How to Become the Minority Party
March 8, 2012 By 21 Comments
It’s always nice to see the “values voters” take themselves seriously. In a county in South Carolina, the local Republican Party is now requiring all candidates to uphold certain principles. According to The Clinton Chronicles, if you wish to be a candidate in Laurens County:
You must oppose abortion, in any circumstances.
You must uphold the right to have guns, all kinds of guns.
You must endorse the idea of a balanced state and federal budget, whatever it takes, even if your primary responsibility is to be sure the county budget is balanced.
You must favor, and live up to, abstinence before marriage.
You must be faithful to your spouse. Your spouse cannot be a person of the same gender, and you are not allowed to favor any government action that would allow for civil unions of people of the same sex.
You cannot now, from the moment you sign this pledge, look at pornography.
It’s those last three that seem likely to be the sticking point. Given the track record of Republican candidates in recent years, requiring everyone to sign this pledge would seem like a quick way to depopulate the party.
I’m glad that the good folks of Laurens County have taken this step, and I can only hope that it catches on throughout the country. I believe that moral purity, rather than political skill, should be the defining characteristic of Republicans candidates. Of course, I’m a Democrat.
Via Dangerous Minds and TPM
The Ring Thing
March 5, 2012 By 48 Comments
Libby Anne over at the Freethought blog Love, Joy, Feminism writes a really excellent post about the perception of men and sexuality that she grew up with:
Growing up, I was taught that there was one thing guys my age would want from me: sex. Because that’s, you know, all guys ever want from girls. I was taught that guys only think about one thing: sex. I was extremely confused by this at first because the “guys only want one thing from girls” and “guys only ever think about one thing” rhetoric began before I even knew what sex was. [...]
As I grew older, I was also taught that one of the reasons it’s important to remain a virgin until marriage was that if I had sex with a beau before bringing him to the alter, he would have gotten everything he was after anyway and would leave me and never tie the knot. Because, you know, all he wanted – the whole point of him dating or courting me – was to have sex with me. Only by holding out until after the wedding could I convince a guy to marry me.
Speaking as a man, one thing that really annoys me about the “purity ring” crowd is their low opinion of men. One thing that irritates me more are men who embrace this low opinion in order to absolve themselves of the responsibility to act like functioning adults. And the one thing that irritates me the most are people who use this stereotype as a justification of strict codes of conduct for women so they don’t tempt their “weaker brothers.” Grow the hell up, all of you.
A Bit More on Victoria Woodhull
February 27, 2012 By 6 Comments
Erik Loomis at Lawyers, Guns and Money wrote a great piece on the self-appointed censor of the Gilded Age: Anthony Comstock. Comstock was one of the great enemies of free thought, free love and free expression, and his enforcement of censorship laws over material sent through the mail represents one of the low points in American freedom.
Loomis followed this up with a piece on one of the most interesting people in American history, Victoria Woodhull. Woodhull was briefly a major figure in the battle for women’s equality. Historically, there are times when her contributions are overlooked and times when she receives a great deal of attention. The past decade or so have been a time of great attention, with half a dozen biographies. David Sehat spends some time on her in The Myth of American Religious Freedom as part of his coverage of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Woodhull’s friend and ally and one of Sehat’s liberal heroines.
Unfortunately, the attention she receives is not always the good sort. Woodhull was scandalous, and that makes it hard to tell fact from rumor and salacious allegation. Loomis plays it safe, but in the process has to leave out some of the great stories that surround Woodhull. I shall relate some of them, while still providing the sort of historical discernment you’d expect from a semi-anonymous internet blogger.
(and since this turned out to be much longer that I anticipated, I’ll stick it below the fold)
Godly Advice
February 21, 2012 By 34 Comments
Finally we’ll get to know whether He prefers underhand or overhand.
Actually, I’d kinda like to know the contents of this sermon. There’s basically nothing in the Bible about this topic, unless you try to rope in poor Onan. My guess is that it will be a few Biblical passages stripped of context and extended way too far.
Follow Patheos
Atheist: