[RD] Abortion, once again

[Sarin]

No, because the greater point related to hypocrisy. Even if your alternative scenario involves gender-swapping the GOP, I don't think you've thought the causal chain through enough. You've gone back, made men oppressed, and left the implication at that. If you want to devise a full-on alt history out of EvaDK's post, feel free, but it's not a requirement for neither their nor Birdjaguar's posts.

Now you're just imagining things that aren't there.

 

[Gorbles]

Now you're just imagining things that aren't there.

shrugs

I don't know what else you mean when you critique the shallow-ness of offhand remarks because they haven't gone far back down the causal chain for your liking. I like "for want of a nail" scenarios generally, they're good fodder for discussion, but they also spiral quickly. "you haven't gone far back enough" always invites a further-back event.

This is why I get where BD and EvaDK are coming from, but I responded to you bringing up (historical) causality.

 

[EvaDK]

Christianity oppresses women, not men.

Strictly speaking, Christianity does nothing by itself.

All religions and belief systems, require people to act out their convictions, for that to have any impact on human lives. Including their convictions on abortion rights. And when I look at the people placed in the highest positions within the main religions of the World; the people interpreting the texts and deciding doctrine and policy - they are all almost exclusively men.

 

[Farm Boy]

I still wonder at the veneer. I know it strips off fast at the parish level. The priest is one culturally isolated man from another hemisphere, the women run the show. The Knights of Columbus help with the show. I know it strips off fast at the bishopric level at the Cathedral in Peoria. It's a little thicker behind priests and deacons, less isolated culturally, but that place houses nuns. And they're immediately obvious from the second you walk into a space cleaned with religious devotion to the Missionaries of Charity foraying into the parts of Peoria that Americans prefer to pretend aren't there. I wonder how thick the veneer is by the time you get to the Vatican.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

it's also just objectively false to claim that "christian" institutions "oppress women, not men". christianity + religions in general have had peaks and valleys in terms of oppression throughout history. women are usually oppressed more. but to claim this oppression has no impact on men at all is fake. obviously false on its face.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Strictly speaking, Christianity does nothing by itself.

All religions and belief systems, require people to act out their convictions, for that to have any impact on human lives. Including their convictions on abortion rights. And when I look at the people placed in the highest positions within the main religions of the World; the people interpreting the texts and deciding doctrine and policy - they are all almost exclusively men.

Yes. Christianity encompasses a very broad set of beliefs with a common core. They range from Unitarianism to Holy rollers and Snake Handlers and lots of variation in between. Adam was created first and Eve created as his helper. For the last 2000 years Christianity has been male dominated and women regarded as of lower status and importance. This is not a thread on religion, so I will not dwell on how Christianity has been implemented or whether it matches what Jesus intended. "Oppresses" may be the sticking point as a word choice that can be argued. Perhaps it would be better to say that Christianity typically relegates women to a lesser role in the social hierarchy than men?

 

[Lexicus]

Perhaps it would be better to say that Christianity typically relegates women to a lesser role in the social hierarchy than men?

Probably better to say that Christian churches have tended to do this rather than "Christianity" itself

 

[Farm Boy]

The core tenants of most of the source material consider most holy the least traditionally masculine actions.

 

[Remorseless1]

The core tenants of most of the source material consider most holy the least traditionally masculine actions.

The problem is the evangelical wing of the Republican Party have ignored the "core material" and have instead embarked on a campaign to create an American theocracy and limit civil rights to the Anointed (white Protestant men). The Bible and certainly Jesus are being ignored in order to seize political power. It's brutally obvious and explains why Christian churches are seeing congregations dwindling rather quickly.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The problem is the evangelical wing of the Republican Party have ignored the "core material" and have instead embarked on a campaign to create an American theocracy and limit civil rights to the Anointed (white Protestant men).

which fantasy novel is that from? that's not how things have played out in actual usa

 

[Angst]

which fantasy novel is that from? that's not how things have played out in actual usa

i like to read the news

 

[TheMeInTeam]

i like to read the news

news doesn't seem to go annointing anybody. if anything, in past 10 years+ it's been normalized that white dudes are inherently oppressors, regardless of what actions they choose to take.

also no idea where we're getting "protestant" specifically in this fantasy. usa has tons of christianity variants/offshoots, but i don't see any evidence of favoritism of protestant over catholic at scale in recent memory for example. it happened in us history, but it's been a while.

there are other things we'd expect to observe if christianity were favored as a matter of policy at scale, which we do not observe. most interactions (employment, schools, etc) don't even have a means of identifying religious affiliation aside from *maybe* skimming someone's social media. even in context of abortion, the complaints here are about outlier states, because most states just allow it...even "red" ones. again, not pattern behavior consistent with some strong bias for protestants etc.

just fantasy things.

 

[Birdjaguar]

which fantasy novel is that from? that's not how things have played out in actual usa

You sir are not keeping up with the news. Christian Nationalism is widely supported and is its thinking has spread to many less political churches.

 

[Senethro]

news doesn't seem to go annointing anybody. if anything, in past 10 years+ it's been normalized that white dudes are inherently oppressors, regardless of what actions they choose to take.

also no idea where we're getting "protestant" specifically in this fantasy. usa has tons of christianity variants/offshoots, but i don't see any evidence of favoritism of protestant over catholic at scale in recent memory for example. it happened in us history, but it's been a while.

there are other things we'd expect to observe if christianity were favored as a matter of policy at scale, which we do not observe. most interactions (employment, schools, etc) don't even have a means of identifying religious affiliation aside from *maybe* skimming someone's social media. even in context of abortion, the complaints here are about outlier states, because most states just allow it...even "red" ones. again, not pattern behavior consistent with some strong bias for protestants etc.

just fantasy things.

What would you accept as valid evidence of protestant positive discrimination/catholic negative discrimination?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What would you accept as valid evidence of protestant positive discrimination/catholic negative discrimination?

same burden of proof as discrimination generally; that person was punished/harmed/etc with the religion specifically as motivation for it. not easy to do in most cases. though it can happen, like suddenly getting shunned by a bunch of mormons when they find out you're not or something. or a previously friendly work environment suddenly turns hostile after they find out a particular person is catholic.

individuals are biased/willing to discriminate, so it must happen with hundreds of millions of people in the country. but at scale, systematically? what would that even look like at this point? it's hard to find out someone's religion unless they openly disclose it or you ask, and the latter would be a potential flag for discrimination since there aren't many contexts where it would be relevant.

 

[Gorbles]

what would that even look like at this point?

If you don't know what it looks like, how can you say you'll accept a given proof?

This is rhetorical, for more than one reason, but it bears asking.

 

[Angst]

news doesn't seem to go annointing anybody. if anything, in past 10 years+ it's been normalized that white dudes are inherently oppressors, regardless of what actions they choose to take.

also no idea where we're getting "protestant" specifically in this fantasy. usa has tons of christianity variants/offshoots, but i don't see any evidence of favoritism of protestant over catholic at scale in recent memory for example. it happened in us history, but it's been a while.

there are other things we'd expect to observe if christianity were favored as a matter of policy at scale, which we do not observe. most interactions (employment, schools, etc) don't even have a means of identifying religious affiliation aside from *maybe* skimming someone's social media. even in context of abortion, the complaints here are about outlier states, because most states just allow it...even "red" ones. again, not pattern behavior consistent with some strong bias for protestants etc.

just fantasy things.

whether it's protestants that are being favored, and whether it's people being literally anointed, sure, that's not the case, but that part of the point was poetic.

whether it's christians that are being favored and are pushing through policy... are they? yep.

 

[Senethro]

same burden of proof as discrimination generally; that person was punished/harmed/etc with the religion specifically as motivation for it. not easy to do in most cases. though it can happen, like suddenly getting shunned by a bunch of mormons when they find out you're not or something. or a previously friendly work environment suddenly turns hostile after they find out a particular person is catholic.

individuals are biased/willing to discriminate, so it must happen with hundreds of millions of people in the country. but at scale, systematically? what would that even look like at this point? it's hard to find out someone's religion unless they openly disclose it or you ask, and the latter would be a potential flag for discrimination since there aren't many contexts where it would be relevant.

So impossible to acquire evidence, as we can't ever know whats really in a persons head, on an individual scale or at mass.

And yet you choose to believe that the discrimination does not happen and are unreasonably confident in this assessment.

As Gorbles said, this is all rhetorical. The causal relation between your beliefs and your perception of the evidence is backwards.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So impossible to acquire evidence

so didn't say that therefore bad motive for quoting lul

And yet you choose to believe that the discrimination does not happen and are unreasonably confident in this assessment.

accusations have burden of evidence.

The causal relation between your beliefs and your perception of the evidence is backwards.

quite a bit of irony in quoted statement, but rather than going too far into weeds about it, might i ask what this has to do with abortion at this point? is protestant vs other faiths being dominant even predictive of abortion policy per state?

 

[Senethro]

so didn't say that therefore bad motive for quoting lul

accusations have burden of evidence.

quite a bit of irony in quoted statement, but rather than going too far into weeds about it, might i ask what this has to do with abortion at this point? is protestant vs other faiths being dominant even predictive of abortion policy per state?

The problem is the huge amount you don't say. You would have us believe that seemingly on every issue, your only concern and motive is increasing the consistency of the law, with consistency determined by you. It looks like a fig leaf.

You never create a positive case for your own position (whatever it really is). You just fallacy fallacy absolutely everything and rule all evidence inadmissible. Watching you argue law with a professional lawyer where they seem capable of reading, incorporating and responding to your statements, and yet you never at any point acknowledge anything they bring up makes me think its a habit.

Is a no-score-draw really the best you ever hope for?