Religion
Related: About this forumBill de Blasio under fire for omitting Catholic clergy from 60-member transition team
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/de-blasio-fire-omitting-catholics-transition-team-article-1.1525589...
Making the slight even more glaring, the team which de Blasio has repeatedly called diverse includes five spiritual leaders from other major religions.
De Blasio appointed two rabbis, two Christian ministers, and an imam to the team, which will help him choose a cabinet and policy priorities for his term.
The absence of leaders from the worlds largest Christian denomination the religion practiced by more than half the city sparked an uproar among some Catholics.
Why do ANY religious leaders need to be on a transition team for a secular political office?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Taking away the cushy position they've enjoyed-but-in-no-way-deserved for nearly a century? HOW DARE HE!
Oh, well. Maybe we'll get another Bill Donohue interview out of it. Those always make me laugh.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)BTWZ I proudly voted for de Blasio.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)...and they think that entitles them to advise de Blasio on filling his cabinet. It does not. End of story.
As New York's dominant religious demographic, Roman Catholics already have de Blasio's undivided attention, especially if he wants to run for reelection. At least with the Rabbis, Imams, and Pastors, he's seeking out input from religious minorities whose voices are not as readily heard over the bluster of majoritarian sentiment--I don't necessarily agree they should have been included in this specific assembly, but I agree with the logic of minority representation.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I Would also say eastern religion clergy should be represented as well.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The question remains as to why the leader of a secular institution should feel obligated to seek counsel from religious leaders when forming his cabinet. Assuredly there are more qualified advisors out there.
And make no mistake, if de Blasio had picked progressive priests, Donohue would still be blubbering about it. He's just that kind of guy.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and pretend that millions of Catholics don't think like he does... but you can't do that and still live in the real world.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)whathehell
(29,037 posts)There's no reason they're not at least as "entitled" as the rabbis, the Imam, and the pastors. End of story.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)None of them entitled to membership at all.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Don't see them on there.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Do you you have a logical justification for that, or is it just trying to appear conciliatory, or a general hand-waving for "diversity"?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Should they be represented? Should shoe salesmen be represented? What are your logical criteria for who belongs on a transition team and who doesn't? Do you have any? Or, as suggested, are you just paying lip service to "diversity"?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Religious communities are major part of this city and have a voice here. I want non-believers to have a voice too.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)is a really lousy idea, wouldn't you agree? You've certainly pretended to argue that way on other occasions. But I asked if you had any logical criteria for who to include on a transition team. I think even you would agree that your personal "belief" does not remotely qualify, so I have to wonder why you would consider that an answer to the question I posed.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)As mayor of this city he will have to rely greatly on religious leaders.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)It's your claim that atheists should be equally represented on the transition team that is in question here. I maintain again that you made that statement in an ultimately insincere attempt to appear conciliatory, or kneeling at the foolish altar of diversity for diversity's sake, rather than because of any logical criteria for the selection.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I believe in fair play.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)But you insist on injecting ill-considered opinions into the discussion, and in responding endlessly to the corrections of those errors. If you are being honest about wanting to be left out, you're free to leave yourself out.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)but I'm guessing even you won't be holding your breath waiting.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)when you said "leave me out of it" did you?
And what would you think of a politician who said that the "Lord" was helping him do his job? As opposed to one who said that Xenu was helping him do his job?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Just fine.
okasha
(11,573 posts)"God give me patience, and I need it right now" situations.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)eomer
(3,845 posts)I look at this in the context of the faith-based initiatives that were started at the federal level during Bush II and continued by Obama. I'm opposed to a faith-based initiative in government at any level. Let government directly provide for the needs of people in its jurisdiction, don't funnel money for helping the poor or other afflicted through religious organizations.
Churches and their leaders have a vested interest in government being ineffectual. If government isn't effective at providing a safety net then the churches have the large pool of people needing help that they can take advantage of in their proselytizing activities. And then with faith-based initiatives the church is even funded by the government in those activities taking advantage of the needy. I don't think we need more people who want government to fail advising it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Religious leaders are community leaders.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The transition team isn't about building ties with community leaders, it is about selecting candidates for cabinet positions. Ideal team members, one must logically conclude, are those with a detailed knowledge of the positions, and those who are able to evaluate the qualifications of potential appointees.
Seeing as there is no Secretary of Catholicism, or Secretary of Judaism, or Secretary of Quality Footware, I fail to see why including Priests, Rabbis, or cobblers for no other reason than their demographics is a good idea. Opportunities abound for the Mayor of New York to meet with religious leaders and build community ties, none of which may permit religious leaders to directly affect government.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)then you've just defeated your own position. You can't simultaneously claim that he can pick whoever he wants, but also whine that he should include X, Y, and Z.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Things may be different in Connecticut.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Religious leaders are significant leaders in the community. Therefore, your statement, "I wouldn't want my mayor to rely at all on religious leaders" is saying "I wouldn't want my mayor to rely at all on a significant group of community leaders", which is simply silly.
An even sillier statement is your
Churches and their leaders have a vested interest in government being ineffectual. If government isn't effective at providing a safety net then the churches have the large pool of people needing help that they can take advantage of in their proselytizing activities. And then with faith-based initiatives the church is even funded by the government in in those activities taking advantage of the needy. I don't think we need more people who want government to fail advising it.
Only someone with extremely limited experience with charitable organizations would say that. Yes, at a soup kitchen run by a Christian mission, one will be expected to pray before the meal, and one may also be expected to hear a sermon. And I know, from personal experience, just how effective the staff at the mission knows the sermon will be.
However, most religious based charitable organizations do not seek to proselytize. And it is a flat out LIE to say that they are "taking advantage of the needy", and you should apologize for the base slander. My wife spent several years on the board of Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Joliet, Illinois. Catholic Charities did not "want government to fail", if for no other reason than a fair amount of the funding came from the government. Catholic Charities runs things such as Head Start programs, which are largely state-funded (and proselytizing is strictly forbidden under the contract with the state). Well over two-thirds of adoptions in Illinois are done through either Catholic Social Services or Lutheran Social Services under contracts from the State Department of Children and Family Services; again, without any hint of proselytization.
Religious people and organizations do charitable work because we believe that we are called upon to do so. Performing charitable works are a mitzvah for Jews, a fard for Muslims and a command for Christians. In Matthew 25, Christ says that clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, tending the sick and so on are necessary for salvation. James 2 says that if we claim to have faith, but our faith is not shown by our acts, then that faith is dead. In Judaism, giving to the poor is viewed as an act of justice and righteousness, the performance of a duty, giving the poor their due. Islam has a similar concept.
No, eomer, your statement that religious charitable organizations are taking advantage of the needy and that they want government to fail are slanders of the most egregious sort. I am particularly infuriated by your statement that religious people do charitable work only for the basest of motives.
eomer
(3,845 posts)I am sure there are religious groups that do charity for the right reasons. I am also certain there are religious groups that do charity for the chance to proselytize. What the percentage is of each I don't know.
Unfortunately the groups that I've encountered personally were of the type that do it to proselytize. I recently attended training for a prison visitation program of the Catholic Archdiocese in my area. It was quite surprising that the one and only thing being taught in a training class that lasted a full day was that the volunteers were to minister to the prisoners only on matters of religion. They were taught not to engage in discussion of the prisoner's personal life and the difficulties such as family relations due to being incarcerated. They were not to engage in discussion about conditions, including abusive conditions, at the facility. They were not allowed to minister to the person's human needs; they were allowed to do no other thing than proselytize!
(I say "they" in the above because the deacon doing the training and eventually everyone in the class knew I was a UU and an atheist. I was there because I thought I would learn something useful about prison visitation but did not because the approach we take in our new visitation program is the exact opposite - we ask volunteers not to engage on religion unless the prisoner specifically wants to and instead we engage on the human aspects of their incarceration. We're recruiting volunteers mostly from the community and not with any attempt to find people who are religious - in other words it is really a secular program.)
In another example, a family member wanted to volunteer for a program helping kids run by a local Baptist church. But even though she is Christian she did not meet their religious litmus tests and was not allowed to volunteer. Clearly the reason that her religious beliefs mattered to them was that they see religion as a central part of their ministering to these people in need of help.
All the instances in my personal experience are similar where clearly the program had proselytizing as a central component and motivation. As I said, I don't know what the percentage is in real life as obviously my personal experience could be a statistical outliier. So please allow me to modify my statement, with apologies, to say that I don't want religious leaders involved in government because I don't trust them to have the right motivations. Some of them do, some of them don't, and I don't see a particular need to have them involved anyway so my solution would be separation of church and state, vigorously applied.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)I can understand how you feel. However, my first point stands: You are saying that you do not want a group of community leaders because they might have bad motives, since they belong to that group.
If I were to say that I would not want Jews as part of that group because Jews have a reputation for being greedy and grasping, you would probably call that bigoted. Yet you have no problem smearing religious leaders in general with a similar brush.
eomer
(3,845 posts)and I'm opposed to it. It creates special slots in government that are specifically for religious groups. If religious groups want to interact with government like any other NGO then that's an improvement. However, the other thing that we have in these times is a lack of transparency in our government that allows groups of all types to interact improperly with our government. I actually don't think any type of non-governmental leaders should have positions of privilege with our government. How about having government of, for, and by the people for a change?
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)That's what you are now saying.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)simply BECAUSE they are religious leaders? Is that an acceptable sole qualification?
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)That's what you seem to be arguing.
As I keep saying, they are leaders in the community, but you would apparently deny them a place because they are religious leaders.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I realize why you want to reframe it as to being "denied," because that's a more tenable position.
But that's not what's happening here.
rug
(82,333 posts)For one thing, the members of the transition time are not at the link.
Here they are:
In addition to the two chairs of the team, Carl Weisbrod and Jennifer Jones Austin, who were previously announced, here are the names unveiled by Mr. de Blasio:
Thelma Golden, director and chief curator, Studio Museum of Harlem
Dr. Marta Moreno Vega, president and founder of the Caribbean Cultural Center African Diaspora Institute
Cheryl Cohen Effron, founder, Greater NY; former president, ATC Management
Karen Brooks Hopkins, president, Brooklyn Academy of Music
Alexa Avilés, program officer, Scherman Foundation; co-president, Parent Teacher Association of Public School 172
Zakiyah Ansari, advocacy director, Alliance for Quality Education
Maxine Griffith, executive vice president and special adviser for campus planning, Office of Government and Community Affairs, Columbia University
Kate Sinding, senior attorney, New York Urban Program, Natural Resources Defense Council
Una Clarke, former City Council member, Brooklyn
MaryAnne Gilmartin, president and CEO, Forest City Ratner Companies
Bertha Lewis, president and founder, The Black Institute
Marcia A. Smith, president, Firelight Media
Ana Oliveira, president and CEO, the New York Women's Foundation
Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum, senior rabbi, Congregation Beit Simchat Torah
Darren Walker, president, Ford Foundation
Martha Baker, executive director and CEO, Nontraditional Employment for Women
Dr. Katherine LaGuardia, assistant clinical professor, obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive science, Mount Sinai Medical Center
Dr. Conchita M. Mendoza, chief of geriatrics, University Hospital of Brooklyn, Long Island College Hospital
Cynthia Nixon, actress
Arnold L. Lehman, director, Brooklyn Museum
Oskar Eustis, artistic director, the Public Theater
Edward (Ed) Lewis, founder, Essence Communications
Richard Buery, Jr., president and CEO, the Children's Aid Society
William Floyd, head of external affairs, Google
Meyer (Sandy) Frucher, vice chairman, the NASDAQ OMX Group
Orin Kramer, founder, Boston Provident LP
Vincent (Vinny) Alvarez, president, NYC Central Labor Council
Peter Madonia, COO, the Rockefeller Foundation
Ken Sunshine, founder, Sunshine Sachs
Harold Ickes, former White House deputy chief of staff
Dr. Rafael Lantigua, professor of clinical medicine, New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center
John Banks, vice president of government relations, Con Edison; Board Member, Metropolitan Transit Authority
Douglas (Doug) Durst, chairman, the Durst Organization
Derrick Cephas, partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges; former CEO and president, Amalgamated Bank
Herb Sturz, co-founder, Vera Institute of Justice
Jeremy Travis, president, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York
Rabbi Michael Miller, executive vice president and CEO, Jewish Community Relations Council
Pastor Michael Walrond, Jr., director of Ministers Division, National Action Network; Seventh Senior Pastor, First Corinthian Baptist Church
Udai Tambar, executive director, South Asian Youth Action
David Jones, president and CEO, Community Service Society of New York
Marvin Hellman, president, OHEL Children's Home and Family Services
Rev. A.R. Bernard, founder and senior pastor, and CEO, Christian Cultural Center
George Gresham, president, 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East
Dr. Steven Safyer, president and CEO, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Ken Lerer, managing director, Lerer Ventures; former chairman and co-founder, Huffington Post
Imam Khalid Latif, executive director and chaplain, Islamic Center, New York University
Marian Fontana, board member, Lower Manhattan Development Corp., Families Advisory Council
Tim Armstrong, chairman and CEO, AOL.
Kevin Ryan, founder and chairman, Gilt
Pam Kwatra, president, Kripari Marketing; executive committee, Indian National Overseas Congress
Elsie Saint Louis, executive director, Haitian-Americans United for Progress
Vanessa Leung, deputy director, Coalition for Asian American Children & Families
Paula Gavin, executive director, Fund for Public Advocacy
Kim Sweet, executive director, Advocates for Children of New York
Dr. Marcia Keizs, president, York College, The City University of New York
Jukay Hsu, founder, Coalition for Queens
Arnie Segarra, activist and longtime NYC public servant
Elba Montalvo, founder, president and CEO, the Committee for Hispanic Children and Families
Mindy Tarlow, executive director and CEO, Center for Employment Opportunities
Hoong Yee Lee Krakauer, executive director, Queens Council on the Arts
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20131120/BLOGS04/131129984#
For another thing, how do you know none of them are atheists? Some, like you, may prefer to keep it secret in a professional setting. Or maybe they don't consider it significant.
that there is nobody that is the "atheist voice" like there is for every other religion on there. Why is that? Maybe those people are Catholics but that hasn't stopped the Catholics from pointing out the absence. Is it just atheists that should shut up?
rug
(82,333 posts)for their accomplishments and the needs of the city as a progressive Democratic administration sees them.
But don't let that stop you from feeling slighted. I'm sure that's the paramount concern here.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)and this is your response to the OP.
rug
(82,333 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Glad we sorted that out.
rug
(82,333 posts)Let's sort this out right now.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Hopefully he realizes this is an attempt to try get another, more friendly, jury to block him from the conversation.
I know, I know...."you" didn't alert on it.
rug
(82,333 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)There are people that are on the team because of religious affilitiation. I think that's bullshit but if you're going to do it in NYC, then there should be Catholics on there. There should also be atheists on there. Both for their designation. I don't think there should be any for any religious designation but if you're gong to do that then make them all represented.
As to your flip-flopping.
1. I said there aren't any atheists.
2. You gave me a long list and said "How do I know those aren't athiests."
3. I said there are likely Catholics on the list but that doesn't mean there isn't still a lack of a spot designated for Catholics.
4. Now you are saying those people are on the list not for their religious stance.
Fine. Either the religious affilitation of those people is important or it isn't. Just let me know which side of that you're on so I can respond with some hope that you won't jump to the other side of that argument in response to me.
Here's what I do know:
1. There are spots on the committee for religiously specific groups. (Which is bullshit)
2. THere are no Catholics (Also bullshit)
3. There are no athiests (Again, bullshit)
So I don't like any of that.
I have no fucking clue what you think of any of it other than you will take a stance against whatever I say. So, let me know your thoughts and I'll see if I agree with you because you're all over the place here.
rug
(82,333 posts)The people on that list have an impact on the city.
Some of them have an impact due to the social benefit of their religious activities.
Grasp that.
Now tell me why there are no overt atheists on the list. Or is that "antiatheist"?
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Or is he just doing the "They are being mean to atheists" whine?
rug
(82,333 posts)Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,351 posts)A well-coordinated machine. Or maybe just a sprawling, meaningless muddle.
I vote the latter.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)if he begins his first term by bowing to the will of hate-filled homophobes like Donahoe, he'll likely never see a second. First rule of successful politics: Dance with thems that brung ya.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)not represent th Catholics of this city.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)There is a Catholic joke that the "Catholic League" consists of Bill Donohue and a mimeograph machine.
He chases after slights, real or (more often) imagined.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)The Catholic League is the "the largest Catholic advocacy organization in America." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_League_%28U.S.%29) They have a 16-member board of directors and a large board of advisors. Cardinals Tim Dolan, Edwin OBrien, and Sean O'Malley have spoken favorably of the organization and its work. (http://www.catholicleague.org/about-us/)
The Catholic League enjoys far more support from the church and its leadership than "Nuns on the bus" or any other group like that!
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Why should ANY imam be heard on NYPD surveillance?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/nypd-muslim-surveillance_n_2855303.html
Why should ANY religious leader be heard on fair wages?
http://www.iwj.org/locations/new-york
Why should ANY religious leader be heard on the vulnerable homeless?
http://www.nycreligion.info/?p=6230
Divisive, counterproductive post.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I don't understand your post, do you not like separation of church and state? In addition, do other cities have this practice? Because it sounds absurd.
rug
(82,333 posts)You sound like you do not like diverse voices in a diverse society.
As far as NYC goes, there has always been a transition team bringing in voices from all over this enormous city. They are all unpaid volunteers. DeBlasio is casting a wide net to make sure all constituencies have a voice, especially those who are focused on the underserved. That's what progressives do.
Frankly, in the face of the reality of NYC, this complaint about religious leaders being heard in a transition of administrations is, kindly, churlish.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)they are leaders of religious organizations.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)He will touch base with religious leaders in this city often. That is just being a good mayor.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Didn't know that?
Or are you saying he was on a transition team for the DC mayor?
Didn't know that either.
rug
(82,333 posts)I see you didn't read any of the links.
okasha
(11,573 posts)religious non-profit organizations partner or collaborate with governmental offices on human service projects. A large number of those NPO's are Catholic--good enough reason to include a representative of the RCC on a committee whose purview will include those activities.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Religious can be very helpful and supportive or they can use you for there own advancement. Donahoe is pushing for the latter.
Regardless, De Blasio already has several religious people helping him in the transition, must he have representatives from EVERY religion? If so, I demand Deists be represented.
rug
(82,333 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)What can they add? It seems to me the purpose of a transition team is to plan government services such that they are not interrupted. What does any of that have to do with imaginary friends?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)we see here an additional problem of them being included: someone's ALWAYS going to be pissed that they aren't represented (or represented adequately). Say he adds a priest. Well how come there are 2 rabbis but only one priest? OK, add a second priest. Hey, what about Hindus? Where does it end? What about non-believers? Do they have a representative on the team?
I'd wager that more problems are created than solved by this practice.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)You need people working with each major agency to make a smooth transition of leadership. That is essentially a bureaucratic function, not a political one.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I completely agree.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)I almost called you a bigot, but calling atheists bigoted is frowned on DU (although, I can say from personal experience, that calling a believer a "drooling mouthed, bigoted moron" is perfectly acceptable)
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)But whether you could actually back it up and show that it's true is another matter. So go ahead
point everyone reading this to where a believer on DU was called a "drooling mouthed, bigoted moron" with nothing coming of it.
My money's on can't. My money's on this being another invented quote from you. But prove me wrong.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)See http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=100028
And, as you see, the poster Heddi was crowing that "It's nice to see that the jury got this one right" on my being called a "drooling mouthed, bigoted moron".
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Bookmarked!
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)But then, why should I expect you to be gracious? I was accused of being a "drooling mouthed, bigoted moron" because I said that some DU atheists were arseholes. Yet here you are, almost falling over in your eagerness to show that I was right.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)and see if you want really to direct that at me?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Based on the jury's comments, their giving a pass to someone calling you a "drooling mouthed bigoted moron" had nothing to do with bigotry or prejudice against believers in general, or even because YOU happen to be a believer (assuming you are). In fact, if it had been any other believer on DU, they probably would have come down 6-0 to hide that post. That they came down 5-1 in favor of the person calling you a "drooling mouthed, bigoted moron" should tell you something personal was going on. Whether you'll take the message to heart is another matter.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Personal animosity is an acceptable excuse for calling someone a "drooling mouthed bigoted moron"
Nice to see that you admit that you approve of double standards. It makes you an example of what would generally be described as an oxymoron, an honest hypocrite.
Iggo
(47,537 posts)Thanks a lot.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)"if it walks like a duck" scenario. But it's good that you brought that up for others to see your antics. Thought you were done with posting here?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)but I didn't. I said nothing about "personal animosity" and I didn't say that anything was "acceptable". I pointed out that your claim of that "calling a believer a 'drooling mouthed, bigoted moron' is perfectly acceptable" rings pretty hollow, since the reason that a jury accepted it without hiding had nothing whatsoever to do with your being a "believer". That jury apparently felt that appellation suited you perfectly and that you personally deserved it, belief notwithstanding, in spite of site rules.
And the only double standard here is yours. You're the one that thinks it's perfectly acceptable to call people "arseholes" and "bigots" here as long as you think that's what they are, but when someone calls you a mean name because they think that's what YOU are, you get all whiny and start playing the poor, persecuted "believer". And kudos the to juror who pointed that out to you. Pot
meet kettle..goose..gander.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)And, on re-reading what you wrote, I see no reason to change my opinion.
I have been slapped down for calling bigoted atheists on their bigotry. Yes, you atheists don't like it when you spout bigotry and I have the audacity to say, "You are making bigoted statements". Yet when I am called a bigot, this is declared perfectly OK. Unlike you, I am standing up for a single standard: If I am damned for calling someone a bigot -- because this is deemed a personal attack -- then when I am called a bigot, the person making the personal attack on me should be treated the same way I was.
Your whine about pots and kettles, geese and ganders simply goes to show that you are being hypocritical. You don't want to be called a bigot, but you see nothing wrong with me being called a bigot. The double standard is all on your side, not mine.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)But nowhere did I say that I thought that post was "acceptable". I simply pointed out to you why a jury found it acceptable, since you seemed (and still seem) not to be getting that.
You, on the other hand, have tried to have it both ways, and then complained about it. And complained. And complained. And everyone here sees it.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)have shamed him into silence. And his reference to atheists as "whiny little babies" is particularly ironic in light of that post, and his running to the admins to complain about the deep injustices being done to him.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)If a spirit-believer happened to also be an expert at garbage collection, or public safety, then I think it would make sense to include then for their expertise. But to establish the transition team with quotas of people solely on the basis that they have an irrational belief system doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
In that case, why not require a certain number of people who are Rolling Stones fans, and a certain number of people that have unibrows, and a certain number of people who can name all the Presidents backwards? These criteria just aren't relevant to anything.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Now, if the Mayor sees a need for community outreach to placate the various religious tribes, maybe he needs an initiative there.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Because YOU disapprove of them. A remarkably parochial idea.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)is that you want a theocracy in the United States run by the Catholic church? A remarkably medieval idea.
(Two can play that game, FA.)
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)only seems to be able to make an argument by mis-stating or misrepresenting what someone else has said? Over and over on this thread, the same tired tactic.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)you would include the top cheerleaders from each high school, representatives from the MG Midget fan club or any other group that has no bearing on the smooth transition of government.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)Even after retirement, the Archbishop of Westminster eventually decided not to accept a seat in the House of Lords:
He was poised to become the first Roman Catholic bishop in the Upper House since the Reformation, as part of a drive by the Prime Minister to appoint senior leaders of all the main faiths to sit alongside Church of England bishops.
...
He told this newspaper that he declined the honour after consulting with the Vatican. In secret meetings of senior clerics held to canvass opinion, concerns had been expressed over the implications of the cardinal accepting the offer.
...
Some of the bishops who were consulted were against the move on the grounds that it could compromise the Church's freedom to be an impartial and critical voice. Others argued that canon law forbids clergy from taking any office that might involve the exercise of political power.
...
There was disagreement over whether the law was applicable, but had it been deemed so, a special dispensation from Pope Benedict XVI would have been needed to allow the cardinal to enter the Lords.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6736484/Cardinal-Cormac-Murphy-OConnor-turns-down-peerage-following-Catholic-row.html
And that was after he had retired from the position of archbishop.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)As the Code of Canon Law, Canon 285 §3 says "Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power." Drinan, as a good Jesuit, obeyed. Of course, at exactly the same time, JPII was interfering in Polish politics for all he was worth. But, of course, that's different.
MADem
(135,425 posts)their boss's words to heart quite yet.
A lot of the US Catholic leadership is still kind of "anti-Francis" in that they aren't embracing his attitudes about what is REALLY important.
A lot of people need to either retire or die before that organization will get correct.
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)I got 9 out of 10. But they are pretty close.