No, no, no — we were fine with D’Souza’s racism, but the adultery is upsetting

LifeWay Christian book stores still carry Dinesh D’Souza’s books. For now.

The journalistic scoop belongs to Warren Cole Smith of the very conservative World magazine, so we’ll quote from his report first:

About 2,000 people gathered on Sept. 28 at First Baptist North in Spartanburg, S.C., to hear high-profile Christians speak on defending the faith and applying a Christian worldview to their lives. Among the speakers: Eric Metaxas, Josh McDowell, and — keynote speaker for the evening — best-selling author, filmmaker, and Christian college president Dinesh D’Souza.

Dinesh D’Souza says anti-colonialism is un-American. He even says this in D.C., in a city named after George Washington.

D’Souza’s speech earned him a standing ovation and a long line at the book-signing table immediately afterward. Although D’Souza has been married for 20 years to his wife, Dixie, in South Carolina he was with a young woman, Denise Odie Joseph II,* and introduced her to at least three people as his fiancée.

Finally, near 11 p.m., event organizer Tony Beam escorted D’Souza and Joseph to the nearby Comfort Suites. Beam noted that they checked in together and were apparently sharing a room for the night in the sold-out hotel. The next morning, around 6 a.m., Beam arrived back at the hotel and called up to D’Souza’s room. “We’ll be down in 10 minutes,” D’Souza told Beam. D’Souza and Joseph came down together, and Beam took them to the airport.

The next day another conference organizer, Alex McFarland, distressed by D’Souza’s behavior, confronted him in a telephone conversation. D’Souza admitted he shared a room with his fiancée but said “nothing happened.” When I called D’Souza, he confirmed that he was indeed engaged to Joseph, but did not explain how he could be engaged to one woman while still married to another. When asked when he had filed for divorce from his wife, Dixie, D’Souza answered, “Recently.”

Amy Sullivan describes “The Right-wing Rivalry Behind” that scoop:

Needless to say, this sort of thing is frowned upon in the conservative religious circles in which D’Souza is usually celebrated. So it is perhaps unsurprising that the story was broken by Warren C. Smith, a writer and associate publisher for the evangelical World magazine. The publication has a history of covering problems within the evangelical world, and it has not shied away from stories about preacher scandals or church abuse of women. But this particular story may have interested the magazine for a different reason: World’s editor-in-chief is Marvin Olasky, the sometime Bush advisor who is no fan of D’Souza.

Olasky served, briefly, as provost of The King’s College. He resigned shortly after D’Souza became the school’s president. Read the whole thing for Sullivan’s take on the nasty history between these two nasty men.

Christianity Today’s report notes that “D’Souza has regularly appeared in CT’s pages.” One example of that is CT’s report on D’Souza’s hiring at King’s, which emphasized that the conservative activist’s Roman Catholic faith should not preclude him from membership in the evangelical tribe:

D’Souza’s wife, Dixie, is an evangelical, and the family has attended Calvary Chapel, a nondenominational evangelical church in San Diego, for the past 10 years. He has been invited to speak in several churches and colleges, including Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church and Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University.

“I do not describe myself as Catholic today. But I don’t want to renounce it either because it’s an important part of my background. I’m an American citizen, but I wouldn’t reject the Indian label because it’s part of my heritage,” D’Souza said. “I say I have a Catholic origin or background. I say I’m a nondenominational Christian, and I’m comfortable with born-again.”

He said that his views align with the Apostles’ Creed and C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity.

That’s the imprimatur — the stamp of approval.

But D’Souza wasn’t embraced by the evangelical tribe just because he affirms the creeds and C.S. Lewis. What made CT and King’s College and the rest of mainstream evangelicalism decide that D’Souza was one of us was his political history — a former policy aide in the Reagan White House, D’Souza is fiercely opposed to abortion, gay rights, feminism and progressive taxation.

As Sarah Posner said, “D’Souza’s … rise in the evangelical world is due in no small part to his conspiracy-minded claims about President Obama’s ‘Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.'”

Yes, conspiratorial warnings about Africans and anti-colonialism contributed to D’Souza’s legitimacy among evangelicals.

Bruce Garrett notes some of D’Souza’s odious political history:

How the man who, while editor of the Dartmouth Review, penned a racist parody of African American students titled “This Sho Ain’t No Jive Bro” and later outed a gay student using stolen mail between members of the Dartmouth Gay Student Alliance can in any sense be labeled a Christian is something confederate Christianists can explain I suppose.

Those two themes — racism and anti-gay sentiment — have endured as the hallmarks of much of D’Souza’s “scholarship.”

Alvin McEwen highlights a 2008 article of D’Souza’s titled, “Gay Rights vs. Democracy,” in which he pulls the man-on-dog nonsense.

Here is D’Souza’s idea of scholarship: “Why doesn’t the Fourteenth Amendment protect the fellow who wants to walk down the aisle with his poodle on the grounds that ‘I love my dog and my dog loves me’?” (What is it about the idea of consent that confuses these folks so much?)

Grace at Are Women Human? echoes Garrett’s observation, noting — savoring — the irony that D’Souza’s adultery has done what his nasty racism and homophobia never did, diminished his standing amongst evangelicals. The entire post — a Snoopy-dance of schadenfreude — is great fun, but the kernel of it is summed up in this one tweet from Grace:

Does it matter than D’souza peddles racist, colonialist lies? Nope. But he shared a hotel room with a woman he’s not married to! OH NOES

Or, as she writes in the post itself:

Sarah Posner writes for Religion Dispatches that this (presumed) sex scandal may spell the end for D’Souza’s once rising star. Note, not the fact that he’s been peddling racist and colonialist lies to white Christians for fun and profit for the past forever, but because of what’s assumed about his marriage and sex life. PRIORITIES.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

* Brian Tashman at Right Wing Watch quotes from a post by Odie Joseph II at Smart Girl Politics, which bears the unfortunate title of “Whatever Happened to Good Ole Hypocrisy?

Feminists and liberals … tore the traditional family to shreds until they reduced us to the shining bastion of zoological (but even animals aren’t this bad and do not depend on the state to care for them) cesspool equality that we have now in every American ghetto and which is seeping out into the middle and upper classes in less animated ways.

Her bogeymen are just like those of her boyfriend: Black.

As women spearhead the demise of the ideal, the alternative to hypocrisy, they spearhead the demise of social order as we know it and love it. Henceforth, all of us will be staring down the barrel of life in a hip hop video or government-funded project. …

Buzzfeed snagged a cached copy of Odie Joseph’s blog (which disappeared when the story broke), which reveals her to have been a fan of D’Souza’s books — and of Ayn Rand.

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

48
The crops are all in and the peaches are rott'ning
Ralph Reed's history with casino moguls
Untold millions are still untold
  • Christopher Mauney

    Say what you will about the tenets of evangelical conspiratorial Kenyan anti-colonialism.  At least it’s an ethos.

  • Lori

    What is it about the idea of consent that confuses these folks so much? 

    All of it. Authoritarianism and meaningful consent are not mixy things.

  • Tricksteron

    I don’t think they’re confused so much as repelled.  To them it’s an either/or of rigid hierarchy vs. bloody anarchy with nothing in between.

  • Cojo

    Has someone tied together the Christian right’s confusion on consent with their confusion on rape?

  • http://twitter.com/graceishuman Grace

    Cojo – Dianna Anderson, Sarah N. Moon, Libby Anne, and myself write about that issue with some frequency. A number of the posts on my blog about rape and sexual assault address the Christian right’s shaky grasp on the idea of consent (e.g., “Dear Christians: Rape is not Sex” and my recent posts on Doug Wilson and Jared Wilson).

    Fred – thanks again for the link and for the “Snoopy-dance of schadenfreude” description – what a felicitous turn of phrase! I feel as though I should put it somewhere on my resumé ;)

  • Cat

    My partner and I agree–“Snoopy-dance of schadenfreude” is deliciousness itself.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    I’m confused by your question. Confusion about consent and confusion about rape are precisely identical. They are the same thing. It’s like you just asked if someone had tied together darkness and lack of light. 

  • Cojo

    I’m sorry the question was a little vague. You are right they are the same. I guess what I was trying to get at is the link between the idiotic arguments against marriage equality made by people like D’Souza and the idiotic comments about rape made by people like Todd Akin. Both display, among other things, a misunderstanding of consent.

  • http://twitter.com/shutsumon Becka Sutton

    I’ve said it before I think it’s Calvinism’s fault. Total predestination and agency are incompatible. Without agency consent is a meaningless concept.

    What’s interesting is the way they rant about the “decline of morality” when the logic of their belief system means it can’t make a smidge of a difference.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    The Catholic hierarchy isn’t exactly brilliant on consent, and the world was not free of rape before Calvin. So, no, not actually.

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    Satisfying to see the Right eating its own, but given other sex scandals, I think Dinesh’s brown skin and the fact he was stepping out on (presumably) a white woman might have something to do with it. Certainly the Right has no trouble forgiving infidelity and worse (rent-boys) when they really want to.

  • Daughter

     Someone may have already pointed this out, but the woman in question is not white. Her skin is definitely brown, and her hair is bleached blonde (the dark roots are showing). Someone on another site suggested that she too might be of Indian descent.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    The thing I find rather irritating is the increasing moral-warriorism in the USA over sex.

    By this, I mean that as Fred’s article points out, D’Souza can freely stroke the egos of the rich and the powerful by writing gushing, fawning literature that praises their avaricious behavior but the instant he’s caught with Someone Else Not His Wife, ZOMG! TEH HORROR!

    It’s not too far removed from other somewhat unsavory tendencies such as the habit of using the sex offender registry as a catch-all for people who don’t meet a rather narrow right-wing definition of “acceptable” sex (and how offensively amusing that people like D’Souza don’t mind women many years younger when they or their political fellow travellers want to criminalize 18 and 17 year olds dating).

    This kind of thin-lipped hypocritical prudery is really grating and tiresome and reflects a society so consumed with the  need to control something in peoples’ lives, and since controlling the economy is effectively ruled out except for succouring the wealthy and powerful, where else is the drive for apparent security going to go?

  • aunursa

    It’s not too far removed from other somewhat
    unsavory tendencies such as the habit of using the sex offender registry as a
    catch-all for people who don’t meet a rather narrow right-wing definition of
    “acceptable” sex

     

    Here is the list of more than 150
    registrable sex offenses that fall under Megan’s Law in California.    I would be interested to learn which
    offenses the wingnuts have wrongly included on this list and should be recategorized
    as “acceptable sex.””>Here is the list of more than 150
    registrable sex offenses that fall under Megan’s Law in California.    I would be interested to learn which
    offenses the wingnuts have wrongly included on this list and should be recategorized
    as “acceptable sex.”

     

    (A few of the offenses, although not explicitly stated in
    the title, apply specifically to acts with a minor and/or forced acts.  For example, Cal.
    Penal Code §288A. Oral Copulation
    .)

  • Jim Roberts

    286(A)SODOMY; GENERAL CATEGORY AND PUNISHMENT SECTION
    Assuming that’s defined the way that “sodomy” is generally defined. Nothing about the statute here indicates that this is referring solely to an involuntary act, although I am not a legal expert by any stretch.

    And your edit pretty much makes the point – the exception you grant is not granted under the law.

    Also, individual states vary in how they apply the registry. Some are more draconian than others.

  • http://mostboringradical.tumblr.com/ Lori

    So you think if a 15yo and a 20yo are dating and they have sex that both of them want, the 20yo deserves to spend his life on a sex offender registry?  You believe that 20yo deserves to have his life ruined, and poses a threat to society?  Really?

    I just got an e-mail from my campus police that a student was written up for a “forcible sex offense” because, while he was hugging a female student (both were 20), he touched her butt, and she hadn’t wanted him to.  Should he be touching women’s butts during hugs without their permission?  No.  Should what he did be considered a sex offense that, according to the e-mail, could land him 3-4 years in prison and 15 years on a sex offender registry?  No.  A drunk frat guy should not have his life ruined because his hands stray too low during a hug.  

    Yeah, we’re out of control with our sex laws.  Post-pubescent teens are capable of consenting to sex, and cases involving them should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not by blanket laws.  I’d rather see us move away from age and more toward really looking at the situation as a whole.  Some 14 and 15yos are fully capable of consenting to sex; some 18 and 19yos are not.  I’d rather we look at things like manipulation, coercion, and abuse of power as problems, rather than just look at age.

    We should not treat sex that is wanted and perhaps even initiated by post-pubescent teens as the same as sex that is forced upon somebody or perpetrated upon a pre-pubescent child. How many of our ancestors would be considered predatory pedophiles if we applied today’s standards (i.e., that a man in his late teens or early-to-mid twenties who dates and has sex with a post-pubescent young woman of 14-17 is a dangerous, sick pedophile the community must be protected from)? I see that as wildly disempowering to young women, as well. I remember being a teen girl, and it is ridiculous to assert that, at 15 or 16, I was incapable of saying either yes or no to sex.

  • aunursa

    So you think if a 15yo and a 20yo are dating and they have sex that both of them want, the 20yo deserves to spend his life on a sex offender registry? You believe that 20yo deserves to have his life ruined, and poses a threat to society? Really?

    I agree with your point.  Registry laws should take the age of the minor and the age range between the two into consideration.  Also, rather than a one-size-fits-all standard, there should be different registries for different degrees of offenses.

  • http://mostboringradical.tumblr.com/ Lori

    Do you think the 20yo should be on a registry at all, though?  I mean, who needs to be protected from him?

    Why is 16 a magic age?  Or 18?  We know that the frontal lobe doesn’t actually finish maturing until about 27; a 24yo and 15yo who are having sex may actually be closer in maturity levels than a 30yo and a 21yo.  

    I just think we need to think about age of consent more seriously than we do.  Puberty, both naturally and historically, has been the important determinator of sexual maturation, not an arbitrary age (and adolescence itself is a modern social construct).  Age of consent laws historically have been about treating young women as property, and I think we tend to use them that way today.  I trust a post-pubescent teeanger to be able to say both yes and no to sex.  I don’t like laws that assume that they are unable to do so.

    I think it’s particularly absurd to argue that a 14 or 15yo should be able to obtain birth control or an abortion without parental permission while also arguing that the same young woman is incapable of consenting to sex.  I agree that the young woman should be able to obtain reproductive care, but the correlate is that she is a sexual agent who is capable of making her own sexual decisions.  If that means having sex with a 20 or even 30yo guy, I might think she’s making a bad choice, but I don’t think I need to legislate that, any more than I might think she’s making a bad choice by having an abortion, but I don’t need to legislate that, either.

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    Why is 16 a magic age?  Or 18?

    Ask your local DMV or voter rights boards. Any age limit will be somewhat arbitrary and fail to capture outliers; that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t set boundaries. (see also: Line-drawing fallacy)

    24yo and 15yo who are having sex may actually be closer in maturity levels than a 30yo and a 21yo.  

    “maturity levels” are a terrible standard to apply. Not only are they poorly defined and rarely map accurately to age, but maturity isn’t the issue, experience is. It’s why most states now allow 16 YO to get limited driving privileges and gain two years of experience before getting an unconditional license to drive, and why they have another three years to gain driving  experience before we allow them legal intoxicants. 

    The issue isn’t “nine years age difference”, it’s the difference in life experiences (social/emotional/financial/independent) between a 15yo and a 21yo.  Life experience isn’t a great standard, because experience doesn’t map 100% to age, but in generally, age does map to experience overall, and far more so than mental/emotional maturity. What’s more, our society has been structured so that teenagers are gradually exposed to specific types of experience in order to (hopefully) transition them to adulthood. 

    I trust a post-pubescent teeanger to be able to say both yes and no to sex.  I don’t like laws that assume that they are unable to do so.

    The laws don’t assume they are unable to do so, they assume that they lack the experience, maturity, and decision-making skills to understand the implications of what they’re agreeing to. 

    Are you comfortable with laws that assume post-pubescent teenagers are unable to enter into legally-binding contracts?  What about criminal sentencing laws that have reduced penalties for minors versus adults? Because those all draw from the same base concept. 

    I think it’s particularly absurd to argue that a 14 or 15yo should be able to obtain birth control or an abortion without parental permission while also arguing that the same young woman is incapable of consenting to sex.

    I can’t imagine a single situation where a 14yo would want an abortion without obtaining parental permission. 
    And there have never been any exceptions to consent laws that might apply to a 14yo or a 15yo. Certainly in those cases, we wouldn’t ever want to engage in harm-reduction for STI’s and unplanned pregnancies by makign contraception available.

    If that means having sex with a 20 or even 30yo guy, I might think she’s making a bad choice

    Really? You think it’s a “bad choice”? Because I might think she’s at risk for being coerced or manipulated or exploited by someone with more experience than her. I might think that teenagers have significant cognitive difficulty anticipating and evaluating the consequences of their decisions and actions, while 20 and 30yo adults are far better at anticipating future outcomes and weighing the costs and benefits.  I think pitting the emotional and mental stability of the average 14yo against a 20you is like letting a 14yo Pop Warner football player try to play in a college football game.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I can’t imagine a single situation where a 14yo would want an abortion without obtaining parental permission.

    Please tell me this is sarcasm. Most of your comment pretty clearly isn’t but the next paragraph pretty clearly is, so I can’t tell on this bit, and if it is not sarcasm then I will be obligated to wallop you.

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    That entire section was sarcasm, hence the sarcasm tag. I thought the links for “single” and “situation” made it clear I wasn’t being serious. Apologies.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Sarcasm tag didn’t come through on the email notif. Nor the links.

  • http://mostboringradical.tumblr.com/ Lori

    The football analogy is wrong because in that case, size is the issue.  If a 14yo were the same size as a 20yo, I’d actually see no problem with him playing college football, if he made the team and attended the college.  I don’t doubt there are 14yos out there who could do it.  Certainly there are 14yos who could actually *hurt* some 20yos they were playing football against.

    The problem is, *anybody* is at risk for manipulation or exploitation when it comes to sex.  A 15yo can be just as manipulative and predatory as a 20yo.  A 25yo can be the victim of manipulation and abuse of power.

    Those should be the issues, not age.  Yes, when a 15yo is *actually* being coerced, manipulated, or exploited, then that should be taken into account, as I believe it should also be taken into account when it happens to a 30yo (why is manipulating/coercing somebody over 16/18 okay?).  But, we shouldn’t ruin the lives of young people in their late teens and twenties based on the *possibility* that they might manipulate somebody.  I had a good friend, when we were 16, who dated a 28 year old.  I have a friend who is married to a man she started dating when she was 17, who was 25.  These were normal, as-healthy-as-any-other relationships.  It’s absurd to imagine that the men involved in these very consensual relationships were or are dangerous predators who need to face severe legal penalties and lifelong public humiliation.

    And, I’m not buying that the life experiences of a 15yo and 21yo are all that different.  That’s not the world we live in today.  In many cases, their lives will be far more similar–both living at home, both financially supported by parents, both in school and/or working a crappy part-time job–than the lives of a 22yo and a 30yo.  And yet one relationship will land the older partner on a sex offender registry for life, and the other won’t.

    As to contracts, most states allow young people to start working at 14. They are able to enter into an employment contract.  Why can they do that, but not consent to sex?  

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    Sorry to hack on and on about this, but it annoys me. 

    I just got an e-mail from my campus police that a student was written up for a “forcible sex offense” because, while he was hugging a female student (both were 20), he touched her butt, and she hadn’t wanted him to.  …Should what he did be considered a sex offense that, according to the e-mail, could land him 3-4 years in prison and 15 years on a sex offender registry?  No.  A drunk frat guy should not have his life ruined because his hands stray too low during a hug.  

    Wow. I had no idea campus police write-ups entirely bypassed the whole of our judicial system of prosecutorial discretion, grand jury,  trial, and judicial discretion. I’m amazing that the write-up of a campus police officer can compel the district attorney to press charges, can sway a grand jury to bind the defendant for trial, compel another jury to convict, and compel a judge to sentence him to 3-4 years. That is one powerful campus cop!

    Post-pubescent teens are capable of consenting to sex, and cases involving them should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not by blanket laws.

    If only our justice system allowed someone to evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis. Sadly, every single charge reported to our attorneys must always be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 
    It’s too bad that criminal offenses aren’t judged by some sort of  group of people who are able to evaluate the appropriateness of the law for the circumstances. If only we allowed people like us, our peers if you will, to judge the rightness of our actions. 

    We should not treat sex that is wanted and perhaps even initiated by post-pubescent teens as the same as sex that is forced upon somebody or perpetrated upon a pre-pubescent child.

    Gosh, it’s too bad our laws don’t distinguish between statutory offenses and violent ones. If only there were some kind of assault laws that applied to non-consensual sexual activities, and if only those laws could distinguish between adult victims and minors. Boy, it’s too bad that the only law we have is the statutory rape law… 

     How many of our ancestors would be considered predatory pedophiles if we applied today’s standards

    Ahem. 

     I see that as wildly disempowering to young women, as well. I remember being a teen girl, and it is ridiculous to assert that, at 15 or 16, I was incapable of saying either yes or no to sex whiskey / cocaine / commercial truck driving / a pilot’s license / enlisting in the military / premeditated murder carrying the death penalty.

    Do go on. 

  • http://mostboringradical.tumblr.com/ Lori

    “Gosh, it’s too bad our laws don’t distinguish between statutory offenses and violent ones. If only there were some kind of assault laws that applied to non-consensual sexual activities, and if only those laws could distinguish between adult victims and minors. Boy, it’s too bad that the only law we have is the statutory rape law… ”

    You do realize that statuatory rape charges often carry penalties just as if not more severe than penalties for violent rape and that people who are convicted of them end up on sex offender registries, often for life, yes?  Do you have any idea how many 19 and 20 yo men are now branded lifelong sex offenders on a public registry because they had sex that their 15yo girlfriend really, really wanted?”I see that as wildly disempowering to young women, as well.

    “I remember being a teen girl, and it is ridiculous to assert that, at 15 or 16, I was incapable of saying either yes or no to sex whiskey / cocaine / commercial truck driving / a pilot’s license / enlisting in the military / premeditated murder carrying the death penalty.”

    Actually, I was totally capable of saying yes or no to drugs; is that not why we have a “just say no” campaign?  If we felt that young people were incapable of making decisions about whether to drink or take drugs, what’s the point?Sex is natural; I’d argue it’s a human right.  Denying the right to consent to sex to post-pubescent adolescents in every circumstance is wrong.  And that’s what we’re doing: we are telling every 15yo girl out there, no matter how mature, how responsible, how many responsibilities or life experiences she’s had, that she is incapable of making her own sexual decisions.  I find that appalling. If we want to have a culture of healthy adolescent sexuality, then a huge part of that is empowerment, and that means empowering post-pubescent teens with the right to consent AND not consent.

    And, make no mistake about it, these ages are arbitrary. Look at international age of consent laws. In some places, including some states, the age of consent is 18; if you have children, do you want one of your children being labelled as a sex offender for life because, at 21, they had a consensual sexual relationship with somebody a week away from turning 18? In some countries, it’s 21. In others, it’s 14. There is nothing magical about any of these ages.

  • Beroli

     

    First, Akin was pillorized for making that distinction, for claiming
    that statutory rape and forcible rape are not the same thing.

    What?

    Akin was pilloried in part for claiming that only forcible rape was “legitimate” rape. (Plus the little fact that he was making false medical claims as a justification for laws.) If you don’t recognize that it’s possible for rape to be neither forcible, nor merely statutory, I, wow. I don’t know what to say. Except that this is the first time I’ve seen anyone suggest that failure to recognize statutory rape was even on Akin’s Top 50 list of offenses, and I hope it’s the last time.

    His failure to recognize the existence and criminality of coercive rape was one of many parts of what got him pilloried. Nothing to do with statutory rape.

  • http://mostboringradical.tumblr.com/ Lori

    “Akin was pilloried in part for claiming that only forcible rape was ‘legitimate’ rape. ”

    Legally, there are only two kinds of rape: forcible and statutory.  I’m not sure what you mean by “coercive” rape, but date rape would be included under forcible rape.  There is no legal category for coercive rape.  The sex that occurs during a rape is either unwanted, in which case it’s forcible, or wanted by somebody under the age of consent, in which case it’s statutory.  Any unwanted sex, whether it’s obtained by actual violent force or by threats and coercion, is legally considered to be forcible rape.

    So when a politician says that, say, abortion funding should be reserved for cases of forcible rape, they aren’t intending to exclude date rape victims, but to exclude statutory rape cases. They are saying that the situation of a pregnant 15yo who had a 19yo force himself on her while she was too drink to say no at a party is in a different situation than a pregnant 15yo who initiated sex with her 19yo boyfriend. At the level of them being different situations, I don’t disagree, and if abortion funding is limited only to rape victims (which I don’t necessarily agree with), I see no problem with making that distinction.

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    Wall-o-text. Sorry.

    First, Akin was pillorized for making that distinction, for claiming that statutory rape and forcible rape are not the same thing.

    No, Akin was pilloried for claiming that rape cannot cause pregnancy, and that only “forcible” rape was legitimate.

    And, you do realize that statuatory rape charges often carry penalties just as if not more severe than penalties for violent rape…

    [ citation needed ] 

     Do you have any idea how many 19 and 20 yo men are now branded lifelong sex offenders on a public registry because they had sex that their 15yo girlfriend really, really wanted?

    No, I don’t know. How many are there? I assume you know, because you’re asking it in challenge. Is it a lot? A few? Dozens? Hundreds? Tens of thousands? Do you know the percentage? Is it 10%? 25%? 50%? Does every 19-year-old man get branded a sex offender for sleeping with their really, really horny (and totally mature, experienced, utterly-free-from-coercion) 15-year-old girlfriend? Because if I don’t know, and you don’t know, what rhetorical point are you trying to score here?Here’s what I do know: all of those hypothetical men would first be investigated by police. A district attorney would then review the specific case, in context of the information from the police, and made a decision whether or not to press charges. And those men were convicted either by a judge or jury, or chose to plead guilty after being informed of the consequences.  That’s three layers of process to distinguish “a mature, sophisticated, independent minor attempting to offer meaningful, informed consent” from “unwanted assault”.

    they had sex that their 15yo girlfriend really, really wanted?

    Oh, and since when was “I really, really want this thing” a sound justification for a teenager’s behavior? That’s the hill you’re going to fight on?

    Actually, I was totally capable of saying yes or no to drugs; is that not why we have a “just say no” campaign?

    If young people (and by the way, stop making this about you, the unique snowflake; society and laws are built around the mean, not the outliers) really were capable of effectively evaluating the risks and consequences of their decisions, there wouldn’t be a need for a “just say no” campaign. If teenagers were capable of accurately judging the long-term consequences against short-term benefits, we wouldn’t need PR campaigns, now would we?

    Sex is natural; I’d argue it’s a human right.

    If we’re talking about sexual activity with other parties, then I’d say you are deliberately conflating the capacity for sexual activity (a physical measure) with the ability to offer meaningful informed consent. (a psychological measure) Your right to sex doesn’t override my consent, nor does an inability to consent constitute an unfair denial of your rights.

    Denying the right to consent to sex to post-pubescent adolescents in every circumstance is wrong. “right to consent”? The issue is not a “rights” issue, it’s a capacity issue. A minor cannot offer meaningful, informed, un-coerced consent any more than a non-citizen can vote in an election. That’s why we have different criminal sentences for minors, why labor laws affect minors differently than adults, why minors can’t engage in legal contracts… I don’t see you arguing against those examples of minors being treated differently under the law. You don’t object to minors being unable to acquire bank loans and credit cards on the basis of their age. Why is sex suddenly magical and different and unique?
    And that’s what we’re doing: we are telling every 15yo girl out there, no matter how mature, how responsible, how many responsibilities or life experiences she’s had, that she is incapable of making her own sexual decisions. 

    By the way, we tell this sort of thing to 15-year-old persons all the time! We tell them that no matter how mature and responsible they are, they cannot drive a car on their own. We tell them that no matter how many responsibilities or life experiences they’ve had, they cannot enlist in the military. We tell them that they’re not capable of making decisions about consuming alcohol. We tell them they are incapable of making financial decisions or engaging in legal contracts. Why is sex so magical that you think all the legal protections should be swept away. 

    If we want to have a culture of healthy adolescent sexuality, then a huge part of that is empowerment, and that means empowering post-pubescent teens with the right to consent AND not consent.

     “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” You’re not arguing for the right to “not consent”. You’re not arguing that teenagers have the choice to NOT consent to the advances of middle-aged adults, because they already have that right protection. You’re arguing for removing protections against exploitation under the banner of “empowerment”. Let’s test some variations:“If we want to have a culture of healthy  workers, then a huge part of that is empowerment, and that means empowering teens with the right to work unpaid overtime with no mandated breaks for meals!”“If we want to have a culture of healthy immigration, then a huge part of that is empowerment, and that means empowering immigrants with the right to work free from encumbering labor and immigration laws!” 

    And, make no mistake about it, these ages are arbitrary….There is nothing magical about any of these ages.

    I addressed this once already, but I’ll spell it out:1.) Yes, the ages are arbitrary. Any age will be arbitrary.2.) Age is an objective, empirical, verifiable measure that roughly correlates to experience. “Maturity”, “sophistication”, and “worldliness” meet none of those standards. If you’re going to write laws, they need to be based on empirical standards.3.) Pointing out the age limit is arbitrary does not justify eliminating the age limit. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

    But, if they CAN consent, isn’t it possible that some might choose, freely and consensually, to have sex with somebody older than they are?

    Grounding an argument in “isn’t it possible” is bad policy. Isn’t it possible that some people can responsibly drink alcohol and then drive motor vehicles? Then why do we have these laws that prevent it? Isn’t it possible that some people can safely operate motor vehicles at 100 miles per hour? Then why do we have laws against that? Isn’t it possible that some people might be able to tell if spoiled meat had been disguised with CO2 and other agents? Then why have food safety laws? Couldn’t employees choose to work longer hours? Why have labor laws? 

    How is it possible that a 15yo can consent to sex with a 17yo, …but is completely incapable of consenting to sex with a 20yo and is the victim of a horrible predator…

    How is it possible that a 115 lb boxer can fight a 130 lb boxer and it be a fair fight, but if they try to fight a 225 lb opponent, it’s horribly wrong? If even one featherweight boxer is strong enough to compete at the heavyweight class, shouldn’t we just eliminate all of those separate weight classes? Doesn’t a single exception justify the elimination of every category?Look, I get that you believe you were a mature, intelligence, sophisticated 15-year-old who was way ahead of her peers. Maybe you were. (Then again… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) But your specific, isolated example doesn’t justify removing the protections applied to the entire population. 

    Human nature is far too variable to have these sorts of blanket laws, especially when, in our society, the penalties for violating them are so outrageously harsh.

    …do you even bother to read my arguments? Do you follow the links I include, to thinks like prosecutorial discretion? Do you understand the concept of a jury trial, or of our legal system in general?Yes, we have blanket laws. We also have a justice system that allows for application of those laws on a case-by-case basis, precisely because of the variability of human nature. We have seat belt laws. Does that mean no one anywhere ever drives without wearing a seat belt? No. Does that mean anyone who drives without a seat belt is pulled over & ticketed? No. We have consumer protection laws. Does that mean no one ever gets scammed? Does it mean that anyone who runs a scam gets thrown in jail the first time charges are filed? Age-of-consent laws are protection laws. They protect a class of people against exploitation. To successfully argue against those laws, you need more than a handful of exceptions; you need to show that such exploitation is already prevented through other laws, or that it is so unlikely and so rare in the entire population that the law is unnecessary. 

  • http://mostboringradical.tumblr.com/ Lori

    You live in a lovely world of legal fantasy.  That is NOT how the justice system works.  There is no discretion in these cases.  There is no room for it.  I mean, why the hell do you think that 1% of our population is currently incarcerated and 5% are under the supervision of the criminal justice system?  Because we do such a great job taking things on a case by case basis?

    People aren’t taking jury trials.  When you are told that you will get 10-15 years if you are convicted, or you can plead guilty and get 3 years probation, who is going to risk a trial?  Almost nobody.  It’s an enormous problem in all sorts of areas, and especially in these kinds of non-violent sex offenses.

    I’m not sure what people are so afraid of?  I mean, I guess I do: age of consent laws, and our extreme punishments for violating them, largely come from 1) racist fears (people didn’t want black men defiling their white daughters) and 2) homophobic fears (people didn’t want gay men “recruiting” their definitely-couldn’t-be-gay-no-way sons).  But liberals and progressives need to think critically about these laws, and consider whether they are actually making us safer and young women more empowered, or are being used to police the sexuality of young people in heavy-handed, Draconian ways.

  • EllieMurasaki

    What is your solution?

    If I were writing laws, I’d say a thirteen-year-old cannot legally consent to sex, a fourteen-year-old can legally consent to sex only with fourteen- to fifteen-year-olds, a fifteen-year-old with fourteen- to seventeen-year-olds, a sixteen-year-old with fifteen- to nineteen-year-olds, a seventeen-year-old with fifteen- to twenty-one-year-olds, and an eighteen-year-old with anyone sixteen or over. That permits teens to explore their sexuality with people presumed to be at a similar maturity level.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     > What is your solution?

    I’m OK with the idea of a tier of ages during which consent is only considered possible with others in a narrow tier of ages, above which consent is always possible and below which it never is, like you describe.

    That said, if I were designing the system from scratch, I probably would not class all sex acts the same way.

    I might also explore a mechanism whereby individuals can petition for an exception. (E.g., if a sixteen-year-old is willing to go to Town Hall with their legal guardian and say “Yes, I’m dating a twenty-five-year-old, and everyone involved is OK with that,” I’d like Town Hall to have some way of responding “Huh. Well, you don’t seem to be being abused or coerced. Yeah, OK. $35 processing fee, and check in with us every six months” or whatever the revised standard is.)

  • EllieMurasaki

    I am not okay with that. I am not sure, right now, why. Possibly it’s my personal squick in which case it ought to be ignored, but possibly it’s not.
    I don’t think it’d happen in any case. Adults digging in a teenager’s sex life are usually kind of up there on that teenager’s Embarrassing Things list, and in order to prove lack of abuse and coercion to the state’s satisfaction, there’d have to be a lot of such digging. Also we have too much case load and not enough social workers as it is.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    For my part, I’m fine with the idea that most people are too embarrassed to go through the process of filing for an exception and therefore are subject to the default laws; that’s certainly no worse from my perspective than not having an exception mechanism available at all.

    I suppose, now that I think about it some more, that I’m really not looking at this as about sex at all, but rather about arbitrary age-based thresholds. I understand why we want to write laws that way; making case-by-case decisions is impractical for a lot of reasons. But I’m more comfortable if we acknowledge that if we draw a line such that it covers 95% of the population, that means 5% of the population isn’t covered, and if we can provide a mechanism whereby that 5% can be handled out-of-band (even if it means they have to cover the extra costs themselves, which of course has all kinds of class-discrimination issues, but is a place to start) that’s an improvement.

  • fraser

     Actually there’s lots of discretion. Back in the ’90s, law enforcement in some areas announced it was going to Crack Down on older men committing statutory rape. The unsurprising result was that the 19-year-old grease m0nkey with a 15 year old girlfriend does hard time; the respected 35 year old lawyer with a teenage girlfriend–well, you don’t want to ruin the career of a respected member of the community, do you?
     

  • http://profiles.google.com/fader2011 Alex Harman

    The unconstitutional (per Lawrence vs. Texas) laws against consensual sodomy and consensual oral copulation would be bad if they could be enforced, and of course, I agree entirely with Lori’s points, but there’s also another issue: while California only places coercive prostitution involving minors on their list, other states put adult prostitutes and their clients on their sex offender registries merely for exchanging money for consensual sex.  Any society that wants to think of itself as “free” has no business criminalizing consensual adult prostitution, let alone tarring prostitutes and their clients with the same brush applied to rapists and child molesters.

  • fraser

     One of the problems with slight differences in age (quite aside from the general principle, on which I agree with you) is that at least some states don’t give the age difference. So 15 years later, someone looks him up and discovers this 32 year old guy likes having sex with 15 year olds.

  • http://mostboringradical.tumblr.com/ Lori

    Well, while racism and homophobia are absolutely vile and odious, so is leaving your wife–a woman upon whom you built much of your evangelical street cred–for a woman 20 years your junior.  I’m pretty sure that’s exactly the kind of thing Jesus was talking about when he was preaching against divorce.

    D’Souza is an asshole on all counts.  He’s a terrible human being for being a racist, homophobic douchebag, and he’s a terrible human being for trading in the wife of 20 years who helped him build his career for a younger model.  

  • Lori

     

    so is leaving your wife–a woman upon whom you built much of your evangelical street cred  

    This is a fair point. D’Souza is the equivalent of a man who gets his wife to work some low level job to pay his way through law school and then dumps her for some arm candy once he’s on the partner track.

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    Hmm…mentioning that his wife of twenty years helped him build his career gives me a lot less sympathy for her. His career is being a total shithead. 

  • Lori

     

    Hmm…mentioning that his wife of twenty years helped him build his
    career gives me a lot less sympathy for her. His career is being a total
    shithead.   

    On one hand, you have a point there. On the other hand, there are plenty of lawyers who are total shitheads and I think it still sucks when they screw over their wives.

    Aside from that, I’m not sure how active a part she played in building his career. Could be a lot, could be little more than providing his “in” with the Evangelical community. It might be possible to find out, but I sort of don’t want to look. I’m not a big fan of kicking over rocks that are likely to be covering creepy-crawlies and I fear what might turn up as a result of trying to Google info on D’Souza’s marriage.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     

    using the sex offender registry as a catch-all for
    people who don’t meet a rather narrow right-wing definition of
    “acceptable” sex [..] is really grating and tiresome and reflects a society so consumed with the  need to control something in peoples’ lives, 

    (nods) Completely agreed that this sort of thing, where laws we justify as a way to restrict particular bad acts get generalized to restrict all kinds of other things that ought not be restricted, is problematic.

    Unfortunately, it’s also predictable.

    I mean, often the original thinking behind the laws themselves isn’t unreasonable at all. As in this case: some sex acts really do damage people, and that’s a Bad Thing, and establishing legal protections for those people is a Good Thing.

    But often those laws get written pretty broadly, out of a perhaps-admirable desire to ensure that Bad People don’t evade the consequences of their Bad Acts on some technicality.  And it’s easy to paint anyone who objects to that sort of thing as (perhaps unknowingly, perhaps maliciously, perhaps just because they’re assholes) supporting those Bad People, so such objections rarely have much power.

    And, well, once the broad law is in place, it’s not difficult for people to apply it broadly, including to restrict acts that aren’t bad but are unpopular in various ways (e.g., non-“acceptable” sex, as you say).

  • fraser

     And “tough on crime” is still considered a winning political strategy. And the only way to be tough on crime is to push for tougher laws than we’ve already got.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Of course ‘tough on crime’ is a winning political strategy. For-profit prisons are a profitable thing, and any reduction in the number of criminals reduces their profits.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    In practice, “tough on crime” normally ends up meaning “tough on pot smokers, easy on violent offenders, especially if the crime of those violent offenders was against women whom they knew, even more if they were in a relationship with those women.”

  • EllieMurasaki

    And stealing $100 gets massive jail time and stealing $100 million gets a comparatively tiny fine and perhaps a mild scolding.

  • Hawker40

    The FBI used to keep (perhaps still does) a “profit to jailtime” ratio for various crimes.  They factored in likelyhood of being caught, chance of being convicted, amount of jailtime plus parole (with factoring of ‘hard time’ included) vs amount of money gained.

    The worst was armed robbery, with hefty jailtimes and lousy profit.
    The best?  Insider trading.  Huge profits, hard to catch and convict, soft jailtime.

  • Marc Tompkins

    We recently spent a week in Peru doing touristy things, and I found myself repeatedly consumed by hatred of the conquistadores and the evil they wrought (conflicted, too, ’cause without the potatoes they brought back to Europe, my ancestors and my girlfriend’s would quite possibly have starved.)

    From about day two I found myself obsessing over the phrase “anti-colonialism” and wishing I could punch Dinesh D’Souza in the face.  It’s nice to hear that he’s saved me the trouble.  What a waste of carbon.

  • http://profiles.google.com/fader2011 Alex Harman

    Wonkette has joined in the Snoopy Dance of Schandenfreude as well.  Among other things, they provide us with more samples from Ms. Joseph’s blog that prove conclusively that “Odie” is short for “Odious.”

    I’d pay a lot to watch a Celebrity Deathmatch between Dinesh D’Sleazy and Marvin Olassclown.  Who would you bet on?

  • Tricksteron

    We can only hope it’s a tie.

  • vsm

    I’m just sad the political writers of the past had to do without .gifs. Just imagine what Tom Paine could have achieved with a few Glee animations.

  • Kirala

    Great. Now I’m picturing Poor Richard’s Almanack*  loaded with references to Game of Thrones.

    *not Paine, I know, but I can TOTALLY see Franklin going that way.

  • Jim Roberts

    Oh, totally. Using, “Winter is coming,” as a propaganda slogan during the Revolution and everything.

  • Donalbain

    Evangelicals understand the concept of consent perfectly well. They are just confused about who should be asked for their consent. A woman’s sexuality is the property of the relevant man, either her father or her husband. If you have sex without the official granting of consent of the owner of that sexuality, then it is wrong. If the owner of that sexuality agrees, then it is fine.

  • http://mostboringradical.tumblr.com/ Lori

    I’m still always amused that people who call themselves The Tea Party are anti-anti-colonialism.  

    After reading Odie Joseph’s essay, it’s really hard to know which of these human beings is more vile.  They seem like they belong together.

  • MissMikey

    Does reading the whole essay make those snippets make any sense? I understand the thrust of her argument, but –boy howdy– I could not make head or tail of those two quotes, no matter how many times I read them.

    And a big WTF to a “Government funded Hip-Hop video.”  What is that even supposed to mean??

  • geraldfnord

     > What is that even supposed to mean??

    ‘Blackity-black-black blackity,’ that‘s what it means.

    Oh, and ‘Women who dress slutty and let blackity-black-black men have sex with them,’—horrors! <img src='http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4502MXkb-Dc/0.jpg&#039;

  • LouisDoench

    OOOH OOOH! Can I be in a Government Funded Hip-Hop Video? 

  • m11_9

    This will blow over, since Dinesh is a celebrity speaker for republicans, not christians.  

    He just got a little carried away becoming pres of a christian college.  He will be back on the circuit in no time.

  • Jim Roberts

    I hear he’s on Limbaugh this weekend.

  • Tricksteron

    And the rehabilitation has already begun!  I wonder if he had to kiss Pope Rush’s ass ring?

  • Carstonio

    “We believe that God has wisely and well adapted each sex to the proper performance of the duties of each.” BULLSHIT.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Their problem with consent is that they don’t think females should be able to give it. They don’t think anybody but straight christian males should be able to say “no.” 

    So of course it doesn’t matter that a dog or a tree or a toaster can’t consent. To them, us breeding stock can’t either.

  • Magic_Cracker

    “I do not describe myself as Catholic today. But I don’t want to renounce it either because it’s an important part of my background. I’m an American citizen, but I wouldn’t reject the Indian label because it’s part of my heritage,” D’Souza said. “I say I have a Catholic origin or background. I say I’m a nondenominational Christian, and I’m comfortable with born-again.”

    But my mom and dad are pro-choice, pro-labor, and members of their county Democratic Party committee, so they’e  “cafeteria Catholics” [/sneer], a lesser, worse breed of Catholic, but D’Souza isn’t. I see how that works. Actually, I don’t.

  • LL

    Uh oh. My mother may be dismayed by this. She’s been talking about really wanting to see that movie D’Souza made about the terrible peril we will all be in if the guy who’s been the president for the last 4 years is allowed to be the president for 4 more years. 

  • hidden_urchin

    … which reveals her to have been a fan of D’Souza’s books — and of Ayn Rand.

    Guys! Guys!  I’ve got the greatest idea ever!  Let’s publish an Objectivist Study Bible!  We’ll make millions!

    Oh, wait, we have ethics here.  Well, back to your regularly scheduled thread.

  • Magic_Cracker

    Let’s publish an Objectivist Study Bible!  We’ll make millions!

    God’s a maker, see. *The* Maker, in fact. He owns the world, and us, because He made the world, and us. He can do with it, and us, what He wants. We (humanity) are takers. Pastors, priests, preachers, and self-styled prophets are His office managers. That’s why we have to do everything they say God says, including the stuff that contradicts the other stuff as well as the stuff that no longer make sense in our current time, place, culture, etc. business climate. What God wants, God gets, God help us all. End of story.

  • fraser

     Except that would imply we property owners here don’t have an absolute right to do as we want, which will never fly.

  • Magic_Cracker

    Hey, I didn’t write the Objectivist Bible! It’s not my fault you’re not God! In any case, you can always rent or lease!

  • Lori

    Guys! Guys!  I’ve got the greatest idea ever!  Let’s publish an Objectivist Study Bible!  We’ll make millions!

    Oh, wait, we have ethics here.  

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I think my ethics are fine with separating the kind of people who would buy an Objectivist Study Bible from their money. 

  • Beroli

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I think my ethics are fine with
    separating the kind of people who would buy an Objectivist Study Bible
    from their money.  

    But are they fine with being known as the author of the Objective Study Bible?

    Better use a pen name and not tell anyone associated with the project your real name.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Hey, um. Lori with the rainbow-y sheep thing? There’s another Lori around here. Is that also you?

  • Beroli

    Avatar-less Lori, the legal expert who’s never heard of coercive rape, is most definitely not the same Lori who has an avatar.

  • http://mostboringradical.tumblr.com/ Lori

    I’m sorry, can you point me to somebody being convicted of “coercive rape”?  Legally, there is no such category.  Sorry, but that’s the fact of it.  A date rape scenario is a forcible rape.  A situation where a woman is too drunk to give or not give consent is a forcible rape.  Legally, those are considered forcible rapes.

    If by “coercive rape” you mean something like, I don’t know, somebody being guilt-tripped into sex, well, I don’t think that *should* be considered rape.  Are you a douchebag if you try to guilt-trip women into having sex with you?  Yes.  But, those women still have the choice to walk away.  Rape isn’t about making bad choices; it’s about having your choice taken away.  A date rape victim had her choice taken away; a woman who had a man jump out of the bushes and hold her down had her choice taken away; a woman too drunk to know what was going on had her choice taken away.  A woman who had sex with a guy because she was afraid she’d lose him otherwise or didn’t want to hurt his feelings did not have her choice taken away, and we absolutely shouldn’t consider that rape.  If that’s what you mean by “coercive rape,” then I’m glad we don’t have a legal category for it.  

    I once babysat a friend’s children for free for several months because she guilted me into it.  She wasn’t, like, legally guilty of enslaving me; I had the choice to tell her, “Hey, I can’t watch your kids any more.”  It would have been awkward for me, which is why I didn’t do it, but it was a choice.  Just because a choice is hard, doesn’t mean we don’t have it.  

    When a woman has her choice taken away, that is rape, and it’s wrong, and it should be fully prosecuted.  But, when we start pretending that women can’t make choices, that women have no sexual agency–which is what we do when we say that no 15yo, no matter how intelligent, mature, or responsible, is capable of consenting to sex or that a man who uses a guilt trip to get a woman to agree to sleep with him has raped her–then we are not helping or empowering women.  We are turning them into victims who are unable to make their own sexual choices, even when those choices might mean doing something a little bit hard (like hurting a guy’s feelings).

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Hey, um. Lori with the rainbow-y sheep thing? There’s another Lori around here. Is that also you?

    I was wondering the same thing.  I mean, I can understand if someone is having login trouble, hence the multiple accounts, but the respective positions of the two accounts seem a little unusual, based on what I know of rainbow-y Lori’s prior writings here.  

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    That’s what I thought at first. I was like… wait. This can’t be Lori. Has she been body-snatched? Has her account been hacked?

    I wish this other Lori would change her name, because I keep doing double-takes. I don’t expect someone with the name Lori here to be spewing garbage, let alone garbage of this extreme level. It’s confusing.

  • http://mostboringradical.tumblr.com/ Lori

    First, I’ve been on Disqus for a long time with this name.

    Second, I think it’s really funny how upset people get if you point out hypocrises around sex.  God forbid anybody question the idea that *maybe* it’s inconsistent to say that a 15yo should be able to get birth control and have an abortion without needing any adult involvement while at the same time saying she is incapable of consenting to sex.  We can’t upset the current sexual paradigm, after all.  

    Third, I forget that trying to talk rationally about sex is like banging your head against a wall.  Apparently suggesting that a lifetime as a sex offender for having consensual sex with a girlfriend is maybe not necessary is “spewing garbage.”  Who knew?

    As a mother to two young sons and a toddler daughter, I fear for where we’re headed if this is how *progressives* think about these things.  And I sure hope that none of you have a 19 or 20yo child who dates somebody a few years younger than them who sends them a naked picture or who they have sex with.  Because their life would be over: a lifetime on a sex offender registry, no chance of anybody hiring them. Your children wouldn’t deserve the punishment that would come along with that, even if you think, theoretically, that they would.

  • hidden_urchin

    Also, it is apparently absurdly easy to end up on the sex offender registry for non-sexual things.  I had a classmate in college who was arrested for public urination in close proximity to a school one night.  He was drunk and there were no kids present but he still got nailed. 

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Are you fucking kidding me?

    Public urination?

    Christ, even as late as – what – 1995, that would probably just get a citation from a cop. Especially if done in a back alley at night because you had to “go”.

  • hidden_urchin

    Yeah.  That was my reaction when I heard about it.  I think if it had happened one county over it would have been public urination, public drunkeness, and, maybe, trespassing because he was on the school grounds but it wouldn’t have been a big deal.  It would have been more of, “Yup,  we got another dumb drunk college student.  Here’s your fine.  Don’t do it again.”

    As I said, we had a authoritarian DA who was dead set against drunkeness and pro-family-we-must-protect-the-kids-at-all-costs which no doubt contributed to the sex offender label.  (Just guess his political affiliation.) His office was, I think, making an example of the kid to show how “tough on crime” they were.

    I am in general favor of the concept of labelling and tracking sex offenders since those people are true predators who are able to do what they do because they fly under the radar.  However, dear God, it needs to be responsibly applied and going after a college kid who picked the wrong spot to urinate, especially when there were no kids present, is not exactly what I would call responsible.

    I guess that’s a justice system for you.  It’s an extremely powerful, imperfect institution and can destroy lives when people inevitably err.  (I was thinking about that Innocence Project link from the other post.  What do you say when you set someone free after 15 years of wrongful imprisonment.  “So, we stole 15 years of the one life you get on this earth…sorry?”)

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    The other issue I don’t like is the unintended consequences of public registries. It’s gotten to the point where I routinely hear of some community organization or other grouping up to hound out some guy (it is usually a guy) on the registry who moved into the area.

    What, do these NIMBYs think that pushing a registered offender out of their neighborhood like a game of hot potato really solves anything? Dollars to donuts after the third or fourth time the offender just gets fed up, buys a fake ID, goes underground, and commits even more crimes.

    The people who should know about the details of a registry should be limited to the law enforcement and applicable psychiatric and other mental health authorities involved in the matter. Then they can keep tabs on all the you-know-whos out there.

    Mixed up in this is the distressing habit of moral-policing “pedophilia” to the point of using it as an armor-proof smear tool against anyone someone doesn’t like, as well as using it so broadly it can technically be used to refer to a 20-yo ogling a 17-yo.

    Back in the late ’90s I remember a few cases of software pirates being busted and the authorities would go “and mumblemumble possible child pornography.”

    Lord save me from the stupidity of this kind of crap.

  • Joshua

    First, I’ve been on Disqus for a long time with this name.

    I would also appreciate it if you used a different name to post. The other Lori has been here longer than we’ve been at Patheos, IIRC, and has been a prolific poster most of that time.

    It’s not to anyone’s advantage for your views to be confused with her views, including you.

  • Lori

    Hey, um. Lori with the rainbow-y sheep thing? There’s another Lori around here. Is that also you?  

    No.

    Rainbow critter* Lori and the other (more recently arrived) Lori are not the same person.

    *It’s actually flowers, but in icon size I think the consensus was that it looks like a bison.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    It’s actually flowers, but in icon size I think the consensus was that it looks like a bison.

    Really?  I always thought it looked vaguely like an exotically colored bird.  

  • Lori

    Honest. If you could see the larger version of the picture it’s two square glass vases holding flowers arranged in a rainbow pattern. I liked it because I like the flowers and it’s vaguely GLBT-supportive and I was having a bit of an ally moment when it was time to chose my icon.

    I can see how the colors would read as being a bird, but (once it was pointed out to me) the shape does seem more bison-ish to me. The purple bit on the left is the head, ears & horns. The red bit on the right is the tail. The stems are the legs.

  • JustoneK

    But Atlas Shrugged is already published.

  • Hawker40

    Several decades ago, I read one of D’Souza’s books.  I found it was typical propaganda, giving one side of the story.
    I am not surprised that D’Souza is anti-anti-colonialism.  He is from Goa, India, which was one of the last outposts of European colonization in India (Portuguese).  His parents did very well under the Portuguese rule.  There’s a term for people who do well under the occupiers…

  • Magic_Cracker

    There’s a term for people who do well under the occupiers…

    More than one term comes to mind: Collaborators, Traitors, Opportunists, Assholes…

  • Hawker40

    “More than one term comes to mind: Collaborators, Traitors, Opportunists, Assholes…”

    We are all influenced by our parents (or those who act in thier place).  I’m quiet sure that Mister D’Souza was quite influenced by his father, who benefited from the colonizers, and projected this upon President Obama whose father did not benefit from European occupation.

  • geraldfnord

     It is wrong to tar all the members of a community—in this case, the Goan—with the same brush, but I will admit to thinking that D’Souza bears that name because his ancestors changed their faith after the manner of their conquerors and wondered if they maintained the conviction that identified the Powerful with the Righteous…but this is rank speculation, and so I should also point out here that they might well have been low-caste persons whose conversion to a[n at-least-theoretically] more egalitarian faith were an estimable move.

  • http://profiles.google.com/fader2011 Alex Harman

    It is wrong to tar all the members of a community—in this case, the Goan—with the same brush, but I will admit to thinking that D’Souza bears that name because his ancestors changed their faith after the manner of their conquerors and wondered if they maintained the conviction that identified the Powerful with the Righteous…but this is rank speculation, and so I should also point out here that they might well have been low-caste persons whose conversion to a[n at-least-theoretically] more egalitarian faith were an estimable move.

    The latter possibility is a real one — I knew a Goan woman some years ago whose name was also D’Souza, and whose family came from one of the low-level, laborer castes, just a little above the “untouchables.”  She came to the U.S. as a maid and nanny for a Brahmin couple, who treated her fairly badly — in addition to taking care of their children and house, they had her running the taco stand they owned in the local mall’s food court, and underpaid her for the work.

    Dinesh, D’Souza’s family, however, came from the Brahmin caste, according to Dinesh himself on page 83 of his book “What’s So Great About America” (probably his least offensive work — some of the points he makes in it about subjects orthogonal to race and partisanship are actually valid).  Despite the family’s conversion to Catholicism, Dinesh’s ancestors up to and including his grandfather still considered themselves greatly blessed to belong to the most exalted of castes.

  • NoDoubtAboutIt

    It’s too bad the people of India didn’t treat collaborators the way the people of Bajor did.

  • http://eatdrinkandbemarysue.wordpress.com Mary Sue

    What is it about the idea of consent that confuses these folks so much?

    Dude, really? These are people who (almost entirely, I hold out hope some of them have a sliver of decency left in that hole they call their soul) believe that you can’t be raped by your spouse. After the woman says “yes” to the engagement ring (after her father’s given his consent, ‘acourse) she’s consented to everything the head of the household decides.

    My reaction and reading are of course colored by my own history, but it’s what I hear when they’re banging this particular drum.

  • http://profiles.google.com/fader2011 Alex Harman

    A couple of terms, actually.  Collaborators, obviously, but that also has neutral/positive meanings.  I think “quisling” captures the relationship of Goanese Indian Catholics to their Hindu and Buddhist countrymen rather well.  (I make no mention of Muslims because there’s a very good argument to be made for viewing the forbears of Indian/Pakistani/Bangledeshi Muslims as similarly traitorous collaborators with India’s Hindu-persecuting Muslim conquerers.)

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I still find it a little bizarre that some professed Christians on the political right have no problem praising avarice. Ayn Rand used to excuse selfish behavior on the grounds that no other act was as morally permissible as acting entirely in one’s self-interest, and if that so happens to hurt or benefit society, she is utterly indifferent as to those consequences.

    By contrast, at least one gentleman (I believe Paul) is said to have written that owing to the existence and teachings of Jesus Christ, all followers of Christianity should conduct themselves as though they and their fellows were decent human beings who care for and about one another.

    Excusing selfishness in light of this is a lot more troublesome, since it requires assuming that wealth and riches are a sign of God’s favor rather than, say, being an honest car mechanic.

  • Magic_Cracker

    I still find it a little bizarre that some professed Christians on the political right have no problem praising avarice.

    I’ve had fundamentalists tell me that the Seven Deadlies are a Catholic (and therefor invalid) invention because — wait for it — the words “Seven Deadly Sins” followed by a list of seven deadly sins don’t appear word-for-word in the Bible. Usually, said fundamentalists then say that’s there’s WAY more than seven deadly sins and begin to enumerate their favorites laws from Leviticus. Why I pointed out that the Seven Deadlies are common-sense CATEGORIES into which  various laws can be placed, I was met with “La! La! La! Not in the Bible! La! La! La!” or some variation thereof.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     

    I still find it a little bizarre that some professed Christians on the political right have no problem praising avarice.

    They’re going for the whole set.  Avarice, Gluttony, WRATH, Sloth, Pride, they envy the Poor for their government cheese, and they treat all Others as objects instead of people (Lust).

    Remind me again why we’re not supposed to call these people Satan-worshippers?

  • EllieMurasaki

    Remind me again why we’re not supposed to call these people Satan-worshippers?

    In my NaNo, assuming I write the original novel idea instead of the Supernatural fanfic idea, Lucifer’s the good guy. Or at least the no more evil than the average human guy. This is why.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Note, not the fact that he’s been peddling racist and colonialist lies to white Christians for fun and profit for the past forever, but because of what’s assumed about his marriage and sex life. PRIORITIES.

    It reminds me a bit of the Clinton sex scandals.  I can only speculate that the Republicans values-voter base assumed that Clinton would burn at the polls in light of the revelations about his sexual indiscretions, and sensing that, Republicans in congress pushed that issue hard… only to find out that much of the American public simply did not care.  

    Priorities.  

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    “This is not about sex” – Ken Starr

    Resulting report: A porn novel disguised as a report to the public.

  • Obotsarelonelyfools

    uh…charges against both him and her being racists dont seem to be so accurate once you find out she is black.

    lord buy a clue obot!

  • Lori

    You get that being a race other than white does not prevent someone from being racist, right?

    Racism noun

    1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races  determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race  is superior and has the right to rule others.

    2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

    3.hatred or intolerance of another race  or other races.

    Please note that specific races are not mentioned. That was on purpose.

  • fraser

     Likewise, she has no problem asserting that women shouldn’t have the right to vote. That’s no less sexist because she’s a woman herself.

  • Obotsarelonelyfools

    I totally agree.

    Ive seen team Obama play the race card for 6 years now.

    I understand this very well.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Ive seen team Obama play the race card for 6 years now.

    There is no desk large enough to accommodate the force of my karate headdesk.

    Too bad I didn’t invest in a Nerf desk when I had the chance.

  • Daughter

     Ive seen team Obama play the race card for 6 years now.

    O Really? Exactly how have you seen this?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=667708632 Kenneth Raymond

    Probably under the same conditions that increasingly seem to indicate that if you’re black and in politics (and a Democrat), you’re automatically playing the race card by existing? Kind of like “if you point out someone’s acting racist, you’re the real racist for bringing it up.”

  • Obotsarelonelyfools

    uh..the question is – how have you not?

    been loopy mainlinin’ hopium fanboy? 

  • Daughter

     Ah, no answer except to make some bizarre insult. OK then.

  • Obotsarelonelyfools

    fella – after 5 straight years of  false and endless charges of racism – if you choose to pretend that reality isnt real – dont expect me to treat you as a serious person.

  • Tricksterson

    Then don’t expect us to treat you as a serious person unless you can cite and defend specific examples.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Obama is being black and Democratic in public. What further evidence for Obama playing the race card could there possibly be?

  • Obotsarelonelyfools

    who the F is “us” fanboy?

    if you wanna know the whole story – heres the link you twit:

    http://www.google.com

  • EllieMurasaki

    This is a fun game. Can I play?

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=anti-obama+racism

  • Obotsarelonelyfools

    no

  • EllieMurasaki

    Aw, you don’t want to play anymore? We were having such fun, too. Don’t forget to take your ball when you leave!

  • Obotsarelonelyfools

    are you five years old?  

    if so thats very sad cause that means youve got lots of years of bitterness and regret after your precious falls and fails in 18 days.  Enjoy every last one of them – youve earned them.

    Im a lifelong labor left dem here in DC and I know whats happening – while you dont – this election – its over -the trendlines have spoken.

    We are done here – even though we both know you cant stop.  But I can.  Buh bye lonely obot fanboy(or girl)

    Romney 2012
    Clintons 2016

  • EllieMurasaki

    I’m voting for the only presidential ticket that has the nerve to get arrested in the course of defending people’s rights, dumbass, I’m voting Stein/Honkala.

  • Lori

     

    Im a lifelong labor left dem here in DC and I know whats happening –
    while you dont – this election – its over -the trendlines have spoken. 

    Either you’re a liar or you’re really, really racist. There’s no other explination for a supposed lifelong labor left Dem to be supporting a fat cat job killer like Romney.

    As for the trendlines, we already have one poll obsessed annoyance here, we certainly don’t need another so I’ll just say meet us back here on November 8th and we’ll talk about it.

  • AnonymousSam

    Buh bye lonely obot fanboy

    are you five years old?

    You have an interesting streak of hypocrisy. Try treating people like rational human beings for a little while and see how quickly it becomes possible to be taken seriously. Then you might actually stand a chance of getting people to consider an alternate possibility.

    Refusal to do this, of course, carries an implicit “I’m a troll throw rocks at me” message.

  • Obotsarelonelyfools

    i am the furthest thing from a hypocrite that is possible.

    im a lifelong insider dem telling the truth.

    the rest of what you say – i dont give a fig about.

    im not trying to make friends with or influence you obamacrats.

    im only responding to you and yours idiotic comments to me.

  • Obotsarelonelyfools

    maybe ill be nice to you after obama loses.

    better give it about a year though – when i want to win back the house and senate in 14.

  • AnonymousSam

    So what you’re saying is “I’m not stupid! You’re stupid! STUUUUpiiiiid!”

    Right then. Piss off, troll.

  • Obotsarelonelyfools

    you came to me fanboy.

    not the reverse.

    again, i dont give a F what you think about anything.

    enjoy the coming bitterness.

    R 52 O 47

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     

    you came to me fanboy.

    not the reverse.

    Um…  NO.  You came to this forum, and started stinking up the place.

    And if you think for an instant Rmoney is going to be better for workers than Obama, you must be very gullible.  Or possibly Chinese, since that’s where Romney and his buddies are sending all our jobs….

  • Obotsarelonelyfools

    forum?  god you tools are annoying.

    im not “in” a forum – im sitting down on the water at  my beach house with my ipad.i commented on some bs about D’souza on the net.  i dont know or care a bit about you or your looney concepts about a “forum” that somehow leads you to speak in the royal “we”.Plus – I know that Romney will be pushing policies that could cost us jobs.

    He has very bad views on intl trade issues.  I know they are bad because they are same exact policies that your president has been pushing.This lying sack of shitzz has signed 4 new trade deals and is pushing along secret talks for the new pacific rim deal that is Nafta on steroids to 11!  

    Of course you dont know or care about that – because youre just another – circle jerk – internet “blogger” fanboy who only knows the spin and soundbites that have been chewed up and spit into his mouth by the obama campaign, his web gurus and the fake democrats on MSNBC.  (most of who slimed and slammed Clinton/Gore and elected Bush btw)Im a 100% labo left dem – let me tell ya fanboy – every labor guy I know thinks Obama is a worthless piece of merde.  Like me, they were all for the Clintons in 08.  It was you naive fools that picked Barry – not us.

    Thats why what you say or think doesnt mean 1 f-n thing to me.We’re done.  I know you will feel the need to comment back and “win” – but I wont read it.But do it for the “forum” – show them that you still have great “faith” in your false messiah.  Dumazz.

    Youve got 19 days to pretend youre so smart.  After that – a lifetime of bitterness and self doubt  .  Enjoy.

  • Lunch Meat

    We’re done.  I know you will feel the need to comment back and “win” –
    but I wont read it.But do it for the “forum” – show them that

    Ooh, be careful–a flounce gets you 10 points if you stick it, but you lose 50 if you come back.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     

    Thats why what you say or think doesnt mean 1 f-n thing to me.We’re
    done.  I know you will feel the need to comment back and “win” – but I
    wont read it.But do it for the “forum” – show them that you still have
    great “faith” in your false messiah.  Dumazz.

    Bye!  And don’t worry – I never expected you to actually read anything I wrote in the first place.  Scan it for keywords to trigger your next screed, maybe, but not ‘read’.

    (Why is it that Conservatrolls somehow manage to accuse Libruls of worshipping Obama as a messiah when half of the comments I see about liberal blogs about Obama are liberals complaining he’s too right-wing?  I think it’s projection from the way they started grovelling before Bush after 9/11.)

  • zmayhem

     19 days, give or take four years.

  • Lori

     

    after 5 straight years of  false and endless charges of racism  

    Oh sure, the racism is all imaginary.

     

    if you choose to pretend that reality isnt real – dont expect me to treat you as a serious person.   

    Right back at ya.

  • Joshua

    I just read a story in the paper about a guy on an aircraft in flight who started screaming and tried to open the door.

    Turns out he was continuously drunk for the previous 50 days (not a typo) and erroneously believed the wing was on fire.

    Maybe something similar is happening here. For the previous six years.

  • PandaRosa

    Well, Dillinger was finally convicted on tax fraud. 

  • Magic_Cracker

    That was Capone. Dillinger was gunned down by the FBI.

  • P J Evans

    Al Capone certainly was. Don’t know about Dillinger.

  • J_

    Along with the existence of gods, I totally reject belief in the middle section of Dinesh D’Souza’s hair.

  • fraser

    I’m surprised no-one has yet brought up D’Souza’s lovely assertion a few years back that American conservatives and Muslims really should get along great. Once we explain to them that we hate sexual license and women dressing sexy and gay marriage and sexy TV shows and all that sexy stuff, and that all that is just the fault of liberals rotting our culture from within, they’ll love us.

  • BaseDeltaZero

    (conflicted, too, ’cause without the potatoes they brought back to Europe, my ancestors and my girlfriend’s would quite possibly have starved.)

    Yeah, but they could have brought back the potatoes *without* doing all the horrible things they did.

    Post-pubescent teens are capable of consenting to sex, and cases involving them should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not by blanket laws.

    I agree.  The problem is when minors start having sex with non-minors. Because non-minors have significantly more power, experience, and maturity than minors do, that means it may be difficult for them to meaningfully *not* consent.  It’s relatively easy for an adult to put a teenager in a situation where they can’t say ‘no’ without significant consequences (or at least the fear of such consequences).  To prevent this the law condemns *all* such relationships.

    Please tell me this is sarcasm. Most of your comment pretty clearly isn’t but the next paragraph pretty clearly is, so I can’t tell on this bit, and if it is not sarcasm then I will be obligated to wallop you.

    Yes, the statement with links to two counterarguments in is clearly made in absolute seriousness.

    You get that being a race other than white does not prevent someone from being racist, right?

    I’ve definently heard it said that it *does*, because races other than white do not have the power to discriminate against others.  Never actually believed it, though – there’s a difference between ‘racism’ and ‘racial oppression’ (leaving aside the fact that the modern west was not the only power to ever exist)

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yes, the statement with links to two counterarguments in is clearly made in absolute seriousness.

    Link I can see from an email notif (or would if I got email notifs of my own comments): http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbekrpZ3Tt1rpqpg5o1_250.png
    Link I cannot see from an email notif: the graphic has nothing to do with the conversation at the moment, it’s just conveniently open in a nearby tab.

    Pretty much the only formatting I get to see in email notifs is capslock and paragraph breaks, actually. If somebody replies to a comment with formatting, I can see the HTML in the comment-this-was-a-reply-to bit, but those bits get truncated. I also do not get notifs for edits.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    FYI, the two links were to the Wikipedia articles on incest & domestic violence.  I had a moment of “huh?” myself until I saw what they linked to, which cleared it up pretty well even before I got to the sarcasm tag.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    FYI, the two links were to the Wikipedia articles on incest & domestic violence.  I had a moment of “huh?” myself until I saw what they linked to, which cleared it up pretty well even before I got to the sarcasm tag.

    Yeah, that is what I saw too.  The citing of specific instances embedded in a statement asserting not knowing any seemed a pretty big give away that it was sarcasm.  

    Maybe there was a Disqus formatting error with the links that only applies to certain browsers?  Or maybe we were just referring to different links.  

  • Marc Tompkins

    >>Yeah, but they could have brought back the potatoes *without* doing all the horrible things they did.

    Um… you did read the previous paragraph where I mentioned being consumed with rage, no?  Doing good without doing evil doesn’t seem to have been an ethical or physical possibility for these people.  And even the good they did (looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope as we do) seems to have been accidental.

    If you understood me to be apologizing in ANY way for Pizarro, you misunderstood me entirely.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    So when a politician says that, say, abortion funding should be reserved
    for cases of forcible rape, they aren’t intending to exclude date rape
    victims, but to exclude statutory rape cases.

    Somehow I doubt they’re being that considerate.

  • fraser

     Yes the right-wing’s general attitude is that date rape is sluts with “buyer’s remorse.”

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    So much conjecture abounds in this “breaking” news.  Why is it news anyway?  Is it anyone’s business but Dinesh’s?  The Bible says no.  If it is true, I am disappointed in him, but he is a mere man.  There is only One perfect.  I’m more concerned over all the unloving, unChristlike vitriol directed at him, and how his privacy was not protected.  Revenge, unforgiveness and judgement are evil strongholds, and you know what the Bible teaches on the tongue.   The lives of some are an open book, while the lives of others contain many closed chapters.  Mr. D’Souza is in my prayers, as I hope he is in yours.   

  • Lunch Meat

    Why is it news anyway?  Is it anyone’s business but Dinesh’s?  The Bible
    says no.  If it is true, I am disappointed in him, but he is a mere
    man.  There is only One perfect.  I’m more concerned over all the
    unloving, unChristlike vitriol directed at him, and how his privacy was
    not protected.  Revenge, unforgiveness and judgement are evil
    strongholds, and you know what the Bible teaches on the tongue.

    Did you say the same thing to Mr. D’Souza about his hateful slander against President Obama and LGBT people?

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    No, Lunch Meat, when I met Dinesh, I did not tell him he is a hateful slanderer, because he is not a hateful slanderer.  He is not a racist.  He does not hate homosexuals.  He does not hate anyone.  Period.

  • Lori

    So you’re a mind reader are you, Ginny? You met him and now you know for a fact that he doesn’t hate anyone? How exactly do you explain all the hate he spews? Is some other guy who looks just like him and has the same name going around making trouble for poor, loving Dinesh? Or maybe you’re one of those folks who calls hate that you agree with love and thinks that the only hate is disagreeing with Christians?

  • Lunch Meat

    How the man who, while editor of the Dartmouth Review, penned a racist
    parody of African American students titled “This Sho Ain’t No Jive Bro”
    and later outed a gay student using stolen mail between members of the
    Dartmouth Gay Student Alliance can in any sense be labeled a Christian
    is something confederate Christianists can explain I suppose.

    How is this loving? How is this Christlike? How is this kind or helpful? How is this not judgmental? How is the second action not a gross violation of privacy?

    Why are you more concerned about Fred’s calling this actions out then you are about the actions in the first place?

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    If it is true, I am disappointed in him, but he is a mere man.  There is only One perfect.  I’m more concerned over all the unloving, unChristlike vitriol directed at him, and how his privacy was not protected.

    I do not think that anyone here will disagree with you on the point of this being an unfair scrutinizing of D’Souza’s private life.  To the extent we are expressing dislike for him has more to do with his position on other issues than it does with his private actions.  However, our commentary on this matter is not to condemn him for any such sexual indiscretions (though some of us may express distaste at the manner in which he did them) but rather to observe and discuss the reaction of the Evangelical community at large to this.  

    A big part of the reason why you will find a lot of people from different viewpoints, particularly those from outside the Evangelical community, commenting here is a kind of cultural curiosity.  As has been mentioned, there is something of a culture shock that implications of racism on D’Souza’s part go unmentioned, while the infidelity is considered a deal-breaker.  Outside of the values-voter subculture, both things would be considered bad, but the racial implications he has made would be given much more negative weight than the (alleged) adultery.  

    The contrast can make for fascinating discussion.  

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Cultural curiosity you say.  I beg to differ, FearlessSon.  It’s more like vultures flying around, delighting in the supposed fall of a brilliant, exemplary Christian apologist.  Folks these days do not care whether or not there is a shred of truth to sad reports such as this; they jump on the bandwagon of hate as quickly as they can, to join in the delicious feeding frenzy of attempting to destroy a fine man.  They relish it, and hope it is true.  Revenge is quite a motivator, huh?  There is no care about what it might do to his heart, or reputation or the quality of his life.  There is a Scriptural way to approach Dinesh’s “possible” situation (Matthew 18), but I guess the emergent “church” does not cotton to such.  You are all just a bunch of bullies, buddies with the world, no better than those who were the cause of young Amanda Todd’s recent demise.

  • Lunch Meat

    There is a Scriptural way to approach Dinesh’s “possible” situation
    (Matthew 18), but I guess the emergent “church” does not cotton to such.

    Again: Why did D’souza not approach Obama in this way? Why did he viciously out a gay student instead of approaching him in person? Why should we be held to this standard when D’souza is just forgiven? Is it just because you agree with him and think he’s brilliant?

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Flippin’ No MObama is NOT a Christian brother.  We do not know the full story about the homosexual (not gay) student he supposedly outed, and perhaps Dinesh was not a Christian then.  Maybe he did that, maybe he didn’t.  Christians are not perfect, but the One they serve is!

  • Lunch Meat

    Flippin’ No MObama is NOT a Christian brother.

    This is called bearing false witness. It’s a sin.

    In an interview with the evangelical periodical Christianity Today,
    Obama stated: “I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe
    in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe
    that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal
    life.”[310]
    On September 27, 2010, Obama released a statement commenting on his
    religious views saying “I’m a Christian by choice. My family
    didn’t—frankly, they weren’t folks who went to church every week. And my
    mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew, but she didn’t
    raise me in the church. So I came to my Christian faith later in life,
    and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of
    the kind of life that I would want to lead—being my brothers’ and
    sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me.”[311][312]

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Ha!  Many claim to be Christian that are not!  You’re kidding me, right?  Have you read the Bible, Spammie?  Devout Christians are not adamant that babies who survive an abortion be left to die alone on a blue pad, struggling for every breath!  Devout Christians do not advocate the ruthless slaughtering of the most defenseless and vulnerable among us!  Devout Christians are not bought by the money of homosexuals!  Devout Christians do not have ornaments with the face of Chairman Mao hanging on the people’s Christmas tree!  Devout Christians are not chums with Bill Ayers and Hugo Chavez.  Devout Christians do not lie to the nation about Planned Barrenhood doing mammograms!  Presidential much?  I rang up two of their slaughter houses yesteday to schedule a mammogram.  When I was told they do not do them, I asked them why our illustrious president and the head of PB are both spreading the lie that that do.  Devout Christians do not wear rings for 30 years that proclaim, “There is no god but allah.”    

  • Lunch Meat

    Your double standard and circular reasoning are as obvious as they are pathetic and disgusting.

    D’Souza is a Christian (and therefore we should be nice and nonjudgmental and forgiving toward him, and definitely not ever criticize him at all) because he claims to be. His unChristlike actions (lying, violating others’ privacy, racism) do not disqualify him from being a Christian because he’s “a mere man”, “forgiven”, and “it’s no one’s business but his own”. How do we know he’s forgiven of his unChristlike actions? Because he’s a Christian!

    Obama is not a Christian (and therefore we should call him rude, racist names, twist his words and actions, and criticize him happily and indiscriminately) because even though he claims to be, he doesn’t believe exactly what you believe and doesn’t look like you think a Christian should look. What you believe are unChristlike actions (even though Jesus never opposed abortion, refused to spend time with homosexuals, criticized pacifism, or said that capitalism is the only way to go) obviously disqualify him from being a Christian because he’s not, and should not be, forgiven. How do we know he’s not forgiven? Because he’s not a Christian!

    I suspect you would use the exact same logic to describe me and on Fred Clark. Are you so sure of yourself you can’t see that it could just as easily apply to you, D’Souza, and probably any number of other “exemplary, brilliant apologists.”

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    In Matthew 9:11-13, Jesus’ disciples were asked, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?”  On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.  I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”  In essence, Jesus was saying that everybody is living in sin if they have not surrendered all to Him, and everyone is in need of His healing and His salvation if they want to have eternal life.  He didn’t tell the tax collectors and sinners that they were fine the way they were.  He didn’t join them in their sin in an attempt to relate.  He wasn’t down with how they were living.  He boldly declared that they needed His healing and His salvation! 
    “We are saved by faith alone, but not by faith which is alone.  That is, we are saved, not by anything we do, but by grace.  Yet if we have truly understood and believed the gospel, it will change what we do and how we live.  Unlike cheap grace, which means going to church and hearing that God just loves and forgives everyone, so it doesn’t really matter much how you live, anyone who truly understands how God’s costly grace comes to us will have a changed life.  Costly grace changes you from the inside out.  Actions must follow what one believes, else one cannot claim to believe it.”  ~Dietrich Bonhoeffer

    The humanitarian sentiment of the postmodern church makes them give that which is holy to the scornful and unbelieving.  As exemplary Bonhoeffer said, “Costly grace is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life.  It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner.  Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of His Son:  ‘ye were bought at a price,’ and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us.  The only man who has the right to say that he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ.  Grace simply means discipleship.”  

  • Lunch Meat

    In essence, Jesus was saying that everybody is living in sin if they
    have not surrendered all to Him, and everyone is in need of His healing
    and His salvation if they want to have eternal life.  He didn’t tell the
    tax collectors and sinners that they were fine the way they were.  He
    didn’t join them in their sin in an attempt to relate.  He wasn’t down
    with how they were living.  He boldly declared that they needed His
    healing and His salvation!

    That…actually doesn’t respond to anything I said. In fact, you are just making your double standard more obvious. Why are you boldly declaring that Obama, Fred Clark and me are not fine with how we are, and that we need God’s healing and salvation for what you believe is unChristlike behavior, but smoothing over D’Souza’s obvious sins and arguing that we should be nice and his behavior is no one’s business but his own?

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Ginny, just a quick reminder:  Last time I checked, the Bible doesn’t ACTUALLY say that Ronald Reagan was the second mortal incarnation of God.

     

    Devout Christians do not advocate the ruthless slaughtering of the most defenseless and vulnerable among us!

    Psalm 137:9.

    Devout Christians do not have ornaments with the face of Chairman Mao hanging on the people’s Christmas tree!

    I see you’re one of those gullible people who believes every bizarre slander the GOP could urp up about the Clintons.  How cute.

    Devout Christians are not chums with Bill Ayers and Hugo Chavez.

    I’m sorry, where in the bible are they condemned by name?

    I’m guessing in your world, Real True Christians don’t hang around with lepers, prostitutes, or tax collectors either, do they?

      Devout Christians do not wear rings for 30 years that proclaim, “There is no god but allah.”   

    9_9

    You do know that “Allah” is the Arabic word for “God”, right?  And I’m pretty sure this is just more hysterical bullshit by the same hatemongers who brought us the whole Birther thing.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    I saw the ornament with evil Chairman Mao’s face hanging on our tree in the OBAMA White House, thank  you very much.  This is still the U. S. of A. right? Obamao is bent on fundamentally transforming the U. S. of A., even though, at the same time, he purports to  love it.  Convoluted thinking much?  What if he told Michelle he wanted to fundamentally transform her.  Would she feel loved?  Au contraire, he would be sending a clear message that he did not love her.  Thanks for calling me cute.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     

    I saw the ornament with evil Chairman Mao’s face hanging on our tree in the OBAMA White House, thank  you very much.

    Citation needed.  This sounds like WorldNutDaily’s delusions at its finest.  For one thing, I remember that same false witness being borne against the Clintons.

    Obamao is bent on fundamentally transforming the U. S. of A., even though, at the same time, he purports to  love it. 

    You mean the same way the Religious Right keeps ACTUALLY trying to do?

    If Obama is bent of ‘fundamentally transforming’ this country, why are things pretty much the same now as they were 4 years ago?  Still none of that Sharia Law the Bush fanclub were soiling their trousers over, Rush Limbaugh is still blathering away on the air, and the Koch Brothers still haven’t had their show-trials and executions yet. 

    So, yeah, I’m calling bullshit on this particular republican meme.  I know that to the current crop of Birchers running the GOP, Obama LOOKS like some sort of wild-eyed radical leftist, but they say that about everyone ‘left’ of Spiro Agnew. Pretty much everyone outside The Bubble thinks he’s a centrist at most.  Thud, the only reason this election isn’t a foregone conclusion yet is because of most of the ACTUAL wild-eyed Liberals who volunteered and voted for Obama in 2008 have been disappointed by how much compromising he’s done with the Ameritaliban, and how many godawful Bush policies he’s continued.

  • VMink

    but they say that about everyone ‘left’ of Spiro Agnew. 

    The real hardcore Birchers say that about everyone to the left of Genghis Khan.

  • Mark Z.

    The real hardcore Birchers say that about everyone to the left of Genghis Khan.

    Slander! Genghis Khan believed in freedom of religion.

  • AnonymousSam

    But did you catch the part about how the ornaments were decorated by local community groups? That the image of Mao may actually be an Andy Warhol image of Mao, and that Simon Doonan oversaw the decoration (and anyone who knows that name should expect him to be rather tongue-in-cheek about this sort of thing — the ornaments also include a drag queen and a Mount Rushmore image with Obama’s face as a fifth carving, among nearly 800 others)?

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Oh, so that makes it OK for the Obamaos to put that evil face upon the people’s tree?  No worries, right?

  • AnonymousSam

    Ronald Reagan’s face is also on the tree, as are Liza Minnelli, Michael Jackson and James Dean’s. As a community project, it was bound to have a variety of faces.

    Actually, I just confirmed that it is Andy Warhol’s work. Compare the original to the ornament.

    Andy Warhol was a practicing Ruthenian Rite Catholic who also painted religious work, but is most known for his colorful deconstruction art. His painting of Mao is such an image — one of a series of images of Mao in different color tones. He also did the same, more famously, of a can of soup.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Oh, I’m so glad you cleared that up.  No wonder the evil dictator’s face is on OUR TREE!

  • AnonymousSam

    Indeed, I wish we could have Reagan’s face removed too. It has no right to be up there alongside the likes of Hedda Lettuce.

    I must ask why you feel that an Andy Warhol image with distorted coloration is showing Mao some sort of veneration. Are you comfortable with having to attribute so much purposeful hatred to so many people, places and objects?

  • Latitude

    Who? Ronald Reagan?

    Or are you still on about the Mao ornament (which was donated by an American citizen, not bought or commissioned by the Obamas)?

    And since you keep bringing up “sin” and such:
    Your religion has no place in US government. That is, according to the founders of the country. Get over yourself, stop trying to spread tabloid-style stories, and grow up.

  • EllieMurasaki

    No no no, she left, she has been gone for a week, do not tempt her to return.

  • EllieMurasaki

    No no no, she left, she has been gone for a week, do not tempt her to return.

  • EllieMurasaki

    No no no, she left, she has been gone for a week, do not tempt her to return.

  • Lori

     

    Oh, so that makes it OK for the Obamaos to put that evil face upon the people’s tree?  No worries, right?   

    It was a joke, Ginny. An actual one, which is probably why you didn’t recognize it. You should take your own advice and get a sense of humor.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     Wait, wait – this Mao Ornament is a thing that actually exists outside of Glenn Back’s tiny perspiring mind?

    O_O

    WOW.  I may owe Ginny an apology.

    (Ah:  http://www.therightperspective.org/2009/12/23/is-mao-really-on-the-obama-christmas-tree/ Looks like it was indeed an Andy Warhol pic.)

    Ginny, for the record?  We still don’t care.  We were talking about Dinesh D’ishonest and his bigotry, propagandizing, and apparent adultery before you came in here with both hands ranting in a frantic effort to distract us.

    Me, I dislike Dinesh for his cowardly comments after 9/11 that if the terrorists “hate us for our freedom”, then we need to get rid of that freedom.  What a wimp.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I saw the ornament with evil Chairman Mao’s face hanging on our tree in the OBAMA White House, thank  you very much.

    If you have any shred of substantiation (even a picture you took yourself, not photoshopped), that would be nice.

    Otherwise, frankly, you are making things up.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Like I said, folks will believe whatever the hairy heck they want to believe.  It is NOT a lie about the Mao Christmas ornament hanging on the Obamaos White House tree!  My name is not frankly, btw.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    My name is not frankly, btw.

    i can’t tell if you’re trying to make a bad joke or if you really don’t understand the English language and the habit of using prefatory statements as pauses or enhancements to sentences.

  • EllieMurasaki

    i can’t tell if you’re trying to make a bad joke or if you really don’t understand the English language

    She doesn’t understand English. I know this because when I said Planned Parenthood helps women end pregnancies before being pregnant, or being pregnant while in an abusive relationship, seriously harms the woman, she asked how a pregnancy could end before it started. I suppose that at least makes her smarter whoever insisted people who aren’t pregnant get abortions. Was that Akin again? Too many misogynists in political office to keep track of.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Wow!  I guess jokes are not appreciated here.

  • P J Evans

    I saw the ornament with evil Chairman Mao’s face hanging on our tree in the OBAMA White House

    They let you climb up on a ladder to inspect the ornaments from six inches away? In the White House?
    ROFLMAO!

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    They let you climb up on a ladder to inspect the ornaments from six inches away? In the White House?
    ROFLMAO!

    I think you mean ROFL MAO

    (http://trenchcoatsoft.com/roflmao.jpg since disqus is so broken that it now pops up a failure dialog with every character I type)

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Paying no significance to the fact that evil Chairman Mao’s mug, who killed 70 million of his own people, is hanging on OUR Christmas tree in the White House is akin to  saying it doesn’t matter if just a little bit of feces is baked into a batch of brownies.

  • Lori

     

    And I’m pretty sure this is just more hysterical bullshit by the same hatemongers who brought us the whole Birther thing.   

    Yup, it is. Obama’s wedding ring actually has an abstract design on it. A bunch of people who couldn’t read a word of Arabic if their lives depended on it somehow turned that design into Arabic script. Because they are deeply, deeply stupid and racist.

  • Tricksterson

    Oh it Arabic.  It trnslates to “If ou’re close enough to read this it’s because my fist is in your face”

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

     Devout Christians do not advocate the ruthless slaughtering of the most
    defenseless and vulnerable among us!  Devout Christians are not bought
    by the money of homosexuals!  Devout Christians do not have ornaments
    with the face of Chairman Mao hanging on the people’s Christmas tree!
     Devout Christians are not chums with Bill Ayers and Hugo Chavez.
     Devout Christians do not lie to the nation about Planned Barrenhood
    doing mammograms!

    Holy crap I don’t EVEN.

    The first? I would almost take you for an animal welfare advocate if it weren’t for the fact that right-wing Christians usually use such terms as a code for OMGABORTION.

    The money of homosexuals? I LOL in your general direction! I may be a bisexual, but trust me when I say that I haven’t got money to give anyway so you need not concern yourself with that!

    Chairman Mao christmas ornaments? Are you serious? Do you even realize how stupidly absurdly alarmist you sound? Sure, some unreconstructed Communist might have such ornaments, but most of them these days seem to at least pay lip service to disavowing Stalin and Mao, so they’d have Lenin ornaments, or Trotsky.

    Who the fuck is Bill Ayers?

    Hugo Chavez. I may not be a total fan of his, but the man was legitimately elected. Even the Venezuelan opposition concedes that. And to be honest, given the way other Latin American countries continue to be interfered with by external agencies (A Canadian mining company was recently implicated in financing a right-wing defection from a ruling coalition in Paraguay to topple a Chavez-style leader, for example), Chavez has some reason to still be rather bombastically caustic about the USA and the West.

    Planned Parenthood may not do mammograms because they … gee, I wonder … maybe they don’t have the equipment?

    That said, I’m doubting you even legit called a PP at all and that you’re just making that up.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Yes, I’m serious about the Obamaos having a Christmas ornament with evil Chairman Mao’s face hanging on our tree in the White House.  I saw it.  

    Comforted am I to hear you personally don’t have money to use to further the sinful homosexual agenda.  I surely wish Tim Gill didn’t!

    Bill Ayers is a bomber who tried to kill many and he is NOT locked up!  He and Obamao have been chums for decades.  

    Yes, I did ring up two different Planned Barrenhoods yesteday, one in my hometown in VA and one where I’m living now.  But people will always believe what they want to believe, no matter what the truth is.  Hello, Obamao knows Planned Barrenhood has no mammography equipment and yet, our illustrious president told 65 million of us watching the debate on Tuesday night that they do mammograms!  Cecile Richards, the CEO of Planned Barrenhood has also spread that fat, ugly lie!  Cecile and Obamao are close, conniving, evil chums.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     >blockquote>Yes, I’m serious about the Obamaos having a Christmas ornament with evil
    Chairman Mao’s face hanging on our tree in the White House.  I saw it. 

    You were touring the White House on Christmas?  Which year?

    Bill Ayers is a bomber who tried to kill many and he is NOT locked up!  He and Obamao have been chums for decades. 

    He never killed anyone, he did his time, and now he’s a constructive member of society.  Listening to you rave, I’d almost get the idea that Allenist Christians don’t ACTUALLY believe in forgiveness and repentance.

    our illustrious president told 65 million of us watching the debate on
    Tuesday night that they do mammograms!  Cecile Richards, the CEO of
    Planned Barrenhood has also spread that fat, ugly lie! 

    From the way you’re acting, I get the impression that you think that we’re supposed to feel blinding, volcanic rage at this.  I can barely muster up enough energy to hit Google over it.

    The “Binders full of women” remark seems to have a lot more traction outside the Bubble…and it turns out Mitt was even lying about that.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Bill Ayers is as constructive as hell.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     > Who the fuck is Bill Ayers?

    This is the Bill Ayers he’s referring to.

    He was a big deal for a while during the ’08 campaign, as other candidates were trying to imply that Obama supported domestic terrorism, much as some folks on this thread try to imply various other things about Obama by claiming connections to various disliked individuals.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Who the fuck is Bill Ayers?

    Some Chicago politician with a tenuous connection to Obama. Can’t remember if Ayers is actually a slimeball or if people are simply saying he is; either way Obama’s connection with him is being used against Obama. There really isn’t much of a connection.

    Planned Parenthood may not do mammograms because they … gee, I wonder … maybe they don’t have the equipment?

    I can’t remember if Planned Parenthood does mammograms themselves or refers patients to somebody who’ll do them for free. Either way, going to Planned Parenthood in need of a mammogram does get one a mammogram.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    The point is Obamao told us Planned Barrenhood does mammograms, and they do NOT.  Presidential much for him to lie like that?

    Bill Ayers is a bomber, among other delightful things.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Perhaps if you would stop watching Dirty Dancing with the Stars, and read instead, you would be more aware of what is actually significant!

  • EllieMurasaki

    Patrick Swayze was on Dancing with the Stars? WHERE IS THIS I MUST SEE IT

  • Lori

    Swayze was actually a professional dancer at one time so if I understand correctly he wouldn’t qualify for DWTS even if he was still alive and healthy.

    Speaking of Patrick Swayze, I think this is my favorite of the binder-related humor from this week

    http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/post/33750544241/nobody-puts-baby-in-a-binder

  • EllieMurasaki

    *nods* Shame. That woulda be glorious to watch.

  • Lori

     So true.

    I don’t generally watch, but I did see some of Jennifer Grey’s performances. They were quite good, but it just wasn’t the same without Patrick.

  • P J Evans

     You’re just mad because Bristol got kicked off the island stage.

  • Lori

    I would watch if she was on Survivor. I hate that show but I would not be able to look away.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    With all your ranting about “Devout Christians”, I have to ask… are you planning on voting for the Mormon in the election?

    (Amazing how all it took for the Fundamentalists to memory-hole every nasty thing they’ve said about the Kolob devil-cult was a Mormon on the R ticket.  :D )

    Devout Christians do not lie to the nation about Planned Barrenhood
    doing mammograms!  Presidential much?  I rang up two of their slaughter
    houses yesteday to schedule a mammogram.  When I was told they do not do
    them, I asked them why our illustrious president and the head of PB are
    both spreading the lie that that do.

    For those of you wondering what she’s blathering about:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/2012/10/thousands-call-planned-parenthood-asking-for-imaginary-mammograms/

    Yeah, Obama screwed up on that one.  PP only recommends mammograms, not provides them, apparently.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Not apparently, they do NOT do mammograms.  Period.  Never have.  They do not have the equipment, and Obamao knows that.  So does the head of Planned Barrenhood, Cecile Richards, but she also freely spreads the conniving lie!  Obamao and Cecile are two cozy peas in a pod.  It’s not blathering.  It’s exceedingly significant that our illustrious president freely told such a sociopathic lie!

  • AnonymousSam

    To get a mammogram, you need a referral. Planned Parenthood provides referrals for mammograms, and does provide breast inspections (which may clarify the need or lack thereof to pursue a mammogram), so to say that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms is inaccurate, but nothing so contrary to the truth as “a sociopathic lie.”

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Obamao knew it was a bold-face lie and freely told it, trying to fool the many idiots among us!

  • AnonymousSam

    You attribute far more maliciousness to this inaccurate information than I believe is reasonable.

  • AnonymousSam

     Belatedly,

    Devout Christians are not adamant that babies who survive an abortion be left to die alone on a blue pad, struggling for every breath!

    In the United States, the latest you can get an abortion in the vast majority of cases (at least without violating federal laws) is 24 weeks, and some states don’t allow them as late as that. At 24 weeks, a fetus’s lungs are generally not developed enough to “struggle for breath.” The viability of a birth is considered in serious jeopardy at 24 weeks, but this is the milestone point where abortion becomes illegal without serious medical consideration (i.e.; attempting a live birth may kill one or both mother and child).

    Moreover, abortion via induced labor or surgical removal is rare;  the majority of abortions in the US take place between 3-12 weeks when the embryo can be removed with vacuum aspiration, significantly fewer take place via medical means, and other means of abortion are extremely rare.

    In general, the later into the pregnancy, the more complications, risks and legal considerations enter the situation. The scenario you describe, for all intents and purposes, doesn’t happen.

    How can someone be Christian and still believe abortion is necessary? By understanding the facts about abortion, why people seek it, and what happens when it’s not available or is illegal.

    No one likes abortion, but it’s a far better alternative to not having it and making it illegal wouldn’t make it go away, only relegate it to unsafe, unlicensed clinics without the government inspections and regulations we rely on for mainstream hospitals. Pro-choice voters don’t want people to have abortions, they want them to have the choice to have an abortion if it’s necessary. What pro-choice voters want is better sex education, easier access to contraception and elimination of the rape culture which lead to so many unwanted pregnancies.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Check out Jill Stanek’s page to learn the truth about abortion, in the windy city in particular, Obamao’s hometown.

    In essence what you are saying is that it’s alright for unborn babies to die during abortions, but it’s not okay for their mothers to die attempting to abort them.  How is the life of a mother any more valuable than the life of her unborn child?  The womb is created to be the safest, nurturing haven for the developing child.  When pregnant mothers go against their innate nature to protect the life of their precious baby, and instead have them ripped from their safe nest, it is the most pitiful act of all.Hmmm, wonder why we have such a rape culture?  Could it have anything at all to do with the sleazy billion dollar pornography industry, and how we have allowed our entire society to be all about sex, sex and more sex???  Free love abounds due to wise, caring progressives pushing, pushing, pushing for it.  To progressives it’s all about free love, and nothing about Jesus.  That’s why we’re living in such rot!  

  • AnonymousSam

    Jesus was about love. I suggest you revisit 1 John 4:7-21.

    To view it as somehow fitting for women to die during or as a consequence of abortions is very unChristian of you. Christianity is about forgiveness and love. You should be striving to understand the motivations of these women, rather than condemning them and unskeptically believing claims about either the process or the people receiving it.

    Why do we have a rape culture? Because men strive to preserve their waning levels of privilege and act out of resentment and spite for those they perceive as diminishing them. This privilege takes the form of an assumption (conscious or unconscious) that any woman they feel attracted to has an obligation to perform sexually for them, as logical as a screwdriver should be available to twist a screw and a hammer should pound a nail.

    Some women do perform pornography because they enjoy it. More power to them, but it doesn’t excuse acts against them, or against any woman. Bluntly, an act of rape is the fault of the rapist, not the victim. No one coerces a rapist to assault a woman, not even what the woman is wearing, where she happens to be walking, or if she’s had a few drinks at a bar.

    Moreover, it has been proven countless times that rape is not about sexual need, it’s about control, power over the victim and cruel domination. These are not traits to be found in a healthy sexual relationship (not even in one with sadomasochistic habits- believe it or not, submissive partners typically have more control over those than do their “dominant” partners). Rape occurs when men want to violently show their control over women.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Can we realistically hold this misguided fourteen year old child responsible for her pathetic act when our culture does not afford dignity to human life?  How convoluted is this thinking?  Our illustrious president adamantly opposes protection for an aborted baby who survives the attempt to end her/his life.  He has no problem with the defenseless infant lying there alone, on a blue pad, struggling for every breath.  Why is this fourteen year old girl’s baby’s life deemed more significant than those defenseless babies allowed to suffer to death, unattended?  Cassidy’s baby was unwanted too.  At what precise moment did her baby’s life become valuable?  How is it legally permissible, in 2012 in the United States of America, for females to have the precious little lives developing inside of them to be diabolically ripped from their nurturing, safe havens.  Casey Anthony, remember her, desired an abortion when she was pregnant with Caylee, but her mother, Cindy Anthony, would not allow it.  That action would have been accepted by our murderous society.  However, when Casey killed Caylee at age two, she was locked up.  At what precise moment did Caylee’s worthless life suddenly become valuable?  At what point was it suddenly not OK to consider killing her anymore?  This fourteen year old Florida teen, Cassidy, is a mere child.  The frontal lobe of her brain has not yet finished developing.  All children make bad decisions, don’t they?  Did her parents have the right to be informed of the life growing within their daughter’s womb?  Aren’t they responsible to help her formulate right beliefs and correct thinking.  That’s what conservatives believe.  Progressives differ by saying conservatives have no right to indoctrinate their offspring into their narrow way of thinking.  Wait a minute, how can they deny them this when, while also saying, everyone needs to be accepted for what they deem right for themselves.  According to our present culture that says everything is relative, how could she or her parents be held accountable for her act?  I have no doubt many all-wise progressives have said as much though.  Again, convoluted thinking much?  In my view, it does sound as if Cassidy’s parents need to be held accountable for blatant neglect of their child.  After all, she is a small girl and her baby boy weighed over nine pounds.  How could they miss her bump?  According to our postmodern culture, it was their right to neglect her, so we must tolerate it.  In a similar situation, it might not be what we deem right for us.  We need to accept that what is right for us may not be right for someone else, and that’s just the way it has become in our common-sense-is-not-common-anymore society.  In a society that says there is no truth, no right and wrong, how could Cassidy be charged with the first degree murder of her newborn baby?  As much as tolerance is touted from the rooftops across our nation, aren’t we expected to tolerate her decision?  In a sense, Cassidy simply took the scissors from an abortionist’s hands to use them herself.

  • AnonymousSam

     You rely on an excessive amount of vilifying imagery to justify your hatred. If you continue repeating this mantra of diabolical doctors and and sociopathic murders, I’ll have no choice but to consider you mentally unwell and will cease correspondence.

    Abortions are not about fully developed infants kicking weakly on a table, expiring while doctors cheerfully talk about setting kittens on fire. Most abortions look more like this.

    Is this disgusting? Yes, to most people, but it’s also nothing like what you seem to be proclaiming as the hidden truth to abortions. Again, most abortions take place long before the embryo has a chance to take on any kind of distinctly human features. Abortion when the fetus is even remotely capable of life is rare, and typically only occurs when it is medically necessary to save a life.

    You ask why a potential mother’s life should be more important than her potential infant’s — I ask why a fetus’s life is more important than a woman’s, especially if the fetus is unwanted, or is the product of molestation, rape, or misfortune. Is it morally superior to force a woman to give birth to an infant she doesn’t want, and then force her to raise that child? (Adoption services are a lot less convenient, practical and useful than you would think. The majority of orphaned children wind up going from one home to another and it has a tendency to affect them quite negatively.)

    Unnecessary histrionics aside, the comparison to a murder after birth isn’t one I would dismiss. To be fair, to designate 24 weeks as the cut-off point for abortions is in part an arbitrary one, based around the minimum estimate for a birth being viable — that is, for, with or without medical assistance, an infant to survive outside the womb. In practical terms, this marks the point at which the fetus is no longer, at least in theory, dependent on its mother. All time prior to this is debated on a number of philosophical and religious grounds, but in the medical and legal world, beyond this date, the mother can and should give birth to the infant and hold them up for adoption if they are still unwanted. (In practice, it doesn’t work out so simply. There can be medical complications right before the birth which necessitate a late abortion*, and adoption isn’t as easy a solution as it sounds.)

    (*Actually, abortion need not even be the intent to become a reality. A recent medical case involved a pregnant girl suffering from late stage cancer. Chemotherapy would definitely abort the fetus, and there was no hope of her successfully giving live birth. The choice became whether she should be allowed to die of cancer in order to not perform an abortion, or provide chemotherapy in hopes of her surviving cancer, but abort the pregnancy in the process. Which do you think would have been better?)

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    I am quite well, thank you.

    Here is the newspaper article that prompted me to write the essay about the sad Florida teen.  I did not make it up!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210159/Florida-teen-14-charged-degree-murder-strangles-newborn-baby-hides-body-shoe-box-dumps-laundry.html?ICO=most_read_module

  • EllieMurasaki

    Y’know, none of that would have happened if Florida didn’t require teens who need abortions to tell their parents first. Or possibly–since I’ve no idea of the circumstances of the conception–if Florida made it easier for teens to get hold of free-or-cheap condoms and the Pill.

  • AnonaMiss

    Believing what you read in the Daily Mail?

    Shiggydiggy. (To a Repub, should that be shucky-ducky?)

  • AnonymousSam

    I never accused you of having done so. I said only that in the legal and medical world, the difference between abortion and murder is the line at which it can be said that a reasonable person would find alternatives, which is drawn at 24 weeks pregnancy.

    The impression I get is that you read this article and only see a murderer who has committed a grave sin.

    I read it and it saddens me because this was a girl who was terrified of what her family would think–what they would do–if they knew she was pregnant. She shouldn’t have been afraid of that. She shouldn’t have been so ignorant of her body and sexuality as to get pregnant unintentionally. She should have been able to get an abortion if she truly felt there was no other alternative, rather than suffer something this traumatic.

    There are two victims here.

  • Ginny Bain Allen
  • Consumer Unit 5012

     “Abortion may be murder, but it’s murder in self-defense.” – J. R. Dobbs.

  • AnonymousSam

    I offered you a picture earlier of a jar containing crimson fluid — that is the result of most abortions, not fragmented body parts of dubious origin. We cannot even be certain that those were the result of abortions, or even if so, where and under what circumstances they took place. I wouldn’t look to, say, the medical practices of isolated tribes in South America as evidence behind what takes place in clinics here in the United States, but I can’t trust a site willing to provide images of that nature to be arguing in honesty or good faith.

    While I thank you for demonstrating reasoning behind your beliefs, shock value, while excessively prevalent in today’s media, does not provide adequate logical, philosophical or even religious argument to satisfy me.

    (For the record, I happen to have antisocial personality disorder and am not greatly affected by such imagery, but I would thank you to have more discretion in providing links to sites without a warning about their contents. You may have seriously disturbed someone with that link. You don’t want to be responsible for causing anyone psychological harm, I should hope.)

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Everyone, and I mean everyone NEEDS to see such heart-wrenching photos.  Perhaps that would end our American holocaust!  Now, that I have been informed of your character-disorder, it might be enlightening to reread your comments with that in mind.  I have been deeply wounded by several such people in my life.  DEEPLY wounded!  Speaking of something EVERYONE needs to learn about, that is the sociopath, psychopath, antisocial, character-disordered among us.  Due to our narcissistic society, sadly, such folks are being bred an an alarming rate.  Since you are aware of your mental willness, I certainly hope you have undergone cognitive behavioural therapy!

  • EllieMurasaki

    So you’re good with causing easily-avoidable psychological trauma? No wonder you oppose abortion.

  • Lunch Meat

    If seeing something makes you feel bad, does that mean it’s immoral? Pictures of slaughterhouses are disturbing and probably heart-wrenching to some people–are they therefore immoral? Pictures of starving children make me cry, does that mean everyone who doesn’t give money to organizations that feed children is immoral? What about pictures of abused puppies?

  • AnonymousSam

    I have, yes. Having deeply stunted emotional development, I have difficulty following the mental processes of others. The result is that I’m constantly forced to consider all sides of each argument, both to determine my own beliefs and to understand the beliefs of others.

    That’s why, when given grotesque images, my response is not “oh, how horrible,” but instead, “did these really come from whence they are claimed to originate?”, followed by a mental reminder, “What that person did was not very considerate of others.”

    Please contemplate the irony of being told by a socipath that you just caused potentially great harm to people. I understand your motivation for doing so, but I can’t think of it as justified, especially when I’m making an effort to engage you in good faith.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    I just know that I must stay away from sociopaths to protect myself.  Sociopaths have stolen my identity.

    I read a horrifying story about a four year old girl who was playing with her newborn twin brothers.  While playing, she was scratched by one of the boys.  His sister proceeded to throw him on the floor, killing him.  Then she threw his twin to the floor, killing him as well.  What should her parents do with her???

  • EllieMurasaki

    She’s four. I remember hearing about a kid who, when asked why he drowned his infant sister, said he wanted her to die but he didn’t want her to stay dead. He was about four. Horrible, horrible situation, but four-year-olds have no idea what death means and therefore have no idea that killing is wrong.
    You’re still not answering my question. In a jurisdiction where abortion is legally murder, what penalty is appropriate for a woman who gets an abortion?

  • VMink

    I’ve not seen someone dodging a question so well since Neo vs. Smith.  Seriously, I’ve got ‘Furious Angels’ playing in my head-soundtrack.  They could teach Bill Clinton something about etymological rhetoric.

    I don’t think you’re going to get an answer from them, Ellie, but it’s worth continuing to ask it of them until they realize the logical fallacy they’ve dug themselves into.  That is if they aren’t really a troll.

    Speaking of, how did we start with Dinesh “Rampaging Jackwagon” D’Souza (former president of The King’s College) trying to snag himself a trophy wife, and get into abortion, Malthusian theory, and wacky Christmas tree ornaments?

  • EllieMurasaki

    The thing is, it’s not an impossible question. I’ve met a pro-life person who had a coherent response. I won’t say what the response was until after Ms Allen answers, and it’s not a response I agree with, but this person had at least thought her views through far enough to answer the question. Or else had been asked it before.

  • VMink

    *nodnods* It’s a direct question that can have surprisingly nuanced answers, but not without doing something novel called “thinking about it.”

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     Ginny showed up on page three to complain how MEAN everyone was being to that nice Mister D’Souza and how UNCHRISTIAN it was to judge him… before barfing up a BIG ol’ load of steaming judgement all over Obama.  Things have gone downhill from there.

  • VMink

    Oh, dear.  Thank you for the clarification. I’d worried that I’d missed something.

    Well, the nice Mr. D’Souza can now take a nice vacation from the mean King’s College people who were tired of his extracurricular activities, so he can now focus on his divorce and new engagement (though apparently not in that order.)

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     Funny, I thought both the Bible AND that one psycho Republican who’s been in the news lately answer that one.  KILL THEM.   It says right in the Bible to kill disobedient children, right?

    fnord

  • AnonymousSam

    Sociopathy isn’t exactly a group consciousness. Whoever has stolen your identity in the past is a criminal and I hope he or she is brought to justice — but other than that, I have nothing to do with this person.

    That is a sad story, but I would have to believe that the girl wasn’t capable of understanding that she was doing lasting, permanent harm to her brothers, much less had the intent to kill them. Children at that age are typically unable to understand that other people have minds and consciousness outside of their own, hence why they come across as having very little empathy.

    I studied a similar case several years ago about the murder of Jamie Bulger, who was kidnapped and murdered by two eleven year olds. Despite a guilty conviction, the public wasn’t contented with the ruling and proceeded to make up increasingly vile lies about the children, up to and including that they were homosexuals who had raped the toddler. Now they live under witness protection programs, accused of heinous crimes whenever and wherever their identities are discovered.

    My only conclusion is that life is often very tragic, but it takes grown-ups with too much hatred and venom in their hearts to create a lasting travesty.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    I’m not saying someone stole my identity as in fraud.  Sociopaths stole my identity in causing others to believe I am someone I am not.  There is more than one way to kill life, and sociopaths kill life and liveliness with their traits of control, manipulation, lying, etc.  Obama I believe is one, as well as a charlatan.  Dinesh D’Souza is a caring, intelligent, wise man who has simply researched the truth about Obama’s life and agenda, and brought it to the public.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Dinesh D’Souza is a caring, intelligent, wise man

    So…his wife wants him to divorce her and marry a younger woman? It was at least half her idea? Because that’s the only scenario in which it is plausible for a caring, intelligent, wise man to be engaged to a woman much younger than the woman he is in the process of divorcing.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    His wife was the one who initiated their separation two years ago.

  • EllieMurasaki

    One: citation needed. Two: what makes you suppose that she initiated proceedings because she wanted him to be happy and knew he’d be happier with a younger woman (or other reason that reflects well on him), rather than because she caught him having an affair with said younger woman and wanted to be shut of him (or other reason that reflects badly on him)?

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    He met the younger woman only three months ago.

  • EllieMurasaki

    So she didn’t catch him sexing this particular younger woman. All that proves is that this particular younger woman is in no way a cause of the divorce. Still at a loss for why a caring intelligent wise man would be dating someone not his spouse when the divorce papers aren’t signed yet. (I assume this is not a marriage in which sex with a not-spouse is acceptable conditional on prior approval from spouse.)

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Why do progressives expect for sex to be involved whenever a couple is dating???

  • EllieMurasaki

    …because if neither is asexual and neither is inexperienced and intending to remain so, it nearly always is? And even if we make the (probably unjustified) assumption that D’Souza is not in fact sexing his girlfriend, dating someone other than his wife without his wife’s approval is a betrayal of his wife right up until she is no longer his legal wife.

  • Daughter

    … including most evangelical dating couples past the age of say, 16.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Because there’s like a 90+% chance that’s what romantic couples will do at some point. They end up banging. Doing the horizontal mambo. Dancing sideways. Whatever you want to call it.

    Acknowledging that fact is easier than trying to hide from it.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    After marriage hopefully.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Ginny Bain Allen:

    I have a couple relatives who’ve been living together for quite a while, even had kids, and never got married. SHOCK AND HORROR AND OMFGWTFBBQ!!!!!#@#@!oneoneone

    You’re practically a walking caricature of all the thin-lipped humorless prudery I’ve had the misfortune to come across in my lifetime.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Funny you mention humor today.  My daughter and son and I traveled to hear comedienne Tim Hawkins last night and got lots of exercise in by laughing for two hours straight!  Delightful time.  Delightful man.  Delightful laughs!  Go see him in person or watch him on YouTube!  He’s just what the doctor ordered to brighten your day!    http://www.timhawkins.net/

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Is it just you or do all fundamentalists who style themselves the warriors of God’s Word use shitloads too many exclamation marks?

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    What’s it to you how many exclamation points I use????????????????????????????  

    I am a warrior for Jesus!!!!!!!  A fool for Christ!!!!!!!  A bigot for Him!!!!!!!

  • EllieMurasaki

    Jesus: not a bigot. We know this because he actually talked to Samaritans–there’s an excellent reason why the Cotton Patch Bible, set in 1950sish Deep South, recasts Samaritans as black folks.

  • RidgewayGirl

    At least you’re up front about being a bigot. There is that. You’re not trying to pretend to be kind and loving at all. 

    I hope very much that you’re just this way when you can be anonymous on the internet and that you are able to be polite in real life. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    …is there some reason you’re referring to Hawkins with both male pronouns and the female equivalent to the male-or-gender-neutral ‘comedian’?

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    to get your goat

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yes, because I am Hawkins and am therefore mortally insulted by misgendering Hawkins. I neither know nor care what gender Hawkins identifies with, but unless you are trying to be rude to Hawkins (which you really shouldn’t be) then you need to find out what gender Hawkins identifies with and use the proper nouns and pronouns for Hawkins.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Oh my!  In my haste, I misspelled a word.  Is Tim gonna ban me from attending another of his nights of laughter?  You are a nasty woman, Ellie.  Take note, I did NOT refer to you as a lady.  

  • EllieMurasaki

    Conveniently for you, today I am not a lady. Today is a ‘none of the above’ day. Are you gonna explain how sinful I am for not accepting the gender roles that come with my vagina, or are you gonna follow in Jesus’s loving footsteps? Sadly you cannot do both at once. Neither is a valid option, but both is not.

  • Lunch Meat

    Take note, I did NOT refer to you as a lady.

    I don’t know why you keep acting as if accusing us of not adhering to your arbitrary gender roles is the worst insult ever. By my count, that’s the third time you’ve said it. Guess what? We don’t care.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Either a person with such wit must have certainly written a book to help others attain the state of perfection you have, Ellie,

    or…

    you hold others to a standard that you cannot attain yourself.  Hmmm, what would that make you?

  • EllieMurasaki

    Either a person with such wit must have certainly written a book to help others attain the state of perfection you have, Ellie,

    or…

    you hold others to a standard that you cannot attain yourself. Hmmm, what would that make you?

    …what has that to do with the comment you’re replying to, in which I, having no knowledge nor desire for knowledge of Hawkins’s gender, pointedly do not misgender Hawkins?

  • Tricksterson

    A Born Again Christian?

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    You’re practically a walking caricature of all the thin-lipped humorless
    prudery I’ve had the misfortune to come across in my lifetime.

    What do you mean ‘practically’?

    (Mind you, I strongly suspect that Ginny here is a troll.  This is because I try to think the best of people, and ‘her’ being a troll would be less sad than her being sincere.)

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I’m sorry, is there a reason you’re nitpicking me today?

  • P J Evans

     Probably not. She seems to enjoy feeling superior to the rest of us. She’ll make a nice carpet in hell.

  • AnonymousSam

    It isn’t necessary to be a troll to have positions commonly held by Bible Belt-dwelling Christians for the better part of some centuries. Ginny is a 56 year old mother of four, born in Virginia and living in North Carolina. I’ve known plenty of people with similar dispositions who came out of similar backgrounds.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     D’Souza sure does move fast! 

    Of course, these days, the only time finding a Republican bigshot cheating on their spouse  is when it’s heterosexual.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     Argh, somehow, I lost the word “surprising” in there.  Oh, well.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     So, D’Souza’s kind of failed at this whole “Marriage” thing, then?

    I was under the mistaken impression that Republicans claim this is a big deal. 

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     As long as you’re talking about the “Truth About Abortion”, here’s a little Truth for ya:  “The only moral abortion is my abortion”.  I do not expect you to actually read it, or to comprehend it if you do.

    In essence what you are saying is that it’s alright for unborn babies to
    die during abortions, but it’s not okay for their mothers to die
    attempting to abort them.  How is the life of a mother any more valuable
    than the life of her unborn child?  The womb is created to be the
    safest, nurturing haven for the developing child.

    Well, yeah.  Yes I AM saying that.  Because I think a mother is an ACTUAL HUMAN BEING ALREADY, whereas a fetus is only a POTENTIAL human.  So, women are by definition ‘more valuable’ than the egg-cells.

    And if that’s how the womb is created, it doesn’t say anything complementary about God’s engineering skills.  Humans have a scarily high death-rate for women during childbirth, and something like 30% of all fertilized egg-cells (or to use your terminology “BABIES”) fail to grab hold of the uterine wall and go out with the menstruation.

    How do you reconcile being ‘pro-life’ with policies that are actively ANTI-living-past-birth, like ruinous medical costs, cuts to welfare, and a culture of vicious ninnies like you making women feel like garbage?

    To progressives it’s all about free love, and nothing about Jesus.  That’s why we’re living in such rot! 

    9_9

    Can I have your jacket?

    (Let’s see if she gets that reference…)

  • Latitude

    Jill Stanek? As in, the PROVEN LIAR Jill Stanek? The woman who also condones the murder of doctors who work in clinics that provide abortions? The woman who praised the murder of Dr. George Tiller? THAT psychopath?

    Congratulations, you’ve lost all credibility. Might as well go back to Conservapedia (where facts are poison & reason is an evil liberal plot).

  • http://www.facebook.com/ray.mcintyre Ray McIntyre

    Obama’s ring is not Muslim, it is an abstract design and has been known as such since 2007/2008. Christ himself fellowshipped with those that the society of his time found objectionable. If it was good enough for the Founder of the Firm then it’s good enough for Obama and me. 

  • Albanaeon

    Anyone else being reminded of that bumpersticker “Jesus may love you, but everyone else things you’re an ass”? 

    Seriously, I don’t give a rat’s ass as to how many times he’s prayed to his god for forgiveness.  He’s clearly left the actual people he’s hurt and the damage that he’s done untouched and that makes any amount of “sinner’s prayers” not worth the oxygen they consumed.

  • Lori

     The fact that you consider Dinesh D’Souza “a brilliant, exemplary Christian apologist” tells us a great deal about you, none of which is flattering.

    Folks these days do not care whether or not there is a shred of truth to
    sad reports such as this; they jump on the bandwagon of hate as quickly
    as they can, to join in the delicious feeding frenzy of attempting to
    destroy a fine man.  They relish it, and hope it is true.  Revenge is
    quite a motivator, huh?

    You are distorting Fred’s post and the discussion of it in order to defend D’Souza. There’s a name for that. You clearly have energy for worrying about people’s unchristian reactions to things. You should focus that energy on yourself.

    You are all just a bunch of bullies, buddies with the world, no better
    than those who were the cause of young Amanda Todd’s recent demise. 

    It paraphrase a recent line from Connie Briton, you have about 500 miles of nerve saying this. The fact that you are trying to use the death of a young girl this way should be a source of everlasting shame to you.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Thank you, thank you very much, Lori, for your compliment.  If it was meant to sting, it didn’t.  Believe me, I’ve heard much worse countless times, because the majority of folks these days are mean, due to living in this raunchy society.  You all sound the same, whether you are part of the postmodern church or part of the corrupt world – a broken record.  You are so predictable.  Yawn…  So hateful, like Frankie Schaeffer.  Venomous.  Miserable.  The vitriol you spew forth for those who do not believe as you do is unfathomable.  For as much as tolerance is touted these days, it’s laughable how intolerant everyone is towards genuine disciples of Jesus Christ, you know, those who believe in costly grace.  Costly because it cost Jesus His life!  You are the ones who should be ashamed, but you will not allow yourselves to feel the pain of conviction.  The fear of God is gone missing!  

  • Lori

    Flippin’ No MObama is NOT a Christian brother. 

    So in your version of Christianity it’s OK to lie about someone as long as you’ve decided he’s not your Christian brother? Can I have chapter and verse on that? Also, you’re the one justifying lying and we’ve vicious and miserable? Nice little bit of projection you have going on there.

    You’ve shown us all exactly who you are  and the picture you’ve painted of yourself is not good.

    The fear of God is gone missing! 

    Yes, it has. You clearly do not fear the God you claim to follow. You should either work on that or shut up about it.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    What a lady you are, Lori!

  • Lori

    That assessment means so much coming from a person who makes fun of a poster’s userID.

    So, you think that calling Lunch Meat “Spammy” is ladylike and lying is good Christian behavior.

    Your opinions are duly noted and clearly totally worthless.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    It’s sad you can’t take a joke about Lunch Meat’s name, Lori.

  • Lori

    What’s sad is that you can’t come up with any better excuse for your own rudeness and lack of Christian behavior than the tired old “It was a joke. Why don’t you have a sense of humor?” That’s what every jerk says when they’ve been rude.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chrisalgoo Chris Algoo

    Hi Ginny,

     Would you mind reading this? It’s short and entirely relevant.

    http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2012/08/being-without-sin/

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     Yeah, it’s SO horribly RUDE of her to argue BACK when you’re being an obnoxious troll.  9_9

    As long as you’re raving about what “Devout Christians” will and won’t do:  Will “Devout Christians” rip people off on the stock market?  Will “Devout Christians” waterboard prisoners?  Will “Devout Christians” make life worse for the poor and sick?  Should “Devout Christians” bomb foreigners? 

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    because the majority of folks these days are mean, due to living in this raunchy society.

    I bemoan the coarsening of human behavior too, but I don’t automatically put myself up on a pedestal in the process.

    it’s laughable how intolerant everyone is towards genuine disciples of
    Jesus Christ, you know, those who believe in costly grace.  Costly
    because it cost Jesus His life!

    And yet strangely, your life is not in danger.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    If I endure to the end, I shall be saved.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Respectfully Miss Allen, before last week I have never heard of Mister D’Souza’s name.  I have hardly known of him long enough to make such judgement about his character, or find schadenfreude in his present entanglements.  I cannot really take revenge on someone who has (to my knowledge) not harmed me.  

    Frankly, I care not what is in Mister D’Souza’s heart.  I cannot see into his heart, I can only make inferences based on his behavior, and given my lack of acquainted with the man, I would hesitate to make any such assertions about his character at this point.  All I can judge him by is his actions, and so far the best public record of those is what he has written.  However, his writings so far do not speak highly of him to me.  For example, I find his rather “This Sho Ain’t No Jive Bro” distasteful.  From what I have read of his recent documentary about President Obama, I have serious doubts about the trustworthiness of his scholarly rigor.  He may have a “good heart”, but that is not really relevant to me, that is between him and God.  

    I do not really see how this parallel’s Amanda Todd’s case, no one here is trying to personally torment Mister D’Souza.  As I said before, the potentially adultery is not that big an issue to us.  Besides, bullying only happens when the weak are tormented by the strong.  I would not regard Mister D’Souza, given his social alliances and influential media presence, to be particularly weaker than us.  

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Okay then, if it’s not bullying, it’s group evil.

  • geraldfnord

    What is these people’s problem with consent?  Simply put, they believe human beings to be totally depraved, and so (at least if they are not of the Elect) their decisions are actually probably the worst they can possibly make—they often make exception for those decisions that will be disciplined by the Market, which is to say the collective will of the rest of us heavily tilted toward that of our richest (and so most obviously Elected) fellows, but some not even then.  People are bad, deserve the eternal punishment awaiting most of us, so how can our decisions carry much weight.

    (Does this sound like the mirror-image of their claim that we on the Left want the Gummint to make all decisions for foolish ol’ us?  That’s because that vision is based on a little truth—there are authoritarian twerps of all stripes—and an awful lot of projection, which it always is.)

    No, consent is much less important than God’s voice in the heads of my shepherd and priestly ancestors, as interpreted by millenia of obsessives, misanthropes, and those who must believe six impossible things before breakfast lest their gruel (or, oddly given the literature, bacon) lose its savour.

  • RidgewayGirl

    D’Souza took his fiancee with him to SC, the same state that thought Newt Gingrich would make a fine president. In the weeks leading up to the primaries, there was discussion on local talk radio (I know! But there isn’t that much to listen to while driving out here) rationalizing how Gingrich was a better family man than our current President. I can see D’Souza thinking that it would fly in South Carolina, where one’s sexual reputation is based more on toeing the Tea Party line than on any actual heterosexual activity.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     

    rationalizing how Gingrich was a better family man than our current President.

    man what?

    How can anyone possibly torture a rationalization enough to support THAT conclusion without it dying?

  • Lori
    rationalizing how Gingrich was a better family man than our current President.

    man what?

    How can anyone possibly torture a rationalization enough to support THAT conclusion without it dying? 

    It’s obvious. Newtie has had more families than Obama has, therefore he is clearly  a better family name.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=30319652 Tim Lehnerer

    I’m a little happier with his Obama “documentary” making so much money now that I know it’s going to be alimony, not yacht payments.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=30319652 Tim Lehnerer

    I don’t know anything about Divorce D’Spousa’s apologetics, but I can say his movie on Obama was an intentionally deceptive and boring piece of shit. If he’s under a commandment from the ruler of the universe not to bear false witness and Christianity is the correct religion, he’s earned himself an eternity of agony just for the movie, let alone trying to trade his wife in for a younger and prettier model.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    You know, I never really took D’Souza for much of a Christian. I  had always heard of him as a breathlessly gushy apologist for being rich as balls and doing fuck all to help the poor.

  • VMink

    Well, moderately on-topic: Dinesh D’Souza has resigned from his position as president of The King’s College.

    You may now commence blaming the liberal media.  I’ll fire up some popcorn.

  • Leum

    In essence, Jesus was saying that everybody is living in sin if they have not surrendered all to Him, and everyone is in need of His healing and His salvation if they want to have eternal life.  He didn’t tell the tax collectors and sinners that they were fine the way they were.  He didn’t join them in their sin in an attempt to relate.  He wasn’t down with how they were living.  He boldly declared that they needed His healing and His salvation!

    What people seem to forget when talking about Jesus eating with sinners is that in order to do so they must have liked him. They must have enjoyed hanging out with him. Which, in turn, implies that he probably wasn’t spending most of his time with them berating them for their sins.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    What the hell do mammograms have to do with abortions, anyway? You’d think as a rather necessary cancer screening technique PP would be all over that anyway.

  • EllieMurasaki

    The point Ms Allen is trying to make is that Planned Parenthood does abortions and perhaps contraception, nothing else. Which is nonsense, of course.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Planned Barrenhood does NOT care about women.  They ruthlessly slaughter millions of females each year!  They care about money, money, money – MONEY!

  • EllieMurasaki

    Which is of course why a woman coming to Planned Parenthood wanting to be rid of a pregnancy before being pregnant (or being pregnant while in an abusive relationship) seriously harms her is sent away still pregnant, and a woman coming to Planned Parenthood wanting to keep a pregnancy that her partner does not want kept is sent away with no help in the area of getting away from her partner.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    How does one get rid of a pregnancy if one is not yet pregnant???

  • EllieMurasaki

    Okay, I have better things to do than argue with someone who fails basic reading comprehension.

  • P J Evans

    How does one get rid of a pregnancy if one is not yet pregnant???

    Ask whichever GOP Congresscritter said it.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Pretty sure Akin said it. Dead certain it’s a misreading of what I said.

  • P J Evans

     Couldn’t remember if it was Akin or one of the other GOP nutbar conspiracy theorists.

    (I think Ms Allen may have some real mental problems, given her talk about ‘sociopaths stealing her identity’.)

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Perhaps I do have mental issues, but at least I don’t have heart issues like you do.

  • AnonymousSam

    That is in shocking contrast to my own experiences with Planned Parenthood, namely how they are often the only people willing to treat a terrified girl as a human being instead of as a piece of disgusting filth.

  • Hawker40

    “That is in shocking contrast to my own experiences with Planned Parenthood, namely how they are often the only people willing to treat a terrified girl as a human being instead of as a piece of disgusting filth.”

    Well, that’s exactly the problem, Sam.  By treating them as a human being in trouble instead of [redacted by originator] ‘disgusting filth’, RTC’s like Ginny don’t get to feel morally superior, and that’s *wrong*.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Planned Barrenhood only sees the dollar signs when any woman walks in to their abortion mill.  My experience with them is that they murdered my grandchild!

  • Lunch Meat

    I am quickly losing interest in your pearl-clutching. If your first post in this thread was supposed to make it seem like you believe in being generous, reasonable, forgiving, and peace-making–all noble and Christ-like qualities–toward those who make mistakes, you’ve pretty much destroyed that impression through your gleeful name-calling, ranting, twisting of the truth, refusal to listen to reason or engage with what people are saying.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Who twists the truth?  You are not reasonable, so no, I can’t reason with you, but you engage reasonably with me?  Hmmm.

  • Lunch Meat

    I explained your double standard and circular reasoning very clearly. You have refused to address it.

    And all I hear when you call me unreasonable is projection.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    What I heard from you is what I hear every time, every time I debate progressives. Also, after the discussion has gone on for a while, every time, every time I begin to feel sad and gloomy.   :(

  • Lunch Meat

    Have you ever tried listening? Maybe instead of assuming everyone is evil, hates your religion and wants to destroy America, you could try to understand why a reasonable person who wants to do what is right might disagree with you.

  • P J Evans

     FWIW, I was going out, at one time, with a guy who got a vasectomy via PP.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Actually, Invisible one, there is a sad link between abortions and breast cancer.  I guess you did make invisible your last comment, the one I am now commenting on.  Ha!

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     Andrew Schlafly?  Is that you?

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    How’d ya guess?

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     The Abortion = Breast Cancer thing.  I seem to recall that’s one of Andy’s hobbyhorses.

    Yeah, I’m thinking troll.  And not the fun sort WHO WR1T3S L1K3 TH1S, either.

  • AnonymousSam

    FWIW, Ginny Bain Allen has a facebook page and the image on that is of the same woman in the user avatar here.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Is there a problem with that?

  • AnonymousSam

    Not at all. This was in response to the implication that you were someone else. I was affirming your identity to the best of my ability to do so.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    The Fetus Liberation Front seems to think that ALL ladyparts issues are actually fronts to give more women abortions. 

    Even if they’re not pregnant, according to noted medical expert Todd Akin.  :-P

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Hey, Ginny, is your objection to abortion on religious grounds?

    If so, do you think God sends the little fetus souls to Hell, or Heaven?

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Of course all babies go to heaven.  Fetus means little one, fyi.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Abortion sends souls to heaven; why then is abortion not a sacrament? Not one anyone should engage in if their hearts incline them elsewhere, of course, no more than holy orders or holy matrimony, but a holy thing nonetheless.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

     Of course all babies go to heaven.  Fetus means little one, fyi.

    So then just to be really sure we should always abort the babies so they can never sin.

    Seriously, that’s one possible logical consequence of your statement and it’s why anti-abortionists are hypocrites when using religious arguments to justify banning it.

    They want the born kids to be able to sin to later justify treating them like crap 18 years later.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     

    Of course all babies go to heaven.

    So, sending them to heaven is a bad thing…. why? 

    (This is one of several reasons I’m not religious.  Believing in an afterlife that’s more important than this life can lead to some very worrisome conclusions.)

  • Hawker40

    The punishment for murder is death.  So, we need to execute the mother of your grandchild.  Did the father know about it and do nothing?  Aiding and Abetting a murderer also rates the death penalty.

    After the 3 (or more) executions, will you feel better?

  • Hawker40

    And how did we get from the lying racist D’Souza to abortion, anyway?

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     Our new troll(s) showed up and started ranting about Obama and Abortion, and we all took the bait, that’s how.

    So, D’Souza.  Republicans sure do love them some adulterers, eh?

  • Hawker40

    “So, D’Souza.  Republicans sure do love them some adulterers, eh?”

    Part of thier culture, has been since Reagan.  Like the post title says, Racism (Sexism, Warmongering, etc ad nauseum) is fine, but Adultery you have to beg forgiveness for… which will be granted, so long as you have a (R) next to your name.  But having a (D) or being supportive of those that do is a Unforgiveable Curse, requiring imprisonment is Azkaban or worse.

  • Lori

     

    So, D’Souza.  Republicans sure do love them some adulterers, eh? 

    I say this in all seriousness, no snark intended—what Republicans like is fakes. Reality is messy and therefore unpleasant and to be avoided, while a made up story is nice and neat and comforting and therefore to embraced wholeheartedly. Real people have flaws. Fictional people can be white hat wearing Heroes with a capital H. And of course fiction can be adapted to serve whatever needs they have at the time while reality remains stubbornly what it is regardless of what you want or need it to be. That’s how they could fawn over W for his military “service” while vilifying John Kerry for his. Fake > real, as long as the fake is the story they want to hear and/or which will benefit them.

    It’s why they love them some John Wayne, fake cowboy & fake soldier, even though he happily avoided military service in favor of making money & advancing his career, and never include him in their endless condemnation of the evils of Hollywood even though he was divorced twice and separated from wife #3 when he died.

    It’s why they worship Ronald Reagan even though he was all image and no substance, in part because he was either an enormous liar or had serious problems distinguishing reality from fantasy. Also our only divorced president and totally unable to get along with any of his children.

  • P J Evans

    It’s why they worship Ronald Reagan even though he was all image and no substance

    Also, Nancy was pregnant when Ronny married her – they don’t remember that, either. Probably because it doesn’t fit their view of themselves.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    One thing that really struck me during the debates was a thing Fred’s talked about before how the conservative/evangelical movement is all about adopting the proper “stance”, almost entirely independent of the actual *results* of their actions. Romney and Ryan both (but especially Ryan) seemed to take Obama to task over the “message” he sent. Never mind that Obama has ordered the deaths of terrorists: the man who got Osama Bin Laden, and who orders drone attacks against terrorists where they have to declare anyone nearby to be an enemy combattant by fiat is the *weak* one whose unwillingness to adopt the proper stance “emboldens our enemies”, while the Cowboy who pissed around Iraq for the better part of a decade on the pretense of going after a guy who was in Pakistan the whole time is a “strong leader”.

    With Romney, this really came out over China: what would he do? He’d *call them* a “currency manipulator”. Would he do anything about it? Of course not, but he’d adopt an adversarial *stance*. And Iran? “of course we’re not going to go to war with Iran,” but we have to *act beligerant* toward them. Go out on a date with Netanyahu in order to make Iran, what, jealous? (I think technically it was Bill O’Reilley who suggested this).  Romney explicitly ruled out actually going to war, or actively bringing down the Iranian regime, but pooh-poohed sanctions and instead insisted that the right idea was to, I’m not really sure? Make empty threats? That’s what it sounded like.

    And Paul Ryan. We’ve got togrow the military. We need new submarines! Submarines that will make our enemies fear and respect us! THey’ll attack us if we only have the biggest military on the planet, we have to show that we don’t just have the biggest military on the planet, but that we want it BIGGER. It’s all about proving to the other nations how big our penissubmarine fleet is compared to theirs. And the harping on “credibility”.  It doesn’t matter what Obama actually accomplished: what matters is that he’s “credible” — and crediblity comes not from actually accomplishing results as Obama has, but from *stance*. Yo have to go out and insult people. Wave your HUGE penismilitary around. Reject diplomatic solutions that solve the problem in favor of *actually failing to accomplish your goals but at least you LOOK tough*.

    I can’t even get my brain to work this way for trying, but it just amazes me that people can listen to them talk and not hear what boils down to “Sure, the president has actually accomplished things, but he didn’t LOOK MANLY while doing it! And sure, our plans will not actually get the job done, but we will LOOK MANLY while doing it!” (Seriously, eveyr time Paul Ryan uses the word crediblity or talks about the military, just imagine he is talking about his penis.)

  • Lori

    Seriously, eveyr time Paul Ryan uses the word crediblity or talks about the military, just imagine he is talking about his penis.  

    I understand what you’re saying and ITA, but I’d really rather not think about Paul Ryan’s penis.

    Speaking of Paul Ryan and trying to look manly—good gawd almighty, those pictures of him lifting weights. He looks like Kirk Cameron’s Growing Pains character and Poochie from the Itchy & Scratchy Show had a baby. As Ive mentioned before, I have really severe secondary embarrassment and looking at those pictures was physically uncomfortable for me. I’m not sure if he agreed to do the shoot without photo approval or if
    he had approval and actually signed off on those or what, but whoever told him to do whatever it was he did should have been fired.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    That said, you have to admit, the fellow was rather good-looking in the era when he was weightlifting.

  • Lori

    The look that works on a 20 year old doesn’t necessarily work on a 42 year old.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    And one thing that really struck me while reading your comment is how much that sounds like Captain Steele in NRA &c.  Sure, he’s helping the Antichrist get around and away from trouble, but he’s thinking nasty thoughts at him meanwhile!  Therefore, he’s the Good Guy.  Same goes for Buck and his “journalism,” of course.

  • Hawker40

    Are there characters in NRA/Left Behind who oppose the anti-Christ but for the wrong reason and therefore Bad Guys?  In a kind of “Nicolai, you have insulted The Prophet and deserve to die!” sort of way?

  • Tricksterson

    I think maybe there are later in the books but not sure.  Ask aunursa he’es our resident masochist reader of all things Left Behindish.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    The books talk of “remaning Orthodox Jews” who do not acknowledge Nicolae as leader, IIRC.

  • Daughter

     Great point, Ross, and I think it applies to abortion, too. Republicans like those who talk about abortion being wrong, but reject many policies (such as comprehensive sex education, increased access to birth control, and health care and safety net policies that would help women who face unexpected pregnancies) that would actually reduce abortions.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yeah. Given a choice between doing something that will indicate their moral position on an issue and doing something that will actually address the issue, they take the first option every time.

  • Hawker40

    Ross, I cannot like your statement twice, so I’ll post about how much I like it.

    Now, in the “When History repeats, the second time is a farce”:
    In the 1990’s, President Clinton was castigated by the right wing for avoiding military service and going to Europe.
    Now, the right wing is fawning over a man who avoided service by going to Europe.

  • AnonymousSam

    Welcome to Slacktivist!

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    She did consent to the murdering of her own flesh and blood, but it’s legal in 2012 in the U. S. of A.  Unreal!  She has paid a horrible price for choosing death for her wee one, and has repented and been forgiven, and is miserably sorry for her sinful choice.  She will never forget him!  He was a valuable human being created in the image of God Almighty!

  • EllieMurasaki

    Supposing abortion were legally murder, the way you insist it should be. Do you agree or disagree with the idea that the penalty for getting
    an abortion should be death? Does that change when you realize that the person you are condemning is your daughter?

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Abortion is the ruthless, violent, non-loving, diabolical slaughtering of the unborn.  You were an unborn, Ellie.  At what point did you magically turn into a baby from a blob of insignificant tissue?

  • EllieMurasaki

    Right about when the doctor cut the cord. If my mother had aborted me at a time when abortion was legally murder, would you or would you not be calling for her execution?

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Sage professor Peter Singer from Princeton says nobody is a human until age 2, so I guess he believes it would be just hunky-dory to end the life of a baby until that magic age.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Not relevant. Do you or do you not think that, in a jurisdiction where abortion is legally murder, the appropriate penalty for a woman who gets an abortion is execution?

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    It is murder in God’s eyes, and He commands us not to murder.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I can’t figure out your pronoun antecedent, so I cannot tell if you are reiterating that abortion is murder or if you are saying that executing a woman who gets an abortion is murder. If the latter, why does she not deserve a death sentence, when the death sentence is imposed for other murders? In either case, what sentence does the woman deserve?

  • AnonymousSam

    Actually, God advocates murder quite a lot in the Bible. Deuteronomy 13 in particular is the most egregious example, advocating the murder of anyone who preaches another faith, of any family member who suggests following another faith, and of entire cities who follow other faiths.

    God also advocates abortion via ingested poison for adulterers in Numbers 5:11-31.

  • Jim Roberts

    Wow, natural 1 on the dodge check there. Sorry, gaming reference, and therefore already starts me out as evil.

    Cite the passage in which the murder of an unborn child is equated with murder. Clobber away.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Let me save Ms Allen some time: God knew us before we were conceived. It’s in Psalms somewhere, I believe.

    …I think that’s it. And the passages that put a shekel value on people, more for men of a given age than for women of the same age and nothing at all for children under a month old, those don’t matter at all. Nor any of the passages that give us the lovely (and violence-trigger-warning-y) mental image of dashing infants’ heads against stones on God’s command.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    Let me save Ms Allen some time: God knew us before we were conceived. It’s in Psalms somewhere, I believe.

    Actually, as I recall, the passage states that God knew him (I forget who he was) before he conceived, and it’s not implied that this applies to anyone else, let alone everyone else.

    And even if it were for everyone, wouldn’t it imply that God knew they were going to be aborted, and ensouled them anyway?  Puts the shoe on rather the other foot.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Oh, yes, and the passage where causing a pregnant woman to miscarry (against, presumably, her will) is punished by a fine set by the woman’s husband, not by the penalty applicable to murder, that’s irrelevant, and it’s also irrelevant that there are no passages that mention ending a woman’s pregnancy when she wants the pregnancy to end.

  • Jim Roberts

    Well, I’d argue that it’s very much NOT irrelevant, because if it’s something against which there is no law, then Christians are left only with the option to show love and gracy and mercy, and neither of these three enable us to say, “You must bring that child to term, even if it kills you or ruins your life.”

  • EllieMurasaki

    I was attempting to present Ms Allen’s viewpoint, with enough sarcasm to indicate that I disagree with the viewpoint I was presenting. Sorry for confusion.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Tell that to a friend of mine who lost her 22 week old baby due to an incompetent cervix, and her heart as well as that of her husband’s is devastated.  Tell that to my daughter who lost her full term baby to stillbirth.  Tell that to her now when she is saving all her pennies to purchase a grave marker for her daughter.    

  • EllieMurasaki

    You imply that you disagree with my presentation of your viewpoint. The viewpoint I was presenting is that the bits in the Bible where adults and children of all ages are given monetary values and infants under a month old are not, where God commands the mass murder of infants, and where killing a wanted fetus is punished with a fine and there is no mention of any penalty attaching to killing an unwanted fetus, those bits are irrelevant. So when I say that that the Bible does not consider babies people until a month after birth and that the Bible imposes no penalty for abortion and that sometimes God commands infanticide, you agree with me?
    I am sorry for your daughter’s loss and your friend’s loss.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     That’s terribly sad for them, but what does it have to do with anything we’re talking about?  Did the Evil Librul Conspiracy force them to get abortions or something?

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Just another of millions of examples of the hatefulness of progressives that I’ve heard!  Broken records all!

  • EllieMurasaki

    CU5012: I think that means it’s not pertinent at all, except in that she wants us to conflate the loss of a wanted future child with the ending of an unwanted pregnancy, and she knows it’s not pertinent and doesn’t want to admit it.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Wow, and idiots like Jimmy Carter think world peace is possible?  It’s not even possible in one’s own family!

  • EllieMurasaki

    Not relevant. In a jurisdiction where abortion is legally murder, what should be the penalty for a woman who gets an abortion?

  • Jim Roberts

    I caught your sarcasm, I just wanted to tie the ends together for Ms. Allen – it would be a shame for the rest of your point to get lost should the sarcasm be missed.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Cite the passage in which the murder of an unborn child is equated with murder. Clobber away.

     Exodus 21:20?

    “If
    men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth
    prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined
    whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.

    Well, there we are.  A fine.  God hath spoken.

  • AnonymousSam

    Singer’s arguments about abortion are part of a larger picture you did not and should probably elaborate upon.

    Singer states that if one accepts the premise that “if it is wrong to kill a human, and a fetus is a human, then it is wrong to kill a fetus,” they are making a correct assertion. However, he argues, there are reasons to kill a human being, so killing humans is not automatically immoral. Ergo, whether or not fetuses count as humans becomes irrelevant and the argument becomes about when it is or isn’t moral to end a human life.

    For the record, he doesn’t (at least, to my knowledge) argue that infants are acceptable to kill up to two years. The argument he actually makes is that from a utilitarian point of view, one should weigh the preferences of the mother against the preferences of the infant, and that since infants (to his understanding) are incapable of experiencing the sensations of suffering or pleasure, they incapable of having preferences.

    Summarized, his argument is that newborns, lacking autonomy, rationality and autonomy, do not qualify for personhood — and so killing a newborn baby is not equivalent to killing a person. He places the date at which they become capable of autonomous desires at around eighteen weeks after birth.

    I do not endorse his view, but this is my understanding of it. My own view is “it’s complicated.”

  • Lunch Meat

    It makes sense (though I don’t know if I agree) that we should weigh the mother’s preferences against the infant’s, but the difference between an infant and a fetus is that if the mother does not want to take care of the infant anymore, it is relatively easy to remove the infant from her care and give it to someone else. It is not so easy with a fetus–hence why abortion is necessary. It’s not about murdering a helpless precious innocent little baby. It’s about ending a pregnancy.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    If a female is pregnant, it indicates she is having a baby, genius.

  • EllieMurasaki

    No, a pregnant woman is carrying some fraction of a baby, or a thing that will be a baby if left alone long enough with nothing going catastrophically wrong. Not a baby until birth.

  • Jim Roberts

    And no. Trust me. There are plenty of women who get pregnant who, thanks only to the vagaries of human biology, never have a baby. In the case of one aunt, seven times, the seventh time resulting in a hospital stay that resulted in blood poisoning that almost killed her. It’s a present state that’s indicative of a possible future event, but it’s by no means as definite as you make it.

  • Lunch Meat

    Missed my point entirely. The purpose of an abortion is not the death of the fetus. Pro-choice people are not murderers gleefully out to slaughter as many fetuses as possible. The purpose of an abortion is to end the pregnancy, because no woman should be forced to have a fetus living inside of her, taking her nutrients and other resources, endangering her life, if she does not consent to.

    And I’m going to keep saying this until you acknowledge it–you came into this conversation “concerned” about vitriol, revenge, unforgiveness, judgment, and speech in general, and making a point about loving, being Christ-like, and praying for people who have made mistakes. Now you are name-calling.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    One main reason for abortion is how many, such as Prince Phillip of England, want zero population growth.  

    My heart always goes out to those who have been through abortion.  ALWAYS!  I love them as Christ commands me to.  Contrary to what many falsely declare, a price will inevitably be paid due to the choice of abortion.  ALWAYS!  Emotionally, mentally, physically, psychologically, spiritually.  There is no escaping it!  

    There are consequences to our actions.  God’s natural law comes into effect, and we must learn from our mistakes, not attempt to escape them.  Any female who becomes impregnated has no right to kill that precious life within her, no matter the circumstances.  Life is not meant to be a bed of roses, always happy.  We are here to be made holy, not happy.  We must endure shattered dreams, when our plans are foiled, tragedy strikes, we make unwise decisions.  When we attempt to avoid pain, which Buddhists do, we end up also missing out on the greatest joy.  A pregnancy lasts, at the most, 40 weeks.  A female can certainly endure nurturing a life God created that length of time.  

  • EllieMurasaki

    One main reason for abortion is how many, such as Prince Phillip of England, want zero population growth.

    Hell with zero population growth. We need negative population growth, because there’s too many people on the planet. Killing large numbers of people is of course hideously immoral, so our only ethical solution is contraception at all times except when one intends to conceive a child (and we should probably max that out at one kid per four adults; zero population growth is a tidge over one kid per two adults), and abortion when contraception fails.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Yes, Chairman Mao, Obamao’s hero, killed 70 million of his own people, so why, oh why does brilliant Obamao have his evil mug hanging in the White House at Christmas?

  • EllieMurasaki

    …probably because somebody on the tree-decorating committee thinks Andy Warhol is a great artist. Which has nothing to do with anything I said in the comment you’re replying to, and nothing to do with the question you keep ignoring: in a jurisdiction where abortion is legally murder, what penalty should apply to a woman who gets an abortion?

  • EllieMurasaki

    You know, you still haven’t answered the question. In a jurisdiction where abortion is murder according to the law, what penalty is appropriate for a woman who gets an abortion?

  • AnonymousSam

    Prince Phillip of England doesn’t coerce women to have abortions. At least, not the vast majority of them. Not that reducing population growth is necessarily a bad idea, at least until we make the technological advances to reduce or eliminate our natural resource consumption.

    The consequences of a pregnancy go far beyond 40 weeks. You’ve had four children; you should know this very well. People make judgments about pregnant women all the time. Women who become pregnant have a significantly higher chance of losing their jobs. I know many teenagers who became pregnant and were instantly repudiated by their entire families. I know women who were already in financial straits who became homeless when they became unable to work. The answer to this is not “oh well! God must want it to be that way.” Not when it can easily be prevented and God gives us the means to prevent it.

    Likewise, “there are consequences for our actions” is a decidedly limited perspective. How does this apply when, say, a family member rapes the youngest daughter and her mentally ill sister and impregnates one of them? Why should it be the daughters who are held accountable for his actions?

    Moreover, if my family isn’t Christian, why should we be held accountable to what you say your God wants of us? Or what if we are Christian and we believe otherwise? What if the truth is that there is no God, and we’re actually presided over by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who suffers not a casserole to live? Religious arguments are by their nature impossible to prove, and since Christianity teaches that mankind cannot know the mind of God, I find it even harder to recognize arguments rooted in Christianity as sufficient evidence of anything.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Any female who becomes impregnated has no right to kill that precious life within her, no matter the circumstances.

    So, rape, ectopic pregnancy, lethal birth defects…. none of those matter to you.  Gotta FORCE those sluts to be PUNISHED for having SEX.

    Oh, and for the record, a TAPEWORM is also a ‘life God created”, but I’m fine with anyone who wants to abort that.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Rape is a sad thing but wonderful people have been born as the product of rape.  An ectopic pregnancy ends itself.  Lethal birth defects are sad, but no reason to end the life of a precious child.  Just think of all the wonderful humans that have been destroyed by abortion, humans that could have discovered the answers to many ills in this world.  

    Check out this beautiful story:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQj9GGSIRgI

  • EllieMurasaki

    Ectopic pregnancies, untreated, often kill the unfortunate woman. Lethal congenital defects…ever hear the phrase ‘mercy kill’? Rape survivors who are impregnated by the rape and who choose to raise the child are some of the strongest people out there, because the child is a daily reminder of the trauma, and no one should have to face that reminder if they do not choose to. And surely abortion has done away with as many Hitlers and Maos as Curies and Einsteins.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ray.mcintyre Ray McIntyre

    So you would expect a woman who has been raped to carry to term or a child/teen impregnated by father or brother to carry to term?

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    If a female is pregnant, it indicates she is having a baby, genius.

    Oh, good!  In that case, clearly, there’s no such thing as abortion, and we can all pack it in, and get back to talking about the racist adulterer D’Souza.

  • AnonymousSam

    Aye, I think we agree on this. While I don’t believe adoption services are a good answer to this problem, they are a better answer to ending a life beyond the point of viability.

    The fuzzy part for me is the period between viability and birth. Ideally, it should be an easy, painless, safe procedure to remove an infant, bring it fully to term with an artificial womb and then progress onward to an adoption agency to connect that infant with people who genuinely wish to be parents and who will love, raise and take care of that child as best as humanly possible.

    Realistically, pretty much all of the above is pretty farfetched in this day and age. *Sigh*

  • AnonymousSam

    Do you know there was a religious philosopher who once suggested that the soul enters the body several months after birth, when infants begin to show recognition of their surroundings, rather than reacting largely by instinct?

    You (appear to) ask the question rhetorically, but it remains a good question for which there is no possible answer that will ever satisfy everybody.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     

    Do you know there was a religious philosopher who once suggested that
    the soul enters the body several months after birth, when infants begin
    to show recognition of their surroundings, rather than reacting largely
    by instinct?

    How long ago was this?  It might have been a rationalization for the horrendous Olde-Tymey infant-mortality rates.

    One of my religions only approves of abortion up to the age of 15 years.  After that, they’re human beings with an eternal soul and a right to lead even the most terrible life of their own.   Do you believe that?

  • AnonymousSam

    I would have to hunt the source, which I am doing now. Perusing the wikipedia article on the subject brought a curious example to light-

    One Jewish view put ensoulment even later than birth, saying that it occurs when the child first answers “Amen”.

    The Jewish Family and Jewish Continuity

    Since we cannot prove that there is a soul, there is, of course, no way of proving when or if it enters the body. For all we know, the soul enters the body at the first haircut, and thus is why Samson lost his strength when he was shaven.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Blasphemy!

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     Supposing I grant you that fetuses are people (They’re not, and frankly as a parent, I find it insulting to suppose that my son’s personhood was magically conferred when my wife and I solved a fairly straightforward spatial relations problem, rather than being something he has worked at and learned over time). Let’s just suppose that for a second.

    Are women people? Because if fetuses are people and women are people, you still have to answer this:

    Under what circumstances can one person force another person to give up exclusive ownership of her OWN BODY, attach themselves INSIDE HER BODY, use her very body as life support, against her will, causing permanent changes to her body, putting her health at risk, and be allowed to stay there against the will of the woman?

    Can I stick a needle in you and borrow your circulatory system for three seasons?  Can I have some bone marrow? You’ve got two kidneys. Pony up.

    Whether or not fetuses are people is a solved problem, and you are on the wrong side of it, but even if you weren’t, it’s *irrelevant* because if *WOMEN* are people,  No person can force another person against their will to provide literal physical life-support for another person

  • Hawker40

    You have no choice, Ginny.  If the government won’t do it’s duty before God, you’ll have to do it yourself: take you daughter out and execute her.  Her blood be upon her own head.

    Unless the pregnancy was the result of adultery, of course.  Then abortion is required if her husband requests it.

    If she wasn’t married and got pregnant, then she’s committed adultery and must be executed.

    See…
    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

  • AnonymousSam

    Incidentally, I wonder what this means when the Bible has a mandate on adulters getting an abortion.

    Yes, it does.

    No, seriously, it does.

  • Consumer Unit 5012
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=30319652 Tim Lehnerer

    I’m hoping this shows up as a reply to Consumer Unit 5012; if it doesn’t, well…I meant it as a response to Consumer Unit 5012. Well, a Democrat who cheated on his terminally ill wife watches his career evaporate when it’s found out. Republicans run for President after doing a prettier-wife-upgrade (Newt Gingrich had two IIRC).

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     Yeah, I remember back in… 2008?  Someone joked that of the GOP candidates, “The only one who’s only had one wife was the Mormon”.

    But remember, they’re the party of “Family Values(tm)”.  :-P

  • guest

    I was trying to figure out what this ‘blue pad’ business was all about–I googled ‘blue pad’ abortion, and got this:

    http://www.wnd.com/2005/04/30006/

  • EllieMurasaki

    Twenty-two weeks? “According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestationsurvive” –Wiki. At twenty-two weeks, wasn’t any point trying to save the
    baby.

  • AnonymousSam

    I can only wonder how much truth is in that article. If it’s true, then it is certainly a travesty on many levels. I’m utterly unable to find any follow-up information on it though. The only articles on the subject all come from questionable sources. I’m going to try writing to the Orlando Women’s Center and see if I can get someone to confirm any part of it.

  • guest

    Please report back if you get an answer!  It looks as if this was supposed to have happened in 2005.

  • AnonymousSam

    Regretfully, their contact script appears to be broken. I keep receiving the following error: “The remote name could not be resolved: ‘www.womenscenterpmd.com'”

    This doesn’t bode well for the clinic. They are, at the very least, unprofessional enough to properly maintain their website.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    PS – Ginny:  Do you think their horrible, life-threatening, emotionally-scarring miscarriages are just God’s way of saying “PSYCHE!  No babies for you!  HAHA!”?   Because if having BABIES really is God’s Will, you’d think He wouldn’t let little things like disease, physiology, or medical procedures get in the way….

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Dinesh D’Souza? More like Dinesh D’Dickhead.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    How kind!

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    Well, at least now, I have a good example to point to whenever someone asks what a “Gish gallop” is.

  • Turcano

    I would liken it to a logical DDoS attack, where the user attempts to overwhelm your brain with a torrent of bullshit in the hopes of shutting it down.

  • Trixie_Belden

    I know it’s low hanging fruit and all that, but I can’t get over the quote from Odie Joseph II’s blog post:

    Feminists and liberals … tore the traditional family to shreds until they reduced us to the shining bastion of zoological (but even animals aren’t this bad and do not depend on the state to care for them) cesspool equality that we have now in every American ghetto and which is seeping out into the middle and upper classes in less animated ways.

    OK, the traditional family was torn to shreds and reduced….to a bastion? (if you’re going to use the word, you should know that “bastion” is a part of a fortress, right?)   So this  traditional family has been torn to shreds until it becomes…a part of a fortress?  And it’s shining?  It’s a shining fortress that is also a cesspool?  A zoological cesspool?  It’s a bastion but it can seep because it’s also a cesspool?  But at the same time it’s animated?  Less animated than something, apparently, but still animated.

    I read that Odie Joseph II graduated from high school in 2002, and I was wondering if it was a misprint and the year was actually 2012.

  • Lori

    Why oh why is Disqus’ reply function on the fritz again?  For some posts it works, for others it just doesn’t and I’m not doing anything different. So annoying.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    I am not a fundie living according to DAFFODIL, nor am I a calvinist living according to TULIP.  I am a true believer living according to 10S:  Scripture, Sacrifice, Suffering, Slaughtered Lamb, Selflessness, Salvation, Servanthood, Speaking the Truth which is Jesus, Seeking Jesus and the Sword of the Spirit – things the postmodern church does not
    teach. They do NOT love because they do NOT tell the truth. Brian
    McLaren, Robb Bell, the Wild Goose Festival and all that rot are
    sending people to hell because they do not tell them that Jesus is
    THE only way.

     

  • EllieMurasaki

    Except you’re ignoring parts of scripture that say things you don’t like and you’re saying scripture says things it doesn’t (or so I assume from your silence on the matter of the monetary-value-of-people-over-a-month-old bit, the God-ordering-mass-slaughter-of-infants bit, and the fine-for-killing-a-wanted-fetus-but-silence-on-killing-an-unwanted fetus bits), sacrifice and suffering is noble when one chooses them but appalling to force on others and you (in the collective) are doing quite a bit to force sacrifice and suffering on the unwilling, and I’m not at all sure what you mean by the rest of those words.

    Oh, hey, you still haven’t answered me. In a jurisdiction where abortion is legally murder, what should be the penalty for a woman who gets an abortion?

  • Lunch Meat

    I am a true believer living according to 10S:  Scripture, Sacrifice, Suffering, Slaughtered Lamb, Selflessness, Salvation, Servanthood, Speaking the Truth which is Jesus, Seeking Jesus and the Sword of the Spirit – things the postmodern church does not

    teach.

    LOL–have you ever been to a postmodern church? I guarantee we talk about all of those things.

    And it has to be that they’re not telling the truth because they’re lying and evil, right? No such thing as honest disagreement in your perfect church?

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    I am friends with an Episcopalian father/minister, and he’s told me that folks want to hear short, honey sweet sermons – basically messages that make them feel better about themselves – what their itching ears want to hear.  They want to be told they’re fine the way they are.  No worries.  They want group hugs, a shoulder to cry on as they feel warm fuzzies.  They do not want to be told they are living in sin, and that they need to repent and follow Jesus’ way and not their own.  Basically, from behind the pulpit, this minister presides over a country club gathering on Sundays.  I told him sermonettes make christianettes, those that are never ready for meat, for the milk always satisfies them in their mediocrity, complacency and apathy.  He does not believe homosexuality and abortion are sinful and evil.  He thinks homosexuals are born that way.  Truthfully, we are all born in sin, and must surrender our allegiance to Jesus to obtain His strength and guidance to put aside all our sinful ways, including homosexuality.  Just like we are all born with markers for certain diseases.  Simply because we are born with those markers does not mean we will ever suffer from the disease.  

    LM, in your “church” are you taught that Jesus is THE only way to get to heaven?  Are you taught the reality of hell?  If not, you are not hearing the Gospel of the Good News.  (Of course it’s necessary for to be reading the Bible for yourself so you will know when you are being bamboozled by a wolf in sheep’s clothing – a heretic.)  The postmodern church attempts to bring love to the world without at the same time bringing the Truth which is Jesus.  That is no Gospel.  That is no Saviour.  The postmodern church plays cafeteria Christianity, abiding by those Scriptures they “like,” while discarding those they find unsavory.  You know, the way Thomas Jefferson did.  That sort of meaningless drivel does nobody a bit of good.  Au contraire, it does great harm.  Harm that has the potential of lasting into eternity!  It does not inform of the power and strength available in Jesus to change sinful, narcissistic lives.  That is NOT love.   

  • EllieMurasaki

    folks want to hear short, honey sweet sermons – basically messages that make them feel better about themselves – what their itching ears want to hear.

    You know, there’s a reason CS Lewis said he’d never preach against homosexuality or gambling: the natural effect of those sermons, since neither sin tempted him, would be to make him feel superior to people who were tempted and more superior still to people who succumbed.
    I’m willing to bet fifty dollars that you are not in fact tempted by homosexuality, or abortion or any of several other things that you consider sinful and progressives like myself consider acceptable, and which therefore you need to shut the fuck up about.

    Truthfully, we are all born in sin, and must surrender our allegiance to Jesus to obtain His strength and guidance to put aside all our sinful ways, including homosexuality

    Under what conditions is it acceptable to have gay sex? Because it is acceptable under some conditions to have straight sex, and a deity who made it permissible for some people to have sex but not for other people to have sex is being capricious and unfair and not loving at all, particularly given that the choice of who goes in which group is one made by the deity and not by any individual person.

    Which I suppose is no less than one expects of a deity who forbids heaven to someone who has never heard of Jesus or who has rejected Jesus on the grounds that the people who are most noisy about following Jesus are typically fuckwads (case in point, one Ms Allen), or of a deity who not only permits but mandates infinite punishment for finite crime.

  • Daughter

     You know, how often in your church do you hear sermons about greed, or taking care of the poor, or making sure there are no needy persons among you? Jesus addressed those topics multiple times, never mentioned abortion or homosexuality, and only mentioned heterosexual marriage a couple times (the context being questions he was asked about divorce and marriage in heaven).

    So if your church isn’t regularly talking about what Jesus talked about, perhaps your minister is preaching what your itchy ears want to hear.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    My ears want to hear the entire Bible, and they do!  You don’t know me, nor how simply I choose to live, nor how much I serve others in Jesus’ Name.  You are yet another broken record, (how many times have I heard this one -wow) spouting off on something about which you have no information!

    When we live for Jesus, out of our faith in Him, we will do good works in His name.  Faith without works is dead.  But works without faith in the One who calls us to Him is for naught.  It will be burned up.  If we bring material bread to the hungry without, at the same time, bringing them the Bread of Life, it is not significant to God.  We must first give thanks and praise to the Maker of the bread, our Bread of Life.  We must bear witness to the fact that He is the giver of all gifts, including bread, and that without Him, there would be nothing to give the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and those in prison.  Only because of Him do we even have life.  Only because of Him do we have the hands, the feet, the mouth, the heart, the knowledge, and the compassion to reach out with eternal purpose to touch the life of another, to make a difference for good in this life, as well as a lasting difference in the next.  It all boils down to abiding in Him. 

  • P J Evans

     Please go do good works in the city where you live. The people who need help are more likely to appreciate it if you don’t deliver one of your ‘holier than thou’ sermons, though.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Thanks for the encouragement, P J!  I certainly do!   :)   I am holier than no one.  I’m a filthy rag compared to Jesus, and love others in His Name.  Do you?

  • AnonymousSam

    And yet here you are, planning to vote for one of the greediest men in American history, a man with more money than any ten families would ever need in their lifetimes who nevertheless wants to pass taxation laws which will make him even richer still. What possible altruistic reason could a man have for needing a tax rate of less than one percent? Jesus spoke very clearly about rich men. There’s a reason we summarize his position as “I got mine, screw you.

    His plans also include all but eliminating aid for the poor and the sick. Two more things Jesus spoke very clearly about. Why? So that we can regain our position as the richest nation in the world? Ah, yes, because the virtues of unrestrained greed trump charity every day of the week.

    Meanwhile, you bear false witness against the president (the Bible also spoke clearly about lying and obeying your leaders…) and speak ill about his budget, which dedicates money toward helping the least of us. Yes, you are indeed a wonderful Christian. You’ve learned the most important lesson, that it matters less what you do and more what magic words you speak.

    By my blade, you are indeed a woman of clay.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     

    Jesus spoke very clearly about rich men. There’s a reason we summarize his position as “I got mine, screw you.”

    Um, you mean Romney’s position, not Jesus’s, right?

    (Supply-Side Jesus, maybe…)

  • Ginny Bain Allen
  • Consumer Unit 5012

     Oh, hey, it’s Banana Guy! 

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0geHA2yHSZI

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/04/07/ray-comfort-gives-apology-for-the-banana-video/

    [sarcasm]
    I know when I want politicotheological advice, I ALWAYS try to find the most intellectually dishonest person possible to consult!
    [/sarcasm]

  • AnonymousSam

    Yes, disconnected interjection there.

  • Jim Roberts

    After a few scary weeks of sermons at my church, we’re talking about the many times “one another” comes up in the Bible. In the first sermon, the pastor took some care to say that any time we see that phrase we should always assumes that, unless it’s specifically and carefully limited, the phrase refers to all of humanity and not just to those we see every Sunday. Phew! I think I’ll enjoy this sermon series.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     So, you follow ALL of Jesus’s preaching, huh?

    I ask again, can I have your coat?

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    I am a sinner saved by Jesus.  We are instructed in 1 Peter 1:15 to “be holy in all you do.”  I certainly strive to be holy in all I do, but fall short many times.  The bar has been set high for us, because God knows of what we are capable when we surrender our allegiance to Him!   :)

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     So, no your coat, then?

    I’m sure Jesus will be REALLY IMPRESSED by your internet trolling in His Glorious Name.    That’s in Reagan’s Epistle to the Supply-Siders, right?

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     Ah, I was wrong.  That’s in The Book of Interrogations, 5:23.

  • Lunch Meat

    Oh, and by the way…

    LM, in your “church” are you taught that Jesus is THE only way to get to heaven?  Are you taught the reality of hell?  If not, you are not hearing the Gospel of the Good News.

    You and your church have turned profound mysteries about Jesus’ saving work on the cross, and the ultimate reality that exists beyond death, into a litmus test for defining who is and who is not part of your tribe, who is and who is not worthy of love and respect and understanding. I will not answer your question. I find it extremely insulting, reductive and irrelevant. I will not allow you to place me in a box.

  • Carstonio

    Anyone who really cared about saving people from eternal suffering wouldn’t take the tone of “you’re gonna be in so much trouble.” No, that’s someone who believes that the suffering is deserved, someone who expects to have the last mocking laugh like a Left Behind fan cheering for the four horsemen. The ultimate tribalism. 

  • Lori

    LM, in your “church” are you taught that Jesus is THE only way to get to
    heaven?  Are you taught the reality of hell?  If not, you are not
    hearing the Gospel of the Good News.   

    Because nothing says “Good News” like threats of infinite punishment for finite wrong-doing.

  • Tricksterson

    DAFFODIL?  is that a real thing?

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Someone on this blog posted a website about it, Tricky fella.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     How about Joseph Smith?  I mean, you ARE planning on voting for the Mormon, right?

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    I’m voting for the man who will slow the out-of-control freight train down a bit, to about 20%.  Unfortunately, he will still take us in the same destructive direction, but Obama will take us ahead at 100% speed into chaos and ruination.  In other words, voting for Mitt will allow time to find someone who might truly make a difference for good, taking us back to Jesus!

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     So, you’re voting for the Mormon over the Congregationalist, because someone’s convinced you that the Republican Party owns the trademark on Jesus(tm).  Got it.

    What denomination are you?  Some of them are supposed to be IN FAVOR of chaos and ruination.  Like LaJenkins – Jeezus can’t come back until the Antichrist is in power, after all…

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    I am a Christian.  What about you?

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    I am a Christian.  What about you?

    Nope.   I have a profound dislike for organized religion, and you’re reminding me why.  Part of the reason I read Fred’s stuff is for the useful reminder that not all Christians are self-righteous bigots, mean control-freaks, ignorant anti-science fanatics, hypocritical greedheads, or doomsday cultists, which can be hard to remember sometimes when I read the news.

     I’m a paid up member of the Church of the SubGenius.  I believe that J. R. “Bob” Dobbs died for my Slack and rose from the dead, only to get killed AGAIN AND AGAIN until Satan finally kicked him out of Hell for good for making him look bad.  I paid my 30$, I’ve got a guarantee of ETERNAL SALVATION OR TRIPLE MY MONEY BACK, and I’ve got y prepaid ticket for when the Angelic Host from Planet X arrives on July 5th, 1998 to Rupture up all the Saved and spray the planet for its human infestation.  (1998 has NOT ARRIVED YET, so SHUT UP.  The Conspiracy has tampered with the calendars.)

    I’m also a card-carrying Pope of the Discordian Society.  I believe that God is a Crazy Woman, and I can point to all the chaos in the universe to prove it (SOMEONE had to put  all that disorder here!).  I have consulted both my Pineal Gland AND my appendix, and concluded that any deity that doesn’t have a sense of humor can’t possibly care about humanity, as they’d never have created us in the first place.

    And since I can, I hereby appoint everyone reading this a Pope (or, if female, Mome) of the Discordian Society.  (Yes, this includes you, Ginny, whether you want to be or not.  Unlike Mormons, we don’t wait until people are dead before adding them to the rolls.) Now start excommunicating each other!  You can pick up your Pope Card here.

    I’m also a member of the Universal Life Church, but that’s just for laughs.

    Do You Believe That?

  • EllieMurasaki

    1998 has NOT ARRIVED YET, so SHUT UP. The Conspiracy has tampered with the calendars.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LV7M_WeGX8 –funnier if you’ve actually seen Community

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Hail Eris, Hail Discordia.

    Oh, and 1998 is just a number. ;) Calendar reform hasn’t happened, so since 1998 A.D. really means 1998 as numbered by the dominant culture on this planet and not truly by all of humanity, you’re safe there. :D

  • https://pjevansgen.wordpress.com/ P J Evans

    Since Minneapolis fans are still advertising their Worldcon bid for 1973, *clearly* 1998 hasn’t arrived. Yet.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    I understand that you don’t like organized religion.  By your incoherent babbling, it’s quite clear you enjoy your own disorganized religion.  Perhaps you need to go take your medication, 5012.  I’m outta here, I’m goneee.  Football awaits!   :)    

    By the way, I love science for it is the study of God’s creation!   :)   Good day.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    By the way, I love science for it is the study of God’s creation!   :)   Good day.

    Even the part about….

    Evolution?

  • EllieMurasaki

    I love science for it is the study of God’s creation!

    Yet you’re ignoring the studies that show that gay sex is no more or less harmful than straight sex, same-sex couples are no more or less good at commitment than mixed-sex couples, same-sex couples are actually a little better at raising kids than mixed-sex couples, abortion saves lives, and having free and widely available contraception and comprehensive sex ed reduces abortions.

    Speaking of which, in a jurisdiction where abortion is legally murder, what should be the penalty for a woman who gets and abortion?

  • Tricksterson

    Yes and no.  Or maybe maybe.

  • P J Evans

     I’m a Herbangelist, when I have to provide a religion for the records.
    Praise Herbie and pass the buck! (I was boptized by Pope Elst himself.)

  • P J Evans

     We’d be more likely to believe you if you, y’know, actually followed the teachings of Jesus, instead of being the guy standing out on the corner talking about how wonderful a guy he himself is.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Where is my brain today?

    In a jurisdiction where abortion is legally murder, what should be the penalty for a woman who gets an abortion?

  • Tricksterson

    Nonono, she’s voting for the Mormon (and the Catholic) over the Muslim!  Or atheist, whatever, same thing.

  • AnonymousSam

    Mark 12:28-31 is just so hard to understand, isn’t it? It seems to say that it’s more important to love God and love your neighbors than it is to bash those nasty fags and abortionists and fictional Kenyan Muslim presidents. But since we know scripture is infallible, it must actually mean you can love people and still hate them too, right? Yes, that must be it.

  • EllieMurasaki

    But how can one love God if one doesn’t hate queers and women and other people who are Not Us? And none of those people are our neighbors anyway, except maybe (if we’re unlucky) in the sense of their house is near ours, so he can’t possibly be talking about them anyway.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Considering homosexuality, can you clear this up for me?  If homosexuality is truly natural, then why did nature give homosexual men bodies designed for reproductive sex with women and then give them desires for sex with men?  Why would nature give desires for one type of sex, but a body for another?  Just askin’.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Um, hi, I’m bisexual. That argument is not going to fly. Are you Christian? You might do better to consider Who made me bisexual to begin with.

    In a jurisdiction where abortion is legally murder, what penalty should apply to a woman who gets an abortion?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Before I answer that, could you clarify one detail:  If a fetus is a person, and abortion is murder, what should be the punishment for a woman who has an abortion?

    And for that matter, if a woman miscarries, but a criminal investigation establishes that the miscarriage was forseeable and preventable, what should the punishment be for the woman who has committed negligent homicide?

  • Carstonio

    Homosexuality has been observed in other species during times of population stress, such as overpopulation or a unbalanced ratio between the sexes, and it probably plays a role in relieving that stress. There’s a theory that pregnant females and their fetuses are exposed to greater levels of hormones from other members of their species at such times, and that this may impact fetal development regarding sexual orientation. Your post treats “nature” as a pseudo-theological concept, implicitly rejecting evolution.

     Homosexuality doesn’t have to make sense. There’s nothing inherently immoral about it. Straights should treat the orientation of gays and lesbians with benign indifference.

  • http://heathencritique.wordpress.com/ Ruby_Tea

    If homosexuality is truly natural, then why did nature give homosexual men bodies designed for reproductive sex with women and then give them desires for sex with men? Why would nature give desires for one type of sex, but a body for another? Just askin’.

    If homosexuality is truly not natural, then why has it been observed in many, many other animals besides humans?  Just askin’.

  • P J Evans

    Because nature doesn’t feel the need to have four different body designs when two will do.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    Why would nature give desires for one type of sex, but a body for another?  Just askin’.

    Well, not to brag or nothin’, but it turns out that our bodies work pretty well for same-sex interactions as well.

  • Lunch Meat

    “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. But be ye sure that ye do not love the heathen, for they are not worthy of love. Verily I say unto you, if ye love the heathen, they shall be deceived and think that what they are doing is okay. Instead, ye shall make up funny names to call them, yea, and ye shall assume the worst possible motives for everything they do. Above all ye shall never try to understand them, for they do all that they do because they hate God. And lo, if your leaders bear false witness against the heathen, what is that to you? It is none of your business, and ye shall respect them anyway because lying is okay if it scares more people into believing in me. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye never let them forget, even for a moment, what horrible evil sinners they are.”

  • AnonymousSam

    Now now, you know the Rush Limbaugh Bible isn’t considered canon any further north than Missouri.

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    I’m running for cover as I type this.  We are called to love the sinner, while, at the same time, hating their sin.  What is so difficult about this to grasp, Sam?  

    Jesus said,  “I did not come to bring peace, but division.”  ~Matthew 10:34  

  • P J Evans

     We’ve discussed that one here before. It’s because most of the people using that one hate the sinner, too.

    Now go away, please.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X