Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:That's not the case, at least not as I've seen it.

It's been the case as I've seen it. I've known many stories of people getting rejected from religious communities because of, say, homosexuality, abortion issues, even drug use.

Uniting one's flock by calling for a witch hunt, as it were, is a time honored tactic.

On the bright side, witch hunting is a wonderful team work building exercise!

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:That's not the case, at least not as I've seen it.

It's been the case as I've seen it. I've known many stories of people getting rejected from religious communities because of, say, homosexuality, abortion issues, even drug use.

Uniting one's flock by calling for a witch hunt, as it were, is a time honored tactic.

So you go to church pretty often then?

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:On a different note, OP is full of loaded words that present a clear bias. Not saying that I support or don't support the OP's position (as if I want to get into that flame war), just saying it comes off the wrong way. Though I like that you actually managed to use "avowed" and "onerous" in a sentence.

I think you may have fallen into the sarchasm. I intentionally used verbiage to reflect the fact that in 2010, a great deal of Republicans actively campaigned on a platform job creation and fiscal issues as their chief priority, and then once in office immediately started working to restrict abortion. I also wanted to illustrate that I suspect that a good deal of the people that voted for them likely do not feel any cognitive dissonance between hating Obamacare for small government, government out of healthcare type reasons while wildly cheering for government expansion via new regulations to put government into your healthcare.

Ouze, what you have basically outlined is why Rick Santorum has lasted this long in the primaries -- and why the Republican party has no chance of winning the general election.

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:That's not the case, at least not as I've seen it.

It's been the case as I've seen it. I've known many stories of people getting rejected from religious communities because of, say, homosexuality, abortion issues, even drug use.

Uniting one's flock by calling for a witch hunt, as it were, is a time honored tactic.

So you go to church pretty often then?

You don't see it, so it must not be true right?

its hard to see injustice with your head in the sand isn't it?

It's easy to judge things with little to no first hand experience of those things.

and its easy to not see things when you don't want to see them.

I went to church regularly for a few years. I see the rejection of members by the community far more often now than I did back then.

Don't know if it's just a change in perspective or if it's a change in the local culture.

sirlynchmob wrote:and its easy to not see things when you don't want to see them.

Every potential assumption behind that remark is really quite insulting but on the other hand you're doing a great job of reminding us that you don't know what you're talking about.

Melissia wrote:I went to church regularly for a few years. I see the rejection of members by the community far more often now than I did back then.

So you were part of a community but left it -- but you still keep up with it and who they force out?

Manchu wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:and its easy to not see things when you don't want to see them.

Every potential assumption behind that remark is really quite insulting but on the other hand you're doing a great job of reminding us that you don't know what you're talking about.

Funny, thats the same thing I thought of for your post of "That's not the case, at least not as I've seen it.."

Yeah, as an active member of a religious community I do have the opportunity to see how people who have abortions are treated by that community. Go figure.

Manchu wrote:Yeah, as an active member of a religious community I do have the opportunity to see how people who have abortions are treated by that community. Go figure.

ya from the one church you go it, I'm sure you get broad and comprehensive knowledge on the subject.

Great point! Except that I have a ton of freinds and family who are active members of parishes all over the United States plus I keep abreast of national (and international) periodicals written by and about people of my faith. No you're probably right: people who don't do all of this clearly know more about what happens in religious communities than folks who are part of them.

Manchu wrote:So you were part of a community but left it -- but you still keep up with it and who they force out?

Or more accurately, I've lived in this neighborhood for more than twenty years, and people talk.

Not all churches have a culture of inclusion.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:So you were part of a community but left it -- but you still keep up with it and who they force out?

Or more accurately, I've lived in this neighborhood for more than twenty years, and people talk.

Gossip isn't a great news source. So here's some first-hand experience:

There's a lot of what you might call self-de-selection. A friend of mine from MI didn't go to mass for twenty years and felt very bitter about the Church and its teachings on homosexuality. She and her wife moved to CA where she now works for a church-run college and attends mass regularly. I was discussing this with one of our mutual friends and we agreed that had she gone to the local parish in MI, she would have seen that she was as welcome there as she is at her new parish in CA. The attitudes that she left twenty years before, which were more general to society than to that parish or the Church, are quite different today and for the past few years -- again, not coincidentally as attitudes have changed more generally. As to abortion, I've known a fair few women who have had abortions and seen even the staunchest pro-life advocates extend to them genuine friendship and support in the wake of that trauma.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Not all churches have a culture of inclusion.

That's very true. What I object to is that sentiment being employed to suggest that churches have cultures of exclusion generally speaking.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Manchu wrote:Yeah, as an active member of a religious community I do have the opportunity to see how people who have abortions are treated by that community. Go figure.

ya from the one church you go it, I'm sure you get broad and comprehensive knowledge on the subject.

NonMod hat on as there is a Mod involved too.

Childrins lets try to remain ing polite shall we? no need to get uppity, when common courtesy works AS NONE OF US HAS A PERSONAL STAKE IN THE TOPIC.

And now a wiener dog pic.

Frazzled wrote:no need to get uppity, when common courtesy works AS NONE OF US HAS A PERSONAL STAKE IN THE TOPIC.

Common courtesy is also required when folks do have a personal stake (or feel that they have one), just as a reminder.

I don't accuse all churches of having a culture of exclusion, but I have noticed that there's a rising increase in instances of it locally with the politicization of religion.

There's an apartment complex nearby which has a church on either side. Membership between the two is basiclaly split along party lines.


edit: do pay attention when I say locally

Melissia wrote:the politicization of religion

This is an old and especially grave problem.

At the beginning of the calendar year, one of the priests at my parish gave a homily starting with: "This will be a divisive year and it'll be a sore temptation for us. You should know that when you look around here, you're looking at Democrats and you're looking at Republicans. And everyone you see is a Catholic."

If he said it every week it still wouldn't be enough! At another parish, years ago, there was a pro-life referendum on the ballot. In the homily the week before the polls opened, the priest at the parish I attended said: "Catholics are not a one issue people -- but, after all, there is no other issue that is more important." It's one of the most repulsive things I've ever heard in a homily. He had said gak like this before but that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me and I never went back. I should note that I didn't actually make a conscious decision not to go there anymore. It just kind of naturally happened. Funny enough, I started to see more and more faces familiar to me from that parish appearing at the new one.

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:the politicization of religion

This is an old and especially grave problem.

At the beginning of the calendar year, one of the priests at my parish gave a homily starting with: "This will be a divisive year and it'll be a sore temptation for us. You should know that when you look around here, you're looking at Democrats and you're looking at Republicans. And everyone you see is a Catholic."

If he said it every week it still wouldn't be enough! At another parish, years ago, there was a pro-life referendum on the ballot. In the homily the week before the polls opened, the priest at the parish I attended said: "Catholics are not a one issue people -- but, after all, there is no other issue that is more important." It's one of the most repulsive things I've ever heard in a homily. He had said gak like this before but that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me and I never went back. I should note that I didn't actually make a conscious decision not to go there anymore. It just kind of naturally happened. Funny enough, I started to see more and more faces familiar to me from that parish appearing at the new one.

so you have seen it, interesting. so you can see how you can make people feel unwelcome without actually chasing them out of church.

You also helped make my case that if you don't agree with what your church is doing, don't go.

Manchu wrote:Yeah, as an active member of a religious community I do have the opportunity to see how people who have abortions are treated by that community. Go figure.

Why does this matter. We all should know by now. Anecdotal evidence means nothing on the internet.

Hell, all evidence means nothing on the internet.

What is this myth about small government and republicans?

I've been reading books about the Reagan years, and it seems that the government expanded at the speed of light under his watch, but Reagan is see as a model president.

sirlynchmob wrote:so you can see how you can make people feel unwelcome without actually chasing them out of church.

I don't think that point was ever at stake. Melissia clarified that not every church has a culture of inclusion and I clarified that not every church has a culture of exclusion.

You also helped make my case that if you don't agree with what your church is doing, don't go.

I'm sorry that my anecdote gave you that impression. What I was trying to say is that people stay or leave based on these things in fact not that they should do. I'm never going to hear a pro-choice homily in any parish I go to but being a pro-choice Democrat myself doesn't mean I should stop going to mass.

Churches that are against this crap need to stand up and speak out, or they might as well just be preaching the same. Letting it happen is just as bad as working with it.

Also, we DO have a stake in this, unless you're only ever going to have sons, and you have no women in your families.

The problem with democracy is that people get the governance they vote for.

SaintTom wrote:Churches that are against this crap need to stand up and speak out

I agree. I just respect "standing up and speaking out" as something that you actually do non-confrontationally as a matter of your ordinary worldview and lifestyle more than being angry on the internet or getting together for a protest. The "standing up and speaking out" that makes a real difference, as far as I can tell, is the lived experience of shaking hands with someone who is different from you or has done things that you don't necessarily approve of at the sign of peace.

SaintTom wrote:Churches that are against this crap need to stand up and speak out, or they might as well just be preaching the same. Letting it happen is just as bad as working with it.

Also, we DO have a stake in this, unless you're only ever going to have sons, and you have no women in your families.

That's a big leap...

Joey wrote:The problem with democracy is that people get the governance they vote for.

Very Churchillian. Compound the problem, in this case, with voting for a government that (at least hypothetically) restricts your access to participation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:

SaintTom wrote:Churches that are against this crap need to stand up and speak out, or they might as well just be preaching the same.

That's a big leap...

That's a very good point, Amaya. The trouble is the attitude of "if you're not with us then you're against us." When folks fight fire with fire, the result is that everyone gets burned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:What is this myth about small government and republicans?

I think when Republicans said "small government" in the past, they meant "less people get a say and less people get any benefit." But now some Republicans mean it more literally, like they actually want to dismantle the government. This is a big part of the current Republican identity crisis.

Manchu wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:so you can see how you can make people feel unwelcome without actually chasing them out of church.

I don't think that point was ever at stake. Melissia clarified that not every church has a culture of inclusion and I clarified that not every church has a culture of exclusion.

You also helped make my case that if you don't agree with what your church is doing, don't go.

I'm sorry that my anecdote gave you that impression. What I was trying to say is that people stay or leave based on these things in fact not that they should do. I'm never going to hear a pro-choice homily in any parish I go to but being a pro-choice Democrat myself doesn't mean I should stop going to mass.

I'm glad you agree with pro choice, but your church is a big player in blocking contraceptives from being covered by insurance policies, and by making all abortions illegal. Even going so far as to say its OK for doctors to LIE to women about abortions.

lets have some context,
According to the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, between 5000 and 10,000 women in the U.S. died annually from illegal abortions prior to 1973 . After abortion became legal and safe, that death rate fell to dozens a year.

that's the argument from the pro lifers, they'd rather have 5000 to 10000 women die, instead of providing safe abortions by qualified people. As you are attending, possibly donating to, and claiming to be a member of that church, you are enabling them to use your voice in their political activism.