The Culture of Life
Remember Biting Beaver and the condom that broke and the emergency contraception that was withheld because BB’s an unmarried slut? When last we checked, BB had secured a last-minute dosage of EC and was hoping for the best.
The best did not happen.
Now pregnant, Biting Beaver is trying to deal with her situation as bravely as she can. Part of that bravery is in continuing to post about what’s happening, because it seems that in this country just admitting to using EC is enough to get you death threats.
Here are some of the comments BB received after her post about the emergency contraception:
you dumb slut
you fucking retard
Ha ha, you’re a dirty whore
YOU DESERVED IT, YOU SLUTTY LITTLE WHORE
SHUT YOUR GODDAMN FUCKING MOUTH, CUNT
Your life is fucking worthless you goddamn slut
Please kill yourself now bitch
I hope you feel good about murdering your kid whore
Tough shit slut
You are a disgusting little shit of a woman
If I ever met you I’d fucking kill you like you murdered your baby, fucking whore
Die you fucking slut
Why don’t you just kill yourself now. People like you don’t deserve to live
Stupid whore. You spread your legs and now you want to murder a baby. I hope you get raped and murdered. Maybe then you’ll feel what that innocent life felt
And that was just for taking the morning-after pill. God knows what’ll happen now that BB’s announced her plan to abort.
This, people, is the Culture of Life. This is Christianity. The Christians, they just care so much about the sanctity of life, doncha know.
37 Responses to “The Culture of Life”
-
love2all says:
Exactly. They are hypocrites. Because they want to save “pure untouched” human life but if you’re a sinner (and according to them, they all are) then fuck you, pretty much.
I have no respect for Christianity anymore. I was a Christian for nearly 20 years and can’t believe I was suckered into it for that long. Believe me you, Christians (although I admit not ALL of them) are the scariest people you will ever meet. My uncle was an extremely radical christian and if you listened to ANY kind of music, even church music, he considered it devil’s music. I was listening to, gosh, I don’t know, I think it was Debbie Gibson or Tiffany when I was a pre-teen in the 80s and he made me take the tape out. He tried to bribe me, he said he’d give me $20 if he could burn the tape.
He died of lung cancer a few years ago and asked that in lieu of flowers, that donations be given to his church (full of people just as nutty as him.) I gave a donation but I gave it to a gay rights group instead. Imagine the horror when his widow opened the memorial card that they got from the gay rights group, stating that a donation was given in memory of him.
Was that mean? I didn’t think so.
October 7th, 2006 at 3:02 pm EST -
richard cherry says:
if people want to make sure there are loads more messages of support than the shit above (not you infidel), why not visit the beaver’s den and show her you care.
-
Paul Tergeist says:
I tried, but my posts went to a moderation queue. All those comments Violet posted must be from the same person. Any rational individual could see the contradiction.
-
ginmar says:
Paul, you’re so cute.
-
Gwen says:
That’s horrific, but I have to say - it’s not Christianity. American evangelists are not the only people in the world who claim to be Christian. I have to say I find it personally offensive when this kind of violent, misogynist crap is in any way associated with what happens to be my religion. I get that the association hasn’t been made by you but by them (and, frankly, probably, St Paul) but I do get tired of finding it reinforced all the time by my side, the feminist left, in situations where it doesn’t have to be.
-
Mandos says:
Gwen: you get used to it. Violet’s a strident atheist, but that hardly stopped me.
-
Gwen says:
I don’t object to strident atheism. Arguments that are directly targeted at some specific aspect of Christianity, or at Christianity as such, are fine by me. I might not agree with them, but at the least they make me think and, in any case, they’re intellectually honest. What I object to is the random attack on Christianity in a context where Christianity isn’t in issue at all.
-
gordo says:
Violent–
Thanks for posting this. The “Jesus Hates a Woman” crowd gets a lot of traction from the myth that they are kindhearted souls. Exposure is necessary.
-
Cheryl says:
It’s not a culture of life so much as a culture of birth. They really don’t care much for the products of conception after the birth elsewise there would be child care, health care, food, shelter, clothing and other support proffered. Nope, once they’re out of that box, they’re on their own.
This is not the teachings of the Christ I came to know and love. These are the ravings of religious fundamentalists no less evil and dangerous than those we are supposed to loathe and fear so much overseas. As a matter of fact, there’s not much difference between the two aside from each group’s average skin tone.
Just my two cents. Thanks for listening.
-
Violet says:
What I object to is the random attack on Christianity in a context where Christianity isn’t in issue at all.
It’s not random. It’s deliberate and considered.
Gwen, I actually have real respect for some Christians, and my life has personally intersected with some very fine theologians and religious historians. I’m well aware that Christianity doesn’t have to be horrific. But I’ve spent most of my years on this planet excusing the behavior of the ugly majority by saying, well, they’re just the loonies; the “true” Christians or the “educated” Christians aren’t like that.
A few years ago I just reached the point where I couldn’t do that anymore. The xenophobic pinheaded bloodthirsty misogynists are the face of American Christianity. Sure, Hans Kung isn’t like that, but how many Hans Kungs are there? My buddies who work on 1st century Palestine aren’t like that, but they’re like 7 guys at universities. It’s time to stop mincing words: American Christendom is overwhelmingly nasty.
I believe that it is time for all of us to stop with this “that’s not really Christianity” excuse. It is Christianity. It’s what Christianity has become. And as long as we pretend otherwise, as long as we continue to pretend that Jesus Loves You is what most American Christianity is about and the pro-torture pro-war anti-woman stuff is just some kind of strange coincidence that has nothing to do with their worldview, then we’re giving these guys a pass. We’re allowing them to cover their evil with the ancient cloak of presumed virtue.
Mandos, I’m not a strident atheist. I’m a strident anti-most-extant-religions.
-
Paul Tergeist says:
Hey Cheryl…..are THESE the teachings of the Christ you came to know and love? Is your sword sharp? Because JESUS is coming back to start Armageddon and make the rivers run red with blood. Oh, yes. He is coming back to kill people.
Peter
God will set the entire earth on fire so that he can burn non-believers to death. 3:7
When Jesus returns, he’ll burn up the whole earth and everything on it. 3:10
Jude
“The Lord destroyed them that believed not. 5
Revelation
Jesus “washed us … with his own blood.” 1:5
Everyone on earth will wail because of Jesus. 1:7
Jesus has “the keys of hell and death.” 1:18
Repent — or else Jesus will fight you with the sword that sticks out of his mouth. 2:16
“I [Jesus] will kill her children with death.” 2:23
“Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” God created predators, pathogens, and predators for his very own pleasure. One of his favorite species is guinea worms. 4:11
God gives someone on a white horse a bow and sends him out to conquer people. 6:2
God gave power to someone on a red horse “to take from the earth … that they should kill one another.” 6:4
God tells Death and Hell to kill one quarter of the earth’s population with the sword, starvation, and “with the beasts of the earth.” 6:8
The martyrs just can’t wait until everyone else is slaughtered. God gives them a white robe and tells them to wait until he’s done with his killing spree. 6:10-11
God tells his murderous angels to “hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of your God on their foreheads.” This verse is one that Christians like to use to show God’s loving concern for the environment. But the previous verse (7:2) makes it clear that it was their God-given job to “hurt the earth and the sea” just as soon as they finished their forehead marking job. 7:3
144,000 Jews will be going to heaven; everyone else is going to hell. 7:4
Those that survive the great tribulation will get to wash their clothes in the blood of the lamb. 7:14
God sends his angels to destroy a third part of all the trees, grass, sea creature, mountains, sun, moon, starts, and water. 8:7-13
“Many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.” 8:11
The angels are instructed not to “hurt the grass [how could they? He already had all the grass killed in 8:7] … but only those men which have not the seal of God on their foreheads.” God tells his angels not to kill them, but rather torment them with scorpions for five months. Those tormented will want to die, but God won’t let them. 9:4-6
God makes some horse-like locusts with human heads, women’s hair, lion’s teeth, and scorpion’s tails. They sting people and hurt them for five months. 9:7-10
Four angels, with an army of 200 million, killed a third of the earth’s population. 9:15-19
Anyone that messes with God’s two olive trees and two candlesticks (God’s witnesses) will be burned to death by fire that comes out of their mouths. 11:3-5
God’s witnesses have special powers. They can shut up heaven so that it cannot rain, turn rivers into blood, and smite the earth with plagues “as often as they will.” 11:6
After God’s witnesses “have finished their testimony,” they are killed in a war with a beast from a bottomless pit. 11:7
Their dead bodies lie unburied for three and a half days. People will “rejoice over them and make merry, and shall send gifts to one another.” After another three and half days God brings his witnesses back to life and they ascend into heaven. 11:8-12
When the witnesses ascend into heaven, an earthquake kills 7000 men. This was the second woe. “The third woe cometh quickly.” 11:13-14
“The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”
God planned to kill Jesus before he created the world. 13:8Those who receive the mark of the beast will “drink of the wine of the wrath of God … and shall be tormented with fire and brimstone … and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.” 14:10-11
“The great winepress of the wrath of God … was trodden … and the blood cam out of the winepress, even unto the horses bridles.” 14:19-20
Seven angels with seven plagues are filled with the wrath of God. 15:1, 15:7
The seven vials of wrath: 1) sores, 2) sea turned to blood, 3) rivers turned to blood, 4) people scorched with fire, 5) people gnaw their tongues in pain, 6) Euphrates dries up, 7) thunder, lightning, earthquake, and hail. 16:1-21
God gave the saints and prophets blood to drink. 16:6
“They shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire.” (Are they going to eat her first and then burn her?) 17:16-17
To punish her God will send plagues and famine, and “she will be utterly burned with fire.” 18:8
God will send plagues, death, and famine on Babylon, and the kings “who have committed fornication with her” will be sad to see her burn. 18:8-9
Jesus makes war. 19:11
With eyes aflame, many crowns on his head, clothes dripping with blood, a sword sticking out of his mouth, and a secret name, Jesus leads the faithful into holy war. 19:12-15
“Come … unto the supper of the great God.” An angel calls all the fowls to feast upon the flesh of dead horses and human bodies, “both free and bond, both small and great.” 19:17-18
The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into a lake of fire. The rest were killed with the sword of Jesus. “And all the fowls were filled with their flesh.” 19:20-21
God will send fire from heaven to devour people. And the devil will be tormented “day and night for ever and ever.” 20:9-10
Whoever isn’t found listed in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire. 20:15
All liars, as well as those who are fearful or unbelieving, will be cast into “the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.” 21:8
-
Gwen says:
Well, my objection is more to American Christianity = Christianity than American Christianity = Nasty, in a number of ways. I’m frightened by a lot of the manifestations of Christianity in America, sure. I don’t know enough about it to condemn it wholesale, but I’ll assume that you do. But as a non-American Christian from a liberal European church, I don’t think that nastiness is what Christianity as a whole has become and so I don’t think it ought to be pinned on Christianity. I’ve never heard statements remotely similar to this made by any Christian I can think of. And as a Christian myself, I don’t particularly feel like taking responsibility for a bunch of statements that feel so entirely alien to me. This is not Christianity to me or to anyone I know. I’m sorry that it’s what Christianity has been in your experience, but that might be more an American problem than a Christian one.
I’m not denying, by the way, that Christianity has its fair share of problems that are specific to it - particularly as it relates to feminism. I just don’t think this is one of them. And I don’t think Christianity is reducible to only its problematic elements.
-
Violet says:
Gwen, I appreciate your frustration. I understand that liberal, non-insane Christians resent being tarred with the same brush as the loonies. I guess my point of view is that Christianity on balance is not beneficial to the world, and there’s too much crap to bother with trying to save any of it. As someone else commented on a blog the other day (forgot where), “Okay, this religion stuff isn’t cute anymore. We need to get rid of this shit.”
Since I don’t think of Christianity as “true,” I evaluate it from a utilitarian perspective. Is the net impact of this belief system positive? Between the American fundamentalists and the world-wide Catholic church, I think the answer on Christianity has to be no. Hence my impatience.
-
Violet says:
Oh, one other thing I wanted to clarify: you said in your first comment that Christianity “isn’t an issue at all” in the context of the nuts who thought BB should die for using contraception. In America, though, Christianity is exactly where those sentiments come from. The anti-contraception/anti-abortion movement in the U.S. is wholly driven by the conservative Christians. There are simply not secular people who think contraception is wrong. Yes, we have anti-contraception believers from other religions here, but in very small numbers.
In other words, I’d bet a million dollars that every single one of those commenters to BB is a self-identified Christian who learned from his church community that contraception and abortion are evil.
-
Halfmad says:
Paul, you really believe all that crap? LOL!!!
-
Gwen says:
Since I don’t think of Christianity as “true,” I evaluate it from a utilitarian perspective. Is the net impact of this belief system positive? Between the American fundamentalists and the world-wide Catholic church, I think the answer on Christianity has to be no.
I guess that’s fair. Obviously, since I start from the premise that Christianity is true, I can’t take a detached perspective on that - the net effect of this belief system is not something I’m prepared to measure as something apart from its philosophical/moral/emotional content. Its truth, that is.
On your second point, though, I still have to disagree. The fact that it is self-identified Christians in America who are so violently against contraception and abortion doesn’t prove that it’s Christianity which is to blame for that - there’s a particular subset of American political culture which does that, only one element of which is a self-identification as Christian. There’s no reason to see Christianity as the root cause of the problem, as opposed to conservatism.
What I’m saying, long-windedly, is that just because conservatives in traditionally Christian countries lay claim to Christianity, it doesn’t mean that Christianity itself is conservative. For example, the Hindutva movement in India takes a similarly radical, similarly vicious attitude to Hinduism, using “Hindu values” as an argument against womens’ rights, minority rights, and sensible foreign policy. A similar use has been made of Islam, in various places. It’s a feature of conservatism, this use of tradition - which usually includes religious tradition. The specific religion has almost nothing to do with it.
-
Pali says:
*sighs* I hate to say it, Gwen, but there is a reason we call these wackos “fundamentalists”. Read the Bible, word for word, page for page. Groups like, say, the Phelps family are untouchable because their logic is ironclad. The Bible is VERY clearly anti-gay, anti-female, anti-tolerance, and anti-freedom. While I understand that many self-proclaimed Christians do not subscribe to this, you have to realize that you are then using your own morality code, not the Bible’s.
-
cicely says:
I pretty much agree with Violet’s assessment of the religion situation overall (I’m an atheist and secularist) but then I hear what you’re saying as well Gwen, and I do think about the christians advocating for change within their churches to more accurately reflect modern values - like ordaining gay men and women as priests. It seems that religious holy books can be interpreted in all kinds of ways and support whatever someone wants them to support, where there is a will. Maybe it’s the ‘will’ part that’s the problem. You have to ask ‘what do these people (the fundamentalists) *really* want, and why. It may well have F-all to do with the bible - except as a ready to hand tool.
What they really want is power. Exhibit A, George W Bush and all the fundies who worked so hard and organised so well over a long period of time to put him there. -
cicely says:
Oh, and I reckon those monstrous comments to BB would have come from self-identified fundie christians too. Still beating women up with the notion that a sexually autonomous woman who makes her own decisions about her own body is a shameful being that shouldn’t be allowed to exist. Well, that’s always felt like fiction to me, but nothing contributes more to making the fiction fact than the ‘one male god’ religions.
-
Gwen says:
The Bible is VERY clearly anti-gay, anti-female, anti-tolerance, and anti-freedom.
Well, that’s true to an extent. Your position depends, ultimately, on what you take the Bible to be - in its relation to the church(es) and its own history and the individual self - and on how you see the different elements of the Bible fitting together. It’s a very complicated document, with a complicated history.
So it becomes difficult to say what Christianity really is, or ought to be, in relation to the Bible - i.e. what Christians actually ought to do with the Bible. That depends on what kind of Christian you are or want to be - which, if this doesn’t change the terms of the debate too far, depends finally on your relationship with God. I don’t think the fundamentalist position is necessarily - automatically - the more Christian. In any case, it’s not logic, it’s a choice. To treat every part of the Bible as equally valid, and to treat it as an absolute and uncomplicated Moral Code handed down by the One Male God - that’s one kind of Christianity. It isn’t the only one. I would argue, from my own experience, that it isn’t even the mainstream one.
-
Violet says:
Gwen, I agree about different kinds of Christianity being possible, though I disagree that the “bad” kind hasn’t been pretty much the mainstream for two millenia.
I will point back to an old religious history post of mine, Priests Without Penises, which touches on this issue of the multiplicity of Christianities, including a feminist variety, that existed at the beginning of the movement. The feminist versions were rapidly suppressed and had pretty much died out by 300 A.D.; modern Christian feminists are trying with mixed success to regain some of that long-lost ground.
I am sympathetic to people like John Dominic Crossan, for instance, who want to retrieve what they think was the original Christian project: radical egalitariansim across class, gender, everything. But Crossan would be the first to admit that in two thousand years, Christianity has never actually been like that. It’s been pretty much non-stop anti-woman, pro-authoritarian, pro-status-quo oppressiveness. So at what point do you say, okay, this is a nice fantasy about what Christianity could theoretically be, but you know, it just doesn’t work like that. It never has. Time to punt.
-
Violet says:
Forgot to add (this is what happens when you’re commenting on your blog and doing laundry and talking to your dog at the same time):
Pali’s point highlights a key problem: the Bible. Can’t get rid of it. No matter how enlightened or egalitarian or non-literal certain Christian movements are, the religion is anchored in some way to these godawful scriptures that are shot through with misogyny. For the most enlightened Christians the scriptures become something you have to explain away or interpret, but they’re still there. Like an albatross.
-
Gwen says:
So at what point do you say, okay, this is a nice fantasy about what Christianity could theoretically be, but you know, it just doesn’t work like that. It never has. Time to punt.
Well, depends on what you want. I don’t think trying to retrieve the “original Christian project” - though I’m suspicious of ‘original’ in this context - is a sensible political aim. If you want radical egalitarianism, you may as well work for it up-front, on a political level. Christianity isn’t likely to be an effective mechanism of social reform, just because of its history and the resulting difficulties. The only purpose of trying to make sense of Christianity through feminist, egalitarian eyes - of dealing with the problems of the Christian inheritance instead of walking away from them - is a religious one. If you believe that there’s a truth there than you require access to, then you do the work that needs to be done to get to that truth, and to be able to live by it. And if that’s the position - which it is for me - then walking away isn’t exactly an option.
So this comes back to the fact that you take a utilitarian attitude to Christianity and I don’t. There’s obviously no need for people who aren’t Christians to take on the headache of trying to recreate or rethink Christianity in the light of more modern ideas. But there’s no reason to claim that people who are attempting it are engaged in a doomed project or are somehow “not really Christian”, because the only true Christians are the fundamentalists. I find that a bit alienating, and counterproductive.
-
Violet says:
But there’s no reason to claim that people who are attempting it are engaged in a doomed project or are somehow “not really Christian”, because the only true Christians are the fundamentalists.
I’m not saying that. I would never, ever say that the people like Crossan or you are “not really Christian.” What I am doing, very deliberately, is refusing to say that the batshit crazy misogynists are “not really Christian.” Do you see my point? Rather than excluding your kind from the Christian fold, I’m just insisting that we stop excluding the nuts from the Christian fold. We’ve all been doing that for years, saying that the loons are giving Christianity a bad name, that the crazy people are “not really Christian.” And what I’m saying is, yes they are. That kind of crap is a wide, rich vein of Christianity. It’s not the only kind of Christianity, but it’s definitely one kind. And, I would argue, it’s been the most prevalent kind for two thousand years and still is, all over the world.
The reason this matters to me politically is because as long as Christianity is defined in terms of good people like you, then the halo of sanctity rubs off on the creeps. It’s a cover for them. Christian preachers are doing incalculable real damage in this country, but hey, they’re Men of God, right? Faith-based initiatives are programming misogyny into our schools and communities, but churches are places of love and charity, right?
-
Gwen says:
I’m not saying that. I would never, ever say that the people like Crossan or you are “not really Christian.”
Right, sorry. I wasn’t responding exactly to you there, but to the other commenter who said that if you don’t take a literalist interpretation of the Bible you’re just making up your own morality.
And — I see what you’re saying. It might just be the very different political context, that makes it hard for me to get — here, saying anything, anything political, as a Christian is automatically suspicious and politically Not On. There isn’t a halo. So I haven’t thought about it from exactly that angle before.
But I do think the “they aren’t really Christian” can work in the opposite direction — i.e. to help point out how very un-Christian some of these statements and ideas are. Which, for Christians, who are trying to decide what they think about abortion and marriage and women’s roles in life and the rest of it, is useful. So maybe we’re just thinking in terms of different goals.
-
Pali says:
if you don’t take a literalist interpretation of the Bible you’re just making up your own morality.
You are, actually. The Bible is very clear in most matters of morality. If you decide that you have the sense to pick and choose which rules to follow, then you ARE making up your own morality. You are picking from a wide slate the rules you want to follow and ignoring the ones you don’t, meaning you are using your own moral code already to decide which ones are acceptable in your life and which aren’t. If teaching the stoning to death of disobedient children offends you, good, it offends me too. But if you can decide that rule is NOT morally valid, then you very obviously do not base your morality on the Bible, you base it on the parts of the Bible that fit your own pre-established sense of morality.
-
Mandos says:
“The Bible is very clear in most matters of morality.”
The Bible is pretty contradictory from time to time, if you read it the way you want it/agree with fundies that it should be read. The point is that these ancient texts serve as moral Rohrschach tests, in a sense. You necessarily bring something to *any* reading of them—just *what* you bring differs, “literal”, “liberal”, or whatever.
-
Shawn says:
The issue of religion in the US is something that I find interesting. I live in the US, in the Bible Belt no less, and constantly see Christianity paraded around me like a trophy. Granted, down here in the southeast there are long traditions of speaking in tongues, preachers who jump and down screaming their message, and even snake handlers, but they are still the extreme. The Christianity that I see most often is the quiet, I am superior because of my Christianity, stay away from the white trash and you’ll be okay type of Christianity. These Christians don’t send horrific messages to girls in unfortunate circumstances. They would never so such obviously ugly things. They do however “vote their conscience.” These people turn out at the polls en mass to stop legal abortions, civil rights for gays, and a myriad of other social hot button issues. They have a powerful influence on American politics and do it all in good taste as any fine upstanding citizen would. That is the mainstream of Christianity where I live.
On the issue of the Christian Bible, I am honestly confused. Christians the world over profess belief in this book but most refuse to consider objectively its origins. I have been studying the ancient Near East and have learned some things about the Christian Bible that I know is not common knowledge among the fine Christian folks that surround me. When seen with an unbiased eye the heavy influences of several cultures are undeniable, especially that of the Greeks [who were themselves extremely misogynistic]. Indeed, the whole idea of organized religion started in Sumer when a large population had to be controlled with an authority that was beyond the capacity of chieftain or king. It remains, as we see in every headline this election year, an unbeatable means of social control.
-
Pali says:
Oh, I agree the Bible is very contradictory at times. I’m not advocating the Bible in any way. What I’m saying is that if you are one who wishes to draw a moral code from the Bible, in most cases, it is very clear. Most of those contradictions are about the more factual claims, i.e. order of creation in Genesis 1-2.
-
Pali says:
Re: Shaun
Those Christians are the ones that worry me, because they are the ones society loves to point at as good, upstanding Christians to be emulated, yet their views on legal and societal issues are still very, VERY religiously close-minded. This is not a problem just regarding Christians, but the perception of the religious in general by society. While it’s fine to point at someone and say he’s a religious fanatic, you aren’t supposed to then say it’s in any way the fault of the religion, when in many cases it is very much so.
As for the Bible… barely a thing in there is original. From the creation story to Noah’s flood, from Moses and the Exodus to Jesus, none of it didn’t have a version of the same story previous to or co-existant with it. Religion has long been recognized by many of the greatest leaders in history as a tool of social control. Convince a man that he will be rewarded for eternity for his deeds, whatever you want those deeds to be, and he will die happy doing them.
-
Infidel says:
“loads more messages of support than the shit above (not you infidel), ”
If I were to go to the beavers den and post a message it would say, It is your body do what you will. To the “nasties”, they are most likely anonymous anyway. Christians weren’t anonymous when they were fed to lions, Jews weren’t anonymous when they were sent to gas chambers. I think it would be fine for a Christian to state their belief as regards any subject they feel compelled to comment on, but “die you fucking slut”? “Please kill yourself now bitch”? It is a huge world, I think perhaps only a few percent even blog, says more about bloggers statistically then Christians. I apologize.
-
ginmar says:
Um, so we’re discussing, “But what about the Xtians?” now instead of, “But what bout the men?”
-
Shawn says:
Is there a difference? The Christian conservative right is basically run by men. At least, they are the best at manipulating women into giving away their civil and human rights in the name of God without question or hesitation.
Shawn
-
gordo says:
Shawn–
There must be SOME difference. After all, I’m not a Christian. Maybe I should draw a Venn diagram…
-
Shawn says:
Choose your set carefully, gordo. We’re all judged by the company we keep, especially by men.
-
richard cherry says:
infidel (and love2all) I think I should clarify - not cos you haven’t both probably worked it out, but because there were several points of fuckwittedness in my short sentence ‘loads more messages of support than the shit above (not you infidel)’
1 I attributed love2all’s comment 1 to infidel. Maybe they should put the name of the person who wrote it above it and i wouldn’t get confused - oh they did… sorry.
2 ‘the shit above’ was the bad things quoted by Vi and not stuff from indfidel or love2all
3 there wasn’t any presumption that infidel was too crap or whatever to go and post at BB’s place..
I know it’s obvious but I’d hate to think I’d slighted anyone - accidentally at least. -
richard cherry says:
Venn Diagrams:
you can pop me in with the atheists.
and the men - yep, just got to make the best of it - does sharing genitalia really count as keeping company with?
and given the post above you might as well log me with the terminally anal group
