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 »


  • 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. 😀

    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

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment