People like Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity parroting a bunch of sexless white men who are hopelessly fearful of what lies between a woman's knees makes most people wanna puke. And the polls bear this out, BTW.
We'll set aside the incoherence about Matthews and Hannity, but let's think about the statement "the polls bear this out." I've seen variations of this same argument elsewhere -- apparently because an indeterminate number of Catholics, but likely a lot of them, don't follow Church teachings in re contraception, the Church's teachings are therefore a dead letter and can be ignored. And this reality is borne out by some unnamed "poll."
So riddle me this -- which faith tradition puts its beliefs up to a vote? I'm unaware of one, although I suppose there's some Our Lady of Perpetual Plebiscite somewhere. Help us out -- if you know of one, share it with the audience.
14 comments:
Anonymous commenting (and the commenting platform in general) is a big reason I switched to WordPress after over 5 years on Blogger. Crazy becomes a bit more sane when an email address is required to comment.
i never had anon issues.
" which faith tradition puts its beliefs up to a vote?"
the anglicans.
My church body, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, put sexual morality up for a vote in 2009 (and in 2005 and 2007, if memory serves.) They eventually got an assembly to interpret the Bible in the way they wanted.
Of course, it wasn't a real vote. The delegates weren't representatives of congregations, they were free to vote however they liked. Given enough sob stories about exclusion and bigotry the delegates finally (and barely) got the Bible all fixed up.
You are more likely to find this kind of behavior in liberal protestant churches which are already in the habit of correcting things they don't agree with (That's an ambiguous legacy of the Reformation.)
Of course, the liberal protestant tradition has not generally relied on voting to change doctrine, but on committed groups working to change the church's stance and/or splintering from the main body. Voting on such things is a particularly crass and modern tool for people who can't be bothered to make and sustain an argument that they are interpreting the Scriptures correctly.
Another way of thinking of it is that a segment of the church in one age is voting to change the doctrine of the church in all ages (without giving anyone else a vote!) It is fundamentally corrupt and despicable.
WBP: catholicism/orthodoxy doesnt have that problem. when infallability is claimed, you have to be consistant with past teaching or loose your justification for existing.
instead we have Catholics in Name Only. they got to church on sunday morning, but are practicing protestants by noon.
as for the teaching of contraception, its easy to see every sunday how serious the faithful take it: very few families with 3 or more kids.
People of all faiths can vote with their feet. And more should.
Plebiscite schmebiscite. Like a majority of ignoramuses could vote for a supernatural skydaddy and it would make it all true. Orwell had Winston Smith come to see that 2 + 2 = 5 right before he had him take a bullet in the back of the head. Put it up for a vote and you get Jim Crow. I say full-throttle ridicule and uncompromising satire reduce bad ideas (like death cults, wars in Afghanistan and waiting in line at the DMV) to human behavior that can be changed. Sure it takes time and persistence, but that is the project of humanity: discovery of the way things are, not how we wish them to be. I know "faith traditions" don't operate democratically; how else do you get such nonsense as virgin birth, the holy trinity and Mormons. Human history's full of bad ideas and it takes great thinkers like Jonathan Swift and H.L. Mencken and Bill Hicks to show us what fools we really are.
Human history's full of bad ideas and it takes great thinkers like Jonathan Swift and H.L. Mencken and Bill Hicks to show us what fools we really are.
I prefer Ambrose Bierce.
It hardly takes a genius to notice the unlovely, foolish, and hateful. It takes someone special to redeem them.
Last time I checked, and of course I check as often as possible, what was between my wife's knees was two layers of denim and air. Pretty cowardly that Chris Matthews chap. :^)
Seriously, if that's the best word picture they can come up with for a personal attack, they seriously need to read some Shakespeare.
Seriously, if that's the best word picture they can come up with for a personal attack, they seriously need to read some Shakespeare.
Heh. Who needs Shakespeare when you've got Bill Hicks?
Do I correctly recall that Roman Catholic ecumenical councils required quite a bit of voting?
Not that I consider that the most interesting question from this debate, in the least. Unnamed polls? Maybe by the quotee. What's more interesting to me is how Catholics complaining about religious freedom will reckon with the fact of the overwhelming use of unapproved contraception by Catholic women.
Also, I do have to say that I find the recent alliance of Baptists and Evangelicals with Catholic Bishops, to attack reproductive health, after decades of the former two groups' demonizing of Catholicism, quite distasteful.
What's more interesting to me is how Catholics complaining about religious freedom will reckon with the fact of the overwhelming use of unapproved contraception by Catholic women.
The question isn't whether or not the rules are followed, Amanda. The question is who gets to make the rules -- the Church, or the State. Be careful in how you answer that, because as you know, you can walk away from the Church -- people do it every day. Walking away from the State is a much more difficult matter.
And of course that whole attacking "reproductive health" is pure bull. Unless of course you are attacking my right to the pursuit of happiness by not using tax dollars to buy me books. It's really kind of conceited to think that we should buy you crap or get labeled anti-woman.
Post a Comment