Tuesday
Jul082008
Why is tradition an excuse for intolerance?
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 at 12:04AM
I was listening to the CBC Radio today and they were talking about how the Anglican Church in England will now allow women to become bishops. My favorite quote is this part, from an female Anglican synod:
A large part of the defense of this stance is that it the policy of exclusively male bishops is part of tradition and should not be changed.
by mtsofan
Recently in Quebec, it was suggested the crucifix be removed from the Quebec legislature. In Ontario it was suggested that they cease saying the lords prayer in at the opening of the Ontario legislature. In many religions, discrimination against the marriage of gays is openly accepted, if not encouraged. And in all these cases tradition was cited as a reason for quickly and openly refusing to respect rights they don't agree with.
by ebby
Why is it that something which clearly shows intolerance, or at least inequality, can be made defensible when framed in the upholding of "tradition"?
Institutionalized slavery was (and is) a tradition in many cultures. Restricting the rights and freedoms of women was a tradition in virtually every culture for much longer than bishops of any sex even existed. And yet if a politician seriously proposed that we resurrect slave ships and return women to the role of second class citizens in the name of tradition, they would probably be stoned in the streets (also a tradition).
by Majiscup - Drink for Design
If your employer openly refused to hire you because you were a woman or demanded that you recite a line from the Koran every morning, they would inevitably be sued and possibly put in jail because it's against the law. Why does it become acceptable when a church or government is doing the discrimination instead of an individual? Am I to understand that intolerance on a small scale is somehow more damaging than broadly sanctioned and institutionalized intolerance?
by selva
Clearly it's not. Clearly we're writing laws and then making exceptions for the most potent example of why these laws are important. It's those who believe in their intolerance so completely that they've codified it, literally written it in stone, and unapologetically promote it that most need to be penalized.
We don't have rights to equality just to ensure something as minor as a small-breasted woman getting a job a Hooters. We have rights to equality to ensure that no tradition of the powerful is levied as justification for the subjugation of a particular class, sex, or race.
But it seems that even in Canada, sacred cows can still hate gays and women despite laws to the contrary, provided that they are traditional sacred cows.
by betta design
"When God created man and woman, yes, they're equal, but there's also a difference," she said. "And I do not want to see a situation of women bishops that men would actually be under the authority of a woman."
A large part of the defense of this stance is that it the policy of exclusively male bishops is part of tradition and should not be changed.
by mtsofan
Recently in Quebec, it was suggested the crucifix be removed from the Quebec legislature. In Ontario it was suggested that they cease saying the lords prayer in at the opening of the Ontario legislature. In many religions, discrimination against the marriage of gays is openly accepted, if not encouraged. And in all these cases tradition was cited as a reason for quickly and openly refusing to respect rights they don't agree with.
by ebby
Why is it that something which clearly shows intolerance, or at least inequality, can be made defensible when framed in the upholding of "tradition"?
Institutionalized slavery was (and is) a tradition in many cultures. Restricting the rights and freedoms of women was a tradition in virtually every culture for much longer than bishops of any sex even existed. And yet if a politician seriously proposed that we resurrect slave ships and return women to the role of second class citizens in the name of tradition, they would probably be stoned in the streets (also a tradition).
by Majiscup - Drink for Design
If your employer openly refused to hire you because you were a woman or demanded that you recite a line from the Koran every morning, they would inevitably be sued and possibly put in jail because it's against the law. Why does it become acceptable when a church or government is doing the discrimination instead of an individual? Am I to understand that intolerance on a small scale is somehow more damaging than broadly sanctioned and institutionalized intolerance?
by selva
Clearly it's not. Clearly we're writing laws and then making exceptions for the most potent example of why these laws are important. It's those who believe in their intolerance so completely that they've codified it, literally written it in stone, and unapologetically promote it that most need to be penalized.
by Wonderlane
We don't have rights to equality just to ensure something as minor as a small-breasted woman getting a job a Hooters. We have rights to equality to ensure that no tradition of the powerful is levied as justification for the subjugation of a particular class, sex, or race.
But it seems that even in Canada, sacred cows can still hate gays and women despite laws to the contrary, provided that they are traditional sacred cows.
by betta design
Reader Comments (4)
The difference is that people are free to choose religions. If you dont' like the catholic's church stance on whatever issue, you can pick up your religious luggage and cruise on over to the United wagon. With slavery, it was the government formally sanctioning that - and not just one government, basically all of them at the time. so there was no way to escape it. there are many other more liberal religions.
so try not to lump them all together in a homogenous blob. because the catholic part of the blob is obviously the best, well most of the time :)
Yeah but that's exactly like saying "Well at this business we don't take gays or women. It's part of our tradition and our policy. If you don't like it you can go someplace else."
No one would tolerate that from even the smallest company or individual. So why is acceptable for an entire institution to do it? And not only that, but unapologetically decree it broadly as their policy!
I got you this time Nowak!
You're comparing apples and oranges here. But what can I expect from an engineer that reduces everything to binary syntax.
Churches have certain types of characteristics they look for in their members. They are not forcing it on people, they are voluntary. Not having access to an employer because of gender/racial barriers is one thing, as it is supposed to be open to everyone. Churches never said they were. They're not forcing anyone to change, if you don't like it, you go to another one.
That's actually the democratic part about it my friend, you can choose what you like. No one is forcing you to join a specific one, so why are you forcing all churches to espouse your beliefs? That doesn't sound very progressive to me, it almost sounds traditional and authoritarian.
There are even churches that agree with your values, you can't just ignore them and focus on the more conservative ones. Well that's what a decent argument would look like at least :)
You never even came close. Hacke.