HomeReviewsInterviewsStoreABlogsOn Writing
And People Wonder Why I Hate Organised Religion So Much...

Check out this utter knob jockey called Bruce, who had this (and loads more besides) to say:

“It is funny to see the charge of misogyny leveled at the Church by women who promote the female version of pornography. Both “romance novels” and porn objectify and destroy the dignity of men and women. The Church opposes this, because she believes in the dignity of men and women, and rejects our objectification.

The Church is the only institution which, for the last 2000+ years, has regarded a WOMAN as the greatest human being to ever live. Better than any world leader. Better than any king. Better than any president. Better than any man or any other woman in the history of the universe. She is the Mother of God, Mary, and only the Church venerates her above all other human beings. The Church – that “misogynistic institution” considers a woman to be better than all other human beings who have ever lived, or will ever live, and venerates her as such. The Church – that bastion of “misogyny” – which has exalted countless women saints as exemplars of the human race. The Church is the ONLY institution which upholds a woman’s natural sexuality – no poisons or barriers or mutilation – and exalts her fertility as a gift, not a disease.

The Church knows she is the BRIDE of Christ. (K: Absolute wackjob alert!) And that she serves Him, and no one else. Christ gave His life for HER and no one else. The Church, and John Paul II in particular, exhorts husbands to love their wives like Christ loves the Church – to DIE FOR THEIR WIVES.

I’ve never seen an institution so completely in love with women, and in particular mothers, than the Church.

You see, your ignorance has blinded you to the only institution which actually upholds your dignity in a world of unbridled objectification, pornography, and abuse of women. The sexual revolution only brought misery and pain.

Look at your own lives. Those who indulge in porn and “romance novels” have consistently poor relationships. The divorce rates are sky high for women and men who participate in these things.

In contrast, men who believe what the Church teaches, and live by it, treat women so well, they never divorce. Our divorce rate is 4%. Yours is above 50%. We treat our wives with respect, love, and a level of devotion that requires us to die for them if need be.

That is the kind of love you only find in fictional romance novels, and in the Catholic Church.

Pax,
Bruce – husband, father, and disciple of Jesus Christ.”

He is everything that I hate about organised religion. Rampant intolerance for other people’s lifestyles, all in the name of God. Fucking hypocrite.

I bet as well as being Catholic he’s a Republican, it’s the only thing that makes sense. Twat.

105 Comments »

  • Regarded a woman as the greatest human being who ever lived? Does he mean Mary? A woman whose specialness is defined by her reproduction (and her virginity – not coded language At All). And amazing how women are so revered yet a woman being a spokesperson for the God she birthed is forbidden?

    Ooooh a woman’s “natural sexuality” whyyyy do I think that there’ll be a lot of women not agreeing with that? And hiow is her fertility a gift – the whole process of impregnation is skipped!

    Ahhh but at least they don’t read the dirty dirty dirty porn.

    And I’ve never got why divorce is considered a bad thing. As a Family lawyer I’ve had the pleasure to see many a relaionship that stays together for various reasons – there are times when you need to split and times when people need to be free.

    On a related note, I’ll be the first to agree with my loathing of the bigotry of Organised religion. But to use an anti-gay slur (knob jockey) as an insult to do it, especilaly since gay people are some of the victims of organised religion… well, at best it’s a trifle ironic

    ReplyReply


  • Jeannie S.
    April 26
    1:16 pm

    I have been hanging on to being loyal to the Catholic Church, but this guy really makes me want to give up. I have seen good priests that seemed to be understanding and very likeable, and others who were judgemental and condemning. The attendance in our church has fallen way off, it just isn’t welcoming anymore. People want to feel hopeful, not told how they are sinners every week. Most Catholics do feel this way, and want change. If the church (those who have position of power and authority) continue to ignore this, they will lose more and more parishioners.

    And equating romance novels with porn and divorce?? Being told I should read non-fiction? It’s my life, please worry about your own.

    ReplyReply


  • Mireya
    April 26
    1:31 pm

    There isn’t much more that I can say that I haven’t said before. I had a neighbor like the guy above, who was also the biggest GOSSIP in the whole neighborhood, that decided I was gay based on the simple fact that I never brought any dates to the house. I didn’t bring dates to the house because I was NOT dating either males or females. Period. My being gay would have been a rather juicy bit of gossip for the asshole as my dad was a practicing Catholic as well and went to the same church and all. Nevermind that that same asshole OWED a lot of favors to my dad as dad was a doctor and he saved him a LOT on free med consultations and prescriptions… but I guess that’s irrelevant *rolling eyes… again*

    M.

    ReplyReply

  • @Fangs for the Fantasy: Oh my good dog, Mary, of course!

    Virginal, obedient, submissive: perfect woman.

    knob jockey: huh, I didn’t realize what it meant until you pointed it out, but then again, what with Karen being a Brit, there are all sorts of new-to-me slang here.

    ReplyReply

  • @AztecLady:

    Heh I’m British as well hence my noticing

    But yeah – Mary on a pedestal is the very definition of the “Madonna/Whore” (she named the trope!) dichotomy. Sexless, virginal, obedient and her worth is defiend by her motherhood and reproduction

    ReplyReply


  • Patrice
    April 26
    7:49 pm

    Oh that guy was such a troll! Most of that quoted passage was in response to my post of “specific objections” which, in retrospect, I knew would rile him up. So I apologize for baiting him. He got worse as he went along! lol

    The dogma of the Catholic Church is archaic and not known for adapting to current times. Among other things, contradictions that could only be accepted “on Faith” abound. Immaculate Conception. Rising from the dead. Annulments or Dissolution of Marriage (even in cases where there are children) are sanctioned, but Divorce is wrong. Oh and lets not forget that reproduction is a virtue and sacred duty, but in vitro fertilization is “intrinsically evil” according to a court case featured on Today Show this morning. Makes me spittin mad, it does! ;-) Had to give religion up for Lent many years ago. lol

    Peace, Love and all that hippie dippy stuff! ;) XO

    ReplyReply

  • @Fangs for the Fantasy: Knob jockey is an anti-gay slur? Not in my town. It’s no different to knobhead, or twat to me, and I use both insults liberally.

    ReplyReply

  • @Karen Scott:

    Yes it is. “Knob” = penis “Jockey” = rider. Many people use anti-gay slurs as a generic insult – in the same way people use “gay” as an insult – the core of the insult is homophobic.

    ReplyReply

  • @Fangs for the Fantasy: Ok, if you want to get specific, here are all the different meanings for knob:

    A rounded handle that one pulls or twists:
    Doorknob, a round handle one turns to open any door
    Control knob, controls a device
    Brodie knob on the steering wheel
    A prominent rounded hill or mountain, particularly in the Appalachians and the Ozarks
    A slang term for the penis
    A derogatory epithet similar to “idiot”
    Another word for tow ball or hitch ball
    Protrusions on the surface of erythrocytes associated with Maurer’s clefts in malaria

    And let’s look at all the ways jockey can be interpreted:

    jock·ey? ?[jok-ee] Show IPA noun, plural jock·eys, verb, jock·eyed, jock·ey·ing.
    noun
    1.
    a person who rides horses professionally in races.
    2.
    Informal . a person who pilots, operates, or guides the movement of something, as an airplane or automobile.

    to ride (a horse) as a jockey.
    4.
    Informal . to operate or guide the movement of; pilot; drive.
    5.
    to move, bring, put, etc., by skillful maneuvering: The movers jockeyed the sofa through the door.
    6.
    to trick or cheat: The salesman jockeyed them into buying an expensive car.
    7.
    to manipulate cleverly or trickily: He jockeyed himself into office.

    Like I said, to me, it’s just another generic insult. It’s not as if only gay men ride penises is it? If I can call somebody a twat, a pussy, (which no doubt is probably sexist at its core) or a dickhead, then I can certainly call them a knob jockey. If somebody wants to presume that I’m being homophobic, that’s their look-out.

    ReplyReply


  • Bruce
    April 27
    1:39 pm

    “Regarded a woman as the greatest human being who ever lived? Does he mean Mary? A woman whose specialness is defined by her reproduction (and her virginity – not coded language At All”

    Mary is the greatest human being ever created because she willingly chose to give birth and be the Mother to God Himself.

    It was her CHOICE. God was “pro choice” when He asked her, through the angel, to give Him flesh – to be His Mother and the Mother of us all.

    She is the greatest because she is a mother, and there is nothing greater in the world and in the Church than a mother. If one rejects the celebration of mothers, I question his or her very humanity.

    ReplyReply


  • Bruce
    April 27
    1:48 pm

    IVF is intrinsically evil, as is contraception, abortion, and sterilization.

    In each case, a woman is harmed and her sexuality is mutilated, distorted, or destroyed, oftentimes at the hands of men.

    Christ and His Body, the Church, recognize the evil of destroying human sexuality for the selfish desires of men and sometimes women. To separate the procreative from the unitive purpose of sex is to destroy it altogether.

    ReplyReply


  • Momofthree
    April 27
    2:05 pm

    If you girls don’t think that modern, secular society is bad for women then read this: http://www.scifiwright.com/ (scroll down to “What is Wrong with the World-Part IV”- Hypocritical).

    The Church opposes porn, artificial contraception (but not NFP) IVF etc for very good reasons. I think the Catholic Church understands male sexuality pretty well (although I do think priests should be able to marry if they choose). Men are dogs when it comes to sex. Putting women on the Pill is like serving them up on a platter (John Wright’s analogy, not mine) to the basest nature of men.. “whoo hoo! Come use us and have fun with our bodies, now freed from the product of our sexuality (that took millions of years to evolve). Sex is about procreation? Nah! It is just about fun!”

    STD rate since 1965….up
    Divorce rate since then….way up
    drug use since then….up
    lonliness since then…way up
    women’s depression since then….up.

    Contradict me…I challenge you.

    ReplyReply


  • Bruce
    April 27
    2:08 pm

    To accuse me of being “intolerant” is to have no effect at all. Tolerance of evil and sin is not a Christian virtue. We do not tolerate evil or sin.

    So, if that is “intolerance,” then we are happy to be so.

    ReplyReply


  • Anne
    April 27
    3:26 pm

    @Bruce:

    Why are you even here? Clearly, it’s not a sincere attempt to win anyone over to your religion. I can only assume you’re here to offer, what? Your condemnation? God’s? Either way, your hubris is showing. And I’m fairly certain Karen was talking about you, not to you.

    ReplyReply


  • Bruce
    April 27
    3:28 pm

    I’m here to spread the Truth. Jesus Christ is Lord, and His Church is His Mystical Body on earth.

    I’m here to combat the lies, bigotry, and hatred spewed at Christ and His Church.

    ReplyReply


  • Anne
    April 27
    3:30 pm

    I see no lies here. She quoted you warmly and accurately.

    ReplyReply

  • @Bruce: You are a total troll, and preach to somebody who’s interested. I’m not. Your bullshit, just validates my reasons for hating religious freaks like yourself. I’ve been polite, now I just want you to fuck off. Stop posting here, or I’ll just put your details on spam alert, and ban you.

    @Momofthree: As for you, you lost me at “the church opposes porn, contraception for very good reasons” .

    Understand this freak, I don’t believe in what you believe, I believe in the pill, I believe in contraception, I believe in IVF for women not lucky enough to be able to conceive naturally, I believe in the rights of women to choose what happens to their body. I don’t give a flying donkey’s penis who’s getting divorced and why, Your very presence and your views offends me to the nth degree. I find you and people like you an abomination to humanity. You are probably the type of cretin who’d make her daughter have a child sired out of rape. You people disgust me.

    I don’t need to challenge your views, I’m not in the habit of trying to change closed off minds.

    I think you’re a brain washed idiot who’s got every right to believe in your bullshit church, (a church that allows pedophiles to get away with the greatest sin known to man by the way) but please, I beg of you, fuck off from my blog.

    ReplyReply

  • Spammed Bruce! Twat.

    ReplyReply


  • Anne
    April 27
    5:11 pm

    @Bruce_:

    This is possibly the most blatant concern trolling I’ve ever seen. And the irony? It burns.

    ReplyReply

  • Anne, he’s a dick, best to ignore and spam. Disgusting creature.

    ReplyReply

  • I’ve banned both of them now. There’s always a first time for everything. Fucking religious zealots. Ugh.

    ReplyReply

  • Thank you for taking care of the assholes, Karen

    ReplyReply


  • Andrea
    April 27
    7:45 pm

    So, condemning people who are religious (when you are not) or part of another political party (that you don’t ascribe to) is the height of tolerance and understanding?

    Just weighing in here as a religious woman who finds great solace, affirmation and challenge in being a Catholic. My experience of being in a church where people try (and fail and try again) to follow Christ’s way has been self-defining and self-shaping in what I see as the best ways possible. I am paraphrasing Waugh here (I think), but he was challenged about being a Catholic and a git and responded that he would be more of a git without being Catholic. I know that it true of me and have also seen how this is true for devout (religious) Sikhs, Jews, Muslims, etc. that I know.

    Perhaps dismissing/degrading religious people and their experience is not the way to show tolerance and understanding of the experience and beliefs of others.

    ReplyReply

  • @Andrea: Andrea, I’m not religious, and I don’t pretend to be tolerant, which means that I can be as rude as I like to religious freaks who try to preach to me. I have no tolerance for people who tell me that a woman doesn’t have the right to choose what she does with her body, that IVF is wrong, or that contraception is the devils doing. I certainly don’t have time for people who tell me that reading romance books equates to reading porn, and thus I will burn in hell. Make no mistake, this blog is not a democracy, and I don’t tolerate zealots like Bruce, or fanatical arsewipes, like that Mary bird.

    You wanna preach to me, go elsewhere and practice your free speech, because that type of free speech isn’t welcomed here. My blog, my rules.

    ReplyReply


  • Andrea
    April 27
    8:38 pm

    So tolerance and decency toward others is only reserved for those you deem acceptable? Or words and actions in the internet don’t count? Or only count in the ways you want them to count on your own blog?

    It’s hard to follow your logic here.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    April 27
    8:38 pm

    Well hell, I was gonna tell Bruce “talk to the hand.” LOL

    This whole type of thing is what turned me away from organized religion to begin with. I fundamentally find no difference between people like Bruce and that crazy guy in Waco, Texas. It’s all, “my way or the highway.”

    This based on texts written by men, for men, and relentlessly interpreted by yet other men.

    I’ll stick with my one on one conversations with Jesus and God, thank you very much. No mouthpiece needed.

    ReplyReply

  • @Andrea: I was tolerant until he started preaching at me. At that point, my tolerance and decency expired. And my intolerance towards intolerant people makes perfect sense.

    ReplyReply


  • Anne
    April 27
    8:55 pm

    Do we know how Bruce found this blog? Clearly, he’s not a fan of romance, though they do say it’s the squeaky wheel that wants to get greased (or words to that effect).

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    April 27
    9:59 pm

    I’m pretty sure he googled the subject or “tags” brought him here from the original post.

    ReplyReply

  • @Anon 76:

    I’ll stick with my one on one conversations with Jesus and God, thank you very much. No mouthpiece needed.

    This, exactly this!

    Andrea, not only is this Karen’s blog (aka, definitely not a democracy), it is rude to come to a person’s space to condescend to her (which is what Bruce did, if you could be bothered to read the entire sequence of events).

    Personally, you (and Bruce for that matter) may believe whatever makes you guys happy. The Catholic church makes you happy? Go you.

    That is tolerance, by the way–I won’t try to convince you not to believe what you do.

    Now you can be tolerant when I say that there is no way in heaven or hell I could live with what I see as the hypocrisy and misogyny of the Catholic church–or any organized religion for that matter.

    ReplyReply

  • Lol, well I got to the bottom of where the religious freaks were coming from. Our banned friend Bruce wrote the below in a couple of Catholic blogs:

    If it is a fight Catholics want, stop fighting each other and start evangelizing those who hate us. This is what St. Francis did – to seek out those who hate us most and preach the Gospel.

    I found a typical front of the culture of death. If it is contraception you want to fight, and women who hate the Church because of her stance on it, start here:
    http://karenknowsbest.com/2012/04/26/and-people-wonder-why-i-hate-organised-religion-so-much/

    I got the ball rolling, and they have predictably hammered me for preaching about Mary and authentic sexuality. Its your turn to help me if you want. These are deeply confused and disturbed women.

    What a mental case. That guy is a news story waiting to happen. Glad I don’t live next door to the nutter. It’s only a matter of time before his hatred makes him do something really bad. He currently has a mild case of the Anders Breiviks. He too thought he was doing God’s work by murdering all those innocent kids.

    Fucking religious zealots, preaching hate in the name of God. Ugh.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    April 27
    11:24 pm

    Wow. Just wow. I desparetly wanted to tell Bruce and hangers on, just “Fuck Your Wife Like You Mean It.”

    Men ejaculate and that process is over for them.

    ReplyReply


  • SamG
    April 28
    1:22 am

    Um, I’m atheist. I don’t know all the old stories well. But, it has always been my thought that Mary wasn’t OFFERED anything or given a CHOICE. Didn’t that angel come down and say ‘you’ve been chosen to carry God’s son’?

    She is sort of an original rape, wasn’t she?

    As I said, I am no biblical scholar. But, I never got the
    impression that she was ASKED anything.

    Sam…

    ReplyReply


  • Kayla
    April 28
    2:23 am

    You know what I find offensive about organized religion? Each “religion” thinks their rules are the correct ones. Have you ever compared different religions and their rules? I have.

    Catholics don’t believe in “artificial” birth control (aka The Pill, the IUD, etc). They believe there are 3 levels you go to after death; Heaven, Hell, Purgatory.

    Pentecostals don’t allow women to cut their hair or wear jewelry. They must wear skirts.

    Muslims have varying degrees of restrictions on women as far as dress and behavior. The most extreme don’t even allow women to work.

    Baptists require women to be “submissive” and the extreme versions think dancing is a sin.

    Jehovah Witness refuse to recognize birthdays, Christmas or any other holiday.

    Mormons believe there are 6 levels after death.

    This just touches on those that come to mind. The list goes on and on. Who is to say which one is right?

    Religions are all MAN MADE. Each has it’s own made up rules. Many of which you won’t find in the Bible.

    I don’t recall every reading that Jesus said, “wear no jewelry”; “Ignore all holidays”; etc.

    I’ve always had a theory about religions. They are made up by MAN to control each other. And to control women.

    I’m American and I’m appalled at what is going on in my country today. Religious zealots are not only trying to take over the government, they are trying to take back 50 years worth of progress in women’s rights. It just flat pisses me off!

    ReplyReply


  • Alana
    April 28
    7:21 am

    Thank you, Bruce for a beautiful reminder of the inherent dignity of womanhood.

    ReplyReply


  • Anne
    April 28
    8:22 am

    So, he put out a rallying cry? And this was his attempt at evangelism?

    Didn’t he also claim to have been ordained? You’d think a real priest would be busy performing mass and providing pastural care to his flock.

    Also, what SamG said. Bruce’s grasp on the New Testament seems shaky at best. At worst, he’s deliberately twisting what it says. A Catholic he may be, but he doesn’t seem like a very good Christian.

    ReplyReply


  • Siobhán
    April 28
    2:48 pm

    As a girl of 24 who has seen, heard of and experienced much of what the world has to offer, I have to say I agree with Bruce, Momofthree, and Andrea. Yes, I am Catholic – very happily so – and I find great peace in God and in my faith. Do I have doubts? Yes – but reason supports me as well as faith. Thomas Aquinas in particular had a huuuge intellect and it’s shown in his Summae Theologiae. His five-fold argument for the existence of God from reason can be heavy going, but it makes sense.
    An analogy, if I may? (I’m going to make it anyway! :-]) Imagine the best thing that has ever happened to you – it makes you so deliriously happy. You’ll probably want to share it with others, or, at the very least, share how happy you are that it’s happened to >you<. That's like how Catholics and other Christians are when they share their faith – it's an overflow. When you believe you've found Truth with a capital 'T', you want others to know. It's a natural instinct of humankind to desire to know the truth. Not to sound too much like Agent Mulder, but I believe the truth is out there: unchanging and unchanged by what humans believe.
    Looking forward to a heartfelt response (I say that without sarcasm).

    ReplyReply

  • @Siobhán: As a woman of 46 who has seen, read, heard and experienced quite a bit of what the world does have to offer, I’m happy for you. Go on believing whatever you want.

    Plus, name dropping aside, there are many exCatholics who believe in God *raising hand* yet feel no need to follow the mandates of a misogynist institution–such as, just as a fer instance, dontcha know, the Catholic church–in order to prove to anyone whether or not their faith is sound and good and proper.

    Plus, that bit about how once a person feels s/he has found The One True Truth ™, s/he feels compelled to share it? That’s not the exclusive province of Christians. Everyone does it–Jews, Muslims and whatever else, they all do.

    And while I can take you sharing your acceptance of the Catholic church and its mandates with good humor, there is no way on earth I’m going to take anyone–young, old, female, male, alien–telling me how I’m less because I don’t believe whatever they are sprouting. The first is indeed simply sharing, the second is condescending, arrogant and unacceptable.

    ReplyReply


  • Siobhán
    April 28
    3:32 pm

    @AztecLady:
    Thanks for your response. I don’t think you’re less than me at all, or, for that matter, that anyone who isn’t a practicing Catholic is less than me. I certainly can’t judge people, their motives or their characters – there’s way too much hidden from me to do so, and God’s the ultimate Judge, anyway. Actions, words and thoughts are different: every minute, hour and day, we judge as to whether or not something is right and act accordingly. Of course, not everyone agrees on what is right and what is wrong. But if we find what we believe is true, that must also equate to that which is right…right? As in truth = goodness.
    The main thing that I want to say is that I try not to condemn others, and I hope I never will go down the road of being self-righteous. I can’t speak for everyone – maybe there are some folks who talk down to others – but I would hope that they grow more charitable too.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    April 28
    3:42 pm

    Siobahn,

    I have nothing against true faith. God endowed us with the unique ability to reason and my personal reasoning causes me to believe. It is the blind worship of archaic religious statutes that drives me nuts. Statutes written/interpreted and rewritten/reinterpreted on a constant basis by the “enlightened.” Might I also point out the “enlightened” and therefore “holders of the moral flame” are usually the male of our species.

    As to holding one religion more accountable than another when it comes to such things? I don’t.

    True story: Years upon years ago a young man, Born Again Christian, showed up at my door. In tow he had his son. Approximately seven-years-old and dressed like Dad, in suit and tie, both holding some version of the tremendously rewritten Bible.

    When I politely tried to shoo them away explaining that I don’t follow an organized religion, the man would not stop preaching on and on.

    I finally looked him in the eye and said something along the lines of, “I have a rebuttal but I really don’t think you want me to state it in front of your young son. He’s at an impressionable age and you may not want him to think on my words at a later point.”

    Nope, guy wouldn’t go.

    Okay then. “Sir, with all due respect to you, I think your “religion” is a bunch of hooey. You stand here with all sincerity telling me that those who do not follow in “the path” of your religion will be damned to hell. All I can picture is a little Catholic grandmother over in Italy. Momma Leoni. A woman who has never harmed anyone in her life. A woman who believes in God and Jesus with all her heart and practices her religion faithfully without falling into the politics of it.”

    “According to you, this woman is going to Hell. If that is your belief, then you Sir can leave my doorstep because I want no part of it. Goodbye.”

    With that I politely but firmly shut the door and no one from his “cult” tried to shovel feed me on that religion again.

    ReplyReply


  • Siobhán
    April 28
    4:09 pm

    @Anon76:
    Thanks for replying. At first, I misread “statutes” for “statues” – heh! (Although I do love the beautiful art in churches and shrines – it makes me want to pick up some tools and get creative.)

    I’m learning a bit more about the wisdom of the Doctors of the Church. Three of them are women: one having died when she was the same age as me (St Thérèse of Lisieux)! One whose feast day will be celebrated shortly is St Catherine of Siena: she was no shrinking violet. She was united with God as all saints are and, against this background, she was a source of guidance for two Popes. I don’t know very much about her, admittedly, but I thought I’d bring her up as I can detect a true womanly fighting spirit in her. St Teresa of Avila was also a marvellously witty saint – fiesty, even.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    April 28
    4:11 pm

    But, Siobahn, the ultimate question is, could any of these women have been made priests, or even a Pope?

    ReplyReply


  • Siobhán
    April 28
    4:23 pm

    I don’t see that as the ultimate question. Wherever the truth is, that’s where I want to go. The fact that the magisterium is composed entirely of men is secondary.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    April 28
    4:33 pm

    Ah, but that is the ultimate basis of this blog post and all the responses herein. Women can be saints, advisors to Popes, anything and everything but true leaders of the religion. Never priest, cardinal, nor Pope.

    “The fact that the magisterium is composed entirely of men is secondary.” Not to me it’s not. It only validates my views, which we are all allowed to have.

    In your research, do look up all the wars and devastation fought in the name of religion. Even predating Christ.

    ReplyReply


  • Siobhán
    April 28
    4:48 pm

    I must indeed look up more on the concept of ‘just war’ (along with countless other subjects). I do believe that you have to fight when it is called for. It’s just a matter of discerning when that time is. But thanks for reminding me: whenever human life is involved, we cannot simply block our ears.

    For now, I’ve gotta go to Mass, but thank you for taking time for this discussion. I’ll check back later!

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    April 28
    4:50 pm

    And the whole Catholic “confessional” thing drives me nuts too. Go in once a week and admit your sins, get a slap on the wrist, then go commit the same offenses again until next confession.

    It’s a Catholic loophole that irritates the shit out of me.

    ReplyReply

  • @Siobhán:

    The fact that the magisterium is composed entirely of men is secondary.

    No, for me and many others, it’s not only not secondary, but the entire point of the argument: in organized religions, with the Catholic church a preeminent example, women are considered less than men–else, why aren’t they even eligible for the ultimate leadership roles within said religions?

    @Siobhán: “Just war”? Seriously? Any war in which men kill other men–and alongside them, innocent bystanders, often women and children–ain’t just, no matter what those men in the ‘magisterium’ say.

    To pick up from one of your earlier response, if truth = goodness, then: it is truth that is misogyny that wreaks havoc on women and girls all around the world, with rape and female genital mutilation and the ultimate denial of equality of rights–to education and to leadership. I don’t see how that truth equates with goodness, unless a person thinks that yes, indeed, since women are inferior, they somehow deserve to be treated thus.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    April 28
    6:47 pm

    Damn, I lubs ya Aztec Lady.

    I didn’t want to address the “just war” thing, but you picked up the ball. Brava

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    April 28
    7:05 pm

    And here is a direct quote from the one and only book I wrote. It deals with the war thing of men.

    “Sword play is not a game, Milady. It’s a dangerous sport that can cause serious injury. (more text) and then

    “You are right, milord, it is not a game but neither is it a sport. Some grown men try to make it so.”

    The main text, in the heroines pov was, “There is nothing in the world like watching women and children being cut down because they have no idea how to protect themselves. To see them run screaming, begging for mercy, because their menfolk are unable to save themselves, let alone those they are there to protect.”

    ReplyReply

  • I swore that I wasn’t going to get into this, but here is goes…
    I was once twenty-four and at that time I also thought that I had seen and done it all. Now looking back, I realize how wrong I was. I was raised Pentecostal and graduated from a Baptist high school. I even worked for the church for a while. Hell, I taught Sunday school.

    Then as the years progressed, I realized that I had not seen it all, not by a long shot. I also began to realize that organized religion is not all cupcakes and rainbows.

    What happened you ask?

    My then two-year old daughter was misbehaving in day care,members of my church handed me a paddle and told me that if I didn’t use it on her then we were both sinners.

    When I found out my daughter had a learning disability, they told me that it was God’s will. Or even worse, that she was probably destined for a sinful life, so God did this to save her from herself.

    Leading members of the church stood in front of the congregation and told us that unless we give 10& of our income back to the church, we were destined for hell. This was despite the fact that most members made minimum wage while the pastor drove around a luxury car.

    A couple of years ago my son came out. Instead of being loving and supporting, both the church and members of my own damn family refuse to acknowledge him. Worse they fling hurtful statements his way. One street preacher even chased him down and thrust a pamphlet into his hand, one that was full of homophobic statements and pictures. My son was only seventeen at the time. What kind of person does that to a kid?

    Unlike so many others, I then decided to educate myself about religion. I read the Bible twice, took religion courses, then I went on to study other religions. All that led me to one conclusion–there is more than one way to spirituality. If God didn’t want us to question things and make our own opinions then he would have never given us free will;

    And for the record, I am damn proud of both my kids and wouldn’t change a thing about them. They are perfect the way they are and I am lucky to have them.

    ReplyReply


  • Anne
    April 29
    9:26 am

    @Stephani Hecht:

    Thank you for sharing this.

    It’s really hard when church attendance (and a willingness to be led by church leaders we have no reason to trust) are equated with belief. We don’t have to belong to an organization to be spiritual, and people like Bruce and their dire pronouncments can be exhausting. Karen’s right; there really is no arguing with someone like him. He wants to fight. He wants to come in and tell us the score. He has no interest in anything we have to say and no willingness to accept that we might actually not be speaking from a position of total ignorance, that we might have read and researched and experienced.

    Siobhan seems more genuine, so hopefully she/we can just (cliche alert) agree to disagree without anyone mentioning fire and brimstone.

    ReplyReply

  • @Anon 76: *blush* thank you, Anon

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    April 29
    5:08 pm

    Stephani, EXACTLY. Thank you so much for sharing a take on a different organized religion.

    Good for you and I applaud you for sticking up for your kids in the face of such adversity.

    ReplyReply


  • Siobhán
    April 29
    10:15 pm

    Hi girls… Apologies for being late – I had multiple tabs/windows open last night and was jumping from one thing to another (as I do). There’s a good article explaining how the ‘just war’ teaching works here: http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine. It’s important to note that not only the reasons for war must be just, but combat must be done in a just way. Therefore, Vietnam and Iraq were not just wars.

    Here’s a list of the points and explanations, if you’re caught for time with the article. You’ll have to forgive me for the copy/paste: I don’t see how I could write it better than it already is without staying up even later than I am now.

    ‘The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

    1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
    2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
    3. there must be serious prospects of success;
    4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

    These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.’ (CCC 2309)

    And on behaviour in war:
    ‘The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties.

    Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

    Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons — especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons — to commit such crimes.’ (CCC 2312-2314)

    Phew… I don’t know about you, but when I read these passages, I need to go through them nice and slowly…like a cow chewing cud. :-)

    ReplyReply


  • Siobhán
    April 29
    10:24 pm

    @Aztec Lady
    Hmm… I think I see where you’re coming from… Maybe it would be clearer in this context to say ‘goodness equals truth’? Evidently, rape, sexual harrassment, FGM, oppression are not good but evil. When these crimes are perpetrated, the ones who commit them are ignoring the truth that men and women are created in the image and likeness of God – that my, your, everyones’ body is sacred! – and that, as such, we have to treat our neighbour with love and respect.

    I know I’m getting philosophical here, but I think it’s necessary to some degree.

    ReplyReply


  • Marty
    April 30
    12:40 am

    Hmmmm… hard to know where to begin.

    @Kayla – You’re right. ALL societies have rules that are arbitrary. In some societies, women must wear skirts, in others, they wear trousers. All you have to do is look at Jewish Old Testament law to see that guys were under lots of restrictions, too.

    That doesn’t mean that society would function better with no norms or customs at all.

    @Sam G. I think the theological understanding is that Mary was asked for her consent, and she said “Yes”– a yes that’s been resounding for over 2,000 years.

    @Anon76. How on earth can you make assumptions about the sex life of Bruce, a guy you’ve never met? How do you even know for sure that Bruce IS a guy? This is the internet!

    @Siobhan, Anon76. Most of us, I think, consider saints to be higher than priests, cardinals, and even popes. I’d rather be one of the former than the latter.

    As for misogyny, you might check out the Democrats behavior toward women in 2008 – towards Hillary Clinton, then Sarah Palin. Lots of websites were tracking it – one left-wing site called Shakesville is pretty good. Why no denunciation about that? Sexism was a critical factor in eliminating a rival to current president.

    @Anon76. Confession-as-loophole presupposes dishonest intent. You’re supposed to repent and amend for the sincere love of God, not for a get-home-free card (let alone a ticket to heaven). I’m sure there’s lots that do that, though, and they are misguided.

    @Stephanie. You’re right. There are rotten people everywhere, and rotten groups of people everywhere. Human nature and mob behavior is unavoidable, in churches, in schools, in neighborhoods.

    Problem is, an idea can be true even if crappy people advocate it. A smelly drug addict yelling “Fire!” in a building just may be right.

    @Anne. The problem with being just “spiritual” is that it tends to remain an untested head trip. And also, one tends to repeat the errors that folks like (for example) St. John of the Cross warned against. Admittedly, being in any kind of a group has its own dangers – one of them being the harsh judgments of others, and being answerable for the poor behavior of some of the members.

    And I agree with you about Bruce. He came into a space owned by others and vented his own understanding, without regard to his audience. He was more interested in fulfilling his own perceived duty to speak rather than interested in actually being heard. Not a terrible mistake, but an annoying one for the listeners.

    ReplyReply


  • Marty
    April 30
    12:53 am

    Ah, I forgot…

    @Kayla. “Many of which you won’t find in the Bible…” If you are dealing with the Catholic Church, you are dealing with 2,000 years of tradition, in addition to the Bible. That’s the sticking point with the Protestants, especially evangelicals, for whom the Bible is the only authority.

    The Church is considered an entity (cf. Bruce “Bride of Christ,” etc.) that can continue the authority of the Bible. Don’t have to agree, but that’s the philosophy.

    ReplyReply


  • jack
    April 30
    3:11 am

    A modest woman is beautiful. So is a strong one. When the wine had run out at Cana, the servants turned to Mary: she would know what to do! I imagine her presence was something of a wonder. Magnetic. Anyway, what did she do? She told the servants to do whatever her Son told them. Then she sought His assistance. That isn’t a hand-wringing doe-eyed lass hopelessly oppressed by misogynism without a will in her bones. If we can’t see the power and the wisdom in submitting our egos–which was done supremely by Christ on the cross–for the sake of another… then no amount of power will satisfy. That’s not why women are not ordained, I am afraid, but it is why good nuns want nothing to do with it! Lol they say that headache? Leave it to the men God bless em.

    ReplyReply


  • Anne
    April 30
    9:22 am

    @Marty:

    But who tests the Pope’s head trips? How do you know he’s worthy to be considered alongside Jesus? What about all those infallible Popes who insisted the sun went around the earth?

    As a non-Catholic, extremeley-liberal protestant, I don’t think your centuries of tradion are worth much. And if I don’t value them, you can see why the Catholic church’s attitudes to women strike me as a tad chauvinist.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    April 30
    8:45 pm

    Okay, Marty, based on your response:

    “Most of us, I think, consider saints to be higher than priests, cardinals, and even popes. I’d rather be one of the former than the latter.”

    Then let me amend my question a tad:

    “Ah, but that is the ultimate basis of this blog post and all the responses herein. Women can be saints, advisors to Popes, anything and everything but true leaders of the religion. Never priest, cardinal, nor Pope.”

    Oh, wait, I did cover the saint issue. So, in blatant straight forth terms, why can women be anything and everything but true leaders of the religion? Sheep instead of shepherd.

    ReplyReply


  • Siobhán
    April 30
    9:34 pm

    “Confession-as-loophole presupposes dishonest intent. You’re supposed to repent and amend for the sincere love of God, not for a get-home-free card (let alone a ticket to heaven). I’m sure there’s lots that do that, though, and they are misguided.”

    I forgot to address that issue, Marty – thanks for doing so. Folks who abuse confession like that commit >another< sin and will not be forgiven their past sins if they are not truly sorry for them and if they do not firmly resolve not to commit them again.

    @Stephani: I am sorry that you were told to corporally discipline your daughter. I don't think that, while sparing the rod, one should spoil the child; but I'm quite certain you know that already. Like Marty said, some folks are misguided.

    By the way, I know I introduced myself to the convo by saying I'm 24; just to set the record straight, I don't consider myself to be greatly experienced; in fact, I'm positive that there are many 24 year olds who have more experience than I in different ways. I respect the fact that you girls may have plenty more than I do in several ways – especially with regard to the practicalities of bringing up children.

    ReplyReply


  • Siobhán
    April 30
    9:36 pm

    @Jack: Well written! Except I think that She first said to Jesus ‘They have no wine’ and then told them ‘Do whatever He tells you’. But, certainly, a majestic woman was/is She. :-]

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    April 30
    9:45 pm

    No, no, Siobahn. You cannot question Jack on his/her interpretation of the text. Nor his/her “authority” in the matter.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    April 30
    9:49 pm

    And yes, I’m going to go there: I still can’t get over the fact that the Roman Catholic church was formed AFTER they helped to kill Christ. Atonement in the strangest of forms.

    Yes, I said it.

    ReplyReply


  • Siobhán
    April 30
    10:07 pm

    @Anon: I’m afraid I don’t understand your last post – could you explain?

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    April 30
    10:58 pm

    Jesus, for all you wish and hope on, did not form the catholic church. The ideal of Christianity, perhaps, but not the Catholic faith. That, perhaps, was formed by his apostles, who were men and weak just like all humanity.

    The romans, who helped in the assasination of Christ, needed to atone. They created a religion that has all the trappings of their previous forefathers. Worshipping of numerous entities, false idols, and the like.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    April 30
    11:06 pm

    And now I myself will stop hijacking Karen’s blog. I said my piece and am done.

    ReplyReply


  • Siobhán
    May 1
    5:57 pm

    Although I can see how easily one may suspect it (and I, a cradle Catholic, have been wary of this in the past), there is no worshipping of statues in Catholicism. Statues and holy pictures are like photos of our loved ones that we keep in our wallets. If we look with affection at or kiss the photo, it’s not worship; neither is it worship to do the same with statues or icons. It’s about intent, at the end of the day. However, I do understand where you’re coming from.

    But, I’ll leave it at that, too. :-) Besides, there’s loads of resources out there on each of the issues touched upon in these comments (catholic.com being a primary hub) and you’re all aware that they’re out their in the internet ether and that you can have a read of those if you so choose.

    Thank you for a stimulating discussion, and God bless.

    P.S. Happy first-day-of-summer! Weather in Ireland: rain. :-D

    ReplyReply


  • Therese Z
    May 1
    10:26 pm

    “Oh, wait, I did cover the saint issue. So, in blatant straight forth terms, why can women be anything and everything but true leaders of the religion? Sheep instead of shepherd.”

    If you want to think of priests as leaders, go right ahead, but you’re wrong, they’re not: they have a very, very specific role, they are priests, they offer the Sacraments.

    Bishops, cardinals and Popes come from the community of priests, so they are men.

    Baseball coaches come from the ranks of ballplayers, so they are ballplayers. See? Not insidious, just logical.

    If you are so minded to consider the father of a family the only leader: (1) get into the right century and (2) where does that leave the woman? By your logic, the woman, being unable to produce sperm, cannot be a leader of the family. We know that’s obviously wrong.

    Some of our most fundamental roles are specific to our sex: mother, father, sister, brother. Also priest.

    You are looking at what the priest does and who he is with the eyes of an outsider and someone who has never opened a catechism or even a good dictionary before speaking. I think you would be relieved if you spent ten minutes reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church on priesthood and the roles of the sexes.

    ReplyReply


  • Anne
    May 2
    9:12 am

    @Therese Z:

    I’m feeding the trolls again, but whatever.

    “You are looking at what the priest does and who he is with the eyes of an outsider and someone who has never opened a catechism or even a good dictionary before speaking. I think you would be relieved if you spent ten minutes reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church on priesthood and the roles of the sexes.”

    Who are you talking to? Many of those who have posted here are former Catholics. I’m not a Catholic, but I was brought up by one. I know exactly what a priest does and your claim that they are not leaders is highly disingenuous.

    As for your crack about the dictionary, with that you lost all credibility.

    I’m sorry if we upset you with our opinions. …Oh, wait. No, I’m really not.

    ReplyReply

  • @Therese Z: For the love of all that is stupid.

    Seriously?

    @Anne: I know, the arrogance, right?

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    May 2
    9:12 pm

    Nope, Therese Z, I’ve never opened a dictionary in my life nor one of them fancy whatchamacall its. Oh yeah, Thesaurus, that’s it.

    You’d think based on that I’d be a good sheep, wouldn’t you?

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    May 2
    9:29 pm

    And Therese Z, you posted:

    “If you are so minded to consider the father of a family the only leader: (1) get into the right century and (2) where does that leave the woman? By your logic, the woman, being unable to produce sperm, cannot be a leader of the family. We know that’s obviously wrong.”

    Well hello! I’m in the right century but your church leaders aren’t. This has been said over and over again on this blog on THIS subject.

    Instead of skimming, sweets, how about reading all posts and form a real opinion and response.

    ReplyReply


  • SamG
    May 3
    5:49 am

    I had to go look it up. So, I don’t know if I have the whole set of passages/conversation..but here is what I found: (sorry to those who don’t want to see this stuff)

    26 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee,
    27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.
    28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

    29 Mary was greatly troubled (greatly troubled? Does not sound like ‘yee haw lets get it started’) at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be.
    30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God.(still she has not been ASKED)
    31 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.
    32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
    33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.”

    34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

    35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.
    36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month.37 For nothing is impossible with God.”
    \
    Sam here – SHE WAS NEVER ASKED….EVER…NO CHOICE

    38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May it be to me as you have said.” Then the angel left her.

    So, you’re saying being told, ‘this is how it is and how it will happen’, is asking consent?

    So, her saying “I am his servant’ was her consent?

    Sorry, I don’t see consent, I see resigned. It’s going to happen, her choice was a mirage. She didn’t actually have one.

    Again, sorry to people that didn’t want to read bible verses this evening.

    ReplyReply

  • Let us not forget that if we look at this from a historical point of view, May was most likely around fourteen years old at this time. That’s a bit young to be consenting to anything.

    ReplyReply

  • [...] latest preacher in our discussion of religion, particularly the Catholic church, brought on this latest jewel, by someone who signs the comment [...]



  • Elizabeth
    May 4
    10:25 am

    @Jeannie S.:

    I’m not going to pretend to know what you read or how you react to what you read. So I am making no personal attacks on you. I’m simply going to share why I think he may have made the connection between pornography and romance novels:

    One downside I see to pornography (and I have heard this voiced by numerous women) is that it can cause a man to have unrealistic images and expectations of his wife/girlfriend/partner, both when it concerns her physical appearance and her sexual behavior.

    I think that in some regards romance novels can do the same. I’m not equating the two (and I don’t think Bruce is either). But, I have know many women to get caught up in romance novels and begin to feel resentment toward their significant other when he does not behave as the man in her novels.

    I’m not saying all men and women develop these resentments toward their significant others when using pornography and romance novels. I’m not saying that you personally do so, either. But, both of these are precisely what you said: fiction. The problem is when people forget they are fiction and expect the same in reality of their partner.

    ReplyReply


  • Anne
    May 4
    11:18 am

    @Elizabeth:

    Obviously, I’m not the intended recipient of your post, but I do have something to say about it.

    The thing is, your point about what you perceive about the consequences of reading romance novels is something that gets trotted out all the time. I don’t know if you read romance or not, so I won’t jump to the assumption that you don’t know what they’re like. But, even so, I still have several problems with your statement.

    Us romance readers get tired of the romance = porn thing because ‘porn’ is such a loaded term. Some people do use it as shorthand to mean something that can make you dissatisfied with your real relationships, but that’s not what ‘porn’ means. It means (according to the almighty wikipedia): “the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter.” The existence or not of sex scenes in romance is a seperate issue from the one you describe.

    Speaking of which, how do you know it was their romance novel reading that led these women to feel discontent in their relationships? Isn’t it possible that they felt discontent anyway but the romance novels provided them with a focus for their discontent, ie something to point at and say, “I’d be happier with my husband if he did x”? It’s the same with men and their porn. If watching fake sex (and by fake, I mean half the orgasms are probably faked, the lighting is staged etc) makes a guy dissatisfied with his wife, I doubt porn is the underlying cause. He (they) have clearly got bigger problems in their relationship that need dealing with.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    May 4
    10:45 pm

    Elizabeth, with all due respect, the link to porn and romance novels is a tad, well, “unenlightened.”

    Are there really hot novels out there? Yes. Of course there are. Does it equate to graphic pictures in some mags and on the net? No.

    The thing that binds many evil romance readers is, we KNOW it’s fiction. We don’t expect our men to be all that and a bag of chips. We aren’t so why should they be?

    And if you don’t get that you will never get it.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    May 4
    11:00 pm

    And this, Elizabeth, makes me stressed.

    “One downside I see to pornography (and I have heard this voiced by numerous women) is that it can cause a man to have unrealistic images and expectations of his wife/girlfriend/partner, both when it concerns her physical appearance and her sexual behavior.”

    Stop dancing for the man/men (in literary terms). If a man wants to kick you to the curb to chase models he can never get, so be it. Not worth the time or effort to have a lasting relationship with.

    ReplyReply


  • Brie
    May 7
    4:03 am

    @Bruce:

    “IVF is intrinsically evil, as is contraception, abortion, and sterilization.”

    What about the Immaculate Conception? Isn’t that like God’s version of IVF or assisted fertilization? So if a woman’s sexuality is mutilated and distorted by the hand of God it’s OK, the problem is when men do it. Got it.

    ReplyReply


  • Siobhán
    June 9
    9:28 pm

    Sorry for bringing up an old thread: I was curious to see if there were any comments after I left. Having read them, I just wanted to contribute once again…

    Although I understand how it could be seen that way, as IVF is seen as the norm for folks who want a baby if it is difficult or virtually impossible for them to conceive naturally, the Immaculate Conception isn’t ‘God’s version’ of IVF. It’s miraculous, certainly, but all that God directly makes must be good (remember the first chapter of Genesis). Following from that, God doesn’t mutilate – that’s a human thing. Going back to what SamG said about Mary’s consent: She did actually have to give consent. Whatever about age and the immense humility (read ‘humble-ness’, not ‘embarrassment’) of Mary: there was always the choice to say ‘no’ instead of ‘let it be done’.

    That’s all. Thanks girls!

    ReplyReply

  • Really? You came back here to say that. Most 13 year old girls can’t decide what to have for lunch, let alone make a life altering decision to have a baby. Let’s set that aside for a moment. Most people know that I try to be nice and tolerant, but I’m done. We don’t go on your blogs and tell you how you should believe, so show us the same respect. I am so sick of Christians trying to push their values and rules on the rest of the world. Then when people have the gall to stand up to them, they cry that we are the intolerant ones. Since this post came up there have been several videos that have gone live.All of which were of so-called pastors or churches. They said people like my son should be killed or sent to a concentration camp. Yeah, really feeling the divine love there. Plus, there is another video of a three year old condemning my son to hell.

    If this is Christian love than you can keep it. I don’t need the church, I don’t need Jeebus and I sure as hell don’t need some man on the pulpit telling me how to live. I am not Christian or Catholic, nor will I ever be. So, just save you breath and preaching for you kids. After all, you have to brainwash the next generation.

    ReplyReply

  • @Stephani Hecht: What you said. Every damn word.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    June 10
    7:25 pm

    Siobahn, if you still cannot grasp the concept that evolution and science is a part of God’s plan, then, well, I have no more words.

    You give God very little credit in your shuttered world.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 12938
    August 14
    12:33 am

    @SamG:

    Yes, her saying “I am the Lord’s servant” is her consent.

    ReplyReply

  • @Anon 12938: Bullshit.

    Consent is when someone says, “if you agree, this will happen”

    Instead, if we take the text as is, Mary could have said, “hell to the no” and nothing would have changed: there is future tense all the way in Gabriel’s speech–it’s a given, a “fact” and Mary’s answer, whichever it had been, would have changed nothing.

    There can’t be consent where there is no possibility of choice.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 12938
    August 14
    10:06 pm

    @AztecLady:

    You can read it and say that she didn’t have a choice, but the Catholic Church teaches its followers that she did.

    As for women as priests and in leadership roles, it may happen eventually, but there are 2000 years of tradition in the way.

    ReplyReply

  • @Anon 12938:

    You can read it and say that she didn’t have a choice, but the Catholic Church teaches its followers that she did.

    Which, if you read this post, and the post from which *this* one sprang, and the post that came out of the previous comments to this one, you would see is exactly the point:

    The Catholic Church is a misogynist institution.

    And it doesn’t matter whatever the hell you, or anyone else, says to the contrary, when the church’s own actions speak so loud.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 12938
    August 15
    1:45 am

    @AztecLady:

    Do you think it has been inherently misogynist from the beginning, or is it only misogynist when compared to modern institutions?

    ReplyReply

  • Frankly, right now? Not interested in debating when or how it became what it is.

    What it is, I despise.

    ReplyReply

  • Jumping Jeebus on a pogo stick! Are you people still coming here to try and make us see the light? IT’S OVER!

    The horse is dead, so stop beating it already.

    Put a fork in it, or better yet a spork.

    The fat lady has sung and even done a tap dance.

    Now I have to go and measure my daughter’s hips, so I can make sure she can produce good sons. That way my husband can get a lot of camels and goats for her when he marries her off, because according to the Bible, that’s all marriage is and that’s all woman are good for.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 12938
    August 15
    3:44 am

    @AztecLady:

    You can believe whatever you want to believe. But it’s silly to think that your thoughts are an accurate or complete picture of reality.

    @Stephani Hecht:

    I realize you’re being facetious, but nobody trades camels or goats when they get married anymore. That made sense when everyone was a farmer. These days parents will give money for a down payment on a home or do whatever they can for their children. Historically the dowry was paid by the wife’s family to the husband, but it was really for both of them so that they could start out their new life with some kind of valuable assets.

    ReplyReply

  • @Anon 12938: And yours are?

    Please, bitch.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 12938
    August 15
    4:01 am

    @AztecLady:

    No, that statement applies equally to myself. My views are incomplete and inaccurate because I am human. So are you.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    August 15
    4:08 am

    @Anon 12938:

    “You can believe whatever you want to believe. But it’s silly to think that your thoughts are an accurate or complete picture of reality.”

    Pot calling the kettle black, much?

    Really, the inanity of that comment boggles my mind. You have actually just PREACHED what we’ve been saying here all along.

    ReplyReply

  • Parents give a down payment on a home? O.o Day,am! I was robbed! I spent the first year of my marriage living in a shitty apartment. We didn’t get a home until I was able to get a mortgage on my own. Now, unless you’re going to man up and start using your real name, instead of hiding behind Anon, go away.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 12938
    August 15
    4:16 am

    @Anon 76:

    I already clarified that that statement applies to myself as well. I can believe whatever I want to believe. But it’s silly to think that my thoughts are an accurate or complete picture of reality.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    August 15
    4:18 am

    @Anon 12938:

    Yes, I saw that back-pedal move. Now apply it to the mortals who wrote the bible (over and over again I might add) and your church leaders. All the way to the tippy top of the food chain.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 12938
    August 15
    4:29 am

    @Anon 76:

    Absolutely. Corrupt, flawed, human beings throughout all of history. You, me, the Pope, everybody. Our thinking is flawed because we are flawed. And when you have a “moment of clarity”, it’s probably a delusion.

    Kind of depressing, huh?

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    August 15
    4:40 am

    @Anon 12938:

    “Absolutely. Corrupt, flawed, human beings throughout all of history. You, me, the Pope, everybody. Our thinking is flawed because we are flawed. And when you have a “moment of clarity”, it’s probably a delusion.

    Kind of depressing, huh?”

    Actually, I don’t find it depressing except for the wars based on organized religion throughout the ages. And even then it’s more a sadness, the knowing of the idiocy that all humans are capable of.

    But when I step outside and watch the clouds, trees blowing in the breeze, honeybees, a growing garden of flowers and vegetables, well, then I know where God is and I need look no further. Not in rewritten tomes and not in a church pew.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 12938
    August 15
    4:42 am

    @Stephani Hecht:

    Sorry your parents couldn’t help you out more. I’m sure they wanted the best for you.

    I’ll tell you my initials. If you really want to know my name, you can email me.

    BD

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 12938
    August 15
    4:57 am

    @Anon 76:

    Wars are always about resources. And they occur despite the religions calling for peace. Flawed reasoning by flawed humans can justify just about anything. That’s my theory, probably flawed.

    BD

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    August 15
    5:25 am

    @Anon 12938:

    Yes, and the Crusades were all about three religions contesting their “Holy grounds”. I suppose you could call that a “resource”. Me, I wouldn’t.

    And a “call to peace” is just a flim flam way to be politically correct now-a-days. If peace meant the Pope would step down, would it happen? No. And extrapolate that to any other organized religion.

    ReplyReply


  • fred
    December 15
    8:01 pm

    the only person that is intolerant is you – karen

    “He is everything that I hate about organised religion. Rampant intolerance for other people’s lifestyles, all in the name of God. Fucking hypocrite.

    I bet as well as being Catholic he’s a Republican, it’s the only thing that makes sense. Twat.”

    let’s see…summarizing your words…
    hate
    fucking
    Catholic
    Republican
    Twat

    love the left ;)

    ReplyReply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment