second-class citizens
The Pope (you know, the guy in the pointy hat) wants to see women 'put back in their place'... the Vatican just released a 37-page document on the role of women in the church, the latest effort in a campaign to protect 'the Christian family' - or in plainer words, to protect the male power structure they've been honing for a few thousand years.
Read that again - they are concerned that there is an 'emerging tendency' to avoid the domination of one sex over the other, and they think that's a bad thing. And their justification for this doesn't acknowledge (in fact, it denies) that the sexism inherent in their religion has anything to do with outdated cultural prejudices... instead they invoke the Divine Willy. It's very difficult to have a decent discussion with someone about this issue when their philosophy is predicated on a belief in their imaginary friend's cock.
This just adds more fuel to my belief that female Christians, like gay Republicans, are idiots... why join a group that considers you to be substandard? Male Christians at least have the excuse that their mythology places them right in front of the finish line, where they won't have to do any actual work trying to be a better person - while this is base and crass, it is at least understandable that such a belief system would have an appeal to men who buy into the 'traditional' gender roles. The whole system claims to engage people on the highest spiritual level, but in practice most of the philosophy revolves around animal territorial issues - the 'top dog' syndrome.
Yet one more reason to miss that particular bus. This is the highest truth they can come up with? Fucking neanderthals. I find myself wishing they were right, that Jesus would come back, just to see the look on their faces when they see how little they've learned, how they took a bunch of prejudices written down by goatherders and fishermen 2-3 thousand years ago and somehow managed to preserve all of the worst bits while ignoring the few scraps of potentially useful doctrine.
'What Would Jesus Do', faced with the current 'dilemma' over women breaking their chains? If they're right about his positive qualities, he'd fucking puke when he saw how the men reacted to it all. Guilt, fear, and self-righteousness seem to be informing their philosophy more than loving kindness and charity.
The document reserved its toughest language for what it called recent "new approaches to women's issues," saying an emerging tendency is to avoid the domination of one sex or the other, their differences tend to be denied, viewed as mere effects of historical and cultural conditioning.
"The obscuring of the difference or duality of the sexes has enormous consequences on a variety of levels," the document said, asserting it has inspired ideologies that "call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father."
It also warned of challenges to fundamentals of church teaching, saying the blurring of differences "would consider as lacking in importance and relevance the fact that the Son of God assumed human nature in its male form."
Read that again - they are concerned that there is an 'emerging tendency' to avoid the domination of one sex over the other, and they think that's a bad thing. And their justification for this doesn't acknowledge (in fact, it denies) that the sexism inherent in their religion has anything to do with outdated cultural prejudices... instead they invoke the Divine Willy. It's very difficult to have a decent discussion with someone about this issue when their philosophy is predicated on a belief in their imaginary friend's cock.
This just adds more fuel to my belief that female Christians, like gay Republicans, are idiots... why join a group that considers you to be substandard? Male Christians at least have the excuse that their mythology places them right in front of the finish line, where they won't have to do any actual work trying to be a better person - while this is base and crass, it is at least understandable that such a belief system would have an appeal to men who buy into the 'traditional' gender roles. The whole system claims to engage people on the highest spiritual level, but in practice most of the philosophy revolves around animal territorial issues - the 'top dog' syndrome.
... the church seeks "active collaboration between the sexes precisely in the recognition of the difference between man and woman."
In stressing that men and women are different, the document said, "From the first moment of their creation, man and woman are different, and will remain so for eternity."
But it said the "temporal and earthly expression of sexuality is transient," and cited Scripture suggesting that a married couple's existence in heaven would be celibate.
Yet one more reason to miss that particular bus. This is the highest truth they can come up with? Fucking neanderthals. I find myself wishing they were right, that Jesus would come back, just to see the look on their faces when they see how little they've learned, how they took a bunch of prejudices written down by goatherders and fishermen 2-3 thousand years ago and somehow managed to preserve all of the worst bits while ignoring the few scraps of potentially useful doctrine.
'What Would Jesus Do', faced with the current 'dilemma' over women breaking their chains? If they're right about his positive qualities, he'd fucking puke when he saw how the men reacted to it all. Guilt, fear, and self-righteousness seem to be informing their philosophy more than loving kindness and charity.
1 Comments:
return to front page