Complicity: Yes, it Actually is “All Men” & Our First Step Should Be Admitting That

Complicity: Yes, it Actually is “All Men” & Our First Step Should Be Admitting That October 17, 2017

complicity

Often when I’ve stumbled into a discussion about rape-culture, whether it be a general discussion or on a more specific sub-issue within that (including things such as: male entitlement, objectification of women, degrading of women, sexual harassment, general sexism, etc.), I’ve often caught myself having a recoil moment.

That moment when I’d go from feeling like a cheerleader to feeling like I was the chief defendant?

It happened every time I heard the term, “all men.”

As soon as that term came out, I’d find myself defensive and almost angry. As a Christian, I think it’s part of the human condition to ignore the ways we may have contributed to making the world more broken, instead of less. I also think that it feels *really* good to say, “I thank you Lord that I am not like other men…” (Luke 18:11)

That fact that I caught myself continually feeling defensive when people talked about “men” in a broad, general way, led me to realize I had to do some real soul-searching as to why that was happening. Thankfully, through an extended period of reflection, getting honest with myself, and through some difficult conversations with female friends where I managed to set aside my defensive posture long enough to learn something, I had a paradigm shift– one that I hope all the men out there who follow me will have too.

Here’s the deal guys: While it’s true that not all of us share the same degree of being guilty, being less guilty than someone else is not the same thing as being innocent.

Many of us already understand this concept when it comes to white supremacy. For example, just because I don’t belong to the KKK doesn’t mean that I have no share of guilt in upholding a culture of white supremacy. Just because my children are people of color doesn’t give me a free pass for direct or passive complicity in racism.

The same holds true when it comes to rape culture: Just because I haven’t raped someone doesn’t mean I’m innocent of being complicit and contributing to a culture of sexism that oppresses, objectifies, and harms women in an exhaustive list of ways.

Being less guilty than someone else is not the same thing as being innocent.

Through my process, I was able to get to a point where I saw the “all men” comments in a way where I could finally understand them, and accept that yes– this rightly included me, too. And the reason why it really is “all men” is this:

We all live within, and have been influenced by, a culture that has historically been and continues to be oppressive and harmful to women. We have all been influenced by this culture to one degree or anotherWe’ve all had certain harmful beliefs, sexist attitudes, or inappropriate behaviors normalized for us, to one degree or another. And yes, we have all expressed some of these attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors, to one degree or another.

Just because some men have been influenced more, does not mean the rest haven’t been at all. When we’re talking about a culture, no one is left untouched.

None of us are innocent– no matter how badly we wish we were.

As I follow the #MeToo campaign where women share their personal experiences from this harmful culture, I’m also seeing progressive men give expressions of solidarity and support. Some of these have been sincere and beautiful, and have more importantly included an acknowledgement that yes, they too have contributed to those hurts.

But many of these expressions of support and solidarity are premature, in my view. You see, long before we become cheerleaders I think we need to spend some time acknowledging and accepting that, yes– it really is all men. It has been all of us who have created and sustained a culture that led to the #MeToo campaign, and it is all of us– not just those people who we think have a more egregious degree of guilt– who have something to say in the #ImSorry response.

I am deeply skeptical of any of my fellow progressive males out there who post these expressions of solidarity, but who have yet to have the humility to publicly admit personal complicity in the problem. It’s only once we acknowledge this that we are able to begin a journey of learning, growing, stretching, changing, and becoming an agent of change.

As I look back at the man I was 20 years ago, I grieve over the deeply sexist attitudes I expressed and for the harmful fundamentalist view of women I perpetuated in my own heart, and in the heart of others. I grieve over the sexist jokes I told as if they were harmless, and the times I laughed along with the crowd. I feel sick to my stomach as I remember inappropriate comments I’ve made, realizing that just thinking them in my heart was bad enough– and that actually expressing it out loud was even worse. As much as I’d like to say the gray-haired me is a different person than the man I was 20 years ago, I know that “all men” still includes me, today.

While I have changed and grown as a person, I’m still deeply aware of my complicity– especially when it intersects with my tendency to avoid personal conflict.

I grieve over the time a creepy older guy in the checkout aisle was looking a younger woman up and down inappropriately, and that she had to forcefully tell him to leave her alone when he then tried to engage her. I was proud of her, but ashamed of me– I should have said something first, but I didn’t because I was uncomfortable. My lack of action made me complicit, and I’m so sorry that she probably went home rightly believing that I condoned his behavior.

I grieve over the time I had to confront a peer for using their position of power and public influence to hit on a woman, but that I felt so much hesitancy in my own heart as I did it, because I was worried that holding him accountable was going to come at a personal cost to me. My fear and hesitation reminded me that being complicit is still the easy choice, but that it shouldn’t be. It’s a choice I’ve made many times in my life, but it’s not one I want to make anymore.

Yes, “all men” includes me. And for the ways I have contributed directly or collectively to the harm of women, I am sorry. But what I’m more sorrowful about is this: I have no doubt that I’ll do it again. These attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that were engrained in us run deep, and are not washed away overnight. I don’t think for one minute that I have arrived on solid ground. So for me personally, what’s more important than saying I’m sorry is saying this: When I am complicit, I am willing to be held accountable.

Accepting that “all men” includes me, and that “all men” includes you, is the only first step I can think of if we truly want to change culture. Until we acknowledge that we have all been influenced by this culture, and until we can acknowledge that we have all participated and continue to participate in this culture (with varying degrees of guilt), we will simply continue passing this harmful culture to the next generation.

They say the best “I’m sorry” is not doing it anymore.

But to be honest?

I just don’t see how we’d be able to commit to not doing it anymore, until we admit that we’re all somehow complicit in actually doing it.


 

unafraid 300Dr. Benjamin L Corey is the author of the new book, Unafraid: Moving Beyond Fear-Based Faith. You can preorder your copy today. Details are right here.

Follow BLC on Facebook:

"Agreed. Atheists try to delete God and Jesus from the historical reference by denying anything ..."

No, The Gospel Isn’t “Good News” ..."
"Walls actually worked 4,000 years ago. Now, not so much.Not that anyone really cares what's ..."

10 Signs You’re Actually Following TRUMPianity ..."
"Obama never held any child more than the 72 hours mandated by law, didn't reopen ..."

10 Signs You’re Actually Following TRUMPianity ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Etranger

    I guess, based on the justification for “all men” that you provide, we can say “all women” as well. Yes, I grew up in the culture as a male but I have never treated a woman as anything less than my equal. I am not being defensive, just saying that aside from my grade school years where I may have engaged in the stupid things boys do, I never did anything as a man that would make a woman uncomfortable. I came out as a feminist before I came out as gay. I started at an early age correcting sexist jokes, inappropriate behaviors towards women in high school and college that I saw in my male friends, taught feminist theory in college, etc. Did I have many friends among the “macho” men? Of course not. But who wants that. I agree that I am part of the “all men” because I have male privilege; not because I have exhibited any behaviors that put me in that category.

    * I think I might have read and reacted to this article too quickly when I wrote this. I see now the point being made by saying all men – which I kind of took in a different direction. Will keep this comment posted, but take it with a grain of salt – we, especially as males, need to be aware of the culture that is created and which we inadvertently support that allows for the mistreatment of women.

  • Thanks, Ben, for not only noting how structurally pervasive racism and sexism can be, but also our natural defense mechanisms to hear a critique and then figure out how it doesn’t apply to us.

    I can’t count the number of sermons I’ve heard about Jesus’ warnings about money that exhausted themselves explaining how it’s ok to have lots of money.

  • Nimblewill

    My first sexual experience came when a girl told me that if I didn’t she would find someone who would. Woman use sex to get what they want much more than men do. At least that is my experience. To say ALL do anything is naive. As a public school teacher I have worked in a female dominated culture where women got by with saying things about men that I would have been fired for saying about women. I think Ben is trying his best to be culturally relevant in a culture that he doesn’t have 100% knowledge of. I will never admit that I am complicit. I want be guilted into it by anyone. I would love for you to give me specific examples of how I am. You can’t because you don’t know me.

  • Etranger

    Interesting comment – but probably not meant for me – I never said you were guilty of anything.

  • Speck

    And yet I’m not convinced that “yes all men” is helpful rhetoric. As a phrase it emphasizes both the individuality and collectivity of men – and most men, I would think, hear that as individually blaming and shaming first. The “collectivity” part comes after. The phrase excludes the way the gender binary also oppresses men, and also excludes how women can use this concept in sinful ways as well. Acknowledging sin pervades our structures as well as our individual lives is important, but “yes all men” shames rather than empowers men to make differences in their lives. I’m currently reading _Conflict Is Not Abuse: Overstating Harm, Community Responsibility, and the Duty of Repair_
    by Sarah Schulman, and she explores this dynamic extensively. By arguing about “yes all men”, we’re not exploring what consent looks like – in all its complicated, messy, and even joyous glory (“yes means yes!”) – which I would argue is a better place to put our energy.

  • raven nevermore

    Either as a male or female, we are to have guilt for what someone else has done and for what I did not do in relation to what the other jerk has done? I do not think so! That guilt is typical of leftist – they have guilt for everything. Just more junk theology. Jesus set us free from that kind of guilt.

  • gimpi1

    One of the best things a person in a position of power can do is listen to people they have power over, or people with less power. Don’t deny, justify or attempt to explain. Don’t try to compare their experience to your own. Don’t tell them it’s not that bad or that it’s getting better. Just don’t talk. Listen.

    It’s darn hard. I’ve recently been trying to do this with a friend of mine. He’s a black man and I’m a white woman. He’s big, strong and an amateur boxer. I’m short, dumpy and I walk with a cane. Everyone seems to fear him, and no one fears me. I simply had no idea how hard it is to be feared, how it tarnishes your life, how being followed in stores or watching people back away from you twists up your self esteem, how the fear of being feared taints your views of and encounters with authority, how hard you have to work to not scare people into lashing out at you.

    At first, I tried to “explain” why this wasn’t his fault, or to relate it to things like being cat-called (something I experienced in my young-and-beautiful days). But it’s not the same. By refusing to see his experiences as important, as unique, as hard, I was dismissing him. Finally, I got it. I just shut up and listened. I learned a great deal, and was able to talk to him in a more helpful way after just hearing what he was saying. He also got a much-needed chance to vent. We all need that.

    So, gentlemen? Just listen. Go to “Me, too” and just read. Ask the women you know about sexual harassment or assault and truly listen to their responses. Try not to hear accusations, blame or attacks. Just hear our experiences. Understand what’s happening. We can’t address problems if we can’t understand them.

    So, all men? I don’t know. I will say I think all women have had these experiences. Personally, I don’t know a single woman who hasn’t had something awful happen related to her sex; who hasn’t been beaten up by a boyfriend/husband/family member; who hasn’t been harassed by a boss/loan officer/teacher/cop/doctor or authority figure; or hasn’t been intimidated by often total strangers harassing them on the street. In my experience, it’s universal. If we tell men about it, instead of hiding it as something to be ashamed of, will it get better? Let’s hope…

  • Nimblewill

    No, not at all. I think we agree! The blog says that all men are guilty. I disagree.

  • Ron McPherson

    “That guilt is typical of leftist – they have guilt for everything. Just more junk theology. Jesus set us free from that kind of guilt.”

    Lol. The point of the article is not about self-flagellation but rather male culpability in a culture of systemic sexism. It can only be genuinely addressed when males take an honest assessment of themselves. Our desire to help better the life of others should outweigh our avoidance to feel personal guilt. In other words, it’s not about my own personal comfort, emotional or otherwise; it’s about the life of others (which was kinda the crux of Jesus’ ministry). If I’m still focused on my own personal comfort then that’s a good indication that I don’t get the real issue yet.

  • I completely agree. In my experience the Liberal is an angry person. They point to the American Indian whose country we “stole”, the United States which was “built by slaves”, our military who ended the war by using a nuclear bomb and many other constructs that are designed to make them feel angry. They have no idea that this anger has been cultivated by the Left to push for changes to our great country like eliminating our Constitution because it is “flawed.”

    This article is typical of that warped thinking wrapped in guilt and their ideas of Jesus.

  • Etranger

    Interesting…never heard a liberal push for eliminating the Constitution! Also, didn’t know it was “anger” to represent history correctly and push for a better life for all Americans.

  • Excellent point! Jesus clearly taught that if you only supported evil but didn’t actually commit evil, you were free and in the clear! Thanks for clearing up the junk theology.

  • Woman use sex to get what they want much more than men do. At least that is my experience.

    As a public school teacher I have worked in a female dominated culture where women got by with saying things about men that I would have been fired for saying about women.

    There’s a couple of specific examples of how you are complicit.

    In the first example, you make a sweeping statement about women using sex to get what they want “much more than men do” on the basis of “your experience,” which I can only guess is more extensive than the single instance you brought up. You’ve already decided that your experience is determinative of the moral failings you see in women, and you’ve excused men for the behavior because in your experience, men don’t do it as much. Since your personal experience is the barometer for morality among the genders, I’m guessing this means a man hasn’t tried to use sex with you to get what he wants.

    In the second example, you try to create a scenario where you are actually the victim because women in your workplace say things about men that would get you fired if you said them about women, and this is because there are more women in your workplace. This is pretty much the gender equivalent of asking why there isn’t White History Month. The accuracy of what these women are saying isn’t important to you; it’s that when they are in an environment that isn’t male dominated, they say things that you feel you are not allowed to say. If public education were just a male dominated field (as it should be, right?) these women would keep themselves professional, in line, and quiet.

    The thing is, it doesn’t bother you in the slightest that Gender A is saying bad things about Gender B; it bothers you that women are saying bad things about men.

    There you go. I don’t know you, and in your comment, you already managed to establish that you’re part of the problem the article is criticizing. If you want to own up to that and also point out that these things can happen with women as well, that’s fine and good. But that’s not what you’re doing. You’re trying to basically say men -aren’t- guilty of the things the article discusses -by- pointing out these horrible women doing all these things like saying disrespectful things about men in places where men are not in power and wanting your body so badly that it eclipses any similar male behavior.

  • Then what is the reason for Liberal obsession with our country’s past? I have received many replies from people on this site that denigrate this great country for those reasons and a myriad of others.

  • Etranger

    It is an honest reconciliation with the past. You cannot learn from history without confronting the truth of the past. Many conservatives choose to gloss over the negative aspects of our history and insist on saying this “great country” without understanding what makes our country great – that is, the fact that we have continuously (for the most part) gotten better!

    We are all obsessed with the past. Look at Trump and Gingrich – they are obsessed with Pres. Jackson of all people LOL. They say he is such a great man and president. but they do not represent the truth of period. Such blind, ignorant references to history are what people do to control the masses – keep folks in ignorance.

  • Yes. That is another Liberal obsession. Revise the past where it hurts our “feelings” today – may it never be!

  • Etranger

    “revise the past”

    As a student of history, I can tell you that finding out more about a historical era and passing that knowledge along is not “revising the past”. It is revising our incorrect notions of the past. Many people resist that. It is tough to learn of what we might really have done to slaves, native americans, irish, italian, jewish immigrants, etc. It is good to know the full story. I wonder why so many conservatives, such as yourself, want to live believing a misrepresentation?

  • Etranger

    One thing that is funny is that conservatives are actually more about “revising the past”…just look at how much they insist that our founding fathers established this country as a Christian nation for one. They also will make claims that slaves had a good life. Talk about revising the past, LOL!!

  • Herm

    Bob, you wrote, “Then what is the reason for Liberal obsession with our country’s past?

    … for a more perfect union tomorrow???

  • Herm

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

  • Herm

    Would we agree that all of Man are responsible, complicit and guilty to not doing to all others of Man as they would have all others of Man do to them?

  • Herm

    Thank you gimpi1! I am so heartened to know that we are in this together. You are beautiful!

  • But we are indeed a Christian Nation and not a secular nation aren’t we?

  • Etranger

    Were we founded as such? No. Are we a Christian Nation? No. Do we have a lot of Christians in the nation? yes. *The constitution, which establishes our government and “nation” is completely secular.

    *added

  • Nimblewill

    Wow! Just Wow. I’m glad you know me and my situation better than I do. I had a women tell me yesterday that a bus driver was being racist to her child because she asked him a question about being on her bus. She said he was the only Hispanic on her bus so it had to be racist. You are perpetuating a culture of guilt and blame that is quite simply destroying any hope of peace that some of us want.

  • Etranger

    What was the question?

  • Al Cruise

    ” Liberal obsession with our country’s past? ” It’s not an obsession with the past but a concern about the attitudes and behavior that caused those atrocities in the past which are still alive and well among-st many of the right-wing conservatives/evangelicals in this country. So far held in check only by secular law and order.

  • Rick Martin

    Your blaming all men for the actions of a few, which is the typical feminist tactic. Should be blame all women for the few that make false rape claims? And how about all the supposed victims in this case? Don’t they have any responsibility for remaining silent, and thus, allowing the victimizer to continue doing what he did? Women are not angels, and many of these women may have used the casting couch towards their advantage. Let’s quit painting all women as helpless victims and stop painting all men as abusers.

  • Nimblewill

    Why he was on her bus! He had told her a few days before that he had moved. The kid has actually been swimming at the bus driver’s house. But apparently now asking a Hispanic kid why he is riding a particular bus is racist. It’s getting scary but I’m sure I am complicit in some way.

  • Etranger

    Ohhh, a school bus? Yeah, probably a legit question. I thought it was a public bus, in which case, one might wonder about the racist attitude.

  • Etranger

    Responding again just because you added stuff. I think we can all be more empathetic to how it feels to be a minority and get these types of questions more frequently than say white people. Could it be in that instance this bus driver was not racist and the mom interpreted incorrectly? Definitely. Could it be though that there are many instances where the mom and her family members notice being treated differently just because of them being hispanic? Can we understand how that can accumulate in one’s mind and make one think about situations differently? Could it be that many bus drivers wouldn’t question a new white kid on the bus but seeing a person of color makes them ask the question (even if the intent is not malicious in any way)? It could be that this bus driver keeps tabs on all the school kids and asks about every new kid. But then, if that were the case, the driver would probably ask something like “are you new to the neighborhood? I haven’t seen you on the bus before.” “Why are you on my bus” definitely is going to ring differently in the ears of the only minority on the bus than it would in the ears of a white kid. I don’t think it is harmful at all to try to put ourselves in others shoes and see where they are coming from. I don’t know that doing so means things are “getting scary”.

  • That is the problem today. God’s name is all over the founding documents. The founding fathers believed in God and acted as such. The idea that our country was found as a secular nation is a prime example of revisionist history and a hallmark of the Left who hates God even the mention of His name.

  • I would say One nation under God so far despite the Left’s obsession with their hatred of God and His name.

  • Etranger

    Actually God’s name is nowhere to be found in the Constitution…
    Many founding fathers believed in God. Most were not “religious”. However, for even those who were religious and believers, having seen the problems that a Church-State bond caused in the Europe they fled, and, being influenced as they were by the writings of the European philosophers and legal writers of the 17th and 18th centuries, they took pains to establish a country that was not beholden to any religion. This is not “revisionist history”. It is fact. Yours is definitely an example of revisionist history and is a recent phenomenon of the evangelical conservative movement. Ignorance of history and abhorrence of the quest for any knowledge is a hallmark of their religious beliefs.

  • Etranger

    Nice copy and paste job. I read so many blogs, especially on the progressive Christian website and I can’t say that there is a “Left’s obsession” with hating God and his Name. Seems like an absurd statement considering so many on the left are Christian – just look at the progressive Christian blogs on here. They talk about God all the time LOL. God only came into the pledge of allegiance in the 1950s as a response to communism….see how learning history helps!

  • Ok. Who is the Creator in Declaration of Independence?

  • raven nevermore

    You say “should outweigh.” That is where I disagree, respectively. because I can only be culpable, and then, only if I am responsible – the ability to respond. I disagree with the premise as flawed logic because it is unreasonable and fuzzy-feel-goodism. Thanks anyway.

  • Hey, you asked for evidence that you were perpetuating the problem, and I showed it to you. If you don’t want apples, don’t go shaking trees. You don’t get to say stuff like, “Women use sex to get what they want way more than men do” and then pretend you’re some victimized woman-respecter who would never promote denigrating ideas about women and wants peace.

  • Etranger

    God. Doesn’t make this a Christian nation lol. (It is also a very common deist term for the 18th century). You know the Creator is not only Christian right? Also, what the heck does this have to do with my comment?! Yikes – way off topic.

  • Right. So, if my parents kill your family, take all your family’s money and possessions and give them to me, and then flee the country, I have no responsibility toward you because I didn’t actually do anything. I should now freely spend all that money on myself, and if you happen to be homeless as a result, that’s just too bad, because hey, I’m only responsible for stuff I did, myself, as an individual directly. If I profit off the evil of others, I’m still a great Christian!

    Or would you argue that I have some responsibility to you in that scenario?

  • Etranger

    This is one of the best summaries of what is at stake in many of these discussions I have ever seen. Thank you for this. It puts into words things I have never been able to articulate clearly.

  • That phrase is an admission that are Rights are from God and not a Secular source. It is a powerful statement that has served our nation well and will continue to serve it despite the Left.
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
    Correct. We are off topic.

  • Etranger

    Okay. Just not a Christian nation :) And the “left” is not against God and his name. (back to the topic)

  • Junius

    [X] poison the well by casting a strawman feminist
    [X] derail with false rape accusations
    [X] women are the real aggressors by using sex for gain

    Way to avoid the point entirely and hit all the redpill talking points, your cookie is in the mail.

  • Rick Martin

    Actually, I think your missing the point, but don’t fret, I’m sure the feminazi’s will issue a victim badge anyway.

  • Thank you for the exceedingly kind words. It’s an abbreviated and more irritated form of a scenario I like to use to explain why reparations aren’t some ridiculous idea. People think, and this makes some sense, that if they aren’t personally responsible for someone’s suffering, then they have no obligation to alleviate that suffering, and obligating them in any way, shape, or form (e.g. taxes used for social programs, subsidies, etc.) is tyranny. This is basically central dogma for American conservatives.

    What is not often discussed in that simple equation is the ways in which we benefit from the conditions that cause that suffering, or if we contribute indirectly to those conditions through silence, attitude, or where we spend our money. To me, those factor into the moral equation, but this is unattractive to contemplate because, as Ben’s article points out, it means we have moral responsibility in situations we ourselves may not have directly caused.

    We often think of ourselves as not being sexist or racist because we, ourselves, are not doing something openly and blatantly racist or sexist. But it’s a lot more complicated to look at the -system- and see how we might be impacting and impacted by the system, and when we do we find that – perhaps entirely without our desire – we often benefit from and/or indirectly perpetuate unjust situations.

    Some people want to raise awareness of those situations and fix them. Others want to argue strenuously that they are justified in doing nothing because they’ve done nothing wrong. I happen to think the former group of people actually make the world look more like God wants it.

  • Ron McPherson

    Well, a couple of things. Are you suggesting that we are a “Christian” nation because the “founding fathers believed in God?” That doesn’t define Christianity. But at any rate, you may want to go back and read up on the religious beliefs of many of the founding fathers. Hint. It’s not conservative, evangelical Christianity. I suspect you might think them bigger heretics than us progressives.

  • Junius
  • wolfeevolution

    Respectfully, my friend, your very comments show an equal obsession with our country’s past. And hey, honestly, anyone who cares about our country should know its past and have an opinion about it — Left, Right, and everybody in between (like me).

  • Etranger

    The sad thing is that many – mostly like Shiloh – tend to have an opinion but no facts. And they have such a disdain for people who know the facts! It is a weird moment in our history. When I was growing up, even religious people valued education and “smarts”. Not the case anymore.

  • wolfeevolution

    In my experience, the Conservative is an angry person. I could go on about all the things that make them angry, but you don’t need me to do that — all you really have to do to find out about that is watch a video of a Trump rally… He knows how to channel all those angers. (That’s how he got to be president!)

    In reality, there are angry Conservatives and angry “Liberals” and lots of less-angry folks on both sides as well (and the angry and less-angry among those who take a different side than Left and Right).

    Black and white thinking about a group you’re not a part of is pretty counterproductive, and usually wrong.

  • Etranger

    Great comment but I especially like this sentence:
    “Black and white thinking about a group you’re not a part of is pretty counterproductive, and usually wrong.”

    I think these are wise words for everyone to think about on a daily basis! I need to take them to heart as well!!

  • Ron McPherson

    I think much of the push-back comes from Christianity in America often being framed around a me-centered theology. How can I feel better about myself? How can life become easier for me? How can my problems go away? How can I be freed from my self-imposed debt resulting from my own materialism? How can I get into the after-life to live in blissful euphoria? It just permeates our thought-processes because of our western cultural mindset. Visit pulpits across America and this is largely what you’ll get. It’s all about ME. I hope I’m not coming across as cynical. Not my intent. But Christianity to Americans becomes a sort of ‘what can God do for me in both this life and the life to come’ sort of thing. We’re wired to be selfish because of our American wealth, but too blind to see it. And when a more kingdom like perspective is put forth (like the stuff Jesus focused on, sacrifice to others), it looks ‘liberal’ and heretical because much of American Christianity has hijacked the real thing. And so Christianity ultimately boils down to what I’ve been acclimated to and programmed to believe, rather than maybe what it really is.

  • wolfeevolution

    Conservatives could stand to read the Bible a bit more:

    Why did Nehemiah repent personally for the sins that led Israel into the Babylonian Captivity when he himself was born in captivity (Neh 1:6)?

    Repenting of our corporate, historical sins and lamenting their enduring effects is appropriate and has a long, Biblical pedigree.

  • wolfeevolution

    Thanks, friend. Me, too!

  • raven nevermore

    I like the scenario. Good comeback. Watching too much Ray Donavan? I concede your point. For you not to return the money and goods would make you an accomplice. Your responsibility is based upon knowing who the money and good belong to. but I do not want to run down that rabbit hole.

  • Herm

    Well, at least there is one vote up for Rick Martin … by Rick Martin???

    Tiny Hands is right on, but then you’re too caught up in passing responsibility to understand. Listen!

  • Daniel Fisher

    “Yes, it actually is ‘all blacks’ and our first step should be admitting that.”
    “Yes, it actually is ‘all women’ and our first step should be admitting that.”
    “Yes, it actually is ‘all Muslims’ and our first step should be admitting that.”

    I would be curious the reaction if Dr. Corey laid collective guilt on any other class of people in similar fashion.

  • Bones

    Lol….someone’s forgotten their breakdowns when Obama was in office.

    Have you found Obama’s birth certificate yet, Bob?

  • Bones

    SO it was a Christian nation that slaughtered the Native Americans?

    Okily dokily.

  • Bones

    Lol….nations aren’t Christian……..

    The US is no more Christian than Australia, Germany or Sweden.

  • Nimblewill

    I disagree that you have any evidence. That’s the point I’m making. If I find one Phil Ledgerwood who is a mass murderer to claim that all are would be asinine.

  • Nimblewill

    This impulse to expunge every last trace of complicity sits at the heart of the radicalizing impulse within progressive Christianity, and progressive politics generally. This impulse is the psychological and moral imperative that moves you from liberal to progressive to radical. And let me again be clear, I’m not judging that trajectory at all. It’s the trajectory of my life in both politics and religion.

    But that trajectory, because of purity attributions such as dose insensitivity, is always going to be tempted in various ways. And one of those temptations is the temptation to point out or call out the complicity of others. Because any complicity at all is bad and worthy of being pointed out or called out it has to be expunged, even the smallest bits of it, even among well-intended friends and allies. And if you appear to be letting any complicity pass–for example, asking people to tone down the call outs–you’re reconciling yourself to complicity. You’re not centering the right things, not being a good ally. You’re giving aid to oppressors.

    Richard Beck

  • The problem is in the definition.
    I suggest if Progressives openly practiced in that time they would have been burned at the stake…

  • Trump was elected because the majority of this country rejected Progressive democrats.

  • The simple fact is this: you, personally, tried to argue that you were not complicit in maintaining a culture that denigrates women SOLELY by pointing out how terrible you have found women to be.

    And the sad thing is, instead of this being an “a ha” moment for you that you could use to improve, all you want to do is defend and justify yourself and pretend this isn’t problematic. You have provided empirical evidence that Ben’s case is valid.

  • Probably because that “rabbit hole” is a completely arbitrary justification once we are talking about the level of societal ills.

    Hey, so and so went out and bought a shirt they know was made by child slaves because it was cheap, but they don’t know who the individual slaves are so… no harm, no foul. We all like inexpensive clothing. And if my money helps keeps that corrupt engine running, well, I can hardly be blamed for that, right?

    The fact is, in America, I and most men have benefited from both our historical and current treatment of women. And it has shaped me, culturally, in my views and behavior as well. I can use this knowledge as an impulse to, imperfectly and gradually, try to improve both myself and America’s treatment of women insofar as I have that power out of love for my neighbor, or I can try to find reasons to justify myself such that I need to do nothing. Seems like the Christian option here is pretty clear.

  • Etranger

    It probably would depend on the context wouldn’t it?

  • wolfeevolution

    *angrily rejected

  • Junius

    Whataboutism is not gospel. Our role model in Jesus plainly stated on several occasions that God has different messages for different people.

  • paganheart

    This. Exactly this.

  • Etranger

    LOL Technically a majority of this country rejected right wing fascism. But our electoral college system is set up in such a way that the majority doesn’t matter.

  • Nimblewill

    The Wrath of Man Does Not Produce the Righteousness of God! I’m done.

    http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-purity-psychology-of-progressive.html

  • You should consider the ignorance of your comment on the way we elect President’s in this country; all 45 have been elected the same way. The great criminal, Hillary Clinton, is no exception. Majority in the Electoral College is required not optional.

  • Etranger

    Yes. The ignorance is on your side though. You said “a majority of this country” voted for Trump. That is simply not true. A majority of the electoral college is not the same as the majority of this country. No offense, but you do not know much of what you talk.

  • If you don’t want people pointing these things out about you, then my suggestion is that you not specifically ask people to point these things out about you.

  • apoxbeonyou

    I used to think the ‘narrow road’ was called such because of limited ‘election’ (hell is packed, heaven is not). As I have become wiser (and better read), I see that it is narrow because it is *hard*. It’s hard to put yourself aside and try to live for others.

  • Daniel Fisher

    OK, I’d be open to learning… would you give me an example, then, of similarly appropriate statements of collective guilt that would apply to all blacks, all women, or all Muslims?

  • Daniel Fisher

    Different messages to different people, sure. Different proclamations of collective guilt to large swaths of people, which implicate many people who are not merely innocent, but actively fighting the sin in question, I’m not so sure….

    But as I mentioned below, I am interested in better understanding…. could you give me an example of similarly appropriate statements of collective guilt that would apply to all blacks, all women, or all Muslims?

  • Etranger

    Would be better for you to provide such an example as you started the whole discussion lol.You provided nothing in terms of a valuable context in your original comment.

  • Daniel Fisher

    I can’t give an example, that is kind of the point…. I can think of no context whatsoever that would justify a statement of collective guilt that would be appropriate to levy against all blacks, all women, or all Muslims.

    But if I am missing something, I’m simply asking you to educate me….

    You suggested it was dependent on the context, so I am simply asking you to be specific…. what specific context would justify an accusation of collective guilt against all blacks, all women, or all Muslims?

  • Etranger

    I actually thought of one. All muslims have a culpability in allowing for the rise of Muslim extremism because they all believe in the Quran and give it special consideration. By believing in it, they justify all interpretations of it, even extreme ones. I say the same thing of all christians (e.g., all Christians bear some responsibility for the likes of Pat Robertson, Billy and Franklin Graham, Westboro Baptists). Also, I will go to my grave saying that, no matter how nice a Catholic is, all Catholics inherently are responsible for mistreatment of women and gay people because they support an institution that is dogmatically opposed to equal status for women and against gay relationships.

  • Nimblewill

    The problem is Phil. You didn’t point out anything to me. If I say the sky is blue and you say its green and you point out that its green, it doesn’t change the color of the sky. I have some ideas about the type of person you are but I have sense enough to know that those ideas could be totally and completely wrong. You have your ideas about who I am but you are wrong. Typing a few words on a computer screen will never bridge that gap. You would have to talk to the women in my life and the women that I have worked with to know me. I once had a lesbian tell me that if she every married a man it would be someone like me. I love and honor all the women I know and they will testify to that. Just because a made a couple of comments about women using sex to get what they want doesn’t mean I hate women. They do! If you’ve never experienced it good for you. I believe that many men are guilty of the things mentioned in this article but to say that all are or to say that one is, me, that you don’t know is ignorant in the true sense of the word. I could be lying about the things typed here………………..and I never asked you for anything, I said I wasn’t guilty of the thing.

  • Herm

    Cmdr, every member is responsible to the health of mankind because they each have influence over the whole. The first step to health is defining what we know is an illness. The number one illness that threatens the growth and survival of our species is refusing to take responsibility for our ignorance. Yes, it actually is all of us and our first step should be admitting that.

    When a child you speak as a child because you cannot bear the responsibilities of an adult and aren’t allowed to by adults. Like it, or not, when an adult you must speak truly as an adult first by accepting responsibility for truth, and your ignorance to the truth, to teach your child to become an adult, or our illness incubates to incurable and death.

    As long as we teach that fossil fuels have nothing to do with heating the earth, that God created all there is in seven days, that Blacks, Browns, Reds and Yellows are not equally potential members of mankind deserving equal investment as does Whites, that a woman is not as capable as a man, that if you want it take it from an other who has it, or any person subjected to a different culture of birth isn’t as important as those from my culture of birth, … we each are the continuing sickness.

    To sum this up, if we do not readily accept all others of our species, equally as important as we insist that they accept us, we transgress the law that determines eternal health or certain death of our body of mankind. You just segregated into groups of others as though separate in responsibility to our health from your responsibility. Each member of those groups is, relatively speaking, just as ignorant as you and I, just as individually influential as you and I, and each of us are given, by no choice of our own, no more than 120 years maximum to get it right (when it took 14 billion years to get here). Our first step should be admitting that. We aren’t doing that when we elect, as the father of our nation, one who teaches his influence through childish locker room talk.

  • Daniel Fisher

    That is a good example, point taken. While I don’t agree with everything you said there, when a person consciously chooses to associate with a position (whether political or religious), one could argue they have at least some complicity with those fundamental defining core beliefs and the direct consequences thereof.

    Thus I will limit my question to those groups of people that individuals are not by choice, but by birth and genetics (to limit the comparison to Dr. Corey’s accusation against “all men”.

    What context would justify a statement of collective guilt against all blacks, all women or any such class of person that one is by birth/genetics?

  • Etranger

    I cannot think of any for black people or women. Usually the statements are more difficult to make for a minority population.

  • Etranger

    I do have to upvote your comment. I am FINALLY happy to see someone admit that religion is a freaking choice!

  • Daniel Fisher

    I’m afraid I have a hard time following all you wrote…. i think you critiqued me for segregating other groups as though separate in responsibility? And suggested, rather, that I should view them as just as ignorant and influential as you or I?

    Well, it was Dr. Corey, who in writing this article, segregated us into male and female on this topic of responsibility, I was just responding to him, wondering if he would similarly segregate by other groups. If that was your objection, can I suggest you direct it to him?

  • Herm

    Bob, you are aware that “Make America Great Again” is an obsession with our countries past and does not move our nation forward toward a more perfect union of mankind, aren’t you?

  • Herm

    Allah

  • Matthew

    The founding fathers were “founding” a nation. They were concerned with the things of political philosophy. Yes … I do believe some of them were Christians, but according to my sources most were not the evangelical brand of Christian … far from it.

  • Matthew

    Remember Christopher Columbus?

  • Herm

    … so those burning others at the stake were right to do so? … so crucifying the Son of God as a heretic was the correct thing to do after all, for you?

  • Daniel Fisher

    Would it then be OK to make blanket accusations of guilt against blacks in those countries wherein they are the majority? Kenya, Uganda, etc? I personally hope that even in such a context you would not find any justification of accusing “all blacks in Kenya” – without exception – of some collective guilt.

    If you can think of no context that would justify making a blanket accusation against all blacks or all women, then you may see, at least in principle, why I object to someone making such an accusation against “all men.” I object to anyone making a sweeping generalization – specifically one that imputes immorality or guilt – against any such group of people.

  • Etranger

    Yeah, I get what you are saying – you can even read my comment below where I addressed it. I just did it in a more productive way, no? You illustrated the author’s point, instead.

  • Etranger

    If “all black people in Kenya” are complicit in something then one could make such a statement showing collective guilt. I know more than most Americans about Africa, but cannot think of an example to provide in reference to such a situation in Africa.

  • Daniel Fisher

    Sir, one other observation…

    We all live within, and have been influenced by, a culture that has historically been and continues to be oppressive and harmful to women. We have all been influenced by this culture to one degree or another. We’ve all had certain harmful beliefs, sexist attitudes, or inappropriate behaviors normalized for us, to one degree or another. And yes, we have all expressed some of these attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors, to one degree or another.

    Your statement above, if true, implicates all people, not simply all men. The sins you confess yourself (sexist jokes, hesitancy in confronting sexism) are sins that have been committed by women. As well as men.

    If so, why limit your accusation of complicity to only half of the guilty parties?

  • apoxbeonyou

    Because he’s addressing the men, not the women. IMO

  • Herm

    This article, by Dr. Corey, is directed at those men pointing at Trump, Cosby, and Weinstein who absolve themselves of responsibility in the example of:

    The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.

    Luke 18:11 (NIV2011)

    In the center of his observation he wrote:

    We all live within, and have been influenced by, a culture that has historically been and continues to be oppressive and harmful to women. We have all been influenced by this culture to one degree or another. We’ve all had certain harmful beliefs, sexist attitudes, or inappropriate behaviors normalized for us, to one degree or another. And yes, we have all expressed some of these attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors, to one degree or another.

    Tell me how you associate that with:

    “Yes, it actually is ‘all blacks’ and our first step should be admitting that.”
    “Yes, it actually is ‘all women’ and our first step should be admitting that.”
    “Yes, it actually is ‘all Muslims’ and our first step should be admitting that.”

    I would be curious the reaction if Dr. Corey laid collective guilt on any other class of people in similar fashion.

    I don’t really think you are saying that we don’t have a culture that has been and continues to be oppressive and harmful to women.

    I am wondering why you are defusing the guilt men should have in their relationships with women, if they want to be a constructive influence, that they can take the responsibility to correct by seeking to learn better than what they first learned behind the barn, by bringing in more sub classifications of mankind that are not men.

  • Junius

    Why derail? Why deflect? Why make this discussion about someone it isn’t about? Each group has its struggles. This one’s ours. You don’t have to like it. Sign on or don’t, but don’t point at other groups and go “what about them” as an excuse for not stepping up.

  • Ron McPherson

    Um, Jefferson patched together his own version of the bible and is regarded by Christian America as a hero to our nation. Get real Bob

  • I would love for you to give me specific examples of how I am.

    That’s you. That’s what you said. And I did, and you do not appear to love it.

    Will, I don’t know what kind of person you are holistically, nor did I claim to. I never said you were a bad guy, and I’d have to go back and scan the comments to make sure, but I’m pretty sure I didn’t say you hated women.

    What I do know is that you insisted the article’s critique did not apply to you, then you followed it with NOTHING BUT accusations about how bad women are, then you invited (you would LOVE) specific examples of how you are with regards to women.

    So, I did that. And that just made you angry, which honestly makes me doubt the sincerity of your request to have specific examples pointed out to you.

    The thing is, I could sit here and say that I never do anything or say anything racist or sexist because I’m not overtly calling people the “n” word or telling female coworkers they have a great body and would they get me a martini. But I know there are plenty of ways in which I have attitudes and actions that I do not -intentionally- design to denigrate or exclude a people group, but they exist all the same. And it’s up to people to point them out to me because I don’t and perhaps can’t observe them in myself.

    And that’s just me as an individual, to say nothing about the climate of our culture which is a big part of what it means for “all men” to be culpable. When my guy friends and I are hanging out and one of them says something disparaging about women, do I correct him or do I laugh or nod? When I notice a group I belong to has no women in leadership, do I look into that and see why that is and if something needs to be shaken up there, or do I just go on with my life? Am I proactive about harassment claims? There are all kinds of ways I can look at my own life – not with the goal of making myself feel guilty – but to look at ways injustice may infect my worldview and try to improve it.

    Let me give you an example that just happened at lunch. I went on a business trip a couple of weeks ago and bought some artisan candy bars made at one of the companies I visited to give out to my employees. One of my employees is vegan. I knew this. I did not choose the candy bars specifically to spite or exclude this employee. Honestly, the thought never crossed my mind. But when I handed them out, he obviously couldn’t take one. Everyone else could, but not him, and I hadn’t thought enough about his situation to get something he could eat to include him. He did not get angry or make any kind of big deal about it.

    Here is a case where I did not intentionally do something to exclude one of my employees, but I did it all the same. And I could either shrug and go, “Hey, not a big deal. I was trying to do something nice. All my vegan friends think I’m great. No harm, no foul. He wasn’t upset. I’m an awesome boss.” Or I could go, “Hey, I may be an awesome boss, but I slipped up, here. I excluded a great employee just because I didn’t think about it. I’m going to get him something and try to remember this for the future.” I opt for the second choice – self-improvement (and world-improvement) over self-justification.

    You, by contrast, seem to deeply believe that you need no improvement in this area and, despite asking for it to be pointed out to you after a paragraph of laying blame at the feet of women that would make John Hamm blush, react very negatively toward someone pointing this out and are vociferously trying to justify yourself and prove that you don’t need to be any different.

    For all I know, I may treat women worse than you do. I know I certainly have treated women very poorly in the past, and despite my hard work in this area, probably still do in ways that elude me. The difference between you and I is that I acknowledge that these things can happen despite my best intentions, I need to listen when they’re pointed out, and I can use them to do better. You, on the other hand, are more interested in proving how wrong the other person is to justify your own behavior and not having to change. And what’s stunning about all this is what you are defending is a paragraph where you straight up said you are not guilty of disrespecting women, and you can prove it because women try to manipulate you sexually and talk bad about men in the staff room of your school. That’s your reasoning. You’re not guilty because women are guilty. And, somehow, you expect me to believe that this attitude of yours comes from a place of deep love and respect for women?

    Seems unlikely.

  • Nimblewill

    I stand corrected. I am guilty and complicit. It’s called sin. I say this with all sincerity. I appreciate you consistent rebuttals. I will try to do better.

  • I believe you, and I am exactly in the same boat with you.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    There is a sensible point to be made that those who do not challenge this culture, who go along with it and say nothing are complicit in it. It is also true that men in particular are in a position of privilege, that it is not men who principally suffer from this culture, that men are in a better position to speak out, that sexist and misogynist attitudes make it harder for women and easier for men to take action to stop this, and men, not women who are going to have to take the lead in changing this culture if it is going to change.
    What this article does, though, is just indulge in hand-wringing. Sorry Ben, but although you seem to be confessing how you are no better than any other man and equally complicit, what comes across rather to me is a bit of humblebragging about how enlightened you are for truly recognising this.
    I don’t think that what is needed is men all confessing how dreadful they are and how they are all equally guilty. Saying “all us men are equally guilty” just swaps ineffectual wallowing in guilt for smug complacency as an excuse to abrogate personal responsibility for one’s actions. What is really needed is for more men to say “actually, no, I am not equally guilty, I am in fact better than that, I am not just some passive participant in this culture and am going to start acting like it” and challenge instead of going along with the next sexist remark or joke, report instead of ignore inappropriate behaviour and justify his (entirely unmerited) male privilege to make himself part of the solution.

  • Ron McPherson

    This is a prime example to never ask for something unless you really want it. By the way Phil, I would love for you to NOT give me specific examples of how I am.

  • Ron McPherson

    Same here

  • Nimblewill

    If there is any redeeming value to social media its the opportunity to hash out our thought process. The church should be such a place.

  • Ron McPherson

    Amen. And I upvote your humility, guts and honesty here. I have a long ways to go myself.

  • Ha! Well, in fairness, nobody really likes to hear that stuff, myself included.

    About… I don’t know, eight months ago, I was sitting in on an interview one of my clients was doing for a new programmer, and at the end, the interviewee says, “Do you have any suggestions or feedback for me on how I could do better in my interviews?”

    I had never heard anyone ask that before in a job interview, and I thought it was pretty cool, so I said, “Well, sure! There were a couple of times when I felt like you tried to put together answers to questions that you didn’t really know the answer to, and I’d encourage you just to say that you don’t know when that happens.”

    Well, turns out he wasn’t actually interested in having someone actually answer that question and got upset, and afterward, one of the other guys in that interview says to me, “I am never asking you for an honest assessment of my performance.”

    Hmm. Maybe it’s me.

  • Bones

    Things certainly worked for good for the white man…not so much the natives.

  • Daniel Fisher

    I’m asking if doing it at all, to any group, is appropriate. If it is appropriate for Dr. Corey to do so against “men”, then surely someone ought to be able to give some similarly sweeping condemnation against all blacks, or all women. If no one can point to any appropriate accusation against all blacks or all women, then I remain dubious regarding the appropriateness of doing it against another group, men included.

  • We seem to be going around in circle. Can you please provide a definition of “secular nation?”

  • Since we not a Christian nation but a Secular nation, can you please provide a definition of “secular nation” before I answer.

  • Daniel Fisher

    “This article, by Dr. Corey, is directed at those men pointing at Trump, Cosby, and Weinstein who absolve themselves of responsibility….”

    No, it isn’t. If that is who it was directed to, I would have little objection and be in deep agreement.

    Rather, this article, by Dr. Corey, is directed simply at all men.

    And as you point out, he observes that “we all live within, and have been influenced by, a culture that has historically been and continues to be oppressive and harmful to women.” All people. Men, women, blacks, whites… we all live in and have been influenced by this culture.

    But then he (arbitrarily?) limits his condemnation to only male members of that culture. why would it not be just as equally appropriate, given his stated premises, to state “Yes, it is actually all women, and our first step should be admitting that.” Or simply, without the segregation you seem to object to, “it is actually all people, every one of us, male and female alike…”?

    That follows just as easily. Women have been guilty of sexual assault, women have told dirty jokes, women have propagated sexist attitudes. I would never condemn all women for the actions of some women, but neither would I condemn all men for the actions of some men. Men are by far more often perpetrators of such sexual assault and sexist sentiments, but if I am going to condemn all men for those faults, there is no reason I should stop and not condemn all women. Women live within, and are influenced by, a culture that has historically been and continues to be oppressive and harmful to women. Why not, then, if he wants to make a blanket condemnation based on the fact that all people have been influenced by our culture, and based on particular sins in this regard that both men and women have been guilty of, simply condemn everyone? Why is it only the men, yet each and every man without exception that he wants to condemn? To borrow your words, why the segregation?

    In short, if Dr. Corey is correct that every single male without exception is “complicit and contributing to a culture of sexism that oppresses, objectifies, and harms women in an exhaustive list of ways,” then every single woman without exception must be similarly guilty.

  • Daniel Fisher

    I agree with you here, point well made.

    My issue, however, is that Dr. Corey is assigning guilt and condemning those who commit evil, those who support evil, and those who oppose evil.

  • Etranger

    I guess one with no official religion?

  • Herm

    Cmdr, you spin all around it but don’t quite see the point here. Dr. Corey cannot begin to speak for all women, unless he puts this in the context of all members of mankind. He can begin to speak for all men because he has been in the locker rooms, and said nothing when a woman was objectified, and no other man present said anything.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

    The point is that until we, including each and every man, declare that all of Man is created equal we, men, we all are complicit in perpetuating inequality among each other.

    I have tried to point out that none of us knew how to treat one another in our early twenties, none of us. We all, all men, went through our teens having to learn, not from our parents or school authorities but, from our peers, boys for boys and girls for girls. Some of us, I for one, had a real hard time wondering why we couldn’t hit on girls to score our conquests as our respected best friends could. Today, I understand and tried my hardest to share the facts of life with my children so they could respect all constructive others as they respected themselves, regardless of their differences.

    I will not speak for a woman even though I know that they suffer from as much ignorance about men as I do about women. Neither does Dr. Corey.

  • Bones

    Pretty sure they were more concerned with the French concept of liberty and libertarianism.

  • Bones

    I think it has more to do with real destruction like what actually happened to Jerusalem.

  • Etranger

    Also…you are the one who insists on saying the US is a Christian nation – how do you define that term? As I have shown you, it was never set up as such by our founding fathers.

  • Nick

    No. We are a secular nation founded on secular deistic ideas.

  • Nick

    God’s name isn’t all over the founding documents. The lack of his name is actually conspicuous.

  • Ron McPherson

    I was responding to your comment that progressives at that time might have been burned at the stake (ie Jefferson was a Deist who cut portions from the Bible yet he not only survived but is known as a heroic founding father

  • Ron McPherson

    You’re no fun

  • raven nevermore

    I will, indeed, still purchase the shirt! Because I like shirts and do not want to walk around half naked. Seriously, such divides have been around for hundreds of years. Can we change it now? As more capital is spread around (as I purchase my shirt) things have already improved. Should it be better – yes. Conclusion: it is a slow process of improvements and simultaneously an existential contradiction. I live with that contradiction; no doubt as Jesus did, not as an excuse but as a comparison. I have not become therefore “comfortably numb” (Pink Floyd) as the song goes, however, the means of acquiring new information at light speed does not mean I must have guilt that corresponds to it. I refuse to “buy” into that mindset.

  • Jaq

    So if you object to the “sweeping generalization” the you must think not all men are complicit.
    So where are these perfect men who have not objectified others, or laughed when someone used words objectifying someone, or stood by and done nothing when a person a was objectified by another?
    If you take offense at what you claim is a generalization, surely you can point to many men to whom this “generalization” does not apply?

    Furthermore, there are other groups of people you can do this with. All Americans, for example, including myself, are complicit in creating our materialistic culture, and our demand for unnecessary things and stuff also makes us by extension complicit in the exploitation of workers, and child labor.

  • Jaq

    As a woman, one example of how good, Christian men in my life have contributed to a sexist culture is by criticism my instinct for my safety.
    If a woman feels uncomfortable around someone, even if they haven’t overtly done anything to make her feel that way YET, you should respect that. Even if she decribes it awkwardly or jokingly, like saying “that guy just has creepy vibes” you should take that seriously.
    I have had this happen several times where, I said I wanted to leave early, or just wanted a friend to know so he could watch my back.
    The response is almost always the guy ready to jump in and protect me, asking what the “creepy” guy did to me. And when I explain he hasn’t done anything, just gives me a bad feeling, they are completely bemused, and myself and another female friend were once even told we were being rude and unfriendly. Don’t dismiss a woman’s instinct for her safety. Every guy that’s given me “creeper vibes” has ended up actually being a creeper.
    If I told a female friend I thought someone was creepy, she wouldn’t ask why or dismiss it, she watch my bag, and provide me polite excuses to get away if I couldn’t avoid the guy.

  • Jaq

    If you are complicit in something wrong, that’s sin. If you don’t want that expunged, then you are holding on to sin and therefore rejecting God’s grace and forgiveness. You have to give up all of your sin, even the smallest traces.

  • Daniel Fisher

    If we are talking at the level of acknowledging that all people everywhere are sinners, and that no one has ever responded perfectly in every situation where they were ever faced with an opportunity to avoid objectifying people, then sure, at that level, every man is guilty.

    But then I’d ask in return, where are those perfect women who have themselves never objectified others in any way, or laughed when someone used words objectifying someone, or stood by and done nothing when a person was objectified by another?

    If Dr. Corey wants to speak about the fact that all humans are sinners, then he ought include all humans as sinners in his chastisement (as you do with all Americans. While I disagree with your appraisal on many levels, I at least can acknowledge your consistency in lumping collective guilt on all of us without exception). But to call out one segment of society when every member of society (according to his own words) shares in the guilt, this strikes me as misguided as calling out Blacks or Hispanics for fomenting racial animosity when, at the level we are talking about, it is guilt shared by every single human.

  • Nimblewill

    How have you managed that and how is your life different that those around you? You really need to write a book.

  • Daniel Fisher

    “Dr. Corey cannot begin to speak for all women, unless he puts this in the context of all members of mankind”

    He did put it in the context of all members of mankind, unless his words I quote below mean something completely different than the plain reading (emphasis his):

    We all live within, and have been influenced by, a culture that has historically been and continues to be oppressive and harmful to women. We have all been influenced by this culture to one degree or another. We’ve all had certain harmful beliefs, sexist attitudes, or inappropriate behaviors normalized for us, to one degree or another. And yes, we have all expressed some of these attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors, to one degree or another.

    Women live within, and have been influenced, by this culture no less than men, no? They have been influenced by this culture to one degree or another. Thus without doing injustice to the plain meaning of English, he is speaking about all members of mankind.

    Unless he wants to clarify that, when he said, “we have all been influenced by this culture to one degree or another” he meant to say, “all men have been influenced by this culture to one degree or another but women are immune from such influence…” then I can only understand him to have been making these claims in the context of all members of mankind.

    Look, I agree in general with the basic idea that Dr. Corey is trying to accomplish here, I’m in the military, and I daily see reminders of the way that women are objectified in a manner that I deeply believe contributes in some form or fashion to the “rape culture” that people speak of. Every time I see the pornography on sale right in the military exchanges, I remain stunned and horrified that an organization that claims to be pursuing an end to sexual assault and a culture of mutual respect would still perpetuate such crass peddling of material that objectifies women as sex objects.

    But it do not think it does any good to try to lay a guilt trip on “all men,” and I find it logically inconsistent and downright insensitive. If we are talking about actual overt behavior and words, as well even complicit silence and inaction, then we simply must recognize that there are men who have dedicated their lives to fighting sexism and any and every kind of sexual assault or harassment. To call them “part of the problem” strikes me like lumping Gandhi in with being complicit in violence, Mother Theresa as being complicit in materialism, or William Wilberforce being complicit in the English slave trade.

    On the other hand, if he is speaking in the most general terms, that given the very core nature of our sin, which corrupts and is corrupted by our culture – on occasions even the most pure of us have, perhaps decades in our past, committed some offence, perhaps even in our hearts, that in some sense contributed to the sin of objectifying women, OK, fine. In that most general sense, sure, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, and Wilberforce probably had some blind spots wherein they witlessly contributed to the problem they had devoted their lives to fighting. But by that broad standard, what woman would be guiltless of doing, saying, or believing something, at some point in her life that we could recognize in this broad sense was similarly influenced by this corrupted culture and its views of women?

    In short, if we are talking about overt actions and words, as well as culpable complicit silence and inaction, then no, it is most certainly not “all men.” If we are talking about the pervasive sin wherein we have been influenced to at least some degree by our sinful culture, then it is simply and obviously “all people.”

  • Daniel Fisher

    I have to ask – I would think it self-evident that religion is a choice, granted one that may be significantly influenced by our culture and upbringing. How exactly would one claim otherwise, without embracing radical determinism that suggests that we have no choice in anything?

  • Etranger

    I am just used to religious folks, Christians mostly, telling me being gay is a choice (which it obviously isn’t if they would get to know gay folks and find out). Then they refuse to admit that the only real choice is religious belief. I mean, most religions actually have a ceremony affirming that choice.

  • Etranger

    Oh I forgot to mention – yes I agree it is self evident – just a weird phenomenon where folks don’t recognize the obvious

  • Bones

    Heaps of blanket statements being made now by conservatives, you need look no further than on this thread and the usual right wing moron’s hatred of liberals, the left, gays, blacks….

    eg
    on this thread…

    ” In my experience the Liberal is an angry person…..”

    And I’m sure you’ll find some for black people….after all why was Trayvon Martin shot?

    A black guy walking home…must be suspicious…better follow him……because he’s black….or the ol black v black violence canard…..

  • $144948586

    Hi Ben,

    Does “All men” mean all “transgender women” as well–and, namely, those that identify as such?
    Please answer for yourself before continuing.

    Do you remember this blog?
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/the-disgusting-hypocrisy-of-the-anti-trans-bathroom-movement/
    “I think what their side is missing is the fact that our transgender brothers and sisters are not a threat to us.”

    I’m just going to leave this here:
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/19/transgender-wyoming-woman-convicted-sexually-assaulting-10-year-old-girl-in-bathroom.html

    Guess who isn’t reporting this story:
    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=transgender+woman+sexual+assault+CNN

    According to this current article, “Have screwdriver, will screw.”

    For you, Bones, Ron, Herm, Otro, and the rest of your ilk.

    Thanks,

    Josh

  • Chari McCauley

    This planet is half male, half female. Gender out-numbers race, religion, country. In some countries, still today (with all of our “knowledge”); a woman cannot say “no” but she can die for “her” sins. Well, she might tell the truth, that could be dangerous to someone committing adultry, now wouldn’t it? Silence her, before she tells the truth. Make her look like she is stupid, crazy or lying, or just kill her. Anything just keep them from telling the truth or at least make sure nobody believes them.

    If women could always tell the truth, everybody would be “out-of the closet”!

    Silencing women and children is a global problem. Black men have been known to treat their women as if they are the ground they walk on, too.

    And, if you say it is ok to abuse one thing, then it is ok to abuse anything. It’s not just for little girls, anymore. Now the boys can be abused, too. (less competition)

  • $144948586

    “Usually the statements are more difficult to make for a minority population.”
    This kind of statement appears “off the cuff”, unlearned, and dishonest. Just because they’re a minority is ridiculous. Besides, men are a minority in the U.S., and throughout the world (I’ll let you explore the biological reasons why there are more hens than roosters in the hen house, or why heifers outnumber bulls on the farm.

    Why can’t one speak to the adulterous numbers of the black population? Sure whites do it too, but not in sheer percentages as the black community.
    Concerning sexualizing culture: Similarly, women do it too, but not in sheer percentages as the male community.
    Concerning blacks: Same can be said for crime.
    Same can be said of suicides and drug use in LGBTQ communities.

  • Etranger

    Oh my – talk about “off the cuff”, unlearned and dishonest!! Brava!

    (Minority population means one is not in control of the power dynamics in the particular society/situation. Are you suggesting woman have the power in Western culture? LOL)

  • Chari McCauley

    Yes, some women have learned to get around it. But, if you have kids, or are a kid how do you suggest breaking silence at the risk of death or worse for you and your family? There ARE things worse than death.

    It is global, not just the good ole U.S.A. Heck, if (the wealthier) men here, wish to indulge all they have to do is go to a country that looks the other way for any type of behavior.

    Parents in poor situations have been known to sell their children to people who pay for the opportunity to “mold” the children to be the servants that will bring in the most profit.

  • $144948586

    “Minority population means one is not in control of the power dynamics in the particular society/situation.”
    Oh, I wasn’t aware of your definition. I was using the correct one:
    https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&q=minority+definition&oq=minority+definition&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i131k1j0l9.193.3202.0.3385.22.17.0.0.0.0.272.2096.0j9j3.12.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..10.12.2094.0…0.KjkNNbjMw8Q
    So, basically, we’re at the “those with lesser power can’t have vices” point.

    “Are you suggesting woman have the power in Western culture?”
    Obfuscation is a sin, Etranger.

  • Etranger

    “So, basically, we’re at the “those with lesser power can’t have vices” point.”

    Huh? Absurd

    “Obfuscation is a sin, Etranger.”

    Huh? Absurd

    You’re just way off topic. Come back when you say something on topic with a bit of thinking behind it!

  • Etranger

    To illustrate your lack of any thinking skills – just look at this absurd line:

    “Same can be said of suicides and drug use in LGBTQ communities.” So we should say LGBTQ support suicides and drug use because they are LGBTQ? Might want to think about why such things exist in the communities (hint, you are probably part of the cause).

  • $144948586

    [“So, basically, we’re at the “those with lesser power can’t have vices” point.”

    Huh? Absurd]
    You posit that your definition of minority is those without power. And for this group, “Usually the statements are more difficult to make for a minority population.” Er go, it’s more difficult to make about minority groups because they can’t have vices inherently because of their lack of “control of the power dynamics in the particular society/situation”.

    “Are you suggesting woman have the power in Western culture?”
    This is a leading question to obfuscate from the subject at hand:
    Each of these statement are one’s that could, by Corey’s methodology, be used as blanket statements toward a select population (which really applies fully to the whole).
    That’s obfuscation.

  • Chari McCauley

    If rejecting the abuse of any living thing, that feels pain, is a Liberal leftist, sign me up! I thought I was just trying to do what The Lord allowed us to beat the crap out of Him for.

    It’s not theft if you give credit where credit is due; a little compensation and a thank you never hurts, either.

  • $144948586

    “So we should say LGBTQ support suicides and drug use because they are LGBTQ?”
    No, we should say “suicide and drug use are a problem” that plagues all factions. It’s not limited to them.

    “hint, you are probably part of the cause”
    I’d love to have this conversation once we’ve settled this topic.

  • Etranger

    Read the thread. Nothing you say is what I ever suggested.

    Also, here is the definition of obfuscate for your future reference. You are not using it in a meaningful way today.

    ob·fus·ca·tion
    ˌäbfəˈskāSH(ə)n/Submit
    noun
    the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
    “when confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation”

    Have a wonderful day!!

  • $144948586

    “the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.’
    Yes, you tried to obscure the issue.

  • Etranger

    Great. That has nothing to do with the topic I was discussing or the author was discussing.

  • Etranger

    No sir…you actually did with your initial comment to me :) I love teaching uneducated right wing christians.

  • $144948586

    It was what you and Daniel were discussing and the incredulous labeling of Corey.

  • Etranger

    You are very off topic. Sorry, I am out of troll food today.

  • $144948586

    No; I responded to your ridiculous statement that minority (by your definition) are inherently innocent of vices (or at the very least it’s difficult to label them).

  • Etranger

    I never said that…you are not a very good reader :) (very typical christianist trait)

  • $144948586

    “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.”

  • John

    I have three contentions with your argument:

    1) It would apply equally to all people, not just to all men, yet you’ve specified men. Why?

    2) Your only factual evidence is a couple anecdotes from your own life. Why do you feel that you are able to apply those, wholesale, to every other man?

    3) Would you argue that Jesus was also guilty of this sin? If no, why? Every argument you made would equally apply to him.

  • John

    Why is he unable to use his experience as a justification for generalization, but Dr. Corey is?

    I don’t agree with his statement, but I also don’t agree with Dr. Corey’s statements. Why are you fine with one and not the other? Why is it sexist for him to assume all women act in accordance to his personal experience, but it’s totally justified, and even good, for Dr. Corey to generalize all men based on his personal experiences?

  • Al Cruise
  • Chari McCauley

    You’re smarter than that, Bob, right?

  • Chari McCauley

    “Black and white thinking about a group you’re not a part of is pretty counterproductive, and usually wrong.”

    Exactly!!!

  • Chari McCauley

    Because we need to grow out of it,…really! Grow up.

  • Chari McCauley

    When I was growing up, even religious people valued education and “smarts”.

    Depends on where you came from, and what the “rules” were.

    You have to be willing to see what is hidden under the rugs, behind the closed doors, under the beds, in the attics, and especially in the basements, and sewers……people everywhere fall through the cracks as far as WE are concerned. “Ignore them, maybe they will…go away…

  • Chari McCauley

    I would say One nation under God so far despite the Left’s obsession with their hatred of God and His name.

    Do you agree with killing, in “God’s” name…despite one of the Original, written by His finger (10)…”commands” not to do things or says things, in His name? (Thou shalt NOT take The Lord’s name In vain (while lying)?

  • Chari McCauley

    I call Him Abba. He’s been my Dad for a long time. I adore my Father, and all He has taught me, so far. It’s not all pleasant, but necessary. We have to be aware of the enemy.

  • Chari McCauley

    We seem to be going around in circle. Can you please provide a definition of “secular nation?”

    All people were created by the same Creators.
    Romans 1:20, Genesis 1:26, John 1:1, 1John 5:7-8

  • Herm

    Cmdr, if you read my first comment you might understand that we agree that all of mankind is culpable to the offense of objectifying women. It is not by accident, although, that we all have to assume that all Pharisee, Sadducee, high priests, teachers of the law (scribes), tax collectors, centurions, apostles and every reigning authority in the Bible was a man; we, as men, must assume the mantle that all men bear to patriarchy until patriarchy is no more.

    Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

    Exodus 34:7 (KJV)

    note: I use the KJV here, rather than the NIV 2011, because the Hebrew word for iniquity, used in verse 7, ʿâvôwn does not translate to sin as it is written in the NIV 2011 (but not so in the NIV 1978?), nor does ʾāb translate as parents but does as fathers. Another example of misinterpretation by scribes (men and women?) to suit their purposes, in this case gender equality. Iniquity (immoral or grossly unfair behavior) is not sin (an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law)

    The iniquity of the fathers is passed down upon the children (not necessarily their spawn) because of both what they did by example and what they spoke by word; in essence what they taught.

    “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.

    Matthew 23:8 (NIV2011)

    “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

    Luke 14:26-27 (NIV2011)

    note: disciple translates as pupil.

    For all of us on earth, today, there is only one Teacher and that is the Spirit of truth with and in whom we must be born as a child of God to live, or remain in allegiance to the teaching of our parents and die. There is only one Father for children (all genders) of God and He instructs the Spirit of truth along with the one Instructor, the Messiah who ascended into heaven. As a little child of God, learning in the Spirit of truth, I know my place in the hierarchy of both God and Man. As an adult, speaking as such, son of Man I readily assume the iniquity, transgression, and sin of my carnal teachers on the cross that I carry. I was not raised and taught to be a daughter of Man so my first step, in highlighting the availability to the Teacher of truth to all (the only trusted source for resolution) is speaking to those who were raised and taught as I was, men.

    Perhaps, it would help us come to an understanding why Dr. Corey wrote this article if we all googled #notallmen.

    I find this webpage, among many, to be an insightful synopsis, also: https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/10/yes-actually-it-is-all-men/

    Daniel, I do not disagree that we should all, adults of mankind, accept responsibility and culpability for the generations of abuse to our own body of Man. I disagree that the first step for men is to begin with the entirety of our body’s culpability. We, all of us, must take the first step from where each of us is. To begin from the perspective of the whole journey is physically and spiritually impossible. I do not want eternal life handed to me in its entirety. I want to anticipate, participate, and savor each step (and stumble) along that journey that begins with me here and now.

    Dr. Corey actually took the first step from him, before this article, and now takes the second step from him, to call for the first step for men, next comes the first step for males and females equally as mankind.

  • Herm
  • Chari McCauley

    My first sexual experience came when a girl told me that if I didn’t she would find someone who would.
    So, she learned early to use a man’s words to get what she wants?

    Specifically, I was told. What’s yours in mine, and what’s mine is mine; you can easily be replaced; you are expendable; I can make things hard for you; oh, pick a threat. When you are still a child, tell me where those boundres go? Can they really hurt my mom or dad?

    It ain’t just for little girls, anymore…..

    Do I sound a bit angry? Oh, you bet!

  • John

    This would be a question of whether he was a sinner, by himself, before ever taking our sins upon the cross.

  • Herm

    John, did He ever, in everything, not do to others as he would have others not do to Him, for that is the sum of transgressions against divine law; sin.

    And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

    Luke 14:27 (NIV2011)

    Does that mean that I must carry my cross for my sins only or for all the sins of Man, that are passed down for three or four generations?

    “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

    John 16:12-13 (NIV2011)

    Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

    Mark 1:10-11 (NIV2011)

    Was the Son of Man led in all truth before the Spirit of truth descended upon him like a dove, or was He subject to the patriarchal teaching of Man in respect for His community of birth? This is rhetorical; why do you suppose we have no record of Jesus, except as a child beyond staying behind to share in the temple, while eating, drinking, resting and partying in association with His disciples?

    Do you believe that all first born lambs of sacrifice were perfect, or that first harvests of crops are more important to God than first births of animals (Cain and Able)?

    What does it matter if all men, in the example of the Son of Man, simply accept their cross as suggested by a man, Dr. Corey in this case, plus that all students (all genders) accept their cross to provide possible forgiveness for all of Man of what they know not what they do?

  • John

    I’m not sure Dr. Corey would be willing to throw out the Trinity, the goodness of God, etc. as you are.

  • Herm

    Does the “Trinity” have any significance to children of God, born of the Spirit of truth today, who are the sisters, brothers and mother of our Lord Jesus. We don’t worship semantics, we worship with and in spirit relationship our Father. Did Jesus teach you anywhere there is only three persons of God? If the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, as taught by Jesus, is with and in you, as He is with and in both Jesus and our Father, how many are there of God, according to the count as taught by Jesus?

    Neither Dr. Corey nor I speak for each other but we both boldly speak the word of God as we each can bear.

  • Herm
  • $144948586

    Herm, I like that your response is “Well it wasn’t a public bathroom.”
    It’s telling.

  • Herm

    Josh, I only offered to you refuting facts. It’s is only “telling” to those who do not see to accept the Spirit of truth.

  • $144948586

    What facts of mine did you refute?

  • Herm

    Good point, thanks, foxnews and lmgtfy weren’t facts, like in the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

  • $144948586

    Ooo witty (that’s why I liked it); but seriously. What facts of mine did you refute?

  • Herm
  • $144948586

    “You offered no facts but you cited these two …”
    Fine fine, then what exactly of my statements did you refute?

  • $144948586

    “I rebutted with no facts but to demonstrate that there were other perspectives equally”
    HE MOLESTED A 10 YEAR OLD GIRL, HERM! HE WAS FOUND GUILTY!
    YOU’RE REFUTATION WAS, “But it wasn’t in a public restroom!”

    FOR GOD’S SAKE! It’s d-i-s-g-u-s-t-i-n-g!

  • Herm
  • $144948586

    What am I supposed to be reading?
    Quote it for me.

  • John

    Truth about God is always significant.

    I mentioned Dr. Corey because my comment was in response to his argument, not yours. It assumes an at least semi-orthodox Christology.

    There’s really no reason for me to defend my statement to someone who does not have any recognizably orthodox beliefs about Christ because it wasn’t intended for that kind of worldview.

  • Herm

    Just this one should help you from the first article:

    While Martinez is transgender and was convicted of raping a child, the case does not document that transgender persons are any more likely to sexually abuse minors than any other segment of the population. The idea that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people are child abusers or pedophiles has long been used to foment prejudice, although those who push this idea have often been hard-pressed to provide any proof for that claim.

    The sad fact is children are far more likely to be abused or raped by someone than they know than by a stranger. The Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network estimates that in 93 percent of sexual abuse cases reported to law enforcement, the victim knows their abuser.

    … this from the second article:

    So who is right? The evidence is overwhelmingly on Sgro’s side.

    That’s not to say that people don’t have honest concerns over privacy or mental anguish. Indeed, several opponents of Charlotte’s ordinance have spoken of their own experiences with sexual assault, and their fears that seeing someone with male genitalia in a women’s room might trigger painful memories.

    But still, Sgro said, Charlotte’s bill would not have legalized sexual assault, harassment or voyeurism – it just would’ve let transgender men and women use the bathrooms they’re more comfortable in.

    “Transgender people are not predators,” he said.

    These are my facts as I know them today:

    There are more heterosexual males having been convicted of molesting and raping girls and women in women’s bathrooms, public and private, than transgender people. None here advocate legalizing sexual assault. Most here, especially those you cite by name to begin this thread, exercise empathy, compassion, tolerance and forgiveness for all of us of mankind regardless of sexual or gender identity.

    I personally do not go so far as to say “Transgender people are not predators”. I believe that all identified groups of human beings have predators among them. It just so happens, even with diagnosed dysphoria due to community traditions, that the facts are very clear that transgender people are actually less likely to sexually abuse another than a heterosexual or one of traditionally acceptable binary gender.

  • Ron McPherson

    I think the point Josh is that transgender people are not a threat due to their merely being transgender. A pedophile is a pedophile, whether straight, gay, transgender or otherwise. Being transgender itself doesn’t MAKE one a threat. See the distinction here?

  • $144948586

    “There are more heterosexual males having been convicted of molesting and raping girls and women in women’s bathrooms”
    Yes, but legally they’re not allowed–and, even if they were, socially they’re not…and they certainly not allowed in there with my daughter…and I wouldn’t be chastised for standing in front of a said door or utilizing force to keep them out.

    But Corey’s claim, which is what I was refuting, was that “they’re not a threat to [us]”.
    I bet a 10 year old girl would disagree.

  • $144948586

    I bet it would make a 10 year old girl think twice about going in a bathroom with a transgender woman.

    You and Corey knew the argument was about it being a practical matter–in which it isn’t. That was the argument and you (all of you) refused to hear it.

  • Herm

    Truth about God is always significant.

    It assumes an at least semi-orthodox Christology.

    “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

    John 16:12-15 (NIV2011)

    “If you love me, keep my commands. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

    John 14:15-21 (NIV2011)

    “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

    Matthew 23:8-12 (NIV2011)

    There’s really no reason for me to defend my statement to someone who does not have any recognizably orthodox beliefs about Christ because it wasn’t intended for that kind of worldview.

    orthodox – adjective – (of a person or their views, especially religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.

    There is only one Teacher who knows to share the truth about God!!! There is only one truth about God that is defensible before He with all authority in heaven and on earth today. Ask Dr. Corey if he agrees, please.

  • Herm

    … only because you paint transgender women as predators. A 10 year old girl would think twice about going in a bathroom, with gay women, if you painted them all as predators, or even heterosexual women if you painted them all as predators. Phobias are most often planted in children’s hearts and minds by adults teaching them to fear, because they themselves were taught as a children to fear irrationally. You really are having a difficult time seeing the distinction here, aren’t you?

  • Herm

    … answered above.

  • $144948586

    “There are more heterosexual males having been convicted of molesting and raping girls and women in women’s bathrooms, public and private, than transgender people.”
    Then it’s stupid to make it acceptable for them to enter a bathroom with girls and women just because they just attest that they “identify as a woman.”

    But hey, nevermind future girls who fall victims to transgenders; as long as transgenders (with the potential to molest young girls) can pee comfortably by their own attestation.

  • Herm

    So, by your logic, it is then just as stupid to make it acceptable for predator women to enter a bathroom with girls and women, right? I mean, just as stupid, to make it acceptable for predator men, predator transgender men, or predator transgender women (you know, those more likely attracted to women than men) to enter a bathroom with girls, boys, women and men, right?

    Why do you so insist that being transgender makes one, also, a predator when the numbers disagree?

  • $144948586

    No it’s not just as stupid, because that mass tendency of men is to not be attracted to boys, and the mass tendency of women is to not be attracted to girls.

    Whilst we have bathrooms in public places, there are certain compromises one must make (either the individual or the business):
    For the business: either private or public bathrooms or gender-specific.
    For the individual: which bathroom should one go into if they are not private? I’m assuming most people would not frequent stores that push to make all bathrooms public for gender.

    But here’s the deal: most people gotta, at some point, pee in a public place.
    GIVEN THIS FACT, would it not make sense that the practical manner is you pee with the tool that you’ve got? This alleviates much risk that pedo men who like young girls can prey on them whilst they’re with their mom shopping at Target. Of course, this goes out the window when John Wayne Gacy (the straight version) just has to say, “I identify as a girl.”

    “Why do you so insist that being transgender makes one, also, a predator when the numbers disagree?”
    I’ve not insisted on this; obfuscation is a sin, Herm.

    It’s a matter of practicality. Why must YOU insist that it be that easy for pedophiles to enter girls’ restrooms just so a vast minority of the population can pee comfortably?

    This issue, and Corey’s claim that no girls are endangered by transwomen (this is a legitimate extension of his “not a threat to us” comment) will follow him, and you all for your absurd defense of appropriateness given the practicalities of the situation will see this same issue continue to pop up. One day, you will understand how freaking disgusting it is to accept on blind faith that practically no trans are pedos (and that pedos won’t compromise their morals and adopt trans persona to take advantage of vulnerable girls), and then defend that in the face of a 10 year old girl’s molestation at the hands of one could have just as easily done this in a Target bathroom with the use of 5 words: “I identify as a trans-woman.”

  • Herm

    Women can be pedophiles, also. Nothing about gender or sexuality defines one as a pedophile, absolutely nothing, except in your trans phobic mind. It is you who would assign effeminate boys to the boys bathrooms where they are attacked by the boys taught to be macho. It is you who would assign men comfortable in dresses to the men’s room where macho men have been taught to revile such as just not right. Nearly all, women’s public bathrooms have private stalls where when they drop their pants they can pee in privacy. They are only fully clothed with those men fin dresses while washing their hands or each doing their makeup.

    I caught myself in one of my bigotries once, as I hope that you catch yourself, when I insisted that I didn’t want my children being taught math, science, social studies and physical education in school by a homosexual. You see, I wanted to protect my children from teachers teaching my children their sexuality. It finally dawned on me, that, just as well, I didn’t want a heterosexual teaching my children their sexuality outside of a subject that is not designated to teach sexuality with accredited fact and not personal social/spiritual discrimination.

    No girls, or boys, are endangered by priests, pastors, school teachers or transwomen (heterosexual, homosexual, intersexed, bi or asexual). All of us are endangered by pedophiles, predators, and bigots.

  • That’s a fair question, but if you notice, my point about Will’s statement, it wasn’t that his experience was subjective. I only harped about that with regard to his first point because he shared one story and then proceeded to say that women used sex to get what they want more than men do, in his experience.

    My criticism of his point is that his reasoning that men are not guilty of a culture of denigrating women was all based on his negative comments about women. For instance:

    You’re trying to basically say men -aren’t- guilty of the things the article discusses -by- pointing out these horrible women doing all these things like saying disrespectful things about men in places where men are not in power and wanting your body so badly that it eclipses any similar male behavior.

    And if you follow our discussion thread, you’ll see that’s what we’re talking about. The only reason I made a big deal about his single experience is because it was immediately followed by a generalization that appeared to be based on that single experience.

    And, sure, if Ben’s point is that men are complicit in a culture that denigrates women because of a single experience he’s had, I would also agree that would be an unjustified leap. That’s not what he says in the article, though.

  • John

    Your larger point may have been about him bringing up negative traits of women, but you also clearly criticized him for his generalization.

    Ben made this statement:

    And yes, we have all expressed some of these attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors, to one degree or another.

    And, as far as I can tell, his only factual basis (more than just flat personal assertions) for that statement is a few personal examples.

    His logic is equivalent to that used by Nimblewill: in both cases the personal examples of an individual, or a small group, are being generalized to a MUCH larger group with no justification.

  • We’re not talking about guilt, though. I don’t care if people feel guilty or not. It’s about whether or not we use information as an opportunity to improve ourselves or justify ourselves. It’s about whether we’re going to ask God, “Be merciful to me, a sinner,” or if we’re going to pray in public, “God, I thank you that I am not like this tax collector.”

    There’s a lot of injustice in the world I don’t feel personally responsible for, and I have no interest in manufacturing guilty feelings about anything, but I do know the world in general and American culture in specific has a lot of broken things that I can’t help but be affected by and participate in. And I can be committed to ferreting these things out so I can be more like the humanity God wants, or I can be committed to protecting myself from the need to change.

  • We might be reading him differently. I didn’t read a condemnation. I thought he said that expressing support without examining your own potential role in the problem was premature.

  • Ron McPherson

    Isn’t that like arguing from the beginning that it should be against the law for blue-eyed males to use public restrooms and then using a blue-eyed pedophile arrested somewhere in Metropolis, USA as proof?

  • $144948586

    “It is you who would assign effeminate boys to the boys bathrooms where they are attacked by the boys taught to be macho. It is you who would assign men comfortable in dresses to the men’s room where macho men have been taught to revile such as just not right.”
    Yes, I would assign macho women to women’s restrooms so that a MAN may not get the impression that it is appropriate that they use the same restroom as the 10 year old girl he assaulted.

    I’ve already conceded, you got to make some compromises. But you deem it FINE that a pervert can use a woman’s bathroom just by uttering 5 words.
    It’s just not worth the risk to other girls; PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

    Predators exist, period. People must pee, period. Why take any more risk than we need to by opening up bathrooms used by young girls to men who pose?

    You second paragraph is stupid, Herm. The fact is, a public school where your children have no choice in attendance is no place a child should be forced to learn sex ed against a parent’s wishes.

  • $144948586

    Ron, you understand the practicality of the matter; any apology for supporting an impractical policy is just disgusting.
    Any obfuscation of the matter (that blue-eyed folks are as significantly likely to molest young girls as men are) seems malevolent.

  • Ron McPherson

    Ok Josh have it your way

  • $144948586

    I will; on each of Corey’s incredulous blogs.

  • Ron McPherson

    Btw you just totally missed the point but whatever

  • Ron McPherson

    Ok

  • Herm

    You cannot, or choose not to, read what I wrote. I wrote nothing about against a parent’s wishes.

    You assume all people would deem transgender, and I’m assuming transsexual, a perversion. I know that the law of the land and divine law does not.

    Where does a transgender female pee?

  • Daniel Fisher

    I do appreciate your thoughts. One last observation: sure, you don’t want to see the “first step” being the entirety of our body’s culpability. I, similarly, think it inappropriate to start with the entirety of one gender’s culpability.

    You mentioned earlier that Dr. Corey’s starting point seemed to stem from his locker room conversations”. I’d have no objection if he started, then, with both 1) actual, overt behaviors of sexism and objectification (including abuse, assault, and harassment) of women, and 2) complicit silence in the presence of such.

    The problem is, both men and women are guilty of overt acts, including sexual assault. Not to mention the dirty jokes, participation in pornography, of sexist attitudes, and of sexual assault, pimping other women, etc. – and all this against both males and females (have you noticed this horrific increase in female teachers practicing sexual assault on both male and female students recently?)

    So, Dr. Corey’s “starting point” is to lay guilt on … all men, which then has the effect of assigning guilt to the most kind-hearted and active sexual assault victim counselors, men who have themselves been victims of sexual assault and who have made prevention of such their cause, those leaders in organizations who have taken serious heat for their stand against any kind of workplace sexism…..

    Thus his chosen “starting point” is to assign guilt to all these noble warriors fighting tooth and nail against sexism in all its forms …. while neglecting to cast any disapproval whatsoever against numerous overt sexual predators and perpetrators of actual sexual assault against women (because those perpetrators happen to be female).

    Forgive me if I find this to be a poorly chosen starting point for this discussion.

    An additional observation…. I find his one-way concern rather alarming. Perhaps because of the different populations represented in the military, I am familiar with nearly as many males being sexually assaulted as females (because the population of the military has so many more men). Dr. Corey’s article shows only concern for the negative effects of our culture against women. But there is “locker room talk” that objectifies and belittles men, there are assaults against men. Why his myopic concern about women and only women? I find this, frankly, deeply offensive, and downright sexist. Is he really concerned about the actual effects of sin causing real pain on real people, whether male or female, or trying to sound relevant and supporting a liberal narrative?

    So if he is so concerned about the pervasive sin, the locker room talk and it’s effects… why express concern and dismay only if the victim is a certain gender? He says that our culture “continues to be oppressive and harmful to women.” No, it is harmful to men and women. Why, on a post like this, ignore the the millions of men that have been victims of sexual assault? (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/?icid=hjx004 )

    Maybe because I’ve dealt and listened and cried with male victims as well as female victims, Dr. Corey’s criticisms fall rather flat to me… his words look to me more like perpetuating a particular narrative, than real concern for real hurting victims.

    Finally, for what it is worth, I am personally aware of men and women having been assualted both physically and sexually by women, not to mention what we can find in the news, and I absolutely stand by this oddly controversial perspective that I would shout from the rooftops:

    not all women.”

  • Ron McPherson

    Amazing isn’t it

  • $144948586

    No, Corey and you and Herm and the ilk missed the point:
    Pedophiles exist. This is just another method for pedos to enter a woman’s place, a place where girl’s should feel safe, in a very easy way: say 5 words.

    With public restrooms, you have to make compromises. Some pedophile men go after boys; that’s horrific, but at least a father can waltz in nonchalantly if ever there were suspicion.However, it’s nonsense to utilize this as leverage for the reason straight, pedophile men can easily enter a woman’s restroom–in fact, it’s disgusting.
    One needs to think about the practicality of the matter and conclude: “A 10 year old girl’s innocence is more important than grownup BobbyJo’s desire to pee peacefully.” Or, for God’s sake, they can use private restrooms when available and fight to have all stores build private restrooms.
    One DOESN’T tell the people he disagrees with that “they’re not a threat”, because perhaps the news story will break one day where a transgender woman has molested a 10 year old girl or a guy in flip flops can walk in to a girls dressing room in Seattle and utter “I identify as a woman.”

  • $144948586

    “You cannot, or choose not to, read what I wrote. I wrote nothing about against a parent’s wishes.’
    We’re not on this argument; the impetus of the rebuttal was that it has no bearing on this conversation.

    “You assume all people would deem transgender, and I’m assuming transsexual, a perversion.”
    I said nothing of the sort in my statements, Herm.

    “Where does a transgender female pee?”
    If they have a weiner, they pee in the urinal.
    We’re not going to get in to the discussion of “what if they dress as the opposite sex and get past the people”. If they fool a parent, they fool a parent plain and simple.

  • $144948586

    “A 10 year old girl would think twice about going in a bathroom, with gay women, if you painted them all as predators”
    No , a 10 year old girl would think twice about going to a bathroom with a transwoman because they probably have a weiner Herm.

    I’ve not labeled transgender women as predators. Lying is a sin Herm.

  • Ron McPherson

    But the example you posted did not occur in a public restroom

  • Daniel Fisher

    “…we need to spend some time acknowledging and accepting that, yes– it really is all men. It has been all of us who have created and sustained a culture that led to the #MeToo campaign, and it is all of us– not just those people who we think have a more egregious degree of guilt– who have something to say in the #ImSorry response.”

    “All men”… created and sustained the culture that bred the need for women to start the “me too” campaign, all men who have something to say in the “i’m Sorry” response.

    This is not a request to examine if we may have contributed and we need to examine if this is so, it is a decree that all men have participated and all men own some degree of guilt and all men need to apologize. If this is not a bestowal of guilt on all men, including those who actively oppose this evil…. then you’ll have to explain how you’re reading it. My most generous and flexible interpretation still reads Dr. Corey assigning guilt to every single man without exception.

  • $144948586

    I’ve already dealt with this. My original post was in response to Corey’s statement that transgenders aren’t a threat. Well the 10 year old probably feels differently.
    You made it about public restrooms; I finish it about practicality.

    You’re response, like Herm’s, is amazing, Ron. It doesn’t change the fact that Corey’s assessment was wrong, immature, and childish.

  • I did criticize him for it. I just said that, and I explained why I said it, and how it wasn’t my point. It was a passing note about the one specific thing he said. I’m not sure what you’re wanting me to say, here. If Ben posted a single experience he had and said, “Because of this single experience I had with a creepy old guy in a checkout line, obviously all men hit on women when they don’t want them to,” then I suppose you’d have something and I’d agree with you. Or, if Ben said, “Men are terrible. I know this because here are all the ways women are great,” that also would have been pretty comparable.

    If you don’t think I was consistent enough in my criticism, ok, that’s your right, but I don’t see how it affects the validity of the points I raised. Maybe I gave Ben more latitude because, not only did he refer to several examples that were all self-critical rather than self-justifying, and because I could look at my own experiences and find similar moments when I laughed at a joke I shouldn’t have or asked a male friend to cut it out when he was being flirty with a waitress, perhaps Ben’s examples seemed to have more impact to me apart from the raw propositional value of them.

    But, once again, I don’t see how any of that affects the validity of the observations. I feel like you’re just trying to go, “A HA!” as opposed to actually making a point about the issue.

    I don’t think Ben was right about everything in the article. For one thing, I think he was depending on his readers being self-critical and using his thoughts as an occasion to examine their own behavior out of a desire not to fall under the critique. Clearly, he was very very wrong about this, as the comments prove.

  • $144948586

    Why would you want to allow this person in to your daughter’s bathroom?

  • John

    I focused on that comment because the jist of Ben’s article is about generalizations. He’s claiming that his generalization, that “all men” are in some way guilty against women, is correct. He backs this generalization up with a whole lot of baseless assertions and a few personal examples. That’s it. That was the entire basis of his massive generalization. He then expects people to agree with him… or be accused of being willingly complicit in sexual harassment. Those are the only two choices available.

    You read his article and had no problem with his generalizations, yet your first comment against the other commenter was to point out his unfounded generalization based on personal experience. I found it so ironic that I had to respond.

    I’ve found that the ideology espoused by Ben is chalk-full of these kinds of inconsistencies because it’s based more on personal emotion than fact. His generalizations are fine, but other’s are not. His personal opinions are valid, but others are not. Men are all complicit in abuse, but the same arguments somehow don’t also apply to all women. Men need to protect women, but men should also not see women as needing protection. Etc.

    It’s a massive web of contradictions, and your accusation of false generalization… in a thread based on an extremely similar kind of generalization, struck me as emblematic of the larger issue.

  • Herm

    I meant a female who considers themselves and dresses accordingly masculine. Sorry if I confused you.

    I uttered no such 5 words as …

    But you deem it FINE that a pervert can use a woman’s bathroom just by uttering 5 words.
    It’s just not worth the risk to other girls; PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

    … it is you who deems transgender people perverts.

    This has no bearing on “Complicity: Yes, it Actually is “All Men” & Our First Step Should Be Admitting That

    It’s your phobia that you interject with, not ours.

  • Herm

    It makes me reevaluate myself to see what I don’t see, as clearly Josh sincerely doesn’t know that he is blind to what he refuses to consider.

  • $144948586

    I suggested no such thing. I said that pedophiles are going to use it as an excuse. Forgive me if I’m wrong, I would presume pedophiles don’t have a proclivity for not lying. This is just an example of a transgender person who molested a girl, so why on Earth would you want to allow this person who is clearly a man into a girls restroom?

  • Herm

    You’ve labeled a woman with a wiener a predator. That labels an Intersex person as having no where to pee. Having a penis has no bearing on on whether you are a predator or why a 10 year old girl should be afraid.

  • Herm

    Oh, you of no empathy, and very little spacial perception, I leave that up to you to answer. A hint, not all people, of any stripe, are as hung up on the abuse of their species’ propagation instincts as are you. Bye! … and again, don’t thank me but you’re welcome.

  • $144948586

    If you think a 10 year old girl should not be afraid to pee around a person who has a weiner is freaking ridiculous. What I’m saying is that public restrooms come with certain compromises, and a transgender woman in a girls bathroom should not be one of those. A transgender woman by the way is a man who identifies as a woman. You should not force a child who is part of the majority statistic to compromise. It’s a matter of practicality. The least harm will come by keeping men transgender and/ or predator away from girls in all possible practical circumstances. Obviously the same applies in reverse.

  • $144948586

    LOL, yes me of no empathy and yet I don’t apologize for a transgender woman molesting a young girl.

  • Herm

    … who apologized?

  • Ok.

  • Thanks for the heads up. I’ll try to be more vigilant in the future.

  • $144948586

    Well let’s see, your entire argument began with well this doesn’t fit the whole public restroom debate. And still no statistics show that they pose any danger yet. So you can’t admit this as evidence that hey sometimes pedophiles might be women, and little girls shouldn’t feel weird about peeing in bathrooms with people who have weiners. And then it degraded into oh you’re just calling all transgender people predators. And then it turned into what you don’t have empathy for people that are transgender. It’s sickening it’s childish, and a little dose of Common Sense and practicality could have got a long way to make you not look like a total a-hole. Here was Benjamin Corey telling us that oh These people aren’t going to do this. And when one of them dies, the response is well it wasn’t a public restroom. And nevermind about the whole practicality thing we won’t even consider that. You apologize for this person whenever you refuse to have the conversation that hey maybe it makes sense that I’m sorry we can’t appease everybody and that a 10 year old girls in a sense is a little more important then where you feel comfortable to pee. I of course and using the word apologize in the form of making a defense for transgender people to use restrooms of the gender they identify with.

  • Ron McPherson

    Transgenders are not a threat. Pedophiles are. Pedophiles come in all shapes and sizes, whether gay, straight, transgender or otherwise.

  • Ron McPherson

    So a couple years ago my son had to find a cop at a public event in order to report being approached by a male adult in a male public restroom. So what is your suggestion for avoiding this scenario? Nary a transgender person around

  • Bones

    I see you’re excited by this event….

    I actually went to the women’s toilet not long ago. The males was broken. Just as well the toilet police like you weren’t there.

    I also take my 2yo daughter to the male toilets

    It is weird that way you wish to curtail people’s rights.

    But then again most new toilets are non-sexist.

    And transgendered people have been using the toilets of their choice for decades.

    Of course you just found something to justify your bigotry….like blacks killing blacks.

  • Bones

    I was 18 and at University when a guy tried to get in my cubicle by sliding under the one next door.

    I kicked him in the head.

    Should have reported the prick.

  • Daniel Fisher

    Leaving the snide tone aside, this does raise an interesting dilemma given Dr. Corey’s other ideological commitments. In claiming that “all men” are complicit in this oppression of women…. is he also claiming that some women are also complicit, if they are really men even if they have not yet transitioned? Or are they not complicit yet, but they become complicit when they complete their transition to become men?

    Or regarding men that are really women inside, are they likewise complicit? Do they lose their guilt of being complicit when and if they transition to living as a female, or do they retain their guilt given that they were born a man?

    Or is Dr. Corey perhaps betraying that, whatever he has claimed about transgender issues, he deep down recognizes that men are men and women are women? I am told that only if one has transphobic tendencies could one make a blanket pronouncement against “all men” without qualifying that statement by recognizing that some men are not men and that some women are. If the claim that “all men” have male genitalia is transphobic, then how could any claim about “all men” being complicit in oppression of women fail to similarly be transphobic?

    Interesting aspect to the discussion.

  • raven nevermore

    As a Christian, I have never sought to justify myself, I just presumed that I am as part of the salvation experience. the practical aspect of that means to get over your own self without losing identity. Nor do I compare myself with others – really, I do not care. If, however, someone seeks “protecting” themselves “from the need to change” I would have cause to question their willingness to grow intellectually and mature spiritually simultaneously. Old Paul Tillich has posited that justification should rather be called acceptance. Therefore, I am a sinner who has experience mercy. Removes the complication, and walk around guilt free and not feel guilty about it. I think everything goes back to guilt, particularly the neurotic guilt that works against the person. (And I’m not Catholic.)

  • This is appeasement to a hateful idea. It is an example of how anything can be rationalized, especially when the writer is afraid to confront the bigotry and hatred of feminism. This writer throws away his dignity rather than risk being shamed by women for calling them out on their excesses.

  • Herm

    The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
    Matthew 23:11-12 (NIV2011)

  • Ron McPherson

    There ya go. Put ‘em in their place. Keep ‘em barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen where they oughta be. Next thing ya know they’ll be demanding the right to vote. Oh wait…

  • SuperOnionKnight

    Where is the Biblical justification for the concept of collective guilt?

  • SuperOnionKnight

    It is altogether different to listen and sympathize with the experiences of others who’ve experienced infliction that one hasn’t received as opposed to being branded as one of the causal agents of the infliction. The author suggests the latter.

  • kaydenpat

    Aren’t there multiple instances of God ordering Israel to kill off entire nations of people? Also when King David numbered Israel, God sent angels to kill scores of Israelites.

  • kaydenpat

    Transgender women are women and they have been using women’s public bathrooms for decades and decades. This is a non-issue.

  • kaydenpat

    Do you understand how public bathrooms work? In women’s public bathrooms, women go into stalls, lock the stall doors, handle their business, unlock the stall doors, wash their hands (hopefully) and then leave that bathrooms. There is no socializing or fraternizing in women’s bathrooms. So if a transgender woman is pre-op and has a “weiner”, that would make no difference to a 10 year old, 20 year old, 50 year old or 80 year old woman using the bathroom.

  • kaydenpat

    “And transgendered people have been using the toilets of their choice for decades.”

    That’s why it’s odd that Republicans/Conservatives have discovered this as one of their issues to rile up bigots. It’s not as if transgendered folks were not using public restrooms forever. Why is this an issue now?

  • SuperOnionKnight

    I would argue that in those instances the notion of collective guilt is irrelevant. The actions of many but not all causally lead to bad consequences for the group regardless of fault. The fact that members in a group receive some punishment for the actions of a few or even the majority is not indicative of fault but rather of simple cause and effect of association. Say I live in a village with warmongering neighbors who pillage other villages, and that one day one of these other villages decides to offer some payback. and burn down all of the huts. The fact that my hut was burned down does not mean I am at fault for the behavior of my neighbors, just that the saying “some can ruin it for all” is causally true. To relate this concept to OP, the fact that I as a man am distrusted by women who have been victimized is a consequence of many men ruining it for all, but that does not make me liable for that man’s behavior. I see no reason to believe that the notion of collective guilt is Biblical in any sense.

  • kaydenpat

    The firstborn in Egypt were collectively considered guilty and killed in the 10th plague. The people of Sodom and Gomorah. There are scores of examples of collective guilt in the Bible. All of those people outside of Noah’s ark.

  • SuperOnionKnight

    You’re inferring guilt from consequence fallaciously. Were Job and his family guilty of any collective sins? God has varying purposes for allowing infliction to befall on individuals and groups/collectives. There’s no accompanying context or scripture that suggests that collective guilt is valid, only collective consequence.

  • kaydenpat

    If God is killing people en masse, he must be finding them guilty of something or the other – including for acts that they didn’t commit.

    You make it sound as if consequences are random when that is not how the killings are described in the various Bible stories. God is very specific about how a whole group of people are going to be killed and why.

  • Bones

    HI kayden, it’s because it’s one of the battlegrounds of the culture wars.

    They’ve lost out on gay rights and gay marriage and limiting gays rights.

    Transpeople are their next target.

    And they use the same arguments.

  • SuperOnionKnight

    We aren’t discussing a dichotomy, a system only between guilt or randomness. The examples I gave showed that consequence need not correspond with guilt, and I don’t think it would be right to put that constraint on God or even to presume that we could fully comprehend the reasons. He does have righteous vengeance and jealousy, for example.

  • SamHamilton

    I think you’re onto something when you say that what we need is not all men confessing guilt, but all men challenging the cultural tendencies to objectify women. But I thought Ben made it pretty clear that he doesn’t think all men are equally guilty…some men are less guilty than others, but all men are guilty to some degree.

  • Bones

    That’s an astounding comment.

    Ever heard of Original Sin or Total Depravity……..

  • Bones

    Well according to paul, we all deserve to die.

  • Bones

    I would say slaughtering a whole city and burning it to the ground is collective punishment ala the holocaust.

    Evangelicals are big on collective guilt eg the Midianites deserved to be exterminated because of child sacrifices…

    Same with Israel being invaded by multiple armies because it turned away from God.

  • SuperOnionKnight

    Original sin does not imply collective guilt. It suggests collective consequence by the actions of a minority. The reason why everyone is guilty is because all have sinned, not because a few sinned, and now we’re all on the hook for that. God shows us that disastrous consequences can result from a tiny pool of disobedience and sin, whether by His decree or by natural consequence from His established law. Injecting collective guilt is a superfluous addition that is not justified by scripture.

  • Bones

    This is Josh who hates the state helping people and regulating big companies but wants the state to regulate people’s behaviour especially those of people he doesn’t like.

  • Bones

    “The reason why everyone is guilty is because all have sinned, not because a few sinned, and now we’re all on the hook for that.”

    Thanks for making my point.

  • John

    Just to clarify, do you feel that Ben was justified in extrapolating his experiences to all men?

  • Bones

    Perhaps you should compare the number of Christians convicted of paedophilia to transexuals.

  • kaydenpat

    Not very logical. Women’s bathrooms aren’t the hotbed of sex and carnality that bigots like Josh fantasize about. We just use the bathroom and get the hell out. Lol!

  • kaydenpat

    A culture war which they are sure to lose.

  • kaydenpat

    Your initial question was if collective guilt was a Biblical concept. Yes. There are many examples of people being treated as guilty based on their association with or proximity to actual wrongdoers. Haman’s entire family was wiped out. And there are other multiple examples of family members being punished for the action of other family members.

  • SuperOnionKnight

    Then we’re in agreement that original sin does not justify the notion of collective guilt from the actions of a part of the whole.

  • SuperOnionKnight

    Collective guilt has not shown to be a Biblical concept. You can only imply guilt if you assume that God only allows bad consequences to happen to people that He finds guilty, but there is no evidence to suggest such reservations of punishment, and I included other possible motivations of God.

    To be fair to your argument, I can see why you’d conflate consequence with guilt since that is how we have constructed our man-made system of justice, but our approximation of justice is just that, and God holds perfect justice which is not constrained by our lack of understanding.

    Another way of thinking about it is that the facet used for collective guilt needs to be chosen by some means. Why geography instead of race or gender/sex? Why not species instead? The reason why collective consequence tends to relate to geography is because cause-and-effect usually relates to an area (natural catastrophe). The demographic chosen for collective guilt is rather arbitrary and chosen from personal bias.

  • Ron McPherson

    What about Achan’s family in the book of Joshua?

  • Herm

    And are you now turning away from the LORD? “ ‘If you rebel against the LORD today, tomorrow he will be angry with the whole community of Israel.
    Joshua 22:18 (NIV2011)

  • Hardly. Trump ran a better campaign and the voters responded.

  • I’ll stand by my comment.

  • Do not understand your reply so I can’t comment on it.

  • Many people on this site despise God and country; not hard to find their comments.

  • You mean like Isis? No I do not.

  • All things were created by the Word at God’s direction.

  • Conspicuous to whom?

  • A statement without any backup.

  • It was not set up as a secular nation either.

  • That is not the definition of a secular nation. Communist countries have no official religion either.

  • Al Cruise

    True. A better campaign to appeal to the fears of the white conservative evangelical voter.

  • Etranger

    Ok. What’s your point then?

  • Etranger

    So? Secularity has no impact on form of government.

  • Etranger

    So after reading many articles on the topic, it seems most people accept the definition of a nation that is neither favors nor disfavors a particular religion. So, I am pretty close. Yes, the US is established as such a nation (secular). European nations are mostly secular. Many communist countries do favor a particular religion (such as in Russia). But you are correct, secular just means no religious preference.

  • Bones

    Huh…the standard evangelical meme is we have sin because Adam sinned and for that we should be killed…seems collective to me.

  • $144948586

    I’ll be willing to answer this question if first you answer mine:
    Given that before this transgender bathroom law came after men and boys in male restrooms and vice versa:
    1. Some men are pedophiles.
    2. Some pedophiles go after young girls.
    3. Why would you ever want to risk a 10 year old girl’s innocence on such an easy statement as “I identify as a woman”?

  • $144948586

    Why would you ever want to risk a 10 year old girl’s innocence on such an easy statement as “I identify as a woman”?

  • $144948586

    “If the claim that “all men” have male genitalia is transphobic, then how could any claim about “all men” being complicit in oppression of women fail to similarly be transphobic?”
    Very interesting question. I suspect he’ll refuse to address this, because it will require him making a statement on an issue (one of several issues) that demands itself to be boxed in. Those walls are closing.

    Apologies for the snide tone, Daniel.
    Quite frankly, after being on here for some two years, I’m fed up with the hypocrisy. It’s high time that this comes full circle.

  • $144948586

    “So if a transgender woman is pre-op and has a “weiner”, that would make no difference to a 10 year old, 20 year old, 50 year old or 80 year old woman using the bathroom.”
    Would it make a difference if it were a pedophile, pre-op, transgender woman? As a parent, why would you ever want to risk your 10-year old being in a bathroom with such a person if all they have to do is say that “they identify as…”?

  • Richard Waddy

    Those who commit crimes … rape, domestic violence, etc. have cultivated a world that insulates them from the expectations of normal society. The idea that “public education” will somehow make a dent in the “walls” that such criminals have constructed is entirely fallacious. The idea that all males share some responsibility is equally fallacious and quite obviously so. The current fetish with “broadening a sense of responsibility” is akin to earlier religious tendencies to flagellation.

  • $144948586

    “wants the state to regulate people’s behaviour especially those of people he doesn’t like.”
    Liar.

  • $144948586

    Should make Bones feel proud that he’s implanted you with this unwarranted opinion of me.
    Glad you have experience enough with me to call me a bigot though.

  • Herm

    You, sir, have insulated yourself from reality behind your protectionist wall of fallacious pomposity. Those of us, speaking out as know-it-all adults as you insinuate here, who transgress the sum of the law by separating their responsibility of self from their responsibility to the health, wellbeing and survival of their entire species are equally as criminally ignorant as those who commit rape, domestic violence, etc. of others.

    You, without any substantiation, wrote, “The idea that all males share some responsibility is equally fallacious and quite obviously so.” I submit that all individuals, and defined pluralities of commonality, within the body of Man, who have awareness and influence over the future of mankind, share first a responsibility that their ignorance is greater than their surety. What is so clearly obvious to you is total blind ignorance when compared to omniscience. To base your observation on “quite obviously so” serves to highlight your wall of self-importance hiding, only from yourself, the magnitude of your ignorance.

    No child is born with any more than a will to live. No child begins with a fear of their ignorance. Fear of self-ignorance is cultivated in children by competitive adults who purport “The idea that “public education” will somehow make a dent in the “walls” that such criminals have constructed is entirely fallacious”. Those adults are the originating criminals who objectify others as less important to the growth and survival of mankind than themselves. Those are the criminals who choose to crucify others for their personal empowerment rather than carry their own cross for those who know not what they do. Those are the 80-year life expectancy mortals who feed off the fears of others from behind their façade of self-praise without substantiation. You exalt yourself as no child is capable of in the beginning.

    No child objectifies another as less important than themselves from birth, that is taught by example and word by their nurturing adults who are intolerant toward those who hold different opinions from themselves and others.

    A child begins, in the womb, with the will to survive with no awareness and very little influence over the whole of their species. It is the responsibility of adults to raise that child to accept responsibility for the survival of their species by the time their awareness influences the future of their entire species. Every carnal child will grow to die but their mankind has no certain time limit if each adult supports mankind as more important than themselves and theirs. That is nothing to fear, just truth that children are not ready to bear while adults must if Man is to survive.

    Public education is the only means by which every influential individual within the body of mankind can grow to support the body rather than destroy the body as a self-important cancer.

    Richard, by your comment, in word and manner as presented, you claim your complicity in the cancerous objectification of others “including things such as: male entitlement, objectification of women, degrading of women, sexual harassment, general sexism, etc.”.

    Criminals don’t themselves consider building walls to protect themselves from truth, no one does. Those walls, you speak of, are planted and cultivated by the world they grew up in. The only possible check and balance is public education that teaches our children, and all adults who know not what they do, that all of Man are each created equal, not that only all men are created equal as is in the USA Declaration of Independence. Love casts out all fear when we understand that none of us can do this alone and only by our love of each other do we support each other and the whole of us. All of us each have, seemingly, an eternity’s worth more to learn, about anything, before any of us can argue another’s perspective founded upon “ quite obviously so”; the graced opportunity of 120 years maximum of growing awareness and influence isn’t nearly enough.

    We must first accept that none of us are aware of the degree of our complicity in the crime of loving our neighbor less than ourselves, before we can begin to learn to love our good neighbor as our self. Ignorance is not bliss to adults who know that they must accept responsibility for themselves and theirs, which includes all of mankind as one, in the image of God, if human kind is to survive. We don’t even begin to know what we don’t know unless another, outside our wall of ignorance, volunteers their perspective to give us a clue.

    We are all complicit in the injury of others when we don’t share (teaching and learning) honestly and fearlessly within the public education system (the nervous system for the body of mankind), as we are doing here. I am boldly telling you that you have much more to learn since I know that I have at least as much yet to learn before I can exalt myself above the criminals who know not what they do (trapped behind the wall of imposed ignorance). I will do to and for you and them, in word and example first (in all empathy, compassion, tolerance and forgiveness I can bear) as I would have them, and you, do to and for me. I love them, you and myself enough today that I carry my cross without any need to fear our ignorance of where that leads.

  • These beliefs have no basis in reality. We Christian Baptists certainly didn’t believe in Augustine’s concept of collective sin because of Adam and in collective guilt because of Adam. We were taught that Augustine was a false teacher.

    Now as a rational adult, I strongly reject these horrific religious doctrines.

    I recently held my newborn grandson, and before that observed his moving form in an ultrasound video at the medical office. NOT a single bit of sin or guilt in him.

    No wonder so many humans reject religion. Not only is it often nonsensical, but it is horrifically unethical.

    Also, it’s rather bizarre for you to post this sort of thing.

    Last time I read your comments, you were claiming that all ethics are “subjective” and that no human has a choice!

    Are you a real person?

  • Ron McPherson

    The point is that the only way to ever ensure your child never gets approached by a pedophile in a public restroom is to:
    1) make it against the law for adults to use public restrooms (impractical); or
    2) make it against the law for minors to use public restrooms (again impractical) .

    So in that vein, the only sure way to guard a child against pedophiles is for parents to accompany them into the restroom.

    What you’re apparently not considering is that laws against transgenders using their restroom of choice is that it possibly makes it EASIER for male pedophiles to prey on young girls. A man could just easily saunter into a female restroom because he’s really a “woman” identifying as a man but now being forced into the female restroom because he’s no longer allowed to use his restroom of choice. Your paranoia potentially just made it easier for pedophiles

  • gimpi1

    When a black person is talking to me about the systemic bigotry of the power structure or the individual bigotry of white people that he’s experienced, he’s talking to me, a white person. When he described how people cringe away from him as he walks down the isle of the bus – hoping he won’t sit next to them, I remember having done that exact thing. (Now, in my case it was more about not having a large, powerful man sit down next to me and possibly hit on me when I was in my ‘young and beautiful’ stage than ever about race, but the black men I cringed away from had no way of knowing that.) Part of listening is turning off the part of ourselves that tries to make everything all about us and hearing things that may cause us to see ourselves in a less-than-flattering light or learn how other people may perceive our actions. That’s OK, that’s how we learn. I’ve always considered myself not at all prejudiced, but, from him, I’ve learned that some actions I’ve done may be perceived as racist by others seeing them. That’s important to know, and that knowledge can make me a better person.

    This is two-way, with this fellow and I, as well. I’ve been able to tell him how offensive I find some music that calls women “whores” or “bitches.” He truly hadn’t thought about that, and when I asked him how he’d feel about music that used racial slurs, he had a sort of revelation about why that sort of thing is hurtful.

    I listen to him and find out how I can grow. He listens to me, and finds out where he can grow. This only works if we stop hearing as somehow about us and really, honestly listening to the other person.

  • gimpi1

    We truly all in this together, and together we may make things better, Herm. Right back at ya!

  • $144948586

    “A man could just easily saunter into a female restroom because he’s
    really a “woman” identifying as a man but now being forced into the
    female restroom because he’s no longer allowed to use his restroom of
    choice.”
    This makes no sense; this is the very question at stake. A man could not “just as easily saunter” BECAUSE that’s just not the way culture has appropriated said restrooms–of course, you and your ilk seek to forcibly change that. And this is what you’re arguing.

    “Your paranoia potentially just made it easier for pedophiles”

    Now that you seek to misdirect, I will take this as an admission that you would be willing to impose additional risk to a 10 year old girl beyond what’s already culturally appropriate and practical.

    For heaven’s sake, I ask you to begin where we were before bathroom laws. Why would you add additional risk to a 10 year old girl? It’s horrendous, and all I can conclude is that you would be willing to given that you chose not to speak to it.

  • Bones

    Well Daniel it seems you and I agree that the whole system of Original Sin is a complete charade. The poster I was responding to is obviously some form of Fundamentalist/Evangelical so I was using his terminology.

    And yes all ethics are subjective…taking the Original Sin as an example….there were times Christians thought it was ethically acceptable to baptise dead infants so they could get to heaven…..and subject heathens (non-Christians) to genocide. In fact if you read the ‘Good Doctor’ Saint Thomas Aquinas (one of the philosophical champions of the Church) actually wrote that burning heretics alive was a virtuous act.

  • Bones

    Nope.

    That’s exactly what you want.

  • Ron McPherson

    You are operating under the premise that restrooms of choice adds additional risk. A public restroom, in and of itself, adds additional risks. Would you not agree? You make it sound like we’re willing to toss a 10 year old into a pedophile convention. C’mon Josh

  • apoxbeonyou

    Fair point.

  • $144948586

    “Would you not agree?”
    We can talk about this once you concede that this adds additional risk to young girls; risk that is not, currently, socially appropriate BECAUSE it’s suspect to see some male dude walking out of a girl’s restroom.

  • ? How can “the whole system of Original Sin” be a “complete charade” if all ethics are as you claim “subjective”?
    Also, if no one has a choice, then, of course, nothing is wrong or right, good or bad because there is no responsibility, no objective truth.

    Your examples of what Christians did, (and many of them still promote) has NOTHING to do with whether or not ethics aren’t real.

    For instance, there are multi-millions of humans who don’t do math correctly. Heck, there are billions of humans, past and present who don’t even know how to do higher math.
    BUT that says nothing about the objective reality of math.

    When I serve on juries, the whole purpose of the long, boring, drawn out procedure is to obtain as much objectivity in ethical judgment as possible. It’s never perfect, or even close, but criminal justice’s whole basis is that “justice” actually is real and humans in each particular case are trying to live up to it.

    For instance, I and another teacher were dismissed during the selection process by the attorneys in a 19-year-old’s case. Apparently because the lawyers thought we would be “subjective,” either for or against a teenager since we are teachers.

    Here’s another example. Meticulous honesty in science and journalism are extremely important and assumed as necessary by all responsible scientists and journalists. The “subjective” view of ethics is completely rejected.

    When “subjective” enters scientific experiments, the results are skewed.

    Ditto for ethics. When “subjective” enters ethics, ALL hell breaks loose as shown by many examples in history and the present.

  • Ron McPherson

    I would never want any law to be imposed that created a risk for children. My struggle here is that you are posing a sort of hypothetical by assuming that a new risk will develop from laws allowing restrooms of choice. I’m trying to understand. Are you saying that such a law would then mean that seeing men walk out of women’s restrooms would no longer be suspect? That male pedophiles would be thinking they could now walk in unabated, whereas they couldn’t prior to the law being passed? I’m genuinely trying to understand.

  • $144948586

    “you are…assuming that a new risk will develop from laws allowing restrooms of choice.”
    No, I’m saying a new risk has been made obvious with the molestation of a 10 year old girl by a transgender woman.

    “Are you saying that such a law would then mean that seeing men walk out of women’s restrooms would no longer be suspect?”
    No, I’m saying that such a law would make it socially appropriate for clearly masculine individuals to be in a bathroom with a young girl.

    “That male pedophiles would be thinking they could now walk in unabated, whereas they couldn’t prior to the law being passed? ”
    Non-pedophiles (and arguably straight men) have already done this:
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/02/17/transgender-rule-washington-state-man-undresses-locker-room/80501904/

    And no, they couldn’t prior to a law, because another person (a dad, perhaps) could say, “What the hell were you doing in there?”

    The fact is that people are opportunistic, and pedophiles are certainly–you’ve already conceded this point by stating:
    “a couple years ago my son had to find a cop at a public event in order to report being approached by a male adult in a male public restroom.”

    Thus, as it stands, you admit there is current risk to boys in men’s restrooms. Thus, why would you ever want to propose to socially appropriate with law the very risk that this 10-year old girl already fell victim to?

  • Ron McPherson

    Here’s where I’m at. What law protects the most people? Do I want a law passed that causes danger to young girls? Of course not. Does passing such a law endanger young girls to pedophilia even more? I hope not and I’m not convinced that it would. I don’t see such a law suddenly making it “socially appropriate for clearly masculine individuals to be in a bathroom with a young girl.” How would passing such a law suddenly change people’s perception of who, or who should not, be in a women’s restroom? Surely you would agree that transgender males identifying as females are not “clearly masculine” right? I think a “clearly masculine” male would be looked at with just as much suspicion with such a law as without. Being “clearly masculine” is a pretty darned good indication that we’re not dealing with a male legitimately identifying as female here.

    On the other hand, does passing such a law mitigate both physical and emotional trauma that an effeminate boy might otherwise have if forced to use a men’s restroom? Would you prefer a man dressed as a woman use the men’s room instead of the women’s? Because that’s what you’re looking at here if that person obeys the letter of a law that doesn’t allow them use of the restroom of their choice. Likewise, it also forces a female identifying as a male to use the women’s room. Ironically, now you really do have scared 10-year old girls because they mistakenly think a male is in the restroom with them. So without the law, you have females identifying as male (and looking very male) being forced to use women’s restrooms now. In other words, NOT passing the law potentially has the very results you fear the most. Male looking people going into women’s restrooms. Or it may just mean that transgenders now have nowhere to pee. A female identifying as a male can’t use the women’s room because they will be objects of suspicion. Nor can they use male restrooms cause it’s against the law. I guess they’re just outta luck.

  • John

    “18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” (Romans 5:18-19)

    Biblically, we are all guilty under the sin of Adam, but we are also saved by the righteousness of Christ.
    With that said, this is entirely different than the kind of collective guilt Ben is trying to propose in his article.

  • $144948586

    Ron, with this one incident, you’re statement that “Does passing such a law endanger young girls to pedophilia even more? I hope not and I’m not convinced that it would.” Immediately becomes not only wishful thinking but flatly refuted thinking.

    The rest of it is of no consequence: Pedophiles exist. Pedophiles that like young girls exist. Some of these pedophiles will be transgender women. Some of these pedophile transgender women WILL molest young girls (a point already proven).

    Er go, if you want to fight for effeminate boys, that’s fine. Then push for private restrooms–but don’t subject young girls to an additional risk already plaguing children with the current socially appropriate restroom manner. That, I will support with you. But I will not allow my daughter to share a bathroom with a biological male, effeminate or not. It’s not worth the risk to her that one of these is a grown man with tendencies to prey on young girls.

  • Nick

    It is basic civics taught in every high school in Michigan.

  • Nick

    To people who read founding documents.

  • Nick

    And they are as secular as we are.

  • Ron McPherson

    “ But I will not allow my daughter to share a bathroom with a biological male, effeminate or not..”

    Then don’t. No one is forcing you to. But I’m having trouble understanding why you think that this isn’t already happening or why you think that some law prohibiting transgenders from peeing in the restroom of their choice somehow cuts down on pedophilia.

  • TS (unami)

    Josh fails to realize that transgender people are not the problem.

    He completely overlooks that transmen have been using the bathroom with him and his son for years, while transwomen have been using the restroom with his wife and daughter for years. Zero incidents because they aren’t drawing attention to themselves — they just pee and wash up like everyone else.

    You know this. He, apparently, does not.

  • In your make believe world you overlook what is in front of your face.

  • Reading the words omits the intentions behind the documents. You do this to make yourself feel better. However, our country is founded on Judeo Christian principles that came from the founding fathers.

  • To equate communist countries and our country as secular is nonsensical.

  • Bones

    Lol….the US is no more Christian than Germany or Latin America……

    You’re the one living in amake believe world.

    Good to see the Christian USA and the Donald supporting gay marriage.

  • Bones

    No it isn’t, it’s founded on the French concept of liberte and libertarianism.

    You know those atheists that led the French Revolution eg Voltaire.

  • Bones

    Do people really have such a deluded view of their country’s place in the world.

  • Bones

    Ethics – moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

    Moral principles are subjective, which is quite obvious when you have Christians claiming that killing heretics and gays is a morally right thing to do ie it is ethical.

    The law of course is a totally different kettle of fish. However, even law changes from country to country and even state to state eg marijuana laws.
    In a law case you aren’t judging someone’s ethics or morality but whether or not they have broken the law and you have to establish THE FACTS of the case. Heck, go to Saudi Arabia or Bangladesh and you could be arrested for blasphemy. Or consider abortion laws….where both sides maintain their stance is ethical or euthanasia…..

    Heck we don’t murder prisoners like you do over there.

    As for science, there’s plenty of ethical dilemmas…..eg should we edit our children’s genomes, should we use embryonic stem cells…..

    And once again you confuse facts with ethics….facts aren’t subjective nor objective….they are facts.

    So I can say for a fact that the canard of Original Sin is ridiculous through studying Judaism and pointing out it was not a Jewish understanding ….I use facts to inform my understanding and behaviour….Yet it is a core Christian belief.

    Ethics aren’t facts but principles of behaviour.

  • $144948586

    “No one is forcing you to.”
    That’s exactly what you’re doing by fighting for law.

    “But I’m having trouble understanding why you think that this isn’t already happening or why you think that some law prohibiting transgenders from peeing in the restroom of their choice somehow cuts down on pedophilia.”
    So your basic argument is, “Because pedophilia exists, nevermind a 10 year old girl getting molested by a transgender woman–it was gonna happen any way. Thus, it needn’t stop us from culturally appropriating seeing men in women’s restrooms (if they feel like a woman).”

    You’re being dishonest Ron, or, if you legitimately don’t see it, you’re blind.
    I suspect you’re not that blind. The fact is you want effeminate boys to be in girls bathrooms knowing full well that transgender women will be in there. This one case proves that it adds an additional risk to young girls being in a private area with POTENTIAL pedophiles–even one’s who feel like a woman. There’s just no need for that additional risk granted by cultural appropriation unless you’re willing to state that the danger posed to the 10 year old girl (WHO WAS MOLESTED BY ONE OF THESE FOLKS) is less important than the comfort of where an effeminate male pees. It’s a risk >0, Ron, OBVIOUSLY. Any willful questioning of this is on you. I’m done with trying to go back and forth on this with you when you’re choosing to ignore this basic, REAL LIFE EXAMPLE, of this fact.

  • However, you are making an ethical judgment when you state that O.S. is wrong.

    Besides, Jewish thinking doesn’t get off the hook. Recently, I’ve about how, incredibly, Jewish rabbis claim that their G*d created “evil.”

    Hell no!

    #2, No, the facts of how various cultures and societies lived ethics ISN’T the true nature of ethics.

    It is a fact that Pakistan, based on false, destructive Islamic views arrests, and sometimes slaughters, those who criticize Islam.

    It is a fact that the 12 of the first U.S. Presidents owned slaves in their lifetime and had supported slavery.

    But that doesn’t mean that either Islamic blasphemy laws or Christian slavery were ethically right!

    Every person on the face of the earth, every society could claim that slavery is good and equality is evil,
    BUT that wouldn’t make it so.

    Every individual has inherent value. Treating another person as an object is always wrong, has always been wrong, will always be wrong.

    True ethics are transcendent. They are based in “ought’–what ought to be, NOT
    what is or has been.

    Contrary to your claim that “Moral principles are subjective,”
    REAL moral principles
    are NEVER “subjective.”

  • “My lack of action made me complicit, and
    I’m so sorry that she probably went home rightly believing that I
    condoned his behavior” – maybe that’s how you feel about it yourself, but none of us can ever confront every. single. injustice. we see. We need to pick our battles; some battles are not ours to fight. Some battles we need to decline because they might result in more harm for the victim. What if you chide a parent slapping her child in the supermarket queue, and the woman is so mad she then goes home and beats up the chuild even more? Real life is never, ever as simple nor as clear-cut as this piece makes it out to be.

  • Ron McPherson

    “That’s exactly what you’re doing by fighting for law.”

    Could you please take a chill pill. I’m not fighting for anything. Just giving you my opinion. If you disagree, then fine. The reason I got into this convo with you in the first place is that you called me out on another post when we weren’t even conversing with one another to begin with. So I chose to weigh in. But if you disagree, then fine.

    “So your basic argument is, ‘Because pedophilia exists, nevermind a 10 year old girl getting molested by a transgender woman–it was gonna happen any way. Thus, it needn’t stop us from culturally appropriating seeing men in women’s restrooms (if they feel like a woman).'”

    Speaking of dishonesty, really appreciate you quoting me on something I never said. That’s not my point at all. What I’m saying is if you want to lessen the chance of pedophilia occurring in public restrooms, then why focus on this one issue when pedophilia occurs already? Why is it that this is the one issue that sends you over the edge?

    “It’s a risk >0, Ron, OBVIOUSLY. ”

    Then if you’re requiring zero risk, why aren’t you screaming to get laws on the books to deal with risks already there? You’re the one acting like you’re ok with a certain level of risk by virtue of the fact that you aren’t screaming about what’s already happening WITHOUT the transgender issue. Instead, it’s not about what’s already happening but rather what MIGHT happen with “POTENTIAL” pedophiles (your words). What I’m saying to you is that there are real life problems already, but you’re all about the POTENTIALITY of what MIGHT happen. And yet you accuse me of being the one “choosing to ignore…REAL LIFE EXAMPLES…”

    Yeah, whatever.

  • $144948586

    “then why focus on this one issue when pedophilia occurs already?”
    I’ll gladly focus on others once you concede that this issue adds an additional risk of placing young girls into a bad situation of having a male pedophile being in her restroom.

    “Why is it that this is the one issue that sends you over the edge?”
    Because this is the issue that you and Corey and the rest suggested that conservatives “weren’t really talking about”. It send me over the edge, because a 10 year old girl is molested by a transgender woman, and none of you is willing to say, “ya know what, it does add risk.”

    “why aren’t you screaming to get laws on the books to deal with risks already there?”
    Because at issue is the advocating of social appropriation THROUGH law something that puts young girls even more at risk than they previously were. This incident proves this. Any other argument on this matter is deflection, and I won’t move on to it until you concede: such social appropriation adds additional risk to this 10 year old girl who was a molestation victim of the very one’s you want to allow to use her restroom.

    “It’s not about what’s already happening but rather what MIGHT happen with “POTENTIAL” pedophiles (your words). What I’m saying to you is that there are real life problems already, but you’re all about the POTENTIALITY of what MIGHT happen.”
    It already happened for a 10 year old girl!

    “Then if you’re requiring zero risk”
    I’ve not made such conjecture. I won’t move on to this subject until you are willing to concede that young girls have the additional risk.

  • jekylldoc

    Yes, I could do some confessing of complicity. But I am left confused by something. It seems to me that women also participate in the things that set up this environment. I mean really, there seem to be more women wanting to watch beauty contests, or preferring outfits modeled by anorexic women, than men. So is there a point to the “all are guilty” thing? Isn’t the main point to help each other to experience sexuality in a human-centered, life-affirming way? And does that have a lot to do with my piddly little guilt?

  • Ron McPherson

    Josh,
    As long as there are public restrooms there are risks. You’re acting like this is a freakin contest to see who is right, like you “won’t move on..until (I) concede.” What do you want me to concede? Here’s what I’ll concede. Young girls are at risk anytime anyone walks into a public restroom. Whether it’s from straights, gays, transgenders, whoever. Are there transgenders guilty of pedophilia? Yes. Are there heteros guilty of pedophilia? Yes. Are there gays guilty of pedophilia? Yes. But you’re not being entirely genuine when you say it has “already happened for a 10 year old girl.” This poor child was molested, not due to a restroom law, but due to a predator. No restroom law contributed to this. Now can you concede that?

  • $144948586

    “Young girls are at risk anytime anyone walks into a public restroom.”
    Thus your argument is, “what does one more matter?”

    “Are there heteros guilty of pedophilia?”
    And thus, socially these are not allowed in opposite sex restrooms.
    I reserve the right to stop Jimbo at the female restroom door and say, “Where the hell are you going? My daughter is in there.”
    That’s not something I’m allowed when it becomes socially appropriate that such men can.

    “This poor child was molested, not due to a restroom law, but due to a predator.”
    And thus your argument is, “But it didn’t happen in a public restroom!”

    Oh no, you aren’t allowed to deflect from the issue. Corey’s post was that this wasn’t the “conservative” argument. That they’re really not talking about the the threat posed to young girls. However, the argument WAS that such a bathroom law IS IRRESPONSIBLE for the very risks that befell the 10 year old girl.
    Thus, to stand for such social appropriation as letting males in to women’s restrooms is to stand for saying, “Their comfort supersedes this girl’s risks.”

    To strawman the argument by conflating it to this “all public restrooms pose risks” is dishonest Ron. You’re just trying to “win”. But you can’t, because at issue is not the discussion of how best to handle public restrooms. The issue is that you and Corey and your ilk were irresponsible and, quite frankly, disrespectful in excusing the “conservative” concerns of the bathroom laws for the very reasons that it introduces cultural appropriation of the risks that befell this young girl just “one of those risks of using public toilets”, when, as it stands, this wasn’t understood as a risk as MEN WERE NOT ALLOWED IN WOMEN’S RESTROOMS. I’ll quote Corey again “their not a threat…”; I’m sure this 10 year old girl feels quite differently.

    “No restroom law contributed to this. Now can you concede that?”
    We can discuss that once that becomes the talking point.

  • $144948586

    What you fail to admit is that now it gives an out to an Idaho transgender woman to be in a bathroom with the 10 year old girl (s)he just molested 10 years ago–an out that didn’t exist prior to law used to culturally appropriate men being in women’s restrooms.

  • Ron McPherson

    OK

  • Bones

    Moral principles are subjective eg the whole is it OK to steal to feed my starving child.

    or killing in self defence.

    you sound a lot like a fundamentalist who thinks their ethics and morality are absolute.

  • Realist1234

    ‘That fact that I caught myself continually feeling defensive when people talked about “men” in a broad, general way, …’

    – I think you mean ‘women’ rather than ‘people’.

    ‘Just because I haven’t raped someone doesn’t mean I’m innocent of being complicit and contributing to a culture of sexism that oppresses, objectifies, and harms women in an exhaustive list of ways.’

    – true, but that also applies to some women, not just men.

    A while ago I worked in an office. One of the women in our team (in her 30s) was often laughing at sexual jokes or innuendo, and sometimes was the originator of same. One day she went to a meeting with a male colleague, and on the way he made a sexualised comment to her. She immediately reported him and within weeks he was transferred to a different branch. He clearly should not have said what he said to her, but he would have heard her ‘dirty’ mouth on a regular basis and understandably probably thought she would not be ‘offended’ by such a comment. You’ll say Im biased, as a man, but I felt sorry for him. Im pretty sure the management who dealt with the complaint were unaware of the sort of language and ‘talk’ that this woman was coming out with in the office, but I wonder if they would have reacted differently if they had been aware. Not to have condoned his behaviour, but to understand that she was part and parcel of the sort of sexualised ‘culture’ that had developed in that office. I would also add that her female friend in the same office was allowed to put up a couple of photos of shirtless martial arts experts at her desk (I know you couldn’t make it up). If a male colleague had done the same with a female, there would have been outrage.

    Sorry, but Im rather tired of all the male-bashing. Rather than equality, it’s actually started to go the other way.

  • Realist1234

    Its rather ironic of you to claim that ‘religion’ like Christianity is ‘horrifically unethical’ just after describing your grandson in the womb, when it is typically atheists or humanists who call for a woman’s ‘right’ to have such a developing being destroyed for social reasons, leading to millions of such destructions. Think on.

  • Realist1234

    Indeed. We are all sinners, individually but who make up a collective (why am I reminded of the Borg), but we are only guilty of our own sins. I think they are quite enough, thanks very much.

  • Realist1234

    I think thats unfair, Ron. Even some feminists disagree with aspects of feminism that are going too far. In my post above I gave a real life example of the behaviour of some women in my former workplace. In the same way that Im sure you would insist we should not see them as representative of women in general, so should all men not be viewed as sexual barbarics because of the behaviour of some. Personally I blame Eve lol.

  • Realist1234

    Woe is me! If only I had been born a woman! Sounds like something out of Monty Python.

  • Realist1234

    Depends how you define ‘pedophile’. If someone has that inclination (for want of a better word) but doesn’t act on it, is he/she a ‘threat’?

  • Realist1234

    Josh I think you’re confusing a biological man/woman who believes they should be of the opposite sex, and a pedophile who finds children sexually attractive. They really are not the same thing, though clearly sexual ‘confusion’ is common to both. Yes, a man who ‘becomes’ a woman may have been gay as a man, and then continues to find men sexually attractive as a ‘woman’, but that does not make them a pedophile! Statistically, a young girl would probably be ‘safer’ with a transexual woman than a fully-fledged male member of her own family.

    Peter

  • $144948586

    You can seek to misrepresent me all you want; at the end of the day it’s you who’s dishonest.

    “Statistically, a young girl would probably be ‘safer’ with a transexual woman than a fully-fledged male member of her own family.”
    Yet, male members of her own family aren’t socially appropriated to be in the same bathroom as her, now are they?

    What’s at stake isn’t “well they’re threatened by this group of people MORE THAN that group of people.” What’s at stake is that you’re allowing one more threatening group of people in to her bathroom. No, this is not a knock on transgenders anymore than it is on men.

  • Ron McPherson

    Go read his comments in other threads. You’ll see what I mean

  • Ron McPherson

    Depends on the individual I suppose.

  • Realist1234

    Just watched the BBC’s Storyville – ‘The Work: Four Days to Redemption’ about inmates in Folsom Prison. Powerful stuff. Brought me to tears, perhaps because of my own ‘father issues’. Shows how our own sin and others’ sins against us really messes us up and leads to wasted lives. But the Father is here. There is hope.

  • Realist1234

    You mean he doesnt approve of equal opportunities? lol

  • Bones

    Lol….that would be Mark Jones….the guy’s a loser, like the other clowns like DMC and Sandi.

    You have to understand how these people get trapped in cultic thought and where changing their minds is tantamount to losing their soul.

    No words will change their mind. They think they’re on a crusade to purge the internet of gay people.

    They are the modern day pharisee.

  • ? The “Christianity” (and Islam, etc.) that I am speaking of is the creedal one with its horrific theological claims and religious wars, and the extreme right wing one of modern Evangelicalism which promotes selfishness, nationalism, torture, inequality, etc.

    I am opposed to abortion because I think that every human is of inherent worth, that human life begins at conception, that killing of conscious, ethical species is always wrong, etc.

    I am an intellectually convinced theist and Enlightenment humanist.

    I strongly oppose all forms of subjectivity in ethics–whether the Divine Command Theory of Christians and Muslims, or the relativistic ethics of Atheists. Some of the latter such as the atheist ethicist Peter Singer even claim that killing an infant up to one years old is okay to do because according to him an infant isn’t a “person” and that animals have more value than an infant!:_(
    Sickening.

  • Ron McPherson

    You haven’t lived until you converse with DMS and Sandi

  • Ron McPherson

    LOL!! I haven’t had a go with him yet.

  • Ron McPherson

    If he’s anything like the other two I’ll pass.

  • Bones

    Meh, the guy knows nothing about New Testament scholarship.

    He couldn’t even tell me which ending of Mark was inerrant.

    The thing is, if the Bereans were anything like him, they’d have never changed. That’s what fundies never get about the Bereans. They were open minded.

    The fundies aren’t winning.

    In fact they’ve already lost.

    Enjoy life and don’t worry about him.

  • Daniel Fisher

    So, just so I’m clear, you’re saying Jesus was guilty of sin?

  • Herm

    Just so you’re clear, Jesus accepted His cross, without having His Father send legions of angels to spare Him, allowing those who put Him there to live doing to others as they would not have others do to them. Jesus assumed the quilt of others when He ask His Father to forgive those who knew not what they were doing. Children of God, today, who carry their cross do so expecting to forgive those who mount them on it.

  • Daniel Fisher

    Herm, I see the point you’re making, but that wasn’t the intent of my question – I’m trying to make sure I understand your perspective – my question is specifically as to whether you think Jesus, himself, committed actual sins, and was thus guilty of his own, individual, personal sins that he committed, himself, of his own volition.

  • Herm

    Daniel, are you judging my perspective as parts worthy of accepting to build upon, or as blasphemy?

    If the sum of the law, according to Jesus, is in everything do to others as you would have others do to you … and sin is the transgression of divine law … then from all that I know of Jesus, as depicted in the Bible, He committed no sin. I, too, would have others mount their own cross for my sake, as did He, and would He.

    Jesus, as I know Him today in me and I in Him, lives to perfection in everything doing to all others first as he would have all others do to Him. To be really honest, upon full and honest reflection, I have never done to others what I would not have had others do to me. The most important part of that formula is determining what I would not have others do to or for me so that I don’t do such to and for others, now. The missing link that I have had to grow in, and never intend to stop growing in, is my ability to empathize with and in, have compassion for, be tolerant with, and be forgiving of all others as I do myself. I can only love others to the degree I love myself and am able to associate myself with and in them as they are in each moment.

    Does it matter, to your personal salvation, whether Christ had never sinned, as the Son of Man, or that the curtain was torn top to bottom? Has any pagan sacrifice to the gods ever been as important as the instructor who teaches in every moment how to better support the salvation of the tribe? Mankind has so many traditions of sacrificial appeasement to their unseen, but influential gods, that include most highly valued untainted virgin women, virgin men, first daughters, first sons, first of the herds, and first of the crop to gain the care of their omnipotent deity that misses the point that what matters most is the love of their God who would serve and sacrifice for them first without them being deserving.

    It does not matter whether or not Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for mankind’s sins. According to Luke 14:27 all children of God, perfect or not, must carry their own cross of sacrifice for those who know not what they do, today. It is not over.

  • Nick

    The historical record disagrees with you. Adams probably wouldn’t’ be run out of American churches. Washington it is a coin toss. Jefferson and the majority would not be welcome.

  • Nick

    Reading intention that isn’t there is a much bigger problem than reading plainly what is wrote.

  • Nick

    How so? Neither looks to a religion for guidance in making its laws.

  • Daniel Fisher

    are you judging my perspective as parts worthy of accepting to build upon, or as blasphemy?

    I’m not, at least at present, intending to judge your perspective at all. As mentioned, “I’m trying to make sure I understand your perspective.”

    If I ever do come to a place to either build on it or judge it as blasphemy, it is important I understand it first, no?
    ;)

  • Not really. History is best understood by looking at all the facts.

  • Really? Why is it that killing someone is against the law? Where did that law come from if not the bible?
    Why can’t we steal? We have that law too. Where did it come from. Guidance for our laws came from the laws of God.

  • Herm

    Ask the Teacher, the easiest rule of thumb is Matthew 6:37. I’m too busy with my own cross to be worrying whether I should, or should not, crucify others. I hope I was able to give you something to ask God to explain much better than I and more apropos to you.

  • Bones

    You know, the worst and most extreme examples are usually ex-whatevers….

    They always always hate whatever they were vehemently.

    I saw that in my own brother who converted to Catholicism and denied his whole family communion because he hated his protestant roots.

    There’s always going to be people who fall for the lies of the Right.
    Just like people fall for the lies of the anti-Vaxers….

    Honestly Jesus goes around telling people to support Trump…….

    The guy is your standard hysterical right wing lunatic getting his info from the Daily Stormer especially when he promotes the far right English Defnece League.

  • Bones

    I’ve seen it happen to others who start to believe the bs the right pump out. For some its only one event like a terrorist attack away. And Jesus didn’t have anything to do with it.

  • Bones

    Is the one where he said God told him to repent?

    I told him it’s interesting that the only evil god cares about in the world is gay people.

  • Nick

    We have some common ground :) I whole heartedly agree with your second sentence.

  • Nick

    Two points to make:
    1. Why is it illegal to kill and steal in communistic countries? Because Christians do not have a monopoly on morals.
    2. Why is it legal to have an abortion in your version of Christian America? Because our laws are not based on Christianity.

  • I don’t know if it is illegal to kill and steal in communist countries. Never had the pleasure of being in one.
    As to abortion because the Left has convinced Judges to think they are entitled to be activists.
    As to you, where do you think our laws came from? The mind of our founding fathers? Our laws came form their biblical counterparts. You may not want to believe that.

  • Bones

    It’s alt right nonsense that has nothing to do with the gospel.

  • SuperOnionKnight

    No, we are all born with a sin nature, and since we all will sin due to that nature, therefore everyone is damned. Collective guilt would put forward the argument that because some people have sinned that everyone is guilty which would be incorrect.

  • SuperOnionKnight

    With all due respect, I’ve already explained the difference between collective consequence and collective guilt. There is not a guaranteed one-to-one correspondence between the two, and there’s no reason to lock God into that role of only providing consequence when He determines guilt. I already listed other motivations as well (vengeance and jealousy).

  • Bones

    Dude, you’ve just assigned collective guilt to the whole human race including infants and foetuses.

    Your whole world view is not only ridiculous but hostile to humanity.

  • Bones

    With all due respect you’ve offered your own interpretation of what collective guilt is.

    The idea that Jews suffered collective guilt as written in the gospels is nonsense as well.

  • Nick

    “I don’t know if it is illegal to kill and steal in communist countries. Never had the pleasure of being in one” This made me laugh. There is this wonderful invention from Al Gore called the internet. It will help you out.

    Our laws originate from our Founding Fathers. They were based on the liberal deistic ideology of the Enlightenment.

    Your take on abortion is different from the historical record. The majority of the judges were appointed by conservatives. Also, Republicans have controlled the White House, Congress, and the High Court and not overturned abortion. Many are suckered in to voting Republican because they oppose abortion and think that Republicans will change the laws. They are wrong.

  • Nick. You are wrong. The concept of right and wrong came from God. He codified his laws in the commandments. All governments since that time have been influenced from those commands.

    Also you are wrong on abortion. The republicans cannot even repeal and replace Obamacare much less abortion. You should note that Republicans care more about being forced by the government to participate in abortion like Hobby Lobby and will fight for that and win as they did.

    Your comment about, “They were based on the liberal deistic ideology of the Enlightenment.” is self serving.
    Can you please tell me if you are an atheist or not? You sound like you are.

  • Kevin

    This was…horrifying.

    If you feel like you personally have contributed to “rape culture”, then that problem is on you. I, on the other hand, am guilty of…not being a virgin? Having two kids via sex in a marriage? Laughing at dirty jokes that women tell? Understanding that science clearly shows when life begins?

    How, precisely, are “all men” guilty? One has to accept a number of feminist talking points as being true before such a conclusion can be derived, and I do not accept them.

  • Nick

    You’ve changed your wording Mr. Shiloh. I do think that our concept of right and wrong comes from God. I think that he graciously gives it to all, saved and unsaved. But to say that all government since that time have been influenced by God’s laws is not historical fact.

    I am correct on abortion. Republicans have had the power and done nothing. I understand that the Republican party is barely held together at the seams right now, but it hasn’t always been this fractured.

    I will note that Republicans think they are being forced to give abortions when they are not. It is a common misunderstanding people have. Hobby Lobby wasn’t forced to do a single abortion.

    How is my statement on the Enlightenment self serving? I mean I can kind of see your point, but only so far because it is true and every American should celebrate the freedoms we have because of classic Liberalism (not to be confused with liberalism in Europe or America).

    How does refuting your claims sound like an atheist? How would me being an atheist or not make your argument stronger? Insulting a person doesn’t make your argument right. It signals to others that you cannot refute claims and will need to rely on personal attacks to make yourself feel better.

    I am a Christian, on a Christian blog, discussing topics that relate to the Kingdom.

  • The people who left England for America left for freedom from tyranny among other things. They wanted a government that did not force them to worship in a particular way. They were not the least bit interested in Freedom from Religion but rather Freedom of Religion; for they were Religious. To try and obfuscate this Freedom by injecting the word Secular is just a Progressive view that is rejected by the majority in this country. But we see what has happened in our schools without God and it truly is a nightmare now; one Progressives richly deserve.

  • Etranger

    The people who left England for America did so in the 1600s. Our country was founded in the late 1700s. By that time our founders were creating a different nation than the Massachusetts Colony. While Secular might be rejected by the majority in this country (in your view – honestly, I doubt a majority in this country thinks about it), it does not make it wrong. Our country was established on Freedom of Religion. That actually does include Freedom from Religion. Most founders would nto want to be forced to practice a specific religion or be told they live in a Christian country. It is not a Christian nation. The fact we have the Freedom of Religion clause confirms that!! Why can’t you understand that very simple concept?

  • jekylldoc

    The Bible does not oppose abortion. To the extent that the Bible even engages the issue of whether an embryo is a person, the answer is ambiguous.

  • No it does not include Freedom from Religion as it was founded. That is just activist Judges of this era trying to eliminate God from our country. Why can’t you understand that simple concept?

  • Mr. Nick, glad to know you are a Christian.
    Hobby Lobby was being forced to pay for abortion drugs in the insurance they offered to their employee by the godless Obama administration. They had the courage to stand up to the bully and they won.

  • Etranger

    So you think our country was founded on the principle that everyone had to have religion? Seriously?!

  • Nick

    Didn’t say that it did Mr. jeckylldoc. The principle of caring for life is found throughout. The question then moves to what should that care look like in the modern world? Or, when is an embryo considered alive?

  • Nick

    Hobby Lobby was forced to pay for insurance. They weren’t forced to participate in abortions.

    Also, Obama is a christian the same as you and I. It is a stark contrast between this administration and the last. At least the current occupant shows America what happens when the Evangelical community supports someone who isn’t’ a christian.

  • jekylldoc

    Fair enough. I just want the point clear, that basing laws on Christianity does not imply outlawing abortion. Very few Christians would argue for outlawing the charging of interest, even though that is spoken against in the Bible, so the issue is fairly moot. I just want the point on the record.

  • They were forced to pay for insurance that included coverage for abortion drugs, etc. They said no; took the bully to court and won. Not a small achievement with that Godless administration.

    Only Obama knows what he believes. What he said/says cannot be taken at face value because like all politicians he says what is convenient at the time. I doubt he is an anything except self-serving.

  • As I have said and as the majority agree, our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values; not secular values, not Muslim values, not atheist values but Judeo-Christian values.

    Honestly, Freedom of Religion is not that hard to understand.

  • Etranger

    I agree, Freedom of Religion is not that hard to understand. You seem to be having quite the difficult time with it though! Not to mention your difficulty with our nation’s history! (Judeo-Christian values – that does not mean we are a Christian nation btw. Since our nation was founded by Enlightenment thinkers, it makes sense they incorporated humanist/Judeo-Christian values in our founding. Note they did not found our country on Christianity. Had they done so, they would have made mention of that!)

  • Ellen D.

    Bullcr*p. Just because Hobby Lobby believes that Plan B causes abortions does not make that true.

    Hobby Lobby was not paying for the insurance. That money belongs to the employees, they pay for the insurance.

    For an alleged Christian you sure do tell a lot of lies. One of them is calling the Obama administration “godless”. Shame on you.

  • SuperOnionKnight

    I am showing you why the notion of collective guilt Biblically is nonsense and therefore this article is based on a flawed premise.

  • SuperOnionKnight

    That’s why progressive Christians need to be really careful about their initial assumptions about collective guilt and the notion of a sin nature, because from what I’m reading in this article, they would be concluding that infants, foetuses, and the mentally handicapped are all going to hell. That is insane. It’s one reason why the notion of collective guilt is rubbish.

  • Ivan T. Errible

    You want to whip yourself in a thinly disguised form of self-congratulations, your newfound ‘wokeness’ being a ticket to a better lifestyle?
    Go right ahead. Leave me out of it, please.

  • Ivan T. Errible

    Public education is the only means by which every influential individual
    within the body of mankind can grow to support the body rather than
    destroy the body as a self-important cancer.
    So those who go to (very expensive)private schools such as Choate, St. Albans, St. Marks, Groton, Sidwell Friends are the enemy?
    Have you told this to the “Progressives” who fund so much ‘activism’ in the mainline churches?

  • Ivan T. Errible

    Suppose you don’t believe in any Adam, still less in anything he might have done?
    Why should I then bother with what you say?
    And if you can provide reasons outside religion for believing you, why bring religion into it-as another form of building ‘plausibility structures’?
    Are you that self-unaware, that pathetic?

  • Herm

    Ivan, any body of education that is isolated from the pulse of the entire body of mankind encourages cancerous behavior of their respective alumni. The very expensive schools surround themselves with social perspectives filtered through rose colored glasses. Public schools, though not by any means perfect mostly because they are filled with a too high majority of local literates, at least have a better social cross section of student body to learn from and with. Public schools have the benefit of being monitored and influenced, in a society (by tenet) of the people governed by the people and for the people, with a broader cross section representative of mankind.

    Any student of Christ today has available an over all perspective of what is good (supportive) and what is evil (destructive) for all of the species human kind, as one body. Influence all life has and is responsible to. How well that influence is applied for the good of all is determined mostly by degree of awareness, also, what all life has and is responsible to.

    Thank you! That was a good question and I hope, from my response, that you can see that awareness of truth is not a competition between progressive, liberal, conservative, literate, illiterate, any national sub-body, or any religious sub-body on earth, or the sole property to be defended by any one segment of mankind. Truth is the truth no matter how little each of us is aware of the full truth.

    For me to demean or destroy others of mankind in defense of my considered certain truth would make me a destructive cancer cell in the body of Man. Cancer cells are certain they are protecting the body they are killing. The broader (the more publicly inclusive) the education I can bear the more I am able to truly love and support my good neighbor as I would have my good neighbor love and support me.

  • jonrgrover

    I have found myself moving in the opposite direction. Thirty years ago I saw men and women as the same, in the same light, with the same abilities and nature, fitting the same roles. As I have grown older, women have specifically and directly taught me that men and women are different, that they work differently, think differently, have different roles than men, different needs, different aptitudes and a different point of view. For a long time I resisted this new knowledge, but the women have been persuasive and what they have said has made sense. I can now see that there is a difference, and I am no longer bothered by the different roles that men and women play in society.

    Regarding complicity, I have not been complicit. I have taken action against stereotyping, oppression, and harm by developed a hiring and task assignment system that is gender neutral. It is also race neutral and ethnicity neutral. If you would like to use it, send me email at jonrgrover where my provider is gmail.com.

  • Ivan T. Errible

    There is no god.

  • juan

    false. people like me have never “stood up” for rape or assault. so no, we aren’t being “complicit.” yes, being “less guilty” makes me innocent because I am INNOCENT. proud to have zero cases of catcalling, crude harassment, sexist jokes, or misogyny. #yesallwomen type idiots like emily lindin are in fact being misandrists. generalizing, hating, bigoted idiots. assuming that all men are like bill cosby or some false BS because #metoo!!!!!!!!!! you try to say “yes all men” then you’re mistaken and everyone with any shred of common sense or human decency obviously knows that. ANY decent person will stand up against sexual assault, of ANY GENDER (by the way 38% of all rapes are against men, but why doesn’t anyone care about THAT TOO?) so if you’re saying “all men” are complicit then you are saying all men lack any sense of decency, because ANY decent person will NOT be complicit against RAPE. and why doesn’t anyone care about the men that actually do good things, or, heck, the men that SUFFER??? like if your goal is to stop rape, it’s a great and noble goal, but what about the 96% of young male rape victims whose rapists were women? or the men FALSELY accused of rape, whose false accusations are supported by misandrists like lindin?

  • juan

    exactly. the moment you try to say all men you lose any credibility you’ve ever had, have, or will have. never trust another post from this idiot, they blew it.

  • juan

    and when anyone assigned male tries to bring up misandry, arrogant idiotic feminists roll their tear-filled red eyes and laugh their annoying laughs. talk about equality. it’s not called equality when you only care about one side.

  • juan

    but they are women so they are exempt from any criticism. after all, it’s not like 38% of rape victims are men right? right? uh, anyone there?……….

  • jekylldoc

    juan, that’s interesting, but I have trouble believing the statistic. Any source?

    I agree that women should not, because of being vulnerable and targeted, be exempt from criticism. But that isn’t what I meant to say – instead of criticism and lifting up our victim status, could we spend some time on building helpful skills?

  • Rees Welsh

    Can you tell me what I have done to hurt women. I rarely go out, suffer from depression and social anxiety. I have three close female friends all of whom I have never hurt. I nave never had a real girlfriend due to shyness and social anxiety. My mum and my sister have seen me try and kill myself, did I hurt them by doing that? Maybe I am a misogynist and should maybe have done that in front of a man instead? Do you think my recently deceased father was complicit in sexual abuse of women? He spent or lot of time in hospital due to bi polar.
    What kind of complicity do you think a man paralysed from birth and unable to look after himself has in all of this? What about men who cannot talk? How do they harass women? You say it’s ALL men so come on tell me what severely sick and disabled men do to women to make them complicit. A man who cannot walk, talk how is he complicit?

  • Rees Welsh

    All men should stop rape. er like men in wheelchairs. Yes they must otherwise they are complicit

  • Rees Welsh

    Same here the damn cuck

  • Rees Welsh

    That dude could knocked him out. Is he really saying he coulda taken him on?

  • Ivan T. Errible

    Church is ridiculous, boring, and expensive. It should lose its tax exemption.