No, darlin.' Being transgender isn't an ideology. It's religion that's an ideology (or one that functions like an ideology and has the elements of an ideology) and one that children need to be protected from, as police report after police report has shown.
"Atheists are violent and dangerous without god to keep them moral" say the adherents of a cult whose symbol is a torture victim and whose rituals command them to eat his flesh and drink his blood and put non-believers to the sword.
Every christian sect has its own corpus of dogma which they internalize and believe in place of their bible which said bodies of dogma frequently conflict with. Religions are nothing so much as collective mental illnesses - and Talibangelical Christianity is among the worst.
So which is it? Are you wanting to protect children or do you want to look at their genitalia to decide which bathroom they should use? What are you going to do when you see one that doesn't fit your little box? There are people in the world that were 'assigned' a sex at birth that was wrong because the doctor was unable to determine at the time. Or are you just going to decide by the way someone looks to you? Maybe you have a four part test: Do they have long hair. Are they wearing pants and/or a plaid shirt? Do they have facial hair? Are you attracted/not attracted to them?
These people don't want to protect children. They want to force people that don't fit in their box underground. They HAVE to know they can't pass legislation that will make transgender people cease to exist, don't they?
Uh, no. They don't know that. They're ignorant, as well, of anything resembling actual history. (see Barton, David.) They do know, however, that they can or will cause lots of deaths and suffering in their gawd's name, and it will all be excused/ minimized/ forgotten by the righteous because, um, Jayzus. (see Crusades, pink triangles, etc).
Esther and Mordecai lived in peace with their neighbors and only resorted to violence when their lives were literally condemned. You wish to condemn a group of innocent children to suffering and death because you despise who they are. You are Haman in that story, lady, not the heroes.
Deborah and David dealt with their enemies by killing them by the thousands. God... GOD... even tells David that he's covered in blood and unworthy of building a holy site because of it.
You've got some warped Disney princess theology where you're incapable of seeing who the bad guy in the story is. It's not the little kid suffering from gender dysphoria. It's you. You are Pharaoh in the tale. You are Haman. You are the one marching your troops against innocent people first.
May you be condemned to a fate where you end up powerless and have to watch as society leaves you and your bigoted views behind and every child thrives being who they are.
One of the things I find most irritating about vocal Christians is their expectation to be deferred to at all times. She’s just one more example of what can be justified in the name of faith.
Stop right there, lady. Your idea of "truth" is vastly different from those not in thrall of superstitious codswallop. You engage in dangerous fantasies that have no basis in truth. You are, in fact, irresponsibly spreading lies.
As a wise man once said: "It is immoral to lie to children." I do believe that wise man was an atheist.
Her idea of truth stopped refining itself around the 2nd grade. The resulting warped sense of reality has been reinforced by decades of cherry picked Sunday schoom lessons. Hitch would have had a field day with her.
Of course she doesn’t consider male circumcision to be regulated under this anti-trans legislation, it’s a Christian rite. Sort of. In a way. But it is normal. It is conforming to their standards. She needs to stop transgender children from being healthy, not keep healthy children healthy and intact.
Edit - this was supposed to be a new comment on its own, some weird error put it as a reply to NOGODZ since I started a reply but chose not to. Oops.
So, saying she wants children covered in blood is not culty? To be fair, I understand the christianese. I know she's not actually talking about physical blood poured out on children. But physical blood poured on children was not what was reported. She's just mad about the Carrie jokes.
“But, but, but, he’s taking it out of context!!!!”
Nope the context is there, it doesn’t make you look any better.
Look, transgender people have been around for forever, until 2016, they’ve been living amongst us just fine without causing anyone else problems. The problems surrounding transgender people have been a result of ignorant, hateful, generally religious people attacking them. Society suggested we protect them a little and all hell broke loose. All of a sudden men in dresses are stalking women and girls in the public bathrooms, and women’s sports is under attack from untalented male athletes trying to win by competing against the weaker less athletic women. And seriously, this is all made up to energize an ignorant hateful base looking to get in bed with a bully.
To me, the threat is the religious, particularly Christians in the USA, attacking people for even the smallest incidents of non-conformity. Something that has been going on since the Middle Ages, from the crusades to witch hunts and so on. We don’t need genital inspections to use a restroom, that is sexual assault in and of itself. We don’t need to defund women’s sports to keep men out, women’s sports are already underfunded and under privileged. Their attacks on transgender are also attacks on the freedom of women in general.
She is the problem. She is unhinged. Any honest coverage of her will show this without having to exaggerate or lie.
As a transgender woman, 62 years old, I can tell you that living among straight people (those driven by religion rather than reason) has been anything but "just fine." I genuinely hope that the people who share the beliefs this religious nut job in the article holds someday have to live under the same fear I live under, just to go get groceries or gas each day.
"To me, the threat is the religious, particularly Christians in the USA, attacking people for even the smallest incidents of non-conformity."
Exactly this. They want absolute control to force everyone into the narrow little boxes that make them comfortable, regardless of how traumatizing it is to the ones being forced.
"To me, the threat is the religious, particularly Christians in the USA, attacking people for even the smallest incidents of non-conformity"
After I posted my other comment, I carried on thinking about this sentence. And I arrived at two thoughts - and I am honestly not sure whether they mesh.
Let's start with this: If you look at the founding of the USA, was it not actually founded on non-conforming? Was it not the likes of the Plymouth Brethren and other non-conforming christians who looked to the 'new world' as a place where they could lead their lifestyle without being discriminated by the majority religion? On that basis there should be a deep tradition of tolerance in America, of 'Live and Let Live'.
And yet there's a real tradition of some of the christian settlements in the early times of not being tolerant at all, of them wanting to instill conformity in the new communities.
In a way, the USA was built on non-conformity, and even the puritans were non-conformists to England’s rule. However, the religionists of the time moved to the Americas because they wanted conformity, just not the conformity the King demanded. Or that the King didn’t conform to their desires, and they knew they couldn’t force the establishment in England to conform, but the Americas offered an opportunity to create a society from scratch that could be molded to their standards.
That didn’t work out as the folks smart enough to create a new society were not open to the Puritans’ or other religious groups’ demands, deists mostly.
Still, the pull of authoritarianism is strong and unyielding. The people of the new world still found ways to enforce a sort of conformity to religion, despite the best efforts of the great minds of the time. The sectarian strife the founders sought to avoid, still comes for us all.
You’re right. And yet I am still surprised that a society for whom ‘Freedom’ is such a strong clarion call has got such a large section of its population who is so intolerant. (intolerant as in not being tolerant of other people’s ideas and lifestyles)
Have you ever read "The Once and Future King" by T.H. White? Too many people think like the ants ("Everything not forbidden is compulsory") than like the geese.
As an aside, it’s gratifying that people are starting to deny they are Republicans. It’s about time that label became embarrassing.
As another aside, the dismal economy, the war, and the rest of the corruption and incompetence of this regime seem to be getting people to look beyond the cuture wars. I hope this trend continues and politics is more about governance than the useless and divisive shit evangelicals dish out.
Well, this could be technically true. She may not have signed up to be a member of the party. But it's a pretty safe bet that she checks the Republican box on her ballot and won't go down the list to pick any other party for smaller races.
In Florida there is an officially recognized Independent Party. So, if you register as independent, you are not actually independent, you are Independent. To be truly independent you have to register as No Party Affiliation (NPA). 🤯
The Independent Party is the 3rd largest political party in Florida and I suspect that the majority of voters registered that way really meant to be independent not Independent. 🤔
"You're taking my verbatim quote out of context because it makes me look bad."
To paraphrase Miley Cyrus: I didn’t speak badly about you — I just repeated what you said.
If that makes you look bad, that’s not my problem anymore.
No, darlin.' Being transgender isn't an ideology. It's religion that's an ideology (or one that functions like an ideology and has the elements of an ideology) and one that children need to be protected from, as police report after police report has shown.
"Atheists are violent and dangerous without god to keep them moral" say the adherents of a cult whose symbol is a torture victim and whose rituals command them to eat his flesh and drink his blood and put non-believers to the sword.
Well, when you put it like that, it does sound kind of culty.
Now, now, we all know it's the "religion of love."
"I love you so don't make me hit you again." --- that kind of love?
I see you have read their book.
If they need god to keep them moral, I certainly hope they don't lose belief. Psychopaths on leashes should be kept on leashes.
She conveniently ignores the countless horrors perpetrated by Christians acting in the name of Christianity.
Every christian sect has its own corpus of dogma which they internalize and believe in place of their bible which said bodies of dogma frequently conflict with. Religions are nothing so much as collective mental illnesses - and Talibangelical Christianity is among the worst.
So which is it? Are you wanting to protect children or do you want to look at their genitalia to decide which bathroom they should use? What are you going to do when you see one that doesn't fit your little box? There are people in the world that were 'assigned' a sex at birth that was wrong because the doctor was unable to determine at the time. Or are you just going to decide by the way someone looks to you? Maybe you have a four part test: Do they have long hair. Are they wearing pants and/or a plaid shirt? Do they have facial hair? Are you attracted/not attracted to them?
These people don't want to protect children. They want to force people that don't fit in their box underground. They HAVE to know they can't pass legislation that will make transgender people cease to exist, don't they?
Uh, no. They don't know that. They're ignorant, as well, of anything resembling actual history. (see Barton, David.) They do know, however, that they can or will cause lots of deaths and suffering in their gawd's name, and it will all be excused/ minimized/ forgotten by the righteous because, um, Jayzus. (see Crusades, pink triangles, etc).
Sorry, but the National Bathroom Panty Inspector job has been filled by Nancy Mace.
Loose lips sink ships but accurate quotations sink churches
Esther and Mordecai lived in peace with their neighbors and only resorted to violence when their lives were literally condemned. You wish to condemn a group of innocent children to suffering and death because you despise who they are. You are Haman in that story, lady, not the heroes.
Deborah and David dealt with their enemies by killing them by the thousands. God... GOD... even tells David that he's covered in blood and unworthy of building a holy site because of it.
You've got some warped Disney princess theology where you're incapable of seeing who the bad guy in the story is. It's not the little kid suffering from gender dysphoria. It's you. You are Pharaoh in the tale. You are Haman. You are the one marching your troops against innocent people first.
May you be condemned to a fate where you end up powerless and have to watch as society leaves you and your bigoted views behind and every child thrives being who they are.
One of the things I find most irritating about vocal Christians is their expectation to be deferred to at all times. She’s just one more example of what can be justified in the name of faith.
"If we all arm our children with the truth..."
Stop right there, lady. Your idea of "truth" is vastly different from those not in thrall of superstitious codswallop. You engage in dangerous fantasies that have no basis in truth. You are, in fact, irresponsibly spreading lies.
As a wise man once said: "It is immoral to lie to children." I do believe that wise man was an atheist.
Her idea of truth stopped refining itself around the 2nd grade. The resulting warped sense of reality has been reinforced by decades of cherry picked Sunday schoom lessons. Hitch would have had a field day with her.
Of course she doesn’t consider male circumcision to be regulated under this anti-trans legislation, it’s a Christian rite. Sort of. In a way. But it is normal. It is conforming to their standards. She needs to stop transgender children from being healthy, not keep healthy children healthy and intact.
Edit - this was supposed to be a new comment on its own, some weird error put it as a reply to NOGODZ since I started a reply but chose not to. Oops.
𝐼𝑓 𝑤𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑚 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑛 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑠, ... 𝐼 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑙𝑦 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑤𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑤𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑛.
So, saying she wants children covered in blood is not culty? To be fair, I understand the christianese. I know she's not actually talking about physical blood poured out on children. But physical blood poured on children was not what was reported. She's just mad about the Carrie jokes.
"They're all going to laugh at you, Erin."
“But, but, but, he’s taking it out of context!!!!”
Nope the context is there, it doesn’t make you look any better.
Look, transgender people have been around for forever, until 2016, they’ve been living amongst us just fine without causing anyone else problems. The problems surrounding transgender people have been a result of ignorant, hateful, generally religious people attacking them. Society suggested we protect them a little and all hell broke loose. All of a sudden men in dresses are stalking women and girls in the public bathrooms, and women’s sports is under attack from untalented male athletes trying to win by competing against the weaker less athletic women. And seriously, this is all made up to energize an ignorant hateful base looking to get in bed with a bully.
To me, the threat is the religious, particularly Christians in the USA, attacking people for even the smallest incidents of non-conformity. Something that has been going on since the Middle Ages, from the crusades to witch hunts and so on. We don’t need genital inspections to use a restroom, that is sexual assault in and of itself. We don’t need to defund women’s sports to keep men out, women’s sports are already underfunded and under privileged. Their attacks on transgender are also attacks on the freedom of women in general.
She is the problem. She is unhinged. Any honest coverage of her will show this without having to exaggerate or lie.
As a transgender woman, 62 years old, I can tell you that living among straight people (those driven by religion rather than reason) has been anything but "just fine." I genuinely hope that the people who share the beliefs this religious nut job in the article holds someday have to live under the same fear I live under, just to go get groceries or gas each day.
"To me, the threat is the religious, particularly Christians in the USA, attacking people for even the smallest incidents of non-conformity."
Exactly this. They want absolute control to force everyone into the narrow little boxes that make them comfortable, regardless of how traumatizing it is to the ones being forced.
"To me, the threat is the religious, particularly Christians in the USA, attacking people for even the smallest incidents of non-conformity"
This!
"To me, the threat is the religious, particularly Christians in the USA, attacking people for even the smallest incidents of non-conformity"
After I posted my other comment, I carried on thinking about this sentence. And I arrived at two thoughts - and I am honestly not sure whether they mesh.
Let's start with this: If you look at the founding of the USA, was it not actually founded on non-conforming? Was it not the likes of the Plymouth Brethren and other non-conforming christians who looked to the 'new world' as a place where they could lead their lifestyle without being discriminated by the majority religion? On that basis there should be a deep tradition of tolerance in America, of 'Live and Let Live'.
And yet there's a real tradition of some of the christian settlements in the early times of not being tolerant at all, of them wanting to instill conformity in the new communities.
Any thoughts?
In a way, the USA was built on non-conformity, and even the puritans were non-conformists to England’s rule. However, the religionists of the time moved to the Americas because they wanted conformity, just not the conformity the King demanded. Or that the King didn’t conform to their desires, and they knew they couldn’t force the establishment in England to conform, but the Americas offered an opportunity to create a society from scratch that could be molded to their standards.
That didn’t work out as the folks smart enough to create a new society were not open to the Puritans’ or other religious groups’ demands, deists mostly.
Still, the pull of authoritarianism is strong and unyielding. The people of the new world still found ways to enforce a sort of conformity to religion, despite the best efforts of the great minds of the time. The sectarian strife the founders sought to avoid, still comes for us all.
You’re right. And yet I am still surprised that a society for whom ‘Freedom’ is such a strong clarion call has got such a large section of its population who is so intolerant. (intolerant as in not being tolerant of other people’s ideas and lifestyles)
Maybe I should not be surprised. But I am.
Have you ever read "The Once and Future King" by T.H. White? Too many people think like the ants ("Everything not forbidden is compulsory") than like the geese.
As an aside, it’s gratifying that people are starting to deny they are Republicans. It’s about time that label became embarrassing.
As another aside, the dismal economy, the war, and the rest of the corruption and incompetence of this regime seem to be getting people to look beyond the cuture wars. I hope this trend continues and politics is more about governance than the useless and divisive shit evangelicals dish out.
"if we stand up as Esthers and Mordecais and Deborahs and Davids, I truly believe that we will win this spiritual battle for our children."
Okay, Karen.
She quote mined herself to try to make the reporter look bad. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Not the sharpest knife but a sharp tongue. A couple of quotes that may apply:
* "A quick temper, sharp tongue, and restless spirit were always getting her into scrapes." — Louisa May Alcott, Little Women
* "A person with a sharp tongue will eventually cut themselves if they are not careful with their wielding blade of flesh." — J. Robson Koenig
She's a conservative Christian. Quote mining is a habit. (They coat their cherries in mined quotes after picking.)
Well, she IS a blonde. ;)
Reminds me of the Sarah Palin years, with SNL shredding her to bits by just quoting her directly. Ah, it was a simpler time.
Boy, SHE sure went from national prominence to "Whatever happened to...?" in a hurry.
John McCain's stupidest decision ever. I wonder if he might have won if he had picked someone halfway normal?
If she were a man, I'd say she's a prime candidate for a future headline about being caught diddling children.
(Not that it's out of the realm of possibility altogether. It's just that xtian women engaged in such crimes are rarer)
But an accomplice to kiddy diddling? See Duggar, Michelle, et al.
𝐼’𝑚 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛.
Well, this could be technically true. She may not have signed up to be a member of the party. But it's a pretty safe bet that she checks the Republican box on her ballot and won't go down the list to pick any other party for smaller races.
This brings to mind:
In Florida there is an officially recognized Independent Party. So, if you register as independent, you are not actually independent, you are Independent. To be truly independent you have to register as No Party Affiliation (NPA). 🤯
The Independent Party is the 3rd largest political party in Florida and I suspect that the majority of voters registered that way really meant to be independent not Independent. 🤔
Like Hermie and Rudolph
https://youtu.be/mmfgHUUr6sY