking the bishops in the House of Lords and the whole question of establishment (both of which only effect the Church of England) out of the equation for a moment:
"But aside from all that, what did you think of the play Mrs. Lincoln?".
As far as I'm concerned, you can save the hackneyed sarcasm for a deserving cause.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Official endorsement by the state is a pretty big thing to overlook. Why is this something you feel should be ignored?
I wasn't overlooking it. In fact I mentioned it precisely because I anticipated it would be problematic for Justinian. Also because I am more concerned about freedom of speech, belief and practice for Christians, quite separately from the fact that one particular Christian body - not my own - has established status and influence in one of the constituent nations - not my own - of the UK.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And in what sense do acts of Parliament "only effect the Church of England"? Isn't the whole point of having a seat in Parliament the ability to effect the rest of the country?
Are you working the assumption that the CofE bishops are speaking and acting for all the Christians in Britain? If not, I'm not sure what your point is.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Taking the bishops in the House of Lords and the whole question of establishment (both of which only effect the Church of England) out of the equation for a moment:
"But aside from all that, what did you think of the play Mrs. Lincoln?".
As far as I'm concerned, you can save the hackneyed sarcasm for a deserving cause.
I always do!
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And in what sense do acts of Parliament "only effect the Church of England"? Isn't the whole point of having a seat in Parliament the ability to effect the rest of the country?
Are you working the assumption that the CofE bishops are speaking and acting for all the Christians in Britain? If not, I'm not sure what your point is.
No, I'm saying that laws passed in Parliament effect everyone, Christian and otherwise, in Britain. Since you seem to be having trouble following this, I'll spell it out.
- Laws apply to everyone
- Laws are passed by Parliament
- Those who hold a seat in Parliament get to pass laws (see #2) that apply to everyone (see #1)
- Certain Bishops in the Church of England have seats in Parliament by virtue of their status as bishops in the Church of England
- This gives them the power to pass laws (see #3) that apply to everyone (see #1)
- Because the law applies to everyone (see #1) the ability of CofE bishops to shape the law directly contradicts your assertion that their Parliamentary seats "only effect the Church of England"
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Then then you misunderstand me. It has not escaped my notice that legislation passed for the whole county affects all those who live there. What I was talking about was that such issues as the CofE having bishops in the HoL and being established are only directly favourable to that particular Christian body - not to all Christians. Since I was addressing Justinian at the time, the context may help you out here: Justinian was talking about taking away the "influence and tools" that Christians simplicter currently enjoy. Non-CofE Christians currently enjoy neither places ex officio in legislative bodies nor establishment status.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
And why doesn't the Church of England count as "Christians" in your estimation?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
I mean, if you feel like parsing it finely enough the legislative privilege isn't granted to "the Church of England" either, but rather to twenty-six specific officials within the Church of England. Straining at overly-legalistic distinctions seems counterproductive and undermines your argument.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Also because I am more concerned about freedom of speech,
having a religious body as part of government is at least as likely to curtail free speech as enact it.
Free speech is for everyone or you are using the wrong terminology.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And why doesn't the Church of England count as "Christians" in your estimation?
I think you'll struggle to show where I implied any such thing. Would you like to know whether I've stopped beating my wife while you're at it?
Once more with feeling: it is prescisely because the Church of England alone enjoys these privileges that I wanted to keep discussion of them to the side when answering Justinian. Other Christians - let's think of the Catholics, for example - will only incidentally "benefit" from them when the CofE exercises them in ways which further the common aims of all Christians. I am not arguing that other Christians should have these same "influence[s] and tools". But not all Christians have aims furthered by the exercise of the CofE bishops' legislative policies.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Once more with feeling: it is prescisely because the Church of England alone enjoys these privileges that I wanted to keep discussion of them to the side when answering Justinian.
Really? It's not because the state granting certain Christian groups unearned access to the levers of power fatally undermines your thesis that Christians don't possess any special influence and tools unavailable to non-Christians?
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Other Christians - let's think of the Catholics, for example - will only incidentally "benefit" from them when the CofE exercises them in ways which further the common aims of all Christians. I am not arguing that other Christians should have these same "influence[s] and tools". But not all Christians have aims furthered by the exercise of the CofE bishops' legislative policies.
For that matter not all Anglicans have their "aims furthered by the exercise of the CofE bishops' legislative policies", yet that's hardly a demonstration that such power doesn't exist, that it isn't based on their religion, that their religion isn't Christian, or that it's not a kind of "influence" which could potentially be used as a "tool[] to oppress others". The whole exception you're pleading for is a giant non-sequitur based on unwillingness to recognize special privilege where it exists.
The British government has a special carve out to boost the power of a particular Christian religious faction within government. The fact that it doesn't do so for your favored faction (or for any others) is not a reason we should ignore the obvious.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Once more with feeling: it is prescisely because the Church of England alone enjoys these privileges that I wanted to keep discussion of them to the side when answering Justinian.
Really? It's not because the state granting certain Christian groups unearned access to the levers of power fatally undermines your thesis that Christians don't possess any special influence and tools unavailable to non-Christians?
Except that is not my thesis. I don't know what makes you think it is. Some Christians clearly do possess such an influence: some CofE bishops - the "Lords Spiritual" - do. But what "unearned access to the levers of power" do the Eastern Orthodox have, for example?
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Other Christians - let's think of the Catholics, for example - will only incidentally "benefit" from them when the CofE exercises them in ways which further the common aims of all Christians. I am not arguing that other Christians should have these same "influence and tools". But not all Christians have aims furthered by the exercise of the CofE bishops' legislative policies.
For that matter not all Anglicans have their "aims furthered by the exercise of the CofE bishops' legislative policies", yet that's hardly a demonstration that such power doesn't exist, that it isn't based on their religion, that their religion isn't Christian, or that it's not a kind of "influence" which could potentially be used as a "tool[] to oppress others". The whole exception you're pleading for is a giant non-sequitur based on unwillingness to recognize special privilege where it exists.
I'm struggling here, but if I've got it right your argument needs to go like this to make it stick against me:
*Granting Christian groups an established place in the state and a share in legislative authority gives them a power to oppress others.
*The Church of England is a Christian group.
*The Church of England has been granted such an established place and share in legislative authority.
*Therefore, all Christians have this power to oppress.
I'll accept the premises if you'll admit the conclusion doesn't follow.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The British government has a special carve out to boost the power of a particular Christian religious faction within government. The fact that it doesn't do so for your favored faction (or for any others) is not a reason we should ignore the obvious.
What "obvious"? That there is no direct or necessary benefit to non-CofE Christians from this "carve out" to the CofE? I'll agree to the obviousness of that.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
*Therefore, all Christians have this power to oppress.
You love to sneak in those previously-unmentioned modifiers, don't you? Justinian's premise is that Christians in general have access to certain privileges which they can (and sometimes do) use to oppress others. Your first reaction was to stake out a certain sizable privilege (automatic access to the levers of power) as either not Christian or somehow not a tool which could be used to oppress others. Neither of these is the case.
As I mentioned previously, there's no need to necessarily draw the boundary at 'the Church of England'. Your average CofE churchgoer could just as easily deny having access to this privilege by pointing out that she isn't personally a Lord Spiritual, so the whole thing doesn't count. Your desire to consider the CofE as non-Christian, or at least not-counting-as-Christian-in-this-specific-instance is just special pleading to draw that boundary at a place philosophically convenient to you.
[ 09. August 2013, 19:45: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
No one on this thread has argued that the CofE is a non-Christian organisation. The question seems to be whether Christians as a whole bear the burden of dominating British society with their oppressive values. As a cultural remnant there may be some truth in that, but in practical terms it doesn't take us very far. Since religious cultural remnants don't require widespread church attendance, Bible reading, prayers, hymn singing, Sunday Schools or any of the usual signs of Christian 'activity', it's not obvious that they should be blamed on the Christian minority today who do do those things.
Unlike the American media, which has lots to say about the power of various evangelical denominations, the British media today rarely focuses on Christian social or political influence from anywhere other than the CofE or the RCC. The Quakers and Unitarians fought to be able to perform SSMs, and they've won that struggle, but it would be interesting to know if any research has been done on the broader influence of Nonconformists and Free Church evangelicals in the contemporary political arena.
From what I've read, the relationship between British politics and Nonconformity has been marked mostly by the increasing irrelevance of the latter to the former in the first half of the 20th c. Direct influence waned earlier than the vague cultural attachments that politicians had to be mindful of when speaking to the public.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You love to sneak in those previously-unmentioned modifiers, don't you? [...] Your first reaction was to stake out a certain sizable privilege (automatic access to the levers of power) as either not Christian or somehow not a tool which could be used to oppress others.
This demonstrably false. Have you read my posts at all? This reckless misrepresentation of my arguments is something you do a lot, by the way.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... I'm struggling here, but if I've got it right your argument needs to go like this to make it stick against me:
*Granting Christian groups an established place in the state and a share in legislative authority gives them a power to oppress others.
*The Church of England is a Christian group.
*The Church of England has been granted such an established place and share in legislative authority.
*Therefore, all Christians have this power to oppress.
I'll accept the premises if you'll admit the conclusion doesn't follow. ...
I conclude that if certain Christians have some values and goals in common with the Church of England, they benefit when the Lords Spiritual promote those values and goals. So the Church of England`s stubborn opposition to e.g. marriage equality or women`s equality is great for Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox but not so good for e.g. Quakers and UUs. So maybe not all Christians have power to oppress, but the ones that do have power to oppress not just non-Christians but other Christians as well.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I conclude that if certain Christians have some values and goals in common with the Church of England, they benefit when the Lords Spiritual promote those values and goals.
I think you'll that find I explicitly admitted that above.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I think also that, given the fact that in fairly recent history, the Anglican Bishops in the Lords were part of an Establishment that looked down on Catholics and Non-conformist Christians (I'm afraid the Orthodoxen rarely registered on their radar, if at all) or even a little further back connived in the persecution of the same, it's a but much to say that they represented and empowered Christians generally or indeed do so today.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Of course, adopting a standard by which you can't attribute anything to a group unless it's true of every single member of that group (e.g. giving governmental power to twenty-six bishops on the basis of their religious affiliation is not an example of Christian privilege, since it's only twenty-six bishops and not every single Christian) also eliminates the entire premise of this thread. After all, since a sizable proportion of the LGB community are Christians themselves, therefore there's no anti-Christian prejudice in the group.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
So the repeal of the Test and Corporations Act and Catholic Emancipation were totally unnecessary then?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So the repeal of the Test and Corporations Act and Catholic Emancipation were totally unnecessary then?
Totally non-oppressive, by your standards, since the Parliament that passed those laws was only a tiny portion of the British population of the time. Now I don't agree with this "it's only a tool of oppression if everyone participates" standard you and CB seem to have adopted, but you should at least apply it consistently.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I don't agree with this "it's only a tool of oppression if everyone participates" standard you and CB seem to have adopted
Never said any such thing, as I've already had reason repeatedly to point out to you. Bit of a waste of my time.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So the repeal of the Test and Corporations Act and Catholic Emancipation were totally unnecessary then?
Totally non-oppressive, by your standards, since the Parliament that passed those laws was only a tiny portion of the British population of the time. Now I don't agree with this "it's only a tool of oppression if everyone participates" standard you and CB seem to have adopted, but you should at least apply it consistently.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) I have no idea by what leaps of illogic you have arrived at your conclusion. The discriminatory legislation which was repealed applied to the entire population, not just the then Parliamentary oligarchy.
Now, until you answer my previous question, I see little point in engaging with you further until you deal with the questions asked rather than keep trying to twist them into something they are not.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If you say that you're in favour of equality, but actually don't support treating people the same, that would make you a liar.
If you're in favour of equality for men and women, can you still support using the term "father" to describe the male progenitor and "mother" to describe the female? Or do you have to use the same word?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If you say that you're in favour of equality, but actually don't support treating people the same, that would make you a liar.
If you're in favour of equality for men and women, can you still support using the term "father" to describe the male progenitor and "mother" to describe the female? Or do you have to use the same word?
It depends on your purpose. I mean, if you're talking about a particular individual, then I suppose you could label them as a 'father' or a 'mother'. But most of the time, and especially when you're trying to talk about the group as a whole, the word 'parent' will do just fine.
And certainly, when you're writing any kinds of rules or laws about how to treat fathers and mothers, if the whole point is that you're going to treat father and mothers exactly the same, then don't use the distinguishing words when you're not going to distinguish.
[ 15. August 2013, 09:38: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If you say that you're in favour of equality, but actually don't support treating people the same, that would make you a liar.
If you're in favour of equality for men and women, can you still support using the term "father" to describe the male progenitor and "mother" to describe the female? Or do you have to use the same word?
It depends on your purpose. I mean, if you're talking about a particular individual, then I suppose you could label them as a 'father' or a 'mother'. But most of the time, and especially when you're trying to talk about the group as a whole, the word 'parent' will do just fine.
And certainly, when you're writing any kinds of rules or laws about how to treat fathers and mothers, if the whole point is that you're going to treat father and mothers exactly the same, then don't use the distinguishing words when you're not going to distinguish.
Yes, you're right. And thinking through this analogy has shown me that language *is* important. I suppose a better analogy is adoptive parenting. if I were the adoptive mother of my children, it would kill me if, say, letters from school were addressed to "The Parent of [Every Other Child]" but addressed to the "Adoptive Parent of Little Monk".
And I suppose it must be the same if every time someone refers to your marriage they take care to use a phrase that distinguishes it from a "real" one.
I'm sorry for being slow to grasp that.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Yes, you're right. And thinking through this analogy has shown me that language *is* important. I suppose a better analogy is adoptive parenting. if I were the adoptive mother of my children, it would kill me if, say, letters from school were addressed to "The Parent of [Every Other Child]" but addressed to the "Adoptive Parent of Little Monk".
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Internet discussion does sometimes change peoples minds, and thank you for being open enough to allow it to do so and forthcoming enough to say that it has done so. Thank you for bolstering my faith in humanity a little.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
