“Mike is an Iraq war veteran, Kitty is a former paraprofessional for special needs children, and together they run a small business,”
What listed here makes these people qualified to take in foster children? I would argue that being a war veteran is more red flag than green. Especially if they are a fundamentalist Christian person of any sect, because there’s a lot of trauma involved and the religious tend to vilify secular and effective counseling and run toward religious prayer. He may be well adjusted, as I know they can be since my hubs is also an Gulf War vet who does not have issues related to it, but being a war vet is not a qualification for raising children.
Paraprofessionals sounds like they would be uniquely qualified for being foster parents, but they often do not have education and training requirements. They are not required to have a degree in teaching or special ed training. She does have experience with children though and I’ll give her that. But I question why she’s a former Paraprofessional considering her stated biases. Children who require special education considerations, especially those on the autism spectrum, have a higher rate of being LGBT than average. It’s possible, but I only have a speculation and not accusing her, that she left the job because she was required to be kind to them despite them being LGBT. Maybe a little accusing because she’s expressed this exact sentiment, but I can’t say the school or schools she worked for noticed anything. Anyway, this qualification only says she has been around children with difficulties.
Running a business isn’t a quality for much of anything. There’s no training required. I mean, Mike Lindell runs a business but I wouldn’t leave a plant in his care, let alone a child.
So please tell me how their qualifications are enough to make them good candidates for foster care when they’re willingly admitting to being a threat to a population of children more likely to be in their care.
I grew up in the Catholic Church, and one of the few positive things I can say about that institution is that the majority of Catholics take their religion with a grain of salt. There are, however, fundamentalist Catholics just as there are in every other religion, and they are some of the most intolerant people you will ever meet. When people convince themselves they're operating under divine sanction, there is no limit to the damage they can do.
That was my experience as well. I think one thing I noticed was a significant difference between generations. Each subsequent generation became more lax about their Catholicism all the way to present generations leaving en masse because they’re sick of the Catholic bigotry.
My father was half again as Catholic as the Pope, and convinced you simply could not question anything the church taught. Other than having a vague notion there were once married priests, he knew absolutely nothing about the church's horrid history.
I was the lapsed Catholic in my extended family, and a black sheep because of it. Funny though, as time passed, I wasn't the only one. Some people are just natural born herd animals and that was my father. If it hadn't been the Catholic church, it would have been something else. There was never any possibility he would start thinking for himself.
I remember in grade school, feeling sorry for the Catholic kids. Not only did they have to give up their Sundays to go to church, they had to go to catechism on Saturdays. Combined, that's practically one whole day out of their two day weekend.
Fundamentalist catholics are legion. My mom was one of them. My dad checked out early on and followed the rules (her rules.) My mother was one of the most hateful and bigoted people I've ever met in my life. She played the "catholic martyr mother of many" role to the hilt and all seven of us kids suffered for it. But that was only at home. In public, especially at church, she was believed by all to be a wonderful person, so pious, so kind. And, yeah, some of us were not cis/het. Some of us used birth control, had abortions. All of us had rejected that nonsense by age 11. And none of us told her any of that, or that her bigotry and that of her co-religionists played a big part in our rejection. Her reputation as a good catholic mother held, and the church was full during her funeral. Yeah, I was there that day. I would rather have been home watching Obama's first inauguration. Instead, I went outside the church and threw up, saying over and over again "she can't hurt us any more" while I did so. The bigots described in this post would likely do the same to any kids in their putative care.
First, I'm sorry for your pain. You and your siblings should never have been put through that.
Second, this issue isn't limited to Catholics. I had somewhat similar issues with my mother, and never repaired anything with her because she was 'such a devout Baptist.' Never think you're alone, you've got plenty of company if you ever need it.
Virtual hug. Are you sure your mother didn't use birth control ? DM's grandmother had more children and yet she aborted about half of her pregnancies (birth control was illegal and hard to get* even if you had a lot of money).
* From a documentary on Neuwirth's law legalising birth control pills, where witnesses from that time explained that for at least a few months after the law changed customs agents still tried to seize them.
Positive. Birth control was illegal then. My mother had 10 pregnancies: 7 living children, one very premature birth (died at birth), and two miscarriages. Her last pregnancy was at age 48. Her parents, on the other hand, had only 3 kids, and were only a short distance from New York City when Margaret Sanger was active there. They also spent their honeymoon there. So I suspect that my maternal grandparents did use some sort of birth control, though what it was I don't know.
Take it from someone who had to deal with paraprofessionals in school, that's just as much a red flag as veteran. Paras are kinda like nurses in that a lot of them seem to take the job to get access to vulnerable kids. A lot of them take Dolores umbridge as a role model.
The paras my child was assigned were great and super helpful. However, I have experienced what you described in other situations in schools. From taking school pictures to student teaching and all the field experiences, to teaching in after school programs, I’ve experienced really good and really very bad paras. I’ve even applied to be one and the listed requirements are not very demanding.
My girlfriend is a Professional special ed teacher (BA in Education, MA in History Education, MA in Special Education). She works in an underserved community and school. For her, the paras, when they come to work, are generally from that community and most have the students in the forefront of their minds at work. Of course, like so many school systems today, our county schools started the fall semester with almost 1500 unfilled positions. My lady is a wonderful one.
What she actually sees most in terms of her special needs children, is a "caretaker" with 4 or 5 children in their care, who drop them at school ASAP in the morning and don't pick them up until the last moment possible. She sees the kids leave in good shape Friday afternoon and come in zonked out hard on meds that were almost assuredly NOT administered by the caretaker during the week, so the caretaker can knock them out all weekend with the surplus. And she's also observed these "caretakers" move a child they are supposed to love into a group home within a week of said students 21st birthday, when the state checks stop coming. And then a month or so later, bringing a new child to school to begin this process anew. Most of these monsters usually have Bible verses or icthus symbols or "Blessed" bumper stickers. The money for which probably was intended to be spent on diapers or medication etc. Girlfriend had a mother last year who almost always delivered the child to school with shit and piss in her diapers. And this is a quadrapeliegic child who cannot even feed herself, let alone use a toilet.
I concur. It is the rare occurrence where a family has the endurance to make it. Financially, psychically, emotionally, physically, you name it-ally. Hence the reliance on the State™ to fill in (which it does haphazardly). IMHO, there is an underlying current of thought in this country about "undesirables," they are disposable or should be hidden from view which is almost the same thing.
Give your girlfriend an extra hug from me for being so tough and strong - fekking holding that bridge together almost single handedly!
That's definitely true. Hell, the "therapy" that gets recommended for autistic kids (Applied Behavior Analysis) was invented by the same guy who invented conversion therapy and runs on the exact same principles. The whole point is to abuse kids hard enough to get them to suppress their own neurology well enough to make it so their parents/caretakers don't have to deal with them.
If you ever want to learn more about this (and get apocalyptically angry) look up the judge Rosenberg center.
My aunt (DM older sister) had to take care of my cousin (2 meningitis, the second destroyed her for good) for more than 15 years. I wouldn't have been able to do it.
We both realize that, for sure. Colleagues at other "better" but not "top tier" schools often relay terrible stories concerning theirs. And my scare quotes in this are there because if the county allotted funds equitably, all the schools in the system could be "top tier".
One of the ones I had got profoundly offended that I had a yo yo. In an empty room. Between classes. And tried to yank it off my hand. I tried to tell her it was on a slip knot but she didn't listen until my ringer turned purple.
Para = lack of licence. It's a bit like hiring an unlicenced plumber or electrician. You could get that cheaper and more competent professional who just didn't jump through the hoops, either from lack of desire or some life circumstance that stopped them. We all probably know someone like that. But, you could instead get the person who *couldn't* jump through them.
One would think that someone who handled "special needs" kids would have at least some level of understanding or a willingness to consider the particularly special need of a kid who is conflicted about their gender identity.
I'd like to think that ... but I'm also willing to be wrong.
If she is unwilling to compromise her faith for the well being of children, I fear what she could do to children with special needs, especially if they are non verbal.
She said "You were in a foxhole?" to me when I never made any such claim. I used the word "shelter" yet she somehow got "foxhole" out of that. Is her reading comprehension that poor? Shelter and foxhole sound nothing alike.
"There are no atheists in foxholes?" No, I don't think that was the old saw being discussed."
Um, you may want to go back and re-read what larry parker said (I quote):
"There are no atheists in foxholes, we've always known." "No, you've always been wrong about that." The discussion you don't think exists flowed from there.
"Huge difference anyway being in a "combat area" and being on a dugout or foxhole that's being shelled."
Let me make it clear to you: I was involved in a war where there were no front lines. The VC got by 4 rows of concertina barbed wire and walked the flight line. We had shelters made out of sandbags. I was in mortar attack after mortar attack at the 2nd most hit Air Base in the RVN. I was gassed. I was shot at. A "difference?" Seriously?
What do you know about it? You were talking to a person with first hand experience. The phrase is a metaphor “no atheists in foxholes” and in reality it is flat out false. As evidenced by the many atheist veterans on this board. Whether they ever had to fight in a foxhole or not. But if you want to be pedantic, I was in a foxhole even though I’ve never been in combat. I had to dig one in basic training and we often used them on the range, though they looked a bit different from what would be built on the front.
I’m going to bet NOGODZ, being in a combat zone, had experienced the situation the phrase was supposed to illustrate. So you playing semantics has been fun, but you lost the game.
To the vets: thank you for your service. Thank you for signing up for a job that potentially risks your life, regardless of whether you ended up spending your time in a surgery, motor pool, or yes, foxhole. Regardless of whether you were stateside or in theater. Most of us would not even have risked signing up, and that is very much to your credit, even if Meg doesn't think so.
Maybe you missed the words 'of any sect'. There are fundamentalist Catholics You also seem to have missed the fact she was talking about war vets in general with that particular statement.
And where do you get 'Obviously', because they certainly share several traits in common with fundamentalist Catholics.
The very religious are always very quick to claim they're being persecuted, and no group would be quicker to persecute others, given the opportunity. The Burkes are what you get when you delegate your thinking to others, in this case the Catholic Church. The folks who didn't have a problem with Nazis.
Aside from the (dubious, to say the least) conversion of Constantine, the primary factor in the Catholic church's rise to dominate the Western world was precisely their willingness, even eagerness, to persecute everyone under the sun who disagreed with them about even their smallest, least consequential opinions. "What you don't believe this vial of ink is part of the darkness that covered Egypt? Then die, heretic, die!"
I mean...they *were* denied because of their Catholic faith. Catholicism (and Christianity as a whole) is nothing but bigotry wrapped up in tradition and stupid costumes.
Plus, let's be real here, NO Catholic couple is a safe home for any child regardless of whether they're LGBTQ or not. Taking kids to the Catholic Church is fucking child endangerment.
Normalize excluding christians from everything, but ESPECIALLY anything that has to do with kids.
This is little more than a demand for additional privileges in the name of Jesus. Waaaaahhhhh, the state is enforcing anti-discrimination on us! Waaaaaahhhh, our faith says we have to be bigots, it's not our fault! Waaaaaahhhh, we want our privilege to treat people we don't like badly back! Nobody is telling this couple they can't be Catholic. Nobody is telling them they have to change their interpretation of their faith. The consequence of their interpretation of their faith is that the State of Massachusetts cannot allow them to be foster parents, since LBGTQA+ kids would not receive the same standard of care with them. None of this is the state's doing, this is all on the Burkes.
Suck it up, buttercup. Being religious does not mean you automatically get to foster kids and your just because your prejudice is faith-based doesn't mean you get to bypass the rules the rest of us have to play by. Cry that river if you want to, but you'll get zero sympathy from me; you're simply receiving the justified consequence of your own beliefs and actions.
Goody for them. Go to a private adoption agency. The state has criteria, you don't meet them, other Catholics do, thus not anti-Catholic discrimination.
Imagine it? Burkes could be planning to *actively seek out* trans foster kids to adopt. We know fundie Christians do this - seek out 'heathen' children to convert. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Burkes became aware of some gay or trans kid in the system and "felt a calling" to adopt them specifically in order to try and change them.
That line in Parker's article about catholics being the only group that can be diminished and penalized was utterly laughable, and I wanted to say something about another group we are all familiar with ("Hi there! Try being an atheist!"), but the comments were closed by the time I got around to reading it.
I would also submit that even the Burkes are not being "penalized" or "punished." They are simply not qualified, just as a family whose members have shown or declared racist attitudes would not be a safe place for a Black child.
I keep bringing up the fact that atheists can face the death penalty just for being atheist in 13 countries. Parker is so full of shit his eyes are brown.
But apparently their stated beliefs about LGBT people are not diminishing or penalizing, and there are not folks using violence to defend and allow these beliefs.
They’re just angry they aren’t allowed to be awful to others.
Hoping to get some of those sweet martyrdom-free martyrdoms, I expect. I mean they’re already on Fox, imagine if they lose a frivolous lawsuit! They’ll be heroes!
Well, it's practically a given that they would at least attempt, to teach straight children that being LGBT is icky and can't be accepted in their peers but must be fought like a deadly plague, while encouraging actual plagues like HIV.
I certainly consider this harmful for straight kids.
While I never served... I'd like to think that if I found myself in a foxhole, desperate for assistance from on high, I'd be requesting 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 rather than divine intervention.
This atheist served in a combat zone. Sniveling weasels like this guy would be the first to run for shelter. Deep down, they know no imaginary spirit is going to save their ass.
I've always thought that there should be no Christians in foxholes. They should put that little Bible in their shirt pocket and hang that little dangly cross around their neck and get right out there where the bullets are flying knowing that God will protect them. If they are huddled in a foxhole, do they really believe in God? I think not.
When folks claim this they are saying that when shit hits the fan everyone prays for deliverance. But that seems more like a lapse in faith rather than a sudden belief in god. Whenever I say anything about god it’s in the way that something is unbelievable. In a foxhole I might repeat oh god oh god, but that’s more like “I can’t believe this is happening to me.” And not a prayer to a divine being to get me out of it. It’s more a mantra to soothe my mind so I can focus on what needs to be done.
Lots of people talk to themselves as self-therapy or to reduce stress. But it's considered weird in modern western society to talk to yourself. Except for prayer. Thus, we get prayer in foxholes: a way to reduce your anxiety in horrible circumstances...in a socially acceptable way.
It's kinda the battlefield equivalent of church-as-social-connection. Sure, you're doing something superficially religious. Because it's the societal way to accomplish some nonreligious goal.
But...but...but it is their *sincerely held belief* that they should be allowed to bully, intimidate, vilify and even torture children, even to the point of suicide! How horrible, how impious, how downright blasphemous is it for the state to prevent that? Catholics are pro-life, goddammit!
How dare any Catholic cite their ancestors coming over from Ireland to escape religious persecution then use their religion as a weapon against our most vulnerable children? No, this Christian martyrdom complex needs to stop or we need to show them what persecution looks like. I think that's what they are really afraid of - that the atheists and humanists will take over and show them the same discrimination they show us.
American Christians know what true persecution of their brethren looks like overseas. I don't see a mad dash by those Christians to fly to said countries so that they can stand in solidarity with them and endure that very persecution themselves. They're way too comfortable here where it's safe. Their Jesus would be ashamed of them. He said persecution of them for his sake was a good thing.
But they have to take a brave stand here at home against the absolute worst form of persecution imaginable- having to hear the word "no" once in a while! 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘳!
Because you can't do that with 0-4s who don't know their orientation or gender.
Because you can't do that with 5-12s who may not know, or may know but have trouble expressing it.
Because you can't do that *even with teens*, many of whom may be struggling to find themselves or express their feelings.
So sure, if a potential adoptive family wants to limit themselves to adopting well-adjusted self-realized 20-year-olds, I think your solution will work. But if someone comes into an adoption agency looking to adopt a kid, then they need to be able to say "yes, if a year or two years or ten years from now this kid comes out, we will still love them."
There was an elder gay man who often sat in on our campus Pride group meetings in college who hadn't come out until he was in his 70s, having been married to a woman for about half a century, with multiple grandchildren.
It's probably also worth mentioning that back then I still thought I was the group's token straight guy, and only figured out that I was exactly neither of those things an uncomfortable number of years later.
Humans are messy and complicated, and self-awareness sadly does not operate on a fixed timetable or come with an instruction manual.
I was (and two other people) once present for a teen coming out*, he was so scared for his parents finding out. It took several minutes of us to reassure him we wouldn't ditch him for this reason. Later we helped him to come out with other members of the site both in the chatroom and IRL.
*We were in our mid to late 20's, it's probably why he choose to trust us.
It's terrifying even with someone you're sure will be okay with it. Once you've said those words, you know the bell can't be unrung and if you're wrong about them, you've lost a friend, a family member, a job, etc.
Do you ever wonder if any of them suspected what you didn't?
I often wonder if people I knew in High School and College suspected or were certain of what I didn't. I think my uncle knew, but died waiting for me to tell him.
If anyone did suspect, I doubt I'll ever know for sure; the handful of people I'm still in touch with- one of whom was the first person I came out to- haven't mentioned anything. That particular group didn't have any out trans folks in it, unfortunately. If there were any, that might've sparked something a bit sooner; I was already having thoughts that would've led in the right direction, if I'd had more of a push to express and explore them. I figured things out pretty quick once more trans characters played by actual trans people started popping up in the media I consumed; I can't imagine that having another trans person to actually talk to wouldn't have been even better.
The curse of hindsight is being able to look back and see aaaaallll those little moments which should've been the big "aha!"- but somehow inexplicably weren't- and yet being 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 to reach back through time to whack your younger self over the head with a clue-by-four.
My campus LGBT group had a local trans cop who had transitioned on the job as a guest speaker one time (as I recall she also read some poetry she'd written). It was something of an eye-opener for a recently-out gay man. (This was in the early 2000s)
That's amazing. Not for anything negative it says about you, but for what it says about the power of social pressure to skew our perceptions of ourselves and the world away from what should be an obvious conclusion.
Makes you wonder what obvious things we are all walking around blind to right now, because society or our peers or our family has told us "no."
While he may have had great supportive parents and the lateness may simply be him, or it may be an effect of society or peer pressure or other influences that parenting had nothing to do with, it could also have been (partly or wholly) parenting. That is one possible explanation among many. But importantly for this case, "will you parent in such a way that it keeps a gay kid fearful and guilt-ridden in the closet for 30 years" is the sort of parenting adoption agencies should be avoiding. The Burkes seemingly score a giant YES on that.
Massachusetts is focused on what is best for the child. The Burkes are focused on what they want.
Massachusetts is focused on the way things are. The Burkes are focused on the way they think things ought to be.
The child's sexuality is essentially immutable. The Burkes think they could change it if necessary.
The Burkes think they can't change their beliefs.. They could.
It is not possible to predict years beforehand what a baby's or very small child's sexuality will turn out to be. Permitting the Burkes to adopt a child with nothing but an unsupported hope that the child's immutable and as yet unpredictable sexuality will not be in serious conflict with the Burke's attitudes is not worth the gamble.
"Kramer received a papal bull Summis desiderantes affectibus in 1484. It gave full papal approval for the Inquisition to prosecute what was deemed to be witchcraft in general and also gave individual authorizations to Kramer and Dominican Friar Jacob Sprenger specifically."
"In 1428, the first systematic European witch-hunt began in Valais, Switzerland. This witch-hunt lasted eight years and resulted in the deaths of 367 people."
"The condemned were mostly burnt to death, with a few being beheaded. Victims were tied to a ladder that was pushed into a pyre. "
Don't like my citations, let's see yours, since you're the one making the claim that it was Protestants who were witch-hunting and not Catholics. The wiki cites its sources, which is more than you've done.
You're claiming the inquisition was "pretty dormant" in the 13th -15th centuries?
The 15th century was when it was at its height (arguably). This is when Torquemada ran the Spanish Inquisition and, under the direct orders of the VERY Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella, forcibly murdered, exiled, or tortured-to-conversion every Muslim, Jew, and other non-Catholic in Spain. You might remember "In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue?" That's because in 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella completed their reconquista of Spain - the murder, exile, and torture of most of the Muslims and Jews - so they now had the resources to spare on an expedition.
And just to reiterate cdbunch's deadban historical observation: Reconquista: 700s-1492. Spanish Inquisition: starts 1478. Martin Luther's reformation: 1517. You are asserting protestants held witch burnings, in Catholic spain, under Torquemada of all people, decades before Protestantism took off a thousand miles away in Germany.
Maybe there were a few 'Protestants' before the name Protestant existed. It's not the first time I've been wrong and I'm sure it won't be the last. Can you admit as much?
"Catholics and Protestants hunted witches with comparable vigor."
If she's a Catholic (and she appears to be), then I wonder if she puts money in the collection basket at Mass. Money that goes to prop up a hateful religion that slimes women and LGBTQs and molests children (whom the clergy then to try paint those children as the villains).
If she really is Catholic (and she sounds like a Catholic apologist at the very least), then I wonder how she can sleep at night.
I was thinking sock puppet at first. After the beating he took on the last article on this subject that lasted for weeks, I thought he might be afraid to post his bullshit under his usual handle.
“Mike is an Iraq war veteran, Kitty is a former paraprofessional for special needs children, and together they run a small business,”
What listed here makes these people qualified to take in foster children? I would argue that being a war veteran is more red flag than green. Especially if they are a fundamentalist Christian person of any sect, because there’s a lot of trauma involved and the religious tend to vilify secular and effective counseling and run toward religious prayer. He may be well adjusted, as I know they can be since my hubs is also an Gulf War vet who does not have issues related to it, but being a war vet is not a qualification for raising children.
Paraprofessionals sounds like they would be uniquely qualified for being foster parents, but they often do not have education and training requirements. They are not required to have a degree in teaching or special ed training. She does have experience with children though and I’ll give her that. But I question why she’s a former Paraprofessional considering her stated biases. Children who require special education considerations, especially those on the autism spectrum, have a higher rate of being LGBT than average. It’s possible, but I only have a speculation and not accusing her, that she left the job because she was required to be kind to them despite them being LGBT. Maybe a little accusing because she’s expressed this exact sentiment, but I can’t say the school or schools she worked for noticed anything. Anyway, this qualification only says she has been around children with difficulties.
Running a business isn’t a quality for much of anything. There’s no training required. I mean, Mike Lindell runs a business but I wouldn’t leave a plant in his care, let alone a child.
So please tell me how their qualifications are enough to make them good candidates for foster care when they’re willingly admitting to being a threat to a population of children more likely to be in their care.
I grew up in the Catholic Church, and one of the few positive things I can say about that institution is that the majority of Catholics take their religion with a grain of salt. There are, however, fundamentalist Catholics just as there are in every other religion, and they are some of the most intolerant people you will ever meet. When people convince themselves they're operating under divine sanction, there is no limit to the damage they can do.
It sounds like they are using their religion as an excuse to be the awful people they are.
Seems to be a common flaw in this country. Makes me wonder, if we had 'freedom of douchery' in the Constitution would this be such a problem? ;)
Absolutely.
That was my experience as well. I think one thing I noticed was a significant difference between generations. Each subsequent generation became more lax about their Catholicism all the way to present generations leaving en masse because they’re sick of the Catholic bigotry.
My father was half again as Catholic as the Pope, and convinced you simply could not question anything the church taught. Other than having a vague notion there were once married priests, he knew absolutely nothing about the church's horrid history.
I was lucky. After Vatican II, my dad became a lapsed Catholic.
I was the lapsed Catholic in my extended family, and a black sheep because of it. Funny though, as time passed, I wasn't the only one. Some people are just natural born herd animals and that was my father. If it hadn't been the Catholic church, it would have been something else. There was never any possibility he would start thinking for himself.
I was an atheist before I knew what an atheist was. One day I just stopped believing when I was still a child in single digit years.
I remember in grade school, feeling sorry for the Catholic kids. Not only did they have to give up their Sundays to go to church, they had to go to catechism on Saturdays. Combined, that's practically one whole day out of their two day weekend.
Fundamentalist catholics are legion. My mom was one of them. My dad checked out early on and followed the rules (her rules.) My mother was one of the most hateful and bigoted people I've ever met in my life. She played the "catholic martyr mother of many" role to the hilt and all seven of us kids suffered for it. But that was only at home. In public, especially at church, she was believed by all to be a wonderful person, so pious, so kind. And, yeah, some of us were not cis/het. Some of us used birth control, had abortions. All of us had rejected that nonsense by age 11. And none of us told her any of that, or that her bigotry and that of her co-religionists played a big part in our rejection. Her reputation as a good catholic mother held, and the church was full during her funeral. Yeah, I was there that day. I would rather have been home watching Obama's first inauguration. Instead, I went outside the church and threw up, saying over and over again "she can't hurt us any more" while I did so. The bigots described in this post would likely do the same to any kids in their putative care.
First, I'm sorry for your pain. You and your siblings should never have been put through that.
Second, this issue isn't limited to Catholics. I had somewhat similar issues with my mother, and never repaired anything with her because she was 'such a devout Baptist.' Never think you're alone, you've got plenty of company if you ever need it.
Take care.
Thank you. Sometimes it takes a long while to, well, speak up and heal. So it is for me.
Virtual hug. Are you sure your mother didn't use birth control ? DM's grandmother had more children and yet she aborted about half of her pregnancies (birth control was illegal and hard to get* even if you had a lot of money).
* From a documentary on Neuwirth's law legalising birth control pills, where witnesses from that time explained that for at least a few months after the law changed customs agents still tried to seize them.
Positive. Birth control was illegal then. My mother had 10 pregnancies: 7 living children, one very premature birth (died at birth), and two miscarriages. Her last pregnancy was at age 48. Her parents, on the other hand, had only 3 kids, and were only a short distance from New York City when Margaret Sanger was active there. They also spent their honeymoon there. So I suspect that my maternal grandparents did use some sort of birth control, though what it was I don't know.
*Add some funny pictures of Aria with the hug*
Take it from someone who had to deal with paraprofessionals in school, that's just as much a red flag as veteran. Paras are kinda like nurses in that a lot of them seem to take the job to get access to vulnerable kids. A lot of them take Dolores umbridge as a role model.
The paras my child was assigned were great and super helpful. However, I have experienced what you described in other situations in schools. From taking school pictures to student teaching and all the field experiences, to teaching in after school programs, I’ve experienced really good and really very bad paras. I’ve even applied to be one and the listed requirements are not very demanding.
My girlfriend is a Professional special ed teacher (BA in Education, MA in History Education, MA in Special Education). She works in an underserved community and school. For her, the paras, when they come to work, are generally from that community and most have the students in the forefront of their minds at work. Of course, like so many school systems today, our county schools started the fall semester with almost 1500 unfilled positions. My lady is a wonderful one.
What she actually sees most in terms of her special needs children, is a "caretaker" with 4 or 5 children in their care, who drop them at school ASAP in the morning and don't pick them up until the last moment possible. She sees the kids leave in good shape Friday afternoon and come in zonked out hard on meds that were almost assuredly NOT administered by the caretaker during the week, so the caretaker can knock them out all weekend with the surplus. And she's also observed these "caretakers" move a child they are supposed to love into a group home within a week of said students 21st birthday, when the state checks stop coming. And then a month or so later, bringing a new child to school to begin this process anew. Most of these monsters usually have Bible verses or icthus symbols or "Blessed" bumper stickers. The money for which probably was intended to be spent on diapers or medication etc. Girlfriend had a mother last year who almost always delivered the child to school with shit and piss in her diapers. And this is a quadrapeliegic child who cannot even feed herself, let alone use a toilet.
I concur. It is the rare occurrence where a family has the endurance to make it. Financially, psychically, emotionally, physically, you name it-ally. Hence the reliance on the State™ to fill in (which it does haphazardly). IMHO, there is an underlying current of thought in this country about "undesirables," they are disposable or should be hidden from view which is almost the same thing.
Give your girlfriend an extra hug from me for being so tough and strong - fekking holding that bridge together almost single handedly!
That's definitely true. Hell, the "therapy" that gets recommended for autistic kids (Applied Behavior Analysis) was invented by the same guy who invented conversion therapy and runs on the exact same principles. The whole point is to abuse kids hard enough to get them to suppress their own neurology well enough to make it so their parents/caretakers don't have to deal with them.
If you ever want to learn more about this (and get apocalyptically angry) look up the judge Rosenberg center.
I'm masochistic but not that masochistic.
My aunt (DM older sister) had to take care of my cousin (2 meningitis, the second destroyed her for good) for more than 15 years. I wouldn't have been able to do it.
Likewise.
I'm glad that the paras your girlfriend works with are good, but that's unfortunately not the standard.
We both realize that, for sure. Colleagues at other "better" but not "top tier" schools often relay terrible stories concerning theirs. And my scare quotes in this are there because if the county allotted funds equitably, all the schools in the system could be "top tier".
One of the ones I had got profoundly offended that I had a yo yo. In an empty room. Between classes. And tried to yank it off my hand. I tried to tell her it was on a slip knot but she didn't listen until my ringer turned purple.
Para = lack of licence. It's a bit like hiring an unlicenced plumber or electrician. You could get that cheaper and more competent professional who just didn't jump through the hoops, either from lack of desire or some life circumstance that stopped them. We all probably know someone like that. But, you could instead get the person who *couldn't* jump through them.
One would think that someone who handled "special needs" kids would have at least some level of understanding or a willingness to consider the particularly special need of a kid who is conflicted about their gender identity.
I'd like to think that ... but I'm also willing to be wrong.
If she is unwilling to compromise her faith for the well being of children, I fear what she could do to children with special needs, especially if they are non verbal.
Pre-CISE-ly!!!
How many special needs children did she work with who were also LGBTQ?
Everything you're thinking and then some.
But they are bigots. And that's the important fact.
I never said they were.
She said "You were in a foxhole?" to me when I never made any such claim. I used the word "shelter" yet she somehow got "foxhole" out of that. Is her reading comprehension that poor? Shelter and foxhole sound nothing alike.
"There are no atheists in foxholes?" No, I don't think that was the old saw being discussed."
Um, you may want to go back and re-read what larry parker said (I quote):
"There are no atheists in foxholes, we've always known." "No, you've always been wrong about that." The discussion you don't think exists flowed from there.
"Huge difference anyway being in a "combat area" and being on a dugout or foxhole that's being shelled."
Let me make it clear to you: I was involved in a war where there were no front lines. The VC got by 4 rows of concertina barbed wire and walked the flight line. We had shelters made out of sandbags. I was in mortar attack after mortar attack at the 2nd most hit Air Base in the RVN. I was gassed. I was shot at. A "difference?" Seriously?
To add:
We also had Vietnamese who worked on the base during the day, then went home and put on the black pajamas to fight us after dark.
What do you know about it? You were talking to a person with first hand experience. The phrase is a metaphor “no atheists in foxholes” and in reality it is flat out false. As evidenced by the many atheist veterans on this board. Whether they ever had to fight in a foxhole or not. But if you want to be pedantic, I was in a foxhole even though I’ve never been in combat. I had to dig one in basic training and we often used them on the range, though they looked a bit different from what would be built on the front.
I’m going to bet NOGODZ, being in a combat zone, had experienced the situation the phrase was supposed to illustrate. So you playing semantics has been fun, but you lost the game.
𝐻𝑢𝑔𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑦𝑤𝑎𝑦 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 "𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎" 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 𝑑𝑢𝑔𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑥ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑒
fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu you, lady.
To the vets: thank you for your service. Thank you for signing up for a job that potentially risks your life, regardless of whether you ended up spending your time in a surgery, motor pool, or yes, foxhole. Regardless of whether you were stateside or in theater. Most of us would not even have risked signing up, and that is very much to your credit, even if Meg doesn't think so.
Thank you. Just doing our jobs. 🙂
Wonder if Meg signed up to serve. Doesn't sound like it.
Trenches WW1 were both, you should think to read books sometimes.
Is it morons days ou quoi ? Buy two have a third ?
Maybe I'll have a fifth.
She really doesn't what you know, does she? She's so stupid she mocked you're being French and that English isn't your first language.
She could've done her homework beforehand to find out...nah! Too lazy.
Maybe you missed the words 'of any sect'. There are fundamentalist Catholics You also seem to have missed the fact she was talking about war vets in general with that particular statement.
And where do you get 'Obviously', because they certainly share several traits in common with fundamentalist Catholics.
You need a dictionary.
The very religious are always very quick to claim they're being persecuted, and no group would be quicker to persecute others, given the opportunity. The Burkes are what you get when you delegate your thinking to others, in this case the Catholic Church. The folks who didn't have a problem with Nazis.
The IMAX level projection helps the spread the cherry-picking.
Recorded history has shown who the persecutors are time and time and time again. It always seems to be the pious.
Aside from the (dubious, to say the least) conversion of Constantine, the primary factor in the Catholic church's rise to dominate the Western world was precisely their willingness, even eagerness, to persecute everyone under the sun who disagreed with them about even their smallest, least consequential opinions. "What you don't believe this vial of ink is part of the darkness that covered Egypt? Then die, heretic, die!"
I mean...they *were* denied because of their Catholic faith. Catholicism (and Christianity as a whole) is nothing but bigotry wrapped up in tradition and stupid costumes.
Plus, let's be real here, NO Catholic couple is a safe home for any child regardless of whether they're LGBTQ or not. Taking kids to the Catholic Church is fucking child endangerment.
Normalize excluding christians from everything, but ESPECIALLY anything that has to do with kids.
This is little more than a demand for additional privileges in the name of Jesus. Waaaaahhhhh, the state is enforcing anti-discrimination on us! Waaaaaahhhh, our faith says we have to be bigots, it's not our fault! Waaaaaahhhh, we want our privilege to treat people we don't like badly back! Nobody is telling this couple they can't be Catholic. Nobody is telling them they have to change their interpretation of their faith. The consequence of their interpretation of their faith is that the State of Massachusetts cannot allow them to be foster parents, since LBGTQA+ kids would not receive the same standard of care with them. None of this is the state's doing, this is all on the Burkes.
Suck it up, buttercup. Being religious does not mean you automatically get to foster kids and your just because your prejudice is faith-based doesn't mean you get to bypass the rules the rest of us have to play by. Cry that river if you want to, but you'll get zero sympathy from me; you're simply receiving the justified consequence of your own beliefs and actions.
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑤𝑒𝑏𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑠 𝑎 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑜𝑏 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑙𝑜𝑣𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒
Goody for them. Go to a private adoption agency. The state has criteria, you don't meet them, other Catholics do, thus not anti-Catholic discrimination.
𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑖𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑎 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐵𝑢𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑠’ ℎ𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑, 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑦 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑 𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓-ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑚.
Imagine it? Burkes could be planning to *actively seek out* trans foster kids to adopt. We know fundie Christians do this - seek out 'heathen' children to convert. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Burkes became aware of some gay or trans kid in the system and "felt a calling" to adopt them specifically in order to try and change them.
That would be my concern, as well.
Or the Residential Schools- "𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘯" and all that evil shit.
That line in Parker's article about catholics being the only group that can be diminished and penalized was utterly laughable, and I wanted to say something about another group we are all familiar with ("Hi there! Try being an atheist!"), but the comments were closed by the time I got around to reading it.
I would also submit that even the Burkes are not being "penalized" or "punished." They are simply not qualified, just as a family whose members have shown or declared racist attitudes would not be a safe place for a Black child.
I keep bringing up the fact that atheists can face the death penalty just for being atheist in 13 countries. Parker is so full of shit his eyes are brown.
But apparently their stated beliefs about LGBT people are not diminishing or penalizing, and there are not folks using violence to defend and allow these beliefs.
They’re just angry they aren’t allowed to be awful to others.
Hoping to get some of those sweet martyrdom-free martyrdoms, I expect. I mean they’re already on Fox, imagine if they lose a frivolous lawsuit! They’ll be heroes!
Just my opinion, but the anti-LGBTQIA+ Jerks...er, Burkes would be bad parents for straight children as well.
Let them be childless for the sake of all children.
It would seem to me that their God is broadcasting a message to them in no uncertain terms.
God giving you a penis? That's a religious sign you should behave like penis-people. It must be true, it's religion.
Got giving Ms. Burke barrenness? Uh....
Well, it's practically a given that they would at least attempt, to teach straight children that being LGBT is icky and can't be accepted in their peers but must be fought like a deadly plague, while encouraging actual plagues like HIV.
I certainly consider this harmful for straight kids.
"There are no atheists in foxholes, we've always known."
No, you've always been wrong about that.
While I never served... I'd like to think that if I found myself in a foxhole, desperate for assistance from on high, I'd be requesting 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 rather than divine intervention.
This atheist served in a combat zone. Sniveling weasels like this guy would be the first to run for shelter. Deep down, they know no imaginary spirit is going to save their ass.
It seems to me that trusting a God would do you no good. You need to trust the marksmanship of your partner and yourself.
I've always thought that there should be no Christians in foxholes. They should put that little Bible in their shirt pocket and hang that little dangly cross around their neck and get right out there where the bullets are flying knowing that God will protect them. If they are huddled in a foxhole, do they really believe in God? I think not.
I'd love to see that dip say such a thing around Mikey Weinstein! 🤣🤣🤣
When folks claim this they are saying that when shit hits the fan everyone prays for deliverance. But that seems more like a lapse in faith rather than a sudden belief in god. Whenever I say anything about god it’s in the way that something is unbelievable. In a foxhole I might repeat oh god oh god, but that’s more like “I can’t believe this is happening to me.” And not a prayer to a divine being to get me out of it. It’s more a mantra to soothe my mind so I can focus on what needs to be done.
"oh god oh god"
That seems to be a common refrain among women who star in "art films."
You’ll never find it.
Not with that attitude.
Gee, spot. 😉
My “art film”.
I never made one.
Maybe a screenplay?
Your Halloween mask didn't fool anyone. 😉
It's mostly unintelligible to me. Speaking in tongues peut-être?
Lots of people talk to themselves as self-therapy or to reduce stress. But it's considered weird in modern western society to talk to yourself. Except for prayer. Thus, we get prayer in foxholes: a way to reduce your anxiety in horrible circumstances...in a socially acceptable way.
It's kinda the battlefield equivalent of church-as-social-connection. Sure, you're doing something superficially religious. Because it's the societal way to accomplish some nonreligious goal.
Personal experience. I've dug/been in many foxholes. 🙂
Did the foxes give their consent?
What did the fox say?
Don't know. When I asked he was on the run.
And having said that, it's earworm time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBdFA6sI6-8
Sweet!
I don't understand what that mean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_no_atheists_in_foxholes
It's bunk.
But...but...but it is their *sincerely held belief* that they should be allowed to bully, intimidate, vilify and even torture children, even to the point of suicide! How horrible, how impious, how downright blasphemous is it for the state to prevent that? Catholics are pro-life, goddammit!
Try to show some empathy and put yourself in their place*. Dead LGBTQI+ children and teens don't sin anymore.
* I feel nauseous typing this.
𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝐿𝐺𝐵𝑇𝑄𝐼+ 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑠 𝑑𝑜𝑛'𝑡 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑦𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒.
Neither do dead pederasts ... and I personally care far more for the former than I do the latter.
Even worse, they have to spend eternity with no TV or K-Pop.
If the alternative is being forced to watch creepy TV man's or half bakked's TV rants, I would prefer to go without.
"After all, we have a sacred tradition to uphold and...and...religious freedom!!!"
I just quoted you back at Graf, hope you don't mind.
It's OK. jom's gone for the day so you can get away with it. :)
Graf is clueless about it (and a lot of other things).
They think they are being persecuted for worshipping Jesus but the reality is that they are being held to account for not emulating Jesus.
How dare any Catholic cite their ancestors coming over from Ireland to escape religious persecution then use their religion as a weapon against our most vulnerable children? No, this Christian martyrdom complex needs to stop or we need to show them what persecution looks like. I think that's what they are really afraid of - that the atheists and humanists will take over and show them the same discrimination they show us.
American Christians know what true persecution of their brethren looks like overseas. I don't see a mad dash by those Christians to fly to said countries so that they can stand in solidarity with them and endure that very persecution themselves. They're way too comfortable here where it's safe. Their Jesus would be ashamed of them. He said persecution of them for his sake was a good thing.
But they have to take a brave stand here at home against the absolute worst form of persecution imaginable- having to hear the word "no" once in a while! 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘳!
They hate the word NO! far more than they hate Satan.
Aria hated this word too, but her pouts/tantrums/meltdowns were pretty.
When enumerating Catholics in government don’t forget the six out of nine on the Supreme Court.
[This was supposed to be a reply to David Graf, but due to login snafus it posted separately]
𝑊ℎ𝑦 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝐿𝐺𝐵𝑇𝑄 𝑘𝑖𝑑𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑤𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑘𝑖𝑑𝑠?
Because you can't do that with 0-4s who don't know their orientation or gender.
Because you can't do that with 5-12s who may not know, or may know but have trouble expressing it.
Because you can't do that *even with teens*, many of whom may be struggling to find themselves or express their feelings.
So sure, if a potential adoptive family wants to limit themselves to adopting well-adjusted self-realized 20-year-olds, I think your solution will work. But if someone comes into an adoption agency looking to adopt a kid, then they need to be able to say "yes, if a year or two years or ten years from now this kid comes out, we will still love them."
I know a man who realised he was bi in his thirties.
There was an elder gay man who often sat in on our campus Pride group meetings in college who hadn't come out until he was in his 70s, having been married to a woman for about half a century, with multiple grandchildren.
It's probably also worth mentioning that back then I still thought I was the group's token straight guy, and only figured out that I was exactly neither of those things an uncomfortable number of years later.
Humans are messy and complicated, and self-awareness sadly does not operate on a fixed timetable or come with an instruction manual.
I was (and two other people) once present for a teen coming out*, he was so scared for his parents finding out. It took several minutes of us to reassure him we wouldn't ditch him for this reason. Later we helped him to come out with other members of the site both in the chatroom and IRL.
*We were in our mid to late 20's, it's probably why he choose to trust us.
It's terrifying even with someone you're sure will be okay with it. Once you've said those words, you know the bell can't be unrung and if you're wrong about them, you've lost a friend, a family member, a job, etc.
Do you ever wonder if any of them suspected what you didn't?
I often wonder if people I knew in High School and College suspected or were certain of what I didn't. I think my uncle knew, but died waiting for me to tell him.
If anyone did suspect, I doubt I'll ever know for sure; the handful of people I'm still in touch with- one of whom was the first person I came out to- haven't mentioned anything. That particular group didn't have any out trans folks in it, unfortunately. If there were any, that might've sparked something a bit sooner; I was already having thoughts that would've led in the right direction, if I'd had more of a push to express and explore them. I figured things out pretty quick once more trans characters played by actual trans people started popping up in the media I consumed; I can't imagine that having another trans person to actually talk to wouldn't have been even better.
The curse of hindsight is being able to look back and see aaaaallll those little moments which should've been the big "aha!"- but somehow inexplicably weren't- and yet being 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 to reach back through time to whack your younger self over the head with a clue-by-four.
My campus LGBT group had a local trans cop who had transitioned on the job as a guest speaker one time (as I recall she also read some poetry she'd written). It was something of an eye-opener for a recently-out gay man. (This was in the early 2000s)
I was decoding naked pictures of guys off Usenet 8 years before I admitted to myself I was gay.
The list of things I'd like to tell my 17-18 year old self could fill a Stephen King-sized book.
That's amazing. Not for anything negative it says about you, but for what it says about the power of social pressure to skew our perceptions of ourselves and the world away from what should be an obvious conclusion.
Makes you wonder what obvious things we are all walking around blind to right now, because society or our peers or our family has told us "no."
While he may have had great supportive parents and the lateness may simply be him, or it may be an effect of society or peer pressure or other influences that parenting had nothing to do with, it could also have been (partly or wholly) parenting. That is one possible explanation among many. But importantly for this case, "will you parent in such a way that it keeps a gay kid fearful and guilt-ridden in the closet for 30 years" is the sort of parenting adoption agencies should be avoiding. The Burkes seemingly score a giant YES on that.
Sooner or later people like the Burkes will start lying about that, just on the off chance that they might get to "save a gay kid from hell."
Massachusetts is focused on what is best for the child. The Burkes are focused on what they want.
Massachusetts is focused on the way things are. The Burkes are focused on the way they think things ought to be.
The child's sexuality is essentially immutable. The Burkes think they could change it if necessary.
The Burkes think they can't change their beliefs.. They could.
It is not possible to predict years beforehand what a baby's or very small child's sexuality will turn out to be. Permitting the Burkes to adopt a child with nothing but an unsupported hope that the child's immutable and as yet unpredictable sexuality will not be in serious conflict with the Burke's attitudes is not worth the gamble.
OT- Guys. 𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨. We're gonna get to live the dream! 𝘍𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘶𝘨𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘵𝘴!
https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-report-atlanta-jail-face-charges-election-subversion-case-2023-08-24/
They've already published one of Ghouliani: https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-ex-attorney-rudy-giuliani-heads-georgia-face-election-charges-2023-08-23/
drumpster will finally have his dream fulfilled, he will end in History books.
There is delusional and there is republican "It will be a more popular image than the Mona Lisa" As a dart target maybe 🙄
I may have to buy myself a dartboard special for the occasion.
I wish I had bought some beers for the occasion. DM too.
You wish you had bought DM? How weird.
Jomicur, si tu n'existais pas il faudrait t'inventer 😁
Thanks for the laugh, really.
Actually I WAS invented. By Colin Clive and Dwight Frye. Friend?
I'm not going to celebrate until he's behind bars.
Well, maybe a little at his mugshot.
Will you do it until you end behind one ?
My bar days are long behind me.
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
Oh, happy day!
And comparing Catholics to the witches *that the Catholic church itself tortured and killed* is just plain gobsmacking.
In Salem, yes. But in Europe in the 15th Century?
"Kramer received a papal bull Summis desiderantes affectibus in 1484. It gave full papal approval for the Inquisition to prosecute what was deemed to be witchcraft in general and also gave individual authorizations to Kramer and Dominican Friar Jacob Sprenger specifically."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum
"In 1428, the first systematic European witch-hunt began in Valais, Switzerland. This witch-hunt lasted eight years and resulted in the deaths of 367 people."
"The condemned were mostly burnt to death, with a few being beheaded. Victims were tied to a ladder that was pushed into a pyre. "
https://www.thecollector.com/european-witch-hunting/
There were no Protestants in the 1400s
There you go, again. Citing facts. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Sounds like Burns is grasping at straws.
You're denying a papal bull *before* there were Protestants?
It appears the Inquisition was alive and running in the 1400s and well into 1600s
https://www.history.com/topics/religion/inquisition
Don't like my citations, let's see yours, since you're the one making the claim that it was Protestants who were witch-hunting and not Catholics. The wiki cites its sources, which is more than you've done.
You're claiming the inquisition was "pretty dormant" in the 13th -15th centuries?
The 15th century was when it was at its height (arguably). This is when Torquemada ran the Spanish Inquisition and, under the direct orders of the VERY Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella, forcibly murdered, exiled, or tortured-to-conversion every Muslim, Jew, and other non-Catholic in Spain. You might remember "In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue?" That's because in 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella completed their reconquista of Spain - the murder, exile, and torture of most of the Muslims and Jews - so they now had the resources to spare on an expedition.
And just to reiterate cdbunch's deadban historical observation: Reconquista: 700s-1492. Spanish Inquisition: starts 1478. Martin Luther's reformation: 1517. You are asserting protestants held witch burnings, in Catholic spain, under Torquemada of all people, decades before Protestantism took off a thousand miles away in Germany.
Maybe there were a few 'Protestants' before the name Protestant existed. It's not the first time I've been wrong and I'm sure it won't be the last. Can you admit as much?
"Catholics and Protestants hunted witches with comparable vigor."
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/10/30/who-burned-the-witches-part-1/
So much for your claim that Protestants not Catholics hunted witches.
https://www.tutorialspoint.com/witch-hunts-and-the-catholic-church#:~:text=Witch-hunting%20and%20the%20Catholic%20Church%20have%20a%20long,people%20of%20witchcraft%20and%20assisting%20in%20their%20executions.
Is this Dave’s sister?
If she's a Catholic (and she appears to be), then I wonder if she puts money in the collection basket at Mass. Money that goes to prop up a hateful religion that slimes women and LGBTQs and molests children (whom the clergy then to try paint those children as the villains).
If she really is Catholic (and she sounds like a Catholic apologist at the very least), then I wonder how she can sleep at night.
Quite frankly, it doesn't seem like she knows the Catholic Church as well as she thinks she does.
She's sure defending them.
I was thinking sock puppet at first. After the beating he took on the last article on this subject that lasted for weeks, I thought he might be afraid to post his bullshit under his usual handle.
LOL.
An evangelical and a catholic brother and sister? I guess it's possible. Let me get my dictionary out. : )