The arrogance of organized religion
Thursday, May 3, 2012Posted in: Azteclady Speaks
Tags:organized religion sucks ass, Religion, Religious freaks
(or rather, its staunch defenders¹)
The latest preacher in our discussion of religion, particularly the Catholic church, brought on this latest jewel, by someone who signs the comment as Mary:
If you want to think of priests as leaders, go right ahead, but you’re wrong, they’re not: they have a very, very specific role, they are priests, they offer the Sacraments.
Bishops, cardinals and Popes come from the community of priests, so they are men.
Baseball coaches come from the ranks of ballplayers, so they are ballplayers. See? Not insidious, just logical.
If you are so minded to consider the father of a family the only leader: (1) get into the right century and (2) where does that leave the woman? By your logic, the woman, being unable to produce sperm, cannot be a leader of the family. We know that’s obviously wrong.
Some of our most fundamental roles are specific to our sex: mother, father, sister, brother. Also priest.
You are looking at what the priest does and who he is with the eyes of an outsider and someone who has never opened a catechism or even a good dictionary before speaking. I think you would be relieved if you spent ten minutes reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church on priesthood and the roles of the sexes.
I’m almost speechless at the idiocy.
So priests can offer the sacraments, women can’t be priests…but there is no discrimination. And coaches are not leaders? Never mind that, if we were to follow this ‘logic,’ then we start with the premise that women can’t even be players, which confirms the church’s misogyny, thank you very much.
Then again, this idjit is talking about fundamental roles for the sexes–enough said.
~ ~ ~
¹ If only they could see how their behaviour drives even more people away from whichever church they chose to ‘defend’
Fangs for the Fantasy
May 3
10:22 am
*head tilt* *confused8
Wait, so it’s not discrimination that bishops et al are all male – it’s because they come from the priesthood which is all male! But that isn’t discrimination?
And that line about fathers leading the family etc – that analogy would only work if there were a role equal to priest/bishop/cardinal/pope open to women!
And don’t even get me started on the gender roles
Anne
May 3
11:01 am
I’ve been lurking here for about four years, and suddenly I’m posting every day.
“Some of our most fundamental roles are specific to our sex: mother, father, sister, brother. Also priest.”
Except we’re all those first things by accident of birth, while ‘priest’ is something you are turned into when you’re ordained. If we ordain women, the problem goes away. It doesn’t have to be specific to the male sex.
And, to Mary, just in case she’s still reading:
As for the idea of fathers as head of the family, we aren’t ‘minded to consider’ things that way. It’s in the Bible. That’s *your* holy book, right? I take it you’ve bothered to read it? It says:
“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.” 1 Cor 11:3.
So, please stop trying to misrepresent your religion to us ignorant romance-readin’ folk.
Karen Scott
May 3
11:38 am
I’ve been lurking here for about four years, and suddenly I’m posting every day.
@Anne: And very welcomed you are too!
AztecLady
May 3
12:21 pm
@Anne: Very welcome indeed!
Anon 76
May 3
8:18 pm
That and many other posts totally gobsmacked me. It’s really interesting to watch SOME of the “enlightened” given free rein to educate the “unwashed masses.” (There have been a few posters whose sincerity I respected.)
With free rein the preaching inevitably turns to the very ideals many of us have major problems with. When their own words are turned back at them in a logical fashion some get verra flustered.
Sure, this site may be no holds barred in terms of profanity, but I find that no less of a slam than when someone of the other ilk says, “If you are so minded to consider the father of a family the only leader: (1) get into the right century” or “You are looking at what the priest does and who he is with the eyes of an outsider and someone who has never opened a catechism or even a good dictionary before speaking.”
Don’t try and sugarcoat it through eloquent speech.
eggs
May 4
7:09 am
I have spent way longer than ten minutes reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church and I can assure you that I never felt “relieved” at the end of it.
Sandra Schwab
May 4
9:30 pm
And here’s a nice bit of irony: Women played a very important role in early Christian congregations. As in, some congregations were lead by women. However, all of that was done away with around the 3rd century thanks to the misogyny of many of the church fathers. As Anne’s quotation shows, Paul, too, didn’t like women very much. But then, Paul was a bit of a fanatic …