Tinder, Dating and Sex in Saudi Arabia — where Love is a ‘Sin.’

(Link): Tinder, Dating and Sex in Saudi Arabia — where Love is a ‘Sin.’

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — The course of true love never did run smooth. While applicable the world over, Shakespeare’s words are particularly true in swiftly changing Saudi Arabia.

Long forbidden, dating has arrived in the ultra-conservative Gulf kingdom with some Saudis meeting and marrying without the help of relatives. Well-heeled millennials meet via Tinder, Snapchat, Twitter and Instagram.

Continue reading “Tinder, Dating and Sex in Saudi Arabia — where Love is a ‘Sin.’”

Liberal Native Americans, Racism, Identity Politics, Cultural Appropriation, and the Irish

Liberal Native Americans, Racism, Identity Politics, Cultural Appropriation, and the Irish

Edit 3. My take away after being Tweeted at by people claiming to be Native Americans on Twitter is if you don’t agree with them on political matters (such as “cultural appropriation,” which is, yes, these days, closely aligned to an American liberal cause, not a “Native” one), they will accuse you of lying about your Native American ancestry.

In their world, you cannot be a conservative or right winger with Native American ancestry who disagrees with left wing talking points – only folks claiming Native ancestry who agree with liberals can be considered truly Native American. Good lord, this is pathetic.


I saw a news account (such as CNN or Time magazine) tweet an article about a Native American woman who was shamed and scolded by liberals for having worn a Native American head dress to a Halloween party contest.

I remarked above the tweet that this was nuts. I still think it’s nuts.

Here is the article, this one comes from The Blaze, and it mentions the same story:

Native American faculty member blasted for wearing headdress for Halloween because it’s ‘racism’

A faculty member at the University of New Mexico was blasted for wearing a headdress on Halloween, according to KRQE-TV,

There’s just one catch: The faculty member is Native American.

–(end excerpt)–

DEFINING RACISM

Before I get to discussing that story in depth, I’d like to say I disagree with the liberal definition of “racism.”

Liberals define racism only to mean systematic imbalances wielded by whomever is considered to be in power in a nation. Therefore, your average liberal will argue that only white people can be racist because whites have all the power in the United States.

I say wrong, incorrect, and false.

My understanding of racism is that it denotes an attitude or belief set where a person of any skin color condemns or hates an entire other group of people (say, based on their inborn traits, such as skin color).

This means, for instance, that I regard black people who hate white people as being racist. White people are not the only people who are capable of being racist.

Racism to me is not about who holds or wields most power in a society, but rather is a heart-attitude.

ISLAM NOT A RACE

(Islam, by the way, is not a race. Islam is a socio-political belief set with religious undertones, but it’s not a “race,” yet I often see American liberals refer to criticisms of Islam or criticism of Muslim behavior as being “racism” or “racist.” Anyone can convert to Islam, including white-skinned evangelical Christians.)

NATIVE AMERICAN WOMAN CRITICIZED BY LIBERALS FOR WEARING HEADDRESS

Anyway, after I put my comments above the news tweet about the Native American woman being scolded by liberals and deemed a “racist” by them for wearing a Native American head dress to a costume party, someone on Twitter tweeted me about it, I replied, and he later shared my response on his time line.

There upon, several people, claiming to be Natives, took me to task over my views.

One such Native guy (or woman?) said something to me such as,

“I am skeptical and suspicious of people like you who claim Native American ancestry, yet I see no mention of you being Native American on your Twitter bio. Usually Natives declare their heritage with pride.”

There are several observations I have about this comment, a comment which is so ignorant and makes so many assumptions.

First of all, my SoloLoner twitter account is primarily one where I tweet about topics pertaining to singleness, dating, and marriage, and one where I occasionally opine about hypocrisy I see coming from right or left wingers.

My SoloLoner Twitter account is not one where I tweet about my family ancestry. If I bring up my family background on Twitter (or this blog), it has always been in the context of liberal absurdity over identity politics.

Secondly, there are a lot of things I don’t mention about myself on this blog, or on my Twitter biography or account, but that does not make them any less true about me.

For example, my favorite salad dressing flavor is Ranch, and I am left handed.

I have never before mentioned these things about myself on my blog here, nor do I mention them on my Twitter bio.

The fact that I don’t identify my favorite salad dressing or favored hand on Twitter does not mean I am lying about either one.

Thirdly, I am neutral or ambivalent about my family ancestry. I am neither proud nor ashamed to be partially Native American.

Having full-blooded Native Americans on both sides of my family is just another fact about me, like I am left handed, one of my favorite television shows is The Walking Dead, and I hated math in my school days.

Lastly, I am a right winger, I am a conservative, so am not beholden to, or in agreement with, the left wing penchant and insistence for Identity Politics.

I’m not one of these liberal types who binds up her entire identity in something like my skin color, my family tree, or sexual orientation.

COMMENTS FROM NATIVE AMERICANS ON TWITTER

One or two Natives demanded, DEMANDED!!, to know which “tribe(s)” I come from.

I find that funny, because several months ago, I was reading a page by a liberal Native American who was attempting to educate non-Natives about terminology, and according to this person, it is ‘racist’ or wrong to use the word “tribe.” According to that person, the correct term is “Nation.”

If you must know, both sides of my family inter-married with full-blooded Cherokee and Choctaw.

Part of my family also hails from the Republic of Ireland – some of my family also immigrated to the United States from other European nations, which I shall not list here.

All I will divulge is to mention my family tree consists of, but is not limited to, Cherokee, Choctaw, and Ireland.

I have no reason to lie about any of this.

This is one of the things that kills me about these yea-hoos on Twitter questioning my family tree, as though I am making any of it up.

What do I have to gain about lying about myself on this blog or on Twitter about being a never married, hetero-sexual, partially white, partially Native American, who is left handed, was raised Baptist but who now has doubts about the Christian faith, who loves The Walking Dead TV show, and who has a decades-long crush on movie actor Hugh Jackman?

On this blog, in the several years I’ve been blogging here, I have never, ever claimed to be liberal, Asian, Latina, a man, Democrat, homosexual, Russian, French, Buddhist, or black.

I have consistently said on this blog for a year or more that I am a never-married woman who is part white, part Native American.

I’m sure as hell not making money or friends or gaining fame or anything else positive by discussing things about myself on this little blog or on Twitter.

Nobody is sending me awards or money for sharing things about myself, such as I am part Native American, that I love Ranch salad dressing, and I suffered through college algebra.

Over a year or more ago, in various posts, I already mentioned on this blog I am part Native American and part Irish (among other things, which I won’t delineate).

Now, in November 2017, a few Natives on Twitter were questioning my authenticity on all this.

I don’t claim strong ties to, or deep interest in, my Native American background, or to my Irish ancestry, or my other European ancestry, for that matter.

What do they want me to do, spit in a plastic vial and mail it in to Ancestry.com or  23andMe.com for verification? Please. And, I don’t owe these people any proof or anything else.

As I told one liberal Native who was tweeting at me, I’d say I identify first and foremost as an American.

And I mean simply “American,” not one of those hyphenated formats, such as “Irish-American” or “Native American Indian – American,” or God help me, the long mouthful of “Irish – Native American – (insert other nations from where my ancestors immigrated) – American.”

Edit. I also received this comment from someone recently (link to her Tweet):

(from) heatherfeather‏ @heather28df 

Replying to @sololoner2

Natives have bern talking about cultural appropriation for a long time so when you label us as “liberals” you’re erasing Native voices.

(end quote)

I am partially Native American, and I’m writing my views on my blog here and on Twitter, so no, Native voices aren’t “being erased.”

Her voice, “Heather Feather’s” voice, is not being erased, either (I take it she considers herself Native American). She’s using Twitter to amplify her views, just as I am – nobody’s voices is being silenced or erased.

As I told her on Twitter, complaining about cultural appropriation and the like is a Liberal cause, (or is now synonymous with American political liberalism), and it’s been an American Liberal pet cause that has become trendy or popular the last few years.

Edit 2. I just blocked her. The obnoxious cow was accusing me of lying about my heritage, that I am just trying to “look or sound” cool.

Er, no, sweetie, as I’ve outlined above, some Europeans married and had sex with full-blooded Cherokee and Choctaw in my family (on the paternal and maternal sides) down through the years.

My god, I have no reason to lie about this sh-t. I cannot help who boinked whom in my family tree, either.

She wanted to know “what tribe” I am from.

As I told her:

BTW, “tribe” is politically incorrect. As a liberal, you should know that. Are you SURE you’re Native? I am doubting that you are.

(end quote)

That’s right, according to liberal Native Americans I’ve seen elsewhere online, the word “tribe” is not politically correct and is offensive to Natives, but here she is using it with me, while in the midst of dressing me down.

Liberals and Liberal Natives cannot agree among themselves on any of this:

(Link):  Native American name controversy

The Native American name controversy is an ongoing discussion about the changing terminology used by indigenous peoples of the Americas to describe themselves, as well as how they prefer to be referred to by others. Preferred terms vary primarily by region and age.

As indigenous people and communities are diverse, there is no consensus on naming, aside from the fact that most people prefer to be referred to by their specific nation or tribe (terms which are themselves contentious).

(end excerpts)

See also:

(Link): Setting the Record Straight About Native Languages: Squaw

(Link): The Word Squaw: Offensive or Not?

NATIVE AMERICAN CLOTHING

Even if I did not have partial Native American ancestry in my family tree, my opinion would remain the same and be just as valid: there’s nothing wrong with non-Natives wearing Native American paraphernalia.

I don’t deem it “racist” for a non-Native to wear some piece of Native American clothing to a costume party. It doesn’t bother me.

If you’re a Native American who doesn’t like that sort of thing, I think it would be more suitable to use terminology such as “inappropriate,” “tacky,” or “insensitive,” but “racist”?

None of that is to say I’d necessarily agree that a non-Native person wearing something like a headdress is tacky or insensitive.

By the way, I wonder, do these rules apply equally to non-whites? If a black guy, a Latino, or an Asian, for instance, wanted to wear a Native American headdress, would it still be bad? Why or why not?

I just do not get worked up over things like white people (or black people, Asians, or others) wanting to wear Native American clothing.

I don’t take it as an offense.

COMPLIMENTARY

TEAM MASCOTS

As a matter of fact, I would regard a lot of what liberals negatively deem “cultural appropriation”  to be complimentary.

The reason some football teams refer to themselves as “Red Skins,” or in some other Native American terminology, is because they like or admire Native Americans.

You’re not going to name your professional or college team after something you perceive as weak or stupid, like “The Fierce Boogers and Snots” or “The Wimpy Losers.”

I would take it as a positive thing if a football team wanted to use part of my culture as their name-sake or logo, not as a put-down.

LEFT VS RIGHT WING

I am curious – are there any Native Americans who are right wing or Republican out there?

Do most to all of them tilt liberal or Democrat?

Where do the left wing Native Americans get off dictating to everyone else, including those of us with Native ancestry who are right wing, who can and cannot wear Native American items? I don’t see where I, or others, have to bow to their opinions on these matters.

Edit. I found this:

(Link):  Conservative American Indian Republicans

(Link): A Republican Native American? How Can That Be?

(Link): Appealing to the conservative Native American voter

So, apparently not all other Native Americans are liberals, vote Democrat, or presumably buy into the wacky world of liberal identity politics.

WHITE MASCOTS

THE FIGHTING IRISH

Some high schools I or my siblings went to as kids had mascots such as The Patriots, The Buccaneers, Raiders, and so on.

As someone who is partially white, should I object to the use of such white people as team mascots? I’m not offended by them. I don’t care.

(Link): Native Americans are crying foul at this poll saying native people don’t find the name ‘Redskins’ offensive

I’m part Irish, yet I’m not offended by Notre Dame’s “Fighting Irish” moniker or mascot.  (View the Notre Dame Fighting Irish mascot and logo or view it here)

I don’t remember seeing any Irish people screaming and yelling about the Notre Dame Fighting Irish mascot and claiming it’s “racism” and “cultural appropriation.” If there have been, they are just as nuts.

THE IRISH

Speaking of the Irish.

Some native born and raised Irish are arrogant little jerk weeds about Irish ancestry.

They get their noses bent out of joint, or mock, Americans of Irish ancestry who are proud of their ancestry and who celebrate it.

When Irish-Americans celebrate St. Patrick’s Day in the United States, for instance, some of the Irish in Ireland ridicule them for it.

Native-born Irish refer to Irish-Americans with the derogatory term “Plastic,” which is short for “Plastic Paddy.”

Perhaps there are some native Irish who use that term with affection, but it’s my understanding that the indigenous use it as a negative term to describe Irish Americans who celebrate their ancestry.

More here:

Wiki: (Link): Plastic Paddy

And here:

(Link): Tired of being mocked and called a “Plastic Paddy” in Ireland?

Excerpts:

… the stereotype has taken hold among many [Irish] – Irish Americans come from LaLa land.

The abuse comes mainly from Irish-born who feel that the only true Irish identity is that you have to be born on the island of Ireland.

…It seems our culture, heritage, and history is no longer to be prized but sneered at by many. It’s time to shout stop.

…It is an incredibly narrow perspective to believe that the only authentic Irish experience is to be born and live in Ireland.

(end excerpts)

I am neither proud of or ashamed of my European ancestry (which includes but is not limited to the Irish). I am largely “meh” about who is in my family tree.

To reiterate, I primarily consider myself American, not Irish / European or Native American.

However, considering the awful attitude some Irish have towards Americans with Irish ancestry, how would they feel, I wonder, if I repudiated the Irish in my family tree and said I’m ashamed of it and spit on it? Would that make them happy?

I would like to think that people born and raised in Ireland would be happy to see Americans with Irish ancestry openly proud of their Irish heritage. I don’t get the animosity or mocking over it.

CLOSING

I, of partial Native American background, do not get upset or offended by Non-Natives who’d like to wear Native American clothing or dress up as a Native American for parties, or who’d like to use Native American typology for football team graphics.

I also do not care if a Native American from Nation X would like to wear clothing items from Nation Z, nor do I consider any of this offensive, insulting, and it’s certainly not “racism.”

Related (more links even farther below):

Via National Review:

(Link):  The Liberal Fantasy of Cultural Appropriation

Via Daily Beast:

(Link):  You Can’t ‘Steal’ a Culture: In Defense of Cultural Appropriation

What began as a legitimate complaint has morphed into a handy way of being offended at something that should be taken as a compliment.

…But over time, the concept of cultural appropriation has morphed into a parody of the original idea.

We are now to get angry simply when whites happily imitate something that minorities do. We now use the word steal in an abstract sense, separated from any kind of material value.

…It used to be that we said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But now there is new way to see the matter: Imitation is a kind of dismissal.

(end excerpts)

(Link): What Chuck Berry Taught Us About Cultural Appropriation 

ITALIAN AMERICANS AS NATIVE AMERICANS

By the way? The actor who depicted a Native American in the 1970s PSA about pollution was actually of Italian descent. LOL.

More here:

(Link): The True Story of ‘The Crying Indian’

(Link):  Iron Eyes Cody (born Espera Oscar de CortiApril) 

Italian-American actor. He portrayed Native Americans in Hollywood films.

(Link): video link: Keep America Beautiful – (Crying-Indian) – 70s PSA Commercial

That’s right, this “Indian” is actually a guy of Italian descent:

More Related Content, other sites:

(Dec 2017): (Link): Native American activists coordinate fake news push to pressure Washington Redskins to change their name to the Redhawks

A push by a group of Native American activists to renew focus on the Washington Redskins’ name led to a bombardment of fake news in the sports world Wednesday.

The Rising Hearts coalition published multiple fake news stories purporting to be from Sports Illustrated, ESPN, the Washington Post, and others announcing the team’s name would become the Washington Redhawks instead of Redskins.

The group also created a Twitter account and a website for the new, made-up team.

“We created this action to show the NFL and the Washington football franchise how easy, popular and powerful changing the name could be,” said Rebecca Nagle, of the Cherokee Nation, who was one of the organizers.

“What we’re asking for changes only four letters. Just four letters! Certainly the harm that the mascot does to Native Americans outweighs the very, very minor changes the franchise would need to make.”

Native American activists have campaigned for years to get the Redskins to change their name, arguing the term is a racist reference to Native Americans that is offensive.


(this post had been edited several times to add more commentary and/or links)


Related Posts, This Blog:

(Link): Liberals and White People

Christian Virginity Peddlers Vs Muslims Who Molest Girls and The Liberals Who Look the Other Way 

Christian Virginity Peddlers Vs Muslims Who Molest Girls & The Liberals Who Look the Other Way 

I intended on making this blog post the other day but forgot. As I noted in one of my (Link): last posts, I have not visited SCCL (Stuff Christian Culture Likes) Facebook group since early June 2017 for reasons that are explained in that post.

A couple of weeks ago, someone in my Twitter shared a link to (Link): this page titled“Jodi Heckert Pledged to Protect His Daughter’s Virginity, Now in Prison For Child Molestation”

If you scroll to the bottom of that page, there is a line that reads:

“H/T Stuff Christian Culture Likes.”

[Hat Tip to Stuff Christian Culture Likes]

So, I take it that Stephanie Drury, maintainer of SCCL Facebook group, posted a link to that news story on her group for her members to mock and cluck in worry over. This same, group, though, which is largely comprised of liberals, does not like for Islam to be called out for infractions against girls, women, or for anyone, really.

When I mentioned in one of (Link): my other posts critical of SCCL that about any time I see a terrorist mentioned on the news, the terrorist almost always turns out to be a Muslim (yes, it’s true, (Link): most of them are), several of Drury’s SCCL readers had temper tantrums.

Before I continue, allow me to quote from liberal, atheist, and Democrat Camille Paglia here:

But today’s liberalism has become grotesquely mechanistic and authoritarian: It’s all about reducing individuals to a group identity, defining that group in permanent victim terms, and denying others their democratic right to challenge that group and its ideology.

… The reluctance or inability of Western liberals to candidly confront jihadism has been catastrophically counterproductive insofar as it has inspired an ongoing upsurge in right-wing politics in Europe and the United States.

Citizens have an absolute right to demand basic security from their government. The contortions to which so many liberals resort to avoid connecting bombings, massacres, persecutions, and cultural vandalism to Islamic jihadism is remarkable, given their usual animosity to religion, above all Christianity.

…Right now, too many secular Western liberals treat Islam with paternalistic condescension…

Source:

(Link): Camille Paglia: On Trump, Democrats, Transgenderism, and Islamist Terror

Paglia is one of the few left wingers I’ve seen who comprehends.

Islam is notorious for sexism. Many of their Imams teach it is acceptable for husbands to beat wives. Honor killings, where Muslim families will stone girls or women to death for being rape victims, are not uncommon. In some Islamic nations or cultures, women are not allowed to ride bicycles, wear skirts, or obtain educations. (Examples with links to news stories of all those mentioned (Link): here)

Continue reading “Christian Virginity Peddlers Vs Muslims Who Molest Girls and The Liberals Who Look the Other Way “

Stuff Muslim Culture Likes

Stuff Muslim Culture Likes

(This post may be edited at a future time to add more links or other information.)

Groups such as left-leaning “Stuff Christian Culture Likes” (please see this previous post about “SCCL” if you’d like more background about them) enjoy regularly listing the shortcomings of Christians, including sexism as taught or practiced among some Christians. I too detail some of those examples on my blog and have in the past.

Strangely, though, like so many other liberals, those at SCCL are extremely hypocritical in that they turn a blind eye to the same sexism or other shortcomings as committed by some Muslims under Islam, and act as though Muslims are victims who need special protection.

Here are examples of “Stuff Muslim Culture Likes.”

(Imam = Islamic Clergy)

(See below for links for examples of each category. This is just off the top of my head. More categories and more links may be added later.)

  • DEFENDING OR PROMOTING WIFE ABUSE
  • BEHEADING NON-MUSLIMS
  • KILLING ATHEIST / SECULARIST BLOGGERS
  • BLOWING UP MARATHON RUNNERS WITH PRESSURE COOKERS
  • RUNNING OVER PEDESTRIANS WITH VEHICLES
  • STABBING PEDESTERIANS TO DEATH
  • SHOOTING NON-MUSLIMS IN NIGHT CLUBS
  • SHOOTING ARTISTS FOR DRAWING PROPHET MOHAMMED
  • FLYING PLANES INTO BUILDINGS, KILLING PLANE PASSENGERS AND PEOPLE IN BUILDINGS
  • BLOWING UP TEENS AND THEIR PARENTS AT POP MUSIC CONCERTS
  • RIOTING
  • RAPING CHILDREN
  • GROPING OR RAPING WOMEN / ACTING AS RAPE APOLOGISTS
  • SELLING WOMEN AS SEX SLAVES
  • KILLING WOMEN RAPE VICTIMS FOR BEING RAPE VICTIMS (HONOR KILLINGS)
  • FGM (FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION)
  • PROHIBITING GIRLS FROM RECEIVING EDUCATIONS
  • KILLING HOMOSEXUALS FOR BEING HOMOSEXUAL
  • REFUSING TO BAKE HOMOSEXUAL WEDDING CAKES
  • HATING PIGLET FROM WINNIE THE POOH
  • KILLING PEOPLE FOR WATCHING SOCCER GAMES
  • PROHIBITING VALENTINE’S DAY CELEBRATIONS
  • BEING OFFENDED BY BURGER KING ICE CREAM
  • BEING OFFENDED BY NIKE SHOES
  • FORBIDDING WOMEN TO RIDE BICYCLES
  • ARRESTING WOMEN FOR WEARING SKIRTS IN PUBLIC
  • JAILING WOMEN FOR HAVING CONSENSUAL SEX
  • DENYING THEIR RELIGION EVER PLAYS A PART IN ANY OF THE ABOVE

Some Examples and / or commentary:

♦ DEFENDING OR PROMOTING WIFE ABUSE

April 2017, Australia:

Radical Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir takes aim at mainstream Muslims who condemn domestic violence

Video, You Tube: Imam explains why it’s “ok” to beat a women.

 June 2016:

Top Imam Says Beating Wives Is The Only Way To Control Them

A leading Pakistani cleric has provided male followers with a step-by-step guide to controlling their women – with a “light beating” suggested at the end of the process for problem wives.

Continue reading “Stuff Muslim Culture Likes”

The Real Bully: Not Tolerating and Misrepresenting Trump Voters and All Who Are Concerned About Islamic Terrorism Via Refugee Programs

The Real Bully: Not Tolerating and Misrepresenting Trump Voters and All Who Are Concerned About Islamic Terrorism Via Refugee Programs

(Oct 2018 Update Below)

The woman whose blog post I am addressing is guilty of the very things she accuses others of. The irony.

I am not positive, but I believe the following was written by the same woman who I had to un-follow or mute on Twitter over her non-stop ‘Never Trump’ ranting several months ago (and/or she Tweeted me several times disagreeing with my links to news stories about Islamic refugees who had raped women or killed people). (I believe she is on Twitter here (Link): @MYsongofpraise )

(She is now tweeting under the name Melody / @PeaceofResista1 – more on this below)

April 8, 2016 , UPDATE

As of a few moments ago, “@MYsongofpraise” blocked me on Twitter. LOL. My goodness.

I think I had her on mute myself, or else unfollowed her, but I didn’t block her. But she has blocked me from following her Twitter tonight.

I cannot grasp the mentality: she feels that Trump is a bully, but she uses her blog and Twitter account to bully anyone who voted for Trump, or who is not naive about Islamic migration and Muslim refugees (as she is).

I called her out on all that via this blog post (which I shared on Twitter, and just a few minutes ago on Twitter), and she must have just seen one of my Tweets, because she only just blocked me a few moments ago.

// end update

I am neither strongly for or against Trump.

I did not like Trump’s sexist comments or behavior, as reported in the media. I do think that gender complementarian Christians should have spoken out more forcefully against Trump’s sexism than they did.

In my view, some who support Trump go over board, but then, so do people who are opposed to Trump.

You have Trump supporters who get vitriolic over the mildest criticisms of Trump or his policies, and they seem to feel Trump is the second coming of Jesus and can walk on water and do no wrong.

On the other hand, Liberal Anti- Trumpers and conservative Never Trumpers are equally bad, but in the opposite direction – they behave as though Trump is the reincarnation of Hitler, which he is most certainly not (and the non-stop comparisons by them of Trump to Hitler cheapens the horror of the Holocaust).

Here is the person and blog post I am responding to (I will include excerpts from the post further below):

(Link): Watchblogging and #evangelicalbetrayal – from the “On Hope” blog, the URL contains the phrase “atckmelodythoughts”

The individual who is behind that blog post – I shall refer to her as “Hope” (is her name Melody?) – describes herself as a moderate conservative.

If I remember correctly, and unless I am confusing her with another person, I followed “Hope” on Twitter several months ago ((Link): @MYsongofpraise – now tweeting as “PeaceofResista1“) ) but had to un-follow her, as she is a rabid Never-Trumper. The frequent anti-Trump rants, and their companion worst-case assumptions of Trump supporters or Trump voters, got tiresome to read.

This blogger is (again, assuming this is the same person I encountered on Twitter months ago), very naive concerning Islamic-motivated terrorism in Western nations.

She’s the sort who wants Americans (and others) willy nilly accepting refugees from Islamic nations, without seemingly caring about the possible negative ramifications involved.

She thinks it’s mean, cruel, or un-Christlike to exercise caution and prudence into accepting migrants, refugees, and immigrants into one’s nation. We’re supposed to allow touchie-feelie, bleeding heart sentiments over-ride caution and good sense in regards to national security.

Continue reading “The Real Bully: Not Tolerating and Misrepresenting Trump Voters and All Who Are Concerned About Islamic Terrorism Via Refugee Programs”

Tolerance, Compassion, and Knowing People Personally

Tolerance, Compassion, and Knowing People Personally

I keep running into politically left wing types or touchie-feelie Christians (some of whom may be somewhat conservative, which surprises me) on social media who assume the reason I must oppose certain things, such as–

-Mass Muslim immigration
-Allowing biological men into women’s bathrooms and fitting rooms under transgender laws

is due to some kind of personal animosity towards these groups of people.

The reason I object to, or am concerned about, things such as mass Muslim immigration or transgender bathroom bills has NOTHING to do with personal hatred on my part towards Muslims or transgender people.

I find this so frustrating that this is assumed about me from the start, and this assumption occurs constantly on Twitter and other blogs.

If you bother to get to know me, or read many of my blog posts on this blog, or stop and ask me my feelings about things (instead of JUST ASSUMING you know why I must hold thus- and- so an opinion on a given topic), you would discover I’m pretty laid back about things, more so than the people who yell at me online.

Continue reading “Tolerance, Compassion, and Knowing People Personally”

A ‘Romantic Way to Escape Persecution’: Online Matchmaking

A ‘Romantic Way to Escape Persecution’: Online Matchmaking

(Link): A ‘Romantic Way to Escape Persecution’: Online Matchmaking

Excerpt:

  • Persecution watchdog group hopes romantic connections between Western and Pakistani Christians could lead to asylum. Other persecution groups aren’t so sure.
  • An advocacy group for Pakistani Christians is now getting into the matchmaking business.

  • The British Pakistani Christian Association (BPCA) (Link): launched an online dating site in May to connect Pakistani Christians living all over the world.

  • Named for a common term for a South Asian wedding,  (Link): Shaadi4Christians serves as a tool for single Christians—and their parents, who still often arrange marriages for their children—scattered in the South Asian diaspora.

  • The BCPA views marriage as a way to escape persecution.

Continue reading “A ‘Romantic Way to Escape Persecution’: Online Matchmaking”

Woman Burned To Death For Refusing Marriage Proposal

Woman Burned To Death For Refusing Marriage Proposal

And there are some whiny, cry-baby men who think THEY have single life harder – news flash, (Link): you don’t have it worse, men: men usually are not murdered by jealous women over turning down dates or proposals.

While I’d say that the root of this case involves a lot of misogyny and patriarchy, I think perhaps a small factor is an over-emphasis upon marriage.

Perhaps if cultures like this one were taught that being single and/or celibate are perfectly fine lifestyles to live, we wouldn’t see people feel so pressured to marry, and they would realize they can control their sexual urges. Therefore, women would not be killed for turning down dates, requests for sex, or marriage proposals.

You don’t have to be married, or have sex, to enjoy life or be happy and content. (I am not knocking a desire to be married, you realize, only saying if it does not happen for you, you will survive – and realize you can enjoy life without marriage or sex.)

Dollars to doughnuts that everyone in this news story was Muslim.

If so, I’d like to say again I see striking parallels between Islamic attitudes and behaviors towards women as I do from some gender complementarian or Quiverfull Christian groups, as well as sexist men and MRA (Men’s Rights Activists) groups – they all treat women like second-class citizens to be controlled by men and are considered to have value only in- so- far as they breed like rabbits and/or provide men with sex.

(Link): Pakistani woman dies after being set on fire for rejecting marriage proposal

  • By Azadeh Ansari and Sophia Saifi, CNN
  • Updated 11:47 AM ET, Thu June 2, 2016
  • Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN)- An 18-year-old Pakistani schoolteacher died Wednesday from injuries after her body was set on fire for refusing a marriage proposal, police said.
  • The perpetrators beat Maria Abbasi, then drenched her in petrol and set her body ablaze before leaving her for dead, her family members told CNN.
  • Continue reading “Woman Burned To Death For Refusing Marriage Proposal”

    Liberal Identity Politics, Transgenderism, & Disregarding the Safety of Hetero Cisgender Women

    Liberal Identity Politics, Transgenderism, & Disregarding the Safety of Hetero Cisgender Women

    (This post has been edited a few times to add a few more thoughts or new links)

    The “Arguments by Liberals” Section is located about one-fourth down this page; look for the sub-heading “Arguments by Liberals”


    (Link): Transgender Activism Has Produced a Legal Absurdity

    by E. Whelan

    But the Obama administration and transgender activists have shown no interest in sensible compromises that give any weight to the privacy or safety interests of others.

    Never mind that the transgender policy on restrooms and showers makes it much easier for any man or boy with nefarious or mischievous purposes to gain access to the girls’ facilities. // end quotes

    I have a friend on Twitter who I sometimes have private conversations with via Direct Messaging on Twitter.

    One very disturbing and annoying tendency among liberals has grabbed her attention and mine, that we’ve discussed privately:

    messyToilet
    “Coming Soon To Women’s Restrooms Everywhere” – (image first discovered on James D. Nichols Twitter)

    Many Liberals not only build a hierarchy of which groups of people they believe are more worthy of protection, consideration, and respect than other groups (which I find odd and troubling), but they further go on to almost always place hetero, cisgender (and ones who happen to be caucasian) women at the very bottom of this hierarchy.

    Women in general seem to go at the bottom of this liberal pyramid, regardless of ethnic group, skin color, or nationality – I guess it can depend on the specific context under consideration.

    Continue reading “Liberal Identity Politics, Transgenderism, & Disregarding the Safety of Hetero Cisgender Women”

    Inclusive Dating Liberals: You Should Date People You’re Not Attracted To Out of a Sense of Guilt or Duty (and which contradicts other liberal feminist views about women and dating)

    Inclusive Dating Liberals: You Should Date People You’re Not Attracted To Out of a Sense of Guilt or Duty (and which contradicts other liberal feminist views about women and dating)

    I saw this conversation on twitter earlier today. Someone I follow on Twitter re-tweeted one of the tweets, which is how I saw this.

    Other than one of the people who re-tweeted this, I don’t think I know any of the participants in this conversation, or who is involved (not at first glance):

    I do follow several left wing persons and news sites on my Twitter account.

    I sometimes visit left wing sites that discuss politics, feminism, entertainment, and other subjects, so I am partially aware of some left wing causes, views, and so forth.

    However, I don’t keep up with the minutia of it and all the nit picky details of all liberal pet causes. Therefore, I do not completely understand their rationale for some views, or all the jargon they use.

    Nor do I think I care to learn it all in-depth, as I only have one life to live and would rather spend it doing things like watching repeats of Zombieland on cable and new episodes of Diners, Drive Ins, and Dives.

    Apparently, the woman who started out that thread (named Claire) is a lesbian, if I am understanding things correctly.

    Here is one of her tweets (link to tweet):

    “Not taking transwomen as sexual partners doesn’t mean lesbians don’t consider TW worthy of respect, safety, kindness, friendship, etc.”

    —end quote—

    Claire went on to Tweet this in the same thread:

    “And it is pressure. This insidious idea that if a lesbian won’t consider sleeping with someone, she must be a bigot, is insidious & coercive”

    —end quote—

    If I am understanding this correctly, she is saying that some people who support transgenderism are demanding that lesbians should date men who underwent some kind of sex change surgery or what have you to appear to be women (I think these persons are called transwomen? As I said, I don’t care to keep up with all the rhetoric of liberal causes and their terminology.)

    I cannot agree with a view that says you should date or marry people with whom you are not the least attracted or that you have moral qualms about.

    I covered this topic on a previous post on my blog:

    I have never felt very attracted to white guys with red hair. According to liberal logic, however, this somehow means I hate gingers, and they would lecture me and insist I date red headed men, even though I really do not want to.

    Now you understand I’m not in favor of people who are overly picky in other regards. Like this guy:

    Continue reading “Inclusive Dating Liberals: You Should Date People You’re Not Attracted To Out of a Sense of Guilt or Duty (and which contradicts other liberal feminist views about women and dating)”

    The Islamic Billy Graham Rule – Unmarried Muslim People Are Punished For Being Alone Together

    The Islamic Billy Graham Rule – Unmarried Muslim People Are Punished For Being Alone Together

    Just when I think I’m done blogging on this blog for the day (and I do have other stuff to do off-line), I keep seeing pertinent stuff show up all over the internet.

    This turned up on my Twitter feed:

    (Link): Indonesia: Police Beat Couple with Canes for Sharia Crime of Being Alone Together

    • Islamic sharia law was enforced with canes once again in Indonesia this week, including the cane beatings of a man and woman whose “crime” was being alone together in a guest room.
    • This was no crazed mob action, either, as (Link): CNN reports the sentence was handed down by a judge, and imposed by a special police unit “charged with finding people who violate sharia law.”
    • “The form of Islamic law is enforced in a very strict way in the area, including prohibiting unmarried people of different genders from being alone together,” CNN observes.

    This totally reminds me of the insipid, sexist, ineffective, stupid, anti-singles Christian “Billy Graham Rule,” which I have blogged about before here (this view seems to turn up more in Christian gender complementarianism than it does Christian gender egalitarianism):

    Except under the Christian BGR (Billy Graham Rule), you will get isolated, “tsk tsked,” or suspected of being a slut, rather than get whipped with a cane.

    Also, and this is kind of funny in a sad way, Christians are stricter on this rule than the Muslims, in that they also look askance at single women who are alone with MARRIED men.

    Single Christian women are doomed to live and die alone, because Christians who are inappropriately applying the “avoid even the appearance of evil” verse are ostracizing single women from every one, from other singles and from the marrieds. Similar the Islamic sharia rule that prohibits singles from being together.

    Another dumb, oblivious, and naive thing about the BGR is that often times, married Christians end up having affairs with other married Christians.

    Yet, I don’t usually see the same level of paranoia from Christians about married Christian women hanging out with married Christian men as I do the warnings about men being around un-married (single) women.

    Here are some more links about the story (off site):

    (Link):  The whipping girl: Screaming in agony, a woman collapses as she and a man are caned under Sharia law in Indonesia merely for being ‘seen in close proximity’ to each other without being married

    • The woman was accused of getting too close to a fellow university student
    • As the pair are unmarried, she had committed an offence under Sharia law
    • She was brought to a mosque where she was caned in front of a crowd
    • The woman received five lashes and at end had to be taken to hospital

    (Link):  Crowd cheers as woman is brutally caned for being seen near man who wasn’t her husband

    • Dec 29, 2015
    • by Ruth Halkon
    • Nur Elita, 20, had to be taken away in an ambulance after being beaten in public outside her mosque under Sharia law
    • A crowd cheered as a young woman screamed in agony as she was repeatedly caned in punishment for being in ‘close proximity’ to a man she wasn’t married to.Nur Elita, 20, had to be removed from Baiturrahumim Mosque in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, in an ambulance after she was brutally punished for allegedly showing affection towards another university student.Under Sharia law, men and women who are unmarried and unrelated are not allowed to get too close.
    • Dec 31 2015
    • Officials in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, held a public caning Monday. At the end of the punishment, she collapsed on the floor and was carried off the stage into an ambulance and rushed to hospital. Indonesia enforce strict Islamic laws including prohibiting unmarried people from having sex.
    • Cheers went up as a masked man caned the woman, as a punishment for being “seen in close proximity” to a man she wasn’t married to, under Sharia law.
    • The young Acehnese woman is caned in public, a punishment under the Islamic sharia law.
    • Banda Aceh’s Deputy Mayor Zainal Arifin, who stood among the crowd, explained to bystanders that the punishments were meant to be a lesson for all and not simply entertainment.
    • After her ordeal, 23-year-old Wahyudi Saputra, the man whom she was alleged to have been in close proximity with breached was also striked. “And also, those who have been convicted are reminded not to repeat the same mistakes”, he added.

    (Link):  Woman accused of ‘affectionate contact’ with man caned in Indonesia

    —————————–

    Related Posts:

    (Link): Similar Views of Women Between Christian Gender Complmentarians and Islamic Group ISIS

    (Link): Extremist Muslims Like Family Values Too – Muslims are joining ISIS / ISIL (extremist Islamic group) because they believe it supports “Family Values” – When Christianity and Islam sound alike

    (Link):  Evangelicals are Rethinking Friendship and Sexuality 

    (Link):  Non-Romantic Nearness, The Billy Graham Rule, and Pope John Paul’s Friendship With a Married Woman

    (Link):  Jesus Christ was not afraid to meet alone with known Prostitutes / Steven Furtick and Elevation Church Perpetuating Anti Singles Bias – ie, Single Women are Supposedly Sexual Temptresses, All Males Can’t Control Their Sex Drives – (but this view conflicts with evangelical propaganda that married sex is great and frequent)

    (Link):  Patriarchy tends to sexualize all male / female relationships (article via Junia Project blog)

    Link):  Southern Baptists Pushing Early Marriage, Baby Making – Iranians Pushing Mandatory Motherhood – When Christians Sound Like Muslims

    (Link): Why Christians Need To Stress Spiritual Family Over the Nuclear Family – People with no flesh and blood relations including Muslims who Convert to Christianity – Also: First World, White, Rich People Problems

    (Link): Modesty Teachings – When Mormons Sound like Christians and Gender Complementarians

    (Link): Mormons and Christians Make Family, Marriage, Having Children Into Idols

    (Link):  Topics: Friendship is Possible / Sexualization By Culture Of All Relationships

    (Link):  Relationships Of Welcome, Not Fear (Re: How Sexist Christian Views Marginalize and Isolate Adult, Single Women and Maintain Other Stereotypes About Adult Singles)

    (Link):   How the Sexual Revolution Ruined Friendship – Also: If Christians Truly Believed in Celibacy and Virginity, they would stop adhering to certain sexual and gender stereotypes that work against both

    (Link):  Hey Ed Stetzer: Opposite Gender Friendships Are Not Sinful – Ed Stetzer’s Advice: “Avoid Any Hint” – More Like: Re Enforce UnBiblical Stereotypes About Men, Women, Sex, and Singles

    (Link):  Why So Much Fornication – Because Christians Have No Expectation of Sexual

    (Link):  Pervy Preacher from Seattle who teaches men “to objectify women, by his over emphasis of sexualization of women and subservience” (Re Driscoll) Purity

    (Link):  Brotherly Love: Christians and Male-Female Friendships

     

    Salon Author Amanda Marcotte Thinks Media Shouldn’t Judge Women’s Sexuality But She Has Mocked Women Over Their Sexual Choices Before (To Remain Virgins)

    Salon Author Amanda Marcotte Thinks Media Shouldn’t Judge Women’s Sexuality But She Has Mocked Women Over Their Sexual Choices Before (To Remain Virgins)

    My memory is a bit rusty here, but in a previous, older editorial on Salon, either Marcotte ridiculed women who choose to remain virgins until marriage, or, when she was mocking the concept of virgin- until- marriage, it escaped her notice that some women, of their own volition, choose to abstain until marriage.

    I blogged about this before here, on my blog:

    Either way it went, Marcotte ended up ridiculing the choice of some women to stay virgins until marriage – and some women do in fact choose to remain virgins until marriage, like this lady, who was in the media about a month ago:

    This recent editorial at Salon, by Marcotte, is my reason for writing this blog post today:

    (Link):  Now we’re leering at suicide bombers: The grotesque objectification of Hasna Ait Boulahcen by Amanda Marcotte

    Here are a few excerpts from that page, about a woman terrorist who was blown up in Paris, France (I have some more comments below these excerpts):

    • by Amanda Marcotte
    • November 20, 2105
    • …But Boulahcen [woman terrorist] was female, and so the forces of sexual objectification are kicking in, creating a grotesque display.
    • …Both articles obsessively comb over every detail of Boulahcen’s pre-conversion life: Her partying, her drinking, the amount of sex they suspect she had, her clothes and even her “heavy makeup”, which both articles take pains to point out. It’s the same kind of thing you see these right wing rags doing day in and out, simultaneously inviting their audiences to leer at and sit in judgment of young women for their clothes, their sexual choices…

    Continue reading “Salon Author Amanda Marcotte Thinks Media Shouldn’t Judge Women’s Sexuality But She Has Mocked Women Over Their Sexual Choices Before (To Remain Virgins)”

    Pastor Saeed Abedini’s Wife Halts Public Advocacy, Citing Marital Woes and Abuse -article says her husband is a Porn Addict

    Pastor Saeed Abedini’s Wife Halts Public Advocacy, Citing Marital Woes and Abuse -article says her husband is a Porn Addict

    Before I get to the link to the news story itself – about jailed pastor Saeed being a porn user who abused his wife, I wanted to comment about the story first (I also have comments below the news page excerpt below).

    So much for the Christian teachings about “being equally yoked,” which is generally understood to mean a Christian person can only marry another Christian.

    While it’s true that a lot of Non-Christians are scum balls who would make poor spouses, I have so far not seen any evidence that so-called Christian men are any more trustworthy, loving, or mature than your average atheist guy, Hindu, Jewish guy, or whomever.

    I actually tweeted in support of this guy a few times several months back… but he was abusing his wife, and she says he has a porn addiction problem – I didn’t know this until a couple of days ago, when I saw this article.

    I also want to remind you of another point I touch on often on this blog: Contrary to what some conservative Christians teach on how to go about getting married, you do NOT have to be perfect, clean  yourself up, or change yourself in some fashion to “earn” a spouse.

    Continue reading “Pastor Saeed Abedini’s Wife Halts Public Advocacy, Citing Marital Woes and Abuse -article says her husband is a Porn Addict”

    If Islamic Terrorists Are Devout Muslims, Why Are They Hooked on Porn?

    If Islamic Terrorists Are Devout Muslims, Why Are They Hooked on Porn?

    A lot of Christian men (and some women) are hooked on porn, too.

    (Link): If Islamic Terrorists Are Devout Muslims, Why Are They Hooked on Porn?

    excerpt

    • Most radical Islamic jihadis claim to be devout Muslims who promote the spread of strict conservative Islamic societal principles, yet it has been continuously documented through the years that many of those Muslim extremists are chronically addicted to sex and pornography.
    • Jihadis’ obsession with porn and sex is not a new phenomenon that is only being seen today through the “brutal” and “instinctive” sex drive of the Islamic State terrorist group in Iraq and Syria. Even the late Osama Bin Laden, the world-famous leader of Al Qaeda, had a huge collection of porn that was found by Navy Seals who searched his compound when he was killed. Additionally, police raids of terrorist cells in the Europe since 9/11 have revealed “countless” images of child porn, The New York Post reported.
    • Islamic terrorists being addicted to porn exposes a double standard, especially for those jihadis who blame America and the West for polluting the world with sexual desire, filth and sin.
    • A number of theories have been proposed as to why pornagraphy use is so prevalent among these “conservative” radical extremists.

      With over 500 Britons having fled to Syria to join the military ranks of ISIS, London Mayor Boris Johnson offered his opinion recently when he told The Sun that jihadis are nothing more than porn-driven “losers” who suffer from “self-esteem” issues and have trouble getting women.

      “They are tortured. They will be very badly adjusted in their relations with women, and that is a symptom of their feeling of being failures and that the world is against them,” Johnson explained. “They are not making it with girls and so they turn to other forms of spiritual comfort – which of course is no comfort…They are just young men in desperate need of self-esteem who do not have a particular mission in life, who feel that they are losers and this thing makes them feel strong – like winners.”

    • Speaking on a panel moderated by Princeton professor Robert George in December, president of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, Calif., Hamza Yusuf, opined that many young Muslims become so “defiled” by porn to the extent that they blame the West for corrupting them and eventually turn to jihad for redemption.

      “I really think that we underestimate the amount of people that have this experience of wanting to restore some kind of purity to themselves,” Yusuf said, “And the only restoration for them is blowing themselves up and get rid of the part that is the source of my defilement, which is [their] body.”

      Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, criticized Yusuf’s theory in an interview with the Investigative Project on Terrorism after the panel, and said it is not pornography that drives jihadis to war but rather the extremist mindset.

      Jasser reasoned that so many jihadis get hooked on sex and porn because they ultimately think that no matter what they do on Earth, they will go to heaven as martyrs.

    Married Father and Baptist Preacher J D Hall – Another Example of How Marriage and Parenthood Does Not Make a Person More Godly or Mature

    Married Father and Baptist Preacher J D Hall – Another Example of How Marriage and Parenthood Does Not Make a Person More Godly or Mature

    (There is an update at the bottom of this post).

    This involves a lot of back story I don’t want to get into because this blog post would be ten pages long.

    I am blogging this primarily for adult singles who have felt marginalized or hurt by Christian denominations or churches that treat adult singles as though they have cooties.

    I have a somewhat different motivation for blogging about this than other blogs do. There were a few other blogs who addressed the child abuse aspect of the story, that we have an adult (Hall) badgering a teen kid (Braxton Caner) on the internet.

    J D Hall is a Calvinist preacher with a blog called “Pulpit and Pen,” a Twitter account, and a group of fan boys who follow him around online who actually refer to themselves as “Pulpiteers.”

    At one time, Hall’s groupies were using the #pulpiteer (or “pulpiteers”) hash to follow each other around Twitter. I’m not sure if they still use the “Pulpiteer” label or not. I will continue to refer to them as such.

    This group, and a few other people, have a long standing hatred of another guy named Ergun Caner.

    Continue reading “Married Father and Baptist Preacher J D Hall – Another Example of How Marriage and Parenthood Does Not Make a Person More Godly or Mature”

    Islamic Group ISIS Stones Women To Death For Not Being Virgins

    Islamic Group ISIS Stones Women To Death For Not Being Virgins

    I think the American church has become too lax on sexual sin, and they don’t support virginity, but I do think killing people for fornication in this point in history is extreme (which is an understatement) – if I remember right, death by stoning was the penalty for fornication in the Old Testament.

    The news reports said at least one of the women was not a virgin because she was a widow.

    (Link): Two Women Stoned To Death by Isis on Accusations of Adultery

      In separate incidents in a span of 24 hours, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) carried out executions against two woman in Syria, sentencing them to death by stoning over allegations of “adultery”.

      Unconfirmed reports claim that in at least one case, the woman was sentenced to death as her new husband found that she was not a virgin.

      Both incidents of death by stoning have been reported from Al Raqqa Province.

      “The Islamic State carried out, for the second time in 24 hours, the punishment of Al Rajem (stoning to death for adultery) against another woman in the city of Al Raqqa in a square near the Municipal Stadium,” an official from NGO Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) stated.

      The stoning, which was first reported by the SOHR, has also been confirmed by Al Jazeera which claimed that the first stoning took place in a public square in the town of Tabaqa on Thursday evening.

      The report noted that the woman was tried at the Islamic Sharia court, where neither the witnesses who made the allegation were identified, nor the man – who is said to be the paramour – was charged.

    (Link): Woman Stoned In Syria For Not Being A Virgin Was A Widow, ISIS Threaten ‘Death By Sword’

      A woman stoned in Syria by ISIS jihadists in the northern Raq province was put to death for not being a virgin. But some reports are claiming she was in fact a widow.

    ——————————
    Related posts:

    (Link): Biblical Balance in Teaching About Sexual Sin – don’t white wash and downplay sexual sin, but don’t continually beat people up over it

    (Link): No Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity – Christians Attack and Criticize Virginity Sexual Purity Celibacy / Virginity Sexual Purity Not An Idol

    Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin

    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.

    However. HOWEVER.

    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

            )

          Seriously?

          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).

          (Link): Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities

          Excerpts.

              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.”

            Continue reading “Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin”

            Christians should marry Muslims to tackle Islamophobia, says peer

            Christians should marry Muslims to tackle Islamophobia, says peer

            (Link): “Christians should marry Muslims to tackle Islamophobia, says peer”

              CHRISTIANS should be encouraged to marry Muslims as a way of tackling Islamophobia, a senior peer claimed today.

            Ho ho ho, NO. No, no, no, no.

            Islam is a perverted, sexist, violent religion.

            Muslims are a billion times worse than Christian gender complementarians, who regularly and ignorantly advise Christian wives to stay in abusive marriages and “submit” even more to an abusive Christian loser husband (based in large part on sexist interpretations of the Bible – see John “Christian wives should endure being smacked around for the night” Piper, Christian author and former preacher, as one example).

            Muslims are into honor killings (where they will kill a female even over trivial issues, e.g., for dating a Christian, dating an American, or for totally unjustifiable, victim-blaming ones, such as a woman being a rape victim).

            Muslims are into FGM (female genital mutilation).

            Some Muslims shoot little girls in the head for wanting an education.

            Do an internet search for the phrase “Boko Haram” and look up stories on Malala Yousafzai, who was a girl shot in the head by Muslims for wanting to go to school (see (Link): Boko Haram on Wiki, (Link): Malala_Yousafzai biography on Wiki).

            If you would like to see endless laundry lists of the sexism, and more violence and perversions of Muslims, do visit (Link): this site or (Link): this one for examples.

            On a tangent here, I love that this is my blog and I can say what I want.

            I so tire of the “#NotAllMuslims #NotAllMuslims!” propaganda garbage I see from left-wingers on other sites whenever crimes and sins of Muslims are brought up.

            I know, Lori Liberal, (you even have a dopey “COEXIST” bumper sticker on your car), that your best friend “Muslim Moe” who lives in Podunk, USA right next door to you, is a super nice guy, but unfortunately, 90% of his Muslim compatriots around the world hate Christians, Hindus, atheists, Jews, Americans, Brits, and regularly try to slit our throats or blow us up.

            Sunni Muslims hate Shia Muslims and vice versa, so you have Muslims killing each other, too. The fun and hilarity never stops with these guys who believe in the Koran.

            I don’t know if the guy suggesting in this article that Christians marry Muslims considers himself a Christian or not. I think he is. He mentions that several of his family members are Christians who married Muslims.

            First of all, Christians are not “Islamophobic,” but the majority of Muslims are “Christophobic,” that is, Muslims hate Christians and murder them, and their religious texts tell them to do so.

            Secondly. This sure flies in the face in the non-stop “be not unequally yoked” stuff I heard from other Christians growing up.

            There were several guys I could have dated or married in my past, (some very good looking and financially well off), but they were not Christians. I was a Christian at the time and used to believe strongly in “be not yoked,” so I did not give those guys a chance (I would now, though).

            Given that many Christians (and hypocritically, usually the ones who are now age 55, married at 17, who met their spouse while in high school or Sunday school at church) lecture the rest of us Christians singles who over over age 30 and still single, to hold out only for a Christian spouse, this whole view that “Christians should marry Muslims,” coming from some Christians now, is quite odd.

            Given that many devout Muslim men are abusive, sexist, murdering weasels (yes, take your “#Not All Muslims” view point and cram it where the sun don’t shine: #Most-Muslim-Men-Are-Abusive-Violent-Maniacs-Yes-Indeed-They-Are), it is dangerous.

            (Link): “Christians should marry Muslims to tackle Islamophobia, says peer”

              CHRISTIANS should be encouraged to marry Muslims as a way of tackling Islamophobia, a senior peer claimed today.

            by Owen Bennett – Political Reporter
            Jul 8, 2014

            Lord Scott, a former Supreme Court Judge, cited his own family – in which two of his four children married Muslims – as an example of how interfaith families can thrive.

            The peer, who sits as a crossbencher in the Lords, made the comments during a debate on how to improve relations between the Muslim community and other faith groups in the UK.

            He said: “Of my two sons one has become a Muslim and of my two daughters one of those has become a Muslim, and I have 12 lovely grandchildren, seven of whom are little Muslims.

            … “I do just wonder that if an improvement is needed between the faith groups, one way of promoting that might be to encourage interfaith marriages.”

            According to Christian theology, Jesus Christ is the only way to God (see John 14:6).

            Ergo, his daughters who have renounced Christ for Allah (quoting Jesus: “But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.” (link to that)), and his sweet, cute little baby Muslim grand children, when they get to whatever the age of accountability is, will go to Hell when they die, unless they convert at some point.

            That’s not so “lovely,” there, fella. Sacrificing their souls to be politically correct isn’t lovely. What a loon.

            I’m not on board with the “equally yoked” teaching anymore, but if there was one type of Non-Christian I would never marry, Muslim would be it.
            ———————————
            (Hat tip to radio host Janet Meffered, which is how I first saw a link to this article earlier today – she tweeted a link to it.)
            ————————-
            Related posts this blog:

            (Link): Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or Rhetoric

            (Link): A Critique of – 10 Men Christian Women Should Never Marry by J. Lee Grady / And on Christians Marrying Non Christians -and- Unrealistic, Too Rigid Spouse Selection Lists by Christians

            (Link): The Dating Swamp: How Finding Love in DC May Be Impossible For Young Trump and GOP Staffers – Liberals Hypocritically Insist You Date Transgender Persons But Not Trump Voters

            (Link): Majority of Heterosexuals Say They Won’t Date Trans Folk and That’s Discrimination Somehow – by Brett T.

            (Link): Why Christians Need To Stress Spiritual Family Over the Nuclear Family – People with no flesh and blood relations including Muslims who Convert to Christianity – Also: First World, White, Rich People Problems

            (Link): Christian Host Pat Robertson Tells Christian Woman Who Married Christian Man Who Turned Out to Be Totally Unethical That She has Discernment of a Slug – Single Women: toss Be Equally Yoked teaching in the trash can

            (Link): Males and Females Raped at Christian College, College Doesn’t Care – Equally Yoked is a Joke

            (Link): Typical Incorrect Conservative Christian Assumption: If you want marriage bad enough, Mr. Right will magically appear

            (Link): Gender Complementarian Advice to Single Women Who Desire Marriage Will Keep Them Single Forever / Re: Choosing A Spiritual Leader

            (Link): Married Christian Rock Singer in Legal Trouble for Hiring Hit Man To Kill His Wife – he also had drug addiction

            (Link): Married Southern Baptist and Calvinist Preacher and Father of Boy Exposes His Naked Penis to Teen Girl in Store

            (Link): Wife of Preacher Shoots, Kills Him, Recounts Years of Physical and Sexual Abuse – So Much for the Equally Yoked Teaching and the Notion that Christian married sex is Mind Blowing

            (Link): Another Example of Why the Equally Yoked Teaching is A Joke for Single Christian Women : Baptist Preacher Arrested for Allegedly Fire Bombing Ex Girlfriend’s House While She Was In It

            Off Site Link:
            (Link): Is Interfaith Marriage Always Wrong, Given that the Bible Teaches Us Not to Be ‘Unequally Yoked’?

            Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or Rhetoric

            Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or “Not All” Rhetoric
            ——————————-
            REMINDER

            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.

            See for example, (Link): this biblical passage or (Link): this one or (Link): this one.

            #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:

            DEAR AMY:

              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:

            DEAR CONCERNED:

              …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.

            Continue reading “Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or Rhetoric”

            Kook Christian Groups / Individuals and Their Nutty Beliefs on Pro Creation and What Constitutes Being Unequally Yoked

            Kook Christian Groups/Individuals and Their Nutty Beliefs on ProCreation and What Constitutes Being Unequally Yoked

            Here is another post or two with more quotes by people who claim to be Christian but who teach the thoroughly un-biblical view that God’s kingdom is to be spread by married couples pro-creating (making babies).

            The Bible in fact teaches that the kingdom is to be spread and enlarged by Christians- whether married, single, divorced, with children or childless – telling the un-saved about Jesus Christ, not by marrying and having children.

            As to this first link. I tend to lump all these categories together myself – patriarchy, quiverfull, complementarianism – because to me, they are all just a bunch of men teaching that men should control females.

            The author of this piece below might kind of disagree with me, because he (or she?) seems very keen on people following very specific definitions of each term.

            I do not agree with some of the sharp criticisms of this piece. I for one don’t see the problem with someone proclaiming that “Christian patriarchy is two steps away from making women wear a burka.”

            Because you know what? It is. Some of the rhetoric and reasoning is very similar in “Christian modesty ” teachings as it is in Islamic teaching on how they feel women should cover their bodies and faces.

            I actually think that comment is pretty dang accurate, in that many of these groups do advocate “modesty” teaching, which frowns on Christian women showing so much as an ankle.

            Both groups – Muslims and pro-modesty Christians – tell women that they should cover their bodies because men are incapable of controlling their sexual urges and that men get instantly turned on beyond their control at the site of an attractive female. So, responsibility is placed upon women in both schools of thought to “dress modestly.”

            Regardless of those issues, note the quote below about how this person believes that Christian women should “out breed” their opponents:

            From the page, (Link): WHAT “CHRISTIAN PATRIARCHY” IS NOT , by R.L. Stollar

                Quiverfull is, more or less, a specifically Christian form of natalism — the idea of employing procreation as a tool of sociopolitical dominion and categorizing birth control as rebellion against God.

            Michael Pearl gave us a perfect embodiment of Quiverfull’s dominionist streak, when (Link): he recently stated,

            “If you can’t out-vote them today, out-breed them for tomorrow.”

            That is Quiverfull (albeit a distilled, intense version of it).

            … Yes, there are many advocates of Christian Patriarchy who are Quiverfull.

            And by all means, speak out against the dehumanizing and toxic idea that your children are your weapons, and a woman’s vagina is a weapons-building factory.

            But remember these are distinct, especially considering there are many advocates of Christian Patriarchy who are not Quiverfull.

            Take Doug Wilson, for example.

            Doug Wilson is considered one of the pillars of Christian Patriarchy but believes birth control can be useful to ensure you’re actually taking care of your current children. That’s outright heresy to the Quiverfull crowd.

            From this site:
            (Link): Not On Your Side, Debi

            Excerpts (emphasis added by me):

              …. Several of the Pearl children’s spouses were raised in Gothard’s ATI program. (I say “spouses”, but Michael Pearl made it clear years ago that his children do not need any such thing as marriage licenses. A ceremony and their parents’ blessing is apparently good enough.*)

            … Besides being given to racist and homophobic remarks, the Pearls are somewhat obsessed with sex. It gives Michael [Pearl] hope to envision homeschoolers “outbreeding” progressives.

            He counsels the wife of an angry man to “make love” to improve her husband’s mood.

            Debi often suggests that being sexually available is a wife’s primary responsibility.

            Michael even wrote a book on erotic pleasure for fundamentalist Christian couples.

            I can’t remember where I saw it – if on one of the pages above, but some page I read earlier today referenced quotes by Debi Pearl about being “equally yoked.”

            Perhaps these comments can be found on her and her husband’s site, No Greater Joy, I am not sure.

            Someone on another site quoted Pearl as having said that if you are a Christian, and you marry another Christian in a state that permits homosexual marriage, that your marriage – yes YOUR marriage to another Christian – is “unequally yoked.”

            The argument seems to be that if you, a Christian, marry an opposite gender to yourself Christian in a state that also has legalized homosexual marriage, that a marriage performed in such a state taints yours, or makes yours invalid.

            To put it yet another way (according to the Pearls): your marriage to another Christian is “unequally yoked” all because your next door neighbors, Fred and Stan the homosexual couple, are legally married by the same state too.

            Please let that sink in and roll around in your brain for several moments: two Christians, one a man, one a woman, married to each other in a state where homosexual marriage is legal are said by the Pearls to be “unequally yoked”.

            I’ve thought on it for awhile and still cannot make sense of it. What nuts these people are.

            I ventured on over to the Pearl NGJ (No Greater Joy) site and see they have a page for singles ((Link): NGJ: Singles), and with pages on advice on how to find a mate, LOL, no thanks, won’t take advice from crackpots like them. The Pearls advise in their books on parenting that parents should beat their infant children with pipes.

            There is much more nuttiness by them, but I don’t want to make this a huge post about the Pearls and every crazy thing they’ve ever taught.

            On the main page for NGJ Singles is this:

                PreparingToBeAHelpMeet.com
                Shalom (Pearl) Brand
              This is from the Preparing blog site. The girls are discussing Shalom’s article in the Sept/Oct 2012 NGJ magazine, “Where A

            This page at NGJ Singles actually recommends that parents allow a brother to pick out husbands for their sisters:

            (Link): NGJ site: Need a Spouse…ANYONE? By Debi Pearl

            I’m in my 40s now and still not married.

            My one brother is married to an atheist heroin addict. Yeah, I don’t think I’ll be going to my big brother for martial partner selection or input, thanks but no, Debi.

            By the way, does it never occur to these Christian parents that their daughter may choose to stay single, a choice which God respects (see 1 Corinthians 7)?

            Excerpt from Debi’s page:

              Scores of young men asked for Shalom [one of Debi’s daughters].

            She was gentle, cute, hard-working, and always cheerful, in addition to being the most compliant girl you have ever met.

            But before they ever made it to our door to talk to Daddy Mike, most of them were already discounted as possibilities. Gabe or Nathan had seen to that with their reports.

            Big brothers were watching out for their sisters, especially the sweet one.

            How skin crawling is that, for so many reasons.

            I have said it before, and I will say it again, but some Christian views on gender roles – whether we are talking patriarchy, gender complementarianims, or using the term “biblical womanhood” – is nothing but CODEPENDENCY under religious terminology, and is, therefore, un-biblical.

            Codependent women are sweet, gentle, shy, compliant, soft spoken – they have poor- to- no- boundaries. Codependents are afraid or reluctant to be assertive, say no to people, and express anger.

            Note too, that these are the same exact characteristics that are held up by Christians as being marks of biblical womanhood, or desirable for a Christian man to look for in a Christian wife: sweet, shy, gentle, compliant, soft spoken, little- to- no- boundaries.

            Further note in books by experts on spousal abuse the sorts of traits abusive men intentionally look for in a mate:
            sweet, shy, gentle, compliant, soft spoken, little- to- no- boundaries.

            Seeing a pattern yet?

            Yeah, Debi Pearl is (and I find this sad and chilling) totally thrilled that her daughter is prime pickings for an abusive man.

            More excerpts from the page (advice to older brothers with younger single sisters):

                Talk to your guy friends. Say something like this,
              “Hey, you looking for a bride? I got four sisters and would consider it a privilege for you to drop in and take your pick. My parents trust my judgment and I’m giving you high marks. Of course, my sisters are picky, and they have the last word, but I’ll throw in a good word for you with them, too.

            Now, the oldest sister is kinda bossy, but she always gives in after a little persuasion. She’s the smartest. So if you think you would enjoy a little challenge but get a good mate for the extra effort…she’s your gal.

            My next sister is not so cute, but she is the nicest of the bunch.

            …So how about it…wanta check out the fam? I got four other guys coming Sunday for brunch, so you better hurry if you want the pick of the litter.”

            That whole excerpt is so horrifying and sexist, I hardly know where to begin.

            I would not want my brother approaching his male friends and blurting out, “So, you lookin’ for a bride?” My god, that would scare away every man on the planet.

            Not that I object to friends and family setting me up with eligible guys my age, but what Pearl is suggesting sounds almost more like arranged marriage, where the woman is playing a very passive role.

            Pearl also makes it sound like the brother is supposed to “market” the sister to men, as though she is not a human being, but a brand of shampoo, a car, or a tube of toothpaste.

            She is kind of asking the brother to play the role of a pimp.

            This remark: “My next sister is not so cute”

            If your own mother is basically advising your brother to tell his pals you are ugly, that is pretty damn insensitive.

            At any rate, here we see above yet more examples fringe, wacko groups, or persons, passing themselves off as Christian, but who are teaching some bizarre, un-biblical things about marriage, having children, and re-defining what “equally yoked” means (or has been traditionally understood by most Christians to mean).

            It’s bad enough when Christians are telling Christian singles to only marry other Christian singles

              (there are not as many single adult Christian males as therer are females, so you are in effect asking single females to die alone and single)

            but the Pearl family is basically telling Christian singles not to even marry another Christian single if they live in a state where homosexual marriage is permitted, as that would make their marriage “unequally yoked” (sorry I do not have a source for that, it is a quote someone pasted in at another blog without a link, I have no reason to believe he or she was lying about it).

            I am really creeped out and appalled by these views of marrying, what constitutes being un-equally yoked, and pro-creation these groups are advocating. Their views are totally un-biblical. They have given themselves over to the worship of marriage, parenthood, and family.

            Instead of worshipping the God of the Bible, they are worshipping their own peculiar ideas of culture, family, and marriage.

            If Moses came down from the mountain today, he’d see most of the contemporary, American “Christian” people bowing down before a statue made of gold, of a figure of a man, woman, and child holding hands (a statue of “nuclear family”), with a “Focus on the Family” broadcast playing on a radio in the background, with a mountain of books with titles such as, “Ten Steps to a Great Marriage” and “How to Raise Godly Children.”
            ——————————————–
            Related posts:

            (Link): If the Family Is Central, Christ Isn’t

            (Link): Hetero Couple Forced to Divorce Because They Say Homosexuals Are Ruining Their Marriage

            (Link): Conservatives and Christians Fretting About U.S. Population Decline – We Must “Out-breed” Opponents Christian Host Says

            (Link): Christian Stereotypes About Female Sexuality : All Unmarried Women Are Supposedly Hyper Sexed Harlots – But All Married Ones are Supposedly Frigid or Totally Uninterested in Sex

            (Link): Christian Patriarchy Group: God Demands You Marry and Have Babies to Defeat Paganism and Satan. Singles and the Childless Worthless (in this worldview).

            (Link): Gender Complementarian Advice to Single Women Who Desire Marriage Will Keep Them Single Forever / Re: Choosing A Spiritual Leader

            (Link): Family as “The” Backbone of Society? – It’s Not In The Bible

            (Link): Decent Secular Relationship Advice: How to Pick Your Life Partner

            (Link): Being Unequally Yoked – should Christians marry Non Christians or only marry Christians

            (Link): Married Female Christian Blogger Whose Mate Hunting Criteria is Guaranteed to Keep Marriage Minded Single Christian Men Single Perpetually

            (Link): On Christians Marrying Non Christians -and- Unrealistic, Too Rigid Spouse Selection Lists by Christians

            (Link): Are Fundamentalists Aiming to Out-Breed Secular America?

            (Link): Misapplication of Biblical Verses About Fertility (also mentions early marriage) – a paper by J. McKeown

            (Link): Cultural Discrimination Against Childless and Childfree Women – and link to an editorial by a Childless Woman

            (Link): The Irrelevancy To Single or Childless or Childfree Christian Women of Biblical Gender Complementarian Roles / Biblical Womanhood Teachings

            (Link): Why Unmarried and Childless or Childfree – Single Christians Should Be Concerned about the Gender Role Controversy

            (Link): Why all the articles about being Child Free? On Being Childfree or Childless – as a Conservative / Right Wing / Christian

            (Link): Males and Females Raped at Christian College, College Doesn’t Care – Equally Yoked is a Joke

            (Link): Pastor charged in wife’s murder was headed to Europe to marry boyfriend, prosecutor says – Single Xtian Ladies: Kick that Be Equally Yoked Teaching to the Curb! Also: Marriage and Parenthood do not make people more godly or mature or loving or ethical

            (Link): Christian Single Women: Another Example of Why You Should Abandon the “Be Equally Yoked” Teaching: 21-Y-O Christianity Student, Children’s Minister Charged With Murdering Fiancée He Was to Wed in August; Made It Look Like Suicide

            (Link): Study: Couples Without Children Have Happier Marriages / Study: Having Kids Ruins Your Life

            (Link): Leader of Hyper Family Focused, Fertility Cult (Vision Forum Ministries) Steps Down After Admitting to Having an “Emotional Affair”

            (Link): Bay-Bees – Have them, have lots of them and NOW, no matter what say some Christians

            (Link): Motherhood Does Not Make Women More Godly or Mature (Mother Suffocates New Born and Shoves It In Toilet)