Religious Liberty does not excuse rudness, hatefulness, or bullying

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

U got me, idk how that actually works as far as if EO has some sort of Vatican equivalent? and how much authority it has over all the churches. I'd assumed it would be less strict than catholocism

No "Vatican equivalent".  Each church (Orthodox Church in America, Greek Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, Serbian Orthodox Church,... etc.) has it's own hierarchy.  Ideally we all agree on church doctrine.  I can take communion in any of the churches listed.  But each Church has it's own Patriarch, Archbishop, or Metropolitan to lead that particular branch of the church.  The are "equal in stature" but the Patriarch of Constantinople is "first in Honor".  

That's one of the huge fights between the Eastern and Western Church.  The Bishop of Rome (the Pope) used to be the head of the Church Counsel and the East saw him as "First among equals".  When the Pope claimed to be "first in power" that created a problem.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, baxus said:

I'm no expert on religious matters but, as far as I know, it is true that Orthodox Church does not ordain women. On the other hand, I haven't heard of Catholic, Islamic or Judaic priestesses either. It could just be a major hole in my education, though.

Yes, you are talking about a specific person but are singling out his religion when pretty much every other major religion is doing the exact same thing.

As for Scot talking about his religion, while I have noticed that he mentions it I wouldn't rank it as "constantly" and must have missed the part where he claims to be "the best Orthodox" or anything like that.

Thank you.

[Dr. Pepper]

7 minutes ago, baxus said:

I'm no expert on religious matters but, as far as I know, it is true that Orthodox Church does not ordain women. On the other hand, I haven't heard of Catholic, Islamic or Judaic priestesses either. It could just be a major hole in my education, though.

Yes, you are talking about a specific person but are singling out his religion when pretty much every other major religion is doing the exact same thing.

As for Scot talking about his religion, while I have noticed that he mentions it I wouldn't rank it as "constantly" and must have missed the part where he claims to be "the best Orthodox" or anything like that.

I certainly have not singled out a single religion, apart from when a specific religion is being discussed (like this one where the EOC is being discussed because Scot steered the conversation in his specific direction like he frequently does).  Scot is a master at the humble brag.  I'm still not sure if it's intentional or not, meant to be humorous or if he truly doesn't realize.  Everything about this particular conversation is about how Scot is the most at this or that.  And again, he steered discussion in his direction, multiple times now.

As for singling out a certain religion, if you read this thread, you'll see that I'm a fairly equal opportunity critic of religion, especially those that treat entire groups as inferior or subhuman. If you are confused on my stance or are unwilling to read the thread, then I'll say it now and I'll be really clear and metaphorically loud.  RELIGIONS THAT DO NOT ALLOW WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP ROLES, OR RELIGIONS THAT TREAT LGBT FOLKS (OR ANY GROUP FOR THAT MATTER) AS SUBHUMAN OR IN A DISCRIMINATORY MANNER HAS AN INHERENT PROBLEM WITH SUPERIORITY IN A BAD WAY.  An adherent to such a faith tacitly supports such behavior.  Period.  

Feel better?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

31 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I certainly have not singled out a single religion, apart from when a specific religion is being discussed (like this one where the EOC is being discussed because Scot steered the conversation in his specific direction like he frequently does).  Scot is a master at the humble brag.  I'm still not sure if it's intentional or not, meant to be humorous or if he truly doesn't realize.  Everything about this particular conversation is about how Scot is the most at this or that.  And again, he steered discussion in his direction, multiple times now.

As for singling out a certain religion, if you read this thread, you'll see that I'm a fairly equal opportunity critic of religion, especially those that treat entire groups as inferior or subhuman. If you are confused on my stance or are unwilling to read the thread, then I'll say it now and I'll be really clear and metaphorically loud.  RELIGIONS THAT DO NOT ALLOW WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP ROLES, OR RELIGIONS THAT TREAT LGBT FOLKS (OR ANY GROUP FOR THAT MATTER) AS SUBHUMAN OR IN A DISCRIMINATORY MANNER HAS AN INHERENT PROBLEM WITH SUPERIORITY IN A BAD WAY.  An adherent to such a faith tacitly supports such behavior.  Period.  

Feel better?

Dr. Pepper,

I'm sorry.  When I said I'm "first among sinners" I'm patterning after the pre-communion prayer I say every time I take communion:
 

Quote

I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who camest into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first.[emphasis added]

I'm not claiming I'm the most horrible human being ever.  I should have realized that I should have spelled that out.  That is my mistake and I am sorry for the confusion.   

[Dr. Pepper]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Dr. Pepper,

I'm sorry.  When I said I'm "first among sinners" I'm pattering after the pre-communion prayer I say every time I take communion:
 

I'm not claiming I'm the most horrible human being ever.  I should have realized that I should have spelled that out.  That is my mistake and I am sorry for the confusion.   

No, I understand what you mean.  It's just every response you have to someone is that you are the most this or that.  

But I'll take your word for it that everything you do online is a complete act.  A 14 year act without a single break in form and you are a completely different human in person.  

Moving along, so what has your response been to the email that was shared on facebook?  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

No, I understand what you mean.  It's just every response you have to someone is that you are the most this or that.  

But I'll take your word for it that everything you do online is a complete act.  A 14 year act without a single break in form and you are a completely different human in person.  

Moving along, so what has your response been to the email that was shared on facebook?  

I had a long exchange with a fellow who's response to my argument amount to "this is different" than when someone asks to be called by a preferred name.  He couldn't explain why it was different or what that difference was.  Nevertheless, he wouldn't back down.  Therefore, you are probably correct that my argument will probably not change the minds of people who think that misgendering Transgender people is a religious liberty.

[DunderMifflin]

40 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No "Vatican equivalent".  Each church (Orthodox Church in America, Greek Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, Serbian Orthodox Church,... etc.) has it's own hierarchy.  Ideally we all agree on church doctrine.  I can take communion in any of the churches listed.  But each Church has it's own Patriarch, Archbishop, or Metropolitan to lead that particular branch of the church.  The are "equal in stature" but the Patriarch of Constantinople is "first in Honor".  

That's one of the huge fights between the Eastern and Western Church.  The Bishop of Rome (the Pope) used to be the head of the Church Counsel and the East saw him as "First among equals".  When the Pope claimed to be "first in power" that created a problem.

so it's similar to catholicism in that a local community church can't just preach and operate however they want without it being cleared by whatever the governing body is?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

so it's similar to catholicism in that a local community church can't just preach and operate however they want without it being cleared by whatever the governing body is?

Similar... but there is an awful lot of freedom granted to individual Parish Priests in how they move forward.  You will rarely have dictates from on high that "you must preach X".  Parishes vary a lot.

[DunderMifflin]

It's like common core religion

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

 An adherent to such a faith tacitly supports such behavior.  Period.  

I think that's where you run into some trouble. If this was true, you'd never have had Luther nailing his 95 theses to the door of The All Saints' Church in Wittenberg. The bible itself would've never been translated from the latin. You never would've had Reformation.

[Dr. Pepper]

3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think that's where you run into some trouble. If this was true, you'd never have had Luther nailing his 95 theses to the door of The All Saints' Church in Wittenberg. The bible itself would've never been translated from the latin. You never would've had Reformation.

Right. You're talking about people - individuals or rather large groups - who disagreed with their faith enough to create major reform movements.  They were no longer adherents to the faith (or religion, whatever word you'd like to use here).  

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

29 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Right. You're talking about people - individuals or rather large groups - who disagreed with their faith enough to create major reform movements.  They were no longer adherents to the faith (or religion, whatever word you'd like to use here).  

 You're talking about people when you use the word adherents. Not sure there's any meaningful distinction to make there.

 And I think it's an oversimplification to just say these reformers are no longer adherents once they question some aspect of the church. I would have to imagine that Luther still considered himself an adherent of Christianity, even once the church excommunicated him or declared him an apostate or whatever.   

[Dr. Pepper]

14 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 You're talking about people when you use the word adherents. Not sure there's any meaningful distinction to make there.

 And I think it's an oversimplification to just say these reformers are no longer adherents once they question some aspect of the church. I would have to imagine that Luther still considered himself an adherent of Christianity, even once the church excommunicated him or declared him an apostate or whatever.   

I'm sure you're well aware that there are many brands within certain religions.  They aren't all the same.  Quakers adhere to a different set of principles than Catholics, for example.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

17 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I'm sure you're well aware that there are many brands within certain religions.  They aren't all the same.  Quakers adhere to a different set of principles than Catholics, for example.  

Sure, and that came about through people who did not tacitly support all the behaviors or tenets of their respective churches.It seems to me that Scot likely falls into this category.

[Jo498]

21 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

  RELIGIONS THAT DO NOT ALLOW WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP ROLES, OR RELIGIONS THAT TREAT LGBT FOLKS (OR ANY GROUP FOR THAT MATTER) AS SUBHUMAN OR IN A DISCRIMINATORY MANNER HAS AN INHERENT PROBLEM WITH SUPERIORITY IN A BAD WAY.  An adherent to such a faith tacitly supports such behavior.  Period. 

You probably know this already but it is hardly a neutral description to claim that not allowing women priests amounts to treating women as "subhuman". Neither is condemning certain behavior (e.g. certain sexual acts) as sinful treating the respective person as "subhuman" because as has been pointed out many times, most religions (certainly Xianity) hold that everyone, including high ranking leaders are sinful.

There is of course a deep conflict in that many churches recognize certain differences as reasons for different (or discriminatory) treatment that liberal mainstream society does not recognize any more as admissible reasons for discrimination (most of it did so until only a few decades ago but, hey, it's 2017, isn't it?).

The interesting thing is whether religious liberty should include that churches are allowed such discrimination. I think they should be because otherwise religious liberty would hardly mean anything. But I admit that it is not at all obvious where to draw the lines. (E.g. if the catholic church on grounds of religious liberty demanded the right to castrate young boys to have high pitched male singers in church, I do think the state should interfere. But usually cases are borderline. There was a semi-scandal in Germany a few years ago about infant circumcision (although this was legally probably in terms of parents' rights over their minor children). This would be an example of a borderline case for me.)

[Dr. Pepper]

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

You probably know this already but it is hardly a neutral description to claim that not allowing women priests amounts to treating women as "subhuman". Neither is condemning certain behavior (e.g. certain sexual acts) as sinful treating the respective person as "subhuman" because as has been pointed out many times, most religions (certainly Xianity) hold that everyone, including high ranking leaders are sinful.

There is of course a deep conflict in that many churches recognize certain differences as reasons for different (or discriminatory) treatment that liberal mainstream society does not recognize any more as admissible reasons for discrimination (most of it did so until only a few decades ago but, hey, it's 2017, isn't it?).

The interesting thing is whether religious liberty should include that churches are allowed such discrimination. I think they should be because otherwise religious liberty would hardly mean anything. But I admit that it is not at all obvious where to draw the lines. (E.g. if the catholic church on grounds of religious liberty demanded the right to castrate young boys to have high pitched male singers in church, I do think the state should interfere. But usually cases are borderline. There was a semi-scandal in Germany a few years ago about infant circumcision (although this was legally probably in terms of parents' rights over their minor children). This would be an example of a borderline case for me.)

I'm not being neutral.  Not sure why you think I am.  I'm taking a specific position here.  That position is that continued support of a church (or community in general) who does X,Y, or Z is tacit approval of those behaviors and ideals.  

Furthermore, being gay isn't a behavior, no more than being black is a behavior or being left handed, or being a women.  These are states of being.  An example of a behavior would be discriminating against a group of people.

Whether or not private organizations, like churches or country clubs or whatever, are allowed to discriminate is a different discussion.  What behaviors they can engage in - like genital mutilation for babies of any gender - is also a different discussion but certainly those matters can't and shouldn't be given to these private organizations to decide.  

[Centrist Simon Steele]

On 5/5/2017 at 7:11 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

A friend on Facebook shared an email she received from a friend who works for the State of Virginia.  It says:
 

 

 

Okay, regardless of how people feel about transgender people, how is that not being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole?  

Let's put it like this.  I work for a man named "Shannon".  I go to church with a woman named "Michael".  Neither are transgender.  Wouldn't it be the height of rudeness to refuse to refer to these two people by their given names?  To insist upon using traditionally "male" or traditionally "female" names to address them?  That's being an asshole, right?  What if a guy hates the name "Clive" and prefers the name "Jack"?  Is it not rude to insist upon calling that person "Clive"?  

Basic civility is being lost as people chose to refuse to treat trangender people as people.  Transgender people are entitled to the same courtesy and kindness we should all extend one to another regardless of our religious beliefs, opinions, or political ideals.  You refer to another individual as that individual prefers to be referred.  It is not rocket science.  Nor is it an infringement of another's religious liberty to call someone out for their rudeness.

 

I don't get it either, Scot--but I'm not religious. I had a transgender student this semester, and I had misidentified their pronoun of choice (they being the pronoun, and the opposite gender of what they were "born" in second place).When I found out about this through the kindness of another student--most of the way through the semester!--I had a really good talk with the student about how to avoid this. They were kind, honest, and supportive of me through this. What a wonderful person, was all I could think, to help guide me through this culturally insensitive moment--they, who were no more than 18, and me who is almost 40, and I learned so much in that interchange.

I just don't get why self-reflection about how you view the world versus how it is currently changing and respecting the wishes of others is so difficult. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

On 5/5/2017 at 8:21 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Jon,

No.  They are being assholes and the distinction they attempt to draw is pefectily arbitrary if they will, based merely upon a person's preference call someone with the given name "Clive" by the preferred name "Jack" because that person prefers "Jack" to "Clive".  

The best they can come up with is "because its different".  They will not be able to explain why the first situation is okay but the second is not beyond "because that's what I believe" at which point you clearly state that their distinction is perfectly arbitrary and they are treating one person with more kindness and courtesy than they extend to another for arbitrary reasons.  Unless they want to say that being Transgender someone makes someone less than a person and not deserving of courtesy and kindness.  If they take that route... they're an asshole to begin with.  

To a Christian I would say "Whatever you do unto the least of these... you do unto me"  If they don't like it they are rejecting the words of the man they claim as their savior.   

 

 

 

Sorry to double post, but I do not think the issue is arbitrary and about preference. If I understand correctly, a transgender person feels their identity is different from the sex they were born with--that is something difficult to understand and wrap your head around, I think, if you weren't born this way. It's a complicated notion, and even the way I phrased it is perhaps clunky and cannot encapsulate what a transgender person feels. I think it is important to point this out because the people who do resist it do so out of inability to meet these real changes head on and accept that the world of full of truly different perspectives than their own.

I assume most people only know what it feels like to have your identity correspond to your birth sex, so even the concept of something otherwise is foreign and difficult for people to wrap their minds around. When we draw up harsh arguments against people who resist this, I think we push them farther away from self-reflection. I don't understand why people can't just come to understand people are different and accept it and work with it, but I do understand people are that way. I also believe we can help most people get past this--no matter how hateful, ugly, nasty they might seem. And it requires incredible patience and compassion on our parts.

But that's likely the teacher in me--I think teachers like feeling like we're beating our heads against brick walls and getting no results.

 

Dr. Pepper also made a good point about misgendering people inviting hostility toward the individual. I think the risk of being patient and trying to help people is what D.P. points out--my student in the example in my last post said they had not always had good experiences with classmates (in high school, not so much at college) and would love for the discussion to be opened in our class. I wondered later if my misidentification, even by accident, was a dangerous thing for that person.

But can we convince stubborn, angry people if we push hard against them? I don't know.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Sorry to double post, but I do not think the issue is arbitrary and about preference. If I understand correctly, a transgender person feels their identity is different from the sex they were born with--that is something difficult to understand and wrap your head around, I think, if you weren't born this way. It's a complicated notion, and even the way I phrased it is perhaps clunky and cannot encapsulate what a transgender person feels. I think it is important to point this out because the people who do resist it do so out of inability to meet these real changes head on and accept that the world of full of truly different perspectives than their own.

I assume most people only know what it feels like to have your identity correspond to your birth sex, so even the concept of something otherwise is foreign and difficult for people to wrap their minds around. When we draw up harsh arguments against people who resist this, I think we push them farther away from self-reflection. I don't understand why people can't just come to understand people are different and accept it and work with it, but I do understand people are that way. I also believe we can help most people get past this--no matter how hateful, ugly, nasty they might seem. And it requires incredible patience and compassion on our parts.

But that's likely the teacher in me--I think teachers like feeling like we're beating our heads against brick walls and getting no results.

Simon,

I'm not saying the person who is Transgender is being arbitrary.  I'm saying the person who misgenders the Transgender person deliberately is being arbitrary.  I apologize if that is unclear.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Simon,

I'm not saying the person who is Transgender is being arbitrary.  I'm saying the person who misgenders the Transgender person deliberately is being arbitrary.  I apologize if that is unclear.

 

No, I think I was unclear, and I apologize--I went off a bit in the wrong direction in that post early on. I was trying to say misgendering isn't necessarily arbitrary--it comes from a real difficulty to understand something these people (the mis-genderers if you will) cannot fathom on any level. For example, I have one name--Simon. Some people have two names--Jonathan and Jon, let's say. And Jon might hate to be called Jonathan. I totally get that. But the understanding of gender identity is something I can't understand--it's the privilege issue, I suppose. Many people have a notion of privilege and try to never understand the vastly different experiences of others. Maybe I'm not making a sound argument in any case.