Cartoons, comics and stuff that relate to topics I regularly cover at this blog…
Pastors avoid ‘controversy’ to keep tithes up, author says – Confirms What I’ve Been Saying All Along, Re: Churches: Contrary to Progressive Christians, Churches / Christians Do Not Support or Idolize Sexual Purity, Virginity, or Celibacy – they attack these concepts when not ignoring them
- (Link): Blogger Guy, John H. Morgan, Who Accused Me Of Being Untrustworthy Apparently Finds My Blog Trustworthy Enough to Use As A Resource
Pastors avoid ‘controversy’ to keep tithes up, author says
I linked to this same article in my previous post and discussed it from another angle,
This time, I am bringing this story up for another reason.
I’m not surprised. Every time I see the progressive Christians, the ex Christians, and left wing secular feminists complain that Christians over value a woman’s virginity, I want to laugh. I see the total opposite.
Virginity for men and woman is being attacked by Christians, not upheld, defended, respected or esteemed.
(Usually, the entire subject is ignored FOR MEN. Men are not expected to be virgins by anyone on either side of the debate. Men get a pass, even from progressive Christians and secular feminists; ironic.)
Virginity, celibacy, and sexual purity are being written off even by most conservative Christians as being unrealistic, impossible standards for any man or woman to meet, so they have reversed course and say fornication is really not such a big deal.
Further, Christians have sanctioned phrases such as “born again virgin” or “secondary virginity” to console sexual sinners.
With the exception of a tiny minority of far, far out fringe kook groups, like the weirdos who want to see the USA governed by Old Testament laws and penalties, I am not seeing Christians who are demanding that people stay virgins until marriage, speaking out against pre-marital sex, or making sexual purity an idol that they insist Christian girls pursue.
Here are some excerpts from:
- by Tom Fontaine
- Aug 24, 2014
- Few pastors preach about today’s most challenging political and social issues because they worry about losing members of their flocks and the money they donate, according to a researcher who focuses on issues of Christianity.
- “Controversy keeps people from being in the seats. Controversy keeps people from giving money, from attending programs,” California-based researcher George Barna said this month in an American Family Radio interview.
Continue reading “Pastors avoid ‘controversy’ to keep tithes up, author says – Confirms What I’ve Been Saying All Along, Re: Churches: Contrary to Progressive Christians, Churches / Christians Do Not Support or Idolize Sexual Purity, Virginity, or Celibacy – they attack these concepts when not ignoring them”
Christians Who Support Same-Sex Marriage More Likely to Support Other Types of Sexual Immorality, Data Shows
Doesn’t this report kind of conflict with a recent editorial by Russell Moore, or some other SBC talking head, that assured us that Christians are not more slutty than Non Christians? I did a blog post about that a couple weeks ago.
Yep, here’s the post:
That was from July 2014, this is from August 2014:
- New survey research shows that Christians who support same-sex marriage are more likely to hold permissive views on other sexual morality issues, such as divorce and pornography, similar to the general population and far different from Christians who support traditional marriage.
- The “Relationships in America” survey, conducted by University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus, interviewed 15,738 Americans between the ages of 18 and 60.
- From that sample, Regnerus compared the average views on a range of sexual morality issues of churchgoing Christians who oppose same-sex marriage (2,659 in the sample) and churchgoing Christians who support same-sex marriage (990 in the sample).
On the question of whether “premarital cohabition is good,” the difference between opponents/supporters of same sex-marriage among churchgoers was 26 percentage points (11 percent and 37 percent, respectively).
Few churchgoing Christians who are opposed to same-sex marriage agreed that “it is OK for two people to get together for sex and not necessarily expect anything further” (five percent), “it is sometimes permissible for a married person to have sex with someone other than his/her spouse” (one percent), “it is sometimes permissible for a married person to have sex with someone other than his/her spouse” (one percent), and “it is OK for three or more consenting adults to live together in a sexual/romantic relationship” (one percent). Churchgoers who support same-sex marriage were much more likely to say those things were OK (37 percent, 33 percent, 8 percent and 16 percent, respectively).
The Marginalization of the Average Joe and Practice of Selective Compassion by Christian and Secular Americans
I think conservative writer Ann Coulter’s editorial about Christians who shuffle off to assist ebola patients in Africa – which got her all sorts of vitriol by both left and right wingers, Christians and Non Christians – has been proven right.
I first wrote about that in another post or two:
- (Link): Ann Coulter’s Very Accurate Ebola Post Being Criticized As Being Insensitive – But It’s Not; It’s Accurate
After American, caucasian movie actor Robin Williams died from suicide a few days ago, on the one hand, there was, yes, a lot of sympathy and sadness expressed for him and his family online in the days that followed, as it should be.
But there were also some very insulting, unsympathetic views published, and at that, based on William’s skin color or his mental health problems, not only by guys like Bill McNorris and Christian Matt Walsh, but by atheist writer P Z Myers.
As far as I can tell, the Bible does not adhere to the concept of “privilege” as believed by liberals. The American progressives harping on “privilege” causes them to refuse to show care and concern for the groups they believe to be in power.
Jesus Christ taught that people’s sins comes from their hearts (from within), not from their environment, and he did not endorse the view that because you or your group has been systematically mistreated or oppressed at the hands of another group, that this excuses your sin, or makes it acceptable for you to hate your oppressor, or for you to refuse to show compassion to that group.
In Jesus’ day, ancient Israel was ruled first and foremost by the ancient Romans, and on a lesser level, by the religious ruling class (the priests and Pharisees).
A lot of American liberals will say it’s impossible for an American woman to be considered sexist, or for female dislike of men to be considered sexist, because men in American society hold all the power. They will say that because whites held all the power in the USA, that one cannot consider a black person’s prejudices against whites a form of racism.
Then we also get into the identity politics and hate crime laws, where liberals believe that someone should receive a harsher, or specific charge of hate, for, say, mugging someone in a certain group that they consider unprivileged.
For example, a crime that is motivated by hatred of skin color, where a white guy punches a black guy in the face, is supposed to be worse than, say, a white guy punching another white guy. A guy murdering someone who happens to be homosexual is supposed to be a hate crime, but the same act is not considered a hate crime if a homosexual or heterosexual murders a heterosexual guy.
I have never understood these positions, because, for one reason of a few, it doesn’t square with the Bible.
Jesus never once taught the Jews of his day that it’s okay for them to hate the Romans, nor did he excuse their dislike of the Romans, on the premise that the Romans held all the “privilege” or “power.”
Lesbian Upset that ObamaCare Forcing Her to Purchase Birth Control
Lesbians being forced to buy birth control, and they’re not happy about it.
This was taken from a Fox News Tweet, and the quote is from a Susan Price:
“Tune in for more stories from the first year of ObamaCare on ‘Fox News Reporting: Live Free or Die’ tonight at 8p ET.”
Related links (kind of related):
Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin
(Before I get to the link proper, here is a long introduction by me.)
I agree with this guy’s editorial (linked to farther below). I’ve written of this phenomenon before on my own blog, going back a year or maybe as long as three years ago (see links at the bottom of this post under the “Related Posts” section).
I do not like legalistic jerks. I don’t think Christians should be rude, mean, hateful jerks to other people, even when condemning certain behaviors as being sinful.
I can’t say as though I’m a whole-scale supporter of legalism’s opposite characteristics, either – which amounts to extreme leniency and “watering down of standards” in the name of Love and Tolerance.
I have seen some Christians so very afraid of hurting the feelings of Non-Christians (or even that of fellow Christians) who are in sin, or in confronting Christians who are openly supportive of behaviors the Bible condemns, they tip toe around the sin in question to an absurd degree – where they end up practically supporting, condoning, or excusing said sin (whatever it may be).
These Christians are hyper-sensitive to other people’s feelings, and it is a huge annoyance to me.
This tendency to treat other people’s feelings with kid gloves has gotten so bad in Christendom (particularly in regards to sexual sin), that some preachers have admitted they are afraid to speak out against sin in public, in their blogs, TV shows, books, or from the pulpit.
It’s also very common among Christian lay persons, or by ex-Christians or liberal Christians, who confuse God’s propensity to love and forgive with the notion that God (and Jesus Christ) are hunky-dory with behavior the Bible thoroughly condemns, such as hetero pre-marital sex or homosexual sex acts, for example.
(Transgenderism is a sexual state which has become the new liberal Christian, moderate Christian, Theology of Hurt Feelings Christian, ex-Christian, and left wing secular Sacred Cow that you may not criticize at all.)
It’s also intriguing to me that on the spiritual abuse blogs I have visited, whose owners and members champion the downtrodden (i.e., adults who have been mistreated by churches, or victims of sexual abuse whose abuse was swept under the rug by their fellow church members),
have forum or blog participants, who will, on one hand, quite understandably call for the heads of such abusive church members on a platter,
rightly call out Christians as being naive fools about abuse in churches, but – many of these same people are also very dismissive of, or blind to, abuses by Muslim militants and homosexual militants.
They are very naive of abuses by Muslims and homosexuals. They seem to have a huge blind spot in those areas.
How they can so easily spot and repudiate Christian and church bungling of spiritual and child sexual abuse, or of preachers who exploit their church members,
but fail to recognize the dangers of Muslim and homosexual militancy in American society and other regions of the world, I will never understand.
The blindness and naive nature by folks on those sorts of forums and blogs also extends to Roman Catholicism.
I have had a few Roman Catholic friends in the past, and they are fine people, but their church? No.
The Roman Catholic Church used to burn people at the stake, but one Roman Catholic individual recently thanked a (Protestant) blogger for bringing to everyone’s attention the anti-Roman Catholic commentary expressed by yet another blog (a Protestant one which was critical of perceived sinful RC behavior).
I mean, really? Some Protestant writing a critical comment about Roman Catholic behavior in general on a blog is thought somehow worse than the Roman Catholic Church in years past doing things such as:
-Covering up priest sexual abuse of children, or….
-Burning people to death for refusing to convert to Roman Catholicism, or for (Link to Wiki page): translating the Bible into English, or….
-The same Roman Catholic Church that historically has held the position that the Gospel (which includes sola fide) is anathema (to be damned)?
Off site link for more on that:
Roman Catholic Church condemns the Gospel itself
But you can’t easily point these issues of the Roman Catholic Church out at some forums or blogs – the ones who are into The Theology of Hurt Feelings – as it might offend a Roman Catholic somewhere.
The Roman Catholic Church historically persecuted a lot of people (see again: burning people to death at the stake for things like not converting to Catholicism), but criticism on the internet of their church is considered by some of them to be the height of persecution against Roman Catholics.
At any rate, I agree with the gentlemen quoted below.
There is most certainly a Theology of Hurt Feelings, where-in some Christians are so incredibly concerned with not offending various classes of sinners (e.g., hetero fornicators or active homosexuals), they think Christians speaking out publicly (on blogs, radio shows, in church services, etc) is “unloving” and therefore Christ would object to it.
The mind boggles at this. Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for hetero fornication and homosexual sex acts, among other sins of humanity.
But these “lovey dovey” types want other Christians to pipe down about all this and act as though God is totaly fine with, and accepting of, all manner of sin.
The Bible presents a God who is not only loving, forgiving, and gracious, but also one who is Holy, just, and who does not tolerate sin, he does not like sin, and he won’t put up with sin indefinitely. God is not fine and dandy with sin.
And the Bible does in fact call out hetero pre-marital sex, and all homosexual sex acts, as sin.
I suspect that this well-meaning, yet wrong-headed, tendency to want to be Very Loving, Very Accepting,
and To Spare People’s Feelings, is partially responsible for what gave rise several years ago to the ridiculous,
non-sensical, un-Biblical habit of referring to fornicators as “Born Again Virgins,” “Spiritual Virgins,” and similar monikers (see links below, this post, for more about that).
- BY ALEX MURASHKO , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER
- July 25, 2014|8:33 am
Advocates for behavior considered immoral by Christians who believe the Bible is God’s inerrant word, have successfully used the idea of “love” to affirm homoerotic behavior, to redefine marriage and family, to justify pedophilia, and as theologian and pastor James Emery White recently pointed out, to justify assisted suicide.
The problem, White writes in his blog, Church & Culture, is that the “love” described to normalize these behaviors is “not the biblical idea of love.”
Sexualizing Modesty – Christians Defeating the Purpose
Before I get to the main heart of this post, here is a long introduction.
First of all, I think the modesty debate re-enforces one Christian and secular stereotype: that only men are visually oriented, and women are not. That is, women are thought to hate sex, or not be very interested in sex, and that women prefer “emotional bonding,” knitting tea cozies, and reading poetry, to sex.
The truth is, a lot of women (even Christian ones) are visually oriented and get “turned on” by looking at a good looking man (especially if he’s in great shape and shirtless).
These modesty teachings almost never, ever take into account that women have sex drives, sexual desires, and sexual preferences – and I get so tired of that aspect of it. These modesty teachings only take into account that MEN are sexual and have sex drives and so forth.
I am really not totally on either side of this modesty debate.
Concerning this issue, like several others I regularly discuss on this blog, I’m neither fully on Team (secular or Christian) Feminist, nor am I fully on Team Conservative (or Team Christian).
My views would probably hack off people on either side of the debate, both the anti-modesty types and the pro-modesty ones.
I think both sides make some really good points on some things, but both sides also get a few things wrong.
Where I might agree with the anti-modesty guys on “point X”, I might find that the pro-modesty guys are right about “point Z.”
Where I Agree with the Pro Modesty Side
As far as the pro-modesty side is concerned, I do agree that some teen-aged girls and women dress slutty, and this is not good, right, or cool.
I’m tired of secular feminists shaming pro-modesty types and trying to intimidate them into silence by screaming “slut shamer” at them, or about them, in every other tweet or blog post.
There are some women who do in fact want to use their looks, body, or sexuality to get attention. I saw these sorts of girls and women when I was a teen, in my 20s, and older. We’ve all known them.
They’re not satisfied wearing plain old blue jeans with a normal shirt, no.
They have to wear mini-skirts with fish net stockings and stiletto heels, or daisy duke shorts with their ass cheeks barely hanging out.
There may be a minority of women who dress that way because they genuinely find such fashions cute or flattering on their figure, but you damn well know the majority are wearing such ensembles to look “hot,” and at that, because they want male attention.
Personally, I find that look -the barely dressed, or stilettos with mini skirts types of sexy looks – rather trampy, and I think most women who dress like that are in fact seeking sexual attention from males – and no, I’m not fine with that.
I don’t have to agree with other women’s choices all the time in clothing or how they choose to attract men.
- Side Note:
(Seriously, this is one odd-ball aspect I’ve seen crop up on secular feminist blogs frequently: by sheer fact that I am a woman, I am expected to always agree with other women and all their choices and political and moral views all. the. time, and to deny my own personal, political, or religious values and opinions in the process.
Yes, just because I am a woman, and they are a woman. Me supporting all other women all the time on every topic under the sun (and it seems especially true in regards to sexuality, modesty, sex, abortion, and birth control) is considered obligatory, all because I’m a woman too.
I don’t support all males all the time on every topic, so why would I be expected to support all women all the time, about everything? It makes no sense.)
Some women do in fact make a conscious choice to showcase their sexuality (e.g., by wearing tiny skirts and so forth) because their self esteem and self respect is so low, they don’t think they have anything else to offer a man, or they don’t think they have anything to offer the world but their looks, body, and sexuality.
Or, some women who dress in revealing clothing may assume 99% of men are indeed visually-oriented cave men, sexist swine, who only want “one thing” from women, and if these women are in the market to pick up a boyfriend, yes, they will don the fishnet stockings and mini-skirts.
There is a difference between Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus. There is a difference between Madonna Ciccone and Whitney Houston.
Some women do in fact choose character, talent, and/or brains to make their place in the world, to gain success, or to get attention, while other women opt to go the sexual and titillation route (which may include dressing in a provocative manner).
And we (women) all know it. We know this is true. But a lot of the anti-modesty squad I see online seems to deny this.
Or, maybe they realize it, and their argument is they feel a Miley Cyrus should be able to act or dress like a harlot in public and nobody should make any negative judgments what-so-ever about it.
I’ve seen secular feminist blogs whose writers get upset with companies who objectify women by portraying women as sexy things in advertisements, or with companies who make too much out of a woman’s looks…
But these same feminists turn around, and quite inconsistently, feel it’s okay for a woman to objectify herself – and nobody is supposed to say anything critical about it (because that would be “slut shaming”).
But to me, that is a double standard.
Where I Agree With the Anti Modesty Side
Too often, as anti-modesty advocates point out, religious “modesty teachings” or modesty propaganda, tell girls and women they ought to dress in a conservative manner so as not to cause men to stumble.
The fact is that men are responsible for their behavior. It does not matter if a woman is fully clothed or wearing a thong bikini in the presence of a man, it is up to a man to control his thoughts and actions.
Taking the Opposite Position from Neo Calvinists Just Because It’s the Opposite of Neo Calvinists
I touched on this in an earlier post or two, such as this one: (Link): No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected.
But this time, I wanted to discuss Neo Calvinism and spiritual abuse blogs and advocates in particular.
I do not support Neo Calvinism, or even old school Calvinism. I think Calvinism is a crock of crap.
Many of the NC’s (Neo Calvinists, aka YRRs), are arrogant, narrow minded jerks.
My problem with seeing NC guys, their churches, or their positions discussed and picked apart by some bloggers is that the anti NCs go into reactionary mode.
Their positions often time seem not so much well thought out in and of themselves, but that they will take a position opposite of that held by most NCs just because it’s the opposite of that held by NCs.
I do know a little bit about NCs and their theological beliefs, but not as much as their frequent critics.
According to their frequent critics, NCs believe in a literal six day creation, not an old age of the earth.
(As for me, I am NOT an NC, and I believe in a literal six day creation.)
My issue when I visit blogs or Twitter accounts by people who are vehemently anti NC is that they will, it appears to me, automatically take the opposite position on anything John Piper, The Gospel Coaltion, and other NC guys say just to be contrary.
The Christian, Liberal, and Feminist Tendency to Intellectualize Away the Meaningfulness of Female Virginity; Also: Are Engagement Rings Sexist? Liberal Vs Conservatives Sound Off
✮ From the liberal corner:
(Link): Engagement rings are barbaric
✮ The conservative reaction:
(Link): Engagement rings are barbaric because men are awful or something
✮ My reaction:
This is another time the secular, left wing feminists are off their rockers (I sometimes agree with them, usually do not and this is one of those times, no, I don’t agree). I see no harm or inherent sexism in a freaking engagement ring.
Here are excerpts from the Salon page, with commentary about it, by me, below it:
(Link): Engagement rings are barbaric
- Sparkly rocks remind us of an age when women were considered a form of chattel
by SHANNON RUPP, THE TYEE
… The engagement ring is not, as diamond advertisers of the last 80 years or so have insisted, a symbol of love: it’s a sort of down payment on a virgin vagina.
I’ve always thought giving engagement rings was a slightly unsavoury custom, given that it began in an era when women were chattel, more or less. It’s hardly romantic. The rings remind me of a time when women couldn’t own property because they were property. Well, except for widows. There’s a reason that Merry Widow of opera fame was so merry.
As Scott Fitzgerald noticed in the 1920s, the rich are different from you and me, and the custom of laying down an engagement ring was something rich people did in an era when marriage was recognized for what it really is: a business contract. It was done to secure property (and political alliances among royalty and the aristocracy) and to ensure there would be an heir and a spare to inherit it all.
That’s why female virginity was such a big deal. It had financial value because it was connected to property. Pre-DNA testing, no one could be sure who the father was unless the bride was irreproachably chaste. And no one wants to see property going to bastards. Post-delivery of the requisite sons, everyone was free to go about discreet amusements, and the country weekend at the manor house came into vogue.
… Then, engagement rings functioned as a sort of retainer — a lease-a-womb scheme, if you will. The unspoken part of the deal was that an engagement often allowed for a sampling of the goods.
… Frances Gerety (who incidentally was a spinster) cleverly connected romantic love to diamond engagement rings, forever. She obscured their creepy origins as down payments on chattel, and diamond purveyors are still profiting from her sharp thinking.
…That’s not a coincidence, and it’s not just the wedding industry ramping up. Apparently about half of couples were having premarital sex in the 1940s, and researchers believe that women were looking for some sign of commitment from a man before doing the wild thing. In an era of unreliable birth control, a ring was still seen as a down payment and a sort of insurance policy in the event the man bolted and left her holding the baby.
Since when is a woman having a “virgin vagina” or entering into marriage with one, an “unsavory custom?”
Is this another sign that secularists, left wingers, and others, are biased against adult virgins, or biased against the idea of a woman choosing to remain a virgin until marriage? Because it kind of sounds like it.
As to this:
- That’s why female virginity was such a big deal. It had financial value because it was connected to property. (etc)
This is another dismissal of virginity, another tactic I have seen used not just by secularists and left wingers, but one I’ve seen used a time or two on Christian, or ex-Christian sites, especially by women who are red hot infuriated over “modesty” and “purity” teachings.
Women who are opposed to virginity try to argue that the only reason any woman at any time in history has remained a virgin until marriage is due to patriarchal concerns about tracing the family tree, and at that, with monetary inheritance concerns.
Liberals, Border Issues, and Hypocrisy
I don’t normally tackle purely political topics on this blog, but I wanted to say something about this:
From left wing, secular feminist site Jezebel:
(Link): Colbert Perfectly Calls Out Conservatives’ Hypocrisy on Child Refugees
- by Madeleine Davies
Conservative pundits are very concerned about the well-being of child refugees who are fleeing to the U.S. borders from Central America in droves right now.
Why, they say, will no one think of the children during these times of crisis? At least the heroes of the right are considering these poor kids…mostly by clamoring for their deportation and complaining about the cost of their barely humane treatment while on U.S. soil.
Hmm, okay, but…
Most left wingers are rabidly pro-abortion. I will return to this in a moment.
So. Left wingers think the American tax payer should take in, pick up the tab for, and care for, all foreign children who cross the American border illegally, and they have the audacity to represent the natural, perfectly understandable tendency of most Americans, including conservatives, to disagree with this as being hypocrisy.
However they themselves, who believe the government (U.S. tax payer) should buy sandwiches for these kids, are fine with with unborn, American children being slaughtered in the womb via legalized abortion. (Some of them are fine with this even up to the third tri-mester.)
Liberals hate American, unborn babies who are still in the womb and don’t want to protect them, but think Uncle Sam should shower love, money, and protection on the children of other nations who arrive in our nation illegally?
Liberals on Paranoia: Right Wing Concern is Simply Paranoia and Hence Supposed Evidence of Conservative Lunacy but Same Behavior Totally Acceptable and Non Loony from Liberals
According to liberals, it’s downright nutty and loony when Christians, social conservatives or right wingers express concern at over-reach by liberals, courts, or the government, or what have you, but it’s not any of those pejorative things when expressed by a left wing person, group, politician, or organization.
Hmm. Let me give you a couple of recent examples.
Right Wing Watch, which is a left wing site, likes to mock conservatives or Christians over homosexual militants – our nation’s very own Gay Gestapo – by tweeting things such as:
- Matt Barber: gay rights advocates are like a “horde of locusts” that seeks to “homosexualize” kids http://bit.ly/1o0duWD ( source)
Obviously, Right Wing Watch feels that homosexual rights proponents are not the least bit like a “horde of locusts” and that it’s craziness to suggest that they are, dog gone it!
Here’s another liberal example:
- Right Wing Watch @RightWingWatch · 6h
- Matt Barber and Mat Staver agree that gay marriage is “the brainchild” of Satan himself & the bidding of the Devil: http://bit.ly/TwyPgA (source)
Here’s another example from July 2014:
(Link): Internet Conservatives Flip Out Over Imaginary Immigrant Invasion
The RWW (Right Wing Watch) url in that second tweet will take you to this page at RWW:
Here is an excerpt from that RWW page:
- On today’s “Faith and Freedom” radio broadcast, Mat Staver and Matt Barber cited recent remarks made by Pope Francis about how “the Devil wants to destroy” the family in order to declare that gay marriage is “the brainchild” of Satan himself.
- “Marriage is the cornerstone institution of any healthy society,” Barber asserted, “and so clearly the Father of Lies, the Enemy of the World hates marriage…
I happen to be right wing, and a social conservative who does not agree with homosexuality, and I have a special loathing for the very homosexual militancy that RWW feels is simply a figment of the right wingers’ imagination, but I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say homosexuality is the “brainchild of Satan.”
The Bible, in the book of Romans (Romans 1:21-27), in regards to homosexuality, lesbianism, and other forms of non-hetero sexuality does not attribute these things to Satan but says:
- 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
- 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
- 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
- 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
- 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
- 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Further, if you’ve read this blog for any time at all, you know that although I am not “anti family” that I never- the- less feel that Christians and my fellow conservatives wrongly place too much emphasis on family, marriage, and natalism.
Another RWW tweet (source):
- Will corporations soon cite biblical objections to minimum wage, collective bargaining and tax laws? http://bit.ly/1kSpMDI #HobbyLobby
Clearly, some liberals believe in a “slippery slope,” and think today’s ruling means that right wingers, or Christians, will try to tinker with minimum wage laws and other issues on the basis of their religious convictions.
Liberals (Link): banned large sodas in New York at one time, but I guess they think “nanny stating” is nothing to be concerned about – or, they don’t mind secular over-reach but panic only over religious-based motivations.
This is another liberal editorial, this one on the recent ruling involving Hobby Lobby, and shows some panic over what today’s ruling might mean in the future:
(Link): In Hobby Lobby Ruling, a Court So Wrong in So Many Ways by Sally Kohn
Here are a few excerpts:
- Reliance on junk science, backwards ideas about religious freedom—it’s all there in the conservative majority’s awful Hobby Lobby ruling.
- … The owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cannot be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.
- But it’s the conflation of these points that is truly frightening: the idea that in continuing to give corporations more and more unchecked power and reign, we are giving them the power of religious tyranny — the ability to wantonly and unilaterally impose religion as they see fit on their workers and perhaps more.
- Under such a ruling, it’s not far-fetched to imagine companies (genuinely or disingenuously) claiming religious exemptions in refusing to serve gay customers or denying health insurance coverage to the multi-racial child of an employee.
- In fact, what would stop companies from saying that their religion makes them opposed to taxes or obeying pollution regulations or you name it? Just what we need in America, more corporations with more excuses to not play by the same rules that ordinary Americans have to obey.
- But in its rulings, this Court repeatedly gives more power to the interests of already-powerful corporations than the needs of the American people.
So, there we have some double standards on display.
If right wingers show concern over the homosexual militants and their allies, who are in the nasty habit of abusing or steamrolling over people, in their quest to cram homosexuality down everyone’s throats (ie, harassing people over it, suing people, getting them fired), see, for instance,
– there’s absolutely nothing to be concerned about, but, when the Supreme Court rules that a Christian-owned business does not have to fund all forms of contraception, oh noes, look out, Christians will be sending women into forced labor camps next, or to the electric chair!1111!!!!
But such concern is not loony paranoia when expressed by the left, according to the left against the right, no, it’s only indicative of nuttiness when expressed by the right. See the double standard there?
(Link): The left loses their minds over Hobby Lobby decision BY NOAH ROTHMAN
- “Just because it was only restricted to women’s health access doesn’t mean that it doesn’t create a devastating precedent which says that women’s health care should be treated differently,” Carmon [journalist with left wing MSNBC.com] added. She added that the Republican Party is the biggest beneficiary of today’s ruling. “So, the context of this is an all-out assault on access to contraception and access to other reproductive health care services.”
- HotAir’s Karl has accumulated some of the best examples of liberal “schadenfreude,” as he’s dubbed it, in which the left utterly and intentionally misconstrues the scope of this ruling. Incidentally, their reaction also helps to service what appears to be a widely shared victimhood fantasy.
- We’ve seen indications that the left believes this decision is a prelude to theocracy [what follows are tweets]:
— start Tweets —–
✔ @JohnFugelsang (source)
The Supreme Court #HobbyLobby ruling proves once again that Scalia Law is a lot like Sharia Law.
southpaw @nycsouthpaw (source)
“So as not to insult Allah, this accounting firm requires that all female employees wear the hijab.”
—- end Tweets —-
We’ve seen liberal journalists and commentators rending garments over the implications of this ruling which exist only in their own minds:
— start Tweets —-
Brian Beutler ✔ @brianbeutler (source)
This isn’t a win for religious liberty it’s an affirmation of privilege for advocates of conservative sexual morality http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrYmQ7bCcAAu9K1.png#twimg …
Jimmy williams @Jimmyspolitics
What Hobby Lobby means is there are now two separate classes of women in America: those who work for privately-owned corps and everyone else
Jim Acosta ✔ @JimAcostaCNN
Pelosi on Hobby Lobby: “Supreme Court took an outrageous step against the rights of America’s women”
Elizabeth Warren ✔ @elizabethforma
Can’t believe we live in a world where we’d even consider letting big corps deny women access to basic care based on vague moral objections.
— end Tweets—
It’s pretty rich of liberals to depict Christians and conservatives as being paranoid nutters over some issues, when they themselves do the same thing on other issues.
Additional material (off site links):
- The left has been… animated in their objections to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case which declared the mandate in the Affordable Care Act which forced employers to provide employees with abortifacients drugs over their religious objections to be unconstitutional.
- In spite of what many have characterized as the narrow and tailored ruling by the Court, some political and legal observers have determined that the ruling is a step toward the legalization of discrimination.
- One of the more creative arguments in this direction was submitted by NPR’s legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg. On Monday, she suggested that the Court has created a legal pathway for employers to discriminate against their employees on the basis of race, sexual orientation, and even national origin.
October 2014 edit. —EBOLA—
Now I would add the ebola outbreak to the list. It seems to me that many left wingers have been saying ebola is not a serious threat to the USA, while it’s mainly been conservatives calling the alarm and asking the Government to halt all commercial flights from ebola stricken nations.
Your U.S. liberals get up in arms about this, and insist that right wingers are being paranoid and over-hyping ebola’s threat to Americans.
Meanwhile, the ebola situation continually gets worse, as I’ve been keeping tracking of in (Link): this post (at the bottom, under the section entitled “UPDATE”), so it’s not unwarranted or nutty or paranoid for American conservatives to express concern at the situation.
Related posts, this blog:
(Link): So According to Some Feminists Believing in Female Equality Means Supporting All Actions and Behaviors by All Females Ever – Even their Pubic Hair Photos and Bloody Vagina T Shirt Designs? What?
Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or “Not All” Rhetoric
If you are new to this blog, I possibly need to remind you that I am socially conservative, right wing, and a Republican.
(Edit, Sept 2016. My views have shifted somewhat in the last couple of years, since I last wrote this post. I am still right wing but more moderate now.)
Although I do criticize my fellow right wingers, as well as Christians, time and again on this site over some subjects, I am not liberal, progressive, Democratic, left wing, nor am I pro-choice or pro-homosexuality.
I do not despise the notions of, belief in, or practice of, moral absolutes, Christianity, the nuclear family, traditional marriage, sexual purity, Christians, the Bible, or a literal biblical hermeneutic.
(However, I do not always agree with other conservatives about topics, or how to handle those topics.)
If you’re feeling very confused or duped at this point, as in, “Hey, I’ve been visiting this blog for months now, or I followed you on Twitter, and I thought you are liberal, and that you hate conservatives and Christianity like I do?!”
No, you have misunderstood me or my positions.
Just because I am sometimes critical of Christians, or how Christians and conservatives sometimes pontificate about certain matters, does not mean I am against either one or that I am automatically a liberal who supports abortion, Democrats, Obama, or homosexuality.
You might want to see this blog’s “About” page for more about my views. I tend to criticize other right wingers more so than left wingers on this blog, but this is one of those posts where I have to criticize the left.
Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or “Not All” Rhetoric
Secular feminists hate men who interject into feminist conversations online – or in real life – about sexism and rape apologia to say, “But not all men are like that; I am not.”
Feminists are annoyed over this common behavior to the point they started using the “#NotAllMen” hash tag on Twitter and blogs.
If you’re not familiar with the history of, or the bruhaha over, the “Not All Men” phenomenon, you can read more about it on Time magazine’s site here:
(Link): Not All Men: A Brief History of Every Dude’s Favorite Argument, by Jess Zimmerman.
(Edit. Since I wrote this post, I read one source that says that it was men who started use of the “#NotAllMen” hash to counter balance the feminist “#YesAllWomen” hash, but by the time I started seeing “#NotAllMen” it was being used by feminists against sexist men.)
Not too long ago, in a conversation in the comments on a left wing site under an article criticizing a famous conservative journalist’s position about something related to sexism, I pointed out that not all conservatives and Republicans see eye- to- eye on every issue, so please don’t assume that one journalist’s views on that one issue are indicative of all conservatives – as the author of the article I was commenting on seemed to imply.
I also pointed out in that same post that I myself, who am a conservative Republican, did not totally support conservatives on the particular topic under discussion, and some rude, liberal, Democratic jackass at that site gave me a sarcastic comment and dismissed my view by sarcastically using the “#Not All Conservatives” hash.
(Among other snarky commentary from that person. This person was truly being an assh-le for no good reason.
I said nothing to that point to provoke snarky, condescending remarks from anyone.
After that person was rude to me, and only afterwards, did I tell her she was rude and could kiss my ass, but prior to that, before her rudeness, I was being polite.)
On the one hand, I can certainly understand why, for example, women may find it rude or annoying when their feminist conversation about male privilege or sexism gets interrupted by some man interjecting to say, “But I am a man, and I respect women” because that can seem to diminish the experiences of sexism by women who are discussing the topic.
On the other hand, nobody likes seeing a group they are a member of, or sympathetic to, being generalized unfairly, or painted with a broad-brush.
Liberals are often hypocritical on this point. And they are also terribly blinded to their hypocrisy.
#NOT ALL MUSLIMS
For example, any time a conservative points out that quite a number of Muslims are terribly sexist against women (e.g., honor killings of female rape victims, extreme modesty teaching which blames women for male sexual crimes or male misbehavior, the practice of female genital mutilation, forced marriages of young girls to old men – are all common beliefs or practices in Islamic communities)-
Or, when conservatives make the true observation that most terrorism in the world today is carried out by Muslims (enjoy this site, or this one (*and see a few more links at the bottom of this post)), your left wingers will quickly exclaim,
“But not all Muslims are like that! I’ve even known some Muslims personally, and they are very nice people.”
Hence, we see #Not All Muslims at play by left wingers in conversations about terrorism. Often.
#NOT ALL ATHEISTS
When I have visited theologically liberal or ex- Christian sites, which are sometimes populated by self-professing atheists (who usually claim to be former Christians), they get angry when Christians point to news stories of atheists who get arrested for murder, or rape, or what have you.
Immediately, the atheists, or theologically liberal Christians, start saying (this one seems to comes up on Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook group about once a week it seems, eg. in (Link): this discussion),
“How long until conservative Christians point to this news story of this atheist murdering this child as proof that all atheists are unethical, murdering slugs? Don’t they know that not all atheists are killers or child molesters?”
Yes, I sometimes see anti-Christian atheists bring out the “#NotAllAtheist” commentary.
However, many times, these same atheists like to bring up the Christian “#Not All Christian” habit of saying, “Maybe the preacher arrested for child rape was not a ‘real’ Christian,” by mentioning the “No True Scotsman” fallacy (you can read more about that here or here).
You can see examples of Non-Christians complaining about the alleged Christian use of “No True Scotsman” (Link): here (link is to SCCL Facebook group page, a group which runs from theologically liberal to atheistic).
Let us review.
Some atheists get angry at Christians who assume all, or most atheists, are immoral scum balls, but atheists do not mind assuming these things are true of all Christians.
Atheists detest the #NotAllChristians tactic by Christians, vis a vis the “No True Scotsman” stance, but atheists don’t hesitate to scream #NotAllAtheists in similar contexts.
Oh, I see. We want to make exceptions for our side but not the other side; how convenient.
We want to be angry atheists snarking on Christians all day long and pointing out Christian flaws, but Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid if Christians mention crimes or misbehavior by atheists! Talk about a double standard.
NO TRUE SCOTSMAN
I hate to disappoint the die-hard, irrational, frothing- at- the mouth variety of atheists out there (and many of you are indeed irrational – your hatred for God and Christians is based on emotion or personal dislike of Christians, not due to intellect or dispassionate reason as is often claimed), the “No Scotsman Fallacy” does not totally apply to Christianity to start with.
Jesus Christ himself taught that not all who consider themselves Christians are in fact actual, real, genuine followers of his, even if they do claim to be so.
#NOT ALL HOMOSEXUALS
I’ve noticed that any time crimes or bigotry by homosexuals against heterosexuals, other homosexuals, or other groups, are brought up on blogs or news sites, especially on forums or blogs that tend to have a large segment of left wingers, most of the left wingers are quick to jump in with the “not all homosexuals” argumentation.
One case in point was a recent letter to the “Ask Amy” advice columnist.
Here is a link to the letter:
(Link): Mom worries about gym teacher in locker room
Here is the letter:
- My seventh-grade daughter’s female gym teacher is openly gay. None of the parents or kids has a problem with this.
The issue is that she observes the girls changing into and out of their gym clothes, and my daughter and many of her peers feel very uncomfortable having a lesbian watch them walk around in their underwear.
I’m afraid to say anything because I worry that my daughter will be given a “special area” to change, and it will make her feel awkward.
I understand that seventh-graders need supervision in the locker room, but it seems to me the school should know that it may not be appropriate to have a lesbian in the locker room with young girls!
By the way, the teacher has never behaved unprofessionally — nor is anyone worried that she might — it is simply an issue of discomfort.
What’s the right answer that respects everyone involved? — Concerned Mom
Here is part of Amy’s reply:
- …You might start this conversation by letting your daughter know that there is a likelihood some of her fellow students at school or on sports teams are also lesbians, and that in this environment, along with trusting her instincts, she also has to trust other people (gay and straight) to have integrity.
You seem to think that because this teacher is a lesbian, she may also be attracted to — or be an unhealthy presence — for girls.
Judging by the preponderance of recent alarming news reports of improper sexual relationships between teachers and students, a student is much more likely to be hit on by a heterosexual teacher than a gay one.
— (end Amy letter)—
First of all, notice that Amy’s tact here is pretty much a “Not All Homosexuals” argument. She even goes further to use a “Most All Heteros” argument.
Amy is telling the mother who wrote the letter not to assume that just because a female gym teacher is lesbian that this necessarily means that the teacher is viewing the students in a sexual manner or will “hit” on them.
That may very well be true, but note the “Not All Lesbians” rhetoric is being employed in the first place.
When I visited sites that published copies of this letter and had a comment section, I noted that many of the commentators left statements to the effect of “the gym teacher’s sexual preference should not be an issue, as not all homosexuals prey on children.”
It was remarkable how often the “Not All Homosexuals” cliche’ kept popping up under this particular “Ask Amy” letter and previous ones like it, that mentioned homosexual people.
Secondly, per Amy’s comment that
- “Judging by the preponderance of recent alarming news reports of improper sexual relationships between teachers and students, a student is much more likely to be hit on by a heterosexual teacher than a gay one”
there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals in American culture, so it would mathematically figure that there are more hetero predators than homosexual ones, based on “counting noses” of sexual offenders alone.
However, based on various studies I have seen over the past ten or more years, there is a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of pedophiles among homosexuals than heteros.
No Longer Unashamed – editorial critiquing the problems with the Anti Slut Shaming or No Shaming Ever rhetoric
The online magazine “Christianity Today” is a little behind the times. I’ve been blogging about the problems with anti-shaming regarding sexual sin for over a year now (see the links at the bottom of this post for some of my previous posts on this topic).
(Link): No Longer Unashamed
- Certain shame can push us to repentance and our God of grace.
In the age of of cyber-bullying, we see deplorable instances of public shaming to rival Hester Prynne’s scarlet letter. Yet, simultaneously, we are in the midst of what psychotherapist Joseph Burgo calls an (Link): “anti-shame zeitgeist.” Just as it’s become common to deride all who disagree with us with the epithet “haters,” it’s now popular to label those with any deeply held moral conviction as “shamers.”
The en vogue phrase “slut-shaming,” which is sometimes used to rightly discourage victim-blaming, is often wielded as a bludgeon to silence anyone who questions a woman’s sexual choices. I first heard the phrase less than a year ago, when bloggers at New Wave Feminists were chastised as “slut-shamers” for their opposition to abortion.
Increasingly, we dismiss experiencing shame for any reason as a bad thing, something we shouldn’t feel, something that’s probably someone else’s fault.
…If we seek to smother any ember of shame or stamp out moral disagreement, will we douse our ability to experience true moral conviction and culpability? Perhaps at times, our experiences of shame are a natural, needed (if not inevitable) response to the reality of sin.
…And although there can be intelligent disagreement about what beliefs, attitudes, and choices should and should not warrant shame, to begin that discussion, we have to stop understanding shame as merely a boogeyman to run from. And we cannot reject any moral stance that might cause another person to experience shame as, therefore, intrinsically wrong, oppressive, or untrue.
Some Christians try to mitigate shame by relaxing or ignoring biblical standards—there’s no reason to feel shame since nothing is all that wrong. The theological term for this lax permissiveness is “antinomianism.” Others turn to moralism and try to become spiritually perfect enough to avoid feeling shame. We work hard to keep our own sin managed and hidden while shaming others for theirs.
… The women in my group never made excuses for me. They never justified my sin or told me that it was understandable or not so bad. But they responded lovingly and gently. They prayed that I’d know I was entirely forgiven and accepted by God.
((( click here to read the rest )))
Related posts, this blog:
(Link): Stop Rewarding People For Their Failure – Christians Speaking Out of Both Sides of Their Mouths About Sexual Sin – Choices and Actions and How You Teach This Stuff Has Consequences – Allowing Sinners To Re-Define Biblical Terms and Standards
(Link): Slut Shaming and Virgin Shaming and Secular and Christian Culture – Dirty Water / Used Chewing Gum and the CDC’s Warnings – I guess the CDC is a bunch of slut shamers ?
Related post, off site:
Four myths about sex and women that prop up the new misogyny
Some of the the myths the author describes in this are some of the same ones spread by conservative Christians.
- Sorry, would-be pickup artists. There is no such thing as a “friend zone”
by AMANDA MARCOTTE, ALTERNET
This article originally appeared on AlterNet.
Trading in myths and misinformation is the bread and butter of any reactionary movement, as is amply demonstrated by the various myths that prop up everything from gun nuttery to the anti-choice movement.
Unsurprisingly, then, there’s a great deal of misinformation upholding the troubling trend of new misogyny that festers in everything from “men’s rights” forums to “pick-up artist” communities to the various rape apologists and two-bit woman haters that litter the right wing media landscape
[Note from this blogger: the left wing also has woman-haters among them. Some of them have done things like made “rape jokes” against conservative, right wing, female politicians, such as Sarah Palin. Funny how liberal writers usually fail to acknowledge the sexism inherent in the LEFT WING].
The tragic shooting in Isla Vista, which was committed by a young but hardened misogynist named Elliot Rodger, has shown a spotlight on this weird but influential world where ugly myths about gender and sexuality flourish.
Here are some of those myths, some of which influenced Rodger, and why they are so very, very wrong.
1. Evoutionary psychology nonsense.
While the more mainstream conservative movement embraces a religious form of misogyny, the new misogyny often prefers to pretend to have a “scientific” rationale for its negative attitudes towards women.
Anti-feminist writer James Taranto, who is not a scientist, distilled this theory in the Wall Street Journal, positing that evolution made men and women’s sexual desires complete opposites, with men trying to get away with sex with as many women as possible and women being “hypergamous,” which is the new pseudo-scientific word for “gold digger.”
His sole evidence for this theory was a long-discredited 1989 study that showed that men were more quick to say yes to sex with a stranger.
None of them have stopped pushing the belief that women are disinterested in sex itself, (Link): but only use it as a commodity to trade with “high status” men, since pushing this belief allows self-appointed “pick-up artists” to sell dating books and classes to men who want to learn to fake being “high status” to get more sex.
Nor do they stop pushing the idea that men are more promiscuous than women, a self-serving myth that allows them to demand chastity in female partners while excusing their own sexual dalliance.
In reality, men and women have roughly the same number of sexual partners over a lifetime.
Both sexes are interested in casual sex, but men more readily agree because they both feel less likely to be violently assaulted by a stranger and are more likely to expect the encounter to end in orgasm. Nor are women programmed to be gold diggers.
As women’s ability to make their own money has increased, there has been a decline in women seeking richer husbands. Women aren’t preprogrammed to be gold diggers, because the second they’re freed from having to chase rich men, most are happy to date men more like themselves.
George Will: Being a victim of sexual assault is a “coveted status that confers privileges” (a rebuttal)
I am right wing, a conservative, but sometimes, I realize other conservatives get things wrong, oh so very wrong. This is one of those times.
I do think that, at times, liberals are guilty of hyping certain situations or instilling a ‘victim mentality’ in people, but not in the case of sexual assault, of rape. Will is way off base with his editorial.
The following is from a site that tilts left, but this editorial criticizing Will’s views is right on the money:
- The Washington Post columnist thinks women are lying about sexual assault in order to get “privileges”
Washington Post columnist George Will doesn’t believe the statistic that (Link): one in five women is sexually assaulted while in college. Instead he believes that liberals, feminists and other nefarious forces have conspired to turn being a rape survivor into a (Link): “coveted status that confers privileges.”
As a result of this plot, “victims proliferate,” Will wrote in a weekend editorial that ran in the Washington Post and New York Post.
Further compounding the crisis of people coming forward about sexual assault to stay de rigueur is the fact that “capacious” definitions of sexual assault include forcible sexual penetration and nonconsensual sexual touching.
Which is really very outrageous, according to Will. It is really very hard to understand why having your breasts or other parts of your body touched against your will should be frowned upon.
It’s not very surprising that George Will does not think that sexual assault on campus is a big deal. It’s also not very surprising that he thinks that definitions of sexual violence are somehow overly broad because they factor in forms of sexual contact other than penetration.
But what is puzzling — about this editorial and the army of nearly identical pieces of rape apologia that find a way into national newspapers with some regularity — is how much one has to ignore in order to argue these points.
‘Check Your Privilege’ Means ‘Shut Your Mouth’
- What he actually said isn’t that hard to fathom, because he announced his target in his very first sentence: the use of the phrase “check your privilege” to “strike down opinions without regard for their merits, but rather solely on the basis of the person that voiced them.”
It’s perfectly reasonable to ask someone to consider whether their arguments or observations reflect the biases of privilege. Perhaps an upper-middle-class white man’s claim about the hardships of poverty or the prevalence of racial discrimination reflects a lack of experience of those things, for example.
But all of us need to ask ourselves whether our views are skewed, regardless of how privileged we are, because there are many possible sources of bias.
Fortgang is quite right to complain that being obsessively on the lookout for white male heterosexual bias can obscure more than it reveals, in part by ignoring how much heterosexual white men can differ.
In any case, Fortgang didn’t complain about being asked to reflect on the incompleteness of his worldview. He complained about the dismissal of opinions based on who was uttering them.
(Link): So According to Some Feminists Believing in Female Equality Means Supporting All Actions and Behaviors by All Females Ever – Even their Pubic Hair Photos and Bloody Vagina T Shirt Designs? What?
Warning: This Column Will Offend You by M. Moynihan (Re: Trigger Warnings Before Written Material, Terms such as “slut shaming,” “man-splain,” etc)
- Should students be warned that reading The Great Gatsby might “trigger” a past trauma? The campus censors think so. But they are only protecting your feelings.
It’s with a twinge of nostalgia that I recall all those incredulous faces. Sometime in the 1990s, I suggested to a group of college friends that it wasn’t exactly right to brand Ian Fleming a hopeless sexist (his deeply held dislike of America, all agreed, was a more agreeable phobia).
This note of dissidence was interrupted by the sound of jaws shattering as they hit the floor, a crescendo of denunciations, and a few dramatic walkouts.
One of those who remained said, with a jabbing finger, that mine was the argument of someone “unaware of his gender privilege.”
It was almost inevitable, regardless of one’s personal politics, to find oneself — with bowed head, like an undergraduate Rubashov—accused of trespassing some previously unknown frontier of offense.
I would soon learn never to object to the charge of privilege: it’s a phantom, something one possesses and abuses without knowing it. And like denying your alcoholism, a denial doubles as an acknowledgement that you’re afflicted with the disease.
Floating in the fog of privilege, all sorts of voguish developments in language control bypassed me.
But through the daily horror of Twitter, where these concepts are released into the non-academic world, I’ve been exposed to all the latest phrases doubling as argument, like the various prefixes affixed to “shaming” and “‘splaining” (the latter so rendered, I assumed, in homage to Desi Arnaz, before realizing this was a vulgar indulgence of Cuban stereotypes).
“Shaming” and “‘splaining” are fluidly defined verbs, though it seems an admonition to people with my biography (boring white guys) that they engage in conversation about race or gender in particular ways, with particular conclusions—and only when speaking to particular people.
Thus, there is the scourge of “slut shaming,” which one can be accused of, for instance, when questioning whether the so-called Duke porn star is indeed “liberated” when shooting videos for defaceherface.com.
And there’s the promiscuous use of “mansplaining,” defined by a fusty man at The New York Times as a condescending chappie “compelled to explain or give an opinion about everything — especially to a woman.”
This midwived the now ubiquitous “whitesplaining,” best demonstrated (Link): in this Atlantic.com polemic upbraiding a member of the indie band The Black Lips for having opinions about—whitesplaining — hip-hop music. Not in a racist way, mind you. It’s just none of his cultural business.
These faddish portmanteaus suffer from overuse, but one can at least see the point: They are polemical words, more pointed and ideological than what we used to call know-it-all-ism and sexist condescension.
Being so behind the times, I only just discovered the neutron bomb of censoriousness masquerading as concern: the “trigger warning.”
This is, roughly, a label that would accompany an article, film, song, book, or piece of art warning potential viewers that the content might make them upset or uncomfortable (often the point of art) and thus trigger memories of a traumatic event.
Why People Rationalize Sexual Sin – You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours
This was an interesting interview by Janet Mefferd with Robert Reilly,
(Link): Hour 3- Robert Reilly discusses his book “Making Gay Okay.”
Reilly unfortunately does get into the perspective that heterosexuality is so necessary and awesome because it is the basis for families, with families supposedly being the basis for society – a view that I don’t totally agree with, see: (Link): Family as “The” Backbone of Society? – It’s Not In The Bible
Other than that, I pretty much agree with what all else Reilly had to say.
The points Reilly raises brings to mind a point I too recognized years ago but never thought to blog about before.
Reilly starts out mentioning that not only do homosexuals rationalize homosexuality, but later he also gets into how heterosexuals have also been helping to rationalize homosexuality.
Around the 10.25 mark, Reilly tells Mefferd in the interview (link above) that one reason a lot of heterosexual people are jumping up to defend homosexuality now is that they don’t want anyone judging their (hetero) sexual sin (such as adultery or pre-marital sex).
Confusing Sexual Assault and Sexual Abuse with Consensual Sex and Then Condemning Sexual Purity Teachings – and other, related topics
- A lot of Christians (usually theologically and politically liberal or moderate) and Non-Christians think that because Christian sexual purity teachings (which includes the teaching that having pre-marital sex is sinful) causes victims of sexual abuse to feel sad, ashamed, or bad, that Christians should drop biblical sexual teachings altogether, or stop insisting that pre martial sex is sinful. I disagree.
While I am sympathetic to victims of sexual abuse, the Bible none – the – less still teaches that CONSENSUAL sexual activity outside of marriage remains immoral.
I was skimming over the “Stuff Christian Culture Likes” facebook group today, where I saw a link there to this discussion on Reddit:
How Christian Purity Culture Enabled My Father’s Abuse, submitted by J__P (aka King Coupons?)
Here are some excerpts from that page:
- [by JP / King Coupons]
So, as the daughters [of the self professing Christian men] were kept inside, while the sons worked, the fathers pushed the men with the motivation that one day they’d get to have their daughters, as if that was the only proper motivation.
I later learned, in college, after I’d already abandoned my faith in God, that this man had regularly abused his daughters, both physically and sexually.
They were still virgins, though, of course, by the technical standards of the Southern Baptist church.
Even though he abused them, he’d never “taken their virtue.”
I even found out that, on the few occasions I had been to their house, I had managed to visit both just after he’d abused them, and just before. That was the man I was supposed to look up to. He was the godly, masculine influence in my life.
This comes up repeatedly on liberal, emergent, and ex-Christian forums and blogs: throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
That is, because some self-professing Christians do not, have not, or will not live out biblical ethics that they parrot the rest of the week, this is taken to mean by the liberal Christians, ex Christians, and emergents (and amazingly, even some conservatives these days), that those biblical ethics can, or should, be ignored by everyone all the time.
I just recently left a post addressing this topic at Sarah Moon’s blog,
In that post, sexual abuse was discussed and mixed in with sexual purity.
Here are some excerpts from the page by Clark at Sarah Moon’s blog, with some of Moon’s comments in the mix:
- [Content Note: Sexual and Spiritual Abuse]
[My understanding is that these are comments by Moon:]
When I was 16, I dated an abuser who was constantly coercing me into having sex with him.
I had been raised in fundamentalist purity culture, so I thought of sex as something gross and scary.
My boyfriend at the time tried to combat those feelings by sending me on guilt trips and by holding me to his manipulative, subjective standards of “responsibility.”
…Yes, I had a lot of hang-ups about sex because the the culture I’d grown up in, and it was liberating and healthy for me to learn later in life that my sexuality could be a good thing.
But the fact that purity culture hindered my acceptance of my sexuality does not excuse the way this person treated me for over a year.
Being in a relationship like this was a horrible process. I constantly felt guilty for not having sex, and then guilty for having sex.
Even when I consented to sexual activity, I felt violated.
I never felt like I really had a choice in the matter. I thought it was my responsibility to have sex with him, or I felt afraid of what might happen if I didn’t. I felt trapped, like I didn’t belong to myself and was no longer a person.
… If you don’t think it is okay to coerce a woman into sex before marriage, but feel that people have the right to coerce married women into having sex with their spouses, I want you to stop and think about why.
…Clark states that “[f]or the longest time…a marital rape culture existed. Just awful.”
I’m sorry to say, that marital rape culture still exists, and Clark’s words serve to reinforce it.
That this person’s boyfriend was an abusive jerk who wrapped his jerk-holery up in “purity” talk does not mean sexual purity teachings themselves are bogus.
This is part and parcel of the (Link): Genetic Fallacy, by the way.
If serial killer Ted Bundy were alive today, and if he were to tell you that murder is morally wrong, would you disagree with him and claim the opposite because of the source?
Would you say, “Nah, murdering people is fine! I’m not going to listen to you, because you have murdered people before, you hypocrite.”
I doubt that this person’s boyfriend was even a Christian to start with.
Before you trot out the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, bear this in mind:
Jesus Christ and Apostle Paul warn in the Bible that not all who claim Christ are actual followers, but are in fact, wolves in sheeps’ clothing who you need to either steer clear of or rebuke
- (see for example
- – I could list several other verses, but you get the idea).
Quoting Christ (from Matthew 7:21-23):
- “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’
And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
I am semi-agnostic these days myself, after having been a Christian since my childhood, which makes it a little easier for me to stand apart from Christianity now and assess some of its flaws, or rather, how self-professing Christians are mishandling the faith.
But then, I can also call Christian-critics on the carpet a bit easier, too.
Sometimes the people who criticize particular Christians, or how certain teachings are presented by Christians, are absolutely “right on the money,” but sometimes, their criticisms are a huge crock or are inaccurate.
And in this group I include all of them; full blown agnostics, hard core atheists, luke warm atheists, feminist Christians, liberal Christians, and emergents.
When you’re not in any one, particular camp any longer, it becomes ten times easier to spot all the fallacies and biases from all sides.
Returning to Moon’s view that a rape culture exists – I guess she means in Christian marriages, and she mentions this because Clark raised this point first?
I am unaware of mainstream, every day, Baptist or other conservative Christians, who believe a man has the right to rape his wife or that he should. The Bible certainly does not contain such a teaching, that’s for sure.
Christians Selling Out Hetero Celibacy By Defending Homosexual Behavior – Re: Jars of Clay Controversy
I forget exactly where I first saw this on Twitter, but here it is:
(Link): Gay Marriage What Does God Say Not Jars of Clay by Shane Idleman
I don’t like to post solely about homosexuality on my blog. Some of the only times I blog about the topic is how it reflects upon, or intersects with, issues pertaining to hetero celibacy, or how Christians today are dealing with discussing sexual sin.
As I’ve pointed out previously on this blog the last couple years, the vast majority of Christians – not just Non-Christians, but conservative Christians now – are now attacking sexual purity, celibacy, and virginity.
Some of them do this on the basis that teaching about those topics causes fornicators, that is, those who willingly had sex before marriage, to feel guilty, offended, or ashamed.
This page by Idleman points out that some of the same strategies being used to excuse or downplay heterosexual sex sins are also being used to excuse, condone, or downplay homosexual sexual sins.
Here are some excerpts:
- Gay Marriage What Does God Say Not Jars of Clay by Shane Idleman
Dan Haseltine (singer for Jars of Clay) used Twitter recently to support gay-marriage; stating,
- “Because most people read and interpret scripture wrong. I don’t think scripture ‘clearly’ states much of anything regarding morality.”
Many say that we cannot take a position on homosexuality because all positions will hurt someone.
Here’s my question: “Are those who defend homosexuality, or who say nothing, truly loving the homosexual, or are they simply seeking to avoid conflict?” If they are more worried about being liked than being truthful, do they really care for homosexuals more than the person who is willing to risk their reputation, and quite possibly their safety, in order to speak the truth in love?