thanking them for being, as their website says they are, "...called to serve as the spiritual home for the nation." and that as far as I know, Muslims in America are part of our nation, and that they are free to welcome ANYONE to worship in their church.

So glad Bishop Budd and Dean Hall did this.

A house of prayer for all.

Or are we ignoring that today, on the progressive political site Democratic Underground?

You did note the photos show segregation by gender, yes?



Beautiful is nit the word I would use, whatever faith or nonfaith is on display, when gender discrimination is blatantly on display with it.

The National Cathedral is known as a house of prayer for all.

Regardless of any interfaithy good will for the fact that a particular group was granted access to the facility.


Do you disagree with me that institutionalized mistreatment women is bigotry or misogyny?

Take a good hard look at that photo. It is blatantly obvious in full color.
Again, I ask if that is an appropriate thing to call 'beautiful' on DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND

There are many criticisms of religion but yours is over the line here.

This was a faith service in their tradition. I don't agree with seperating the men from the woman but it is their tradition.

If you wish to complain about the way they conduct their services you can find the post in religion and the two that were done in GD. It is not appropriate here.

'how Obama is a gun grabbing assshole' and expect the post to survive. The rules of conduct at DU are an over-riding condition that comes BEFORE the SOP of any group.

Would you like me to take this up with the ATA group? That photo should not be described as 'beautiful' in this venue. Not even in a subset. It clearly displays segregation and belittling women. That is not appropriate on DU.

This thread would have gone down in flames in GD.

Do what you feel what you need to do.

Have the courage of your convictions.

I was going to allow you time to exercise your review/process before escalating the issue. Do not mistake that for cowardice.

My point was to do it. I or one of the other hosts will send our own ata post.

You are disagreeing with me here.

Regardless of our history of disagreements. Regardless of how we parted ways last time we discussed something. Genuinely surprised you have taken this stand.

You know damn well why she called it beautiful! You know damn well that she does not approve of any discrimination of women.

You know our rules here and you came in with guns blazing.

I did not 'come I here', I have been actively participating here for some time.
This aspect has already been actively hand -waved away in another venue. Equally disappointing.

At worst, I expected 'oh, I didn't think about that'.

It also did not escape my notice when you said 'post in Ata or I will' that you would be posting it anyway.... 'have courage'.

As host in this room I will not tolerate them.

Your implications were that okasha approved of discrimination against woman.

I would have assumed an unintended blind spot, rather than willful dismissal of the issue.

You think I am over interperting? Wait till the others come around and see what you did here. Wait till okasha sees what you did here. They will be calling for you to be banned from this room.

Your implications were ugly.

I have observed multiple believers skip merrily past the full implications of that photo. It is vexing for the reason I stated, not what you are attempting to construe it as.

You can try and justify yourself all you want but I am not buying it.

'fuck off forever, troll'. Fine. Other personal opinions are of less interest to me.

I think you were wrong here. You made your points that you dislike the fact that they are seperated by gender but your reaction here was uncalled for.

Yes, it got an abrasive response from me. You bet. What other subject discussed on DU could that sort of gender segregation hide behind an SOP and be immune to criticism.

The main story isn't even compelling if you analyze it. The national cathedral receives public money. It *can't* tell Muslims they aren't welcome. So what's left to discuss?

Plenty, if we look at the picture. Gender discrimination is still a big damn deal in this country. I am boggled that you don't share my outrage. That we can't give voice to it in this venue.

Being sarcastic was perhaps not a productive way to approach the subject, but again, same thread in religion got hand-waving and dismissal, so perhaps my temper was a little short.

You can justify your actions here all you want but it is not working on me. Your actions speak for themselves and were disruptive and your own fault.


You will be informed of our decision when I get all the hosts reponses.

A portion of its funding is federal, mostly through the parks service. Did you really not research that claim? This became an issue last year when the church decided to go ahead and perform same sex marriages, and a hyper right wing group freaked out and tried to get all federal funds cut by way of DOMA.

Last edited Tue Nov 18, 2014, 10:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Among the photos that accompany this story, some show men and women sitting together, and one shows a woman addressing. the congregation.

To the hosts--this is at least the second instance of deliberathe disruption by Atheist Crusader. The other that I know about was his two-man tap dance with another deliberately provocative poster who was temporarily banned. What he may have done while I had him on ignore I can't speak to. "The dog gets the first bite free" is a good operating principle that grants a second chance. AC's had his, and he's blown it. I seriously doubt he has anything substantive to offer this group. I also seriously doubt that two disruptive posters, one hard on the heels of the other, is a coincidence. I don't think it's useful for this group to continue to extended.posting privileges to AC.

Your attitudes toward people of faith are very clear.

I was completely polite in my response to goblinmonger. He wondered why he was pulled into this thread, I quoted exactly why he was pulled into the thread, for doing a "two man tap dance".

Your presence has upset our members due to things you post here.

My mere presence justifies calling me "a fucking fuck". You are correct. I forgot all about that. my bad.

Unless your position has changed of course - but in general you despise believers and are eager to mock and belittle them.

But I'm not participating in religion so possibly you have moderated your tone.

Bryant

And I've certainly never called anyone here a fucking fuck.

Hatred might be going to far, but disdain? You despise believers - 90% of your posts drip with it.

Oh wait a second - you aren't still pretending that defining believers as delusional or dishonest is somehow not an insult are you?

Bryant

I've never defined believers as delusional in a medical sense, I've stated that religious beliefs are indistinguishable from delusional beliefs. I've never expressed hate or disdain for all believers or declared them all to be despicable, nor have I ever called anyone here a "fucking fuck". I have stated that believers are either intellectually dishonest or intellectually naïve, with most being intellectually naïve. I have yet to be proven wrong on that, although I admit the possibility that a non-naïve intellectually honest believer could exist. Obviously that puts off some believers, still, not in the "fuck you, you fucking fuck" category of hateful behavior, at least not in my opinion.

I guess you have mellowed. Good to see.

I'm not rising to any particular bait by the way - I don't want to be banned from DU.

Bryant

As a host I am telling uou that argument is not allowed in this room.

Or have you mellowed at all?

Also for the record do you think this room should be more like religion (i.e. full of attacks on believers) or shouldn't exist at all (because there would be no believers)?

Bryant

I have not posted in here since I was blocked. I have not commented on this article in here, in Religion, or in GD.

So, no, I don't know why I'm being dragged into this.

Normally people don't rush into a room that's toxic.

You can't argue with the fact that I haven't done anything in this group for months, so you have to go to something else. And #3 says the Religion group is toxic. It says not to bring Interfaith discussions into A/A. Which I haven't.

So are you going to address the point of why it is OK in this civil group to bring me into this when I have done nothing? Is that what passes for civility in here?

I have consciously stayed out of here. I appreciate you saying that. I'll bow out now.

I will not tell you what my assumptions are.

I really don't get what you're trying to accomplish rehashing it in the Interfaith Group.

Do you have some urgency of duty to point out misogyny in religion? Do you think members of this Group are unaware? Do you think members support misogyny?

Or are you just fishing for web cred?

I feel I have to say something when I encounter that sort of thing. Cast all the aspersions you want on my motives.

And no, you didn't show any of that was materially wrong int he other thread. Not in my fork of the thread, you didn't. (I stopped reading the other fork with MellowDem)

Just like there is in everything humans do.

It is possible to acknowledge both.

I suspect blind spot/oversight, as I mentioned upthread. (when it was suggested i was trying to paint Okasha as doing it deliberately)

Ask me about the Seahawks chances after the last game...

The only thing "disappointing" about this whole episode is your disruption in here.

Go back to the Religion thread if you want to discuss this, no holds barred.

Or, if you want to use this event to trot out your talking points about the misogyny of Islam, start a thread in A&A. I'm sure you'll find all the backslapping you need there.

All hosts agree with this action.

If we are going to have atheists here at all we have to acknowledge that their way of looking at things is different than our own - the same tolerance we would argue for on behalf of this segregated religious service should also apply to someone who wants to criticize that service. The simpler way to handle it may be to simply deny atheists a place here, but since we aren't doing that we can't really expect them to react to things in the same way that believers do.

Bryant

religion room.

A line was crossed and got ugly and I think one month is appropriate.

That's when "they bring it upon themselves" and we are happy to oblige. A month is reasonable. Six months would have been an over-reaction. Only a few have been blocked permanently, and that's because they don't seem to understand the concept of civility. The rest understand how to "play nice" and we welcome them.

The point is that we don't want this group turning into "Religion II." Some of them seem to want that and thus why they get this kind of treatment in return.

religion in the Religion room. In other words, this room is built up on the theory that various faiths are worthy of respect and tolerance, but atheists, particularly those who want to participate in the religion room, see nothing in religion that is worthy of respect.

By the same token a fundamentalist evangelical, even if a liberal, who believed that all other faiths were condemned to hell and expressed this position regularly in this room, would also create problems.

My judgement though is that Atheist Crusader doesn't fit into that pattern; I could be wrong of course. But for the most part his interactions here, while challenging at times, are within the bounds of respect.

Bryant

I found his methods to be pushing those boundaries constantly, and never satisfied to remain within them. The very definition of civility expects people to remain within those bounds of respect, not to see how far they can yield without breaking.

I, for one, would not be happy to lose them. Nor do I think that liberal atheists are somehow different from liberal theists in responding to discrimination. AC wasn't banned for a month because he's an atheist. He was shown the door because he was trolling. He was the one assuming that theists somehow do not perceive or don't respond appropriately to instances of repression. And he was and remains dead wrong.

...and you STILL haven't explained why a picture depicting women being discriminated against is "beautiful"....

"A safe haven that provides opportunities for people of all faiths, spiritual leanings and non-belief to discuss religious topics and events"....

I believe the "offending" post was "discussing" a religious topic, no? Or was it because a person of "non-belief" made the comment?

Good to know.

Again, how "tolerant" of you all.

...but rather the arbitrary way in which the hosts apparently conduct themselves in this forum despite the stated policy.

He said it was up to us.

If you have a complaint please direct it at him.

That's how Skinner backed you up?

Good to know.

the "whole picture" that besides being a picture of Interfaith, it also shows segregation and whatever other negativities y'all wish to point out as examples of our hypocrisy. So let me be clear:

There is not a single image in the entire world, whether of something within this world, or outside of it, that is a picture of absolutely perfect beauty. The "whole picture" will always be there and there will always be something that can be perceived as negative by anyone. "Hydrogen is a beautiful atom." "Yeah, but what about the hydrogen bomb?" "That's a beautiful cathedral." "Sure, when you don't take into consideration all of the religious persecution that paid for it and built it." And so on.

I've said this before, and it's obvious that I must stipulate it again: intent is everything. If Okasha's intent was to point out the beauty she sees in this image, then I feel most people, even those against Islam, can see some semblance of beauty in it somewhere. To point out the negativity has the intent of showing us that we're hypocrites because we choose not to focus on the negative parts of an image. And so, the arguments and fights begin.

Yes, we know that negativity is within that image. You don't have to point it out. To do so, especially in this group, goes against the SOP. Discussion is not about tearing down someone's post about a kind of beauty they see versus what you see. What you want is an argument, and that's four doors down on the left.

To set the record straight: I did not call the photograph beautiful. That was Atheist Crusader's assumption, and since I had him on ignore, I did not see his comments in time to put a stop to this bullshit.

"Beautiful" was intended to refer to the cooperation between the Epsicopal Church, specifically the National Cathedral, and the Muslim community. It did not reference the photograph. Again, that was an assumption on the part of a poster who has trolled here before. It was a mistaken assumption. You are now repeating the mistake.

But to assuage your poutrage--thank you for your honesty in naming yourself--I suggest you do what I did, and click on the link to the photographs at the National Cathedral link. Some show men and women seated together, and there's also a pic of a woman addressing the congregation.

I suggest you stop castigating the hosts for an offense they did not commit.

And that is a beautiful picture.

BTW, I spoke to a Sunni friend of mine today about this whole brouhahah. He said the sexes are not segregated during salat in Medina and Mecca. The only reason he gave (other than some speculation about men and women bending over next to each other during prayer, a la yoga class) for the practice elsewhere was tradition, dating back centuries.

Last edited Tue Nov 18, 2014, 10:20 PM - Edit history (1)

All hosts agree with this.

I'm sorry that a fairly casual--and, I thought, obvious--comment of mine landed you guys in the middle of a shitstorm.

They were looking for an argument, and they found one by making it themselves. Just as they've done time and time again around here.

If this group is allowed to become "Religion-lite" what is the point of it? I think we were starting down that slippery slope over the last couple weeks.

I will say that some of the participants whom are now banned made a notable effort to suppress some very anti-religious views they expressed in other groups. But I don't think that is sustainable - it is best for people for hang out where they can freely express their views.