Feminists can be Christians, too

[kwassa]

61. It is too bad you can't point out what is wrong.

You talk endlessly about fallacy, but never, ever prove it. You use it, essentially, as a broad-brush insult without substantiation.

Since you complain that I didn't address your five points, which weren't points, I will address them.


1. Wikipedia has serious problems with accuracy, especially when (as in this case) the reference materials are not all readily available online for fact checking.

Um, no. Disprove the specific quote. Until then, you have no cause to complain.

2. Even if #1 wasn't a problem, you're quoting and linking to an article that makes my point. Go read it in its entirety. You'll see that every major heading under Christianity describes an inequality between women and men.

I don't see that under ever heading. Sorry.

3. The ability of a member of a victimized class to rise to a position of power in no way demonstrates that the victimization of that class is "over." That is, unless you're one of those people who thinks that having a black President means we're now a "post-racial society."

It does, however, indicate major progress, which you would have us believe doesn't exist, just as Obama's election to the Presidency is gigantic progress.

4. Branching off of #3: Ordination is one small piece of religion. Even if we threw out the other points I've made so far, using a laser beam focus on ordination to try and claim that religion (especially Christianity) is somehow a bastion of sexual equality is a badly flawed argument.

Ordination is the power position of religion, the highest power that can be found in a religious denomination. Your attempt to minimize it is absurd. I never said that Christianity is a bastion of sexual equality; this is simply one more example of you erecting another straw man, a statement I never made, for you to attack.

5. On the topic of ordination, the article you link to weakens the word considerably. Ordination is a formal process by which certain members of a denomination put in the time and effort to learn about their faith, and then are recognized for it. The article, when referring to protestant churches, treats church elections as an ordination process. That is just plain incorrect. And when you don't stretch the meaning of ordination to mean "any process by which someone begins leading a congregation," you find that half of protestant denominations don't even have ordination. Again, Wikipedia and accuracy...

You misread the passage, and create your own conditions for ordination, which are yours and yours alone. The quote about elections is in addition to study, not instead of study. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is elected, as are all bishops. This does not mean that they haven't graduated from a seminary and gone through all the processed to be ordained, and haven't served in a variety of roles before they were elevated to various positions in the church.