Almost makes you have confidence in people!

I have zero confidence in 4 of the sitting judges, so who the hell knows.

Reminds me of another great change in public opinion:



Probably a lot of this has to do with a different, less sacramental, attitude towards marriage in general.

Lol at only 65% in 02

id guess it is the other way around. As in it isn't people changing their of marriage for their own reasons and finding out that hey, interracial and gay marriage is now consistent with their new view of marriage. It is accepting racial and sexual minorities, and then changing their view of marriage to be compatible with it.

There is definitely a non trivial chance it is 6-3 or 7-2

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30869019

That's quite a plank in his own eye.

I don't understand your criticism. Here's the broader context of that paragraph.

The pope advocates that women should be given more of a voice in society, whilst they don't have a voice in the catholic church.

I don't understand your criticism. Are you erroneously suggesting that women have no voice in the Catholic church? Most likely, you've equated "voice" with position.

Not that I agree with the Catholic Church's position every single point, but it seems really strange to pick *this* quote to try to raise *this* argument.

Pointing out the hypocrisy of the pope lauding the role of female voices in society while leading a church so anachronistic and misogynistic as to actively prevent such female voices from positions of authority seems entirely appropriate.

Notice the ongoing conflation of "voice" and "position." I maintain my observation is completely accurate.

I'll let you hold "anachronistic" though I disagree with it, but extreme LOL @ mysogynistic. Horray for playing the label game.

It isn't a conflation, the two are directly related. Having a position of authority gives your voice social impact. This is why Obama has a bigger voice than the politards on this forum. So the Pope can value the voices of females all we wants, but it is complete appropriate to point out the tension that exists when he leads an organization that actively prevents those voices from various positions of authority and the impact such positions carry.

And yes, when females are denied entry to positions of authority due only to their gender that is mysogynistic. It is the appropriate label. But the label doesn't much matter to me - God knows you will play semantic games to the end of the time so perhaps using any label is unwise - the objection is to the concept of denying women positions of authority, what you call it is minor. Amazing that you would even push back on anachronistic...umm....ya....okay...

Right. Just like Obama clearly hates illegal immigrants when he speaks about them with compassion because he's talking from a position in an organization that ultimately denies their ability to hold the role that he has.

Unfortunately for you, voice and position are very different things. You want to use your dislike of a structure to imply something significantly stronger than is actually warranted under the situation. You're free to do that and to make this mistake repeatedly, but it doesn't make your position correct.

Either your dictionary is broken or you're disconnected with reality. Your usage of the word is much closer to "has been around for a while/old" than it is "a chronological error/from the wrong time period."

You can certainly say that it's an old tradition. But it's far from obvious in an international context that there's something wrong with the chronology of that structure.

Different, yes, but directly related in the way I explained (and you then ignored). The social impact of somebody - the reach of their voice, one might say - absolutely depends on their position. It's great to want people to have voices. But there is absolutely a tension if you simultaneously maintain that these voices are valuable while actively preventing those voices from being uttered in positions of authority. There was a time long ago when female voices were not valued, and not having their views......voiced....in positions of authority was at least consistent.


Wat. Exactly the opposite. My point is that the policy (preventing women from positions of authority) IS one appropriate for "the wrong time period". Our modern society embraces female empowerment where a female can be a judge or a CEO or the president or a boy scouts of america leader or basically any position of authority except for the one (is there another major example?) throwback to a different era: the catholic church. Just as you would like, this is not a criticism that it has been around for a while nor old, but that policy is appropriate for and consistent with a time period we don't currently live in.

But enough of the silly semantic games you love so much: why not state YOUR view on this policy, using whatever labels you think are appropriate. My guess is we don't disagree but you want to find ways to make it appear as if we disagree.

Right. Those poor immigrants that Obama must hate because even though he wants to hear their voices, he's not giving them the ability to be in the position he's in.

You would be far more successful in your argument if you had taken your target to be religion in general, as there are numerous cases of organizational leadership with gender restrictions than simply the Catholic church. For example, Orthodox Judaism is very clear about gender roles in leadership. Similarly, you will find many Muslims who support religious structures that are gender specific.

But more generally, the issue is one of your perspective. Because you are not a part of organizations that express value in gender roles, you seem to think that they someone don't exist (save this one example) and that they are somehow out of time even though there are many, many contemporary examples of this viewpoint, especially when you stretch beyond Western norms.

My view of the policy is that it doesn't matter. I don't think it's wrong to have clearly defined gender roles, nor do I think it's right to not have any gender specificity. These are organizational decisions that are left to individual organizations to determine.

But if you leave it to the organizations, then surely the ethics/dogma/doctrines of these organizations are on the table for discussion. So what is your view of an organization that willfully gender discriminates? Let's say a church where women are not allowed to speak in gatherings.

This isn't even a cute nonanalogy.

Do you disagree with my claim that positions of authority tend give more social impact to one's "voice"? Do you disagree that there is a tension between respecting people's voices and actively preventing those people from the positions of authority that would give their voices more impact?

Okay, consider my argument so generalized. I won't go to "religion in general" since religion doesn't generally restrict women from positions of authority. Heck I'd generalize to places outside of religion too if there were examples of restricting women from positions of authority, although I can't think of nonreligious examples in the west at the moment (at least not explicit...higher percent of CEOs are men and things like this but it isn't a complete restriction). Only reason we were talking about catholicism was because that was the example brought up. Besides, the strength of my opposition of women being restricted from positions of leadership is as successful or unsuccessful regardless of whether i speak about the catholic church generally or other religions with similar such restrictions.

Can you list these many, many, contemporary examples - outside of religion? I can't actually think of a single example in the west. If you want to try and use examples outside of the west to say something like "well in the contemporary islamic world they restrict females from positions of authority all the time ergo it isn't anarchonistic"...well sure I suppose I should add that "in the west" qualifier in. Very, very nitty move though. Regardless, the point that - in the west - when you leave religious restrictions, women in positions of authority is not just common but explicitly codified and frequently cited as a core aspect of our post-female emancipation society, and to that the catholic church's position is decidedly anachronistic.


Is your answer to "what is your view on illegal immigration in the US" merely "my view of the policy doens't matter. I don't think it is wrong to have immigration rules. Those rules are up to that organization"?

You are effectively eliminating the need to comment on what other "organizations" do ever. If you just don't want to talk about something, well fine. If you just want to play semantic games, well fine. But things that organizations determine are absolutely fair game for any political discussion and to refuse when asked point blank what your view on the policy is simply because organizations can determine stuff seems like an empty cop out.

In particular, would there be any tension if the leader of this church spoke about the value of female voices while not allowing their voices to be heard in church gatherings.

Isn't Obama actively working to help make immigrants legal? Can you point me to any articles that show the pope saying that women should begin holding places of power in the church?

I can show you the opposite.

http://www.womensordination.org/2013...ns-ordination/

Right. So you're wanting to proceed by inaccurate statements?

Even if they were to become legal immigrants (and it's not clear exactly how to parse this), they still can't be what he is.

Right, but do you dispute they could make it farther as citizens than women can as members of the Catholic church?

More "social" impact? Probably. Is there inherent tension? Not more than any other sorts of leadership tension that exist in virtually every other complex leadership situation.

For example, academic leadership for access-oriented institutions have a tension between the two of their primary missions: providing access and opportunity in higher education to those who are structurally disadvantaged and underprepared while maintaining a high standard of academic rigor.

So tension of this type is really very common. And it's far from obvious that there's hypocrisy or hatred involved.

Not sure why it's nitty. The Catholic church is a global organization, so I don't see why one should consider it only in its Western context.

As a citizen of the US, my opinion on US immigration matters insofar as it's a part of effective and meaningful citizenship to have at least some level of participation in civic matters. But as a non-Canadian citizen, I really don't have much to say about Canadian immigration policies, and even if I did I don't really know if they matter all that much.

As an outsider, I could certain say that Canadian policies are stupid and find all sorts of reasons to be critical of it. But given that I'm not Canadian and not even connected to Canada in any real way, it's quite obvious that there are probably decisions that would have an impact that I really don't understand at all, and mostly I'm just arguing about things that come in at the level of mindless punditry and talking points, and not really addressing actual issues or concerns in a meaningful way.

The "need" to comment? Why is there such a need? I don't need to comment on what happens in Canada.

I never said it wasn't fair game. People can talk about whatever they want. They don't even have to be informed (see politics). But just as you're free to comment on whatever you want, so am I.