Teen Vogue Magazine Promoting Anal Sex (2017)

Teen Vogue Magazine Promoting Anal Sex

One wonders if this teen magazine ever offers celibacy or virginity as choices for teen girls? Probably not. Liberals generally do not support a girl or woman’s choice to sexually abstain, but will mock it.

I don’t think the vast majority of women want to have anal sex with a man but are usually pressured into it by a boyfriend. Ditto on oral sex and other non-missionary style forms of sex. (But perhaps the article was aimed at LGBT individuals.)

If you are a teen girl (I cannot imagine why a teen girl would be reading my blog, but regardless…) you can do with your body as you please. If you do not want to have any sex at all, then do not have sex. If you do not want to have anal sex, then do not have anal sex.

Do not allow feminists, boyfriends, magazines, or Hollywood pressure you, shame you, or guilt trip you into doing sexual activity you feel conflicted about or don’t want to participate in.

If you have a boyfriend who is pressuring you to have sex or to engage in a particular sex act you’d rather not perform, please realize it is better to be single than to stay in a relationship with a guy who guilt trips you, uses threats of breaking up, or whatever, to get his way with you sexually.

If a guy does not respect your boundaries and wishes in the area of sexuality, break up with him!  Please stop wasting your time with him. You will eventually get another boyfriend later. There is nothing wrong with being single.

(Link): Teen Vogue’s Bizarre Anal Sex Article Shows Women Are Still Being Defined in Relation to Men

Excerpts:

The supposedly progressive piece, intended for teenage girls, refers to women as ‘non-prostate owners’, ignores the organ for female pleasure and fails to mention any potential dangers

Defining women by the men around them is an issue feminists have sought to address, and correct, for years.

…It would stand to reason that we could assume that in 2017 any work aimed at women would be sure to avoid such regressive patterns.

However, in (Link): Anal Sex: What You Need To Know for Teen Vogue, sex educator and feminist activist Gigi Engle managed to harp back to a time where women were defined by their relationship to men.

…Not only is any potential pleasure a woman may feel during anal sex reduced to the lack of male body parts (she is a “non-prostate owner”) but the clitoris, the actual hub of female sexual pleasure, has been removed. The lack of a male body part is the focus of what defines the female body, and what is actually there isn’t identified at all.

What is this teaching the audience of a magazine aimed at teenage girls? It tells them their identity is not “woman”, but rather “non-man”.

It tells them that should they consent to anal sex, their body is just a hole for the man to penetrate, and the part of their body that is most sensitive and reliable for the female orgasm is so irrelevant that it doesn’t even warrant a label.

It tells them that consenting to anal sex is not about their pleasure, but about their partner’s.

What it fails to tell them is the potential dangers of anal sex. The possibilities of fissures and tears which can become infected very easily due to contamination by faeces, severe enough to need surgery, or lead to anal abscesses which increase the chances of catching HIV.

By treating anal sex as an equivalent to vaginal sex, you increase the chances that your audience will not understand the potential damage they can do to their own or their partner’s body, and in turn increase their chances of becoming seriously ill.

(Link): Parents outraged over Teen Vogue anal sex how-to column (but magazine still defends it)

Teen Vogue is defending its decision to publish a graphic tutorial to anal sex for children and teenagers – (Link): calling critics homophobic.

“This is anal 101, for teens, beginners and all inquisitive folk,” author Gigi Engle wrote in “A Guide to Anal Sex.”

… (Link): The original article did not include any references to practicing safe sex – but was later amended to include a line about condoms being “non-negotiable.”

“Here is the lowdown on everything you need to know about butt stuff,” the writer declared.

Parents across the nation became enraged upon learning that Teen Vogue wanted to turn their children in sexual deviants.

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)

Stuff that Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook Group Likes

Stuff that Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook Group Likes

Stephanie Drury, owner of SCCL Facebook group, doesn’t care about victims.

Drury may thinks she cares about victims, and she may even want you to think she cares about victims, and you may even mistakenly think she cares about victims or other wounded people, but-

From what I’ve witnessed on her Facebook group and Twitter behavior, what Drury really cares about is pushing a liberal agenda. (I will discuss this a little more below the list.)

In the past, owner of SCCL Facebook group, Stephanie Drury, linked to a few of my posts on this blog, with the motive of having her group of Flying Monkeys mock and ridicule my posts or me.

I used to be a regular visitor to Drury’s SCCL group, for a period spanning approximately four years. I always lurked, never posted, because I spotted several red flags with her group.

Over the last 2 or 3 years, I at times tweeted Drury with stories I thought she would find interesting, and sure enough, she would share some of those links on her SCCL Facebook group.

I tried to be on friendly terms with her on Twitter, but I guess that doesn’t matter to her.

Around the first week of June 2017, Drury once again shared a link to one of my blog posts with her SCCL Facebook group. In the past, I said nothing when she did this with other posts of mine.

This time, however, I tweeted her to let her know I saw her post a link to my blog post on her group.

After that, she tweeted me a few times, but so too did some of her fans on Twitter, and none of it was nice.

Mutual Exclusivity on Social Issues by Liberals, Atheists, and Some Moderate Christians

Mutual Exclusivity on Social Issues by Liberals, Atheists, and Some Moderate Christians

Over the past two years on twitter (and on some blogs), I keep seeing some people – usually liberals, but sometimes atheists and moderate Christians – engage in this game of mutual exclusivity as concerning social issues.

They also seem to have a blind spot or two. They will point out the “sins” committed by Christians, Republicans, or conservatives all damn day long, but then ignore those very same sins when committed by liberals, Democrats, or Muslims, atheists – or whatever other special interest groups they usually pander to.

TRANSGENDERISM

For example, if you speak out in concern against CIS men using transgender bathroom policies to rape CIS women, trans-activists will say you should be more concerned about churches who harbor child sex abusers.

I think I may have addressed that argument in this post:

(Link): Conservatives, Christians, Transgenders, and Bathrooms – Addressing Libby Anne’s “Love, Joy, Feminism” Post About Transgenders

The fact that so many churches harbor child rapists, or handle child sex cases improperly, does not automatically make it acceptable to allow CIS men into women’s bathrooms or locker rooms under the guise of being “trans friendly.”

The two are separate topics.

Therefore, I am against this argument from some people that everyone should be more, or only, concerned about child safety at churches than they should be with child welfare at public rest-rooms or public fitting rooms.

It is not a mutually exclusive concept.

An individual can be concerned about CIS men exploiting trans-friendly bathroom rules to rape CIS women, and that same individual can also be concerned about predators using churches to victimize children.

Yes, it’s possible to care about more than one issue at a time.

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.

Liberals and White People

Liberals and White People

In the past few weeks, I’ve seen more and more headlines about liberals complaining about white people, and stories along the lines of college kids wanting to exclude white people from campuses, for at least a day.

There are college kids who want non-white dorm buildings.

Liberals also go on quite a bit about “white privilege.”

I also saw a headline or two about some kooks who wanted to “kill all the white people,” and one of these kooks was arguing that anyone and everyone in culture be permitted to kill all whites.

There is also a headline or two about left wing college instructors who think society would benefit if all white people were dead.

One thing I cannot comprehend about this is how do multi-racial people fit in?

Not everyone out there has two white parents or is descended purely from white people.

In my family, for instance, both sides inter-married with full-blooded Native American Indians, from more than one Native American Indian Nation.

So, I’m not totally a “Person of Color” (or whatever liberals would call it), nor am I totally Caucasian. I’m a little of both. I’m not sure where I would fit in within the liberal scheme of things.

So, when these college kids call for “No Whites” day at their college, and if I were a student at their school, would they argue I could attend, or would they demand I stay at home that day? And on what would they base their response?

What do these liberals do with guys such as former American President Barack Obama, in that, I believe one of his parents was white and one was black?

A few decades ago in American culture, white racists did not want black people to be in the same areas as white people, so everything was segregated. Why in the holy hell do today’s liberals want to now segregate everyone? They’re reverting back to 1950s or 1960s-era culture. Very odd.

I’m still very curious as to how liberals would address people who are not 100% white or who aren’t descended from only white people.

If you’re advocating for killing white people – not that I think one should – but if you are, how can you be sure the person you’re killing is 100% white?

To some people, I may appear white, but others see I have Native American features.

What if you kill a person thinking she’s white, but in reality, she was only partially white?

Are you liberals advocating for this disgusting view (of killing all whites) going to do DNA testing on every person to make sure everyone you send to the gas chamber is totally white?

And what do you do with people of color who are married to 100% white people? (Previous post on this blog: (Link): More Americans Are Marrying People of Other Races Than Ever Before)

Do you really think a black person, Asian, or Hispanic person who is married to a 100% white person is going to stand idly by while you send his or her spouse off to a killing camp?

Here are some links about liberals calling for the killing of white people, or arguing for non-white spaces, and other related subjects:

(Link):  Police Tell Prof He’s in Danger for Not Participating in Evergreen State College’s Campus ‘No Whites’ Day By Tom Knighton [VIDEO]

(Link):  No Campus For Professors Opposed To Anti-White Racism 

(Link):  ‘White people dying has generally worked’: Black professor draws outrage for classroom remarks

(Link):  Professor Argued For ‘Killing White People As Self-Defense’

Professor Thomas Curry presented the case for “killing white people in context” in a 2012 radio interview. He also suggested that black people have to kill white people “as self-defense” on the road to equality, Campus Reform reports.

(Link): Student Mob Demands Professor Resign for Questioning No-Whites ‘Day of Absence’…

(Link):  Evergreen College closed for 3rd day after receiving ‘new threat information’ (Update) – June 5, 2017

About Trinity College:

(Link):  Trinity College Faces Threats After Professor’s Social Media Post

(Link):  Professor plays victim after publishing ‘#LetThemF**KingDie’ post about white people (editorial)

(Link):  Professor’s profane, anti-white messages cause campus controversy

(Link):  Outrage at college professor for calling white people who are proud of their race ‘inhuman’, and writing ‘let them f**king die’ after baseball gun attack on Republican lawmakers

(Link): Trinity College Faces Threats After Professor’s Social Media Post

(Link): Trinity College Professor Flees State Amid Death Threats Over Inflammatory Social Media Posts

June 22, 2017, by Katie Reilly

A professor at Trinity College in Connecticut has fled the state after receiving death threats over inflammatory social media statements that he says were taken out of context.

Johnny Williams, who has been a sociology professor at Trinity since 1996, recently shared a (Link): Medium article by an author known as “Son of Baldwin” that ended in a “call to show indifference to the lives of bigots,” Trinity President Joanne Berger-Sweeney said.

The article included an accusation that House Majority Whip Steve Scalise — who was shot last week during a congressional baseball practice and saved by Capitol Police officers who are black — holds racist views. “What does it mean, in general, when victims of bigotry save the lives of bigots?” the article said.

“Saving the life of those that would kill you is the opposite of virtuous,” it added. “Let. Them. F—ing. Die.”

Williams shared the article on his personal Facebook and Twitter accounts and used the hashtag #LetThemF—Die, including the expletive, prompting an outcry as the posts spread on social media.

What would liberals do about this baby:

(Link):  ‘I can’t let them do this to another family’: White lesbian mother who was inseminated with black man’s semen ‘after sperm bank mixup’ says she wanted blonde-hair blue-eyed baby

Or this:

(Link):  What Adopting a White Girl Taught One Black Family

The Left Can Be Just as Bad as the Right – The SCCL Pence Post

The Left Can Be Just as Bad as the Right – The SCCL Pence Post

(June 7, 2017 edit farther below –
Drury posted a link to this at her SCCL group. Most of her readers have missed the point of the post. Some of them incorrectly assume I am an evangelical, that I voted for Trump, or am a member of the GOP – I am not.

This post has been modified several times to add new information

Some of the more frequent criticisms I’ve received in regards to this post I have addressed in edits below)

Over at Liberal- to Ex- Christian (and sometimes atheist) SCCL Facebook group, Stephanie Drury linked to an editorial (her link),

“I Was Trained for the Culture Wars in Home School, Awaiting Someone Like Mike Pence as a Messiah”

“”Christofascists have been wanting someone like Pence in the White House and, until now, didn’t have a way to get one in.”

Posted by Kieryn Darkwater on January 26, 2017

My main point is that groups such as Drury’s, many left wingers, many Ex Christians, are just as bad as those they criticize.

Depending on the topic, they can be just as hateful, rude, or harbor as many blind spots and double standards as those they criticize, whether we’re talking about Republicans, conservative Christians, and Donald Trump (or V.P. Pence) or LGBT causes, or abortion, or whatever the issue.

By the way – Drury’s SCCL Facebook group has largely nose-dived into being an anti-Trump type group over the last few months.

She used to cover spiritual abuse by churches and the like, but politics seem to be over-taking her group a bit.

It seems like every 4th to 5th post at the SCCL group pertains to criticizing Trump.

Transgender SJW Liberal Person: Biological, Lesbian Women Should Want to Date People Who Have Penises

Transgender SJW Liberal Person: Biological, Lesbian Women Should Want to Date People Who Have Penises

I am posting about this not so much because this is a Transgender person featured, or because he (she) is talking about how “women have penises too,” but to comment upon this attitude that people are wrong to be attracted to whomever they wish.

Rural College Urges Faculty To Ditch The Terms ‘Husband’ And ‘Wife’

Rural College Urges Faculty To Ditch The Terms ‘Husband’ And ‘Wife’

This must be a liberal thing. This nuttiness sounds like something far left liberals would concoct and browbeat and shame the rest of us into accepting.

(Link): Rural College Urges Faculty To Ditch The Terms ‘Husband’ And ‘Wife’ by R. Shimshock

A college in rural West Virginia hosted a safe space training workshop that suggested faculty not use the terms “husband” or “wife,” and taught them about “heterosexual privilege” and the correct language to use when addressing LGBTQ individuals.

Public Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia, recently conducted a (Link): “safe space training” for faculty, consisting of presentations, quizzes, and games advocating sensitivity in the classroom. In one of the quiz slides, the university encourages faculty to call “someone’s significant other” a “partner, spouse, significant other” or “mate.”

[post shows slides taken from University’s training course]

Other slides addressed pronouns and terms like “cisgender” and “pansexual.”

Online Dating Soared by 35 Percent After Trump Was Elected – Also: Dating Site For Trump Supporters

Online Dating Soared by 35 Percent After Trump Was Elected – Also: Dating Site For Trump Supporters

(Link):   Make Dating Great Again: Trump Singles matchmaking site is for President-elect  [Trump] supporters only 

According to this article (next one below), most Democrats would be unwilling to date Republicans.

How stupid. You should be able to look past the person’s political views, unless they are obnoxious about them and insult you over yours or something like that.

(I’m a right winger but would feel perfectly fine dating a left wing guy, so long as he’s not a rude jackass towards me over our political differences.

And, by the way, as a right wing woman, I’d like to say, right wing men should NOT be sending insulting messages to left wing women on dating sites over their political views, as this site says some men are – that is so very rude).

(Link): Online Dating Soared by 35 Percent After Trump Was Elected – Also: Dating Site For Trump Supporters by N. Spector

Excerpts:

If you’re single and actively dating, this year’s Valentine’s Day may have been your crummiest yet. And not for the usual reasons like lack of chemistry or the person being nothing like their profile promised — but because of whom they voted for, and what political positions they support.

Earlier this month, the dating service Coffee Meets Bagel surveyed 1,320 users and found that the majority of singles say politics are impacting their quest for love.

Why Progressive Christians Are Ineffective and Unpersuasive by P. Heck – Also: How Liberals Can Avoid Turning Off Right Wingers

Why Progressive Christians Are Ineffective and Unpersuasive by P. Heck

I agree with some of this guy’s points, but maybe not all.

He mentions Rachel Held Evans in his post – I think she’s right, for the most part, in her opposition to gender complementarianism, but I think she’s incorrect on other topics.

I have several more things to say below this link and long excerpt:

(Link): Why Progressive Christians Are Ineffective and Unpersuasive by P Heck

Excerpts:

… There is a reason that liberal Christian movements like those championed by Jim Wallis, Rachel Held Evans, Shane Claiborne and others are so ineffective and unpersuasive in American culture.

Rather than seeking to glorify and build the Kingdom of God, they regularly appropriate the language of Scripture to advocate for earthly, largely political causes that never address the principal need of humanity: redemption from sin.

The Non-Stop Trump- Bashing by Liberal Sites Makes Formerly Semi- Useful Liberal Sites Totally Useless To Me Now

The Non-Stop Trump- Bashing by Liberal Sites Makes Formerly Semi- Useful Liberal Sites Totally Useless To Me Now

I am a right winger who never- the- less started following a lot of left wing news social media accounts, left wing opinion accounts, and left wing individual Twitter accounts over the last couple of years.

I used to find these left wing sites good sources of information for topics such as dating, singleness, marriage, divorce, spiritual abuse by churches, and so forth.

However, as the 2016 American Presidential campaign kicked into high gear in the fall of 2016, and now that Donald Trump is the 45th President of the United States, all the left wing sites I used to follow for stories about dating, divorce, wedding trends, feminism, sexism, the intersection of religion and politics, etc. and so on, have all turned into “Anti Trump All Day Every Day” channels. It is so annoying.

These left wing sites have become useless to me now.

If all these liberal sites are going to do for the next 4 (to 8) years is complain and whine about Trump non-stop and just nit pick at the guy

(seriously, check (Link): this incredibly Petty anti-Trump Tweet by left wing site Jezebel, in which they snark that he wore scotch tape on his tie on his inauguration day – who gives a crap if he did so, Jezebel?

And left wing site Raw Story (Link): cackles in glee that Obama supposedly had more of an inauguration audience than Trump –

More stupidity from Raw Story: (Link): mocking POTUS dance with his wife during inauguration ball, (Link): mocking the first lady’s jewelry line being mentioned on White House site),

-if these liberal sites are going to resort to this nonsense non-stop for the next 4 years, they are totally useless to me.

I don’t tune into these types of sites and Twitter accounts to see nothing but non-stop Trump bashing.

If these left wing sites don’t get with the program and start covering other topics besides “How Much Trump Has Cooties,” I will probably be un-following them.

The constant Trump bashing that renders these sites useless for my purposes is so incredibly annoying. 

---

Related:

(Link):  The Left Can Be Just as Bad as the Right – The SCCL Pence Post

Study Finds That Conservatives Are Generally More Good Looking (Better Looking than Left Wingers)

(Link): Right Leaning People Are More Attractive 

People who hold more conservative views are usually seen as more attractive, a recent study revealed.

A study in the Journal of Public Economics determined that a person’s attractiveness correlates with their political beliefs, (Link): reports The Washington Post.

(Link): Study Finds That Conservatives Are Generally More Good Looking

In a study (Link): published in the Journal of Public Economics, it was found that the general attractiveness of a political candidate correlates to their ideology, and that those on the right in Europe, Australia and the US were overall seen as better looking than their counterparts on the left.

The research also noted that this was a correlation and not causation. Essentially, attractive people tend to drift towards more conservative political positions because life tends to be easier for them, considering they (Link): tend to make more money, and are thus going to be generally more resistant to the type of social welfare and redistribution programs championed by liberals.

Another explanation the study proposed for attractive people leaning right is that they are usually treated better than everyone else and therefore don’t see the need to make the world more equal for others, finding things to largely be fair.

Pew Report: Religion Plummeted During Obama Era

Pew Report: Religion Plummeted During Obama Era

(Link): Pew Report: Religion Plummeted During Obama Era by T D Williams

Excerpts

January 2017

In a new study of President Obama’s legacy, the Pew Research Center found that religious affiliation and practice dropped off dramatically during his two terms in the White House.

“When it comes to the nation’s religious identity, the biggest trend during Obama’s presidency is the rise of those who claim no religion at all,” Pew notes in a report released this week titled “How America Changed During Barack Obama’s Presidency.”

When Barack Obama took office, those who identified as atheists or agnostics along with those who said their religion was “nothing in particular” totaled only 16 percent of the U.S. adult population. On leaving office 8 years later, the non-religious in America now make up nearly a quarter of the population.

On the contrary, the percentage of Americans who say they believe in God, consider religion to be very important in their lives, pray daily and attend religious services at least monthly have all dropped during the Obama years, Pew found.

American Christians, Liberals, Liberal Pet Groups, and Persecution

American Christians, Liberals, Liberal Pet Groups, and Persecution

(This post has been edited and updated, especially towards the bottom, to add more commentary or links)

---

For about the past year, I have thinking about blogging about this topic but put it off until now.

I have seen liberal Christians, ex-Christians, left wing Non-Christians, and moderately conservative Christians complain or mock American Christians who claim that American Christians are being persecuted in the United States due to being  Christian.

In the past, I’ve seen liberal Christian blogger RHE (Rachel Held Evans) comment on this subject on her blog, on her Twitter account, as well as the Liberal, quasi- Christian, Stephanie Drury bring this up on her (Link): “Stuff Christian Culture Likes” Facebook group from time to time.

Above: Accurate Visual Representation of How Some Pro-LGBT Groups Treat Christians. (Artist Unknown.)

I’ve also seen moderately conservative Christians I am acquainted with discuss this in Tweets or on their blogs.

To reiterate a point I’ve made before, I do sometimes agree with SCCL’s Drury on some issues, and I even periodically Tweet her links to news stories I think she may want to share on her Twitter account or on her SCCL Facebook group.

However, I totally part ways with Drury on some topics – like this one.

The view of liberal Christians, ex-Christians, liberal Non-Christians, and even some moderately conservative Christians, is that American Christians are not under persecution in the U.S.A. for being Christian, or for practicing Christian beliefs.

I am not sure if the liberal or moderate conservative disagreement on this issue pertains to semantics (the terminology involved), or if they are actually blind and oblivious to the harassment that Christians, especially conservative, or traditional valued, Christians, face in American culture.

It is my position that American Christians do in fact face harassment – especially from the left wing – in the United States for being Christian, for wanting to practice their faith and carry it out in public, and for defending it in public.

If you are a liberal who objects to the term “persecution,” how about, instead, the words or phrases, “harassment,” “bullying,” “picking on,” “hounding,” or other terms?

I do not see American Christians getting a free pass in the United States to hold certain views or to practice their beliefs.

The left (and I’d include severe anti-theist atheists here, on this point, regardless of their political standing) insist that Christians keep their Christian faith walled off, private, and separate from all other areas of their lives.

Some Liberals Call Gatlinburg Fire Punishment for Trump Support

Some Liberals Call Gatlinburg Fire Punishment for Trump Support

Well this is a switch.

Usually, we find right wing Christians saying that every natural disaster in the United States is due to homosexuality or abandonment of support to Israel, but here we have liberals saying that the wildfires in TN are due to people voting for Trump.

(Link) : Some Liberals Call Gatlinburg Fire Punishment for Trump Support

Excerpt:

Zach Montanaro | November 30, 2016 1:08pm ET

…That’s right, some [Liberals] are saying that people deserve to have their homes destroyed because they are Trump supporters.

One of the first instances of this came from a man named Tobias Beecher who said that he was “laughing” at Trump supporters “as their homes burn to the ground.”

Standard Christian View About Sex is Actually Creating Controversy: “Major Ministry Will Fire Employees Who Don’t Believe That Sex Is Only For Married Straight Couples”

Standard Christian View About Sex is Actually Creating Controversy: “Major Ministry Will Fire Employees Who Don’t Believe That Sex Is Only For Married Straight Couples”

(I have edited this post a few times to add additional thoughts – there is also a December 2016 update below in regards to the left wing BuzzFeed and ‘Stuff Christian Culture Likes’ witch hunt story about HGTV hosts Chip and Joanna Gaines)

---

Among some progressive Christians or progressive Christian groups, this news story was quite the controversy about a week ago when it was first published.

I read in another news source that IV (InterVarsity) says that their position on these issues has been misunderstood.

I have some more comments to make under the excerpts here:

(Link): Major Ministry Will Fire Employees Who Don’t Believe That Sex Is Only For Married Straight Couples

Excerpts:

A Christian organization that leads student religious groups on more than 600 college campuses will fire any of its 1,300 employees who say they do not agree with the organization’s theological interpretation on sex: that it is only appropriate within a heterosexual marriage.

That means that any InterVarsity Christian Fellowship employees who believe that churches should perform gay weddings, who endorse sex before marriage, who condone pornography or who hold any number of other beliefs might be included in what the evangelical organization calls “involuntary termination.”

Coming from a major evangelical institution, the policy revives debate about how churches should handle questions of sexuality and who can define themselves as evangelicals.

In an interview with The Washington Post on Friday, the ministry’s vice president Greg Jao said that since InterVarsity employees teach college students about biblical views, it is imperative that they share the same beliefs. Four or five people have been fired so far, and he expects more to follow in the next month.

Why Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Aren’t Fighting the Culture Wars by D. Linker

Why Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Aren’t Fighting the Culture Wars by D Linker

(Link): Why Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Aren’t Fighting the Culture Wars by D Linker

Excerpts:

Sept 2016

by D. Linker

The most momentous thing about Monday night’s presidential debate wasn’t anything Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton said. It’s what they didn’t say.

Not a word was spoken about abortion, same-sex marriage, religious freedom, “family values,” or any other issue championed by the religious right over the past few decades.

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.

Editorialist Argues That Single Christian Adults Can Have Sex So Long As They are Chaste About It – Also Speculates that Jesus Was “Probably” Celibate – Re: Good Christian Sex Book by Bromleigh McCleneghan

Editorialist at WaPo Argues That Single Christian Adults Can Have Sex So Long As They are Chaste About It – Also Speculates that Jesus Was “Probably” Celibate

Edit: I originally assumed when first writing this post that McCleneghan is a dude, but it appears that McCleneghan is a woman(?).

---

I’ve said this before on my blog, but I will say it again: if you want to fornicate (have sex outside of marriage), go right ahead, but stop trying to justify it by saying God, Jesus, or the Bible is fine with it.

I’m over 40, still a virgin, I did not have sex with my ex fiance while we were a couple. I have a libido.

I’m still celibate. By this stage in my life, I’m now okay with the idea of having sex prior to marriage if I am in a stable, committed relationship, but should that happen, I will freely admit that it is a sin as far as God or the Bible is concerned.

I’m not going to sit here and argue that my fornication (should it occur) is peachy keen with God because I’m being faithful to the one guy and only boinking the one guy.

I have more comments below this long excerpt:

(Link): Sex and the single Christian: Why celibacy isn’t the only option

Excerpts:

By Bromleigh McCleneghan

August 22 at 6:00 AM

…I’m compelled by the idea that Jesus was probably celibate, but that it would have been for a purpose, and that it might have been hard to bear sometimes.

…Jesus was fully in relationship with many. He had intimate friendships, and he was dedicated to his work. If his celibacy was hard, he was not overly anxious about it; he leaned into the other parts of his life.

Jesus was different and his path was likely puzzling to those around him, even as it puzzles us still today.

.. One of the most unfair things the Christian tradition has foisted on singles is the expectation that they would remain celibate — that is, refraining from sexual relationships.