Jump to content

U.S. Vice President 2008


allthekingshorses

Recommended Posts

Having a female president just for the sake of it isn't going to help in any way. The same as having a black president just for the sake of it won't help either. I don't want our president to be holding that office simply because no one who looks like them has held it before. That would be more embarrassing than anything else.

Is there sexism in politics? Yeah, I think there is. The same as there is racism in politics as well. But a black man could very well be our next president, and considering that 40 some odd years ago, they couldn't even vote in the South, that's more than a huge step in the right direction. I think we'll have a woman in the White House one day that isn't just a secretary, but I won't vote for that woman just because I'm a woman too. I think that kind of voting is just as damaging as voting against someone based on a demographic. If all you can think of as a reason to vote for someone is the fact you share a gender, or a race, or a religion......that's a poor excuse to vote.

Well I don't think I was implying any of the things you say here (note that I said a "politically able" woman), and I completely agree that identity politics per se are quite pernicious. As I've said, I really do like Hillary Clinton, so I certainly wouldn't have voted for her just because she's a woman. I would not, for e.g, vote for Condi Rice if she ran in years to come because I don't like her politics.

Perhaps I should clarify a bit more: I had actually hoped that Hillary might get the VP nod at least, but instead, we seem to be getting someone who merely reinforces the power of white Christian men. This is actually something that needs to change, for everyone's sake, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should clarify a bit more: I had actually hoped that Hillary might get the VP nod at least, but instead, we seem to be getting someone who merely reinforces the power of white Christian men. This is actually something that needs to change, for everyone's sake, I think.

Change is good. But not just for the sake of it.

And I firmly believe the reason most Democrats don't want Hilary as the VP is not because she's a woman, but because her politics combined with Obama's politics makes the ticket far too liberal. Obama needs someone closer to center in order to sway Independents, Libertarians, and some liberal Conservatives. Someone like Kathleen Sebilius or Ed Rendell would be a good choice, IMO. One is the governor of Kansas, which is a red state and the other is a more moderate Liberal who supported Clinton. Which could help him snag some of those votes.

And again, no one should care what the gender and/or race of the candidate is. That should be completely irrelevant and one thing that annoyed me to no end during the Primary season was how people blathered on and on about how historic the Democrat race was. I could care less what they were. Yes it was and is a big deal that a woman and a black man were running and were considered more than long shots. However, once the primaries got underway they should have shut up about it. I felt like initially, and to some point throughout the whole thing, people were more concerned with the gender and race of the nominees, not what their politics were. Which is pretty sad, if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I see your point, and for the most part, I do agree. I don't see my hoping for a woman president as an identity-based thing, though, nor do I want change for the sake of it. I just think that, as a member of the human race (not as a woman, particularly), I'd like to see more equal sharing of power amongst the very many able politicians we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing about priesthood which is gendered. It is very wrong, not to mention offensive, to argue that it is a man's job.

I've never heard the term priestesshood. Shall we make a new entry in Wikpedia?

It could be included in the transformation of the "People Working" signs taking place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your point is....?

There are priest's and priestess's, those are gendered terms.

So yes, there is something gendered about priesthood. Have you found an entry in a dictionary or encyclopedia for the word priestesshood ?

I looked and couldn't find it.

I'll amend my post. Here's an example, but it's still gendered.

http://www.zianet.com/collier/matriarc.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has really gotten off track but I'll add my two cents on the new direction.

Most Christian faiths that allow women to serve in the capacity of 'clergy' do call the females Priests. Most pagan faiths consider the Priestess to be of an equal rank of the Priest, however both are needed for the equalibrium and the Priestess is actually the 'revered' rank. Priestesship IS a word though not commonly used amongst non Pagans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are priest's and priestess's, those are gendered terms.

So yes, there is something gendered about priesthood. Have you found an entry in a dictionary or encyclopedia for the word priestesshood ?

I looked and couldn't find it.

I'll amend my post. Here's an example, but it's still gendered.

http://www.zianet.com/collier/matriarc.htm

Ok.

And your point is...?

Thanks for your linguistic analysis, but I think that Allison meant that there is nothing about priesthood which is gendered in practical terms. In other words, there are no female priests in Catholic Church, but there is no reason why there shouldn't be. Your argument that it's gendered because "priest" si a masculine is rather lame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Actually, the early church had women presiding and co-presiding over congregations, so it's a fallacy to rely on 'tradition' to exclude women. Furthermore, Christ made a special effort to include women in his ministry, which has largely been ignored by later generations. There is nothing about priesthood which is gendered. It is very wrong, not to mention offensive, to argue that it is a man's job. Are women somehow less spiritual than men? Do we lack full souls? Or, is there much heavy lifting involved? It would only strengthen Christianity worldwide to include women at every level of church hierarchy.

No worries on the Hillary issue.

I think it's a little bit deeper than that. I couldn't find the exact quote I wanted but this one will do: The Church holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church.

In recent history, women have not been treated in a negative way compared to that of men. I'll admit that we have a shady history (for which apologies have been offered), but to say that we're sexist? I simply don't agree. I'll stick with the late Pope John Paul II. In the quote I wanted, he basically says that God Himself would have to declare that women could join the priesthood for him to change his position

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a little bit deeper than that. I couldn't find the exact quote I wanted but this one will do: The Church holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church.

In recent history, women have not been treated in a negative way compared to that of men. I'll admit that we have a shady history (for which apologies have been offered), but to say that we're sexist? I simply don't agree. I'll stick with the late Pope John Paul II. In the quote I wanted, he basically says that God Himself would have to declare that women could join the priesthood for him to change his position

Ahhh yes Wannabe but what people forget is that the Sacred Scriptures of Christ were recorded by MEN! Many believe that Mary Magdoline was actually an Apostal and in Michelangelo's Last Supper one of the Apostles could very easily be viewed as a woman.

However, since I'm not a follower of Jesus (though I certainly think he was a holy man and a sage) this book doesn't affect me. I don't believe that Jesus is the only path to God. And God doesn't come down from the heavens any more to write on tablets so Pope John Paul II is basically saying "It aint ever gonna happen"

One of the reasons a lot of Parishes are closing their doors is because the lack of men who want to abstain from sexual realtionships with women in order to lead their followers. Too bad this is one of the requirements...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhh yes Wannabe but what people forget is that the Sacred Scriptures of Christ were recorded by MEN! Many believe that Mary Magdoline was actually an Apostal and in Michelangelo's Last Supper one of the Apostles could very easily be viewed as a woman.

I am one hundred percent against that Mary Magdalene was an Apostle. She was never recorded as being one, nor is there really any proof. In The Last Supper, that "feminine" looking Apostle is actually St. John. He was the youngest of the Twelve and in that time, as far as I've read (I'm no art major), younger males were generally depicted as more feminine. I really don't think that Mary Magdalene is in any way on that painting nor was she an Apostle, but to each his/her own.

However, since I'm not a follower of Jesus (though I certainly think he was a holy man and a sage) this book doesn't affect me. I don't believe that Jesus is the only path to God. And God doesn't come down from the heavens any more to write on tablets so Pope John Paul II is basically saying "It aint ever gonna happen"
Well, not necessarily. The age of miracles may be over, but in the worlds time of crisis who knows? Maybe we will get a sign, but until then, I don't think the Church is going to change its doctrines for the sake of modernizing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am one hundred percent against that Mary Magdalene was an Apostle. She was never recorded as being one, nor is there really any proof. In The Last Supper, that "feminine" looking Apostle is actually St. John. He was the youngest of the Twelve and in that time, as far as I've read (I'm no art major), younger males were generally depicted as more feminine. I really don't think that Mary Magdalene is in any way on that painting nor was she an Apostle, but to each his/her own.

Well, not necessarily. The age of miracles may be over, but in the worlds time of crisis who knows? Maybe we will get a sign, but until then, I don't think the Church is going to change its doctrines for the sake of modernizing.

Agreed Wannabe, certainly 'The Last Supper' theory is stretching it a bit. It IS known however that Mary Magdeline was a constant 'companion' to Jesus. I may be wrong but it seems I recall that they even discovered texts about Mary that were conveniently left out of the Bible?

Dunno, doesn't affect me either way, was just commenting. The Catholic Church can certainly do whatever they want to!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed Wannabe, certainly 'The Last Supper' theory is stretching it a bit. It IS known however that Mary Magdeline was a constant 'companion' to Jesus. I may be wrong but it seems I recall that they even discovered texts about Mary that were conveniently left out of the Bible?

Dunno, doesn't affect me either way, was just commenting. The Catholic Church can certainly do whatever they want to!

You're referring to the Gnostic Gospels. They're not accepted by the Catholic Church as canon or fact or what have you. Ever since The Da Vinci Code, the public has swarmed to these "Gospels" and used them against the Church saying that they're hiding something about Mary Magdalene (or even Mary, Mother of Jesus). I don't think they're biblical canon, nor do I think the Church is hiding something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're referring to the Gnostic Gospels. They're not accepted by the Catholic Church as canon or fact or what have you. Ever since The Da Vinci Code, the public has swarmed to these "Gospels" and used them against the Church saying that they're hiding something about Mary Magdalene (or even Mary, Mother of Jesus). I don't think they're biblical canon, nor do I think the Church is hiding something.

Thanks for clearing that part up for me my friend. I'm glad you are comfortable with your churches stances. That's all anyone can hope to be in whatever faith they choose.

The Vatican IS finally opening their vaults but I believe that there ARE a lot of hidden texts in that Vault! LOTS of them....and not only pertaining to the Catholic faith, I believe when the conquered regions they took all of their written materials and stashed them....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats a good point medhb, they probably do have a vault of stashed scrolls and whatnot that the public hasn't seen.

That being said, the Gnostic Gospels can be viewed by anyone if they wish and the Church can't hide them from anyone. I don't think these are relevant to true Catholic teachings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats a good point medhb, they probably do have a vault of stashed scrolls and whatnot that the public hasn't seen.

That being said, the Gnostic Gospels can be viewed by anyone if they wish and the Church can't hide them from anyone. I don't think these are relevant to true Catholic teachings

As you know, I'm not Catholic but I never have any aversion to worshiping in the Catholic church. I go with my husband on Easter because his mom likes us all to attend together, and I truly love the ceramonial aspect of the worship. I'm always asking my husband, "What are they doing now?" I find it interesting...not to mention I never mind having blessed water land on me and I LOVE the incense! I actually use the same resins in my home but I'm envious of those HUGE burners they have! I WANT one so bad! They are expensive though :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you love the ceremonial aspect of an Easter mass, then you must love Midnight Mass on Christmas. One of the few times I even attend church anymore is on Christmas and even as a kid, that was always my favorite one. There's something magesterial about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is almost certainly pointless to say this, but Christ actually appeared to Mary Magdalene first in John and Mark's gospels, so I think he was making a very important statement. Last time I checked, he was God. Also, the whole argument that the twelve apostles were men is rather spurious given the fact that we're talking about a highly male-centered culture in Jerusalem ca. 1stC AD, so it wouldn't have been possible to tour around in mixed company. Christ, furthermore, had to be male himself--if a woman had come claiming to be the daughter of God, who would've listened? Or cared? Even now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is almost certainly pointless to say this, but Christ actually appeared to Mary Magdalene first in John and Mark's gospels, so I think he was making a very important statement. Last time I checked, he was God. Also, the whole argument that the twelve apostles were men is rather spurious given the fact that we're talking about a highly male-centered culture in Jerusalem ca. 1stC AD, so it wouldn't have been possible to tour around in mixed company. Christ, furthermore, had to be male himself--if a woman had come claiming to be the daughter of God, who would've listened? Or cared? Even now?

Not disputing any thing you said with the exception of what I've bolded above. Could you please clarify for me Allison? He was God. He meaning who? Also, where did you check?! I didn't know there was a place to check these things out.

TIA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not disputing any thing you said with the exception of what I've bolded above. Could you please clarify for me Allison? He was God. He meaning who? Also, where did you check?! I didn't know there was a place to check these things out.

TIA

Within Christian theology, Christ is God (see New Testament). This was in response to wannabe's idea that unless God said women could be priests, he wouldn't accept them as such.

I might as well just call it a day in this thread. On the priest issue, no one, apart from Kat, is theologically sophisticated enough to know what's at stake anyway. And on the political one, obviously no one can separate identity politics from basic equality. Oh well. :rolleyes:

But one last pointless thing: Electrophile: I hope you see what's lurking beneath the surface of middle-class America here. And a question: so was giving women the vote in this country (less than 100 years ago!) change 'for the sake of it'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Within Christian theology, Christ is God (see New Testament). This was in response to wannabe's idea that unless God said women could be priests, he wouldn't accept them as such.

I might as well just call it a day in this thread. On the priest issue, no one, apart from Kat, is theologically sophisticated enough to know what's at stake anyway. And on the political one, obviously no one can separate identity politics from basic equality. Oh well. :rolleyes:

um...ok? Theologically sophisticated enough meaning what? You know more about religion? Hats off to you, but that doesn't entitle me to my own opinion?

But one last pointless thing: Electrophile: I hope you see what's lurking beneath the surface of middle-class America here. And a question: so was giving women the vote in this country (less than 100 years ago!) change 'for the sake of it'?
Thats nothing like what she was saying
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But one last pointless thing: Electrophile: I hope you see what's lurking beneath the surface of middle-class America here. And a question: so was giving women the vote in this country (less than 100 years ago!) change 'for the sake of it'?

I'm with wanna be here.....that's not what I was saying, thanks for assuming as much though. Women not having the right to vote was ludicrous. It was the same as black people not being able to vote. It made no sense. There were no decent reasons anyone could come up with as for why neither of those groups could vote. Change was necessary, and it happened.

Please don't try to equate that with a woman not being elected President yet. There is no law anywhere, there is no forced pressure to deny women the right to be president, like there was to deny women and blacks the right to vote. That's actually an insult to those people. The fact we haven't had a woman president cannot be owed to legal pressure, bigotry/prejudice or any other kind of hateful behavior. There has been no active push to deny women the right to be President. There have been no groups formed to prevent women from running for President.

That analogy was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of left field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Once again, you miss what I was saying, but I'm really over arguing about it. If you think there isn't pressure to keep women out of the presidency, just look at the anti-feminine assumptions being bandied about in this thread in relation to the Catholic priesthood. That was my point. It's not as overt as the subjugation of blacks and women before they got the vote last century, but in many ways, because it is largely unspoken, it is more powerful and more permanent. I wasn't being 'out of left field' at all. This all really depresses me, though (really, I'm not trying to be melodramatic), so I've said all I have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...