A SCOTUS Opening

[CJD]

(10-27-2020, 10:38 AM)PhilHos Wrote: I don't know much about them either, but I would think that if they were really a religious cult that treats women as property, I think more would be made about that using real world examples than constantly trying to conflate PoP to The Handmaid's Tale. 


No, I agree. Nait was belittling a successful woman using her religion in as demeaning a way possible. Usually that's decried as sexist, but apparently it IS okay to be sexist against conservatives despite fred's whining of the use of the "victim card". 

I don't share your optimism that someone would do something if there were religious cults running around. I think cults are largely allowed to remain as long as they are not harming non-members.

Look at Scientology. Judging simply by conventional wisdom, it seems fairly clear that they are a cult that is exploiting its members for financial gain. But they are still granted religious tax exemption and are allowed to continue on relatively unabated. Why? Because joining them is completely optional and they aren't hurting anyone outside of their cult. If you try to leave, the church does their best to ruin your life but strictly through legal (or arguably legal) means, like pressuring other members to black list the deserter and spreading rumors/bashing them on the internet.

I could see a religious cult like what people purport People of Praise to be operating under similar conditions. They may be indoctrinating their women to be a man's property, under the guise of traditional Christian values (which do have some outdated and harmful beliefs about women that have been mostly removed from modern Christianity and Catholicism) but they aren't hurting anyone outside of the cult and joining is (mostly) optional, with the main exception being born into the cult and being raised by their parents in said cult.

Again, I don't know enough about People of Praise to say that they are a cult in this way. I'm just saying that I think it's possible that such a cult could exist legally and without anyone trying to stop them.

If this were true, which it seems Nati is convinced it is, I don't think calling a cult a cult could be fairly considered religious bashing or anti-religious sentiment. It would just be criticizing a group who are abusing religious sentiment to take advantage of people.

You know what I mean?

[GMDino]

(10-27-2020, 10:39 AM)PhilHos Wrote: These are all legitimate arguments against her confirmation, no doubt. Makes me wonder why some feel the need to resort to name calling. Really adds to the debate when that happens, doesn't it?

Not at all but it's also not worth arguing over either.

The "handmaiden" thing is pop culture I get the references but I don't care about the title as much as I would care about the beliefs.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2020, 10:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: Not at all but it's also not worth arguing over either.

The "handmaiden" thing is pop culture I get the references but I don't care about the title as much as I would care about the beliefs.

And I'm sure Nati having similar political beliefs as you has nothing to do with your laissez faire attitude, either.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2020, 10:46 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I don't share your optimism that someone would do something if there were religious cults running around. I think cults are largely allowed to remain as long as they are not harming non-members.

Look at Scientology. Judging simply by conventional wisdom, it seems fairly clear that they are a cult that is exploiting its members for financial gain. But they are still granted religious tax exemption and are allowed to continue on relatively unabated. Why? Because joining them is completely optional and they aren't hurting anyone outside of their cult. If you try to leave, the church does their best to ruin your life but strictly through legal (or arguably legal) means, like pressuring other members to black list the deserter and spreading rumors/bashing them on the internet.

I could see a religious cult like what people purport People of Praise to be operating under similar conditions. They may be indoctrinating their women to be a man's property, under the guise of traditional Christian values (which do have some outdated and harmful beliefs about women that have been mostly removed from modern Christianity and Catholicism) but they aren't hurting anyone outside of the cult and joining is (mostly) optional, with the main exception being born into the cult and being raised by their parents in said cult.

Again, I don't know enough about People of Praise to say that they are a cult in this way. I'm just saying that I think it's possible that such a cult could exist legally and without anyone trying to stop them.

If this were true, which it seems Nati is convinced it is, I don't think calling a cult a cult could be fairly considered religious bashing or anti-religious sentiment. It would just be criticizing a group who are abusing religious sentiment to take advantage of people.

You know what I mean?

I'm not arguing it is or isn't a cult. What I'm saying is that if PoP really treated women as property, there'd be plenty of real world examples to highlight instead of constantly referencing a fictional piece of work. 

You bring up Scientology. There are plenty of examples of negative things Scientology is guilty of (excuse, me, ALLEGEDLY guilty of ). If ACB was a scientologist, they would be pointing to those examples not equating scientology to some fictional equivalences (equate it to Dianetics, maybe ).

In any event, arguing her beliefs would impact postively/negatively on her ruling is one thing. Belittling her because of said beliefs is altogether different, unnecessary and SHOULD have no place on these forums. 

[CJD]

(10-27-2020, 10:56 AM)PhilHos Wrote: I'm not arguing it is or isn't a cult. What I'm saying is that if PoP really treated women as property, there'd be plenty of real world examples to highlight instead of constantly referencing a fictional piece of work. 

You bring up Scientology. There are plenty of examples of negative things Scientology is guilty of (excuse, me, ALLEGEDLY guilty of ). If ACB was a scientologist, they would be pointing to those examples not equating scientology to some fictional equivalences (equate it to Dianetics, maybe ).

In any event, arguing her beliefs would impact postively/negatively on her ruling is one thing. Belittling her because of said beliefs is altogether different, unnecessary and SHOULD have no place on these forums. 

I think we're conflating terms a bit here. When I say "treat women like property" I'm not saying that the bar for that is Handmaid's Tale or nothing. A cult could very easily treat women as property without making them slaves, as in the story. Indoctrinating women to believe that their place is in the kitchen, for example, is a form of this treatment. To what extent PoP does this, I don't know. But it's not as easy as "they're either slaves or they're entirely free of indoctrination."

And I think that is the chief accusation thrown at PoP. Their purported patriarchal structure negatively impacts the women who belong to the group and, thus, are reminiscent of a cult. They are outside of cultural norms enough to have a dystopian story based on them, after all.

So, if she is genuinely part of a cult, I don't think saying "she's part of a cult" or referencing her as a cult member (or leader, if a handmaid is a leader) would be belittling religion in general. I think it is just pointing out that she's part of a cult.

Maybe it is being done flippantly in some contexts here (these forums are not generally known for their nuance and level headedness, after all), but I don't think the sentiment behind criticizing a cult member for being in a cult is inherently anti-religious.

[GMDino]

(10-27-2020, 10:50 AM)PhilHos Wrote: And I'm sure Nati having similar political beliefs as you has nothing to do with your laissez faire attitude, either.

If name calling were limited to my political beliefs I'd say you were right.

Some days the arguing is more tiresome than others.  In this particular case I'd rather ignore it and get back to what she will do on the SC for the next 30-40 years vs the comparison to a book.  

TBF though I don't think I am a big "name caller" of public figures.  (I do like "Gym Jordan" though...that one amuses me.)  I might make fun of what they say do and even how they look if they are one to go after others for the way they look, but the name calling is less a part of my discussions.  Maybe I'm wrong?

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2020, 11:06 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think we're conflating terms a bit here. When I say "treat women like property" I'm not saying that the bar for that is Handmaid's Tale or nothing. A cult could very easily treat women as property without making them slaves, as in the story. Indoctrinating women to believe that their place is in the kitchen, for example, is a form of this treatment. To what extent PoP does this, I don't know. But it's not as easy as "they're either slaves or they're entirely free of indoctrination."

And I think that is the chief accusation thrown at PoP. Their purported patriarchal structure negatively impacts the women who belong to the group and, thus, are reminiscent of a cult. They are outside of cultural norms enough to have a dystopian story based on them, after all.

Like I said, I think if it was true, there'd be real world examples to point to. 

(10-27-2020, 11:06 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: So, if she is genuinely part of a cult, I don't think saying "she's part of a cult" or referencing her as a cult member (or leader, if a handmaid is a leader) would be belittling religion in general. I think it is just pointing out that she's part of a cult.

Maybe it is being done flippantly in some contexts here (these forums are not generally known for their nuance and level headedness, after all), but I don't think the sentiment behind criticizing a cult member for being in a cult is inherently anti-religious.

Let's be honest here. Cult has a negative connotation and is thrown at many religious groups with the sole purpose of belittling that group or members of that group and/or religion as a whole. 

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2020, 11:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: If name calling were limited to my political beliefs I'd say you were right.

Aahhhhhhhhhhh, the old both sides do it. I'll let Dill chime in on why you're wrong.

(10-27-2020, 11:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: Some days the arguing is more tiresome than others.  In this particular case I'd rather ignore it and get back to what she will do on the SC for the next 30-40 years vs the comparison to a book.  

Of course you do because Nati is on the same side of the political aisle as you. Had it been me or bfine or someone saying something sexist towards a Democrat, I'm absolutely positive you would not remain silent nor be so quick to get back on "topic".

(10-27-2020, 11:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: TBF though I don't think I am a big "name caller" of public figures.  (I do like "Gym Jordan" though...that one amuses me.)  I might make fun of what they say do and even how they look if they are one to go after others for the way they look, but the name calling is less a part of my discussions.  Maybe I'm wrong?

Honestly, I'm not so bothered by the name calling. I AM bothered by sexist name calling.

[CJD]

(10-27-2020, 11:16 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Like I said, I think if it was true, there'd be real world examples to point to. 


Let's be honest here. Cult has a negative connotation and is thrown at many religious groups with the sole purpose of belittling that group or members of that group and/or religion as a whole. 

What do you mean by real world examples? 

There are reports from former members such as this that claim the group expected her to speak in tongues and, when she failed to do so, blamed her inability to do so on her sins. They have a recent history of belief in exorcisms, prophecy, expecting their members to take in people and work for the group free of charge and instilling a sense of obedience into the women from a very young age.

I grant that this may just be a scorned former member situation, but doesn't that sound like a cult to you? And doesn't it also sound like something that the government wouldn't do anything about even if true? At the very least, it should be viewed with skepticism when discussing the confirmation of a lifetime role for a judge who can meaningfully affect millions of people's lives with her opinions.

As the article states:

Quote:Massimo Faggioli, a professor of theology at Villanova University, said that even if senators declined to question Barrett about her faith, the issues deserved to be aired in other forums because groups like People of Praise, he said, do reject a secular view of separation between church and state.

“I don’t think we should put her Catholicism on trial, but the Catholic conservative legal movement is putting liberalism on trial. They want to change a certain understanding of the liberal order of individual rights, and that is coming from the religious worldview of Catholic groups,” he said.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2020, 11:26 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: What do you mean by real world examples? 

There are reports from former members [url= https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/10/people-of-praise-amy-coney-barrett-faith-group]such as this[/url] that claim the group expected her to speak in tongues and, when she failed to do so, blamed her inability to do so on her sins. They have a recent history of belief in exorcisms, prophecy, expecting their members to take in people and work for the group free of charge and instilling a sense of obedience into the women from a very young age.

I grant that this may just be a scorned former member situation, but doesn't that sound like a cult to you? And doesn't it also sound like something that the government wouldn't do anything about even if true? At the very least, it should be viewed with skepticism when discussing the confirmation of a lifetime role for a judge who can meaningfully affect millions of people's lives with her opinions.

As the article states:

Yes, while unproven, those are real world examples you can point to as to possibly something ACB believes. Still doesn't mean you can be sexist towards her.

[CJD]

(10-27-2020, 11:28 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes, while unproven, those are real world examples you can point to as to possibly something ACB believes. Still doesn't mean you can be sexist towards her.

I am happy to continue this conversation, but you need to give me more than this. Saying a cult member is in a cult is not anti-religious or sexist. 

What are you basing these accusations off of beyond calling her a handmaid to associate her with a purported cult that she is literally a part of? And, beyond that, even if someone was being sexist towards her is that not exceeded by the concerns regarding her cult status? Is an accusation of being in a cult not valid if it uses arguably sexist language? I think dismissing these criticisms because they are vaguely sexist in the most generous sense would be a disservice to the discussion at hand regarding the cult accusation, no?

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2020, 11:31 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I am happy to continue this conversation, but you need to give me more than this. Saying a cult member is in a cult is not anti-religious or sexist. 

It's not. But calling ACB a 'handmaiden' in reference to The Handmaid's Tale is. 

(10-27-2020, 11:31 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: And, beyond that, even if someone was being sexist towards her is that not exceeded by the concerns regarding her cult status?

Are you actually suggesting it's ok to be sexist towards someone if they're in a cult? Really? 

(10-27-2020, 11:31 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote:  Is an accusation of being in a cult not valid if it uses arguably sexist language?

Being in a cult is a valid criticism if you can point out if said cult is indeed prolbematic. Being sexist towards someone is not no matter they're religious affiliation.

(10-27-2020, 11:31 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think dismissing these criticisms because they are vaguely sexist in the most generous sense would be a disservice to the discussion at hand regarding the cult accusation, no?

Again, it's okay to be sexist because someone is in a cult? 

I think I'm done here. I cannot believe that there is anyone that thinks sexism is okay as long as the victim is a part of a cult. 

[CJD]

(10-27-2020, 11:34 AM)PhilHos Wrote: It's not. But calling ACB a 'handmaiden' in reference to The Handmaid's Tale is. 

How?

Are you actually suggesting it's ok to be sexist towards someone if they're in a cult? Really? 

No. I'm saying the sexism in a criticism should not negate the criticism. For example, let's say someone said "Stalin was a piece of shit man who ruined his entire country in a pursuit of power because power is all men care about." The appropriate response is not "whoa...why you gotta make it about him being a man?" and dismissing his human rights violations because the argument was improperly phrased. The sexism is not excusable, but the point should still be discussed in spite of the sexism.

Being in a cult is a valid criticism if you can point out if said cult is indeed prolbematic. Being sexist towards someone is not no matter they're religious affiliation.

Which there are reports of it being problematic. 

Again, it's okay to be sexist because someone is in a cult? 

Again, no.

I think I'm done here. I cannot believe that there is anyone that thinks sexism is okay as long as the victim is a part of a cult. 

I'll be here if you want to continue.

[GMDino]

(10-27-2020, 11:19 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Aahhhhhhhhhhh, the old both sides do it. I'll let Dill chime in on why you're wrong.


Of course you do because Nati is on the same side of the political aisle as you. Had it been me or bfine or someone saying something sexist towards a Democrat, I'm absolutely positive you would not remain silent nor be so quick to get back on "topic".


Honestly, I'm not so bothered by the name calling. I AM bothered by sexist name calling.

Both sides don't do it?  But even at that that wasn't my point.  You accused me of only having a "laissez faire attitude" solely because I agree with Nati's political beliefs and I refuted that because I let a lot of name calling go no matter who it is.


I do say something about sexist name calling.  Usually though it is when someone makes a woman a sexual object vs her substance not so much when they just call her names.  


I think your obvious problem with the whole "handmaiden" thing is overwrought but you do you.  I was just adding my two cents. 

[*PhilHos*]

Quote:No. I'm saying the sexism in a criticism should not negate the criticism

So if I said, "Pelosi is a horrible communicator because women are bad at communicating" you would not summarily dismiss my criticism? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. 


I'm sorry. Once someone is sexist or racist, that negates any point they were trying to make.

[CJD]

(10-27-2020, 11:34 AM)PhilHos Wrote: It's not. But calling ACB a 'handmaiden' in reference to The Handmaid's Tale is. 


Are you actually suggesting it's ok to be sexist towards someone if they're in a cult? Really? 


Being in a cult is a valid criticism if you can point out if said cult is indeed prolbematic. Being sexist towards someone is not no matter they're religious affiliation.



Again, it's okay to be sexist because someone is in a cult? 

I think I'm done here. I cannot believe that there is anyone that thinks sexism is okay as long as the victim is a part of a cult. 

Here's the sense that I've gotten from this conversation. You can tell me if I'm off base.


ACB is part of a religious group that has reports of being a cult rather than a genuine religious group, that is indoctrinating its women to be subservient to men, especially their husbands and fathers, in an effort to control them. 

This religious group was one of the bases for a story about a dystopian future in which this group's beliefs are taken to their most extreme point, where women are actual slaves used to breed rather than live in any kind of free society.

This dystopian story uses terminology similar to the real world group to increase the relations between them.
A member of this group is nominated for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court and her involvement with this purported cult is brought up as a negative.

You, Philhos, being a religious man and someone who believes religion, especially Judeo-Christian religions, are unfairly compared to cults far too often, became defensive when these accusations were levied at ACB and her religious group. You see her group and, without knowing what they do or how they function (by your own admission), took the position that they should be given the benefit of the doubt that they are not a cult unless there is inextricable evidence to the contrary. You are taking this position due to your previous experiences of your own religion and beliefs being associated with cult like beliefs, so you are sympathetic to the situation she and her group are in.

When someone who is not as willing to give this benefit of the doubt as you are comes in and accuses her of being in a cult and calling her a hand maid (a term used both in real life and in the dystopian story), you took that as a sexist insult because you know that the story is portraying that religious group in an extremely negative way so associating her with that story would be a very heavy condemnation of her religious beliefs.

From this association, I completely understand where you believe the anti-religious sentiment comes from. 

But I still, for the life of me, cannot understand what you believe is sexist about this accusation. I really can't. Is just the word being coded female sexist to you? Like, the fact that they used a term that refers to women in the group and story, is that the sexist part? I genuinely don't know. I'm not trying to sea lion you or try to disingenuously misrepresent your argument. I just can't make logical heads or tails of what you find sexist about calling someone in a group that is associated with cultish behavior and has a story based on them in which women are enslaved by the name that is used for the women in those scenarios.

I'm happy to continue this conversation if you're willing, but I recognize that's not likely.

[CJD]

(10-27-2020, 11:56 AM)PhilHos Wrote: So if I said, "Pelosi is a horrible communicator because women are bad at communicating" you would not summarily dismiss my criticism? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. 


I'm sorry. Once someone is sexist or racist, that negates any point they were trying to make.

I would probably not engage with you personally (or the person saying the sexist thing), but if other people were making the point that she's a horrible communicator but without the sexism and by backing up their beliefs with some evidence, I would certainly engage with them.

I happen to agree that she's a horrible communicator anyway.

[*bfine32*]

(10-27-2020, 01:41 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Woohoo! Here’s to 40+ years of having some weirdo religious cult lady judging over me

(10-27-2020, 12:06 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I would probably not engage with you personally (or the person saying the sexist thing), but if other people were making the point that she's a horrible communicator but without the sexism and by backing up their beliefs with some evidence, I would certainly engage with them.

I happen to agree that she's a horrible communicator anyway.

Do you find any sexism in the post above?

[CJD]

(10-27-2020, 12:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you find any sexism in the post above?

No. I find an anti-religious sentiment, but no sexism. I can't even tell what is supposed to be sexist about that comment, unless you consider calling her "lady" sexist, I suppose.

[*bfine32*]

(10-27-2020, 12:10 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: No. I find an anti-religious sentiment, but no sexism. I can't even tell what is supposed to be sexist about that comment, unless you consider calling her "lady" sexist, I suppose.

Just checking.