views and thoughts on topics, especially ones pertaining to christianity – with an emphasis on how most christians either ignore or discriminate against unmarried christians – and how christians have turned marriage and parenting into IDOLS and how there is no true support for sexual purity, virginity, or celibacy among christians – this is a blog for me to vent; I seldom permit dissenting views. I don't debate dissenters ————-
Why Are Conservatives Forcing Mothers From Their Kids?
I am marginally still a social conservative, but as the months go by, I find myself drifting further and further away from it (though I’ll never be a liberal).
I was a stalwart social conservative for many years, but I’ve become more attuned to some of the hypocrisy or double standards contained within some socially conservative points or views.
One of the things I’ve struggled with the last couple of years is that Republicans (I’m an ex Republican) and social conservatives claim to be “pro-family,” yet, they often want to push through policies that cut off or limit families or kids or single mothers in some way.
Yes, I grasp that Republicans are for smaller government and want to cut expenses, but I don’t see how they can do that in the area of family benefits.
How can you claim to be “pro family” and to support children, and say that liberals are the evil anti-family types, when you keep promoting legislative material that wants to cut funding for families or kids? (Please see the “Related Posts” section at the bottom of this post for more.)
By the way. Many social conservatives and Christian conservatives fret, fret, fret that marriage and baby-making are on the decline in the United States – see for example links on my blog such as this one –
And yet, they penalize women who do become pregnant and give birth. If you are a Republican, Christian, or social conservative who thinks family is great, motherhood is great, and that women should have more children, then why on earth would you penalize women who do in fact give birth?
Shouldn’t you be willing to help all mothers – whether single or not – more? I don’t understand the hatred for mothers who need a helping hand from the very people who bray on and on about how horrible it is today’s culture supposedly disregards motherhood and the nuclear family.
Many Republicans, social conservatives, and Christians I’ve seen since I’ve been a teenager reading political columns, have regularly argued that children are better off if their mothers stay at home, rather than dropping them off at a daycare to hold down an outside-the-home career.
But as this editorial by Walthers explains, some of the Republican reforms of welfare has forced women into working outside the home, thus leaving their children motherless during the day.
How is it out of one side of their mouths that conservatives are saying it’s bad for women who are mothers to work outside the home, but then forcing them into the position to do that very thing?
Liberals Bully Porn Actress Online For Refusing to Film Sex Scenes With Homosexual Actors
(Links to follow.) Story as I understand it: a porn actress, Ames, who identified as bi-sexual, tweeted that she refused to film sex scenes with a male actor known to also film homosexual sex scenes with other male actors, because she had health safety concerns.
After she tweeted that, Liberal Social Justice Warriors piled on, some even sending her death threats about it. They really think a woman should have to have sex with someone, or a certain type or category of person, even if she does not want to.
The day after receiving all this online bullying, the actress committed suicide by hanging.
I thought liberals were supposed to be pro-woman, feminist, and supportive of a woman’s chose? No, some of them are not (the ones who are wholly sold out for supporting a Liberal Agenda vs. sincerely helping all women), as this story once again demonstrates.
A Response to the Editorial “America Needs a New Sexual Revolution” by Melissa Mackenzie
I guess Ms. Mackenzie drank from the Gender Complementarian Kool-Aid, or something like it.
The complementarian world is a world in which one is taught there are only two options concerning women (I know this because (Link): I used to be one myself for many years):
-either be and live as a traditional values person who believes all women are, or should be, passive, dainty, and delicate and should marry young and have children, or, -be and live as a bra-burning, man-hating, liberal feminist.
I present a third option, which is hated by some liberals (when I bring it to their attention), and it’s an option that is never even considered by other conservatives, which is as follows:
I am a right wing woman who rejects sexism, and finds fault in both the left and right wing on some women’s issues, but who also sees some merit to some arguments on either side, depending on the topic.
In this blog post, I am commenting upon this editorial on The American Spectator:
A foundation of the opening of this editorial rests upon a presupposition that, and to paraphrase my understanding of the author’s perspective:
“Everything that is wrong today in regards to culture, sex, marriage, dating, and women, is liberal, secular, FEMINISM, and feminism is EVIL! One can directly trace the downfall of American sexual morality to the feminism of the 1960s!!”
Such thinking is a common trope in about every right wing publication I’ve ever read on these subjects.
To that point, about feminism supposedly being to blame for all of society’s marital or sexual problems, I would ask you to read this off-site post, which is by a Christian (not by a left wing, secular feminist):
There’s a coarsening of relationships between men and women, parents and children, and people with each other.
// end MacKenzie quotes ///
I don’t think secular, left wing feminism was the start of the “coarsening of relationships between men and women” but is a response to it.
One can read the Old Testament of the Bible, which dates back several thousand years, to see men raping their own sisters, owning harems of women (in some cases, women having no choice but to be in a harem, or to be a concubine), and men committing adultery. There was no 1960s, American- style feminism around in Biblical days.
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:
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-bloodedCherokee 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:
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).
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.
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.
… 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.”
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.
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.
On Offering Up Prayers and Thoughts – and how it annoys Liberal Christians and Atheists
I had been thinking about doing a post about this subject for the past one to two years but never got around to it.
This has become a really big pet peeve of mine, and I see it all the time from liberal Christians, ex Christians, and atheists: criticizing people of faith who publicly offer up prayers or thoughts for people, especially after a national tragedy, such as a mass public shooting or a natural disaster.
….The more freedom we have, the more there will be very feminine and masculine subcultures too, and this might explain a great deal of recent political developments — in particular the campus identity politics movement and the alt-right.
The former is heavily female, while the latter is overwhelmingly male — in fact, not just male, but populated by men who seem to have difficulties with women.
…Single women tend to be politically very liberal, voting for the Democrats in huge numbers….
Generally speaking, the culture wars are far more intense between women because women have to make more sacrifices — whether children or career — and this inevitably influences their worldview.
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.
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.
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 & 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 pagetitled, “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 vandalismto 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…
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
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
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:
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.
(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 seethis 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
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.
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?
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:
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.
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.
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
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’
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.
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.”
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).
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
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:
… 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
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
-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.
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.
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.
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.
