By those who preach and pray and teach

“The officer has kept the receipt in his vest since then, he said, ‘to remind me that sometimes people have it worse.'”

“We are asking individuals and faith groups to call for a real jubilee – cancellation of the unjust debts of the most indebted nations, promoting just and progressive taxation, and controlling lending.”

“It was one of the most uncomfortable and enjoyable conversations I’ve had in a long time, one very much worth having, and worth leaving my comfort zone to have.”

Malala Yousufzai would be an excellent and worthy choice for Time magazine’s Person of the Year. (AP photo)

“This legislation, if passed into law, it would automatically make me a serial offender and I would be sentenced to death.”

“Though the safety risk posed by Tazreen’s substandard equipments was understood well before [the deadly] blaze, the same conditions appear to be relatively common among Bangladeshi factories.”

“If these jobs don’t pay enough to keep people out of poverty, we’re all in big trouble.”

We don’t beat them by literally beating them.”

There’s money in making stupid people mad.”

“This isn’t just cognitive dissonance. It’s irresponsible reporting.”

“It turns out that they don’t like disabled people any better than gays, blacks, Latinos, or single women in law school who use contraception.”

“If you do not know what it means to be an evangelical Christian, it basically works like this: you say a prayer, ask Jesus into your heart and then you vote Republican and start watching Fox News. A lot.”

“Essentially, this approach has been our strategy for the last 30 years. How has it worked so far?”

I also would have steered clear of politics.”

“In Hosea ‘son’ means Israel and refers to the Exodus … well, that’s not quite the same as what Matthew was on about.”

“John Paul II did not smoke, but Pope Benedict XVI reportedly does (or once did), apparently favoring Marlboros.”

"Ross Douthat. Bleeah.(It's too early in the morning for a reasoned critique of the man's ..."

Sunday favorites
"Nope. That piece of the New 52 is still with us. The damage to Superman ..."

Sunday favorites

‘This calls for wisdom: let anyone ..."
"When THAT character showed up, I started chanting the theme song."

Sunday favorites

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Jessica_R

    And in today’s (or really one of today’s) they will know we are Christians by our unrepentant douchebaggery…

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yeah, this whole conversation feels very much like several people telling me no one is anywhere near my toes while they all do their level best to fracture my metatarsals.

  • EllieMurasaki

    The thing that really worries me? The people who are pushing for the gay ban in Uganda are the same people who push for gay marriage bans in the US. Which tells me that they’d be pushing for a gay ban in the US if they thought they could get away with it. Yes, I know, prioritizing my hypothetical future suffering over actual people’s current actual suffering is bad (though what I can do about the Uganda gay ban that I haven’t already done, I don’t know), but.

  • Ah…they’re just covering up the fact that the Pope starts to burn when exposed to direct sunlight. 

  • Watching “The Borgias” I’m often struck that while Rodrigo is a corrupt murdering bastard, he’s often shown to be a better Pope than any of the popes of my generation (Palpatine or JPII) and better able to deal with the radicals in his coalition. (I’ve never cheered someone being burned at the stake before Savonarola) 

  • I don’t think he is. As someone who often signs his emails -M, I think I’d have noticed a -J. 

  • I wouldn’t expect people outside the QUILTBAG community to be familiar with ‘ZE’.

    I’m not familiar with ‘wallet name’ myself. Was I supposed to name my wallet? It’s sad, lonely, and empty, so maybe a nice name will cheer it up. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    J’s been around since Typepad.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yeah, wasn’t actually expecting anyone to have known that (all else aside, this is a new thing for me), and I should have delivered that line much more calmly.

    Google ‘nymwars’. There’s a lot of people who prefer a firm line of separation between online and offline identities (where ‘prefer’ in some cases means ‘if the distinction gets blurred, they’re in danger of losing their job, their living situation, and/or their life’), and an overlapping lot of people for whom their online name is their real name even if they do have to use their legal name for things like driver’s license and credit cards and other things that go in the wallet. Hence, ‘wallet name’.

  • Madhabmatics

    Yo let’s not forget that dude’s hilarious meltdown and claims of horrid persecution came from two people literally just saying “Yeah that’s not very funny”

    is that really an appropriate response to “yeah dude your joke sucks”

  • Madhabmatics

    people tell me my jokes suck sometimes and in response I just tell better jokes

  • Madhabmatics

    like what do you do with a space man?

    you park in it, man!!

  • JustoneK

    Ungh that’s terrible and I am stealing it to use on others.  Yer a bad influence.

  • EllieMurasaki

    You’re confusing ‘sucky joke’ (example: your pun) with ‘not actually a joke even if the speaker says it’s supposed to be’ (example: J’s wisecrack).

  • Madhabmatics

    that was an exquisite burn against my pun

  •  > The schism that we here in Anglican-land are experiencing really revolves around human rights


    I am reminded of a bumper sticker I saw a while back that read “The Episcopal Church Welcomes You … The Anglican Communion Not So Much!” I was giggling for days.

  • ReverendRef

     The thing that really worries me? The people who are pushing for the gay
    ban in Uganda are the same people who push for gay marriage bans in the
    US. Which tells me that they’d be pushing for a gay ban in the US if
    they thought they could get away with it.

    You would be correct.  A lot of the anti-gay legislation in Nigeria, Uganda, et al had is push from anti-gay church legislation that originated and was ghost written in the U.S. by former Episcopal priests/bishops who jumped ship to the more “orthodox” churches of Nigeria and Uganda.  There was a fair amount of tracking of this thing on a few other sites I follow.  In particular, one Jim Naughton did a piece on how money flowed from conservative supporters to groups intent on “bringing the church back from liberal decline and heresy” (my words).

    Should you care to read it, it’s here:

  • ReverendRef

     I remember that . . . still makes me laugh.

    We have a breakaway “Anglican” church here in town.  I found out recently that the parents of one of my (adult) parishioners attends there.  Said parishioner called it “Our Lady of Perpetual Bigotry.”

  • There, feel the surge of endorphins coursing through you? Merry Christmas.

    And you are likewise welcome for that feeling of smug self-righteous superiority you’re feeling now

  •  Well, except that technically, J didn’t actually tell a joke. He made a nasty, insensitive, inappropriate comment because he wanted to make a cheap dig at the church. When he was called on it, he pretended that it was a joke so he could get self-righteous about all oversensitive folks not being able to take a joke.

    It wasn’t just not funny, it wasn’t a joke.  (And “The Room” wasn’t a comedy)

  •  I’ve heard some reports which also suggest that there is a very tight correlation between renewed pushes for this “anti-homosexuality bill” and anyone suggesting that they might want to reduce some of the powers granted to the Ugandan Oil minister.

  • AnonymousSam

    Criticizing it as a bad joke against the church is one thing. Much of the criticism was about how the joke was misogynistic. I can see the former, but not the latter.

  • P J Evans

     well, probably not the smoking part. *g*

  • P J Evans

     I wouldn’t have thought it was a big problem, given how much coverage his assorted robes provide. Add a matching veil and pair of gloves, and he could go out any time.

  • Kirala

     “Wallet name.” I like that. I quite like my wallet name, I’m happy with the identity, associations, and connections it conveys, and would be content to frame my identity around it only; nevertheless, I still feel odd calling it my “real” name when Kirala is my real name in this milieu. Just like Ms. [Lastname] is my real name at the school where I work, and [Firstname] is my real name with friends and family. And these are some of the reasons why businesses with no right to nor need for my personal info are left with the impression that my name is Robin Goodfellow and that I live at the White House.

    I’m sorry, Pandora, but I’m not shopping at Potomac Mills any time soon. It’s not exactly within my everyday travel radius.

  • EllieMurasaki

    And these are some of the reasons why businesses with no right to nor need for my personal info are left with the impression that my name is Robin Goodfellow and that I live at the White House.

    I like that. I might steal it.

  • Fusina

     My mother attends one of the breakaway ex-Episcopalian churches, and I was married in another one of them. The priest who married me is currently a bishop with the Ugandan bunch.

    This depresses me a lot, and doesn’t help the clinical depression I already have.

    On another front, just found out a guy I was friends with in high school (and still am friends with) is now out of the closet. I think I must have known something was off, because it made perfect sense–like a picture that is suddenly in focus, if you see what I mean, and not just because he was happier than I’ve ever seen him before.

  • Hm. I actually followed that. Goldfish memory, I guess. Anyway, I’m happy to see Pagan folkies First Aid Kit up there: I suggest everyone check ’em out. “Lion’s Roar” is great, but I prefer “Wolf” – the video for the latter is a very neat mash-up of spooky ghost girls, the Blair Witch Project, and the Wicker Man. 

  • GDwarf


    Somebody’s reading comprehension sucks. I’m pretty sure it isn’t mine.

    Words I never thought I’d say, but I’ve gotta side with J on this one.

    His joke was a bit tasteless, but it didn’t say outright nor imply (to me, anyways) any of the things you’re accusing it of.

    I know, I know, “Intent not magic”, etc. etc. But at some point we have to be able to say “This isn’t what the person meant to say” and have that count for something. Otherwise, to take the slippery slope, “I like pie” can be read to mean “Death to women!”

  • stardreamer42

     If you would take even 15 seconds to THINK before posting a “joke” like that, you’d be able to figure out that it’s a bad idea. Don’t blame everyone else because you can’t be arsed to rub two brain cells together.

  • TBH, I think of myself with my “wallet name”, so to that extent my real name and wallet name are the same. Handles and pseudonyms I use on online fora are a part of my identity, but I don’t go so far as to call such names my actual honest to god names. (so don’t call me “Neutrino” IRL, just use the name I use when I introduce myself :P )

  • EllieMurasaki

    Which is perfectly normal and nothing wrong with it and in fact the usual state of affairs. It’s just that it is also perfectly normal, if less common, for the online name to be the real one, and distressingly common for there to be some degree of risk associated with people who know one’s wallet-name persona to connect that with one’s online-name persona. So as long as everybody remembers that ‘real name’ is not always synonymous with ‘wallet name’, we’re all good.

  • Talking of US supporters of this murdererous piece of shit bill: The Liar Tony Perkins apparently wants to downgrade to The Murderer Tony Perkins –

    A piece of advice to Tony from one Christian to another: If you are endorsing murder in the name of Jesus, YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG. COMPLETELY WRONG. TOTALLY WRONG. AS WRONG AS YOU CAN GET.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    1. The Catholic position on smoking is that it is not morally great to knowingly do things that are bad for your health. The catechism says that you should take reasonable care of your health, taking into account the needs of others and the common good. The moral weight of smoking would be mitigated to some extent if you became addicted before knowing how bad it was, or had an especially hard time quitting. On the other hand, the moral weight would be exacerbated if you harmed other people as well as yourself. Subjecting others to second hand smoke now that we know how harmful that is–sinful.

    [Incidently, the catechism also makes the following point:

    Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.]

    2. J was saying that all Catholic priests are paedophiles. I imagine he thinks that’s funny and/or clever, just like he appears to think it is clever to say that all religious people are stupid.

  • Carstonio

    My expectation that religious would oppose smoking has nothing to do with the harm and everything to do with smoking’s social and cultural associations. One  grocery store near my home sells cigarettes, liquor and lottery tickets at a separate counter. If they added a rack of NSFW reading material, they could call the counter One-Stop Vice.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Oh. Nah, it’s not that, not for Catholicism anyway. There are still Catholic-dominant countries where smoking is quite socially acceptable, especially for working class men. But the teaching explicitly refers to the known damage that smoking does to health. If you’re going to have a strong pro-life theology you kind of have to be against things that are incredibly damaging to life, don’t you?

    My grandmother was SDA and they don’t smoke or drink, and have a strong focus on the moral value of doing whatever you can to promote health. Can’t speak for other religions than those two, though.

  • AnonaMiss

    I did find J’s joke a little misogynistic, because to me the implication was that instead of sexually harrassing/abusing minors, priests should be sexually harrassing/abusing adult women. It didn’t faze me personally, but I stand with/behind those who found it offensive.

  • EllieMurasaki

    [Incidently, the catechism also makes the following point:
    Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.]

    Which clearly explains why the US Catholic Church hierarchy is so vehemently opposed to measures that would make an unexpected-and-wanted-but-unaffordable pregnancy result in a baby not growing up in poverty instead of a poverty-stricken little family or an abortion to avoid being a poverty-stricken little family.

  • Oh, for God’s sake.  There are people here who need to to hear the words “pot”, “kettle”, and “black”.  

    We’re seeing a micro-example of how the description for “politically correct” changed from “not being an asshole” into “being an asshole while telling other people how to act.”

    I’m not saying that no one is ever rude, but can we all just deal with the planks in our own eyes?  

    And if we find certain people so rude that we can’t resist the impulse to respond, can we at least do so while using an interpretation of their actions that assumes good intentions rather than bad ones?  Maybe with a friendly reminder that, “while we’re all sure that no offense was intended, nevertheless other, less charitable people might find a way to take offense”?

  • EllieMurasaki

    Google “intent is not fucking magic”.

  • Tricksterson

    Now I want to see those Gregorian chant monks do a cover of “Satisfation”.  Or maybe the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

  • British Girl

    My ha’penny worth on the subject, I read J’s original comment not as a slur on women, rather as taking the mick out of the stereotype of a smoking, gambling, drinking, womaniser. (And yeah, I found it funny. Not riproaring comedy gold, but it made me chuckle) My mental image came up with the endearing image of the pope in a smoky gambling den best seen on the set of Paint your Wagon. Noticed a slight dig at catholic priests on the side on a second reading to see what had got peoples knickers in a twist.

    I have read and generally agree with the principle of intent isn’t magic. But it isn’t meant to be used as Occam’s Razor, pulled out at anything and everything. And if it is pulled out every time as if it was the be all and end all of debate, then quite frankly it gets shrill and wearing. Yes someone can be honestly mistaken about use of words (the list of which seems to get longer and longer everytime I come across the intent isn’t magic phrase), No this doesn’t negate any hurt or offence caused by said words. But the fact that the speaker did not know that such words were verboten does not indicate that they are a nasty nasty person out to deliberately disturb the wider population with their ill chosen words. Intent isn’t magic, but it should count for something.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Oddly enough, the only person who has accused J of being misogynist (as distinct from ‘saying a misogynist thing’) on the basis of his original comment is J.

  • Having seen “The Magdelene Diaries”, it’s really not any better when the priests harass teenage/young adult women.

  • 49% of Republicans  will answer the question “Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election this year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?” with “ACORN stole it” – (poll question is in the PDF linked there)

    The number who’d come up with ACORN as an excuse without being prompted is a more interesting question, especially since it doesn’t exist anymore.

    ETA: I’d had the question from the 2009 survey, when it was at 52%. Fixed to the nearly-identical current one.

  • AnonymousSam

    He may have been the first person to say so, but am I mistaken in interpreting your earlier remarks as an attack of the same nature?

    My problem is not with saying women HAVE breasts, it’s with saying that breasts are the ONLY IMPORTANT THING about people who have them, which is, guess what, EXACTLY what J said.

    I’m usually solidly behind you when smacking down a misogynistic use of scripture or whatnot is the subject, but the above really does not appear accurate to me.

  • I suspect similar numbers would choose option B for any question where option A is any statement that supports the Obama Presidency, no matter how little relationship B has to reality.

    “Do you think that Barack Obama is doing a decent job as President, or do you think he is sacrificing every American to his satanic masters?” will likely get 50% of Romney voters saying the latter.

    These kinds of survey results only make sense to me when I posit that quite a lot of survey respondents parse the question socially rather than epistemically. That is, they treat the question as “Do you root for side A, or side B?” and answer accordingly.

    Along those lines, I’m sure someone somewhere has done a survey where they compare the difference between responses to “Do you support the Johansenn-Morley proposal?” and “Do you support the Johansenn-Morley bill recently proposed by House Republicans?” and “Do you support the Johansenn-Morley bill recently proposed by House Democrats?”

  • EllieMurasaki, you misunderstand me.  I’m not saying that people have no right to be offended just because the intent was not to offend.  I’m saying that if you find yourself offended to the point where you are compelled to correct the person who offended you, then the words of your complaint contain the assumption of no intent to offend. Rather than backing the other person into a corner with pure condemnation, you might want to give them room to back away from the behavior you find so offensive.

    Do you want the other person to stop doing what offends you?  Or do you just want a chance to condemn someone?

    Of course, being gracious in your complaint then requires the other person to be just as gracious – some form of either “I see now that of course my clumsy words were sure to offend someone and you are more than charitable not to be more angry” or “I politely disagree that there was offense in what I said, but since you are being so polite I’ll respect your right to your opinion.”

    This is how grown-ups act.

  • So, now I’m really curious: is “This is how grown-ups act” an example, on your view, of a graciously worded complaint that encourages the other person to change their behavior? Or is it an example of condemnation for the sake of condemnation? 

    For my own part, I prefer to approach people’s bad acts with an eye towards encouraging change rather than condemnation. That said, I also acknowledge that there is social value to public condemnation of bad acts, and if other people prefer to approach bad acts that way they are contributing something of value to the community. And sometimes I do it myself.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yes, you are mistaken.