RWDT XX: The System Is Kapp Putsch

[Novus America]

Notwithstanding the morally dubious aspects of their ideology, I don't think it is fair to say that they are not clever or intelligent.

I've never understood adopting a religion for the aesthetics.

I mean... I do understand why people do it - it's just So dumb though. A lot of the neoreactionaries out there who say that they are supposedly radtrad catholic and orthodox are really just atheists who enjoy larping as something other than materialists and ideologues.

Well for an agnostic or Deist it makes some sense in that if you have no other way of measuring which one to go with aesthetics is a reason. As they generally care little about (often quite obscure and/or esoteric) arguments over theological issues of little importance to the average layperson.

True, but the why is LARPing can be fun. That and it still helps them get a sense of community.

[Deacarsia]

Hana is correct,

I always am.

All hail the Hanafuridake, the Great and Powerful!

[Bienenhalde]

I mean, I've seen some arguments by some religious people about the ultimate beauty of their religion's rites, such as the sacrament, and how they hope they are true. Larpers are annoying, but I'd consider them a bit different from aestheticists.

why is it so trendy to hate on tradcaths now anyways? their personal relationship with God is not anyone's business but their own, and all of them have a really good understanding of catholic (or orthodox, I use term tradcath loosely) theology, and easily name more ecumenical councils than the average lapsed cultural irish-italian-american catholic.

Real, serious tradcaths are fine. The people I have a problem with are the alt-right racists, sexists, and homophobes who try to use Catholic traditionalism as a cover for their hateful ideology.

[Bienenhalde]

Well, if you what you believe is the literal word of God, then certainly it follows that you would wish for others to be on the right path too. That seems pretty reasonable given the thought process. Can't help it when people have strong opinions

The idea of religion as something private seems like one either doesn't fully believe in their religion and/or that they believe in secularism more. As much as I dislike tradcaths, I think they have more logic behind their beliefs than Episcopalians who somehow think God's will stops where the state begins.

Unlike many modern day Episcopalians, the Church of England certainly didn't traditionally think that God's will irrelevent to the state. :^)

[Hanafuridake]

why is it so trendy to hate on tradcaths now anyways? their personal relationship with God is not anyone's business but their own, and all of them have a really good understanding of catholic (or orthodox, I use term tradcath loosely) theology, and easily name more ecumenical councils than the average lapsed cultural irish-italian-american catholic.

Real, serious tradcaths are fine. The people I have a problem with are the alt-right racists, sexists, and homophobes who try to use Catholic traditionalism as a cover for their hateful ideology.

I mean, it'd be pretty hard to argue that sexism and homophobia aren't essential parts of Catholic traditionalism.

Women aren't allowed to become priests and gays are considered sinful and unable to marry.

[Novus America]

I think you're overestimating the cleverness of neoreactionaries, tbh.

Notwithstanding the morally dubious aspects of their ideology, I don't think it is fair to say that they are not clever or intelligent.

TBF most (especially extreme) groups tend to have a core of the more well read and intellectual surrounded by large numbers of rose with less understanding of the details.

[Novus America]

The idea of religion as something private seems like one either doesn't fully believe in their religion and/or that they believe in secularism more. As much as I dislike tradcaths, I think they have more logic behind their beliefs than Episcopalians who somehow think God's will stops where the state begins.

Unlike many modern day Episcopalians, the Church of England certainly didn't traditionally think that God's will irrelevent to the state. :^)

Although the traditional Church of England barely exists anymore.

[Bienenhalde]

Real, serious tradcaths are fine. The people I have a problem with are the alt-right racists, sexists, and homophobes who try to use Catholic traditionalism as a cover for their hateful ideology.

I mean, it'd be pretty hard to argue that sexism and homophobia aren't essential parts of Catholic traditionalism.

Women aren't allowed to become priests and gays are considered sinful and unable to marry.

Yeah, but I still think people can believe in the traditional views of the Catholic church on gender and sexuality without acting like a hateful hypocritical jerk about it. One can believe in traditional gender roles without treating all women as either property or devilish whores, and one can oppose same-sex relationships without always acting hateful and hostile towards LGBT people.

[New haven america]

And if someone tells you no, they don't believe in your personal beliefs and would rather everyone have the choice about what they want to follow and believe, and said hypothetical tradcath never let's up or doesn't take no for an answer, well now we have an issue, don't we?

Not really. Just do not talk to them if you find them rude or annoying. I mean it is their freedom to advocate their beliefs just as you are free to advocate yours.

Well, except you can't because a lot of them have been successful at getting religious doctrine turned into actual national law.

Or would you like examples of how we're still dealing with the consequences of the US' puritanical origins?

[Joohan]

Not really. Just do not talk to them if you find them rude or annoying. I mean it is their freedom to advocate their beliefs just as you are free to advocate yours.

Well, except you can't because a lot of them have been successful at getting religious doctrine turned into actual national law.

Or would you like examples of how we're still dealing with the consequences of the US' puritanical origins?

Well that is how a democratic system of government works. The will of the people is typically enacted into law - and if a people are generally quite religious, then it can be expected that the legislation which they push for will have some basis in whatever dogma is most prevalent at the time. That's not really a problem with religion though, rather, the democratic system in general.

People with opposing viewpoints turn things I disagree with into law!!!

[Bienenhalde]

Not really. Just do not talk to them if you find them rude or annoying. I mean it is their freedom to advocate their beliefs just as you are free to advocate yours.

Well, except you can't because a lot of them have been successful at getting religious doctrine turned into actual national law.
Or would you like examples of how we're still dealing with the consequences of the US' puritanical origins?

Historically the United States has been mostly controlled by Protestants, rather than Roman Catholics. And even though there is more Roman Catholic representation in US politics nowadays, most supposedly Catholic politicians in the US either promote the bastardized version of the Protestant work ethic of the Republican Party or the same ideology as secular progressive and ignore the actual body of Catholic Social Teaching promulgated by actual popes and papally endorsed theologians.

[Novus America]

Not really. Just do not talk to them if you find them rude or annoying. I mean it is their freedom to advocate their beliefs just as you are free to advocate yours.

Well, except you can't because a lot of them have been successful at getting religious doctrine turned into actual national law.

Or would you like examples of how we're still dealing with the consequences of the US' puritanical origins?

But see they still have the right. The right to argue a different political stance than you do, even a right to argue against the first amendment ave separation of church and state.

You want to change things including the law to suit your ideology, they theirs. Neither is necessarily wrong for that. Now you of course can fairly say you strongly object to their politics and that you will oppose them, as is your right, but really it is you have a different political viewpoint than they do.

I do not necessarily agree with what they are selling, but they problem is not them excercising the right to sell it.

“It is wrong to advocate something I am against” is a dangerous path to go down.

And Puritans hated Catholics. Two very different things.

[Hanafuridake]

I mean, it'd be pretty hard to argue that sexism and homophobia aren't essential parts of Catholic traditionalism.

Women aren't allowed to become priests and gays are considered sinful and unable to marry.

Yeah, but I still think people can believe in the traditional views of the Catholic church on gender and sexuality without acting like a hateful hypocritical jerk about it. One can believe in traditional gender roles without treating all women as either property or devilish whores, and one can oppose same-sex relationships without always acting hateful and hostile towards LGBT people.

Even polite bigotry is ultimately bigotry, denying women the same social functions as men and same sex couples equal marital rights under the law are sexist and homophobic no matter how polite a person is about them.

[Joohan]

Yeah, but I still think people can believe in the traditional views of the Catholic church on gender and sexuality without acting like a hateful hypocritical jerk about it. One can believe in traditional gender roles without treating all women as either property or devilish whores, and one can oppose same-sex relationships without always acting hateful and hostile towards LGBT people.

Even polite bigotry is ultimately bigotry, denying women the same social functions as men and same sex couples equal marital rights under the law are sexist and homophobic no matter how polite a person is about them.

Yes

[Salus Maior]

I mean, it'd be pretty hard to argue that sexism and homophobia aren't essential parts of Catholic traditionalism.

Women aren't allowed to become priests and gays are considered sinful and unable to marry.

Although I do adhere to dogma concerning Holy Orders; I have no real issue with women doing basically anything else. Including holding power and authority over men, as would be the case with a female Monarch.

And tbh, I would consider some Saintly women to be better spiritual authorities than some priests.

[Salus Maior]

Not really. Just do not talk to them if you find them rude or annoying. I mean it is their freedom to advocate their beliefs just as you are free to advocate yours.

Well, except you can't because a lot of them have been successful at getting religious doctrine turned into actual national law.

Or would you like examples of how we're still dealing with the consequences of the US' puritanical origins?

"Puritanical origins", eh?

New England may have origins with the Congregationalists, but elsewhere it was completely different.

The South was settled by second-born noble sons who sought cash and land, the Middle States by Quakers who believed in religious and ethnic tolerance where diversity was the norm.

I really doubt you know very much about the origins of this country, or its ethnic-religious makeup outside of what you learned in a thanksgiving play.

[Hanafuridake]

I mean, it'd be pretty hard to argue that sexism and homophobia aren't essential parts of Catholic traditionalism.

Women aren't allowed to become priests and gays are considered sinful and unable to marry.

Although I do adhere to dogma concerning Holy Orders; I have no real issue with women doing basically anything else. Including holding power and authority over men, as would be the case in a female Monarch.

And tbh, I would consider some Saintly women to be better spiritual authorities than some priests.

That's the thing though, if someone said that a woman shouldn't be able to be a president or monarch, most people would justifiably consider that sexist. The fact that you make sure to affirm that you consider women capable in other areas shows that you're morally uncomfortable with sexism. It's going to be a major source of stress for Catholicism as it tries to justify the double standard.

[Northern Davincia]

Even more important question: who overall is the hottest 20th century retro dictator? The winner will be briefly reanimated (if ViaGen stops screening my calls, that is) and all voters will be entered into a raffle to have the result mailed to their house. Here are the options:
- Augusto Pinochet
- Adolf Hitler
- Benito Mussolini
- Enver Hoxha
- Ferdinand Marcos
- Fidel Castro
- Francisco Franco
- Ho Chi Minh
- Idi Amin
- Josef Stalin
- Josep Broz Tito
- Kim Il-sung
- Mao Zedong
- Nicolae Ceausescu
- Pol Pot
- Vladimir Lenin

I obviously have to vote for Stalin, hbu?

edit: added Ceausescu smdh

Young Pinochet doesn't look half bad. Kim Il-sung and Castro have their own charm.

[Northern Davincia]

Although I do adhere to dogma concerning Holy Orders; I have no real issue with women doing basically anything else. Including holding power and authority over men, as would be the case in a female Monarch.

And tbh, I would consider some Saintly women to be better spiritual authorities than some priests.

That's the thing though, if someone said that a woman shouldn't be able to be a president or monarch, most people would justifiably consider that sexist. The fact that you make sure to affirm that you consider women capable in other areas shows that you're morally uncomfortable with sexism. It's going to be a major source of stress for Catholicism as it tries to justify the double standard.

If a woman wants to serve the church, she may become a nun.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Okay, why don't we discuss a fictional country? Was the confederacy of independent systems right(let's assume Palpatine gets kiled ealry on and someone else leads it, so there's no sith puppeting)?

[Novus America]

Yeah, but I still think people can believe in the traditional views of the Catholic church on gender and sexuality without acting like a hateful hypocritical jerk about it. One can believe in traditional gender roles without treating all women as either property or devilish whores, and one can oppose same-sex relationships without always acting hateful and hostile towards LGBT people.

Even polite bigotry is ultimately bigotry, denying women the same social functions as men and same sex couples equal marital rights under the law are sexist and homophobic no matter how polite a person is about them.

So you are okay with sexism as long as it is admitted to be sexist?

[Hanafuridake]

Even polite bigotry is ultimately bigotry, denying women the same social functions as men and same sex couples equal marital rights under the law are sexist and homophobic no matter how polite a person is about them.

So you are okay with sexism as long as it is admitted to be sexist?

No, but I think being frank about it is the first step to actually having a discussion about it.

[Salus Maior]

Although I do adhere to dogma concerning Holy Orders; I have no real issue with women doing basically anything else. Including holding power and authority over men, as would be the case in a female Monarch.

And tbh, I would consider some Saintly women to be better spiritual authorities than some priests.

That's the thing though, if someone said that a woman shouldn't be able to be a president or monarch, most people would justifiably consider that sexist. The fact that you make sure to affirm that you consider women capable in other areas shows that you're morally uncomfortable with sexism. It's going to be a major source of stress for Catholicism as it tries to justify the double standard.

I'm not uncomfortable with the dogma of Holy Orders. There's a number of reasons why the Priesthood is single-sex and male-only (which is the case in all the ancient Churches outside of Catholicism) which don't hinge on the idea that women are lesser than men on an intrinsic level. Just a reminder, a woman is considered the greatest and holiest of all Christians, beyond even the Apostles.

Edit: If there were a royal tradition that excluded women from inheritance, which I'm certain there are, I wouldn't call it ideal but I wouldn't suggest changing it. It is, after all, their own tradition.

[Novus America]

So you are okay with sexism as long as it is admitted to be sexist?

No, but I think being frank about it is the first step to actually having a discussion about it.

You support traditional monarchies that are sexist in their structure like Japan. So it seems interesting you find sexist traditions inherently wrong.
I am against legally imposed sexism but I understand traditional organizations have traditional gender roles.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

That's the thing though, if someone said that a woman shouldn't be able to be a president or monarch, most people would justifiably consider that sexist. The fact that you make sure to affirm that you consider women capable in other areas shows that you're morally uncomfortable with sexism. It's going to be a major source of stress for Catholicism as it tries to justify the double standard.

The only people uncomfortable with male-only priests are liberals, and they're uncomfortable with almost anything "regressive" or "conservative" in the Church. Essentially, it's just one more front of the liberal-conservative conflict within Christianity, rather than being a separate issue of its own.