Who but the incredibly naive or the willfully blind could possibly think otherwise?

Women are and will remain second class citizens in the RCC. Their options are to leave or to rationalize it and delude themselves that their "activism" will somehow change that. The author's empty and meaningless posturing about her "uncompromising" stand is really pretty sad.

And all the while, here in the US, the Supreme Court is frantically carving out exceptions to laws that let them consolidate their power.

People on the left and the right insist that religious beliefs are privileged, cannot be criticized, and certainly cannot be mocked. (Or you can expect violent retribution - "It's normal!" says the pope.)

Until and unless we can crack through this notion that religious ideas are better than any other ideas, we're bound to have these problems.

without distraction. There's a lot in this piece that's important to women both in and out of the Catholic Church.

Wouldn't want the cold breeze of reality to get in the way of figuring out how when the pope says equality for women is off the table, he really means that things are going to change. Those silly translation errors, amirite?!?

Good luck with your discussion.

In the future I'll ask you to interpret all his posts. It's as if you're all of one mind.

The long-term effects of inhabiting an echo chamber.

For "feeble", you have an awfully hard time disposing of them. Be glad you don't have my full attention.

As to the other, I'll let the post history stand on that score.

Dissenters are no longer denizens.

Speaking of posting history, I'll order some donuts from St. Brigid's for you.

Gee, they have it backwards.

Do you read what you link?

I told you I was uninterested in hacking about in the weeds about what precise word is used to label money changing hands in the church.

Tithing is 10% off the top from every congregant. The RCC does not do that.

The word you're looking for is "donation".

As in,

Ts.

I'm happy to discuss it here and not bothered by any background noise.

Perhaps, but that sound is of no consequence.

is a chorus of power saws.

A ver que pasa.

You mean because of that?

Reality sucks.

by any ugly facts, now would you, okasha? Best to surround yourself with people who will reinforce your agenda and your preconceived notions, because that's how we grow!

They ended the moratorium early and with little that looks like sanctions of any kind.

The nuns were successful in garnering the attention of the catholic community, and in particular, those who the church listens to because of their financial investments.

Is it an overall win? Not sure, but I think there are indications that it is a step in the right direction.

Not because the church actually relented on some of its blatantly sexist practices, but because the nuns didn't get punished for requesting equality with men in the church? That's your good news? Seriously?

Nothing has changed, but they weren't punished for speaking up, so hooray!

Wow. Just wow.

as it was made out to be. What a shock.

The fact that you locked SS's post and reposted the same article yourself in an attempt to silence another DU'er is just childish and petty. You should be ashamed. Your behavior as a host is despicable and contrary to everything this site stands (or at least stood) for.

There must be a support group for despicable people like me.

Then you might learn to tell the difference between a person and their behavior being called despicable.


It's been interesting to observe your 'rise to power' on DU and how you've chosen to exercise said 'power.'

Interesting, indeed.

Until then your attempt to dress me down for doing my job as an Interfaith host will not be taken seriously by me.

But for the record he was asked not to post there and if it was not locked the thread would have gotten ugly. He knew this and still did it anyway.

You owe him an apology.

Or his last.

Scott showed up in Interfaith the first day and wasnot banned outright because he agreed to stay out of the group. If I recall correctly, the specific issue was stalking.

Cleanhippie was banned that same day for his first and last post, which clearly violated the group's SOP.

That's a long time to carry a grudge around, but whatever floats their dinghies.

locking the post, he has nothing of his own to "stand by", now does he?

Were YOU called despicable or was your behavior called despicable?

C'mon, Justin, at least be honest with yourself.

Be honest with your own self.

To quote you,

This ain't about me, it's about you.

But you keep trying, justin. Keep trying.

despicable. Stop the victim nonsense. He said your behavior was despicable, and he pointed that out.

But I posted something that two of your good friends expressly said they wanted there but were unable to post themselves, so I thought I'd help out. I posted it without comment or anything else you might find offensive or disruptive, wouldn't you agree? But apparently you found my mere appearance disruptive and offensive, even though I said nothing.

But you're the host, so I guess you can be as tolerant as you choose to be.

You know how that would have gone. If I posted in the Atheist room it would cause major issues and I stay out after last April.

I did ask you not to post in the room.

It is not personal.

As noted, I said nothing and made no comment. There was nothing about me in it. It was the exact OP your dear friends cbayer and okasha expressly wanted to have posted there. Since it wasn't the content of the OP, then it must have been personal, by you, against me. No other possibility, justin...sorry. But, as I said, you're the host, and you can exercise your authority any way you choose. Just be honest and own up to it. That's all anyone can expect.

post there?


And don't pretend your very presence would not be disruptive. You know how you have treated believers here and you know the comments you would have gotten.

And there was no "me" to have gotten comments, justin, my friend. Only the unadorned OP, which was exactly what cbayer and okasha wanted. People were free to post the same comments that they would to your "version". If you or your friends tried to make it about me, that would have been up to you, though you'd have to explain why they would have found that necessary. Can you?

Are you saying that you and your friends would have been unable to keep from making the thread personal and snarky? I certainly had no intention of posting there beyond the unadorned OP, so please, tell us what other posters would have made it ugly?

But since you've had more time to think about it, I'll ask again: Who were you afraid would make the thread snarky and personal? Because it wouldn't have been me. So obviously you had concerns about your cohorts there. Which ones?

"Nice try Scott. A for effort" is just a deflection, as we both know. But it isn't fooling anybody, and seems a little beneath a true leader.

It's both funny and sad.

because he's become immune to bullying?

That is funny--and packed full of fail.

we can lock this exact same thread rather than be forced to discuss the topic without being able to blame the mean ol' atheists for "disrupting".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12646821

Apparently it was "off-topic" even though two regular Interfaith posters called for it to be posted there.

Is Interfaith providing the kind of intellectual discussion you'd expected, without all that irritating "distraction"? Or is this thread still more interesting to you?

that the Catholic Church regards the back of the bus as their rightful position. But hey, if the folks over in Interfaith want to have a discussion rationalizing "separate but equal" (well, actually "separate and not even equal&quot , they should knock themselves out.

Now I see why they want it in the echo chamber.

Little too hot in here.

Already locked, without even allowing anyone to comment. What are they afraid of, one wonders?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12646821

Meh, it's their group, if they want to pretend it's really a good thing and everyone else is just too stupid to realize it let them.

They're only fooling themselves.

Women's equality isn't as important to some as they pretend.

appears far superior.

Stop weaseling and block Scott. No one is required to follow your suggestions about what and where to post, and you using your Host power to lock it and then repost the same article yourself is indicative of the level of discourse you foster in that that group.

Pat yourself on the back, job well, done.

I know for a fact that the hosts in A&A would never ban someone just because they were dared to, but perhaps the hosts in Interfaith see the world differently and define tolerance in a way unknown to the rest of us.

And will you lock my posts for what they are, or simply because they were made by me?

Did you lock my post for what it was, or simply because it was made by me?

A true leader mustn't be afraid to own up to what he's done, and why.

I defy you to point to where you answered my question from post 55.

That kind of dishonesty does not become a host, justin...you can do better.

Your thread was locked because you did not listen to the hosts warning.

is that the post was locked because of who I am (someone you intensely dislike due to things I've posted elsewhere) and not because if its content. Thank you.

And perhaps it makes you feel more tolerant to tell yourself that you haven't officially "banned" me, but if you intend to lock or block anything and everything I post in there, even if it is useful and wanted information (as in this case), then you have, for all practical purposes.

Which is fine, but have the gumption to stand up and say right out that you're banning me, instead of hiding behind technicalities.

about banning me from Interfaith due to things I've said elsewhere. I'm intensely curious to see how that works out for you.

You knew what you were doing and wanted to get a response.

But as I told you, I had no intention of posting further in that thread beyond the OP.

And yes, your rather prolonged response here is amusing (have you really been sitting at your computer hitting refresh every 15 seconds for the last couple hours?), but it's hardly something I would consider it worth provoking. In fact, it's just reminded me why you're better on ignore.

And when one is called despicable you usually like to respond.

Not you but your friend did.

You have the power!

and not because of what I've actually posted in that Group.

Very tolerant of you, justin...you should be proud.

other posters of the room.

You were not banned but warned to leave us alone.

you're just going to block anything I put up there?

Clear now

isn't doing so well...guess there wasn't such a desperate need for it after all.

visit the home page of some groups to quietly fade into sleep.

and no one hearing them.

as stated above thread, but it is certainly of great consequence to the hierarchy of the RCC that the nuns have the ear of Frankie. Changes in the RCC are now happening with celerity.

This is by no means the gentle rustling of leaves being heard (or not); the sweeping changes for women are resounding with the same force as the 80 million trees blown down at once, as in Tunguska. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event

Once again this week the voice of reason rises above the background noise to expose those blinded by faith in both gods and politicians. Cross posting a requested article in an agreed upon group, as requested, and posting without comment, only to have it locked for being off topic isn't hypocrisy for some.

That's really pathetic, yo.

I told scott he would be informed.

You might be a host, but you're not a very good one. Either you're jerking people around soft-banning, or you are unable to rein in your fellow hosts that are improperly banning people.

But, its a shithole echo chamber, population 4-5, so it hardly matter I guess.