Even with a disclaimer that it's not - it pretty clearly is.

I would be inclined to ask the same question of him, except that I would ask it as the more straightforward "were you a virgin on your wedding day?"

I see your point, but I'm not sure that I agree with it.

I might, for instance, ask if she (or the hypothetical he) obeys all of the tenets of the faith, but that boils down to the same thing: hypocrite-humiliation, a la casting the first stone, etc.

The reference to the white dress is inherently a sexist thought process.

Aside from that, though - absorb what EVERYONE here is telling you. You don't need to be a jerk about someone's wedding.

Sometimes our efforts to make a point backfire and we end up telling more about our own humanity than the other person's.

I reached for a short-hand way of asking the question and, like an asshole, latched onto a perfectly sexist framing. Shame on me, and bravo to you for calling me out so plainly.

If I were going to ask the question at all, which I am now convinced that I should not, then I should have asked it simply as "were you a virgin on your wedding day?" whether the person was a man or a woman.

Shame on me.

I'm so not used to people considering others' points, your response caught me off guard!

I hope I'm as gracious as you next time I'm called out on something.

It only appears graceful in comparison to my stubbornness previously in the thread!

But thank you all the same!

...if this person has been loud and blatant in berating others for not meeting absurd standards she herself doesn't measure up to.

The wisdom of trying to stir the shit in the OP's particular situation, could, of course, be quite another matter.

denies any of that.

Most religions, including the RC church, assume that all of us are "sinners".

Take the high road.

It shows great character and strength.

I consider it beneath me and always counterproductive. When humiliated people are in pain, and when in pain they dig in.

I'm not convinced of the virtue of keeping my mouth shut while someone proclaims bigotry and intolerance.

Sure, the individual points can be addressed, but it seems worthwhile to point out the speaker's hypocrisy as well.

This would give her the opportunity to declare her obedience to yet another tenet of her faith.

To which the correct answer would be, none of your fucking business. So don't go there.

Is that not part of the church's teachings?

Jewish social law.

.....................................

How do you explain your own hypocrisies? For example, wanting to do to her the very thing that you dislike her doing to you?

Do you have a citation for that? I don't necessarily dispute it, but I have never once heard it suggested that modern rules of the Catholic church allow premarital sex. Even if it's not original doctrine, it can still become dogma.

But if I am incorrect in this regard, then I am happy to recant.


Regardless, since my hypocrisies aren't fueled by a believe in transcendent righteous doctrine, then I would assert that they're of a rather different magnitude than prohibitions that claim the authority of the almighty.

Here's what I'm trying to say:

It happens daily on DU's front page and frequently in GD as well.
You yourself routinely go to some lengths to do the same.

But I tip my cap to your response and will dispute it no further.

decide for yourself . . . which, btw, is what some of us who regard Jesus as a liberator believe he did.

Compare what she is doing to the creeds, either one will do, and then tell us how she is acting against a "tenet of faith".

sheets to prove the bride was pure? You want the MIL's job?

For one thing, it's not uncommon for women that aren't virgins to wear white on their wedding day. For another, it's none of your damn business.

That's really the issue, and if I'm forced to absorb a lot of involuntary catechism, it seems that I have some legitimate cause to respond.

Stick to the issues. Getting into her personal business, to me, is off limits.

She clearly thinks that other people's sex lives are her business, so she's opened the matter for discussion.

She might object to being subjected to personal scrutiny, but that's where the hypocrisy comes in.

Let us know how it works out.

I don't care about her sex life. Not in the slightest.

However, since I am forced to absorb her preaching about the sins of homosexuality and reproductive freedom, it seems fitting to ask is she herself holds to the standards that she sets for others; specifically, does she adhere to the teachings of the church as she requires others to do?

If she does not, then it is appropriate to cal her out for her hypocrisy.


However, I recognize that my choice of question is problematic, so I would welcome an alternative opf your suggestion, with three stipulations:

1. I am not in a position to avoid her altogether, so her bigotted preaching will continue
2. I do not accept that it is better to remain silent in the face of such bigotry
3. If I simply ask "do you adhere to the teachings of the church as you require others to do?" it will turn into a discussion of the legitimacy of one's faith, which I know from experience would be unproductive in this context.

you aren't going to change her mind, she isn't going to change yours.

Since you say you can't avoid the situation, I would assume that this is a work place deal. If it is and I were you, I would avoid escalating this.

I can't believe that so many here would sit by silently while someone preaches intolerance and bigotry, so it seems that some response must be appropriate, even if my particular example would not be.

I've read many times on DU Leviticus-justified condemnation of gays can be attacked by asking if the speaker shuns shellfish, for instance.

Sounds to me like you are just trying to be vindictive and that is not appropriate.

I don't want to embarrass her for her faith; I want to embarrass her for her bigotry and intolerance, and her hypocrisy would seem the ideal vehicle for doing so.


The overall sentiment I'm getting from this thread is that bigotry and intolerance are better than making someone feel bad about being an intolerant bigot. This baffles me.

IMO, the consensus is that what you are proposing to do is grossly inappropriate, her conduct notwithstanding. What you're basically saying is that she's acting like a jerk, so I'm going to be a jerk too. Most of the posters on this thread are above that sort of thing.

In my defense, I will repeat that we see this sort of thing all the time on DU, not least when demonstrated on public figures on DU's front page. Witness the current pic-of-the-moment, for example.


One point that I have perhaps communicated poorly is that I take particular issue with her bigotry/intolerance because she claims that they are justified by divine will. In my view, this escalates her hypocrisy far beyond an objections based on more humanistic grounds. However, it seems that people here find this argument unpersuasive, so it may be that it's not as significant a distinction as I had perceived.


In any case, I am convinced. To the extent that I pursue the matter with her, I will pursue it in another way.

What if I ask about her shoes?


Of course, the intent of the question would be to see if she identifies herself as a hypocrite, or more specifically to see if certain "sins" are acceptable while others should be condemned with hostility and disgust.

The question about her dress is a dog-whistle to highlight the underlying issue.

Inside ... they know how hypocritical their entire life is. But they cave, knuckling in to the purity police ... who in all reality many are doing the very same acts under the cover of darkness.

She won't expose her true self to you.
You'll wind up with egg on your face. Give up.

Last edited Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:49 AM - Edit history (1)

The whole white wedding thing is overdone anyway. Let her have good memories.



Ask her what these two lines of the bible means

51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

51:6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ps/51.html#5

And bad ideas often lead to foolish actions .... unless one thinks better about it.

She's condemning other people for violating her faith.

I would be asking if she's a hypocrite.

could be that your actual motive (given all of the exceptions in your own life) is to get even with her by causing her pain.

In your view, is all objection to bigotry and intolerance motivated by a desire to inflict discomfort?


Do you offer no response at all when you hear someone condeming gays or attacking women who seek access to contraception? Or is your response motivated solely by an intent to cause pain?

what kind of sex did you have?"...Well, until we get to that point as a societal norm...then we really should not worry about anyone else's sex life until most agree to bring it out into the light of the day.


Tikki

As I mentioned, I don't care about her sex life at all. She could get busy with every cardinal in the Vatican for all I care.

I'm simply interested in her hypocrisy.

some other..'thou shalt nots'.

I feel that hypocrisy is a huge no-no because it legitimizes behavior that pulls a society down to it's lowest common denominator.

But most religious institutions, so I've read here, don't do a whole sermon on the issue.

Personally, I think hypocrisy is the most destructive and much of the 1960's youth protests were about this exact thing.

Tikki

The problem with finger wagging is that self elected finger waggers are usually just as hypocritical in their own ways - even if they don't notice it in themselves.

So before you begin your campaign, be sure you're not one of those.

that we repudiate in authoritarians.

That doesn't mean that all consistency is either good or bad, nor that all in-consistency is good or bad.

It depends upon the specifics of a "whole" context, so it is possible to see exceptions made to one value in service to a different value.

Some people call that lack of principle. I call it an elevation of principles by evaluating them constantly in the traits of real world/experiences and being willing to commit to appropriate changes.

Yes valuations can be real or mistaken or dishonest, but we don't get to talk about that if we start from the premise that "consistency" is THE highest value at all times.

Or condemning homosexuality?


Unless you remain silent, then how do you respond? And to what end?

I've found that highlighting someone's hypocrisy doesn't really do a good job of convincing someone, because people are very good at excusing themselves.

However:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022949685#post66

I'm not saying you should sit quietly and listen to a bigot. Argue her stupidity, or report it if it's at work.

Pointing out that she's a hypocrite won't change her mind and it probably won't change anyone else's. If it ever escalated into something bigger you'd be better just to say, "you're a hypocrite" without all the passive-aggressive "did you wear white" stuff.

Thank you all for the responses. I have been definitively persuaded that my imagined response would have been entirely wrong-headed, and I freely admit my error.

Thank you in particular to noamnety, bad to worse & Brickbat, though others were very helpful as well.

...that I am more of an asshole and more often than you could hope to be.

Hmm...

I suppose it's no great stretch to presume that humiliating a person for the individual practice/non-practice of their faith is fair game indeed. It may certainly change minds, possibly win over those who may believe differently than us, and could affect great change in our culture.

On the other hand, it may simply do nothing other than satisfy the petulance and visceral desires of one person--- yet that same petulance and those same desires may often outweigh the lack of character we may illustrate to others when humiliating someone merely for the sake of humiliating them.

So far, so good.

And as an added bonus, at the end of the day we may even receive the self-validating opportunity to convince ourselves that ours was a constructive, positive and enduring action of change rather than what is actually was.



Good luck in your endeavors!

That is petty imo and not worth doing. Forget humiliating her, it won't win you any points in the game of life. She might be a hypocrite, but a lot of church goers are. I have a family full of hypocrites. Still, it is not worth my time or effort to humiliate them. They seem to be able to do that in public without my help.

Outside of the ridiculousness, she probably wouldn't get your point and, instead, would delve into designers and fabrics and styles...