Women Can't Teach Men...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
anitram said:
Loons. Why anyone would stay a member of that Church is beyond me.

It's like a cult. The church that's the most oppressive and backwards is clearly the most pious one. I think that's how many people look at it anyway.

Melon
 
martha said:




Here's your Constitution for ya. My italics.

Again, who gets to decide what's acceptable and what isn't? Be careful here; many like you have advocated for oppressive change, and then had the tables turned on them. You might want to limit your arguments to the US. You seem to really have it in for Muslim fundamentalists in other countries.

Can you provide me with examples of "oppressive change" you are talking about that occurred when and where? It's usually the religious right that advocate for oppressive change, and that ain't the side I'm on martha. (remember, i want a change that STOPS oppression.) Also, how is it oppressive to make it criminal to conspire to or to commit murder?
I wouldn't "have it in" for the muslim fundamentalists--and fundamentalist IS the key word here--if they didn't think/preach that they have the right to murder everyone who doesn't believe in what they believe. Yep, sure do "have it in" for them and all fundamentalists. I despise fundamentalism in all of it's irrational forms.
If YOU think it's okay for men to use religion as a shield to commit murder and subjugate women anywhere in the world, that's your choice, but for all of our sakes, I reeeeeeealy hope we can find a way to smite religious fundamentalism in any form. In fact, I'll raise a secular army--but we'll call it the Our Lady of the Sane--and plot the demise of all religious freaks! (I am joking here of course, but wouldn't you want a constitutional law preventing me from doing so if I were like that.)

Just curious, but have you read the koran or qu'ran?

But i can limit it to the US if you like. Do you think the child born into fundamentalist mormonism (hell, regular run-o-the-mill mormonism) has a choice to be or not to be a member? But at least they're not preaching that it is their duty to ole Joe to stab every third male born. What if you were born into a Satanic cult?Did they have a choice? Can't we find a legal way to protect individuals like that from the religiously deranged?

Like I said before, the "church lady's" plight is nothing compared to other more pressing problems, and pastor know-it-all is a classic example of the religiously deranged but deep-down harmless man-fly. Heeeeeeee's pesky.
 
Last edited:
JCR said:


Can you provide me with examples of "oppressive change" you are talking about that occurred when and where? It's usually the religious right that advocate for oppressive change, and that ain't the side I'm on martha.

:sigh:

Answer my question: Who gets to decide what's illegal for a religion to say?

You do realize that you'll need to call a Constitutional convention for the changes you want, right?

hmmm, what if they outlaw what you believe instead.

Oh, and try to keep Islam out of your reply. I realize that's really what you're trying to outlaw, but try to stick to my main question: WHO GETS TO DECIDE?
 
martha said:


:sigh:

Answer my question: Who gets to decide what's illegal for a religion to say?

You do realize that you'll need to call a Constitutional convention for the changes you want, right?

hmmm, what if they outlaw what you believe instead.

Oh, and try to keep Islam out of your reply. I realize that's really what you're trying to outlaw, but try to stick to my main question: WHO GETS TO DECIDE?

I already answered your question (but you'll notice you don't answer mine) and that's why we're sittin' here now in all of this shit. And no, I see no need to call a constitutional convention to place restrictions on certain religions. THERE ARE IN PLACE laws that limit free speech and I'm merely suggesting that now might be the time to NOT tell preachers what they CAN AND CAN'T SAY, but to limit their right to advocate violence/murder of others in their sermons.

Where are the examples of oppressive change?

hmmmmn...let's see, I believe gays have the right to be married. Yep. looks like they already are trying to outlaw what I believe.
 
JCR said:


I already answered your question (but you'll notice you don't answer mine) and that's why we're sittin' here now in all of this shit. And no, I see no need to call a constitutional convention to place restrictions on certain religions. THERE ARE IN PLACE laws that limit free speech and I'm merely suggesting that now might be the time to NOT tell preachers what they CAN AND CAN'T SAY, but to limit their right to advocate violence/murder of others in their sermons.

You're still not getting it. No organization has the right in the US to advocate violence to others; not the KKK, church, corporations, fraternities. None, so I really don't see what your point is. Do you still see this going on in the states?

JCR said:

Where are the examples of oppressive change?

hmmmmn...let's see, I believe gays have the right to be married. Yep. looks like they already are trying to outlaw what I believe.

Well this is a hot topic position right now in America. But the Christian right has a right to believe homosexuality is a sin.

But once you silence them because you decide they can't preach that, someone's going to come along and say you don't have to right to speak out against any religion. This is why you don't go screwing with the constitution, as soon as you start limiting one person's speech the next time will be you, this is the slippery slope we should be scared of.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
someone's going to come along and say you don't have to right to speak out against any religion. This is why you don't go screwing with the constitution, as soon as you start limiting one person's speech the next time will be you, this is the slippery slope we should be scared of.

This is it exactly.
 
melon said:


It's like a cult. The church that's the most oppressive and backwards is clearly the most pious one. I think that's how many people look at it anyway.

Melon


the church that my exhusband and i belonged to was very cult like. but in regards to womein in leadership roles, there was a male and female pastor, married to each other so that line was sort of blurred. i never understood it.
 
I saw this on the news yesterday. I can't believe it. Catholics teach classes in the church, nuns teach theology, etc, etc, and of course we don't ordain women (I think we should, but let's not go there) but they're going way beyond us.
 
Four years of Catholic school and women taught me -- including sisters who taught religion. All my Sunday school teachers were women, up to high school when we didn't have it anymore. *shrug*
 
Back
Top Bottom