From: chris_pimbury{at}yahoo.com

On Mar 25, 6:54 pm, "CE"  wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2:43 pm, chris_pimb...{at}yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 11:46 am, "CE"  wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 24, 8:55 pm, chris_pimb...{at}yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > 
>
> > > > I'd be very surprised if a woman bishop would ever put
> > > > a known pedophile in a position where they would have access to
> > > > children.
>
> > > > Chris
>
> > > A sexist comment.
>
> > A knee-jerk reaction.
>
> > Do you not think that woman would bring a different perspective to the
> > priesthood? Is my holding such an opinion sexist?
>
> > Personally, I thought sexism was about discrimination rather than
> > acknowledging strengths and weaknesses.
>
> Sexism is discrimination or devaluation based on a person's gender.

By your definition the male-only priesthood is sexist.

> When you suggest that male bishops are somehow less capable of doing
> their jobs because they are men, that's discrimination based on their
> gender.

My opinion is that woman would bring _different_ things to the priesthood
and that in doing so they would bring equal value to the role.

>It's sexism. Since that is your opinion, your opinion is
> sexist.

I don't see how the above view is sexist.

Returning to the comment you attacked - do you think that a woman bishop
would have put a known pedophile in a position where they would have access
to children?

Chris

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag