Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This.

When an organization has labeled your whole community as damned and the community mocks the organization that does that what is being lost? What respect and dialogue is now gone? Is the community slightly more damned?

There may be nonCatholic moderate or even liberal groups considering working with a charity or service community that take the Sisters off their list.

I think their behaviour limits their impact significantly. Others may believe the negative publicity actually helps them attract more support than more civil treatments would where they were lost among many other groups.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Calm said:

There may be nonCatholic moderate or even liberal groups considering working with a charity or service community that take the Sisters off their list.

I think their behaviour limits their impact significantly. Others may believe the negative publicity actually helps them attract more support than more civil treatments would where they were lost among many other groups.

Meh, liberal and moderate christianity is dying. I like Episcopalians, but they’re not exactly a force to be reckoned with. 

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

liberal and moderate christianity is dying

I am talking about any such group, not just religious ones.  Don’t you think a nonreligious group that had part of its platform as promoting general tolerance and respect might be cautious about aligning themselves with the SPI?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Another thought…

I can understand why initially it may give oneself a sense of control or power to mock what one feels is threatening to oneself or who have hurt one.  But if that is where we choose to stay, to me that is letting the other who hurt us to continue to define we are.  I can see membership in such a parody group might prolong the venting or even turn it into a habit or worse, a major part of we are in our own view.  While there are ways to be an activist without it taking over one’s life, achieving a balance that allows us to move forward as well as draw attention to our former plight can be difficult. 
 

We definitely need activists that can make the experience real to us so we can be passionate in a good cause.  I just think using highly charged, emotional language and behaviour makes it harder to get a healthy balance.  That is why I think any outrage behaviour from the right or left or nonpolitical can backfire so easily as we turn ourselves into perpetual victims.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Coercive pressure? They decided to invite a group for a minor award. There was a stink by a few people. They reversed the decision. Those supporting the group pushed back. The decision was reversed again.

If I were a cynical person, I’d observe that it almost—almost—seems like they care more about making money than taking a principled stance on anything…

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Wilderland said:

Two minutes of action squeezed into two+ hours.

But you're forgetting the replays of the replays!

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

I am talking about any such group, not just religious ones.  Don’t you think a nonreligious group that had part of its platform as promoting general tolerance and respect might be cautious about aligning themselves with the SPI?

Assuming mutual tolerance and respect were possible outcomes then sure. But they are not. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Anger and mockery doesn’t ultimately hurt those being mocked, but those doing the mocking. I think this is part of the core of Christ’s teaching on surrender and forgiveness. It’s why the Buddha taught that acting in such ways is like grabbing a hot coal to throw at another. It hurts you more first. 

This thread is amazing. Catholics and Mormons presuming they have the moral authority to counsel gays on how to properly respond to Catholic and Mormon intolerance. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

But they are not. 

Why wouldn’t groups who did not view homosexual behaviour as a sin be incapable of having respect and tolerance for LGBT groups in your view?  Or are you saying an LGBT activist group can’t have tolerance for nonLGBT groups?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

Catholics and Mormons presuming they have the moral authority to counsel gays on how to properly respond to Catholic and Mormon intolerance.

I am not telling anyone how to respond…I made it clear I believe the choice of response should be up to the person based on what they need and what they want to accomplish. But I don’t have to judge a choice right or wrong to understand what some consequences of those choices might be…not all, but some….based on how I see people reacting to similar behaviour in other circumstances.

I think it counterproductive to pretend that just because a choice may be right for someone all negative consequences of that choice are meaningless or disappear.  There can be deep costs when making the right choice for oneself.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Anger and mockery doesn’t ultimately hurt those being mocked, but those doing the mocking. I think this is part of the core of Christ’s teaching on surrender and forgiveness. It’s why the Buddha taught that acting in such ways is like grabbing a hot coal to throw at another. It hurts you more first. 

So when Jesus used sarcasm it was self-inflicted torment? I don’t believe this is true of all mockery. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Calm said:

I am talking about any such group, not just religious ones.  Don’t you think a nonreligious group that had part of its platform as promoting general tolerance and respect might be cautious about aligning themselves with the SPI?

From a humanist perspective, I am cautious. From a Catholic perspective, I struggle with both sides.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am a cynical person and definitely believe that. They want to make money.

It is why that while I like that rainbow capitalism is a thing (it means that being pro-lgbt is more profitable) but I am definitely under no delusion that if it became more profitable to put “no gays allowed” signs on places of business that they would switch sides immediately.

Do you think that the impact of rainbow capitalism will change any hearts and minds?  Or will it be a temporary cosmetic change?

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Calm said:

There may be nonCatholic moderate or even liberal groups considering working with a charity or service community that take the Sisters off their list.

I think their behaviour limits their impact significantly. Others may believe the negative publicity actually helps them attract more support than more civil treatments would where they were lost among many other groups.

I have no idea how often they collaborate with other groups. If they wanted to collaborate with such groups they wouldn’t have formed the organization they did. It is not as if what they do is some big secret or that they could change course and become a regular charity group. It would be easier to dissolve the group and start a new one. I don’t think they want to.

Link to comment

I have been all across the spectrum of Atheism and faith. Many here have seen my struggle to find my place. I feel like an ignorant hypocrite most of the time. In my heart, I beg for God to be real. Also in my heart, how do I reconcile religious tradition that I love 98% of the time with my own emotionally charged faith struggles? I am weak but I hope beyond measure that God sees me and shows His mercy.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Calm said:

Why wouldn’t groups who did not view homosexual behaviour as a sin be incapable of having respect and tolerance for LGBT groups in your view?  Or are you saying an LGBT activist group can’t have tolerance for nonLGBT groups?

I think you have to always keep in mind that within any group, there is a spectrum of respect and tolerance.  One could honestly answer yes as well as no to the questions you asked within both groups.  

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Calm said:

Why wouldn’t groups who did not view homosexual behaviour as a sin be incapable of having respect and tolerance for LGBT groups in your view?  Or are you saying an LGBT activist group can’t have tolerance for nonLGBT groups?

You said “general tolerance.” Not possible when one group’s idea of tolerance* appears intolerant by the other. 

Link to comment
On 5/23/2023 at 3:10 AM, mfbukowski said:

 

In passing, as a note, nuns do not wear habits anymore, (for those unaware)  but those habits very much functioned for their vows and covenants, as our garments do for us. It's like ridiculing ANY religious garb; garments as Sikhs wear, Orthodox Jews, Moslems etc.  It makes no sense- it certainly does not create good feelings with the groups being ridiculed- I cannot imagine what they are trying to achieve, because imo all it does is alienate people.

 

This is secondary to the larger conversation, but there is a serious tide change happening with regard to nuns and habits. More and more nuns do wear habits these days. In fact, the ones who don't are in orders that are fading. The discussion of this is beyond this thread, but anyone who googles Catholic religious orders will discover this.

 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

This thread is amazing. Catholics and Mormons presuming they have the moral authority to counsel gays on how to properly respond to Catholic and Mormon intolerance. 

The quote of mine you responded to was a general idea that could be applied to this specific situation. In general, responding with anger and mockery hurts the person with the anger more than the person receiving the anger, and the way to change the hearts of those who oppose you is to love them. This is attested to across spiritual traditions and secular ethical systems. I'm not personally presuming any moral authority, which is why I referred to Jesus in general and the Buddha in particular. Here's Gandhi: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Or Martin Luther King, jr.: "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that."

The SPI can do with that what they will. As I said previously, I'm not angry or outraged by their actions. They are profaning something I consider sacred, and so that saddens me, as it would sadden anyone whose beliefs about the sacred are trammeled.

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The SPI can do with that what they will. As I said previously, I'm not angry or outraged by their actions. They are profaning something I consider sacred, and so that saddens me, as it would sadden anyone whose beliefs about the sacred are trammeled.

This is my sentiment as well.  I am not angry or outraged.  Or even surprised.

Saddened, yes.  

Thanks,

-Smac

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

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