Sick and Tired of Christian Manipulation


The headline reads, “Oklahoma Senate Passes Five Controversial Abortion Bills.” It should read, “Christian Theocrats Make Strides in the Promotion of Sadism, Manipulation, and Hypocrisy.” Let’s face it: if there’s a group in the U.S. that wants to harness the reproductive capacities of others, it’s Christians. In this case, the Christians elected by Christians in the Oklahoma State Senate has thought of various creative ways to screw with women who are convinced they’re not able to raise a child that they have in their womb. The Senators feel it’s their duty to demand potentially invasive medical tests to take “baby pictures” for the sole purpose of emotional manipulation. They feel it’d be a good idea to invade the personal lives of these women. And to add insult to injury, they’re making the patently false claim that they’re trying to help these women.

If Christians would really like to help women seeking an abortion, I have some suggestions. First, I have yet to see a Christian group put up the money (up front in escrow) that is necessary to raise a child to adulthood as a trade for a woman not to have an abortion. Why not? Christians want to have the power over a woman’s womb, but they run away like squealing vermin when the slightest mention of responsibility is mentioned. Their propaganda says that “God will provide.” Christians, why don’t you pony up the money and let your invisible friend reimburse you? We all know that will never happen. If you want to reduce abortions without being sadistic and manipulative bastards, try actually putting your money where your mouth is. If you don’t believe your bullshit propaganda, why should anyone?

Other suggestions:

  • Quit sabotaging contraceptive use, sex ed, and family planning. These things actually reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions. It’s obvious that reducing abortions is not the motivation of Christians. And please quit pretending to want to reduce abortions. Your obvious intent is to increase the number of believers in the world without having to pay for them.
  • Quit meddling in the lives and medical business of people you don’t even know. Nobody appreciates being fucked with. Duh.
  • Please understand that what you are doing is religious persecution. If you can’t show a bit of empathy for your victims, don’t expect anyone to give a shit about your religious rights when that glorious day comes when the shoe is on the other foot.
  • Learn a little empathy and humility. Just because you’ve sucked up to the invisible Big Thug in the sky doesn’t give you the right to be a little thugling. Anyone who has taken an objective look at your religion is aware is a load of crap. Keep it to yourself.
  • Concentrate first on fixing your festering boy fucking problem that shows how astoundingly incompetent your God is, and how amazingly gullible your fellow believers are for believing the amazing bullshit rationalizations used to excuse the problem.

Christians claim to follow an all-powerful God who has the ability to create people. If that’s true, why doesn’t your God make more gullible toadies if he really wants them? Seriously, aren’t there already enough in the world? The actions of Christians make it obvious that they know it’s a complete lie. They know they have to harness reproduction to make the next generation of sycophants. Unfortunately, with all it’s claimed power, Christendom plus God don’t have the power to control their own flock’s reproduction. Instead, they are hijacking the reproductive capacities of others via government control—and then foisting the expense onto them. This policy actually creates poverty and ignorance, which make it easier to instill religious belief in the next generation. If Christians want to run a breeding program, at least do it with your own people and your own money. And start paying your taxes. What you’re doing is not charity and deserves no public support.

In the spirit of Jesus’ saying of “Doing Unto Others,” I would like to suggest new law to be applied to Christians. Under the law, Christians would enjoy their Constitutional Right to free exercise, but upon entering their church, they would need to submit to a head x-ray (at their expense). The test would help them determine whether they had a brain and it would be purely for the benefit of the congregant. I would also suggest that any Christian in a leadership role, such as clergy or in government, submit to a weekly anal exam with the results published on the Internet. We want to make sure those assholes are working properly, don’t we?

Comments

  1. says

    You know, I never thought of it as religious persecution. But really, what else could persecuting someone based on your religious beliefs be?

  2. says

    I hate it when people talk about people putting up money for raising a baby. It's really a stupid thing to say. There is no problem adopting out a baby right now. Because of that, the baby will be taken care of.

  3. says

    I hope Oklahoma has actually gone way too far. From what I understand of the law no doctor can actually comply with it without committing serious ethical violations.

  4. says

    "There is no problem adopting out a baby right now. Because of that, the baby will be taken care of."What planet are you from?

  5. says

    Passionate post I can totally agree with. As for the idea of adoption: Why do I get the impression tha "godlessson" is a man?First of all, a pregnancy is not a walk in the park. It's hard and can be pretty dangerous. And secondly, there's a huge social stigmata connected with it. They don't thank you for not having aborted the child. They call you a slut, and heartless and what kind of person could give up their own child…Thanx, but no thanx

  6. says

    Not to mention at least where I'm from in one of the more liberal states of the Union and all…we have a problem with treating our state wards like cardboard boxes. The fact that here, being stocked and raised in a warehouse might be a step up for some makes me really question the 'they will be taken care of' stance.

  7. says

    Don, I respect your opinions, but I think your message would be more effectively conveyed if you'd drop the PC pretenses, and actually speak your mind for once…..*grin*This was deliciously fun to read, I admit. Unfortunately, though, I now have yet another thing to be angry about today :PTime to extricate myself from the internet for the rest of the day…

  8. says

    This blog post is full of epic win. It's about time we let our government know that no religious group has the right to tell strangers what they are and aren't allowed to do with their bodies.@Gilieill Thank you for that. There are women all over the world who die everyday because their bodies can't handle pregnancy. Not only does a pregnant woman have physical roller coasters to go through, but mental and emotional ones too.

  9. says

    Gil,Who are "they?" Most people I knew when I was a Christian, including the most conservative, regarded adoption very highly – ESP when chosen as an alternative to abortion.Also, with whom exactly is there a "huge social stig(ma)" connected with pregnancy? Religious folks? They're no fans of single motherhood and non-marital sex, sure, but pregnancy itself?You want to see a stigma connected to pregnancy? Talk to any young woman who has ever told her "pro-choice" family or friends she's going to have and raise the kid even if it means putting college and career on hold.Ask her how that conversation went and what her peers thought of her following her "choice."

  10. says

    "Also, with whom exactly is there a "huge social stig(ma)" connected with pregnancy? Religious folks? They're no fans of single motherhood and non-marital sex, sure, but pregnancy itself?You want to see a stigma connected to pregnancy? Talk to any young woman who has ever told her "pro-choice" family or friends she's going to have and raise the kid even if it means putting college and career on hold.Ask her how that conversation went and what her peers thought of her following her "choice.""George I respect your opinion. But in this case you're full of shit.

  11. Martin says

    Yeah, I'm not sure where you get this from, George. I mean, I'm pro-choice, and it's not like I give any of my pregnant friends shit because they actually want the child. And even if you know a woman or two that's happened to, individual circumstances (maybe her family and friends are just, you know, jerks) don't represent everyone.

  12. says

    Also I might add conservatives tend to be (or were) the ones bitching the most about single mothers. Wasn't it the Amphibious Newt who opined that children should be taken away from single mothers for their benefit? I know people who have gone through with unplanned pregnancy (even..UNMARRIED FOLK GASP!) and the biggest grief they get for being pregnant is not from their atheist friends.

  13. says

    @George and IngSorry, that was not very clearly put. I meant the stigmata connected with giving up for adoption.I should explain that I don't live in the States, Europe is always a bit different. But I know the story of a cousin who wanted to give up her son for adoption. The kid was in the hospital my mum works and since nobody knew that she was connected with us (and we didn't know it was her kid) my mum got to hear all the nasty comments and the names people called "that woman".Oh, and also, we're that family who takes pro choice serious. So we have an 18 year old who has a one year old son.Because that's what choice means. And not fucking your life up with either decision.

  14. says

    Then there is what the AFA wants:if you conceive children out of wedlock, we will expect you and your families to find a way to take care of the expenses involved in raising that child. In America, that child is your responsibility and no one else's. You may look for help to charities funded by private, voluntary, compassion-driven donations, but you may not look to government to force other Americans at gunpoint to take money out of their wallets and fork it over to you. We are no longer going to treat you as helpless little children; we are going to treat you as the responsible adults you can become. It's time to grow up.Oh yeah, that'll help!So much for that fucking bullshit about Jesus saying: "Sell all you have and give it to the poor", or his supposed sympathy for single mothers.If xians really cared about being "pro-life", they'd have some of their millianaire evangelists to set up funding to help the women raise their kids, and give counseling, contraceptives, and medical advice (real medical advice) so they could avoid having more.

  15. says

    "if you conceive children out of wedlock, we will expect you and your families to find a way to take care of the expenses involved in raising that child. In America, that child is your responsibility and no one else's. You may look for help to charities funded by private, voluntary, compassion-driven donations, but you may not look to government to force other Americans at gunpoint to take money out of their wallets and fork it over to you. We are no longer going to treat you as helpless little children; we are going to treat you as the responsible adults you can become. It's time to grow up."Translated"IF YOU DON'T EAT YOUR MEAT HOW CAN YOU HAVE ANY PUDDING!?"

  16. says

    [Quoted from the linked site, emphasis mine]"One of the bills would force a woman to get an ultrasound at least one hour prior to an abortion and be shown the image and given a detailed explanation of it, even if she wishes otherwise."Disgusting. Fucking disgusting. How can these pro-lifers still claim any kind of moral bedrock to their views, when they overtly use emotional manipulation like this?Godlessons: "There is no problem adopting out a baby right now. Because of that, the baby will be taken care of."Pull your head out of your backside. Do you have ANY idea what the back-log of unadopted children is like? If children put up for adoption were immediately snapped up by loving families quickly afterward, you might have a point. Your dismissive post, and cold disregard for what the mother will go through during the pregnancy, sounds more like an attempt to not engage with the issue.

  17. says

    Gil, Martin, Ing et alia,All righty… I dunno what happened, but that post wasn't what I intended to write.Several sentences and important qualifiers are missing, as well as a rewrite of paragraph three. This is what happens when I try to post a comment, speak to two different people in the room, listen to an audiobook and play Allods all at once.My point, such as it was, is that most of the anti-abortion folks I know are just that: anti-abortion, not anti-pregnancy. While they may not be delighted at the prospect of an unwed young woman expecting a child, given their politics and social mores, it's the UNWED part that bothers them, nothing else. They love adoption, considering it a (literal) Godsend.In contrast, I have observed that the default attitude towards young parenthood among secular, upper-middle class, professional, college-educated East Coasters – you know, the Daily Show / New York Times / NPR crowd – is one of barely-disguised scorn and odium.It's not a morality thing so much as a class-based fear taboo among those who view parenthood as another project to be managed and implemented when appropriate – if it ever is.This crowd shudders with revulsion at something as 'low class' and 'blue collar' as being a 19 yr old mother or 20 yr father, married or not. One of their daughters returning from Smith to her leafy, suburban home with the news that (1) she's pregnant and (2) she's having the baby would occasion all Hell breaking loose. Are there exceptions? Surely. But I've grown up with and around this social demographic, Ing, and I know what I've seen.

  18. says

    @godlessons and George in NY. Sure. If I get pregnant and give birth to a HEALTHY white baby, there are people lined up out the door wanting that kid. But if I give birth to a special needs baby, cleft lip/palate, HIV/AIDs exposed, drug exposed, my baby will sit in foster care for a long time, perhaps years. And that's for a white child. The chance that a mixed-race child, a black child, hispanic child will be adopted? Much lower. Few and far between are the couples who will adopt a non-white child with special needs of any kind. And, if I try to raise the child and find out later, maybe when the kid is 2 or 3, that I can't handle it and want to put my child up for adoption, even if perfectly healthy and white, THAT kid may be in foster care for years.So yeah, tell me again how easy adoption can be. (And yes, I am focusing on that point rather than the fact pregnancy is risky for any woman because others have addressed that point so well)

  19. says

    "In contrast, I have observed that the default attitude towards young parenthood among secular, upper-middle class, professional, college-educated East Coasters – you know, the Daily Show / New York Times / NPR crowd – is one of barely-disguised scorn and odium."No. I still call bullshit. George if you don't hang with the NPR crowd don't do the Focus on the Family "Liberals hate Babies Thing".

  20. says

    I'll amend what I said cause I think I get what George is saying…but I think he's talking about fairly upper class country club folk, which I can agree on…I disagree with being lumped in with them and don't see this at all in the non-kooks of my social/economic class.

  21. says

    Ing, I hang with both the NPR and FotF crowd. My social circle can be characterized as eclectic bordering on schizophrenic.And yes, my comments apply to much of the Nantucket summer home & Porsche set but also to those whom I call Lexus Liberals. LL's are salaried, white collar, degree-holding managers and/or professionals who are not "wealthy" as I understand that term but do make good money and live very comfortably.There is no Ferrari in the near future, in other words, but it's been a long time since they've worried about house payments, if they ever did.

  22. says

    I take exception to your characterizing what might be the normal concern and panic over an unplanned pregnancy with a hatred of pregnancy and abortion frenzy.

  23. says

    "They know they have to harness reproduction to make the next generation of sychophants." They know, that's a bold statement. Are you their representative? What a very narrow statement. You seem as narrow as you claim Christians to be. Besides all the pychological and physical damage that an abortion can do to a woman's body, which you seem to not cover, there actually are Christains adopting babies from mom's who were considering to abort. I know a couple and a single woman who decided to do just what you suggested. Don't make bold statements for all Christians. It reads as tunnel vision and sounds just as biggoted as bible thumping Christians.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>