DrW Posted May 18 Posted May 18 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Beck Water said: Why does that qualify him as a commencement speaker at a prominent engineering school? He got a degree in industrial engineering. He also owns a business. Just looking at his credentials on paper, there could be worse choices. Edited May 18 by DrW Quote
Tiberius Posted May 18 Posted May 18 He said this: "No matter how you spin it, there is nothing natural about Catholic birth control." Oh boy Quote
Neo Posted May 18 Posted May 18 (edited) FDR once said, “I ask you to judge me by the enemies I’ve made.” Joseph Conrad, “You shall judge a man by his foes as well as by his friends.” Three days ago I didn’t know Butker from Adam. Today, I really like him. Neo, son of a single mom, brother to a sister, husband to a wife, father to daughters, father in law to daughters in law, and grandfather to granddaughters. “Misogyny” has joined “fascism” and “bigotry” in the Word Likely To Be Used Incorrectly Club. The recent membership application of “genocide” is pending. Edited May 18 by Neo 2 2 1 Quote
Dr. Who Posted May 18 Posted May 18 3 minutes ago, Neo said: FDR once said, “I ask you to judge me by the enemies I’ve made.” Joseph Conrad, “You shall judge a man by his foes as well as by his friends.” Three days ago I didn’t know Butker from Adam. Today, I really like him. Neo, son of a single mom, brother to a sister, father to daughters, father in law to daughters in law, and grandfather to granddaughters. “Misogyny” has joined “fascism” in the Word Likely To Be Used Incorrectly Club. The recent membership application of “genocide” is pending. If KC cuts him, we should pick him up. Quote
Bill from NYC Posted May 18 Posted May 18 (edited) 12 hours ago, Beck Water said: That's a really fair question, Bill, and I think it deserves a thoughtful answer so I'll try. I'll also try to be uncharacteristically brief about it. In part, it comes down to the so-called "paradox of tolerance", in which people who speak out against prejudiced, intolerant speech have it pointed out that they are being themselves intolerant of another person's opinions. Why not just "live and let live", why should you care? To me, one of the best responses is Yonatan Zunger's essay "Tolerance is not a Moral Precept", in which he frames tolerance not as a moral imperative, but as a "peace treaty" which allows different people of different views to live side by side and not be at each other's throats with the belief "that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business." (I think that's what you're expressing above). I recommend it as reading; it will come up with a demand to join Medium, just click on the X and it will let you read. Zunger points out that when viewed as a peace treaty, the limits of tolerance become obvious: a peace treaty applies only to those who are willing to abide by its terms; it is not "a suicide pact" where we are obliged to tolerate people's stated opposition to our lives and safety, or our neighbors’ lives and safety. (It's fundamentally the same principle as "your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose") So if someone says "I wouldn't want to be friends with a gay person because I don't think it's right" (or "I don't think it's moral to sleep around and drink and I don't associate with people who do"), they may be living by the terms of the treaty. They're talking about how they choose to live their life, whatever. If they refer to an LGBTQ person as an "abomination", they're using dehumanizing language - abominations aren't people with the same fundamentally human feelings and experiences we all share, right?. IMHO not only a gay person, but all people should care then, because historically, dehumanizing language has accompanied systematic discrimination and even systematic atrocities. Where Butker went, referencing "dangerous gender ideologies" and "the deadly sin sort of pride that has an entire month dedicated to it", he is verging close to dehumanizing language. If a person lives their life with "dangerous gender ideologies" or "deadly sin", are they a person with the same human feelings and experiences and right to live their lives and talk about their experiences? If something is dangerous and deadly and I live by it, do I have the same rights to live in our communities peacefully? I dunno, but that's why my ears pricked up. That's why I care, and feel concern for things like this being said. If no one speaks up, it can become normalized. And if it becomes normalized, then historically, too often, it doesn't end with words but with actual impacts on people's lives and safety. As far as Butker's comments about the true vocation of wives and mothers towards which ladies should feel most excitement: the same principle applies. Is this an indication that the speaker is expressing his personal beliefs, which I should tolerate? If I were one of the young women who just worked my ass off for 8 semesters to earn a degree only to hear from my college's chosen and endorsed commencement speaker that my true vocation is as a wife and mother, I would feel PISSED because it would seem to be devaluing my efforts. But whatever. My daughter, and likely your daughters, have been able to pursue whatever career or vocation and hobbies they freely chose. They have been able to receive whatever health care they choose, including reproductive health care. The real concern I feel is, are these beliefs part of an organized attempt to impose a set of restrictions on me, my daughter, your daughters? And there are documented cases where they are. Brief as I can be, Peace Out! Your post is an interesting one. I can understand the point that you make. I am going to break down my response for the sake of clarity. 1) I like the word "respect" more than the word "tolerance." If I "tolerate" you, it would appear (at least to me) that I feel like I am better than you, but willing to put up with you and what I perceive to be your shortcomings. I can respect transexuals and whether it fits the woke mode or not, I will add that I pity them. 2) My respect ends when people encourage children, young children to make life altering decisions when they are too young to do so. Recently, a Long Island teacher continued to tell a young female student that she was a "boy." She did this in class, in front of her classmates. The girl expressed suicidal ideations and the mother is suing the teacher and the district. I hope she receives millions of dollars. Oh, and also in terms of transexuals; I am 100% against biological males competing with women. As I said earlier, it took centuries for women to be able to compete in sports, and I resent the fact that after all they went through, MEN want to steal even this. 3) It could very well be me, but I sense that you may be overlooking the concept of free speech at least to some degree. The above example (#2) is NOT free speech. It is child abuse. An invited speaker at a parochial school stating his views is great imo, even though I don't necessarily agree with him on some issues. I don't have to send my kids there, nor am I forced to agree OR disagree with him. 4) Imo, too many people want to dictate the speech, or even the thoughts of others. Abortion is a prime example. I'm not necessarily proud of my stance on abortion. What I do find abhorrent and cannot comprehend is folks who take a stance that it should be legal 10 minutes or so before natural birth. Some will say I'm some sort of right wing radical for feeling this way but I am ENTITLED to do so and unlike others, I am not trying to silence those who disagree with my stance(s). In any event, thanks for you intelligent post. Edited May 18 by Bill from NYC 2 Quote
thenorthremembers Posted May 18 Posted May 18 21 hours ago, GoBills808 said: you don't find referring to LGBT as a deadly sin offensive? that is quite the admission It's not quite an admission, I think it's pretty well known that in the Christian faith, it's a sin. It's not a fun truth, and I have many people in my life who I love dearly who are part of that community. Just like I have many people in my life who have lied, stole, committed adultery, who are prideful, lustful and greedy. All things the Christian faith views as deadly sins. I am a sinner as well. So it's not my place to judge sins. However, what he said is the truth he believes in. Quote
thenorthremembers Posted May 18 Posted May 18 (edited) 22 hours ago, oldmanfan said: I will speak for myself. As the father of two girls who just graduated this week (one BA and one MFA), I can assure you they both are more than excited not just of marriage (one is engaged right now) but also of using the gifts and talents God bestowed upon them to use in their professional careers. He may hold up as a tenant of his strong Catholic faith that women should derive their pleasure from being wives and mothers (although that leads me to wonder what his stance on nuns is), but that does not mean all Christians agree. And the topper was when in his clarification of remarks he said he wants to return to a time when women were more concerned with babies than thoughts. That is beyond reprehensible to suggest women would be better off not thinking. I was also, as a scientist, offended by his stance on Covid which ignores the science of viral diseases. And as one who has friends who are members of the LGBTQ community I don’t appreciate his stance there. I am not going to get into his stance on COVID because it's frowned upon on this board. Like you I am a father of girls. I have four daughters. One just finished her freshman year of college and has told me on multiple occasions she feels like her calling in life is to be a mother. Part of her feels like she would like to stay home. If she is afforded that luxury I would be proud of her. I will also be proud of her if she finishes her studies and becomes a pediatrician, which is also a dream of hers. I also know you can't serve two masters. The life of a stay-at-home Mom is vastly different than a Doctor of Pediatrics. What I took from Harrison's speech was if there were women in the graduating class who felt like they were torn between the societal norm of graduating college and having a career, and a feeling their calling was to stay at home and nurture their children and their household, that they shouldn't bend to the societal norm. The lie he was referring to is the thought that women have to be exactly like men, which to me is anti-feminist. That if you're a stay at home Mother or Father for that matter, that you are not as successful as someone who works a 9-5. The truth is, someone who stays at home and raises a child is worth as much, if not more than someone who brings home the paycheck. Our society completely ignores the fact that women and men are biologically different, both physically and emotionally. Thats the lie. The same people pointing to science in some instances, like to ignore it in this instance. Is it an absolute, no. I know this firsthand. My wife attended a private college. Racked up close to 200,000 dollars in student loans, and then had the pull to stay home after our first child was born. She is now a stay-at-home Mother who homes schools four of our children. In her profession she worked with end-of-life patients. God gave her an amazing ability to nurture and comfort people with horrible life ending illnesses. God also gave her an incredible ability to Mother and educate our children. However, her calling was towards the second. A big reason for that calling is she could ensure their education included the Bible, which they would never be taught in public school. Part of being a Christian is being a good steward of our faith, public school does not help with that. In some respects, public school is anti-Christian. Society would like to say "she is just a stay-at-home mother" but looking at society I'd say we need more parents who can raise their children properly and less people working 70 hours a week and missing out on their children's upbringing altogether, just my opinion. Her staying home is also a luxury I know not everyone is blessed with. His stance on LGBTQ is very much in line with the Bible and the Christian faith. Like I said in my other post, I have people very close to me in that community. My brother-in-law who I love dearly in married to another man. The hard truth is our faith and his sexual orientation conflict with one another. Thats part of life. You have to navigate those things in your own way according to your beliefs. But it should be navigated with love, like the Bible calls us to do. But what Butker said does not conflict with what Christians believe. Edited May 18 by thenorthremembers 1 1 Quote
GunnerBill Posted May 18 Posted May 18 49 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said: It's not quite an admission, I think it's pretty well known that in the Christian faith, it's a sin. It's not a fun truth, and I have many people in my life who I love dearly who are part of that community. Just like I have many people in my life who have lied, stole, committed adultery, who are prideful, lustful and greedy. All things the Christian faith views as deadly sins. I am a sinner as well. So it's not my place to judge sins. However, what he said is the truth he believes in. Where in the Christian faith does it say being homosexual is a "deadly" sin? It is not one of the seven deadly sins as understood be traditional teaching (although the extent to which the Bible actually supports the idea of the seven deadly sins is in itself debatable). But homosexuality is not one of the seven deadly sin if you believe they exist. The majority of bible passages about homosexuality are from Leviticus and Corinthians both of which I would strongly argue are actually legal and moral declarations that reflect their times rather than tenants of a fundamental doctorine of faith. 1 Quote
thenorthremembers Posted May 18 Posted May 18 (edited) 27 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: Where in the Christian faith does it say being homosexual is a "deadly" sin? It is not one of the seven deadly sins as understood be traditional teaching (although the extent to which the Bible actually supports the idea of the seven deadly sins is in itself debatable). But homosexuality is not one of the seven deadly sin if you believe they exist. The majority of bible passages about homosexuality are from Leviticus and Corinthians both of which I would strongly argue are actually legal and moral declarations that reflect their times rather than tenants of a fundamental doctorine of faith. The seven deadly sins are a creation of the Catholic faith. Pope Gregory denoted those as the "worst of sin." The Bible doesn't differentiate. The Bible calls all sins deadly if not given grace and mercy through Jesus Christ. Romans 6:23- For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus. Sin is sin. But all sin without repentance is deadly. Christians believe the Bible is a living doctrine. Theologians may say the Old testament is based on the time, the Universalist Church believes the same thing. Edited May 18 by thenorthremembers Quote
DrW Posted May 18 Posted May 18 1 hour ago, thenorthremembers said: ... What I took from Harrison's speech was if there were women in the graduating class who felt like they were torn between the societal norm of graduating college and having a career, and a feeling their calling was to stay at home and nurture their children and their household, that they shouldn't bend to the societal norm. The lie he was referring to is the thought that women have to be exactly like men, which to me is anti-feminist. That if you're a stay at home Mother or Father for that matter, that you are not as successful as someone who works a 9-5. The truth is, someone who stays at home and raises a child is worth as much, if not more than someone who brings home the paycheck. Our society completely ignores the fact that women and men are biologically different, both physically and emotionally. Thats the lie. The same people pointing to science in some instances, like to ignore it in this instance. Is it an absolute, no. ... Thank you for explaining your thoughts in so much detail. It also shows that sometimes/often we hear what we want to hear and not what was actually said (this applies to both sides in this issue). You added a few words (highlighted) that I could not find in Butker's speech. Where does he address the stay-at-home dads? From the context it is clear that this omission is not an oversight; it is intentional. Quote
GunnerBill Posted May 18 Posted May 18 27 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said: The seven deadly sins are a creation of the Catholic faith. Pope Gregory denoted those as the "worst of sin." The Bible doesn't differentiate. The Bible calls all sins deadly if not given grace and mercy through Jesus Christ. Romans 6:23- For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus. Sin is sin. But all sin without repentance is deadly. Christians believe the Bible is a living doctrine. Theologians may say the Old testament is based on the time, the Universalist Church believes the same thing. Not universally and it is, in any case, highly debatable in fact not just belief. Quote
thenorthremembers Posted May 18 Posted May 18 2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: Not universally and it is, in any case, highly debatable in fact not just belief. For the Word of God to be specific to one time period God himself would have to be relegated to one time period. God is omnipresent and omniscient, so his Word is as well. The Bible is the Word of God, as such it covers all time not just one epoch. Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 1 Quote
oldmanfan Posted May 18 Posted May 18 1 hour ago, thenorthremembers said: I am not going to get into his stance on COVID because it's frowned upon on this board. Like you I am a father of girls. I have four daughters. One just finished her freshman year of college and has told me on multiple occasions she feels like her calling in life is to be a mother. Part of her feels like she would like to stay home. If she is afforded that luxury I would be proud of her. I will also be proud of her if she finishes her studies and becomes a pediatrician, which is also a dream of hers. I also know you can't serve two masters. The life of a stay-at-home Mom is vastly different than a Doctor of Pediatrics. What I took from Harrison's speech was if there were women in the graduating class who felt like they were torn between the societal norm of graduating college and having a career, and a feeling their calling was to stay at home and nurture their children and their household, that they shouldn't bend to the societal norm. The lie he was referring to is the thought that women have to be exactly like men, which to me is anti-feminist. That if you're a stay at home Mother or Father for that matter, that you are not as successful as someone who works a 9-5. The truth is, someone who stays at home and raises a child is worth as much, if not more than someone who brings home the paycheck. Our society completely ignores the fact that women and men are biologically different, both physically and emotionally. Thats the lie. The same people pointing to science in some instances, like to ignore it in this instance. Is it an absolute, no. I know this firsthand. My wife attended a private college. Racked up close to 200,000 dollars in student loans, and then had the pull to stay home after our first child was born. She is now a stay-at-home Mother who homes schools four of our children. In her profession she worked with end-of-life patients. God gave her an amazing ability to nurture and comfort people with horrible life ending illnesses. God also gave her an incredible ability to Mother and educate our children. However, her calling was towards the second. A big reason for that calling is she could ensure their education included the Bible, which they would never be taught in public school. Part of being a Christian is being a good steward of our faith, public school does not help with that. In some respects, public school is anti-Christian. Society would like to say "she is just a stay-at-home mother" but looking at society I'd say we need more parents who can raise their children properly and less people working 70 hours a week and missing out on their children's upbringing altogether, just my opinion. Her staying home is also a luxury I know not everyone is blessed with. His stance on LGBTQ is very much in line with the Bible and the Christian faith. Like I said in my other post, I have people very close to me in that community. My brother-in-law who I love dearly in married to another man. The hard truth is our faith and his sexual orientation conflict with one another. Thats part of life. You have to navigate those things in your own way according to your beliefs. But it should be navigated with love, like the Bible calls us to do. But what Butker said does not conflict with what Christians believe. Christians follow Christ and Hos word. And he calls us to love our neighbor as ourself. I don’t sense that in Butker’s address. 1 Quote
thenorthremembers Posted May 18 Posted May 18 (edited) 28 minutes ago, DrW said: Thank you for explaining your thoughts in so much detail. It also shows that sometimes/often we hear what we want to hear and not what was actually said (this applies to both sides in this issue). You added a few words (highlighted) that I could not find in Butker's speech. Where does he address the stay-at-home dads? From the context it is clear that this omission is not an oversight; it is intentional. It's intentional because the number of stay-at-home Mothers is three times greater than Fathers. I added Fathers here because I wasnt directly quoting Butker, only attempting to explain the lie that is told to people across the world. As far as me using so much detail, you can choose not to read it. 4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: Christians follow Christ and Hos word. And he calls us to love our neighbor as ourself. I don’t sense that in Butker’s address. Where does he say he doesnt love sinners in his address? Edited May 18 by thenorthremembers Quote
GunnerBill Posted May 18 Posted May 18 15 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said: For the Word of God to be specific to one time period God himself would have to be relegated to one time period. God is omnipresent and omniscient, so his Word is as well. The Bible is the Word of God, as such it covers all time not just one epoch. Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Again disputed among theologians. It is not a universally accepted position that every word in the bible is the word of God. That might be your belief it is NOT a universal Christian belief. Quote
oldmanfan Posted May 18 Posted May 18 29 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said: It's intentional because the number of stay-at-home Mothers is three times greater than Fathers. I added Fathers here because I wasnt directly quoting Butker, only attempting to explain the lie that is told to people across the world. As far as me using so much detail, you can choose not to read it. Where does he say he doesnt love sinners in his address? Where does he say he does? That is what we’re called to do. Instead he criticized politicians and the leaders of his church not to mention the comments we’ve discussed. Quote
Buffalo716 Posted May 18 Posted May 18 (edited) 1 hour ago, GunnerBill said: Again disputed among theologians. It is not a universally accepted position that every word in the bible is the word of God. That might be your belief it is NOT a universal Christian belief. It's certainly is the Catholic position The first and largest Christian Church Edited May 18 by Buffalo716 Quote
What a Tuel Posted May 18 Posted May 18 (edited) 20 hours ago, oldmanfan said: He did not say that about his wife. He said that his wife would say her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and mother. If you are going to parse words be accurate. By implication he is telling the women in the audience their only vocation if they want their life to truly start is to be a wife and mother. That other vocations don’t count. By this notion, then if a woman is an engineer, but then becomes a teacher and claims her life (or vocation) truly started when she became a teacher, then she is automatically implying that she does not hold engineers in high regard? Thats definitely flawed logic. 20 hours ago, ImpactCorey said: Using his wife to prove your point is a really bad example. In fact he says for his wife it WAS mutually exclusive: "Isabelle's dream of having a career might not have come true, but if you asked her today if she has any regrets on her decision, she would laugh out loud, without hesitation, and say, “Heck, No.”" She had to give up not only a career, but her DREAM career to be a homemaker. That is by definition, mutually exclusive. What is stopping her from pursuing her career otherwise? His wife made the choice. That does not imply you have to choose. Many woman play both roles. He certainly mentions being blessed enough to allow her to completely dedicate herself to educator/mother/wife. Edited May 18 by What a Tuel Quote
GunnerBill Posted May 18 Posted May 18 4 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said: It's certainly is the Catholic position The first and largest Christian Church Yes it is. Catholicism is full of plenty of other contradictions though. I speak as an avowed athiest who went to Catholic school. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.