I have a very well developed sense of humor, but I don't believe in mocking, even in the most light-hearted of jests, a figure of importance in someone else's religion.

 

Originally posted by Nick1986 Nevertheless I have changed the title just to please you

 

It looks much better now, thank you:)

The Eastern churches prefer married clergy. The normal way of selecting priests is that when a priest in a certain parish dies, the parish council meets to consider candidates to replace him. These candidates are generall married men of position and respect. The council then approaches the candidates to see which ones would be willing to attend seminary and become priests, and in the end they make their choice. The parish itself pay for the training of the priest.

That per my 9th year religion teacher, Brother George, a Christian Brother who despite his Scottish burr was a Syrian Catholic whose brother was a bishop.  

Those single men who attend seminary are expected to take vows of celibacy. 

Much as i despise religion, i cant help but respect this mans faith, how hard must it be for him to be Christian in Syria.

Anyway, thank you for that snippet (genuinely) I had no idea.

Azita

 

 

Was raised that way courtesy of the ma and nana. But am used to the catholic haters.....lots of resemblance there to anti-semites in my opinion. Btw.... Humor ain't got a damn thing to do with the 1.196 billion who might not like the analogy.

 

Just imagine...substitute the Pope with Obama...only in this case the caption would read:

 

 ''And now, my beauties, something with poison in it, I think. With poison in it, but attractive to the eye, and soothing to the smell. ''

 

 

 

 

Holy shit.....the hue and cry would be enormous eh. No humor there for his sycophants eh.

 

 

quotes cc: The Wizard Of OZ

 

"We are leaking humor at an alarming rate".  Akoluthos.

 

 

 

If the initial title of this thread is humor, then I should truly hope I'm leaking it

 

 

Oh it's both more then just suggested in the historical record past and present. The allegations and facts are there for analysis. And even moral judgement not to mention legal. And as such....subject to criticism.

 

 

However the fact also remains that in keeping with the Coc. That same criticism is expected to be objective and in avoidance of rudeness and deliberate attempts at offending the sensibilities of not only the subject in question. But the membership, who might be offended at large, as well.

 

 

 

Why.... should be obvious.

 

 

 

 

There is a great deal of difference between honest attempts to analyze and criticism reference performance versus attempted characterization that's offensive; which often occurs as a result of attempts at what's termed sardonic or cynical humor. What makes it complex, is the inborn desire, or lack thereof, and legal acknowledgement and recognition of the actual purpose of the 1st Amendment or equivalent expressions of free speech. Versus deliberate or even possibly bigoted mis-representations, that can cause harm. And hence can be objected to as libel or slander and or offensive to a portion of the body at large no matter the minority-majority status. Even on a history forum.

Hate speech, while defendable under free speech, is still hate speech..... for example. And the associated consequences recognisable.

 

 

 

 

Iowa. in the case of a forum it's left to the staff to determine this. Assuming their attempting an honest effort to consistently enforce it. There will be always differences in how they arrive at that due to the subjective nature of their enforcement authority and their backgrounds and experience and even inherent bigotries involved. Ntl. it's expected.... that they remain as consistently objective, as possible, on the good ones. And avoid those expressions of inherent bigotries and postures and or needless attempts at characterizations that might be deliberately offensive and might or possibly be recognised by others. Staff and member at large alike. Not to say we all dont 'slip' because we do. But that's a desired exception not a pattern.

 

 

Why?

 

 

Makes for good order and a consistent non contentious environment.

 

 

And that provides for not just a objective environment but a historically accurate one as well. Not to mention one that promotes civility in discourse.

 

 

 

 

 

In the case above, I view the original intent of the thread as cynical humor. Because frankly I cant prove otherwise. If I could...I would then comment appropriately. But.... if I accept the proposition I have just announced then I also have accepted the acknowledgement of the 1st Amd which protects cynical humor. And that no violation of our Coc occurred at this point.

 

 

 

When and where and how, I might have found it in violation of the coc, is another matter.

 

 

 

 

But lets take you and I for a final example. Lets presume, in a hypothetical sense, there has been an undercurrent of expressed or even verbalized propositions you and I are anti-Semites or anti-religious. Ie. Jew haters and Catholic bashers etc....iow. pick you complaint. Doesn't matter. Tho those will suffice. Lets even say that complaints have been made; that not only are we anti-Semites etc. but that a preponderance of our posts have been identified by others, as being anti-nationalistic and covertly or overtly bombastic and inflammatory in nature, as well.

 

 

What is our redress?

 

 

The answer?

 

 

Again.

 

 

Obvious.

 

 

Individually, first and foremost; having been advised of the complaints (presumably by staff or other members), in house or out, we would probably have toned down that which has proven offensive to others and avoided doing it again. Or at least not deliberately doing it again. Or we would have learned how to better express ourselves in such a manner to avoid interpretations and potential conflict.

 

 

 

If not?

 

 

 

Then presuming the standard actions of a history blog-forum...... the staff would be required (Assuming their not supporters of the same behavior and capable of  what's recognized as consistent enforcement on that blog-forum) to intervene.

 

 

The BL?

 

Up top.

 

I've told you before...criticise all you like. But remain wary of the verbalization and the effect it might have on those who would disagree. And do it as per the Coc. More importantly when they ask and or expect it, avoid the verbalizations that are offensive. We would hope that you or I do this out of respect for the other's experience or personal convictions that you or I might in turn would desire. Not because we endorse censorship. If you or anyone else is capable..there is indeed a way to do this.

If you want the opposite...an environment where consideration of others is of no importance and flaming and bashing and un-necessary ridicule is in vogue. And or constant rudeness and hyperbolic ranting in defense of an agenda is expected and encouraged...go elsewhere.

 

 

The only requirement here, as far as I'm concerned as a Mod and member, is..... that you and I etc. think...before engaging mouth or key stroke.

 

 

Because like it or not there is no totality of democracy in representation on a history blog-forum.

 

 

And if you or anyone else needs a refresher on that then see this:

 

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32782 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32782

 

 

Because while it addressed a different issuse...it also inherently addresses the actions of individual members that required it in the first place. Which is to say.....remember the Coc.

 

 

And....again.....think...before engaging mouth or key stroke. I have to do this often myself.

 

It will not only enhance the aforementioned civility in discourse and debate but it will also enhance the aforementioned objectivty of the accurate historical analysis and reporting as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No agenda there eh.  

 

 

Not all of Christianity is like that.  However Religion is a political construct of man, so the amount of politics involved shoudn't be surprising.  I, like MM, am not a religous person, I have my own belief system.  It probably comes closer to Gnosticism than anything else.

 

  

 

 

ref. first blue bold.

 

Yup I could.

 

 

Given my background but am not particularly motivated to do so as I don't entirely trust the motives of select individuals on this subject....seen to much religious bashing and catholic bashing before on forums, to include this one, to warrant my getting uptight over it because of my ole Ma and Nana's association.

 

ref. second blue bold.

 

 

The only thing I'll say to that is it's not a matter that's new.

 

 

Christianity as a philosophy and religion, as originated and subsequently developed by men who did indeed have political agendas (as they might be termed today; predominately, initially that of safeguarding and preserving the institution's survival). Is not that of the present Catholic church or ancient for that matter, in it's entirety.

 

 

Hasn't been since Constantine's declaration (Milan 312AD).

 

Best bet is to peruse James Hitchcock's History of the Catholic Church et.tv.

 

Here's a few decent links used by the church (their acceptance or rejection as biased is not my problem):

 

http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/thechurch.html - http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/thechurch.html

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07365a.htm - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07365a.htm

 

 

 

 

Azita, I'm not at all sensitive about religion, as I posted, I'm not a religious person.  Also, this isn't the first time this subject has been broached here. 

 

Some subjects almost require a "lubricant" before answering.

 

 

 

Hail Mary full of grace, Italians now in 2nd place.