New Pope In Town

[bobster]

Don't know, but if anyone wants to be my campaign manager....

I'll head up your campaign for King of the Jews if you'll head my campaign for pResident of the US in 2008. Whaddaya say?

I don't know, but I'll definitely considing supporting you for Prime Minister of the Protestants.

[El Vez]

Would either of you be willing to consider throwing a cushy ambassadorship my way? Never been to Spain, you know.....

[A rope leash]

No, seriously, who is the King of the Jews and why can't we talk about him?

It occurs to me this morning that it's all such a sham game. Governments go about warring and conquering, and those who are morally against it are either called godless fools or religious absolutists. I'm sure that John Paul's world popularity had a lot to do with his opposition to war and killing. But, governments tend to just wink and say, here's your man if you are against the war. We are still going to have our war...but look at this guy!

The pope is a major distraction.

[miss buenos aires]

No, seriously, who is the King of the Jews and why can't we talk about him?

Well, I don't remember either of their names, but aparently there's a head Ashkenazi rabbi and a head Sephardic rabbi. They got together with the Armenian patriarch and the head of the Greek Orthodox church and some high-up imams to meet about something really important--it was on the front page of the New York Times, so it must have been really momentous. What was it again? Oh yeah, they were gathering to express their profround disapproval of the idea of a gay pride parade in Jerusalem.

[bambooneedle]

There's no hierarchy in Judaism. Everyone is supposed to be on the same level. That is why rabbi (means teacher) doesn't have a capital R and they, unlike a priest or a minister, can't "bless" you.

[miss buenos aires]

bambi, that's what I thought, too, but there is apparently some kind of hierarchy. Check it out: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43567

[bambooneedle]

But they're all still just rabbis, aren't they? From what I understand, Judaism is the only religion where it is explicit that the followers should look at their teachers (rabbis) as moral equals to them. They assume no authority over you, or shouldn't, according to Judaic teachings.

And it is also against their teachings to preach to non-believers...

[noiseradio]

Depends on what type of Judaism you practice as well. The more orthodox branches have a bit more structure. Nothing anywhere near as structured as the Catholic church (or most protestant churches either).

[A rope leash]

*as Jon Stewart*

>shrugs<

So, I don't know, somebody handles it...I thought Morty was doing it this week... Hey Ishmael! You got the roster? 'Cause this fella here... he's askin' questions...

Take me to your leader? What? We got some rabbis, some comedians...but nothing you could put a crown on...

O yeah now I remember. His name is Yogurt.

May the schwartz be with you!

[bambooneedle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

[noiseradio]

Ishmael? The son of Abraham through whom Muslims claim their birthright? That's the Jewish name you picked? Oy.



I really like the idea of a faith where it's nearly impossible to identify any human leader in charge. I like that a lot.

[Mr. Average]

Noise, isn't the lack of a single leadership front, in fact, at the core of the unbridled fundamentalist interpretations of the Koran? Because the structure of Islam is devoid of any true, single leadership center, it leaves room for interpretations of the Koran that form the core of the radical position of many who would happily behead a captive whilst singing the praises to their God.

Or celebrate the firey death of 3000 innocent men women and children, all for the love and honor of a god...

DOes the lack of that leadership center confer ay advantage on the rights and roles of women in society? Many have attacked the Pope for his views on the role of the woman in the Faith, yet the oppression of Islamic females is beyond credulity. Without a point of leadership, how can any reform even get a foothold?

Muslim clerics will decry the interpretation of "Death to All Western, Christian, Jewish, Infidels. Others will substantiate that same statement with Koran excerpts. In a leadership vacuum, a peaceful cleric cannot afford to espouse his position too loudly, or too earnestly, lest he become the next Salmon Rushdie (in terms of being 'marked').

How does that situation make for a better structure of an organized Faith. I don't understand.

[A rope leash]

I need better writers...!

[noiseradio]

Mr. Average,

If there are clerics, then there are identifiable leaders. Fundamentalist Islam doesn't have an equivalent to a pope (no single leader), but they have clerics, Ayatollas, etc. who are certainly identifiable leaders. When Salman Rushdie wrote Satanic Verses, it was the Ayatollah who called for his execution throughout the world, sending him into hiding.

That's the very kind of leadership religion doesn't need.

[Mr. Misery]

I need better writers...!

I'm a better writer. How may I help?

[noiseradio]

Mr. Average,

I never really got around to a couple of your other points, as I was busy helping my kids. So I'll take a stab at them now. Sorry to leave you hanging.

The example you give about the oppression of women in Islamic fundamentalism actually supports my point, I think, though from a different direction. The idea that strong leadership could get a foothold and possibly bring about reform is certainly possible. But as long as that leader can only be a man, you'll never have true equality. Even if a future pope declared that women could be ordained as priests, that wouldn't create total equality. At some point, women would hit the stained-glass ceiling of church hierarchy. I don't know where it would be, but I'll venture a guess that you'd never see women archbishops or cardinals in the Catholic Church, much less a female pope.

And even if you did have a female clergy, there would still be another (again, totally my tastes here) problem. There would always be that division between the clergy and the (horrible word) lay people. When I say I like the idea of a religion without any identifiable human leaders, I mean exactly that. A church without clergy. Or put another way, a church in which everyone is equally recognized as clergy. Same difference, really. I think there are even scriptural grounds for that. Peter wrote "you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood..." to a church at large. Not a select group of men. Of course, what I'm proposing, if implemented in any current denomination would make that denomination cease to exist. So, I'm not actually suggesting that the Catholic Church (or the Baptsis, the Methodists, or anyone else for that matter) try to dismantle their hierarchies.

For me though, whatever titles humans bestow upon themselves or others in the church, no man or woman should be considered any more or less holy that any other man or woman. A faith where the only identifiable leader is God--that's a worthy pursuit.

[A rope leash]

Mr. Misery:

Puns, quips, smart remarks, highly literate and possibly inaccurate historical references, obscure musings, delicate humour...all the crap that goes up to make the rope leash show. You know, bullshit. Send it all to me and I will pay you nothing, but you will be able to bask in the glory of having helped to create one of the most mind-boggling blog careers ever.



Shew! Open a window!

Mr. Misery could certainly do us all a favor and add his thoughts to this silly discussion. I am confident he handles a stone-cutting sword, deftly and without hesitancy. Good to try some on this subject, eh master?

>kneels, bows head<

To it then, and don't make a mess of it!