Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Group Denigrating Catholics Invited by LA Dodgers to "Pride Night"


Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

If I were Catholic I'd be far more upset about this than a drag group cosplaying as Catholic nuns:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/23/us/illinois-catholic-church-sex-abuse.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

This strikes me as a far deeper blasphemy than the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence could ever achieve. 

Are Catholics permitted to be upset about both?  It sounds like their concerns about this group should be ignored because there has been sexual abuse in the Catholic church.  Is there any evidence that the Dodgers consulted with any Catholics leaders before reversing their decision?  It doesn't sound like it from the statement from the Dodgers.

Here is a list of complaints compiled by the Catholic League on their website of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.  Since the Catholic League appears to be a right wing group, I guess their concerns can be ignored, but I can still understand why a Catholic could be offended by this group.

https://www.catholicleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/SISTERS-OF-PERPETUAL-INDULGENCE.pdf

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The one thing I'd add is that Smac97 isn't a Dodgers ticket holder. He's probably never been to a Dodgers game. And he's never directly interacted with the Daughters of Perpetual Indulgence.

Correct on all counts.

43 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Apart from the propagandists who want him to be angry and afraid, he's never even heard of them.

Well, that's not so.  I've come across their ugly stuff many times.

43 minutes ago, Analytics said:

So why is he so upset that a group he's never heard of has been invited to a baseball game he wasn't going to attend anyway?

First, I'm not upset.  

Second, I have heard of the group.

Third, I think we as a society ought to be respectful to each other.  I find it quite ironic that some gay rights folks/groups demand respect for themselves, but then turn around and show blatant disrespect for others.

Fourth, I think Pres. Nelson's comments during General Conference in April are apt.  We need to be more civil to each other, even as we disagree with each other.  

43 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The answer is that it serves someone's political agenda for middle-aged white Republicans to be angry.

Yawn.

43 minutes ago, Analytics said:

These propagandists carefully curate these stories because they cause people to feel threatened in a primal us-vs.-them way.

And Smac97 is their tool. 

Speaking of "someone's political agenda..."

There is a lot of news coverage of this story, and a fair amount of it is in favor of . . . SPI.  The first wave denounced the Dodgers for disinviting SPI, and the second waive praised them for reversing course and apologizing to SPI.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, gopher said:

Are Catholics permitted to be upset about both?  It sounds like their concerns about this group should be ignored because there has been sexual abuse in the Catholic church.  Is there any evidence that the Dodgers consulted with any Catholics leaders before reversing their decision?  It doesn't sound like it from the statement from the Dodgers.

Here is a list of complaints compiled by the Catholic League on their website of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.  Since the Catholic League appears to be a right wing group, I guess their concerns can be ignored, but I can still understand why a Catholic could be offended by this group.

https://www.catholicleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/SISTERS-OF-PERPETUAL-INDULGENCE.pdf

They can be upset about anything they like, it's not either/or. But to me 1900 minors abused in only one state seems like something far more worthy of anger. 

Certainly the low quality trad cath missive you linked doesn't change that. 

Link to comment

There's a video going around of one of their performances where someone portrays Jesus on the cross and a drag queen is basically using the cross as a stripper pole. And also a stripper pole as a stripper pole. Not a family friendly group.  

Link to comment

SPI does this because they can with little fear of consequence. They would not dare mock Mohammed in Mecca or kill a sacred cow in Mumbai. What is the societal view of LGBT folks in the Middle East again?  Oh ya ,perfect tolerance  .

Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

There is a lot of news coverage of this story, and a fair amount of it is in favor of . . . SPI.  The first wave denounced the Dodgers for disinviting SPI, and the second waive praised them for reversing course and apologizing to SPI.  

My point is how this became an issue in the first place. From the beginning, a California baseball team scheduled a "LGBTQ+ Pride Night," and in a pregame ceremony, was going to give a "Community Hero Award" to a small group that self-describes itself as providing “community service, ministry and outreach to those on the edges, and to promoting human rights, respect for diversity and spiritual enlightenment” and says they use “humor and irreverent wit to expose the forces of bigotry, complacency and guilt that chain the human spirit.” Some find them to be distasteful, and even sacrilegious. Are they those things or simply misunderstood? I don't know. I don't care. It is easy to ignore them if they aren't your cup of tea.

However, national right-wing propagandists, including a Florida politician, decided it would be "an outrage and a tragedy" if this particular group got this particular award in this pre-game ceremony. So they made it a national issue: the Dodgers better cancel the SPI, or Christians across the country would cancel Major League Baseball! And predictably, the tools in the propaganda machine spread the outrage.

But was this minor award in a pre-game ceremony a bona fide  "outrage and a tragedy," or was it yet another predictable move in the GOP's perpetual desire to keep their base angry and afraid?

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Eschaton said:

They can be upset about anything they like, it's not either/or. But to me 1900 minors abused in only one state seems like something far more worthy of anger. 

Certainly the low quality trad cath missive you linked doesn't change that. 

Fair enough.  Any Catholics involved with the abuse have no right to be offended by this other group.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Third, I think we as a society ought to be respectful to each other.  I find it quite ironic that some gay rights folks/groups demand respect for themselves, but then turn around and show blatant disrespect for others.

As someone who only tuts about one side not showing respect I would think you would find it normal and not ironic at all. You aren’t an enlightened centrist decrying both sides.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, MorningStar said:

There's a video going around of one of their performances where someone portrays Jesus on the cross and a drag queen is basically using the cross as a stripper pole. And also a stripper pole as a stripper pole. Not a family friendly group.  

They never intended to be family friendly.

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, gopher said:

Fair enough.  Any Catholics involved with the abuse have no right to be offended by this other group.

The Catholic Church as an institution is responsible for far more abuse than what happened in Illinois. Unlike the Catholic Church, the actions of the Sisters don't actually directly affect anyone. They have no victims, no body count. I personally don't appreciate performative blasphemy, but it's less blasphemous to mock religious icons than it is for churches to abuse children and cover for their abusers. 

 

Edited by Eschaton
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Analytics said:

My point is how this became an issue in the first place. From the beginning, a California baseball team scheduled a "LGBTQ+ Pride Night," and in a pregame ceremony, was going to give a "Community Hero Award" to a small group that self-describes itself as providing “community service, ministry and outreach to those on the edges, and to promoting human rights, respect for diversity and spiritual enlightenment” and says they use “humor and irreverent wit to expose the forces of bigotry, complacency and guilt that chain the human spirit.” Some find them to be distasteful, and even sacrilegious. Are they those things or simply misunderstood? I don't know. I don't care. It is easy to ignore them if they aren't your cup of tea.

However, national right-wing propagandists, including a Florida politician, decided it would be "an outrage and a tragedy" if this particular group got this particular award in this pre-game ceremony. So they made it a national issue: the Dodgers better cancel the SPI, or Christians across the country would cancel Major League Baseball! And predictably, the tools in the propaganda machine spread the outrage.

But was this minor award in a pre-game ceremony a bona fide  "outrage and a tragedy," or was it yet another predictable move in the GOP's perpetual desire to keep their base angry and afraid?

Since these are the same people threatening Target employees with violence and death over Pride merchandise displays I think any outrage will do. Their followers are like leashed dogs that can be set on any target by their propagandists. Thankfully their long term memory doesn’t work very well and their boycotts tend to be short-lived and ineffective. Their ability to yell at defenseless employees and walk around with guns intimidating others is the main issue.

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

My point is how this became an issue in the first place.

It begins with SPI mocking and profaning Catholics.

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

From the beginning, a California baseball team scheduled a "LGBTQ+ Pride Night," and in a pregame ceremony, was going to give a "Community Hero Award" to a small group that self-describes itself as providing “community service, ministry and outreach to those on the edges, and to promoting human rights, respect for diversity and spiritual enlightenment” and says they use “humor and irreverent wit to expose the forces of bigotry, complacency and guilt that chain the human spirit.” Some find them to be distasteful, and even sacrilegious. Are they those things or simply misunderstood? I don't know. I don't care. It is easy to ignore them if they aren't your cup of tea.

Says the guy who has spent years and thousands of posts railing against a small group he could easily ignore.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Eschaton said:

They can be upset about anything they like, it's not either/or. But to me 1900 minors abused in only one state seems like something far more worthy of anger. 

Certainly the low quality trad cath missive you linked doesn't change that. 

This is a very good example of the "not as bad as" fallacy (often called the "appeal to worse problems"), described here:

Quote

The "not as bad as" fallacy, also known as the fallacy of relative privation,[2] asserts that:

  1. If something is worse than the problem currently being discussed, then
  2. The problem currently being discussed isn't that important at all.
  3. In order for the statement "A is not as bad as B," to suggest a fallacy there must be a fallacious conclusion such as: ignore A.

In other words: nothing matters if it's not literally the worst thing happening.[note 1] It's popular with people who know perfectly well they're doing something wrong. Since they are fully aware that they're doing something wrong, they feel compelled to attempt to justify it and do so by pointing to other (usually worse) actions.

This fallacy is a form of the moral equivalence fallacy.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

As someone who only tuts about one side not showing respect I would think you would find it normal and not ironic at all. You aren’t an enlightened centrist decrying both sides.

I don't see a symmetry in the measures of respect, or a lack thereof.  Nevertheless, I take your point.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Since these are the same people threatening Target employees with violence and death over Pride merchandise displays I think any outrage will do. Their followers are like leashed dogs that can be set on any target by their propagandists. Thankfully their long term memory doesn’t work very well and their boycotts tend to be short-lived and ineffective. Their ability to yell at defenseless employees and walk around with guns intimidating others is the main issue.

I reject any threats of, or actual, violence.  No "side" is justified in resorting to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is a very good example of the "not as bad as" fallacy (often called the "appeal to worse problems"), described here:

Thanks,

-Smac

This isn't representative of any arguments I have made. 

From your source:

Quote

In order for the statement "A is not as bad as B," to suggest a fallacy there must be a fallacious conclusion such as: ignore A.

I never said the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are not as bad as the Catholic Church, therefore ignore the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence . 

It's more along the lines of:

 

Quote

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? [4] Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

 

 

 

Edited by Eschaton
Link to comment
41 minutes ago, Eschaton said:
Quote

This is a very good example of the "not as bad as" fallacy (often called the "appeal to worse problems"), described here:

This isn't representative of any arguments I have made. 

Yes, I think it is.

"They can be upset about anything they like, it's not either/or. But to me 1900 minors abused in only one state seems like something far more worthy of anger. "

You are appealing to worse problems.  You are making a "not as bad as" assertion.

41 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

From your source:

Quote

In order for the statement "A is not as bad as B," to suggest a fallacy there must be a fallacious conclusion such as: ignore A.

Yep.  You are faulting Catholics for not ignoring SPI.

41 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

I never said the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are not as bad as the Catholic Church, therefore ignore the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence . 

You said that "1900 minors abused in only one state seems like something far more worthy of anger."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It begins with SPI mocking and profaning Catholics.

No, the issue didn't begin until people in the national rightwing outrage machine thought it would be useful to get the troops riled up over this.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Says the guy who has spent years and thousands of posts railing against a small group he could easily ignore.

Are you sure you're not projecting?

I spent a few minutes looking at my posting history trying to find some examples of behavior that could be construed as "railing against a small group," but I couldn't find anything like that. I did, Ironically, find a post that said  "The [Mormon] people are overwhelmingly good. That is true."

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Durangout said:

Yeah, I was so wrong:  These SPI people are a totally classy group.

https://disntr.com/2023/05/24/queers-that-dodgers-invite-does-sick-mock-performance-of-jesus-on-the-cross/

That is their article title? LOL! That is serious journalism for you. Love the insinuation that they did it at the Dodgers game. Nice work clickbait writers. 

And look at these other articles. A pastor being lambasted for reaching out to the lgbt community and saying desires are not sins unless you act on them. Huh, bet they would hate our apostles huh? Might want to get out of the mud if you want to mock people for not being classy.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, blackstrap said:

SPI does this because they can with little fear of consequence. They would not dare mock Mohammed in Mecca or kill a sacred cow in Mumbai. What is the societal view of LGBT folks in the Middle East again?  Oh ya ,perfect tolerance  .

Are you under the delusion that the lgbt community has a positive view of Islam and what they are doing to our brothers and sisters? What is wrong with you?

Link to comment
7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I reject any threats of, or actual, violence.  No "side" is justified in resorting to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

But you will openly broadcast loudly when one side uses violence and voice whispered and quiet disapproval of violence “on many sides” when the other does.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment

This whole situation is just sad. So very sad.

The Psalms have taught me that praise is a loving response to blasphemy. In that spirit, I offer praise to God, who in his glory gave all the gifts I have enjoyed this day and every day. Today I enjoyed kindness from my family, health of body and mind, safety, and the company and words of generous, thoughtful people created in God's image. I also praise God's glory for moments of prayerful solace, and for opportunities to learn from those who have offered me correction. That we may have loving kindness for one another is a gift from God, and I pray that all of us will have that love.

We love because He first loved us.

 

 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

But you will openly broadcast loudly when one side uses violence and voice whispered and quick disapproval of violence “on many sides” when the other does.

I do not.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...