NationStates

It seems to me that if something is open to the public, then it should be open to all the public. If people want to enforce silly sexist rules, then they can make a members-only club and lock the doors.

Ifreann wrote:It seems to me that if something is open to the public, then it should be open to all the public. If people want to enforce silly sexist rules, then they can make a members-only club and lock the doors.

Something like the Catholic Church and Mount Athos already is a members-only thing, but the EU still says Mount Athos needs to be made to open to women.

Ifreann wrote:It seems to me that if something is open to the public, then it should be open to all the public. If people want to enforce silly sexist rules, then they can make a members-only club and lock the doors.

A religious institution qualifies as a "members only club".

San Lumen wrote:

Ifreann wrote:It seems to me that if something is open to the public, then it should be open to all the public. If people want to enforce silly sexist rules, then they can make a members-only club and lock the doors.

A religious institution qualifies as a "members only club".

^Exactly.

Great Old South wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:So, you're okay with forcing other people to adopt your ideology against your will? That seems like it's stepping over a line. I could understand private businesses, but these are groups with defined membership and beliefs that go back millennia.

Yea. I am. Including forcing it upon reactionary sexist Brahmin welfare queens.

All sorts of spooky inane shit has been justified over the centuries in the name of "tradition", including everything from institutionalized (racial) slavery, to (female) genital mutilation, and worse.
No, the intellectual legacy of the enlightenment shouldn't bow before barbarism. Even if it includes trampling upon a 'private' (see earlier posts) space. As long as these practices cannot be justified rationally, they have no place in civilized society.
Now, I could argue that I shouldn't care because religion (though not all religious people) is reactionary to begin with. But I won't. Because this stuff needs to be fought everywhere.

Hence, no exception for "private business". You either oppose racism and sexism on a fundamental level, or you're okay with it.

And one can oppose it on a fundamental level and not believe that the rights of private organisations should be trampled.

Great Old South wrote:

Unithonia wrote:Know who else wanted to make everyone follow his ideology? Hitler
If you truly are advocating for forcing everyone to adhere to your ideology and/or its rules, you have reached a level of authoritarianism that can be only found in ideologies such as Stalinism, Fascism, Maoism, etc. Please, keep your 20th century dictatorial ideas away from me.

Yes, really, Hitler. The famous radical who wanted to eliminate sexism and racism...

No.
You know what the Nazis stood for? Treating women as second-class citizens, good for nothing but homemaking and birthing new settlers.
Not only were you barred from most jobs, but you would be fired even if you were capable. Hell, some of the shit reads like it came out of The Handmaid's Tale.

That said, I won't deny this is authoritiarian. Because you're right. It is. But progressives wouldn't have gotten very far if every time they were confronted, they would've waited for the other party to finally drop their reactionary views. (Slavery, Universal Suffrage, Marriage Equality, etc.)
And really, this is all very typical. A group expects to be treated as human beings judged only on their ability and content of their character, and reactionaries will cry it's a totalitarian dictatorship and their god-given rights are being infringed...

It also speaks volumes that no one that opposes this has so far tried to justify the temple's stance rationally. Only falling back on it being a "private" space (it isn't).

That none of us like/agree with what's going on?

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Ifreann wrote:It seems to me that if something is open to the public, then it should be open to all the public. If people want to enforce silly sexist rules, then they can make a members-only club and lock the doors.

Something like the Catholic Church and Mount Athos already is a members-only thing,

I've been to mass many times, in several different churches, and never once in my life was I asked to present my Catholic Church Membership Card. Several times I attended mass alone, in a church that was not my local church. I could have been anyone, walking in and sitting down. No one present was in a position to actually know my religious affiliation. In fact, I thought of myself as an atheist at that time, I was only attending mass because I was staying with my grandmother and she would have been upset if I didn't. I probably counted as technically Catholic as far as the Church is concerned, and probably still do today, but no one actually checked.

This is not how members-only organisations function. That church was open to the public. So was every other church I've been to.

but the EU still says Mount Athos needs to be made to open to women.

From the sounds of it, Mount Athos is open to any man that might want to wander in, so I would submit that it is open to the public.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Kowani wrote:
I support their prevention on rational grounds, not on any supposed wrongness.

You're supporting a sense of rationality over rational concerns, which would result in the conclusion that rationality is of no inherent benefit.

I’m back.
Essentially, it comes down to the slippery slope and the relativity of morality. If I am to push for the eradication of something on moral grounds, there is no reason that another cannot do the same. However, the ideas that they may present can be detrimental to the self, which is to be avoided. If they have to put forward their ideas on moral grounds, it’s easier to keep them out of the public sphere.

Ifreann wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Something like the Catholic Church and Mount Athos already is a members-only thing,

I've been to mass many times, in several different churches, and never once in my life was I asked to present my Catholic Church Membership Card. Several times I attended mass alone, in a church that was not my local church. I could have been anyone, walking in and sitting down. No one present was in a position to actually know my religious affiliation. In fact, I thought of myself as an atheist at that time, I was only attending mass because I was staying with my grandmother and she would have been upset if I didn't. I probably counted as technically Catholic as far as the Church is concerned, and probably still do today, but no one actually checked.

This is not how members-only organisations function. That church was open to the public. So was every other church I've been to.

but the EU still says Mount Athos needs to be made to open to women.

From the sounds of it, Mount Athos is open to any man that might want to wander in, so I would submit that it is open to the public.

Just because they don't ask for it at the door doesn't mean that it's not a members only thing. Only members are allowed to partake of the Eucharist or Confession. Just because you live in a country where almost everyone is a member doesn't mean it isn't members only.

You clearly don't know anything about it because you have to go through a lengthy visa-application process.

Neutraligon wrote:Sure, as soon as they receive absolutely no financial support from the government whatsoever and start paying taxes.

That's what bothers me. The big churches in the US want it both ways which is hypocritical.

Either way I think religious buildings (e.g. monasteries, temples) should be exempt but religious organisations shouldn't be allowed to discriminate when they're running other services (e.g. schools, hospitals) that aren't religious places of worship. Basically if they want to shut themselves off from society, they should be able to. If they want to play their part, they should play by the rules.

Kowani wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:You're supporting a sense of rationality over rational concerns, which would result in the conclusion that rationality is of no inherent benefit.

I’m back.
Essentially, it comes down to the slippery slope and the relativity of morality. If I am to push for the eradication of something on moral grounds, there is no reason that another cannot do the same. However, the ideas that they may present can be detrimental to the self, which is to be avoided. If they have to put forward their ideas on moral grounds, it’s easier to keep them out of the public sphere.

If you don't push for the eradication of something on moral grounds, there's still no reason that another can't do the same.

That being said, desire for the most beneficial (and what that is is an entirely different moral question) path for the self is most certainly a moral position.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Kowani wrote:I’m back.
Essentially, it comes down to the slippery slope and the relativity of morality. If I am to push for the eradication of something on moral grounds, there is no reason that another cannot do the same. However, the ideas that they may present can be detrimental to the self, which is to be avoided. If they have to put forward their ideas on moral grounds, it’s easier to keep them out of the public sphere.

If you don't push for the eradication of something on moral grounds, there's still no reason that another can't do the same.

Point out that morality is subjective and ask for an objective reason not to do it.

Conserative Morality wrote:That being said, desire for the most beneficial (and what that is is an entirely different moral question) path for the self is most certainly a moral position.

And despite disagreeing with you, we’re really getting off topic.

Neutraligon wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:To use the cake shop example, how does that receive government funding?

I have no idea if they receive things like government assistance.

State-controlled bakeries.

Peak statism.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Ifreann wrote:I've been to mass many times, in several different churches, and never once in my life was I asked to present my Catholic Church Membership Card. Several times I attended mass alone, in a church that was not my local church. I could have been anyone, walking in and sitting down. No one present was in a position to actually know my religious affiliation. In fact, I thought of myself as an atheist at that time, I was only attending mass because I was staying with my grandmother and she would have been upset if I didn't. I probably counted as technically Catholic as far as the Church is concerned, and probably still do today, but no one actually checked.

This is not how members-only organisations function. That church was open to the public. So was every other church I've been to.

From the sounds of it, Mount Athos is open to any man that might want to wander in, so I would submit that it is open to the public.

Just because they don't ask for it at the door doesn't mean that it's not a members only thing. Only members are allowed to partake of the Eucharist or Confession. Just because you live in a country where almost everyone is a member doesn't mean it isn't members only.

I've also been to mass in England, where most people are members of a different club. I didn't need to do the secret Catholic handshake to get that sweet, sweet unleavened bread. If there's no checks to confirm membership then it's not really members only.

You clearly don't know anything about it because you have to go through a lengthy visa-application process.

I guess not.

Ifreann wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Just because they don't ask for it at the door doesn't mean that it's not a members only thing. Only members are allowed to partake of the Eucharist or Confession. Just because you live in a country where almost everyone is a member doesn't mean it isn't members only.

I've also been to mass in England, where most people are members of a different club. I didn't need to do the secret Catholic handshake to get that sweet, sweet unleavened bread. If there's no checks to confirm membership then it's not really members only.

You clearly don't know anything about it because you have to go through a lengthy visa-application process.

I guess not.

Did you take the eucharist and go to confession while there? And if you did, did they ask if you were baptized? Because you do have to be a member to do those.

I disagree with the idea that, if there's no background check, there's no such thing as membership, they accept that you're a member based on your word.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Ifreann wrote:I've also been to mass in England, where most people are members of a different club. I didn't need to do the secret Catholic handshake to get that sweet, sweet unleavened bread. If there's no checks to confirm membership then it's not really members only.


I guess not.

Did you take the eucharist and go to confession while there?

I did take the eucharist, yes.

And if you did, did they ask if you were baptized?

No.

Because you do have to be a member to do those.

I know that those are ostensibly the rules. But there appears to be no effort put into enforcing the rules, so I submit that they are inconsequential.

I disagree with the idea that, if there's no background check, there's no such thing as membership, they accept that you're a member based on your word.

If a members-only organisation does not restrict its activities to members, then it quite plainly is not actually members-only, regardless of what its rules say. If an organisation said that it was a charity but acted like a for-profit business, then it isn't really a charity, is it?

Ifreann wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Did you take the eucharist and go to confession while there?

I did take the eucharist, yes.

And if you did, did they ask if you were baptized?

No.

Because you do have to be a member to do those.

I know that those are ostensibly the rules. But there appears to be no effort put into enforcing the rules, so I submit that they are inconsequential.

I disagree with the idea that, if there's no background check, there's no such thing as membership, they accept that you're a member based on your word.

If a members-only organisation does not restrict its activities to members, then it quite plainly is not actually members-only, regardless of what its rules say. If an organisation said that it was a charity but acted like a for-profit business, then it isn't really a charity, is it?

It does restrict its activities to members, it just assumes membership for the most public of things, but if you, for example, wanted to join the priesthood, you would certainly be asked to give proof of your membership. And if someone partook without being a member, there would be admonitions for doing so when it was discovered.

Ifreann wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Did you take the eucharist and go to confession while there?

I did take the eucharist, yes.

And if you did, did they ask if you were baptized?

No.

Because you do have to be a member to do those.

I know that those are ostensibly the rules. But there appears to be no effort put into enforcing the rules, so I submit that they are inconsequential.

I disagree with the idea that, if there's no background check, there's no such thing as membership, they accept that you're a member based on your word.

If a members-only organisation does not restrict its activities to members, then it quite plainly is not actually members-only, regardless of what its rules say. If an organisation said that it was a charity but acted like a for-profit business, then it isn't really a charity, is it?

A members only organization doesn't cease to be a members only organization because you disprove of their method of membership verification.

I have mixed feelings about that story with the Hindu temple. I think the government's heart is in the right place and India does need to improve women's rights, but the way they've gone about it in this case is heavy-handed. Places like churches and temples should have a little more slack than commercial businesses when it comes to anti-discrimination laws.

Ifreann wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Did you take the eucharist and go to confession while there?

I did take the eucharist, yes.

And if you did, did they ask if you were baptized?

No.

Because you do have to be a member to do those.

I know that those are ostensibly the rules. But there appears to be no effort put into enforcing the rules, so I submit that they are inconsequential.

I disagree with the idea that, if there's no background check, there's no such thing as membership, they accept that you're a member based on your word.

If a members-only organisation does not restrict its activities to members, then it quite plainly is not actually members-only, regardless of what its rules say. If an organisation said that it was a charity but acted like a for-profit business, then it isn't really a charity, is it?

Our local Chilis operates a nonprofit drinking club within its premises. It's a 501(c)7, costs $1 to join, and you get $1 off your first drink for joining.

Why would women want to go to Athos? If they're devout, they'd respect the rights of the monks to be apart from the wider world.

If they're not devout, that raises the question what the fuck are they doing there. Allowing women to "own deh monks" is hardly good policy.

Absolutely not.

In many instances, allowing government to impose secular standards of morality on religious institutions wholly undermines the purpose and function of the aforementioned religious institutions. It also directly contradicts the principle of separation of church and state because it invariably leads to secular authorities regulating and shaping ritual, faith, and religious practice. Technically, the Catholic Church, Islam, and Orthodox Judaism would violate secular standards of gender equality almost by default.

The National Salvation Front for Russia wrote:Why would women want to go to Athos? If they're devout, they'd respect the rights of the monks to be apart from the wider world.

If they're not devout, that raises the question what the fuck are they doing there. Allowing women to "own deh monks" is hardly good policy.

>> you can't go to holy places if you're not devout or else looking to denigrate them

:thonk:

Conserative Morality wrote:>> you can't go to holy places if you're not devout or else looking to denigrate them

:thonk:

Athos is just a bit more than a holy place, seeing as its, you know, an entire community of monks who probably don't want to be disturbed by women.

Nice try though.

Conserative Morality wrote:

The National Salvation Front for Russia wrote:Why would women want to go to Athos? If they're devout, they'd respect the rights of the monks to be apart from the wider world.

If they're not devout, that raises the question what the fuck are they doing there. Allowing women to "own deh monks" is hardly good policy.

>> you can't go to holy places if you're not devout or else looking to denigrate them

:thonk:

It's not necessarily a holy place, it's just become a pilgrimage spot because it's a very unique place where monks live in mostly isolation from the outside world.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:It's not necessarily a holy place, it's just become a pilgrimage spot because it's a very unique place where monks live in mostly isolation from the outside world.

And don't the monks deserve to have their faith and rules respected by visitors?