|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 4, 2017 21:01:37 GMT
I think there is actually a danger of feeding anti-semitism if the subject is hedged round with taboos. At the time of the Kevin Myers scandal, I heard quite a few comments of the "Guess which lobby nobody dares offend" type.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 5, 2017 22:03:30 GMT
Oh, I agree that taboos must be examined - bearing in mind that some taboos are justified. For example, it should not be taboo to say that George Soros uses his wealth and power to promote some very bad causes - but it should be taboo to say that he does so on behalf of some vast Jewish conspiracy, because that is a slander. It should also not be taboo for a faithful Catholic to say, for example, that the abduction of the child Edgardo Mortara from his Jewish parents by the authorities of the Papal States under Pius IX (because he had been secretly baptised by a servant and the authorities believed they therefore had a duty to bring him up Catholic) was wrong. The fact that the Pope and his subordinates acted with the best intentions and that Edgardo grew up to become a priest and always declared himself grateful for what had happened doesn't alter the fact that it was wrong. Expect a lot of buzz around this subject when the forthcoming Spielberg movie publicises and no doubt Hollywoodises the story. If the film has inaccuracies and I become aware of them (my knowledge of the case is limited) I'll publicise them, but I won't defend the indefensible even when a Pope did it.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 5, 2017 22:44:57 GMT
I don't actually agree that making a theory taboo does anything but strengthen it.
I do believe in taboos but I think they should be on the grounds of taste and reverence rather than simply interdicting ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Dec 6, 2017 18:45:20 GMT
I don't actually agree that making a theory taboo does anything but strengthen it. I do believe in taboos but I think they should be on the grounds of taste and reverence rather than simply interdicting ideas. In that case, perhaps we are all in agreement?
|
|
|
Post by annie on Dec 6, 2017 19:43:47 GMT
Some of us come here to learn and be educated on various aspects of our Faith. I have found it a rich source of knowledge without feeling I should be contributing my twopence haepenny.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 6, 2017 20:55:45 GMT
Glad to hear you say that, Annie - that's what I've hoped it would become. Feel free to comment whenever you like.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 7, 2017 11:40:26 GMT
Some of us come here to learn and be educated on various aspects of our Faith. I have found it a rich source of knowledge without feeling I should be contributing my twopence haepenny. Well, as I said in my original post, if this is what people are looking for, that's absolutely fine. I have also benefitted from the erudition on display here.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 7, 2017 11:47:36 GMT
I don't actually agree that making a theory taboo does anything but strengthen it. I do believe in taboos but I think they should be on the grounds of taste and reverence rather than simply interdicting ideas. In that case, perhaps we are all in agreement? I don't think so-- for me, it comes down to the difference between argument and mere taboo-breaking. There's a difference in my mind betweeen a taboo like not walking around naked on the street, or not publishing a picture of Muhammed, or a taboo opinion. I think every serious argument (and by that I mean an argument that somebody takes seriously) should be allowed to be expressed-- not without restrictions, but in general.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Dec 8, 2017 12:19:19 GMT
In that case, perhaps we are all in agreement? I don't think so-- for me, it comes down to the difference between argument and mere taboo-breaking. There's a difference in my mind betweeen a taboo like not walking around naked on the street, or not publishing a picture of Muhammed, or a taboo opinion. I think every serious argument (and by that I mean an argument that somebody takes seriously) should be allowed to be expressed-- not without restrictions, but in general. But if we were to take that view, it would be wrong to treat Nazism as taboo as it is in the realm of ideas.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 8, 2017 16:43:09 GMT
I don't think so-- for me, it comes down to the difference between argument and mere taboo-breaking. There's a difference in my mind betweeen a taboo like not walking around naked on the street, or not publishing a picture of Muhammed, or a taboo opinion. I think every serious argument (and by that I mean an argument that somebody takes seriously) should be allowed to be expressed-- not without restrictions, but in general. But if we were to take that view, it would be wrong to treat Nazism as taboo as it is in the realm of ideas. Correct. Nazism, Stalinism, Islamic jihadism, cannibalism, or anything else. I'm not suggested spokesmen for such things should be on primetime television. But making any serious argument a total taboo is, in my view, a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 8, 2017 17:40:48 GMT
Making a direct and explicit threat of violence is another matter...a matter for the legal system.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 8, 2017 20:41:26 GMT
To follow on from previous posts, I will explain why I started a thread on misogyny. There are three basic reasons for this: (1) Most of the regular posters here are male. (Annie is an exception, and I can think of one or two other women who posted here in the past but drifted away. I wanted to get some ideas about whether the scarcity of women posters affects the board, and what might be done about it. Of course it's down to individuals in the end. (2) I was increasingly struck by the ways in which pro-choicers present pro-lifers as misogynists. Of course on the main level this is nonsense (as witnessed by the large number of women who turn out at pro-life demonstrations) but I wanted to provoke some discussion about how women who are not committed pro-choicers might be affected by this perception, and what we might do to counter it. (3) I was thinking of some actual examples of misogyny such as Bishop Williamson, late of the SSPX, who used to say that women should not wear trousers or get an education; of Philip K Dick the science-fiction writer who held strong pro-life views (recall BLADE RUNNER is all about who's really human) but deeply compromised them by his irresponsible attitude towards the numerous women in his life, whom he then blamed for the consequences of his misdeeds (remember how in TOTAL RECALL the character's apparent wife turns out to be a malevolent secret agent, just as he meets a glamorous rebel chick?); of the macho strain that exists among some Protestant fundamentalist believers in male headship. Such people exist, we ought to be aware of them and try to guard against going down that road, and it is possible to say that those views of masculinity are deeply problematic without being a Sitzpinkler.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 8, 2017 20:55:05 GMT
One woman who formerly posted on this forum told me she stopped posting here because it was so rare to have a male "space" in today's Catholic Church, she wanted to leave them to it.
I don't think men should wear dresses. Does that make me misandrist? (Mind you, I'm not objecting to women wearing trousers, but I don't consider such a view misogynistic.)
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 8, 2017 20:56:49 GMT
I think most of the posters on almost every forum are male. For whatever reason. Women seem to prefer social media.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 8, 2017 20:58:40 GMT
I should also say that, though I appreciate the reasoning of the woman mentioned above, I personally welcome female contributors here.
|
|