Ave Maria Florida [Archive]

Manny

27th February 2006, 07:29 AM

How is this to be enforced I wonder? Well, you can't enforce private behavior inside homes of course. But the idea is that Monaghan (or a trusteeship) will own all the commercial real estate in the town and restrict what may be sold through crafting leases. Not just no dirty section at the video store, but no contraceptives at the pharmacy. At least that's how Monaghan apparently sees it, based on speeches he's made. His development partner seems to think more along the lines of 'well, we'll just market it as a conservative Catholic community and it wll become one by self-selection.' Meanwhile, Ave Maria Law School, which seems to be something of a success early in its life, is hopping mad about the prospect of being moved from Ann Arbor, MI down to the Naples area. Stay tuned for many more chapters in this soap opera.

Jocko

27th February 2006, 07:33 AM

I just saw an article that Domino's Piza magnate Tom Monaghan is creating (created?) a town/university in Florida called 'Ave Maria' in which the inhabitants must adhere to a strick Catholic life-style. How is this to be enforced I wonder? Anyone for the Florida Inquisition?
Seems as if another Billionaire is trying to buy their way to heaven.

Considering city-sized chunks of Florida already require you to be over 55 years of age to live there, this kind of thing is a non-issue. And that's the legally enforceable kind of discrimination - the unofficial kind is just as prevalent. At least this clown is going through the motions of making it official and buying his own land.

Tirdun

27th February 2006, 07:37 AM

Can we make it mandatory that fundymentalists move there? Oh.. wow.. its just like heaven. So many fundies, so very far away. :mdance:

Tony

27th February 2006, 07:40 AM

I just saw an article that Domino's Piza magnate Tom Monaghan is creating (created?) a town/university in Florida called 'Ave Maria' in which the inhabitants must adhere to a strick Catholic life-style. How is this to be enforced I wonder? Anyone for the Florida Inquisition?
Seems as if another Billionaire is trying to buy their way to heaven.

This is a version neo-feudalism. He is trying to set himself up as a dictator of a pseudo city-state unaccountable to the American constitution. It is fundamentally un-American and I think it makes a good argument against the ownership of private property (and I support private property). I predict his catholic utopia won't remain so for 5 years, if not, we should bomb it.

Can you post the article you read? Is it the one in Slate?

Jocko

27th February 2006, 07:43 AM

This is a version neo-feudalism. He is trying to set himself up as a dictator of a pseudo city-state unaccountable to the American constitution. It is fundamentally un-American and I think it makes a good argument against the ownership of private property (and I support private property). I predict his catholic utopia won't remain so for 5 years, if not, we should bomb it.

Can you post the article you read? Is it the one in Slate?

Tony, there are thousands of such communities there right now. I described them above. I used to live in one, in fact. Hated them myself.

I recommend you fuel up the Tony-1 Tactical Bomber, 'cuz you're gonna be busy for a while... even without this guy's Catholicville.

ceo_esq

27th February 2006, 07:53 AM

Can we make it mandatory that fundymentalists move there? Oh.. wow.. its just like heaven. So many fundies, so very far away. :mdance:

These people are conservative Catholics, not fundamentalists.

Manny

27th February 2006, 07:59 AM

Considering city-sized chunks of Florida already require you to be over 55 years of age to live there, this kind of thing is a non-issue. And that's the legally enforceable kind of discrimination - the unofficial kind is just as prevalent. At least this clown is going through the motions of making it official and buying his own land.For the record, the active-adult communities by and large also buy their own land before building the housing. They were created by law basically so that geezers wouldn't have to live with a bunch of damn kids crossing their lawns. Used to be that it was required that a community seeking exemption from the fair housing laws had to have all kinds of things like wide sidewalks and community centers and a minimum plaid pants penetration (not 100% sure on that last one). Now they pretty much just have to say "we're an active-adult community" and sell 80% of their units to people who have at least one person older than 55 in the household.

Charlie Monoxide

27th February 2006, 09:11 AM

This new development was in the news last week here in Orlando. The news story was that the businesses that setup in this new community are being highly encouraged, not to sell contraceptives of any sort.

I kinda like the idea of a community exclusively for Catholics. At least I know places where to avoid.

Charlie (kinda like Celebration Florida) Monoxide

Jocko

27th February 2006, 09:57 AM

These people are conservative Catholics, not fundamentalists.

You got that right. For the South, conservative Catholics are nowhere NEAR fundie. You gotta slip on over to the Pentacostals' church and handle a few serpents before you even approach the fringe of southern fundie.

TragicMonkey

27th February 2006, 09:57 AM

HarryKeogh

27th February 2006, 10:07 AM

Will Ave Maria invade Clearwater if provoked?

Tony

27th February 2006, 11:17 AM

TragicMonkey

27th February 2006, 11:41 AM

If it's not too much trouble or hard to find, could you post the article you read?

Found it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2058771,00.html

Monaghan has argued that the owners of the town’s commercial properties will be free to impose conditions in leases — notably the restriction on the sale of contraceptives. But that has been challenged by Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Simon said the US Supreme Court had already ruled “ownership [of a town] does not always mean absolute dominion”. “If he wants to build a town and encourage like-minded people to come and live there, that’s fine. We get into problems where he tries to exercise governmental authority.”

27th February 2006, 11:43 AM

Back to the feudal system, I guess.

sackett

27th February 2006, 12:30 PM

From the very lips of the Blessed Non-Martyr of Ann Arbor:

“I decided to take a ‘millionaire’s vow of poverty.’ I am focusing on God, family and Domino’s Pizza.”

Source: http://www.usdreams.com/Monaghan7677.html

Orwell

27th February 2006, 12:39 PM

TragicMonkey

27th February 2006, 01:18 PM

The thing I find most alarming of all is the quality of Domino's Pizza to start with. How on earth did such pizza manage to garner enough wealth for this person to purchase a single land lot, much less a whole town? He must have acquired his fortune in some other fashion. Perhaps Domino's Pizza is nothing but a front for money-laundering, or maybe if you order one with the correct code words they'll deliver crack and heroin to your door. I simply cannot believe people are willing to eat Domino's Pizza.

Cleon

27th February 2006, 01:24 PM

sackett

27th February 2006, 01:28 PM

Don’t be hard on Our Tommy. He did the right thing in the end.

“Since selling Domino's [Monaghan] has had more time to focus on the Legatus project. This is an association of Catholic Chief Executive Officers, which he was inspired to set up in 1987 after meeting with Pope John Paul II. Members of Legatus are invited to monthly meetings (along with their spouses) where they learn about their faith and about the insights of the Catholic Church on a range of social issues, including business ethics. Each meeting starts with prayer and opportunities for confession.”

Source: http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2000/feb2000p13_21.html

luchog

27th February 2006, 03:22 PM

No kidding. Domino's tastes like cardboard with tomato sauce.
McDonald's burgers, boxed macaroni and cheese, Hostess Twinkies, Kool-Aid, Velveeta, etc.

There's no end to the bland, nasty crap that Americans will eat. The more bland and nasty, the better.

Bjorn

27th February 2006, 03:40 PM

Tony, there are thousands of such communities there right now.You mean for 55 and older, don't you? AFAIK the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination "based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap".

CrossHair

27th February 2006, 04:21 PM

No kidding. Domino's tastes like cardboard with tomato sauce.

The major, huge, pizza chain here in Ottawa is a place called "pizza.pizza". You can't tun a corner anywhere around here without running into a "pizza.pizza" joint. Amazingly it is the most bland pizza I have ever tasted, and I have lived in many places across North America. However, one secret to Pizza sucess is Marketing and they are the best at that. They sponsor many of the local professional and amatuer teams and give away a free slice of pizza if the Ottawa Senators score 6 or more goals to those attending a home game (used to be 5 goals but they were giving away too much pizza). Also, bland taste is an advantage because most people will tire of pizza that has a particular taste.

Elind

27th February 2006, 05:59 PM

I just saw an article that Domino's Piza magnate Tom Monaghan is creating (created?) a town/university in Florida called 'Ave Maria' in which the inhabitants must adhere to a strick Catholic life-style. How is this to be enforced I wonder? Anyone for the Florida Inquisition?
Seems as if another Billionaire is trying to buy their way to heaven.

Yeah, so much for US multicultiralism. All the Papists just want to have their own millionaire ghettos so they can get away from everyone else. Pretty damn pitiful, as are all those who want to live there.

ceo_esq

27th February 2006, 07:06 PM

Tony

27th February 2006, 07:09 PM

You knew that the emboldened term is an offensive slur, right?

Really? How do you pronounce it? I've never heard of that term.

I strongly recommend not using it here.

I don't see why not, we use "fundy" and "woo-woo" on a daily basis.

TragicMonkey

27th February 2006, 07:09 PM

You knew that the emboldened term is an offensive slur, right? I strongly recommend not using it here.

I prefer the more old-fashioned "Popish". Has more of an air to it.

Ladewig

27th February 2006, 07:18 PM

Will the town also have its own internet service provider?

McDonald's burgers, boxed macaroni and cheese, Hostess Twinkies, Kool-Aid, Velveeta, etc.

I'm told most American beer falls into that category

ceo_esq

27th February 2006, 07:27 PM

Really? How do you pronounce it? I've never heard of that term.

Rhymes with "rapist", so far as I know. Yes, ha-ha. Here's the Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papist) on it.

I don't see why not, we use "fundy" and "woo-woo" on a daily basis.

The second isn't a religious slur. The first arguably is, but I couldn't say that it is generally considered offensive in common speech. Still, probably best to avoid it, now that you mention it. At any rate, it's not too germane to the specific point. Anything that shows up here, notwithstanding the disclaimer about posters' individual opinions, has the potential to reflect on JREF, and the last thing we want is for posts to be populated with widely perceived slurs.

I prefer the more old-fashioned "Popish". Has more of an air to it.

So far as I know, that term has been in use for about the same period of time. It's also mentioned in the same Wikipedia entry, and is also probably something to avoid here.

Tony

27th February 2006, 07:32 PM

An article on the subject.

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/04761831.asp

Tony

27th February 2006, 07:37 PM

The second isn't a religious slur.

I don't see why not. It is no different than Popish and Papist.

The first arguably is, but I couldn't say that it is generally considered offensive in common speech.

Popish and Papist aren't offensive in common speech. I bet if I habitually and casually used the word Papist on a daily basis, 95% of people wouldn't know what the hell I was talking about.

Still, probably best to avoid it, now that you mention it. At any rate, it's not too germane to the specific point. Anything that shows up here, notwithstanding the disclaimer about posters' individual opinions, has the potential to reflect on JREF, and the last thing we want is for posts to be populated with widely perceived slurs.

I don't think it would come as a shocker to most people that the JREF is non-catholic or anti-catholic.

Giz

27th February 2006, 07:52 PM

You knew that the emboldened term is an offensive slur, right? I strongly recommend not using it here.

Why is it an offensive term? It seems quite accurate (supporter of the papacy = papist).

Sounds like people are being a little hypersensitive - it's not as if anyone's singed your beard, right?

TragicMonkey

27th February 2006, 07:59 PM

The term was used disparagingly back in its heyday. It's an antiquated usage today. Only the well-read would recognize it as having been offensive once, and only some of them would find it offensive now. Whether a term is offensive is going to depend on how it's being used. I'd say there's no point in attempting to revive either "Popish" or "Papist" as a non-derogatory word because a) there's already a perfectly suitable word ("Catholic") for that, and b) the words' histories are against them.

Giz

27th February 2006, 08:23 PM

The term was used disparagingly back in its heyday. It's an antiquated usage today. Only the well-read would recognize it as having been offensive once, and only some of them would find it offensive now.

Back in its heyday being when Francis Drake and Errol Flynn were liberating bullion galleons from the Spaniards (can I say "Spaniard" - I don't want to cause offense... honest).

It's a historic term, its emotive power has died out long ago, neither does it carry the oppresive history of the n-word (nor are catholics socio-economically disadvantaged in the present day and in need of extra word police coming to their rescue).

I just can't believe it raised anyones hackles enough to potest about it. But then they've been prickly ever since the Treaty of Tordesillas went sour.

Orwell

27th February 2006, 08:35 PM

You knew that the emboldened term is an offensive slur, right? I strongly recommend not using it here.

This is silly. I was raised catholic , and I can't fathom why the word "papist" is offensive. It's like calling someone "wasp" or something like that.

Your "papist" sensitivities are a bit quaint, ceo.

ceo_esq

27th February 2006, 10:04 PM

I don't see why not. It is no different than Popish and Papist.

You don't see why "woo-woo" isn't exactly a religious slur?

Popish and Papist aren't offensive in common speech.

They aren't commonly employed terms (partly because they are considered offensive). But that doesn't matter. I think Wikipedia got it right when it said "considered offensive in contemporary speech".

I bet if I habitually and casually used the word Papist on a daily basis, 95% of people wouldn't know what the hell I was talking about.

That might happen even if you didn't use the word. (Just kidding!) But does that dispose of the issue?

I don't think it would come as a shocker to most people that the JREF is non-catholic or anti-catholic.

I think the JREF would have some objections to the second part. But let's assume that what you say as true (at least as applied to the forum members, rather than the JREF itself) - so we're generally either not members of the group targeted by the slur, or else religious bigots, or both. That hardly helps matters.

Why is it an offensive term? It seems quite accurate (supporter of the papacy = papist).

Certain other slurs have some directly or indirectly accurate descriptive basis, but do we generally try to justify their continued use on that ground?

Sounds like people are being a little hypersensitive - it's not as if anyone's singed your beard, right?

I suppose you're right. Feel free to use any slurs as long as they don't technically refer to me.

Your "papist" sensitivities are a bit quaint, ceo.

The fact that this is indisputably a term regarded by many (the number includes persons not belonging to the targeted group and excludes some within it) as offensive has zero to do with my sensibilities. Did I say that I found it personally offensive? I simply recommended against its use here, and this both for eminently practical reasons and for sheer courtesy.

ceo_esq

27th February 2006, 10:13 PM

The article I read mentioned that previous Supreme Court cases has ruled that proprietorship of a town does not convey the level of control this guy seems to want to wield. I'm not familiar with those cases...is anybody?

I forgot to respond to this earlier. One famous case that leaps to mind is Marsh v. Alabama, involving a steel company town. There's a second line of cases I think are relevant which involved shopping malls, including Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner.

shecky

27th February 2006, 10:13 PM

I don't think I've ever actually heard the word "papist" spoken at all, except in movies. Let alone in a derogatory manner. Then again, I haven't spent much time in the UK.

If anything, I think Monaghan's ideas may bring "papist", as a derogatory word, back into vogue in the US.

Beady

27th February 2006, 10:54 PM

Meanwhile, Ave Maria Law School, which seems to be something of a success early in its life, is hopping mad about the prospect of being moved from Ann Arbor, MI down to the Naples area. Stay tuned for many more chapters in this soap opera.

I was just down there a week ago, and I can see why. I don't know what the average income is, down there, but property values are literally through the roof. Took a tour, and the average home I saw was probably in the $1 million range. Ann Arbor salaries probably are going to be inadequate for normal living.

Beady

27th February 2006, 10:59 PM

Members of Legatus are invited to monthly meetings (along with their spouses) where they learn about their faith and about the insights of the Catholic Church on a range of social issues, including business ethics.

That's just what they want you to think. In reality, Legatus is a Catholic counter to the Illuminati, and the actual meetings involve subverting the New World Order.

Mephisto

27th February 2006, 11:00 PM

I think I've already made this joke but here it goes anyway: wanna make a quick buck? Install a vid store with a XXX section, a pharmacy selling birth control and an abortion clinic outside county lines.

Be sure to run a weekly sale on Viagra at the pharmacy, along with a Two4Tuesday where a copy of your Baptismal certificate or last week's church bulletin can get you a double dose along with a complimentary jar of hand lotion and the current month's issue of "Chunky Butts" magazine.

Tony

28th February 2006, 02:27 AM

That might happen even if you didn't use the word. (Just kidding!) But does that dispose of the issue?

Yes.

so we're generally either not members of the group targeted by the slur, or else religious bigots, or both. That hardly helps matters.

That is a false dichotomy, and I don't see how we could be religious bigots, especially since we're not religious.

sackett

28th February 2006, 06:36 AM

That's just what they want you to think. In reality, Legatus is a Catholic counter to the Illuminati, and the actual meetings involve subverting the New World Order.

And while we're laffing and chaffing over "papist," T. Monaghan and the boyos may be up to tricks just about as sinister as you could imagine.

I like visualizing those Legatus Project meetings: God’s plenty of fine prosperous businessmen, sittin’ down to cabbage and corned beef, with the little ladies at their own table, bedad, and layin’ out plans for the greater glory ‘n upliftin’ of Our Sacred Mother the Church. Can you think of that? Jazus and it would make your heart thrill like an alarm clock.

sackett

28th February 2006, 06:40 AM

Wow, a prickly exchange over that antiquated slur!

As for T. Monaghan, if he ain’t a mackeral-snapping, ring-sucking, Latin-mangling papist mofo, then they don’t make ‘em anymore. And I’m sure he doesn’t care one little bit about us and you and me.

I looooove! religious insults. There’s nothing ethnic about them. You can’t be born a Cathlick; you have to make yourself into one, or at least consent to be raised that way, and if disparaging references to the Bishop of Rome offend you,

then I’m very sorry.

ceo_esq

28th February 2006, 08:10 AM

Yes.

The question was sort of rhetorically intended, since correct answer is obviously "no."

That is a false dichotomy, and I don't see how we could be religious bigots, especially since we're not religious.

As to the first part, it was your dichotomy (either "non-Catholic" or "anti-Catholic"). I didn't make it. As to the second part, obviously "religious" in that context means something like "with respect to or on the basis of religion".

Cleon

28th February 2006, 08:14 AM

Well, if anyone doesn't think "Papist" is derogatory, I would ask them to take a stroll around The Falls road in Belfast and ask someone if they're a Papist. I'm sure the response will be interesting.

The question of whether it's appropriate to this forum, considering we use "woo" and "fundy" regularly, is another question.

sackett

28th February 2006, 09:02 AM

[QUOTE=Cleon;1475600]Well, if anyone doesn't think "Papist" is derogatory, I would ask them to take a stroll around The Falls road in Belfast and ask someone if they're a Papist. I'm sure the response will be interesting.…QUOTE]

Reading you number one, Cleon. But let’s remember that those people have little else going for them but their Catholic identity. Further, they still live in a seventeenth-century world of genuine religious war.

As for Tom Monaghan: Sure and it would be uncharitably wrong of us to hint that the bold Tommy has a wee little streak of the dictator in him, begob.

Google on this Little Brother of the Poor and you get 67,600 sites. He’s well known here in Michigan. I want to make a remark about a puffed-up tradesman who made money and now is utterly cocksure that everything he wants should come to him, with no questions asked, no opposition, and no dirty damned Protestant laws getting in his way – but that might give offense to a luking Catholic or two, and bring shame upon JREF.

ceo_esq

1st March 2006, 06:09 PM

Reading you number one, Cleon. But let’s remember that those people have little else going for them but their Catholic identity. Further, they still live in a seventeenth-century world of genuine religious war.

Not to stray even further from the topic, but the Troubles are not really a religious conflict.

TragicMonkey

1st March 2006, 06:14 PM

Not to stray even further from the topic, but the Troubles are not really a religious conflict.

How many religious conflicts really are religious conflicts, and not political or economic ones where one or both sides grabs religion as an excuse? Sunni versus Shiite in Iraq, for example...is it really about interpretations of Islam, or is it about control of the country (and all that delicious calorie-rich oil!)?

Elind

1st March 2006, 09:28 PM

You knew that the emboldened term is an offensive slur, right? I strongly recommend not using it here.
Stongly recommend away, all you want.

Papist was meant as slur to those who think they should build their own little ghettos to get away from all the nasty influences of others.

Do you know what you should do if you don't like hearing that "here"?

ceo_esq

2nd March 2006, 09:16 AM

Do you know what you should do if you don't like hearing that "here"?

Encourage you to meditate on the membership guidelines and on the relationship between the JREF's wider interests and the appearance of sectarian slurs on the forum? No? Are we setting the bar too high?

ceo_esq

2nd March 2006, 09:51 AM

How many religious conflicts really are religious conflicts, and not political or economic ones where one or both sides grabs religion as an excuse?

Good question - possibly many - but I'm not sure that the participants in the modern Northern Ireland conflict even grab religion as an excuse, by and large, although there are surely religious bigots on both sides.

Mark

2nd March 2006, 10:01 AM

Jeb Bush has already come out in favor of this. Just so you know.

“This is a historic day, not only for Ave Maria University and Town, but also for Collier County and the State of Florida,” Governor Bush said. “This new town is the result of many years of work and partnership between state and local government and landowners to develop the Rural Lands Stewardship Program in Eastern Collier County. We thank the leadership of Ave Maria University for choosing Florida as the home for this new world class academic institution.”
http://www.naples.avemaria.edu/newscenter/newsdetail.asp?newsID=130

Complexity

2nd March 2006, 10:05 AM

All the Papists just want to have their own millionaire ghettos so they can get away from everyone else.

You knew that the emboldened term is an offensive slur, right? I strongly recommend not using it here.
ceo_esq - Quit being a control freak and a woo. Are you a papist, too?

The damned papists have nearly wet themselves in their haste to consign me to hell. You 'strongly recommend' that we not use an accurate term, 'papist', to describe them because it might offend them.

I hope it does.

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend.

TragicMonkey

2nd March 2006, 10:12 AM

Nobody's saying you can't offend. Just that we ought to be civilized about it.

The term "papist" is inappropriate in an argument against the Catholic stance on homosexuality anyway, as it is a specifically Protestant epithet used to express their disdain for the Catholic doctrine of having a pope.

sackett

2nd March 2006, 11:17 AM

Once an English missionary was walking down a street in Chendu, China. A little Chinese boy ran behind him, crying out “Foreign devil! Foreign devil!” At last the missionary rounded on the child, and in perfect Mandarin scolded him for his rudeness. When he finally ran out of wind, the boy looked at him and asked, “Well, if I can’t call you a foreign devil, what can I call you?”

But I concede that when it comes to epithets denoting nationality, race, or creed it’s the receiver, not the sender, who gets to call an out-of-bounds. I just imagined that “papist” was so very old-fashioned, even obsolete, that nobody could get huffy over it.

That was my fault and I admit it. I know better than anyone that Cardinal Ceo can home in on a Catholic topic like a – like a hawk on a chicken. Yeah, that’s a fairly flattering simile.

ceo_esq

2nd March 2006, 11:24 AM

ceo_esq - Quit being a control freak and a woo.

That's the first time anyone's ever described me as a "woo", to my knowledge. I realize, of course, that you're a relative newcomer here and may not understand what the term woo generally signifies.

Are you a papist, too?

Oh, please. You should hear what you sound like now. What kind of question is that? If I'd suggested that it might not be a good idea to throw around anti-Jewish epithets on this forum, would you now be asking me "Are you one too? Or just a Jew-lover?"

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend.

Technically true, but irrelevant in this context. Sounds good, though, doesn't it?

sackett

2nd March 2006, 11:47 AM

Don't try it on with ceo_esq unless you're having a really good day.

He smile like a angel but he bite like a gator. Or the other way around? Anyway.

joobie

2nd March 2006, 12:07 PM

No kidding. Domino's tastes like cardboard with tomato sauce.

well yeah, but you can buy 3 of them for $15.

Complexity

2nd March 2006, 12:10 PM

Don't try it on with ceo_esq unless you're having a really good day.

He smile like a angel but he bite like a gator. Or the other way around? Anyway.
I'm having a great day. He already is fully aware of what I think of him, and why. We seem to have agreed to maintain a low level of contempt for each other.

sackett

2nd March 2006, 12:13 PM

Okay, the penny finally dropped: OF COURSE a pizza manufacturer would back a 24/7 Catholic enclave! Think of the market for holy wafers! That Church of the Sixty-Five Foot Crux will need a triple-width loading dock just to handle them!

sackett

2nd March 2006, 12:22 PM

We’re told that Tom Monaghastly is putting $250 mil US of his own money into his Have a Maria project. I wonder:

1. Is anybody else chipping in?
2. Do they expect a return on their money?
3. If they do realize a profit, how much goes to the Church?

If a heretic may be so bold as to wonder?

Cleon

2nd March 2006, 12:29 PM

well yeah, but you can buy 3 of them for $15.

There's not enough weed in North America to give me the munchies that badly.

ceo_esq

2nd March 2006, 12:32 PM

[ceo_esq] already is fully aware of what I think of him, and why. We seem to have agreed to maintain a low level of contempt for each other.

By no means do I hold you in any degree of contempt, Complexity. I hoped I had made that clear in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1461811#post1461811). You have my respect and not infrequently my admiration. A little verbal sparring here and there does not detract from this; to the contrary, in fact.

Elind

2nd March 2006, 04:25 PM

Encourage you to meditate on the membership guidelines and on the relationship between the JREF's wider interests and the appearance of sectarian slurs on the forum? No? Are we setting the bar too high?
Give me a break. Address the issue. There is plenty of fun made of religion, particularly the fanatical kind as this thread is about, even though it happens to be papist instead of islamist.

Tell us what bar you are setting, please. No offense to anyone perhaps?

Should I show you some Papist cartoons?

Elind

2nd March 2006, 04:30 PM

Nobody's saying you can't offend. Just that we ought to be civilized about it.

How do you do that, from the perspective of the offended, that is?:confused:

TragicMonkey

2nd March 2006, 04:31 PM

Give me a break. Address the issue. There is plenty of fun made of religion, particularly the fanatical kind as this thread is about, even though it happens to be papist instead of islamist.

Tell us what bar you are setting, please. No offense to anyone perhaps?

Should I show you some Papist cartoons?

Are you really not able to distinguish between mocking something, and using an unacceptable slur? One can mock Judaism without utilizing the epithet Michael Jackson famously did in a song. The point some are making is that the word is offensive in itself. By all means, criticize away at Catholics and Catholicism. But you don't have to use the term "papist" to do so.

TragicMonkey

2nd March 2006, 04:33 PM

How do you do that, from the perspective of the offended, that is?:confused:

Choose your words better, is all. It's the vocabulary that's objectionable.

Elind

2nd March 2006, 05:33 PM

Are you really not able to distinguish between mocking something, and using an unacceptable slur? One can mock Judaism without utilizing the epithet Michael Jackson famously did in a song. The point some are making is that the word is offensive in itself. By all means, criticize away at Catholics and Catholicism. But you don't have to use the term "papist" to do so.

But you just said "papist":confused:

I mock all those Catholics who would try to create their own little commune away from the rest of us, protestants, jews, atheists and all the others. I'll call them papists if I wish, which in my experience only means those who have a particular fondness for the Pope. I'm not Irish and as such it has no sectarian meaning as it might in the Isles. Does that help?

TragicMonkey

2nd March 2006, 05:49 PM

I mock all those Catholics who would try to create their own little commune away from the rest of us, protestants, jews, atheists and all the others.

Go ahead, nobody's stopping you.

I'll call them papists if I wish,

You have a right to do so. You also have the right to call black people "*******". Would you?

which in my experience

Irrelevant. It's the experience of others that counts when communicating. The term may not mean much to you, but it does to some of your audience.

only means those who have a particular fondness for the Pope. I'm not Irish and as such it has no sectarian meaning as it might in the Isles.

Then why adopt a term alien to your own culture, which is an offensive term in the culture in which it is used? How about "Paki"? It's not a rude term in the US; it's not used here at all. Yet where it IS used, it's offensive. Is there any point in coopting a slur from another culture, and attempting to redefine it as nonoffensive, claiming that in your culture it doesn't mean anything offensive?

Does that help?

It's clear that you simply don't care. The irony is that you hurt yourself and your arguments by using the term, because all of your criticisms of Catholicism, legitimate or not, will be dismissed out of hand as anti-Catholic bigotry. When you choose to adopt the vocabulary of bigots, it suggests you aren't interested in civil or rational discourse.

Elind

2nd March 2006, 09:06 PM

It's clear that you simply don't care. The irony is that you hurt yourself and your arguments by using the term, because all of your criticisms of Catholicism, legitimate or not, will be dismissed out of hand as anti-Catholic bigotry. When you choose to adopt the vocabulary of bigots, it suggests you aren't interested in civil or rational discourse.

You are engaging in purely emotional, not rational, discourse.

Any rational catholic will not be offended and I do not think the word is as derogatory as you think, nor was it made in a blanket condemnation as you keep suggesting.

I am expressing contempt of those who would withdraw from society to the extent that creating a town for "them" primarily. That can be applied to other groups too, but this discussion is about this one only.

You sound like just another one who thinks all beliefs should be respected just because they are beliefs, and then rant on about bigotry as if all that is, is saying a word in a specific context.

You obviously are one who dismisses all argument if you run into a word you think is not nice. Sounds an awful lot like those who stop thinking when they just hear about some cartoons.

.

TragicMonkey

2nd March 2006, 09:28 PM

You are engaging in purely emotional, not rational, discourse.

Am I? What is rational about deliberately adopting a term alien to your culture, which is highly offensive in the culture in which it is used? The only logical reason to do so would be to piss people off.

Any rational catholic will not be offended and I do not think the word is as derogatory as you think, nor was it made in a blanket condemnation as you keep suggesting.

And you could say the same thing about any epithet. Would that make it true?

I am expressing contempt of those who would withdraw from society to the extent that creating a town for "them" primarily. That can be applied to other groups too, but this discussion is about this one only.

Again, I don't care what you're arguing. I'm merely pointing out that the term you're using to do so is offensive.

You sound like just another one who thinks all beliefs should be respected just because they are beliefs, and then rant on about bigotry as if all that is, is saying a word in a specific context.

You are mistaken. And again, if you deliberately adopt the vocabulary of bigots, the result is to be tarred with the same brush. Why are you so attached to using the term, if it means nothing?

You obviously are one who dismisses all argument if you run into a word you think is not nice. Sounds an awful lot like those who stop thinking when they just hear about some cartoons.

You don't know me at all. And again, why are you so insistent on using that particular term? If you're not a bigoted anti-Catholic, why are you deliberately taking steps to sound like one?

Elind

3rd March 2006, 05:25 PM

[quote] Papist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papist#column-one), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papist#searchInput)
Papist is a slur referring to "Roman Catholics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholics)". It was coined during the English Reformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation) to indicate one who believed in Papal supremacy over all Christians. Over time, as the political nature of the struggle between Protestants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant) and Roman Catholics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic) became heated, it became a pejorative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative) for Roman Catholics. The word ultimately derives from Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) papa, meaning "Pope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope)". "Popish" is an adjective used much in the same vein.

Since we seem to be in a debate about semantics and their offensiveness, as opposed to the topic of the thread, the above certainly defines the word as a "slur", which is what you object to so vehemently.

Yet, my entire point was specifically and quite obviously, I think, to "slur" only those who wish to label themselves as different and outside all others by creating their own little commune for their own kind. I don't for a moment think that applies to all Catholics, and I've already made that quite clear.

Why you persist to so strongly object to this opinion, by the use of a very specifically directed word, is puzzling to me. They, those who want to isiolate themselves in this way, are very well well described by that word, PAPIST.

If you are not one, what is your problem? If you are one, that IS your problem.

And you could say the same thing about any epithet. Would that make it true?

That depends on the context and how presented. I hear the word ****** used all the time in movies, on TV and in some neighborhoods. Mostly it is used as a term of belonging, sometimes not, but you have never heard me say it in the NOT context.

Again, I don't care what you're arguing. I'm merely pointing out that the term you're using to do so is offensive.

I'm pointing out that you are stuck on semantics without context or meaning.

You are mistaken. And again, if you deliberately adopt the vocabulary of bigots, the result is to be tarred with the same brush. Why are you so attached to using the term, if it means nothing?
I'm not attached to it. You are attached to getting emotional about it. I used it to denigrate a particular attitude that I think deserves that. I have yet to hear you address that primary issue.

You don't know me at all. And again, why are you so insistent on using that particular term? If you're not a bigoted anti-Catholic, why are you deliberately taking steps to sound like one?
I'm not insistent. I used it once and have ever since defended that use thanks only to your sensitivities. As to Catholics, aside from their veneration of Icons (Muslims beware), they are just another religion, but one with one very distiguishing aspect that I admire, even sometimes reluctantly, and that is that they don't denigrate science like many others. They accept their god as designing evolution. That makes them about the most civilized of the Christian sects, excepting the papist isolationists of course.

:boggled:

TragicMonkey

3rd March 2006, 06:16 PM

Yet, my entire point was specifically and quite obviously, I think, to "slur" only those who wish to label themselves as different and outside all others by creating their own little commune for their own kind. I don't for a moment think that applies to all Catholics, and I've already made that quite clear.

But that's not what the word "papist" means. The slur is a slur against all Catholics. You can't use it then say "I only meant those Catholics". That's not how language works; you don't get to change the meanings of words as you please.

Why you persist to so strongly object to this opinion, by the use of a very specifically directed word, is puzzling to me. They, those who want to isiolate themselves in this way, are very well well described by that word, PAPIST.

No, they are not. The term means "Catholic", not "this particular bunch of Catholics". If you wanted to criticize Israeli politicians, could you call them "kikes", then act perplexed when people object and say "I didn't mean Jews in other places, just Israel's leaders"?

If you are not one, what is your problem? If you are one, that IS your problem.

Some people like civility, regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

I'm pointing out that you are stuck on semantics without context or meaning.

Are a deconstructionist? Words have meaning, and history. If you make a sloppy vocabulary choice, don't expect to get out of the flak by attempting to redefine a word to mean something else.

I'm not attached to it. You are attached to getting emotional about it. I used it to denigrate a particular attitude that I think deserves that. I have yet to hear you address that primary issue.

Because I'm not interested in discussing that. I merely wished to point out the incivility of your terminology, and since then have been attempting to explain why you shouldn't use it.

I'm not insistent. I used it once and have ever since defended that use thanks only to your sensitivities.

It's called an argument. We disagree over the propriety of the use of a term. As long as you persist in defending the use of that term, I will persist in arguing against it. If you wish to stop, then either agree to disagree or concede the point.

As to Catholics, aside from their veneration of Icons (Muslims beware), they are just another religion, but one with one very distiguishing aspect that I admire, even sometimes reluctantly, and that is that they don't denigrate science like many others. They accept their god as designing evolution. That makes them about the most civilized of the Christian sects, excepting the papist isolationists of course.

What do you expect, that Catholics everywhere will be thrilled by your endorsement? Enough to overlook your perplexing fondness for the vocabulary of anti-Catholics?

supercorgi

3rd March 2006, 06:58 PM

TragicMonkey

3rd March 2006, 07:15 PM

Personally, I prefer the term "idolater" but then again, I guess that refers to more religions than Catholicism. :D

They're not idols, they're just statues. Meant to help foster piety by allowing the faithful to reflect on the holy lives of the gods. Saints! I mean, saints! Not gods. No relation to pagan gods at all. Saints. Good, clean, Christian saints. Yep.

Orwell

3rd March 2006, 07:56 PM

I dunno, to me, being called a papist is kind of like being called a scalawag: an old insult that lost meaning because of its archaic nature.

Elind

4th March 2006, 05:01 PM

It's called an argument. We disagree over the propriety of the use of a term. As long as you persist in defending the use of that term, I will persist in arguing against it. If you wish to stop, then either agree to disagree or concede the point.

OK. So we get to the nitty gritty (old enough term for you?)

You are disinterested in discussing what I wanted to discuss, but instead wish to gnaw on how I said it, whatever.

It seems to me that you have a problem with sensitivity to what is commonly called PC. No antibiotics available for that I'm afraid.

PC is a terrible affliction, I'll admit. Clouds everything in a fog of conflicting emotions.

There is however a way to a cure, and it's called understanding context and intent. Unfortunately, however, if one is incapable of distinguishing context and intent from one's own preconceived anticipations of context and intent, then one is truly screwed. The world will continue to revolve around one's own fantasies in a narrowing spiral until the very end:eye-poppi

I'm sorry, but there is nothing more I can do. Perhaps exercise might help. Ever try hiking?

Elind

4th March 2006, 05:03 PM

I dunno, to me, being called a papist is kind of like being called a scalawag: an old insult that lost meaning because of its archaic nature.

But there can be great weight to age, don't you think?

JamesM

4th March 2006, 05:15 PM

I take it that 'Romish Pumpkin' is also beyond the pale?

Zbu

4th March 2006, 05:45 PM

I was just down there a week ago, and I can see why. I don't know what the average income is, down there, but property values are literally through the roof. Took a tour, and the average home I saw was probably in the $1 million range. Ann Arbor salaries probably are going to be inadequate for normal living.

Actually, Ave Maria is located in Ypsilanti, Michigan, right next to Eastern Michigan University. Despite being close to each other, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti are very different when it comes to living. Ann Arbor (especially around the University of Michigan) is very high priced--for very little reason, IMO) and Ypsilanti is pretty much a low-income ghetto once you get out of EMU campus and the farther from Ann Arbor. Thanks to urban sprawl, you can get cheaper housing but everything popping up around here in Washtenaw County starts at $150,000 and goes screaming upwards. But Ave Maria isn't in Ann Arbor, it's a crappy little one-story building that sits right on the eastern side of EMU campus. Occasionally you'll see someone in a habit going back and forth on the campus while going to class.

But honestly, Ave Maria University up here is notorious for having money problems and not getting attendance. I don't fancy their chances in a town of its own making which seems to want a giant hand in how its run but if they want to waste their money and time on making, filling up, and then dealing with the resultant lawsuits, let them. It just seems doomed to failure.

TragicMonkey

4th March 2006, 06:06 PM

OK. So we get to the nitty gritty (old enough term for you?)

You are disinterested in discussing what I wanted to discuss, but instead wish to gnaw on how I said it, whatever.

I'm so sorry you feel the need to control a conversation. If you don't want people to take issue with terminology, employ different terminology.

It seems to me that you have a problem with sensitivity to what is commonly called PC. No antibiotics available for that I'm afraid.

PC is a terrible affliction, I'll admit. Clouds everything in a fog of conflicting emotions.

I would hardly characterize a objecting to a single offensive term as "PC". But it is a very convenient ad hominem to throw out when someone takes you to task for using the vocabulary of bigotry. If you wish to present a case for me being an advocate of "PC" or "PC language", feel free to scour the board for my other posts.

There is however a way to a cure, and it's called understanding context and intent. Unfortunately, however, if one is incapable of distinguishing context and intent from one's own preconceived anticipations of context and intent, then one is truly screwed. The world will continue to revolve around one's own fantasies in a narrowing spiral until the very end:eye-poppi

Yes, it's so ridiculous for me to think a word means what it means, and that a single individual can't redefine any given word at his whim, and strip it of whatever history or connotation it has.

You're an idiot. But don't complain to the mods; you don't know how I mean the word "idiot". Perhaps I've redefined it to mean something else, and taking offense at it would be a ludicrous example of "political correctness" run amok. Fatty.

schplurg

5th March 2006, 08:20 AM

I admit that the teram Papist is new to me, so I consulted Dictionary.com.

****** (censored by the BB)
Offensive Slang Used as a disparaging term for a Black person

Papist
Offensive. Used as a disparaging term for a Roman Catholic.

Disparaging
To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle

Note that the term "Papist" is not censored above, for whatever that is worth. I personally doubt that this term carries the same weight as the 'n' word in most places, but perhaps I am wrong. Maybe Elind is unaware, as was I, as to the magnitude of offense that this term carries. It seems so after reading this thread, though I don't want to speak for Elind. As I stated, I have never even heard the term.

As for the actual topic of this thread, I just learned of this new "town" today on the radio and came here to learn more and read some opinions. I'm afraid I don't have much to add yet, except that at first glance, some of this sounds unconstitutional.