Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Republicans are racist, Catholics are anti choice etc...
There, that ought to get some attention lol. Seriously tho...
I had a thought, which I hope is much less stupid than the post title, and I wondered what you all think.
I was thinking about the KKK, if fact. Its pretty fair to say that someone who supports the KKK is racist, right? I have deliberately chosen an extreme example btw. And I realize that the KKK stands for racism and little else. So there is an obvious difference between supporting them and their fairly single idea, and supporting the Democrats or a church with multi platform ideas.
And yet, all organizations get their power from numbers. If everyone left the catholic church, then there would be no catholic church. And simply by being in the congregation, you are counted as a supporter, even if you are only there for the coffee and dont agree with any of the religion bits. Likewise any other organization, from the WWF to Peta, from Move On to Boy Scouts, you name it.
I don't really know where I am going with this. Perhaps I am asking at what point should you leave an organization? At what point does your support end, even if you agree with some of the things they do?
I guess my question is this: If you support a group, how much responsibility do you have for its actions? And if you support a group where a small number of people do something wrong, and the people running the group don't condemn it, are you not also supporting it if you don't either leave or protest it? You cant stay silent, because if you do, you are pretty much saying "I am okay with this" even if you don't think it.
I know my history might make this seem like some sort of dig, but its really not. As an example, I am rarely part of any organization. I am not part of the American Atheists despite being a fairly strident atheist myself, because I think they often behave like d!cks lol. Or, I no longer support the democrats. I don't give them money, and I wont vote, and nor will I help in any way. That was the only organization I ever really got involved with, but I simply don't believe they will act in a way I can agree with, and so I cannot support, even silently.
Yeah. A bit confused (sorry), but see what I am getting at? General thoughts, P&CE?
Re: Republicans are racist, Catholics are anti choice etc...
Byrd was in the KKK, but he changed. Change can happen.
As far as responsible...I don't know how much I agree with this. I don't support torture yet my government has and still does torture. I don't think that makes me culpable for it, but it does make me responsible to affect change from within.
Ditto this, and to add, as long as we have a 2 party system, not supporting one party is de facto support for the opposing party. Yeah, it has to start somewhere, but no one really wants to give power to the other side when you stringently disagree with a big portion of their platform as well. So you're stuck picking which issues matter most to you, and voting that way.
I think there were quite a few of us that said we would not vote for Santorum if he was the R candidate. But Mitt Romney being pro-life (now) and chatting up the religious right with "stop Planned Parenthood funding!!," isn't going to have any of us running very far.
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home D
Fair enough as far as the KKK goes - not a good example I suppose. It was more the thought behind it tho - I don't want to be counted as silently agreeing to things just by being there. But I hadn't thought of it the other way around - that by not supporting the Dems, I am silently supporting the Reps. That makes it worse - damned if you do, damned if you don't
(
i think equating someone being Catholic with supporting the wrongdoings of the group = too big of a stretch... it's a religion - that's what people support - not every person in the organization.
I won't be Catholic b/c i don't believe in a lot of what they preach... i also have problems with the wrongdoings of the people in the organization... but in my Lutheran organization - there are people who do things I don't like... and I don't 100% agree with everything they preach- but it's fairly close to what i believe- and i like our local church- so i'm sticking with it for now.
and ditto above re: santorum/romney. I wouldn't have voted for Santorum- but I will vote for Romney- even though I don't love him.
I think from a political perspective, KA raises a good point about the two party system. If you are more conservative, and maybe support gay marriage but you feel very strongly that we need lower taxes or that the Affordable Care Act was an overreach of federal power etc, and those issues are a bigger deal to you, than you will probably vote Republican even if you disagree with some of their other issues, bc you don't want to support the Dems, and if you don't vote R, then you are kind of SOL.
BUT I do think the point about the members of an organization having power and a certain among of responsibility is important. One of the reasons Santorum lasted as long as he did is bc many Rs did agree with many of his views (of course we don't know which views in particular.). The same is true on the left side of the spectrum but right now I'm having a hard time coming up with an example bc we didn't have a primary season. But if I'm voting Dem consistently I can't pretend that
I don't have responsibility for some of the views of the Dems that I dont agree with. I do, but Id rather have responsibility for those things than vote for Santorum (using him as an extreme example.) I imagine many cons feel the same way. And when you only have two choices, you are going to have to hold your nose a lot when you vote.
**not comparing anything below to the Catholic church**
There are some chitty organizations out there that just wont die. I know of this rabbit rescue that's on it's last leg - yet some how the chapter manager gets donations for a few thousand each year to help it limb along.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find any org. whose action you 100% agree with. I think a lot of people end up supporting groups out of duty or because of the good they see them DO and not necessarily the BS that is said, if that makes sense.
I believe that we all bear the karma of not only our own actions but also, to a lesser degree, that of any organization of which we are a part. This includes our world, our country, our place of worship, our political party, etc., etc.
Since karma is more of a spectrum or scale than a black or white absolute, it comes down to an equation of how much karma I'm willing to take on to be a part of something I don't wholly believe in. I don't agree 100% with every single teaching of the temple that I attend, but the differences are more a matter of interpretation of the teachings than of behavior that I find unacceptable, am unwilling to pay the karma for, and that I refuse to support (child abuse, discrimination, etc.)
Well, since I am a Republican and a Catholic, I feel compelled to chime in.
I see where you're going, though you're painting with an awfully big brush. First of all, with regard to the Republicans, I don't agree that we're all racists, or even mostly racists. I think we may disagree on how to handle certain issues that may have racial implications, but no, not racist.
With regard to Catholics, well, you just hit the nail on the head for why I finally started calling myself an ex-Catholic this year (vs. lapsed Catholic or bad Catholic, which is what I was calling myself until recently). I just couldn't get on board with supporting a church that I basically disagree with on many substantial issues (birth control, women's roles in the church to be specific). But I considered myself Catholic largely because it was a huge cultural thing for me (12 years of Catholic school, many Catholic friends, etc.) and for the people. Then, when the church basically stood by child molesters while letting the innocent victims suffer, I thought, what am I doing? So, yea, I felt that by staying, I was more or less saying, I agree with you, Catholic Church, and I really don't. I feel so liberated now. LOL
I think I see what Reeve is saying. I think what he means is, if you identify Catholic and like that identification for yourself, but don't agree with them on their abortion/homosexuality stances, how much should you then try to change the organization from within and make it more in line with what you believe? I think it's like that saying about "just because something always has been, doesn't mean it always has to be" (paraphrased).
I think maybe by not speaking out and just going along, you're giving tacit approval. And why not stay in the organization but try to make it better? Is that right? If there is a small wing of the Republican party that says racist, homophobic things when all you care about is the fiscal conservatism part, then stand up to that. If there are more social liberals then social conservatives in the party, or even equal amounts, why let the Santorums have so much power over the message of the party? Why let the extreme right be the face of the brand?
It's harder with Catholicism because there's a heirarchy, but still. The Bible has been around for years and yet ideas of what is appropriate and right have changed. There can be, and has been, progress and faith. And just because the dudes at the top want to keep things the way that they are used to, doesn't mean the rest of the devout have to go along. So I think Reeve is asking if you don't want to leave the Church, why not actively try to change the parts you think are wrong?
I guess because I always see people defend defend defend, and believe me, I do it, too. It's human nature. I get that. Obviously there are things like the nun order being reprimanded by the Vatican for their works and how much Ireland in particular has changed due to how the sex abuse was handled. There is definitely change there. And I'm not in anyway anti-religion, I think it's great for a lot of reasons, just not for me. This is just me guessing at what Reeve was saying. That if you don't believe parts of it, and the church is based on things you don't agree with, how do you get your message to the powers that be at the Vatican? But I could be totally wrong and Reeve can certainly correct me.
I think it's different for politics. If the party that I vote for and whose basic platform I believe in, advocates policies and ideas that I absolutely don't agree with, then what? I don't agree with a lot of democrats do, but they don't really regularly as a group advocate for or against any of my core principles. I totally get fiscal conservatism and could be down with it in some ways, so I'm not anti-Republican in that way. But people keep saying that it's a minority of the party that believes that gays are bad and says ignorant racial stuff. And I give the benefit of the doubt on that. But this minority is so vocal and moderates don't really condemn it or reign it in, so one has to wonder if it is actually a minority. And what do you do about that? Do you (not YOU, but hyphothetical "you") care enough about that to push your party to portray itself as you believe it should be.
I saw this after I posted. Great point. I see it as a human organization.
But it's hard to differentiate the God aspect from the human for me. I was raised in a Baptist Church and was told God believed these things. I see how there could be a God, but I didn't believe S/He believed what I was being told, so I lost faith in that particular brand of religion and have yet to find one that speaks to me, if there is one. Or the other option would be to believe what I was told, or believe parts of it.
But it all comes down to do we believe that God believes what WE believe (our belief being first). Or do we believe what God believes? Does that make sense at all? Because that's where the human element comes in. Do we find a religion and God that suits our worldview or do we build our worldview on what we were taught this religion's God believes?
All I will say to this and I hope it doesn't come off as dismissive (it's more because I justdon't have the time ...nor the energy....I used to have to post):
God's ways are not our ways. I think that we often get ourselves into trouble when we think our ways are God's ways.
I totally get that. That is what faith is and that is what religion is based on. Hence I don't have one right now. It's the fundamental difference between the faithful and the not faithful. It is the reason why (not necessarily you) but many faithful see atheists/agnostics as putting themselves before God, while some atheists/agnostics (not myself) think believers would follow blindly. I believe that surely if the church said something obviously ridiculous people would say, "Hey!" but the non-believers have a different line in the sand, if you know what I mean.
And you are right, that fundamental disagreement is why the vocal very religious and the vocal not religious will never see eye to eye on this. The people in the middle on both sides, I think, have always been able to understand and respect the other person's view.
2V and Irish - I hope I'm not coming off argumentative. This is really interesting to me and I like these discussions sometimes depending on the tone.
2V- I believe what I believe for the moment. It could change or it could not, I honestly don't know. I'm open to whatever. I don't judge people based on their religious affiliation so I hope you don't feel like I'm on your case as a Catholic. I know it gets to you sometimes the way people talk about Catholicism on PCE.
but by continuing to stay in an organization that supports anti-gay, anti-woman, etc... aren't you implicitly agree with it?
This is something I've really struggled with regarding boy scouts. I didn't sign my kids up for it this year because of my conflict. How can I put them in an organization that says that family members aren't worthy because of their sexual orientation, yet boy scouts also does a lot of good?
rather than affiliating with a political party that you agree with fiscally would it be better to call yourself an indpendent?
I know with the scouts some friends that do have their kids in feel like that by being members they can influence change, I don't know.
Above Us Only Sky
No. Because then I'm not in the party to change it from the inside by voting in primaries, etc. The more people like me who give up on the party, the more socially conservative it becomes. That's the opposite of what anyone wants to happen.
Find me here instead!
Well, I think the government is outside of the scope of the question since it's not a voluntary organization. You don't choose where you are born and it's not as if you can just move to Switzerland. They have immigration laws, there are language barriers, etc.
Fuuuk yewwwwwwww for putting that song back in my head.
Let's have a partay, proceed to partay!
Click me, click me!
I absolutely could not support an organization that is anti-gay or anti-gay-marriage, or is pro-life. Those are two of the biggest "mainstream" social issues for me, and I don't care what party you are, if you are anti-either I'm not voting for you. If you give me a Republican who is pro-gay marriage and pro-choice I will vote for them in a hot second. I have yet to see one that's taken seriously by the Republican party.
My potential-UO (because I know a lot of black folks who get irritated at the gay activists "bogarting" the civil rights era issues) is that 60 years ago, my white husband and I wouldn't have been able to be legally married in many states. I absoultely cannot support a party that would continue in that mindset of saying that two people can't get married because of something they cannot help. The color of their skin and the sex of the person they're in love with are the same damn thing to me.
Not at all cee-jay. I understand what you are saying.
I didn't take it as you accusing anyone....just so you know. I was just trying to say that when you believe that an organziation is not just human, but also divine then what you can/should change is dependent upon whether we're talking about the portion that is human or divine.
and I'm probably not making a whole lot of sense.