Attire for Papal Audience
Aug 15th 2005, 5:03 am
#121
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
Karen Selwyn writes:
> I did. In my earlier post, I wrote that I have observed Jews wearing
> their hats in Roman Catholic churches.
Did you observe non-Jews also wearing hats? (For that matter, how did
you know who was Jewish, and who wasn't?)
If a church forbids men from entering with hats on, should a Jew
remove his hat or not? And why?
> Since I've already said that Orthodox Jews are permitted into RC church
> with their hats on, clearly there is another principle operating:
> reciprocal respect for other religions.
Why doesn't this respect extend to people who wear hats for other
reasons?
> If someone is intent on entering a RC church wearing a hat, I suppose if
> they dress in a manner identical to an Orthodox Jew, they won't be
> challenged to remove their hats either.
Why must they dress as Jews in order to merit this special privilege?
> Real-world examples prove Jews choose to show respect for God as
> their religion defines respect, and the Catholic gatekeeper shows his
> respect for the faith of visitors by allowing them to keep their hats on.
Why are only visitors with religious reasons for wearing hats allowed
to keep them on?
> Someone else has already done an excellent job of pointing out that it
> is not the clothing by itself that is disrespectful.
In that case, one should be able to wear whatever one wishes in
church.
> The RC church has made certain rules that it defines as showing
> respect/disrespect. Wearing hats is one of those rules.
If wearing a hat is defined as disrespectful, then it IS the clothing
itself that is disrespectful.
> However, with limited exceptions, the RC church
> is asking visitors to abide by those rules as the price of admission.
Why are exceptions made? How can a hat be respectful in one case, but
not in another?
> "Everyone" is an absolute statement. Nothing I wrote suggests I think
> everyone should wear a hat. Only you are suggesting that uniform
> application of a rule is more important than showing respect in a house
> of faith and being sensitive to the beliefs of others when expressions
> of respect are in conflict.
Uniform application of a rule is the basis of equality among human
beings.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
> I did. In my earlier post, I wrote that I have observed Jews wearing
> their hats in Roman Catholic churches.
Did you observe non-Jews also wearing hats? (For that matter, how did
you know who was Jewish, and who wasn't?)
If a church forbids men from entering with hats on, should a Jew
remove his hat or not? And why?
> Since I've already said that Orthodox Jews are permitted into RC church
> with their hats on, clearly there is another principle operating:
> reciprocal respect for other religions.
Why doesn't this respect extend to people who wear hats for other
reasons?
> If someone is intent on entering a RC church wearing a hat, I suppose if
> they dress in a manner identical to an Orthodox Jew, they won't be
> challenged to remove their hats either.
Why must they dress as Jews in order to merit this special privilege?
> Real-world examples prove Jews choose to show respect for God as
> their religion defines respect, and the Catholic gatekeeper shows his
> respect for the faith of visitors by allowing them to keep their hats on.
Why are only visitors with religious reasons for wearing hats allowed
to keep them on?
> Someone else has already done an excellent job of pointing out that it
> is not the clothing by itself that is disrespectful.
In that case, one should be able to wear whatever one wishes in
church.
> The RC church has made certain rules that it defines as showing
> respect/disrespect. Wearing hats is one of those rules.
If wearing a hat is defined as disrespectful, then it IS the clothing
itself that is disrespectful.
> However, with limited exceptions, the RC church
> is asking visitors to abide by those rules as the price of admission.
Why are exceptions made? How can a hat be respectful in one case, but
not in another?
> "Everyone" is an absolute statement. Nothing I wrote suggests I think
> everyone should wear a hat. Only you are suggesting that uniform
> application of a rule is more important than showing respect in a house
> of faith and being sensitive to the beliefs of others when expressions
> of respect are in conflict.
Uniform application of a rule is the basis of equality among human
beings.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Aug 15th 2005, 5:04 am
#122
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
JohnT writes:
> You got a cite for that?
It depends on the specific (physical) church. Some enforce this, some
don't.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
> You got a cite for that?
It depends on the specific (physical) church. Some enforce this, some
don't.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Aug 15th 2005, 5:05 am
#123
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
[email protected] writes:
> Who cares?
If the eternal fate of your soul before God hinges upon it, you care a
lot.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
> Who cares?
If the eternal fate of your soul before God hinges upon it, you care a
lot.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Aug 15th 2005, 5:06 am
#124
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
[email protected] writes:
> Nothing in the thread indicates obsession.
Including or excluding people based on attire indicates a considerable
preoccupation.
> Your history of discussing (at length I might add) issues of dress
> and appearance however do imply a certain fixation with issues
> of attire.
I discuss all forms of unfair prejudice at length.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
> Nothing in the thread indicates obsession.
Including or excluding people based on attire indicates a considerable
preoccupation.
> Your history of discussing (at length I might add) issues of dress
> and appearance however do imply a certain fixation with issues
> of attire.
I discuss all forms of unfair prejudice at length.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Aug 15th 2005, 5:13 am
#125
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
Mxsmanic wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
> > Who cares?
> If the eternal fate of your soul before God hinges upon it, you care a
> lot.
If you believe that to be the case, then yes, I suppose it does.
I saw a programme on TV recently about obsessive-compulsive disorder.
The behaviours manifested by the patients - arranging all the trash on
the kitchen floor etc - were important to them, too, but I don't see a
lot of value in 3rd parties discussing the logic of them.
G;
> [email protected] writes:
> > Who cares?
> If the eternal fate of your soul before God hinges upon it, you care a
> lot.
If you believe that to be the case, then yes, I suppose it does.
I saw a programme on TV recently about obsessive-compulsive disorder.
The behaviours manifested by the patients - arranging all the trash on
the kitchen floor etc - were important to them, too, but I don't see a
lot of value in 3rd parties discussing the logic of them.
G;
Aug 15th 2005, 5:29 am
#126
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Mxsmanic) wrote:
> If wearing a hat is defined as disrespectful, then it IS the clothing
> itself that is disrespectful.
Not necessarily. Sniffing people is rather disrespectful if you are a
person, but not if you are a dog. It is the combination of actor and
action that conveys the disrespect, not the action itself.
----------------------------------------------
The poster formerly known as [email protected].
My new email address is that one, with the first digit of years in the
current century placed after the first word.
[email protected] (Mxsmanic) wrote:
> If wearing a hat is defined as disrespectful, then it IS the clothing
> itself that is disrespectful.
Not necessarily. Sniffing people is rather disrespectful if you are a
person, but not if you are a dog. It is the combination of actor and
action that conveys the disrespect, not the action itself.
----------------------------------------------
The poster formerly known as [email protected].
My new email address is that one, with the first digit of years in the
current century placed after the first word.
Aug 15th 2005, 5:29 am
#127
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Mxsmanic) wrote:
> *From:* Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
> *Date:* Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:59:24 +0200
>
> [email protected] writes:
>
> > Ever heard the phrase "extenuating circumstances"?
>
> Most people don't recognize extenuating circumstances for many
> religious practices.
Fine. We're talking about the management of Notre Dame, not most people.
> And why would Jews justify special consideration
> if nobody else does?
Until we have evidence that members of other headwear-requiring religions
are asked to remove their headwear on entering Notre Dame, I don't think
we have evidence of any special consideration for Jews.
----------------------------------------------
The poster formerly known as [email protected].
My new email address is that one, with the first digit of years in the
current century placed after the first word.
[email protected] (Mxsmanic) wrote:
> *From:* Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
> *Date:* Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:59:24 +0200
>
> [email protected] writes:
>
> > Ever heard the phrase "extenuating circumstances"?
>
> Most people don't recognize extenuating circumstances for many
> religious practices.
Fine. We're talking about the management of Notre Dame, not most people.
> And why would Jews justify special consideration
> if nobody else does?
Until we have evidence that members of other headwear-requiring religions
are asked to remove their headwear on entering Notre Dame, I don't think
we have evidence of any special consideration for Jews.
----------------------------------------------
The poster formerly known as [email protected].
My new email address is that one, with the first digit of years in the
current century placed after the first word.
Aug 15th 2005, 5:35 am
#128
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
[email protected] writes:
> Until we have evidence that members of other headwear-requiring religions
> are asked to remove their headwear on entering Notre Dame, I don't think
> we have evidence of any special consideration for Jews.
But you are describing special privileges for people who are
religious. What about people who are non-religious but simply prefer
to wear a hat?
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
> Until we have evidence that members of other headwear-requiring religions
> are asked to remove their headwear on entering Notre Dame, I don't think
> we have evidence of any special consideration for Jews.
But you are describing special privileges for people who are
religious. What about people who are non-religious but simply prefer
to wear a hat?
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Aug 15th 2005, 5:35 am
#129
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
[email protected] writes:
> If you believe that to be the case, then yes, I suppose it does.
Many religious people believe exactly that, which is why they are
religious.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
> If you believe that to be the case, then yes, I suppose it does.
Many religious people believe exactly that, which is why they are
religious.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Aug 15th 2005, 5:59 am
#130
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Mxsmanic) wrote:
> *From:* Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
> *Date:* Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:35:03 +0200
>
> [email protected] writes:
>
> > Until we have evidence that members of other headwear-requiring
> > religions are asked to remove their headwear on entering Notre Dame,
> > I don't think we have evidence of any special consideration for Jews.
>
> But you are describing special privileges for people who are
> religious. What about people who are non-religious but simply prefer
> to wear a hat?
>
It's rather self-evident that Roman Catholics believe religiousness brings
special privileges with it.
----------------------------------------------
The poster formerly known as [email protected].
My new email address is that one, with the first digit of years in the
current century placed after the first word.
[email protected] (Mxsmanic) wrote:
> *From:* Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
> *Date:* Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:35:03 +0200
>
> [email protected] writes:
>
> > Until we have evidence that members of other headwear-requiring
> > religions are asked to remove their headwear on entering Notre Dame,
> > I don't think we have evidence of any special consideration for Jews.
>
> But you are describing special privileges for people who are
> religious. What about people who are non-religious but simply prefer
> to wear a hat?
>
It's rather self-evident that Roman Catholics believe religiousness brings
special privileges with it.
----------------------------------------------
The poster formerly known as [email protected].
My new email address is that one, with the first digit of years in the
current century placed after the first word.
Aug 15th 2005, 6:39 am
#131
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
[email protected] writes:
> It's rather self-evident that Roman Catholics believe religiousness brings
> special privileges with it.
Does that justify discrimination?
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
> It's rather self-evident that Roman Catholics believe religiousness brings
> special privileges with it.
Does that justify discrimination?
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Aug 15th 2005, 6:54 am
#132
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
Mxsmanic wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
> > Nothing in the thread indicates obsession.
> Including or excluding people based on attire indicates a considerable
> preoccupation.
Nah, laziness.
> [email protected] writes:
> > Nothing in the thread indicates obsession.
> Including or excluding people based on attire indicates a considerable
> preoccupation.
Nah, laziness.
Aug 15th 2005, 7:02 am
#133
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Mxsmanic) wrote:
> *From:* Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
> *Date:* Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:39:44 +0200
>
> [email protected] writes:
>
> > It's rather self-evident that Roman Catholics believe religiousness
> > brings special privileges with it.
>
> Does that justify discrimination?
To Catholics, obviously. Entry into Heaven is discriminatory along similar
lines, after all.
I note you didn't respond to my point yesterday about whether the Catholic
church is in effect renting Notre Dame or is just being lent it. That
seems to me quite an important aspect of whether this discrimination is
indeed acceptable. I realise, of course, you may simply not know the
answer!
----------------------------------------------
The poster formerly known as [email protected].
My new email address is that one, with the first digit of years in the
current century placed after the first word.
[email protected] (Mxsmanic) wrote:
> *From:* Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
> *Date:* Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:39:44 +0200
>
> [email protected] writes:
>
> > It's rather self-evident that Roman Catholics believe religiousness
> > brings special privileges with it.
>
> Does that justify discrimination?
To Catholics, obviously. Entry into Heaven is discriminatory along similar
lines, after all.
I note you didn't respond to my point yesterday about whether the Catholic
church is in effect renting Notre Dame or is just being lent it. That
seems to me quite an important aspect of whether this discrimination is
indeed acceptable. I realise, of course, you may simply not know the
answer!
----------------------------------------------
The poster formerly known as [email protected].
My new email address is that one, with the first digit of years in the
current century placed after the first word.
Aug 15th 2005, 7:22 am
#134
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
[email protected] writes:
> I note you didn't respond to my point yesterday about whether the Catholic
> church is in effect renting Notre Dame or is just being lent it.
It is being allowed to use it. No lease agreement exists. I don't
know if any type of formal written agreement exists. The building
itself belongs to the state.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
> I note you didn't respond to my point yesterday about whether the Catholic
> church is in effect renting Notre Dame or is just being lent it.
It is being allowed to use it. No lease agreement exists. I don't
know if any type of formal written agreement exists. The building
itself belongs to the state.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Aug 15th 2005, 7:23 am
#135
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
[email protected] writes:
> Nah, laziness.
Lazy people would take no action at all.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
> Nah, laziness.
Lazy people would take no action at all.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
