Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Chick-Fil-A (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Chick-Fil-A
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I've been following it as much as I can, but if you know more then by all means, tell me what I'm missing. From what I've seen, it sounds like a few politicians are telling the owner of a company that they are going to do everything they can to make sure that company isn't able to open up shop in that town, specifically because of their religious beliefs.

There are some city politicians, mayors coucilmembers alders and such, across the country who have made various statements across a wide range of displeasure from 'don't align with our city's values' (and yes, Jeff, a city politician does have some claim to speak for the city's people) to 'we will prevent CFA from obtaining the necessary permits to open a business here'. Where it's done the latter, support has sprung up for CFA from a variety of sources-including the ACLU (question: is that news met with surprise, or lack of surprise?), and some of them have back off. A few seconds with Google will give you a fairly thorough timeline.

Where it tends towards the other end of the spectrum, though, the whole 'not welcome' stuff, that's both far from uncommon and a much stickier question of freedom of speech.

quote:
Just because that's happening, it doesn't make the example any less correct. I used that as an example because I think it's wrong to bar anyone from doing something based solely on their religion. It's a complete coincidence that it actually happened. I could have just as easily used Christians or Jews, blacks or whites, as examples and the point would still stand.
The way you used the example pointed strongly to an ignorance of something very relevant: that Muslims *are* barred from building where they like, and that the same people who support CFA while condemning their politics opposed that, too. The tone of your example didn't acknowledge that it was already happening-and particularly that some of those most in support of CFA on supposed freedom of speech laws are also in opposition to a so-called 'Ground Zero Mosque'.
Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Church going Christians being proportionally more common in urban areas?

Yes, the welcome would largely depend on the surrounding community. That's the whole point. The question is, which community do you believe is more common: the one which embraces a homosexual congregants with open arms and an unflinching kindness, or the many shades of the other kind?

As for the bar, that wasn't the comparison being made. The comparison being made and the question being asked wasn't between a group of liberal (and in the case of RC, semi-separatist) Christians and a random bar, but between Christians and Christians.

It's a strange conversation if it's being claimed that most Christians will treat open homosexuals the way you describe. We've only just now gotten to the point where SSM has a majority approval rating.

Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Vasslia:

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Vasslia Cora:
I have a problem with comparing disagreeing with homosexuality to racism. There is a huge difference between thinking someone's life choices and views are wrong. And believing that somebody is fundamentally lesser than somebody else.

Do you maintain that homosexuality is a choice?

Posts: 14237 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
odouls268
Member
Member # 2145

 - posted      Profile for odouls268   Email odouls268         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Their spicy chicken sandwiches are delicious.
Posts: 2525 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Spicy chicken sandwiches are a choice. Controversial, I know.
Posts: 9658 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Vasslia:

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Vasslia Cora:
I have a problem with comparing disagreeing with homosexuality to racism. There is a huge difference between thinking someone's life choices and views are wrong. And believing that somebody is fundamentally lesser than somebody else.

Do you maintain that homosexuality is a choice?

I find "disagreement" with homosexuality to be different from racism. But only because racists don't "disagree" with race. They actually put *too much* stock in it. In the sense of segregation and discrimination, racial and sexual discrimination are on a par with each other. Both being fairly equally baseless, unfair, socially destructive, and immoral.
Posts: 9658 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
odouls268
Member
Member # 2145

 - posted      Profile for odouls268   Email odouls268         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Spicy chicken sandwiches are a choice. Controversial, I know.

Well, I'm usually tempted to order two. But I'm not sure if two sandwiches of the same spiciness should be lying in a bag together.

[Razz]

Posts: 2525 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How I get my kicks on a weekend: get take-away from KFC, eat in the parking lot of CFA.
Posts: 9658 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:

I realize of course it's a guess, but I'm baffled by what I perceive is resistance to the claim that, no, churches aren't generally accepting of open homosexuals in their own persons, as opposed to an abstract concept. I could very well be misunderstanding you, though.

-----------

In my experience (though of course I have no data to back it up) most churches are more accepting of open homosexuals in their own persons as opposed to an abstract concept. Churches that have official disapproval of same-sex relationships "on the books" make exceptions for Mary, who plays the piano for choir practice, and her partner JoAnn, who runs the food pantry. In fact, that's what is eroding the support for anti-homosexual policies -- knowing actual same-sex couples.


For your earlier question, of course I have no idea. Regional and denominational differences are so great that I don't know how one would even begin to guess what the result would be at a randomly chosen church anywhere in America. But neither do you.

The "resistance" you're sensing isn't to the reality that homosexuality is a divided and divisive issue in Christianity -- of course it is. It's to the assumption that one side of the divide is how it really is and the other side is an easily dismissible minority.

Posts: 9803 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In my experience (though of course I have no data to back it up) most churches are more accepting of open homosexuals in their own persons as opposed to an abstract concept. Churches that have official disapproval of same-sex relationships "on the books" make exceptions for Mary, who plays the piano for choir practice, and her partner JoAnn, who runs the food pantry. In fact, that's what is eroding the support for anti-homosexual policies -- knowing actual same-sex couples.
I think I see the way I miscommunicated here. The question I'm trying to ask isn't 'are exceptions made', which I think you more than most would have pretty thorough experience in seeing. My point is that, for example, a church that does make an exception for Mary but also has disapproval of homosexuality on the books, as it were, isn't exactly an example that ought to be used for your side of the discussion, though it's not entirely fitting for mine either. In this hypothetical example, for instance, do you think Mary is unaware she's considered an exception, a pioneer of sorts? Doubtless she is grateful to be accepted with love and good faith by her fellow congregants, but I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that if she is officially deemed an outsider by the rules, she probably won't feel entirely included.

In your experience of Christianity in general, would you say that most churches have, on the books so to speak, sexuality inclusiveness? I don't mean in a particularly liberal sect or region, but across the board. That hasn't been my experience, though yours in that area is much broader than mine, professionally and personally. Whereas anyone reading this has already thought of quite a few examples in the other direction, examples of churches and Christian leadership who are openly antagonistic and exclusive of homosexuality, both in opinion and official rule.

It's too soon to claim Christianity, as it is officially preached and practiced, as an inclusive religion with respect to homosexuality. Thanks largely, IMO, to external forces as usually is the case with religious reform, it has become quite a lot less exclusive in that respect over the last generation-exactly like the rest of the country. But even in spite of that, Alex the homosexual Christian stands a pretty poor chance of leading a congregation as a recognized leader when compared to Joe the heterosexual Christian, and that's not even considering Alexandra.

Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Read through the first page so apologies if anyone else has already stated an opinion along thes e lines but:

As a Canadian from a Commonwealth perspective of a struggle for "responsible government" I've observed that the common conception is that businesses operating in canada have an obligation to work towards the public good. If they not only do not do so, but work in contrary and contradiction towards the public good, the state has a legitimate interest in their regulation should they break the social contract.

Our constitution if you recall, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has the Notwithstanding Clause, which allows any provincial government to suspend non-core democratic freedoms for duration of 5 years which it can renew indefinitely.

The basic idea is that there are some rights, such as the right to vote or language rights that are inalienable, but other rights are not; and while viewed as a "right" there are reasonable limits to what those rights provide to citizenry.

So if even normal people dont nessasarily have every right, why should businesses? They're not people and should not have more rights than people, and so if my towns mayor wishes to deny them the right to do business in my town he can.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The "resistance" you're sensing isn't to the reality that homosexuality is a divided and divisive issue in Christianity -- of course it is. It's to the assumption that one side of the divide is how it really is and the other side is an easily dismissible minority.
Let me try and put it another way: I'm not saying that the 'other side' so to speak doesn't have a claim on Christianity, or that it's easily dismissed. Just that it is still the minority, and when speaking of Christianity in general in America, it's just unrealistic to suggest it's *not* a minority.
Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So if even normal people dont nessasarily have every right, why should businesses? They're not people and should not have more rights than people, and so if my towns mayor wishes to deny them the right to do business in my town he can.
As usual, rights denied to others aren't such a big deal and if the right denied is the right to believe or say something one personally disapproves of, so much the better!

Let's be quite clear about what you're really saying, stripped of all the mental gymnastics necessary to make it seem reasonable: sometimes, government should tell private citizens and groups what they should think, and punish and reward as follows that instruction and obedience to it.

We've got limits to all rights in this country too. We just set the bar higher with respect to how much regard we give to an individual's right to speak and think.

Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Church going Christians being proportionally more common in urban areas?

Yes, the welcome would largely depend on the surrounding community. That's the whole point. The question is, which community do you believe is more common: the one which embraces a homosexual congregants with open arms and an unflinching kindness, or the many shades of the other kind?

As for the bar, that wasn't the comparison being made. The comparison being made and the question being asked wasn't between a group of liberal (and in the case of RC, semi-separatist) Christians and a random bar, but between Christians and Christians.

It's a strange conversation if it's being claimed that most Christians will treat open homosexuals the way you describe. We've only just now gotten to the point where SSM has a majority approval rating.

Seventy-four percent of US Catholics approve either SSM or civil unions. Whatever the official policy. More than half don't believe that sexual activity between people of the same sex is sinful. That compares to slightly less than half of the general population.

Certainly, it is a struggle. It is not nearly as one-sided a struggle as you imagine.

The largest Lutheran denomination ordains non-celibate gays and lesbians. The same is true of the Presbyterians and the United Church of Christ and Episcopalians. In any of those churches you might walk in to find the minister is openly gay.

Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't imagine it's a one sided struggle, or even that your particular side in it is losing. Just that the field is not yet mostly in your possession yet.
Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nor is it in this country outside of the churches.
Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The largest Lutheran denomination ordains non-celibate gays and lesbians. The same is true of the Presbyterians and the United Church of Christ and Episcopalians. In any of those churches you might walk in to find the minister is openly gay.
Do any of those sects break into the top five Christian groups in the US? Possibly Lutherans but not, I think, by much. Which has been the point from the start.

quote:
Nor is it in this country outside of the churches.
I agree. I wasn't comparing Christians to anyone but themselves.

[ July 30, 2012, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]

Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think as much as some people would hate to admit it and battles still rage, the war has already been won. Just like there were Japanese soldiers living in caves never knowing or accepting the end of WWII, people will still try and make homosexuals into second class citizens, but as a culture, acceptance of gays is over the hump, no pun intended.
Posts: 5089 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
So if even normal people dont nessasarily have every right, why should businesses? They're not people and should not have more rights than people, and so if my towns mayor wishes to deny them the right to do business in my town he can.
As usual, rights denied to others aren't such a big deal and if the right denied is the right to believe or say something one personally disapproves of, so much the better!

Let's be quite clear about what you're really saying, stripped of all the mental gymnastics necessary to make it seem reasonable: sometimes, government should tell private citizens and groups what they should think, and punish and reward as follows that instruction and obedience to it.

We've got limits to all rights in this country too. We just set the bar higher with respect to how much regard we give to an individual's right to speak and think.

Does not the government already tell you not to do a variety of actions that infringe upon the public good on behalf of the citizenry that elected it? This isn't the government telling people how to think, but regulating the interchange of ideas to insure on the whole the discourse benefits the public good. Its not banning such thought, its regulating it; and preventing the spread of businesses who use their profits to damage the public good is a form of regulation, especially on the local level.

A town elects its mayor to represent their interests, letting a business that supports practices the community doesnt condone because it is in contradiction of the social contract is a legitimate use of the position.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Does not the government already tell you not to do a variety of actions that infringe upon the public good on behalf of the citizenry that elected it? This isn't the government telling people how to think, but regulating the interchange of ideas to insure on the whole the discourse benefits the public good. Its not banning such thought, its regulating it; and preventing the spread of businesses who use their profits to damage the public good is a form of regulation, especially on the local level.
Actions, yes. Even some words that advocate actions. But not speech and ideas. Even within the confines of your own argument, you're contradicting yourself. It is absolutely government regulating thought, unless you take that to mean very literally the thoughts between one's ears, unwritten and unspoken. The government decides which thoughts and ideas might someday be harmful to society as a whole, and then decides how they should be communicated-of at all. Even under your own reasoning, that is definitely banning and restricting unwanted thoughts.
Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
The largest Lutheran denomination ordains non-celibate gays and lesbians. The same is true of the Presbyterians and the United Church of Christ and Episcopalians. In any of those churches you might walk in to find the minister is openly gay.
Do any of those sects break into the top five Christian groups in the US? Possibly Lutherans but not, I think, by much. Which has been the point from the start.

quote:
Nor is it in this country outside of the churches.
I agree. I wasn't comparing Christians to anyone but themselves.

Then I don't understand your point. What point were you trying to make with your statement about openly gay people not being welcome in churches?
Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Do any of those sects break into the top five Christian groups in the US? Possibly Lutherans but not, I think, by much. Which has been the point from the start.

The ELCA is number seven.

Edit to add:

Presbyterian Church (USA) is #10, Episcopal Church is #14, United Church of Christ is #21.

*All numbers according the the National Council of Churches 2011 Church Yearbook.

Posts: 9803 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Then I don't understand your point. What point were you trying to make with your statement about openly gay people not being welcome in churches?
My point was that Christians (as well as most everyone else) have more work before them than behind them when it comes to homosexuals being accepted and feeling welcome. I'm not sure what I said that suggested I felt gays simply weren't welcome among Christians, period, anywhere.

Dkw's numbers, which I think we can all agree are quite reliable, seem to support that-the groups you highlighted for inclusiveness are themselves not even close to being the most numerous yet.

Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The UMC, which is #3, is split about 50-50 on the issue. The Roman Catholic Church, which is #1 (by a huge margin) seems to be about the same, according to Kate's numbers.

Actually, half of the Roman Catholic Church in the US is still larger than the next largest denomination.

Posts: 9803 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Catholics are the most numerous and I showed you data about how Catholics in general feel about gay issues.

What you seemed to suggest is that gays and lesbians would be less welcome in churches than elsewhere. If that is true, it is not by much of a margin.

Sure, an openly gay couple may be unwelcome in a random Baptist church, but they would probably be just as unwelcome in the country western bar down the street from the church and more likely to get beat up.

[ July 30, 2012, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dana, this article has the numbers I was citing. There are a variety of polls on this that I have seen, but they are all pretty consistent.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/candacechellew-hodge/4417/new_poll_shows_strong_catholic_support_for_gay_rights

Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The UMC, which is #3, is split about 50-50 on the issue. The Roman Catholic Church, which is #1 (by a huge margin) seems to be about the same, according to Kate's numbers.

Actually, half of the Roman Catholic Church in the US is still larger than the next largest denomination.

Quite a lot of exceptions and qualifications need to be made before the RCC can be counted as accepting of homosexuals. When Catholics in America are, they're doing so in defiance of their leadership. At the very best, that's a wash as far as acceptance is concerned, and since that defiant acceptance is far from universal...

quote:
What you seemed to suggest is that gays and lesbians would be less welcome in churches than elsewhere. If that is true, it is not by much of a margin.
I'm baffled as to where I did so, and by this point I've said precisely that I'm *not* saying that.
Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well you ask the question here:

quote:
If this tolerance and love for people in spite of 'bad choices' was really so prevalent, so thoroughly practiced by anyone, well you tell me: how many openly homosexual people do you know who regularly attend church with their partners?
And when Dana responded that she knew quite a few, you seemed to take that as an aberration which isn't the case.

Edit: In other words, you seem to believe that churches are particularly unwelcoming places for gay people.

Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
odouls268
Member
Member # 2145

 - posted      Profile for odouls268   Email odouls268         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:

Sure, an openly gay couple may be unwelcome in a random Baptist church, but they would probably be just as unwelcome in the country western bar down the street from the church and more likely to get beat up.

Two phenomenally disheartening facts/opinions.
Posts: 2525 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by odouls268:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:

Sure, an openly gay couple may be unwelcome in a random Baptist church, but they would probably be just as unwelcome in the country western bar down the street from the church and more likely to get beat up.

Two phenomenally disheartening facts/opinions.
Yep.
Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Catholics are the most numerous and I showed you data about how Catholics in general feel about gay issues.


When my best friend came out, his parents joined a local Catholic group in support of parents with gay children. It is surprisingly open minded, and encouraging in asking the parents to open their hearts to their children.

Though the choir that was invited to sing one evening included our religion/drama teacher from high school who molested one of our classmates. Unrelated, and way off topic, but it sort of shows how forgiving a religion they are.

Posts: 3130 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And when Dana responded that she knew quite a few, you seemed to take that as an aberration which isn't the case.

Edit: In other words, you seem to believe that churches are particularly unwelcoming places for gay people.

Alright, I can see how you might have read that question that way, though not my repeated clarifications. I don't believe churches are 'particularly' unwelcoming towards homosexuals, just that they're unwelcoming more often than not. The Catholic church, for example, cannot claim to be welcoming of homosexuals regardless of how many anecdotes you can bring to to the discussion.

The question wasn't a solicitation for anecdotes, it was an attempt to gauge perceptions of the welcome most homosexuals would receive generally, not just among the most liberal and inclusive sects in the country, themselves not even a majority.

If, for example, the RCC were to (almost certainly never while this Pope presides) drop its anti-homosexual stance, then you would begin to be able to make a claim for the whole, rather than smaller parts. Had my question been about, say, one of the groups dkw mentioned or one of those Catholic support groups, it would be a very different matter.

----

Oh, I don't know, Stephan, the church isn't so forgiving of some 'rogue' priests and nuns for example. Kmbboots can tell you a lot more about that than I can. Without trying to speak for her, as a liberal Catholic even by American standards (if you'd rather reject the label, I'll drop it with apologies), she's in a good position to speak of how the forgiveness of Catholics isn't the same thing at all as the forgiveness of the church, necessarily.

Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rakeesh, I didn't give you anecdotes; I gave you survey results. The Vatican may not be welcoming, but, for the most part, the Church is. In more parishes than not, openly gay people are welcome and made to feel welcome. We have a long way to go on official stances, but generally the folks in the pews (and especially in the choir*) are welcome and welcoming. Additionally, there are specific "official" programs for gay and lesbian outreach.

*I am reasonably certain that there would be very little music in Catholic churches if they were all straight.

Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Rakeesh, I didn't give you anecdotes; I gave you survey results. The Vatican may not be welcoming, but, for the most part, the Church is. In more parishes than not, openly gay people are welcome and made to feel welcome. We have a long way to go on official stances, but generally the folks in the pews (and especially in the choir*) are welcome and welcoming. Additionally, there are specific "official" programs for gay and lesbian outreach.
You gave both, in fact, and we cannot forget that American Catholics aren't 'the Church', or even 'the Church in America'. Again. A welcome made in spite of the boss's inhospitality is, by definition, not an unqualified welcome, even when it is on the part of those offering it totally sincere.
Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You think the Pope is the boss?
Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tony Danza was clearly the boss.
Posts: 5089 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tell that to Alyssa Milano.
Posts: 2297 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
You think the Pope is the boss?

I do, and so does nearly everyone else, even in the more liberal in Catholic terms United States. It's not the uncomplicated authority of an autocrat, that's certainly true, but tell me: when a priest or a nun (never, you know, a priestess and a male nun) decides to begin a doctrinally dubious service or preaching, who decides whether they'll be disciplined and to what extent, and what happens if that decision is defied? When a priest somewhere rapes a child, or covers up or fails to investigate such, who decides whether they'll be told to head back to the Vatican or must remain in the states? Is it a local cardinal or lower level local official, or does that decision come from elsewhere? Where do your priests have to go to ascend in leadership roles, and who vets them? When a given local church is deciding what language to speak at Mass, are they making that decision on their own or in submission to or in defiance of someone else?

Oh, he's the boss alright. He's not the absolute boss, it's true, but it's his name on the letterhead, his name signing the checks, his name deciding who stays and goes, all of that so to speak and not meant literally, of course. You can't have it both ways-if you don't wish to be tarred with the bad brush of some of the (awful sometimes, IMO) things he does, then don't be associated with them-or him. Until then? Well, none of you other Catholics have your own countries or your own special cars or your own diplomatic services, and more's the pity.

Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that perhaps you are underestimating the distance between what the Pope decides and what churches - especially here - actually do. You may also be overestimating what the Pope can actually do and what he actually knows about.

To take your example. If a particular sermon was blatantly contrary to doctrine, it might come to the attention of the local bishop. The bishop, depending on the circumstances might have a talk with the priest. The bishop might weigh the consequences of moving a particular priest. If the priest is popular - and a lot of the priests who ride the edge are* that may be more of a fight than he wants to take on. If a particularly noteworthy priest takes a very public stand that is unquestionably contrary to Vatican rules and the CDF cannot get them to change his mind or shut up, the CDF (not usually the Pope) may move toward excommunication.** But even this takes time and has a huge cost. And sometimes it would make them look really bad. ***It is likely to spur more dissent rather than quell it. There is a danger in taking a hard line. Just how hard can they squeeze while maintaining the illusion of control before losing the western Church? It isn't like the Pope waves his crozier and people fall in line.****

*See Fr. Michael Pfleger

** See Fr. Roy Bourgeois

*** See Fr. Thomas Doyle

****See Nuns

Edit to add: The Vatican doesn't sign the checks. The archdiocese or the order might but they are well aware that the money that pays those checks comes in very large part from the American churchgoers. Rome is well aware of that.

Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Tony Danza was clearly the boss.

Wrong.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have worked with churches in the past, and still do to a small amount today. When I started I was worried, and the liberal folks working with me were very worried, that the people at the churches--the nuts and fanatics--would sense my liberalism, my non-Christian thoughts, and my non-conservative ways, and would attack.

They certainly would never do business with me.

They certainly would never be friendly.

But then I started working with them and I discovered that I was the one who had fallen for the prejudiced view that all Christians were Pat Robinson combined with Rush Limbaugh.

Actually the same motives that bring them to work in the church--love of others, dedication, the desire to help--are the same motives I find in most liberals.

So yes, there is a view that all Christians are one great evil empire. That is completely wrong.

Then again, those who would cry the loudest that the Left is being prejudiced against Christians by portraying them as conservative lock-stepped pushy army of God are the ones who wish to make Christianity a lock-stepped conservative pushy army of God.

Posts: 1868 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
To take your example. If a particular sermon was blatantly contrary to doctrine, it might come to the attention of the local bishop. The bishop, depending on the circumstances might have a talk with the priest. The bishop might weigh the consequences of moving a particular priest. If the priest is popular - and a lot of the priests who ride the edge are* that may be more of a fight than he wants to take on. If a particularly noteworthy priest takes a very public stand that is unquestionably contrary to Vatican rules and the CDF cannot get them to change his mind or shut up, the CDF (not usually the Pope) may move toward excommunication.** But even this takes time and has a huge cost. And sometimes it would make them look really bad. ***It is likely to spur more dissent rather than quell it. There is a danger in taking a hard line. Just how hard can they squeeze while maintaining the illusion of control before losing the western Church? It isn't like the Pope waves his crozier and people fall in line.****
Much of this is actually an illustration of how the Pope *is* still the boss...except that American Catholics haven't quite realized that they don't, in fact, actually have to listen to him. At some point the 'illusion' of control becomes a form of control in itself, such as for example local authorities have to try and persuade a 'radical' to moderate or quiet down to avoid trouble. The Pope is well on the way to not being the boss of American Catholics anymore, but the day ain't come yet. When you can tell me a story about a noteworthy local priest preaching something in opposition to the Vatican, and he *doesn't* have to do that dance, then I'll credit your argument that the Pope ain't boss more highly.
Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did you look up my examples? Cardinal George suspended Fr. Pfleger; it lasted less than a month. The Cardinal tried to move him out of St. Sabina's; Fr. Pfleger is still there.

Fr. Tom Doyle has been a thorn (a very expensive thorn, too) in the Vatican's side for almost 30 years and nothing the Vatican has done has been able to shut him up. (Heh. If you think my attitude toward Rome is dismissive...Tom has said publicly on several occasions that the Church needs bishops like a duck hunter needs an accordion.) In addition to his support of victims of sexual abuse, he is Fr. Bourgeois's lawyer.

The LCWR is meeting next week and we will see what their response to the Vatican "crackdown" will be. Given Sr. Pat Farrell's media tour (including the Colbert Report) I will be surprised if meek submission is in the air.

Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*sigh* And are these examples representative of the RCC in America, or are they unusual?
Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*sigh* Well, the LCWR represents about 83% of the women religious in this country. Is that enough to be considered representative? The examples I gave are extreme because a priest has to be pretty extreme to get negative attention from the CDF. That was my point. Most of the decisions you talk about when it comes to disciplining a priest would come from the order for a religious priest or from the bishop for a diocesan priest. The examples I gave show how blatant and public the "transgression" needs to be for action to be taken and that the bishops and orders cannot take those actions without consequence.

[ July 30, 2012, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
odouls268
Member
Member # 2145

 - posted      Profile for odouls268   Email odouls268         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
RCC in America...the LCWR represents... the CDF
Seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, perhaps we should put the PC on the CP, because if it leaks to the VC, he might end up MIA, and then we'd all be put on KP.


BTW, Tony Danza WAS the boss. These days I think it might be Paul Teutel Sr.

Either way, Alyssa Milano is all kinds of hot.

Posts: 2525 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry. Translation

CDF - Congregation for the Faith

LCWR - Leadership Conference of Women Religious

Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
odouls268
Member
Member # 2145

 - posted      Profile for odouls268   Email odouls268         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Smile]

Thanks. I thought I had just missed it elsewhere in the thread (and I probably still have LOL)

Thanks for giving us the key

Posts: 2525 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You didn't miss it. I guess I had just harped on them for so long people would know.

Edit: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faithful used to be called the Inquisition. Our current Pope used to be the Prefect. Cardinal Levada was Prefect until recently and now he is charged with "supervising" the nuns. Cardinal Levada has a seriously crappy record when it comes to dealing with sexual abuse by priests. Google him, too.

[ July 30, 2012, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're still wrong about Who's the Boss, though.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2