Rape is entirely the fault of how women dress, because a man cannot reasonably be expected to have any control over his behavior? I will never understand why anyone would delegate their thinking to a member of the clergy, let alone a fool like this. I'm pretty sure the only thing he regrets here is being called out for what he said. I've little doubt but what he expects his religiosity to be deferred to at all times.
I'll take his shitty apology not because any aspect of his argument was sane or Christian but because the fact that he is apologizing to his congregation is better than him doubling down on his misogyny.
His congregation wasn’t the party harmed by his statement, they agree with him, mostly because they have no choice. The notpology was regarding how his statement has harmed the church by bringing unwanted negative attention to the church, not because his statement was wrong.
He didn’t apologize. That’s just a church sign. Sometimes the quotes are signed Jesus on those things. I do not for a single second believe that he ever said the words on that sign or anything like it. Not a chance in Hell.
Hell is a place in a region of Norway, where people is known to say and write lots of sarcastic things. I would not be surprised if somebody in Hell said that.
You have no idea what he actually said to his congregation after he hung that sign. Believe me, I am of his generation and had a father from the South, he is not sorry nor does he think he was wrong. One thing I also note that my father did was to call him wife Mama.
Now, all they need to do is find a way to blame the children who were sexually abused by a 16 year old preachers son. There's gotta be a way, they must have done something to deserve it.
That's so perfect. I'm always shocked to hear how people are confused and thinking both are mutually exclusive. Better to have morals than only religion.
Men have ALWAYS thought like this and have been encouraged by their clergy to continue thinking that way, because it PROTECTS THE CLERGY.
"It's the woman's fault I [raped, beat, kicked, knifed, shot...] her."
"It's my wife's fault I cheated."
"It's my wife's fault I murdered her and all my children"
See, when you think like this, you can outlaw no-fault divorce, you can prevent pregnant women from getting a divorce, you can decide what is "legitimate" or "forcible" rape, and what isn't (i.e., a woman drinks too much or roofied and is raped while she's passed out, of COURSE that's her fault!).
I hope with everything in me that moderate Republican women are waking up to this (I'm starting to see pushback from Republicans on the Alabama IVF decision).
There has been at least one case, and I think actually a couple of cases, where a pregnant woman tried to get away with driving by herself in the HOV lane and got a ticket for not having any passengers. No judge up to this point accepted the fetus as a passenger. I guess this will be changing in Alabama now.
Oh ye of too much faith. You think conservatives are going to be consistent about their position? No. Whenever foetus-as-human supports conservative or selfish positions, they will use it. Whenever foetus-as-human promotes liberal or community welfare decisions, they will argue it doesn't apply. The foetus is a baby when a woman wants to get an abortion. The foetus is not a baby when the woman wants child support. Or to drive in an HOV lane.
I just watched a video of Tommy Tuberville talking about the Alabama decision (which he agreed with), and not 3 seconds later he says, "We want to give every opportunity to women trying to have a baby." um...
Now see, the boys in Texas (IVF is very big in Texas) think that as long as that embryo isn't inside a uterus, they're fine with the little icicles.
Huzzah for the IVF success! My bride and I did IVF twice. Neither one succeeded. But then we adopted a couple of babes (gosh I make that sound easy! It wasn’t) and we have had a wonderful time as a family.
Thanks, Mal! I’m happy for your family and glad it worked out in the long run. I understand it can be frustrating, expensive and no guarantees. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.
I think about the women who were right in the middle of harvesting eggs or being implanted or going through the fertility treatments who have lost everything, and Jessica Valenti reminded me about women who are about to go through cancer treatment and are saving their eggs. So many unforeseen tragedies that no Alabama Senator ever once considered.
Honestly between this and the Hillsong "ladies kissing" tweet just expounds further on the utter misanthropic nature of the sexual fantasies of Christian pastors. Everything that's "sexy" is "sin" and since women's bodies are something men find "sexy" then women walking around having bodies is something they find provocative. No mention of how self control and the question of consent gets completely side-railed. Presumably women just don't have desire in the minds of these men. Desire only exists in the minds of straight men and women are supposed to keep their problematic bodies away from their eyes until the time that they aren't, but they (the men) get to decide when that time is.
Let's say for sake of argument that a woman's shape seen by some man's eyes inflames him uncontrollably, and for civic order purposes we must address this problem. A head bag for one Bob is still immensely cheaper and easier than a full body shawl for every Alice on the street. If some Bob really wants to make this argument, give'em a head bag.
Here is a fundamental truth that even believers should acknowledge: pulpit ministers should work for their congregations, not run them. When they screw the pooch (figuratively or literally), they should be the ones who have to hit the pavement, not the congregants. Their apologies should come from the unemployment line, not the church sign.
Here's a little FYI that not enough folks know about, the DSM V, the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual, the document in the psychology profession that attempts to categorize all known mental disorders and give a way to diagnose them, which it does by listing some number of symptoms that, if a patient meets enough of them, like 4 of 6, or 5 of 8 etc, then they can be deemed to have that disorder. Well, they have to keep stating that if a given symptom is due to religious belief in some way, then it shouldn't be used as meeting the criteria for having a mental disorder. It gives a definition of delusion:
"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly held despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (i.e., it is not an article of religious faith)."
What's hilarious is if you get a pdf of the DSM and search for 'religious', you'll see in the scroll bar where it puts little colored tick-marks next to where the term is found in the text, the whole vertical scroll bar is chock full of them, and there's one area it's REALLY prevalent. Anyone want to guess what that section is? Yep, it's sexual dysfunctions.
Why should religious belief have this 'get out of loony bin free' exception? It's more than time for that to end.
It's kinda shocking, no matter how extreme a cult might be, the DSM is saying it isn't a mental disorder, like the nike and purple cloak-wearing comet loving suiciders were of perfect mental health?
Recently, someone commented on Bart Ehrman's blog site about being an atheist and asked who would forgive his sins. His SINS, to an atheist FFS! Ehrman's response took the 'sins' to be metaphorical sins and I replied asking Ehrman if he didn't think it was kinda disturbing that this guy simply couldn't fathom that sins would mean absolutely nothing to an atheist, sinning is an incoherent concept, this ain't a close call, it's simply a silly/idiotic thing to ask an atheist. Ehrman really refuses to confront the stupidity and danger of belief and I don't understand why, I think he actually didn't comprehend the guy meant sins literally and what that really said.
Sigh. One would hope so. But, it's religious privileging all around. (And the usual "how can x-million or y-billion people all be wrong?") Makes me wanna go knock their heads together/knock some sense into them.
80 years ago was the 1940s, meaning it was culturally unacceptable for women to wear anything but dresses in almost all situations. Rules laid out by men. So his comment about not remembering women wearing shorts, while likely true, is only a remark on the sexism women have faced throughout history. Women were arrested for wearing shorts in that era.
The sermon implies he has said this before, like in other sermons or in casual conversation. That women in shorts should be raped. So some sentiment on the church’s sign is not an apology or even an acknowledgment of what he did might be wrong. The impact of the sermon is national, nothing would have been said at all if he hadn’t gotten caught outside of his church, but the sign is local, directed only at his loyal followers. Sorry for the hurt? Do you even know what kind of hurt you caused? No. And the reality is, you don’t care. Notpology is not accepted.
You are correct. I grew up in the 50s and 60s of the last century. I remember when we feminists started talking about rape being a crime of violence, when I was in late high school/early college. It was really, really hard, for a lot of reasons. One was that we had to actually create language to articulate what we wanted to say. That's insanely hard to do. We had to change institutions, like courts, so that when women went to court to testify against rapists, they weren't reflexively asked what they were wearing, why they were there, didn't they really want it, and so on. This involved changing laws too, so that women who had been raped were treated as the victims of violent crimes, not the perps. It's hard to explain how horribly hard all of this was. This guy's sermon is one piece of evidence that religious attitudes don't change--he obviously thinks of women as property, as ambulatory dick-sheaths, as religious men always have. Repeat: what's old is now new again. Oh, and just for clarity's sake: NO RELATION.
It's a Sothern thing, my dad did it. He said it was because they didn't want us kids to be confused by him calling her by her first name. But I have often wondered...
I distinctly remember listening to sermons very much like that on occasion back when my parents insisted on me going to church. Christianity has created one of the worst possible scenarios for women: they have no power to refuse the men in their lives, but it's always their fault when intercourse happens, and therefore must suffer all the consequences of it while the man gets to go free.
This is a system designed to protect men from the consequences of their own criminal behavior and may well be one of the original instances of DARVO. Incidentally, there are solutions to that idea men cannot be expected to control themselves that don't involve violence, they're called chastity cages. I would assume that being 'pure' (whatever THAT means) before your Jesus would be worth a little bit of discomfort. Funny how no pastor ever seems to suggest that as a sensible, reasonable solution to the problem.
I don't care if some woman is walking down the street in her birthday suit, that is not permission to force sexual contact on her. "But I have these hormones" or "But I have male parts" is not an excuse for losing self control. If Christians honestly believed humanity was made in their god's image, then there is no reason to behave like some rabid animal and sully that image.
I object. There is no sound more haunting than a lone piper playing a traditional dirge on a bleak brae at twilight across a wintry valley half a mile away. Of course it sounds twice as good a full mile away.
I lived and worked in NC 20 years ago and while the state has great and varied scenic beauty I found pockets of the most ignorant scum on earth. I know we have ignorance everywhere but NC really stood out. GREAT ignorance. It's really nice that in this video this turd has some beautiful flowers on either side of him. It must be there to minimize the ugliness of his presence and his words. And the smell will maybe help to cover the smell of the schit coming out of his mouth.
North Carolina is beautiful, my father was from there. But you are right about the ignorance. My father joined the military to get away, because his parents wouldn't let him be with his best friend, a black boy. I only met one relative, a cousin who came to visit us. I was the one asked to take him out to a nice restaurant in San Francisco. To my surprise this fool asked me to go to bed with him and I said, 1. we just meet this afternoon, 2. YOUR MY FUCKING COUSIN! None of that matter to this good Southern young man.
I will be 81 years old this year so, I can relate to this despicable pastor's rhetoric. Those days were hard on girls and women. Yes, we girls could only wear dresses to school and that did not change until the 1970's when girls could finally ware pants to school and women to work. He needs to ask himself why Muslim women who are completely covered but still get raped.
Too many men, and I happen to think it is the majority, think that they are entitled to a woman's body no matter what the hell she is wearing. This lame and stupid idea that a "man is a man" is degrading to all men because it is just another way of saying they can't control themselves. As a young woman I was constantly fighting off advances at work young and old. When my boss died, in one of my jobs in early 1970's, a wonderful man by the way, my co-worker thought it was quite OK to hit on me. Thing is most of the stupid, can't control myself men, were married. It's the old and biblical male attitude that 'I am man, I am superior, and all women are mind for the taking, and will do as I say'.
Fortunately, we women came to our senses stronger than before in the 1960's and it's been growing ever since. Just watch us vote out the Republican's this year and take back what they have taken away from us.
And I have this to say to all good and decent men out there, start speaking up every time you hear a sexist joke, or vulgar one, speak up when the guy you're with hounds a woman clearly not interested in him, or hounds a woman on the street, and speak up publicly about what is wrong with the misogyny in our world today, if you aren't doing this already, you are part of the problem.
This is biblical patriarchy on full display. Men are not responsible for their sexual urges or controlling them. Women are always at fault if they are raped. Men can wear whatever they want. Women must be enshrouded whenever out in public. Republic of Gilead anyone?
You're right - what does this say about men? They are just beasts with no self-control? If they are aroused by the sight of an attractive woman (shorts, dress, jeans - whatever), they must act on their impulse? Perhaps he should be advocating for only women to hold public office and positions of importance and influence, so that the reasonable half of the human race can run interference on men's baser instincts.
It's exactly the same type of thinking that motivates the mullahs in Iran to subjugate women in that imprisoned country. It reflects the intuition men have of the power over them women have because so many men are juvenile and haven't grown up.
Or, here's a better idea: 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴. Only one mind controls where your body goes and what it does to other people- and that's the one which is presumably located somewhere between your eardrums.
Rape is entirely the fault of how women dress, because a man cannot reasonably be expected to have any control over his behavior? I will never understand why anyone would delegate their thinking to a member of the clergy, let alone a fool like this. I'm pretty sure the only thing he regrets here is being called out for what he said. I've little doubt but what he expects his religiosity to be deferred to at all times.
I'll take his shitty apology not because any aspect of his argument was sane or Christian but because the fact that he is apologizing to his congregation is better than him doubling down on his misogyny.
Oh, I get that he's trying to save face. I doubt very much there is any sincerity involved.
Face and money.
Oh, cynical you...
I have no idea what you are talking about.
The Pastor wanting to save face and money by saying a nonpology. You were saying he wasn't sincere. I agree with you.
His congregation wasn’t the party harmed by his statement, they agree with him, mostly because they have no choice. The notpology was regarding how his statement has harmed the church by bringing unwanted negative attention to the church, not because his statement was wrong.
That's also a valid argument.
That church sign is not what I'd call an apology...
I'd call it: "Half-assed," and that's being generous.
nonpology
Quarter-of-a-rat's-assed.
He didn’t apologize. That’s just a church sign. Sometimes the quotes are signed Jesus on those things. I do not for a single second believe that he ever said the words on that sign or anything like it. Not a chance in Hell.
Hell is a place in a region of Norway, where people is known to say and write lots of sarcastic things. I would not be surprised if somebody in Hell said that.
Hell is also a community in Michigan. :)
It may be "better," but not by much.
Agreed.
You have no idea what he actually said to his congregation after he hung that sign. Believe me, I am of his generation and had a father from the South, he is not sorry nor does he think he was wrong. One thing I also note that my father did was to call him wife Mama.
His congregation clearly had no problem with it. Drat! Those meddling kids on the internet!
Yeah that's not an apology then. It's more of a "I'm sorry I got caught"
Now, all they need to do is find a way to blame the children who were sexually abused by a 16 year old preachers son. There's gotta be a way, they must have done something to deserve it.
The clergy does an amazing job of demonstrating the disconnect between religion and morality.
That's so perfect. I'm always shocked to hear how people are confused and thinking both are mutually exclusive. Better to have morals than only religion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAZLgsDRUv4
Great song, great singer, great performance but why do I have reservations? I suppose great art does that.
Men have ALWAYS thought like this and have been encouraged by their clergy to continue thinking that way, because it PROTECTS THE CLERGY.
"It's the woman's fault I [raped, beat, kicked, knifed, shot...] her."
"It's my wife's fault I cheated."
"It's my wife's fault I murdered her and all my children"
See, when you think like this, you can outlaw no-fault divorce, you can prevent pregnant women from getting a divorce, you can decide what is "legitimate" or "forcible" rape, and what isn't (i.e., a woman drinks too much or roofied and is raped while she's passed out, of COURSE that's her fault!).
I hope with everything in me that moderate Republican women are waking up to this (I'm starting to see pushback from Republicans on the Alabama IVF decision).
Meme recently seen on Facebook:
Picture of an egg, with the caption, "In Alabama, THIS is a CHICKEN!"
Or a pic of the passenger seat of a car with a dozen eggs, "I'm taking the HOV lane today!"
(saw that on Twitter this morning)
There has been at least one case, and I think actually a couple of cases, where a pregnant woman tried to get away with driving by herself in the HOV lane and got a ticket for not having any passengers. No judge up to this point accepted the fetus as a passenger. I guess this will be changing in Alabama now.
Oh ye of too much faith. You think conservatives are going to be consistent about their position? No. Whenever foetus-as-human supports conservative or selfish positions, they will use it. Whenever foetus-as-human promotes liberal or community welfare decisions, they will argue it doesn't apply. The foetus is a baby when a woman wants to get an abortion. The foetus is not a baby when the woman wants child support. Or to drive in an HOV lane.
At least when judges shoot down that defense they point out that the HOV law is that more than one seat must be occupied.
So maybe a cooler filled with frozen embryos in the passenger seat...?
My cat is in a carrier on the back seat.
I just watched a video of Tommy Tuberville talking about the Alabama decision (which he agreed with), and not 3 seconds later he says, "We want to give every opportunity to women trying to have a baby." um...
Now see, the boys in Texas (IVF is very big in Texas) think that as long as that embryo isn't inside a uterus, they're fine with the little icicles.
Wait for tax season just around the corner. How many exemptions can one claim for those embryos?
Lol, saw it on Instagram, yesterday. The same day a niece had a successful IVF transplant. Irony is not dead.
Huzzah for the IVF success! My bride and I did IVF twice. Neither one succeeded. But then we adopted a couple of babes (gosh I make that sound easy! It wasn’t) and we have had a wonderful time as a family.
Thanks, Mal! I’m happy for your family and glad it worked out in the long run. I understand it can be frustrating, expensive and no guarantees. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.
"moderate" Republicans lolololololol
I'm sure there are a couple who are only 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 repulsive. Somewhere.
I struggle because my sister's family are gop. At least they all don't like tangeranuse so that's good I guess.
Isn’t your sister’s family also your family?
Only found on endangered species lists or in museums.
They do exist, even here in Kansas! Granted, they are the minority, but they are here.
I think they're called establishment Democrats these days.
Yes that decision may end up being a gift in 2024.
I think about the women who were right in the middle of harvesting eggs or being implanted or going through the fertility treatments who have lost everything, and Jessica Valenti reminded me about women who are about to go through cancer treatment and are saving their eggs. So many unforeseen tragedies that no Alabama Senator ever once considered.
Honestly between this and the Hillsong "ladies kissing" tweet just expounds further on the utter misanthropic nature of the sexual fantasies of Christian pastors. Everything that's "sexy" is "sin" and since women's bodies are something men find "sexy" then women walking around having bodies is something they find provocative. No mention of how self control and the question of consent gets completely side-railed. Presumably women just don't have desire in the minds of these men. Desire only exists in the minds of straight men and women are supposed to keep their problematic bodies away from their eyes until the time that they aren't, but they (the men) get to decide when that time is.
Yep - I'm "guilty" of admiring some male bodies over the years. I've never considered jumping on the guy!
This, a million times, this!
Let's say for sake of argument that a woman's shape seen by some man's eyes inflames him uncontrollably, and for civic order purposes we must address this problem. A head bag for one Bob is still immensely cheaper and easier than a full body shawl for every Alice on the street. If some Bob really wants to make this argument, give'em a head bag.
Here is a fundamental truth that even believers should acknowledge: pulpit ministers should work for their congregations, not run them. When they screw the pooch (figuratively or literally), they should be the ones who have to hit the pavement, not the congregants. Their apologies should come from the unemployment line, not the church sign.
I think this is often already the case.
I would bet money that the reason he's still employed is that the congregation wants him, not that the congregation can't get rid of him.
Here's a little FYI that not enough folks know about, the DSM V, the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual, the document in the psychology profession that attempts to categorize all known mental disorders and give a way to diagnose them, which it does by listing some number of symptoms that, if a patient meets enough of them, like 4 of 6, or 5 of 8 etc, then they can be deemed to have that disorder. Well, they have to keep stating that if a given symptom is due to religious belief in some way, then it shouldn't be used as meeting the criteria for having a mental disorder. It gives a definition of delusion:
"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly held despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (i.e., it is not an article of religious faith)."
What's hilarious is if you get a pdf of the DSM and search for 'religious', you'll see in the scroll bar where it puts little colored tick-marks next to where the term is found in the text, the whole vertical scroll bar is chock full of them, and there's one area it's REALLY prevalent. Anyone want to guess what that section is? Yep, it's sexual dysfunctions.
Why should religious belief have this 'get out of loony bin free' exception? It's more than time for that to end.
It took them a while to admit homosexuality wasn't a mental disorder. Maybe some day they will admit religion is a mental disorder.
It's kinda shocking, no matter how extreme a cult might be, the DSM is saying it isn't a mental disorder, like the nike and purple cloak-wearing comet loving suiciders were of perfect mental health?
There are still too many religious people that still believe it is a sin.
Heck, there are too many people that believe sin is real.
Obligatory:
"𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦'𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘴, 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵'𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘳𝘶𝘣𝘣𝘺. 𝘐'𝘮 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘪𝘯, 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴. 𝘐𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵'𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘴."
"𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵--"
"𝘕𝘰. 𝘐𝘵 𝘢𝘪𝘯'𝘵. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺'𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩. 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵'𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘴."
"𝘖𝘩, 𝘐'𝘮 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴--"
"𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴..."
---- Carpe Jugulum by Terry Pratchett (by way of Granny Weatherwax)
Recently, someone commented on Bart Ehrman's blog site about being an atheist and asked who would forgive his sins. His SINS, to an atheist FFS! Ehrman's response took the 'sins' to be metaphorical sins and I replied asking Ehrman if he didn't think it was kinda disturbing that this guy simply couldn't fathom that sins would mean absolutely nothing to an atheist, sinning is an incoherent concept, this ain't a close call, it's simply a silly/idiotic thing to ask an atheist. Ehrman really refuses to confront the stupidity and danger of belief and I don't understand why, I think he actually didn't comprehend the guy meant sins literally and what that really said.
He sure got us. If we are wrong we are wrong, and if Christianity is right it is right.
It's maths teachers' fault !
The same people who get mad when barbeque sauce from their bacon-wrapped shrimp lands on their cotton/poly-blend shirts.
What? That can't be true. Them eating bacon I mean.
Sigh. One would hope so. But, it's religious privileging all around. (And the usual "how can x-million or y-billion people all be wrong?") Makes me wanna go knock their heads together/knock some sense into them.
At the very least, brainwashing.
80 years ago was the 1940s, meaning it was culturally unacceptable for women to wear anything but dresses in almost all situations. Rules laid out by men. So his comment about not remembering women wearing shorts, while likely true, is only a remark on the sexism women have faced throughout history. Women were arrested for wearing shorts in that era.
The sermon implies he has said this before, like in other sermons or in casual conversation. That women in shorts should be raped. So some sentiment on the church’s sign is not an apology or even an acknowledgment of what he did might be wrong. The impact of the sermon is national, nothing would have been said at all if he hadn’t gotten caught outside of his church, but the sign is local, directed only at his loyal followers. Sorry for the hurt? Do you even know what kind of hurt you caused? No. And the reality is, you don’t care. Notpology is not accepted.
You are correct. I grew up in the 50s and 60s of the last century. I remember when we feminists started talking about rape being a crime of violence, when I was in late high school/early college. It was really, really hard, for a lot of reasons. One was that we had to actually create language to articulate what we wanted to say. That's insanely hard to do. We had to change institutions, like courts, so that when women went to court to testify against rapists, they weren't reflexively asked what they were wearing, why they were there, didn't they really want it, and so on. This involved changing laws too, so that women who had been raped were treated as the victims of violent crimes, not the perps. It's hard to explain how horribly hard all of this was. This guy's sermon is one piece of evidence that religious attitudes don't change--he obviously thinks of women as property, as ambulatory dick-sheaths, as religious men always have. Repeat: what's old is now new again. Oh, and just for clarity's sake: NO RELATION.
Some 21th century judges have yet to understand that.
"I told my wife, I said, “Mama..."
Red flag, right there.
What is it with kkkonservative xtians referring to their wives as Mom/Mother/Mama?
Seems they have Oedipal issues.
It's a Sothern thing, my dad did it. He said it was because they didn't want us kids to be confused by him calling her by her first name. But I have often wondered...
Did your mother call your father by his first name?
Yes, of course. Nick names is not that common in Norway.
I heard mine often call him "connard" and "abruti", weird since on his I.D his names started with a G and a D 😇
Indiana's Mike Pence calls his wife "Mother." She's from Kansas. 🙂
Mama, don't wear shorts.
Put against a wall, a dark alley, now you sinned
Mama, value has dropped
With theses shorts, you had to thrown it away
Mama, boo ooh, why do you cry
I am the victim here
What people will say about me
How can I carry on like nothing really happened
...
♫♪ Mama, don't let your daughters grow up to wear short-shorts! ♪♫
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M8rt5Sfk2E
He's just an asshole
Nobody loves him
He's just a big prick
Spewing his infamy
I distinctly remember listening to sermons very much like that on occasion back when my parents insisted on me going to church. Christianity has created one of the worst possible scenarios for women: they have no power to refuse the men in their lives, but it's always their fault when intercourse happens, and therefore must suffer all the consequences of it while the man gets to go free.
This is a system designed to protect men from the consequences of their own criminal behavior and may well be one of the original instances of DARVO. Incidentally, there are solutions to that idea men cannot be expected to control themselves that don't involve violence, they're called chastity cages. I would assume that being 'pure' (whatever THAT means) before your Jesus would be worth a little bit of discomfort. Funny how no pastor ever seems to suggest that as a sensible, reasonable solution to the problem.
I don't care if some woman is walking down the street in her birthday suit, that is not permission to force sexual contact on her. "But I have these hormones" or "But I have male parts" is not an excuse for losing self control. If Christians honestly believed humanity was made in their god's image, then there is no reason to behave like some rabid animal and sully that image.
I don't remember anything quite this explicit, but I do recall that wearing 'revealing' clothing was forbidden for women lest it tempt a man.
A preacher’s apology
Has as much meaning to me
As a prayer on the wind
Or threats of hell for my sin
—Effing-Devine Poems
Yeah, of course it's easier to remove some shorts than lifting up most dresses and skirts 🙄
Does men who wear kilts deserve to be raped too ?
Only to get them to stop playing the god damn bagpipes.
I object. There is no sound more haunting than a lone piper playing a traditional dirge on a bleak brae at twilight across a wintry valley half a mile away. Of course it sounds twice as good a full mile away.
"So tell me, what's worn under the kilt?"
"Noothin' lassie, it's all in perfect workin'order..."
https://youtu.be/2Yo0MGR2kmA
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=--tFFz44zvc&pp=ygUWdGhlIGlzbGFuZGVyIG5pZ2h0d2lzaA%3D%3D
Yeah, I tackled him officer, but he was wearing a football jersey. He was asking for it.
It if was the only thing he wore, maybe it was the case because no man would end up waiting for a locksmith outside its home 😋
Only if they go with the traditional (lack of) undergarments.
Silly you, men can't be raped.
That is NOT true, and the facts say that is not true. Please be fair.
As Black Hole mourner said, I was sarcastic.
Straw was sarcastic.
I lived and worked in NC 20 years ago and while the state has great and varied scenic beauty I found pockets of the most ignorant scum on earth. I know we have ignorance everywhere but NC really stood out. GREAT ignorance. It's really nice that in this video this turd has some beautiful flowers on either side of him. It must be there to minimize the ugliness of his presence and his words. And the smell will maybe help to cover the smell of the schit coming out of his mouth.
North Carolina is beautiful, my father was from there. But you are right about the ignorance. My father joined the military to get away, because his parents wouldn't let him be with his best friend, a black boy. I only met one relative, a cousin who came to visit us. I was the one asked to take him out to a nice restaurant in San Francisco. To my surprise this fool asked me to go to bed with him and I said, 1. we just meet this afternoon, 2. YOUR MY FUCKING COUSIN! None of that matter to this good Southern young man.
I will be 81 years old this year so, I can relate to this despicable pastor's rhetoric. Those days were hard on girls and women. Yes, we girls could only wear dresses to school and that did not change until the 1970's when girls could finally ware pants to school and women to work. He needs to ask himself why Muslim women who are completely covered but still get raped.
Too many men, and I happen to think it is the majority, think that they are entitled to a woman's body no matter what the hell she is wearing. This lame and stupid idea that a "man is a man" is degrading to all men because it is just another way of saying they can't control themselves. As a young woman I was constantly fighting off advances at work young and old. When my boss died, in one of my jobs in early 1970's, a wonderful man by the way, my co-worker thought it was quite OK to hit on me. Thing is most of the stupid, can't control myself men, were married. It's the old and biblical male attitude that 'I am man, I am superior, and all women are mind for the taking, and will do as I say'.
Fortunately, we women came to our senses stronger than before in the 1960's and it's been growing ever since. Just watch us vote out the Republican's this year and take back what they have taken away from us.
And I have this to say to all good and decent men out there, start speaking up every time you hear a sexist joke, or vulgar one, speak up when the guy you're with hounds a woman clearly not interested in him, or hounds a woman on the street, and speak up publicly about what is wrong with the misogyny in our world today, if you aren't doing this already, you are part of the problem.
This is biblical patriarchy on full display. Men are not responsible for their sexual urges or controlling them. Women are always at fault if they are raped. Men can wear whatever they want. Women must be enshrouded whenever out in public. Republic of Gilead anyone?
You're right - what does this say about men? They are just beasts with no self-control? If they are aroused by the sight of an attractive woman (shorts, dress, jeans - whatever), they must act on their impulse? Perhaps he should be advocating for only women to hold public office and positions of importance and influence, so that the reasonable half of the human race can run interference on men's baser instincts.
They very conveniently leave out the part of the Bible that says if men are tempted then they should gouge out their own eyes.
It's exactly the same type of thinking that motivates the mullahs in Iran to subjugate women in that imprisoned country. It reflects the intuition men have of the power over them women have because so many men are juvenile and haven't grown up.
Well, it's rather more than a glimpse of stocking, so I guess anything goes! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN2KHeEWqZM
Or, here's a better idea: 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴. Only one mind controls where your body goes and what it does to other people- and that's the one which is presumably located somewhere between your eardrums.
In his case, and all rapists apologists, what could pass as a brain seem to be located lower.