You want to see a hard core Red State wedding?

[bluestateguy]

Check out this wedding of the Duggar family's oldest son.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdYvt_XxPAU&NR=1

At the 1:00 minute mark the pastor calls upon the bride to "submit to his authority"

Yikes.

[EFerrari]

1. The last family wedding I attended in San Francisco

one of my favorite cousins and her groom were wound in CHAINS as part of the Catholic ceremony.

WTH is THAT? Very bad PR. :P

[dflprincess]

19. I've never seen that happen at a Catholic wedding

and with 24 cousins, I've been to a lot of Catholic weddings.

[EFerrari]

24. Me, either and ditto. Lots of them.

[a la izquierda]

52. I'm Mediterranean...

(hahaha, Italian, French, and Spanish)& Irish Catholic. I've never heard of anything like that.
I went to a Coptic wedding that included crowns, capes, and a whole lotta incense (I almost passed out). There was "submit to your man" and "smile and look nice when he comes home" BS. I laughed the whole time, as both my cousin and his bride are rocket scientists at NASA.
Oh, and the bride's grandpa pushed his ancient wife out of the pew and into the aisle. It was a sweaty, smelly trainwreck (an un-ACed church in Florida). But oddly beautiful in its ancient-ness, too.

[musette_sf]

2. First United Church of Cartman?

[UndertheOcean]

3. Respect my Authoritaah ...

[TheWraith]

4. "Submit to his authority"?

Kinky.

[RKP5637]

8. A bondage wedding no doubt! n/t

[hobbit709]

27. When Donna and I got married, I printed her immortal words on the invitations.

"You can just forget about that OBEY part"

I thought my mother was going to choke, she was laughing so hard.

[begin_within]

91. So that's what the "sanctity of marriage" argument is really about...

same sex-couples would never agree to have one submit to the other's authority (except maybe for some fun role-playing games on Friday nights, but not as a day-in, day-out thing).

[LeftyMom]

5. As fundie weddings go I've seen worse. We're talking dowries. Long speeches about the bride's intact

uh... sanitary seal. Creepy leering pastors staring at the first kiss. Weird rambling sermons about death.

It could be a lot worse. A LOT.

[bluestateguy]

7. A lot of times the pastor will get in a pot shot or two about gay marriage

Without saying so directly of course, but it is clear what he means when he says "marriage, between one man and one woman, is the bedrock of a civilized society...etc."

Dowries? Do Americans still do that?

[LeftyMom]

12. Some fundies are just having religious ceremonies but no civil marriage,

for fear of having to share the institution with The Gays. As far as I can tell it's still a pretty small minority. I'd guess most of them aren't willing to take the tax hit or the financial risk, since the few I know of who did it that way were the sorts who didn't have a pot to piss in either way.

It amuses me that by trying to separate themselves from The Gays they've created for themselves... legally non-binding commitment ceremonies. :rofl:

[XemaSab]

14. Bride price is still done in some circles

If only on a token level.

Yes, literally.

[Capitalocracy]

62. Wedding coins -- arras

I had to learn about these when I was subtitling a Spanish-language Catholic propaganda video.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_arras

[XemaSab]

13. Held on the auction platform at the county fairground ring a bell?

:shrug:

[LeftyMom]

18. At least that one looked almost fun. The other one looked dismal.

Which seems strange since the other probably had more money to spend, via the bride's family.

[XemaSab]

20. Which is more dismal?

At a certain point you're just splitting hairs.

[Odin2005]

64. Doweries? DOWERIES??? Ye Gods!!!

[RKP5637]

6. Yet another WTF moment. n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. I love romantic weddings, but I ABHOR patriarchal bullshit. These people make me puke in my mouth

Disgusting.

[MrMickeysMom]

10. Respect my Authoritah!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVHNylH1Mk

[The Genealogist]

11. I got through 1:20 before I started feeling ill

I felt like I was watching some kind of Stepford ceremony. Submit to his authority? :puke:

[RKP5637]

15. It really gets kinda mind numbing, doesn't it. What authoritarian crap IMO. n/t

[The Genealogist]

22. It is mind numbing, sickening, and I find myself sad too

I guess I have always had a bit of a willful streak. I feel sorry for anyone so willing to submit to another person's authority. I would be surprised if the husband in that relationship truly thinks of his wife as more than a house keeper and baby machine. Most of the women in my life were not the sort who submitted to husbandly authority, and it was instilled into my character pretty much from birth that women are men's equals. I can hear my Dad's mother, who earned a PhD in education and used it quite effectively, turning in her grave.

[RebelOne]

38. Me too, I couldn't watch whole thing, especially when he started singing. n/t

[Harry Monroe]

16. Had a friend who got married years ago and I went to his wedding in a Baptist church

I remember that line also. Thing was HE converted to the Baptist religion for HER!!

[Contrary1]

17. The younguns convinced Ma & Pa that they never even shared a kiss before they were wed.

One look at the lip-lock at the end of the video tells me that they aren't a couple amateurs...

which means maybe there's some hope for them yet.

[Cid_B]

32. I believe these two...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uCv3c_DWhq0

wow.. like an alien face sucker

[Terra Alta]

21. "creepy" is the first word that comes to mind

The entire wedding just creeped me out. Especially Josh's "singing"(if you want to call it that).

[ChoppinBroccoli]

23. Not Even Close

On an episode of............I think it was "16 and Pregnant" on MTV, the bride and groom BOTH wore full camoflage outfits and got married in a tree stand.

My best friend got married the first time in a weird, cult-like Church run by his bride's father (they were actually married by her father). One of the central tenets of this particular sect's beliefs was that the woman was to "submit" to the man, and the bride's father gave a lengthy dissertation on that subject during the wedding. I remember it to this day. He said that the man's job was to love his wife, and the woman's job was to submit to her husband. And it works out well because (direct quote, I kid you not), "it's easy to submit to someone who loves you, and it's easy to love someone who submits to you." They were divorced about 2 years later.

[JanMichael]

25. allowing god to determine the size of your family?!

WTF? Holy shit. I have no other words.

[Fumesucker]

26. Been there, done that..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6098750&mesg_id=6098750

[NMMNG]

28. Ugh

At the 1:00 minute mark the pastor calls upon the bride to "submit to his authority"



Now begins her fulfilling life as a broodsow and a "helpmeet".

[kenny blankenship]

29. If this had been a real Red State Weddin', they'd have been at least 1 exorcism or faith healing

before they got to the exchange of vow (that of wifely obedience with nuthin' guaranteed or pledged in return). And what about the snake handlin'? It ain't over until til the snakes has been handled. Then commence to discharging your firearms skywards into the face of almighty God.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

30. wow...ANOTHER DU thread full of mockery

for someone's beliefs. what a shocker!

sP

[Quantess]

31. Yep! I love mocking religions.

And I'm not a bit sorry about it. :D

[Gabi Hayes]

34. here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

[JanMichael]

39. omg,

that was hilarious! Thank you for sharing!

[ProdigalJunkMail]

35. the tolerance on display on this board

is astounding...

sP

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. The thread is mocking misogyny

If any religion decides to be horrifically misogynistic, then it has to stand there and take the knocks.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

37. i disagree with the target of mockery

it is plainly pointed at the religious significance of submission and, completely and utterly misses the point and intent of the hierarchy of submission...

sP

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. Then you are making excuses for misogyny, and you are part of the problem

A hypothetical god to whom you are told to submit in no way justifies real forced submission of one sex to another. God does not then issue orders to people, so any 'submission to God' is actually a vow by a person to live according to the shared ethics of their fellow religionists; a husband can order a wife about in reality. It's true submission.

No, it's not pointed at the 'religious significance' - 'Red State' does not mean 'religious', it means (in American terms) thoroughly right wing.

A 'hierarchy of submission' is an appalling concept anyway, for a religion - it places a man between a woman and her deity. And why should a man get to take on an attribute of a god, but not a woman? It's thoroughly sexist, thoroughly vile, and I'm astonished to find any DUer defending it. Why on earth do you excuse horrible human behaviour just because they think it's OK?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

45. biblical submission is about as far from misogyny as you can get

but I accept that you don't understand that and don't believe in it. i will admit, that many who claim to practice this get it entirely wrong and abuse it and fail in the first requirement...but those who do it as prescribed are NOT misogynist in any way. the man must submit first...

sP

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. "the man must submit first" - nothing about that in those vows

You may know of, or even be part of, a religion in which a husband must submit to his wife, before she in her turn submits to him; but that was not what was was happening in the video, and it's not what people were complaining about in this thread. So stop making excuses for the Duggar's sexism.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

47. yes, there is...it is the core of submission

at almost exactly 1:00 into the video the pastor refers to Joshua placing himself under the headship of Christ. And I DO feel that (and I have to admit that I could certainly be wrong and am influenced by my religious beliefs mixed with experiences here on DU) the point to this thread was, at least in part, and attack on the doctrine of submission.

It works very well in our family. And the reason it works for us is that I have an extremely intelligent and talented wife who I quite clearly know that I am to listen to and accept her council. I don't think, in the 10 years we have been married, that we have had anything that could not be decided by talking it out (not to say there hasn't been some fighting along the way). The funny thing is, when I DO take the time to listen to her input, it makes the decision so much easier.

thank you for the reasoned discussion...on a topic that is based on something that may not seem entirely reasonable (on one side or the other).

sP

[Capitalocracy]

48. But you yourself mentioned the hierarchy... the man must submit to Christ, but the woman...

must submit to the man. The man submits to a deity, and the woman submits to a human. You don't see a problem with that? When you make a decision as a family, you take her advice into account (or not) and then you make the decision. It doesn't have to be like that, you can make family decisions, even difficult ones, without any specific person having the authority to trump the other.

After five years of marriage between two equals, let me tell you it's not necessary to have hierarchical submission.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

50. but the point is, if the man is in submission to Christ

then the woman is as well...she is not submitting to the will of (a) man but to the will of God. That is me is the whole point. I also believe that one person has to be the final say. What happens if you disagree? You want one thing and your partner the other? Do you just do neither?

Also, the interpretation of the submission doctrine does not mean that EVERY decision is up to the man of the house (at least I don't read it that way). My wife makes almost all the decisions about the house. She is wonderfully organized and dedicated to a smoothly running house (we have three little girls so this is a challenge that I am not built for). I make the decisions about the cars (we have two vehicles and my wife has no aptitude for machinery). We discuss our finances and what needs to be done. And, because of my submission (which I struggle with daily), I put their financial wants and needs ahead of my selfish desires (I could sure use that 73" TV for the mancave).

I think the part that is commonly misinterpreted or just plain missed is that part that we have to acknowledge each others gifts and utilize them properly. We are a team...a family...a unit. She has skills that I do not have and I don't think I can develop them. In order for me to be the husband I am to be, I have to know that there are some things she will be better at and some things I will be better at...and to know, that making the best of that is making the best FOR our family.

Lastly, I don't think submission works for everyone. There are times when it doesn't work 100% for us...and the bulk of that time is when I am the one out of whack in the relationship.

sP

[Gabi Hayes]

51. the point is, if you spent as much time living in the real world as you apparently have wallowing

in delusional claptrap, you'd realize (or make some accounting for) how the religious right has co-opted the manmade dogma you cite as somehow creating a framework of marital co-existence, and twisted into something (along with the rest of modern 'christianity') that jesus would not recognize

[PassingFair]

53. + 1000

:applause:

I pity his daughters, and their lives of
no self determination.

But when things go wrong, they can always blame
daddy or their husbands!

[ProdigalJunkMail]

56. you're right...it's not biblical at all...

and thanks for making my point about mockery with your post...

sP

[EvolveOrConvolve]

97. Why do you think your views deserve special treatment

and protection from mockery? Is there some reason they should be off limits? If so, upon what authority do you make that decision?

FYI, I'd mock the ideas you espouse in this thread, but you're already making yourself look pretty bad by defending misogynistic faith-based dogma.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

99. i don't think MY views should be shielded from mockery

rather that MOST should be. people come to where they are for many reasons. some good. some bad. and once again, biblical submission is about as far from misogyny as it gets...

sP

[EvolveOrConvolve]

108. Your initial post in this thread was

"wow...ANOTHER DU thread full of mockery... A shocker."

Reading through the angry sarcasm, implicit in your post is the idea that certain beliefs are untouchable when it comes to mockery. Is that your stance? Do you consider religious beliefs off limits?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

115. you obviously failed to read my post...because my answer is there n/t

[EvolveOrConvolve]

171. Your post contradicts your earlier sentiments

Which is it? Are beliefs off limits or not?

Are you being purposefully wishy-washy?

[Capitalocracy]

54. Consensus is hard to reach, but it can be done without one person being officially in charge.

Especially in a marriage between two people who are willing to make concessions to make it work... even OWS is doing pretty well reaching 90% consensus with hundreds or thousands in a general assembly for what they do... and if they don't reach a consensus, no, they don't do it.

And submission to Christ is what the man does, what the woman does is submit to both Christ, who is divine in your view and therefore necessary and proper to submit to (and an internal mental construct and therefore easy to submit to in my view, but my disagreement is respectful), and to her husband, a mortal, imperfect, fallible human being, none of which deserve the 100% unconditional loyalty of any other human being, especially in a hierarchical rather than mutual structure. My wife and I see ourselves as belonging to each other, and I know you feel the same way, but there's a difference there when you have a hierarchical structure of submission involved. I have to disagree with it, I'm sorry... not in a "telling you how to live your life" kind of way, but just to voice my opinion.

And when you say she makes decisions in the realm of household management while you make decisions regarding automobiles, etc., all you're saying is you know how to delegate. If there was a major difference of opinion in how she runs the house, you would theoretically override her authority.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

58. hey, I'm glad you disagree

and am even more happy that your marriage works for you (and apparently works well). We live this because we believe it is what we are called to do (sorry, I know a lot of people hate that word but it seems to fit here) and because we see it as biblically supported.

And on the household point, no, I would not override her at all. That is the point I was trying to make about knowing who has what skills. She is built for that part of our marriage and family and loves it. If I didn't like something she was doing I would gladly acknowledge that she is far superior in that and simply let my wants be satisfied some other way.

thanks again!

sP

[PassingFair]

57. I put the wants and needs of my family first.

And I don't "struggle with it".

"What happens if you disagree?"

I guess you compromise.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

59. I think you misread what I struggle with...

I struggle with putting Christ at the head of my life. I am a very willful person. That is all I meant. And it is easy for me to put my family first...and I believe it is all the moreso because of my religious tendencies. If we disagree, we try to ascertain who is most 'familiar' with the area in which we disagree and differ to that. Surprisingly enough, we have few disagreements...

sP

[Capitalocracy]

66. Sorry to keep challenging you on this...

but that sounds like consensus-building and mutual partnership more than submission. I don't think you've had the need to resort to the use of a non-consensus decision-making process, which is great, but if a disagreement comes up that consensus won't solve, I wonder if you'll really exercise that authority and she will submit.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

69. you know, that is a really good question

and to that i can answer i really don't know. i would hope that if the time comes, where we disagree and both have spent our time in prayer and discussion over a matter and MUST make a decision that we can go that route. how would you deal with it? a decision MUST be made. you don't agree. you both have good supporting reasons for what you think is the right thing to do. it is a yes or a no...not a compromise-possible situation...what then? flip a coin? i don't mean that mockingly at all...if it's 50-50, whattayado?

sP

[Capitalocracy]

82. If it's seriously 50-50, I prefer a coin toss to the male having the authority to break the tie. nt

[ProdigalJunkMail]

100. fair enough...

some people would argue that letting the man be the decider is no better or worse than a coin-toss...

sP

[Capitalocracy]

109. Or you could take turns.

Flip a coin for who decides the first time you reach an impass, then take turns from there. That's fair, I think.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

117. i can see that... n/t

[PassingFair]

67. What is it that "Christ" would have you do that you are not naturally inclined to do?

I get up, I tend to my children, I go to work,
I do my best, I pay the bills, I come home, I
tend to my children, I love my husband, I extend
charity to family and friends, I go to sleep.

I do all of these things because they make me happy.
NOT because I am commanded to.
(OK, the WORK part can be kind of a drag...but I find
my fun where I can...)

[ProdigalJunkMail]

70. there are many things that i think intelligent and good-hearted people

are programmed to do...and all of the things you mention up there qualify and indeed, it pleases me to no end to do them even when they are difficult as you point out with working (though i do love my job).

what i mean by 'struggle with' is making sure that i keep Christ at the center of my day. as i said, i am willful and to be honest a little prideful. i think in many situations that my way would naturally be the best way to do things, otherwise, i wouldn't have thought of them. and i can be domineering if i don't catch myself. i also have a hideous temper and need help controlling it. with Christ as my focus (when I remember to do that and am not overwhelmed by life and it's details) i do better than i would without Him...and my wonderful wife does the most amazing job of bringing me back to that when i lose my way. i live (as a lot of people do) an incredibly busy life. i work hard. i play hard. i spend time with my family. i cook and clean around the house. i love to take care of the yard. all of that can blur my focus and when it does...THAT is how i struggle.

sP

[PassingFair]

73. I am even tempered and loving by nature. I don't struggle with it.

You are domineering and have a hideous temper.

I am happy that you have put a psychological stop
in place so that others don't suffer.

I am sorry that your wife lives believing that she
must "obey" your dictates, even if she disagrees
with you.

You must be one of those religious people who can't understand
why atheists just don't go around killing and schtupping
everything that moves because "what's stopping you?"

[ProdigalJunkMail]

75. don't be sorry for my wife...

or for us as a family. what we have works well and comes from the belief that all are made in the image of God and therefor have great worth. like i said upstream, i don't think there has yet been a situation that we have not reasoned out.

and no, i am not "one of those religious people who can't understand why atheists just don't go around killing and schtupping everything that moves because "what's stopping you?"" though I like the way you put that and do know some people that are. i am fully aware that there are people out there, with no God and no desire for a God that are great people. i don't know why you are assuming that about me...i don't think i have given any cause for that...

sP

[PassingFair]

76. Your "struggles". nt

[ProdigalJunkMail]

77. my struggles give you reason to believe

that i don't find people without a God to be just rutting animals? that is quite a leap if that is what you are saying.

sP

[PassingFair]

78. Just that I find it EASY to be good without god.

I don't "struggle".

[ProdigalJunkMail]

79. that makes you a better person than i am...

i have no problem with you being better than i am. you are a product of your years and i am a product of mine. i have my failings and i know them and i address them as i can.

sP

[PassingFair]

80. I am a product of an atheist father and an Episcopalian that believes ...

that the bible is all allegory.

[WildEyedLiberal]

90. You know, I find it hard to believe that you never "struggle" to be a good person

And that has crap all to do with whether you are an atheist or a believer. I just find myself rolling my eyes in skepticism whenever someone so freely proclaims their superior nature for all to see and read. I don't really agree with PJM's beliefs, but he is certainly coming off far more reasonable - and human, since he is willing to admit his faults - than you are. But, you're perfect, so whaddo I know? :eyes:

[PassingFair]

93. You don't know ME, that's certain.

I don't have to look for guidance to contain
my temper.

I try to make the best of every situation,
and I have a strong moral compass.

Here are some rolling eyes back at you.

:eyes:

I have seen your posts, and many are very
mean-spirited, so of course you will identify with
the poster with self admitted anger problems.

:eyes:

[Humanist_Activist]

114. OK, seriously, how does this "struggle" take place?

I don't walk around on the street having to actively resist robbing houses or pickpocketing people. Every time I look at a woman, I don't have to actively resist raping her. When I attempt to be dishonest, I laugh uncontrollably(I suck at lying).

Does this mean I'm superior, I hope not, otherwise I'm never leaving my home again. I'm also not saying that I don't make mistakes, I make them all the time, but I don't make mistakes that lead me to do bad things on purpose.

I think part of it is this, people conflate sin with morality, when it couldn't be further from the truth. I have sex before marriage, that doesn't make me a bad person, I love my fiance and I show it to her every day. Biblical morality would demand she get stoned to death, and frankly I say the Bible is full of shit. I blaspheme all the time, another sin punishable by death, and frankly I don't care, I'm still a good person.

I'm hoping that when people say they struggle to be good people, they aren't talking about being good to each other, but struggling to be "good" in their deity's eyes, because the two aren't related, but can have consequences on my safety and security.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

118. the struggle is to continuously improve myself

and to conform to the image of Christ. there are things in ALL our natures that would be considered 'sinful' in the eyes of someone who is perfect...it doesn't mean they would condemn us for it but it would fall well short of the mark of perfection.

i have never robbed a bank. i have never hit anyone in anger. i have never kicked my dog or cat. but that doesn't make me perfect. but sometimes i get angry over stupid thing. i tend toward eating too much. i don't always think of other people before myself... no one does all these things all the time. and while i can never hope to be perfect, i can strive for the goal that was set for us by Christ all the while living in the love and forgiveness He gives when we fail to hit that target.

my struggle involves daily (sometimes hourly or more frequently) analysis of how did i live up to my goals today. what can i improve? are there things i can do or focus on to help me not fail in the same way again tomorrow? would i do these things without a god? maybe...i don't know. i genuinely like people and helping others gives me a warm feeling. but does that mean that i would strive as hard as i do? again...i don't know.

sP

[Humanist_Activist]

120. See, when you say "conform to the image of Christ" I really don't call him an example of a good...

person. As portrayed in the Bible, he was a judgmental asshole who wanted people to leave their families to follow him, like any other cult leader, and if they, you know, LOVED their families more than him, then he condemned them to hell.

In this case, I hope you struggle, and I hope you don't become like Christ, ever, and consider that a compliment.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

130. you seem to miss the parts

where he stood between the woman and the crowd who would stone her for her sins. i don't recall ever condemning anyone. he said 'follow me' and your sins are forgiven. and yes, he did tell people that love of god was more important than family...and money...and love of religion.

and with your picture of Christ, i will consider your hope for me a compliment. thank you for the reasoned discussion.

sP

[Humanist_Activist]

135. Nothing should trump the love we have for our fellow human beings.

Particularly those we are close to, up to and including gods.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

137. well, on that we will disagree

however, we are commanded to love others as we love ourselves. not just specific others but ALL others. regardless of the life they lead. the call to love God above that is in no way a command to forego that we are to love others.

sP

[Humanist_Activist]

141. And that's what makes your beliefs dangerous to me and my friends and family...

if God commands it, you would kill us, hell, you would kill your own children.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

145. there are many out there that would...yes

i could not.

sP

[Humanist_Activist]

149. So you don't value gods above humans, that's a good thing, I'm relieved.

I don't understand why you claim to try to follow Christ or God's laws, when you obviously don't. But again, that's a good thing.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

153. if i were to believe God was telling me to kill someone

i would believe that i was BADLY mishearing something. the thing is, i follow God's law as best i can, the only thing i don't think i am do to is apply punishment...and that is what Christ came to teach.

sP

[Humanist_Activist]

158. I think in this case, its your modern secular morality that is coloring your view...

of God and Christ, I call it the Disneyfication effect. Even though God commanded Abraham to kill his son Isaac, and then later stopped him, he at least wants YOU to have as much commitment to him as Abraham did. Not to mention the Bible is drenched in blood, I'm a non-believer, your god wants me dead, its plain as day in your damned "holy" book. Why don't you follow his commandments?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

162. Disneyfication effect...i like it

and i may be succumbing to some of that...but more likely is that i am just a bit of a whimp. i follow the command to love. my God does not want you dead in any size or shape or concept and to say so discounts the entire New Testament. but you don't believe in that god...so you have nothing to fear from him or me...but i will concede that some of His followers have interpreted His words to mean just that and for that i am sorry and would do my best to teach them otherwise.

[Humanist_Activist]

164. So now being a good person, indeed superior to your god morally, makes you a wimp?

I say it makes you stronger than what your faith is trying to shackle you to.

[WildEyedLiberal]

180. Your willful strawman version of "Christianity" that you are trying to pin on PJM is dishonest

This whole "debate" you have having with him is extraordinarily dishonest, and frankly, he's humored you more than you deserve. Your cherry picking and willful misinterpretation of random verses in the Bible and your further insistence that this silly, extraordinarily distorted version of Christianity is THE version that PJM must adhere to lest he be declared, by you (:rofl:) to be a false believer is the epitome of the strawman fallacy. It should no longer amaze me that the anti-religious who rely so vociferously on "reason" are so piss-poor at it, and yet, it does.

[Humanist_Activist]

188. Why can't I cherry pick them Bible when he does the same?

And actually he claimed he didn't, instead he said that that Christ came to release people from stoning adulterers and such, but they still get to go to hell, I don't really think that's any better from a morality standpoint.

[WildEyedLiberal]

178. I don't think the other poster was suggesting he "struggles" not to rob and rape.

:eyes: But EVERYONE struggles with kindness, sensitivity, generosity, and other basic virtues - I don't care who you are or what your religious/moral/philosophical tradition is. If you say you never struggle with any of those things, I don't think you're being honest with yourself, because I have yet to meet a perfect person. If you don't see that there's a difference between "struggling" to actively be a good person as opposed to "struggling" not to be a bad person, then I don't know what to tell you. Most people obviously don't struggle not to rob, rape, or kill. Obviously. But that doesn't mean they don't struggle not to be impatient with their loved ones, or to be more generous to the needy, or to be more sensitive to those whose feelings we have the power to wound or hurt. And EVERYONE struggles with that sort of thing. I tend to appreciate people who admit that they struggle with being the best person they can be a hell of a lot more than I appreciate people who loftily proclaim that they never ever have to struggle to be kind or good, because that says to me that they think they are perfect and see no room for improvement in the way they treat others. If you don't see that attitude as a dishonest sense of superiority, again, I don't know what to tell you.

[darkstar3]

179. Spoken like a true religionist. Thanks for your view, but I'm not down on my whole species.

[WildEyedLiberal]

181. Please quote anything I said that suggests I am "down on my whole species"

I'm waiting. Did you even mean to reply to me? Because nothing you wrote reflects anything I wrote. Of course, maybe you're another "reason" based atheist who can't present a logical argument to save your life...

[darkstar3]

182. Look at #178. Your assumptions about EVERYONE paint a pretty clear picture of your view.

It's better than some, who believe that EVERYONE would be out raping and killing the moment they lost religion, but it still has some serious issues. EVERYONE struggles to be sensitive and kind? EVERYONE struggles to be charitable? EVERYONE struggles to be patient?

Fuck that. I don't know the entire human race, but I can already think of 3 people off the top of my head who most certainly serve as counter-examples to your dim view of humanity.

[WildEyedLiberal]

183. Yes, EVERYONE struggles, and any suggestion to the contrary is blatantly false

If you never struggle to be perfect, then you ALREADY ARE perfect. Are you perfect? Who are the 3 people off the top of your head who are perfect? Who are flawless? Who have absolutely no aspect of their character upon which they can improve, even slightly?

I, frankly, find your view of humanity dishonest and disingenuous. And, further, I said nothing in my post about struggles indicating any sort of particular religious or philosophical worldview. One need not be religious to believe that one needs to improve in some facet of life. (Unless you are suggesting that all atheists are perfect? Which would be rather silly of you.) We ALL can be better people. I find the recognition that I can ALWAYS be a better person to be far more positive than your dim view of humanity, which holds that we're just peachy perfect the way we are and we don't need to improve at all because god forbid we admit that we're not always perfect paragons of virtue at all times. That view is a lie and it does humanity no good.

[darkstar3]

184. Dishonest and disingenuous would be a good description of your false dichotomy.

I never said people were perfect, and I never said that "we're just peachy". You need to stop generalizing about the entirety of humanity, especially in the rather disparaging fashion you've chosen.

Now have a Coke and a smile and STFU.

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

186. More generalizing. How worthless.

[PassingFair]

187. The poster said that he needs God to control his "hideous temper"

"...what i mean by 'struggle with' is making sure that i keep Christ at the center of my day. as i said, i am willful and to be honest a little prideful. i think in many situations that my way would naturally be the best way to do things, otherwise, i wouldn't have thought of them. and i can be domineering if i don't catch myself. i also have a hideous temper and need help controlling it. with Christ as my focus (when I remember to do that and am not overwhelmed by life and it's details) i do better than i would without Him...and my wonderful wife does the most amazing job of bringing me back to that when i lose my way."

I would consider myself unsafe around a person who
believes that his temper is controlled by an outside
source. I would prefer that he were medicated to his
being reliant on "the lord" and his wife to
"bring him back when he loses his way".

Really.

[Humanist_Activist]

189. I try to be more thoughtful of others, but I wouldn't characterize it as a stuggle...

that would imply hardship and frankly I don't see any hardship in altruism outside of the practical(giving away your last loaf of bread, for example). Am I saying I'm perfect or the best I could ever be? No, of course not, but I don't struggle to be generous or kind, indeed I find it easier to deal with people in this way than in being selfish or mean. My personality may also be a factor, I'm extremely laid back, so few things bug me, I attribute this as a reaction to the extreme bullying I had as a child, instead of confrontation, I learned to avoid it or talk my way out of such situations if possible. At this point in my life, as an adult, I guess I matured enough that most situations just simply don't rile me up as it does some others.

[JanMichael]

88. You know, there are some folks here that still remember your grandfather

:) Darn he was fun to argue with! No matter what your beliefs are, many are still glad to see your name, 'cause it kind of brings him back to DU!

[ProdigalJunkMail]

101. JanMichael...sadly there are very few who do...

and thank you for the kind remembrance. he was one hell-of-a-guy and he loved this board and the people he grew to love through discussion. and i am still thankful that it made the last months of his life more enriched and i can say with no uncertainty that it has had a profound effect on me as well!

sP

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. Your beliefs are wide open to abuse

As others point out, the wife is 'in submission to Christ' too. But you add an extra requirement for her to submit to her husband. Now, if that husband is a perfect being (as believers think Christ is), that wouldn't be a problem. But no human is perfect. And there is no need for this submission to a man, either; surely a woman can follow the teachings of Christianity just as well as a man can?

A question for you: do you believe in the Divine Right of Kings?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

68. they certainly are...

and they are roundly abused by many, to be sure.

and yes, my wife has her own relationship with Christ and follows his teachings. and because of that, it is my job to listen to her as (as you well point out) I am not perfect.

I believe that rulers are put where they are as a part of God's plan for humanity. good rulers and bad. but who am I to say when that ruler should go?

by the way, I love your name...both parts!

sP

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. And isn't it OK for a system wide open to abuse to be mocked?

Don't you have the feeling that the system was instituted by men, for men, as an excuse to control women? Just as the Divine Right of Kings was a convenient excuse for absolute power to be retained by those who inherited it? If not, you are worryingly trusting of people in power.

You can thank John Cleese and, before him, Barry Took and Marty Feldman (or maybe their co-writers) for my name:

http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Wing-commander-Muriel-Volestrangler-F-R-H-S/dp/0413567907
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_the_Horne ('Dame Celia Molestrangler')

[ProdigalJunkMail]

74. i think abuse of the system can be mocked

for certain. but the system itself, not so much. i do believe it is God ordained and so does my wife or we wouldn't follow it...but i readily admit that i could be wrong. it works for us. maybe i am just up in arms because i feel we do it right and maybe all the others going this way are doing it wrong and using it to control their wives and daughters.

sP

[LeftyMom]

83. So the man assigns his own whims to a deity, and the woman submits to him.

How exactly does that help anybody?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

102. you could certainly look at it that way

and if that is what you believe then you would be correct...no better than a coin toss and maybe worse.

sP

[muriel_volestrangler]

111. Far worse than a coin toss, surely

it's a man claiming divine backing for his own ideas, and it being enforced by a culture of discrimination. Surely that's appalling, to both theists and atheists.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

119. if he is following the doctrine

then he will know when he has the right answer or when his partner does...that is the point. it is not to default to the male-held position all the time. i am sorry the process doesn't work for you...

sP

[Humanist_Activist]

123. Question, have you killed your kids for talking back at you?

Was your wife a virgin when you married her? If not, did you demand she be killed?

If you answer no to either of these questions, then you don't follow the doctrine of your own religion.

[LARED]

125. Could you point out where this doctrine exists? nt

[Humanist_Activist]

133. The Bible, want me to point out chapter and verse?

Kids cursing parents(showing disrespect):

If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Killing Non-Virginal wives:

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

Oh and before you claim, "that's the old testament, it doesn't apply because Jesus said so! Well guess what, Jesus didn't say so, he said the opposite:

For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’
(Matthew 15:4-9 NIV)

[ProdigalJunkMail]

140. Jesus was condemning the act of putting tradition over people

and he roundly chastised the Pharisees for holding law above people...and stopped (at least once) an execution that would have been lawful...

sP

[Humanist_Activist]

142. So he contradicted himself?

Odd for a perfect being to do, don't you think?

ON EDIT: Correction, you shouldn't have said people but actually God's Law, Jesus was brought to Earth to fulfill it, not to overturn it. Look at the verses I quoted, he was complaining that the law wasn't be enforced.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

146. how did he contradict himself?

he is attacking the application of law...not the law itself.

sP

[Humanist_Activist]

151. And you don't see a problem with that? n/t

[ProdigalJunkMail]

156. no...Christ is teaching that while the law is correct

it can only be applied by someone who is perfect. and since no one is perfect but God, the application of that law falls to Him alone. thus, the other part of Christianity, that Christ came to forgive us for our failures so that we won't face that punishment.

sP

[Humanist_Activist]

159. OK, let me see if I can get this straight...

God condemns pretty much everybody, Jesus says they go to Hell, and you are OK with this why? I think I'm going to take back the whole "good person" assumption I had about you.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

165. well, you certainly can twist it anyway you like it

and i guess that makes you more comfortable with it. you discount the entire part about Christ offering forgiveness to everyone...and i could condemn no one to hell. i am not built that way. what it all comes down to is a belief that there is a god and that he is infallible. i believe that and i trust it. there is no hard and fast evidence that he exists and thus it is called faith. part of that faith is that he is forgiving of my failures...and those of others.

sP

[Humanist_Activist]

167. There's a difference between worshipping some type of god, and worshipping the God of the Bible...

The God of the Bible is a rather vicious character, and Jesus was little better. They are both well defined in the Bible, and to be honest, I don't see how anyone can think they are worthy of worship. Even if I were inclined to believe some type of deity existed, I certainly wouldn't pick this one.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

136. well, once again, Christ commanded us not to condemn

so where my wife and children have certainly not lived a perfect life, neither have i. if i were a devout Jew, i would say you are possibly correct. alas, i am not. Christ came to teach that NONE of us could follow the law to perfection and that all have fallen short. and in that realization we should know that no one is capable of condemning anyone.

sP

[Humanist_Activist]

143. I posted Chrst's words above, are you saying you disagree with them? n/t

[PassingFair]

175. Stop! You are only adding to his struggles!

It is because it is.

Questioning will only delay obedience.

[muriel_volestrangler]

139. But the doctrine says she doesn't know, so she has to be told by her husband?

What happens to unmarried women? Does this doctrine say they are in a state of ignorance until a man can marry them to put them right? Or does the wedding ceremony rob them of their judgement?

There is still a fundamental inequality in your proposed system. A man 'knows' whether he's right or not. A woman must promise to accept being told by her spouse whether she's right or not. If women were treated as equals in this sect, then they'd both be told to discuss and pray until they can work things out. Surely any system of divine guidance would be capable of giving the same message to both of them, rather than just one.

Going back to your answer to my question about the Divine Right of Kings, you seem to be saying that it's OK with you, as long as the people have the right to overthrow the king. The equivalent in marriage would presumably be a divorce. Is that, then, part of the doctrine too? If a woman really feels her husband is giving her unreasonable commands, she should divorce him? Wouldn't that go against another of the marriage vows?

[Humanist_Activist]

113. Really? Do you really want to go down this route?

To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." -Genesis 3:16

Its just gets worse from there, and don't start with the bullshit that we are misinterpreting it, or taking it out of context. Because the context in many cases makes it worse, and really, how many colors of lipstick are you going to put on this pig? Its still a pig, and your religion deserves as much mocking as it can get due to producing individuals like you.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

121. ah, there's the attack

now i am a bad person...yep, this makes you superior. and yet you know nothing of me or the life i lead. you choose to tear me down because i believe differently than you do. you are so unsure of your own beliefs that in order to secure yourself in those beliefs you have to attack others that you do not know simply because they trust in something you don't.

no one's beliefs deserve mockery. they came to them in ways you can never hope to understand because you haven't been with them day in and day out throughout their entire life. and because you mock them you devalue them. they are not people to you. i would think with a moniker like yours you would believe in the human condition and strive to improve it and not tear people apart with your venom just because they are different than you.

sP

[Humanist_Activist]

I didn't say you were a bad person, indeed, your stuggle with your religion...

gives me hope that you are still, at heart, a good person.

Oh, and beliefs deserve mockery when they are foolish or immoral, beliefs should either stand up to such condemnation or fail. I don't value beliefs above people.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

128. ok, forgive me if i misinterpreted what you were saying

we will have to disagree about what deserves respect and what doesn't. but please understand, just because i respect that you hold a belief doesn't mean that i agree with that belief and that i don't think it should be changed. all i am saying is that most people get to where they are through the life they have lived. and that life could have been unimaginably horrid and spawned feelings that i am thankful i have never been forced to feel. i see mockery as a complete dismissal of the person and of things they likely had no control over that formed them to be who they are right now.

and i agree completely if your beliefs cannot stand up to scrutiny they should be re-examined and maybe even replaced.

sP

[Humanist_Activist]

138. I see mockery as a useful tool in marginalizing bad ideas and bad beliefs...

including misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc.

Oh, and I have completely rejected people from my life due to things like this, I've dropped people from being my friends for using the N word, and homophobes as well. I don't want or need such people in my life. If that's intolerance, fine, I can live with that.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

144. well, again, we will have to disagree

i don't see mockery as a tool to do anything other than foment hate and division. and there is NOTHING wrong with excluding people from your life in the manner you describe. the people you are talking about removing from your life are not displaying a love for others (or even a tolerance).

the only time it becomes an issue is when they turn from that path and ask you to take them back...people change and i hope you would allow them back into your life if the change was there.

sP

[Humanist_Activist]

112. hierarchy of submission? WHAT THE FUCK?

How twisted is this shit, seriously, do you even read your posts? Ugh, I can't believe, on a so called liberal board, that we have this crap being advocated.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

122. and i cannot believe

on a liberal board that your sort of intolerance is allowed. humanist, indeed.

sP

[Humanist_Activist]

124. Hell yes a humanist, NO HUMAN should submit to another, period...

all should be accorded respect and dignity as human beings. That's what makes me a humanist, and I never claimed to be tolerant of intolerance, that's just foolish.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

147. but you have said clearly that you do not respect others

for their beliefs...

sP

[Humanist_Activist]

154. I can respect their right to live and believe whatever they want...

but that's as far as it goes, hence the reason I said "as human beings". I will not kowtow to their beliefs, or keep my opinions to myself to spare them any possible hurt feelings.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

157. i dont' see it that way...

you attack the person...not the belief. that is what mockery does. it says YOU are stupid and broken for believing the way you do...not just that the idea is wrong. and in not caring for their feelings you are dismissing something that is wholly human.

sP

[Humanist_Activist]

161. This is supremely ironic coming from someone who thinks the laws of the Bible are correct...

righteous and just. :eyes:

[PassingFair]

173. Women are not real human beings.

They were made from Adam's rib, after all.

We are put on earth to SERVE MAN and be his
HELP-MEET.

Geez.

We LOVE being second class.

It's our CALLING!

[darkstar3]

177. So after all of that grousing at others, have you realized yet

that what you're doing is engaging in special pleading?

Nobody complains on this board that we should show more "tolerance" toward racists, sexists, or homophobes. Indeed, when republicans wrap all three of those traits into one ideology we mock them mercilessly. Why is it, then, that we must show more "tolerance" toward religion when it, in its various iterations, manages to wrap all three of those traits into an ideology just like republicanism?

Special pleading, that's why...

[roody]

55. +1

[sarge43]

40. At least no one here called for anyone's death

http://www.endevil.com/fundamentalistquotes.html

[RebelOne]

42. It is not mockery of their beliefs, but a mockery of the Duggars. n/t

[Odin2005]

60. Nothing wrong with mocking backward idiots.

[ThoughtCriminal]

72. Yeah, just like the one mocking

Saudi Arabia and it's view of women driving. Shame on us.
:eyes:

[deutsey]

81. I'm mocking the dude's cheesy singing

:wtf:

[CreekDog]

87. Is it improper to mock someone's religion if it denigrates homosexuals?

what do you think?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

104. disagree with them yes...

mock them, no. all people have worth and deserve respect...and the beliefs that come with those people might need to be challenged, but you will never win by mocking them or their beliefs. and i can see that some don't care about changing what people believe...but then what is the point of paying any attention at all? you gain nothing by it except perhaps an inflated sense of accomplishment in mocking or deriding them and you have solidified their belief even more in most cases...

sP

[Deep13]

110. "all people have worth and deserve respect"

I was about to agree with that part of your post, but I can't. Some people in this world really are parasites and I am not even talking about the Duggars. People who do things worthy of respect deserve respect.

But even so, not all beliefs deserve respect. Some are demonstrably wrong or evil and the misogynistic notion that a woman is just a baby factory for her husband is one of the worst. Ridicule is too powerful of a weapon against the patriarchal establish to set it aside. Part of its purpose is to show that there are no ideas so special that they cannot be criticized. Ridicule washes the gilding off the corrupt edifice of power, including religious power, and exposes it for what it is. We use it against the expressed beliefs of our political enemies all the time. True, I'll never change Duggar's mind (any of 'em). But they are not my audience. My audience consists of those whose minds can be changed.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

126. we will agree to disagree then

people came to where they are through trials that you have no idea of. in the same way that some overly religious moron might look at a a woman selling herself to feed her family and condemn her for her acts, people here condemn me and people like me because we believe differently...and that's ok. i have no idea why people here (on an individual basis) has such burning hatred for religion (in any form). maybe they were molested by a priest. maybe some huckster clothed in the name of god scammed them or someone they love out of their life's savings. i don't know. and i will not condemn them for their feelings that were born of a life i have not lived. i will accept them where they are...and hope that they live a life that is happy and full and if there is a god and if there is a reckoning when all is said and done, i have no bearing on that.

sP

[WhollyHeretic]

131. You are a shining example of why people dislike religion. You are using your religion as a reason

and shield for misogyny.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

148. no...i have tried to explain why

the doctrine of submission is anything but misogyny but you seem to not want to even try to understand why.

sP

[Humanist_Activist]

163. Because there is no understanding here...

we are talking past each other for a very simple reason, I exist in the modern world, you exist in it as well, but try to fit a bronze age book into it while claiming said book is applicable in today's world. This simply doesn't work. Its outdated, immoral(by today's superior standards), and belongs on a shelf with other relics.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

166. so you believe...

and that's ok. it works incredibly well for me and for mine...and oddly enough for a lot of other people i know as well.

we are talking past each other...so perhaps we should just part and call it a day. you are as stuck where you are as i. not to mention you type too fast for me. were we in a bar somewhere or down by the lake i would love to continue this over drinks if you were so inclined. you have been very thought provoking.

thank you for the discussion.

sP

[Humanist_Activist]

168. Hopefully your beliefs will eventually be marginalized to the fringes of society where they belong.

And die the slow death of neglect.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

172. and after all that you had to go and be rude...

that's a shame.

sP

[Humanist_Activist]

174. Actually, its an honest hope, your beliefs are dangerous...

and they do no fit with modern society at all. They are degrading to women, damage the civil rights of all, and in the most extreme cases, endanger the lives of all as well.

[muriel_volestrangler]

155. Or maybe they believe than women are equal to men

That seems a far more likely reason for people condemning a religious sect that claims women are inferior. A bit of Occam's Razor.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

160. i can see your point...

and i am sorry that i cannot properly explain my position through a keyboard. if i were doing a better job, you would see that this is not about equality...i am sorry being so poor at this.

thank you for the good conversation and the thought provoking posts.

sP

[Humanist_Activist]

170. It is as simple as that. n/t

[Deep13]

176. Your assumptions are completely wrong.

No one is condemning you, you are not a martyr for your faith. Even among liberals you are in the majority.

I have a very good idea of the "trials" people go through. I frankly see religion taking advantage of people in times of suffering and weakness to insinuate itself as a solution when, in my experience, it only makes matters worse.

And this is something I run into again and again. People have very good reasons for animosity to religion. First, being raped by a priest or victimized by a huckster are pretty good reasons, but people are able to think of good reasons without some personal, emotional trauma. It's not the fringe elements that are the problem--though just how fringe they are is a question for debate. It's the basic, foundational claims--belief without foundation, the virtue of suffering--vicarious suffering in the case of Christianity, the solipsism of being special or chosen, the denigration of life by making it just a preparation for an imagined afterlife, the naturalizing of tribal values, misogyny, the acceptance of not knowing, and the abdication of personal responsibility (it's all in God's hands).

This is in addition to the fact that no supernatural claim of religion has ever been substantiated by evidence. Frankly that is a threshold matter. Until a god has been demonstrated, to say nothing of the specific gods claimed by various religions, nothing build on that premise has any validity. And it is only because people accept the foundational claims of religion, that hucksterism is even possible within it. And that brings us to the so-called new atheism. Those spearheading that movement realize that unquestioned belief in the impossible causes people to do very bad things with the best of intentions. This creates a moral imperative to disabuse people of their wrong ideas.

And the fact that your liberal faith believes mostly benign things does not change the fact that you have no better reason for believing what you do than fundies believe what they do. One of those beliefs is the respect that religious belief insists on. The respect you are so distressed that some of of the people here reject. You are in effect defending the practice of turning a woman into a baby machine just because the idea is religious in nature rather than political or scientific. So you can see why I'm skeptical of the repeated assertion on this forum that liberal beliefs are much better than conservative ones.

[Deep13]

94. If they don't want to be mocked, they should not broadcast their stupid beliefs.

And religion has given misogyny a free pass long enough.

[WhollyHeretic]

95. To quote Nelson

Mocking vile beliefs is everyone's right and almost a responsibility

[ProdigalJunkMail]

105. see post #104 for my feelings

aside from my love for Nelson and the Simpsons in general.

sP

[WhollyHeretic]

116. Sorry no. Misogynistic crap deserves no respect. Do the practitioners of FGM deserve respect?

How about the beliefs of some Ugandans that gay people should be executed? Do you respect those beliefs?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

127. i do not approve of them, no

primarily because they feel that people should be put to death for how they are...but that is a bit of a stretch from what we have been discussing. and yes, i can see that you can stretch out to their conclusions based on belief. and yes, in the old testament there were all sorts of prescriptions for death. my shirt alone would possibly get me killed. but those are not the teachings of Christ. the Christ that i follow. the Christ that expressly said do not condemn others for in that you condemn yourself. the Christ that lived his life asking people to be good to one another, being hurt or angry when others violated that rule, but never once told anyone they were unworthy of being a person.

sP

[WhollyHeretic]

129. Sorry but the religious misogyny that you peddle is dangerous crap. No matter what tap dancing

you try to do to excuse it. It is from misogyny just like it the FGM stems from. It's responsible for a great deal of violence against women and for the inequality women face in this country.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

132. yes, men can twist a doctrine to make it suit their purposes

and i am not tap dancing at all. simply explaining my position which you will never even try to accept.

sP

[WhollyHeretic]

134. Unlike you I'm not one to accept misogyny.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

150. i never once said i accept misogyny...

but you will continue to believe that no matter what i say so i guess we are done.

sP

[WhollyHeretic]

152. That is what you are promoting with your "submission" crap. No matter how hard you try and tap dance

[Humanist_Activist]

169. OK, where is your Christ protrayed anywhere in scripture? n/t

[LeftyMom]

96. Wait, haven't you been a DU mod?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

103. nope...never applied for mod-hood

why?

sP

[NMMNG]

98. Some beliefs deserve mockery

Such as the belief that women's only function in life is to be broodsows for Jesus and obedient little "helpmeets" to men.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

106. while i would disagree that those beliefs should be mocked

i would agree with you that they should be challenged...

sP

[DFW]

33. If Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert were to make a savage satire of a conservative wedding....

I imagine it would look exactly like this video.

[Ron Green]

41. This is mostly about the video.

That bullshit with the misplaced ring was set up; the camera angles were all prepared. This family's activities are in the service of entertainment.

[Capitalocracy]

44. He starts singing AFTER the I do, of course...

too late now, these people don't believe in divorce...

[and-justice-for-all]

49. blech!!!!

:puke:

[Odin2005]

61. Authoritarian religion is a scourge on humanity.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Initech]

84. Ugh. You'd think the Xtians and the Taliban would make natural allies.

Our fundies sometimes are no better than theirs sometimes.

[JitterbugPerfume]

85. that is disgusting

[Liberal_in_LA]

86. ugh. cant watch it.

:puke:

[Raine]

89. I don't see what this has to do with being a red state wedding

it doesn't have anything to do with the state. The Duggars belong to an extreme fundie religion and really they would believe the way they believe even if they lived here in blue state CA.

[WildEyedLiberal]

92. Because shorthand slogans are fun and easy

Colorado is a "purple" state at best, and yet it's home to the center of the evangelical movement in the country, including the loathsome "personhood" amendment folks. California too is home to many megachurches. Dipshits like the Duggars are not geographically confined to red states with a shock collar or something.

[Tx4obama]

107. That is the first time that I have seen a wedding where ............

the couple faces the folks in the pews and the pastor faces the altar.

That was bizarre!