The Reverend Barry Lynn was on Fox News with Megyn Kelly, and I am unsurprised that Kelly was astonishingly awful: talking over Lynn, pushing lies, etc. There are multiple face-palm moments here: Kelly telling a reverend that he “wants god out of everything,” for instance, or when Lynn points out that the national day of prayer is not neutral on religion, but promotes it, she offers a ‘secular’ alternative: instead of praying, let people meditate and acknowledge the role that god has played in the founding of this country and its laws.
Lynn is good, though, and shows how to gracefully cope with an interview with a moron.
Lynn has an excellent defense of the decision that the national day of prayer is unconstitutional (even if it is on the odious HuffPo), where he makes the case that the NDP has always been a sectarian and blatantly religious event, of exactly the kind that the government is forbidden from endorsing.
Man, if more Christians were like Barry Lynn (or like Sam Venable, for another example), those danged New Atheists would have very little to rail against, and we’d all kind of cool down and go take a nap, or something.
Unfortunately, they aren’t like that, and right now we have the Department of Justice gearing up to appeal the decision against the NDP, and Obama still intends to honor the National Day of Prayer (thanks, Mr President — you are apparently the kind of disreputable Christian we oppose). The Freedom from Religion Foundation has a petition asking Obama to respect the court decision, and is also looking for contributions to their legal fund. Sign it! Do you really want the likes of Megyn Kelly deciding what is constitutional?
Barry Lynn confuses me even more than Ken Hamm.
How can someone be that rational, and still believe that Jesus was sacrificed so that we can pile our sins and be forgiven by his father, who made us sinful?
How do people live in brains that confused?
Megyn Kelly is the type of person who thinks “religious freedom” means that everybody gets to worship Jesus Christ in his or her own way (except for “no way”, which is un-American!).
The situation may not be quite as dire as you think, PZ.
1) Obama’s a politician. He probably doesn’t care too much either way about the National Day of Prayer, but he’s not going to oppose it openly – he doesn’t need that sort of fight, especially as he already draws a lot of those attacks. The fact of the matter is that, no matter how important we think this is, most of the politicians will see this as a side issue at best.
2) This case was always going to be decided in the Supreme Court. Having the Justice Department take it on at least means that the lawyers won’t be grandstanding in public.
The real question is: which way will the Supremes go? Expect this to be a question put to nominees for the Bench; the answers to the question will tell you how Obama really feels about this.
I completely agree.
Yet when I say stuff like this, I get called an “accommodationist”. Go figure. :-/
I’m not American, but are you guys paying taxes that go towards this day of telepathy with invisible creator deities? It sounds like they are taking your money to promote a day where you tell a narcissistic dictator all about how amazing he is and how much you love him because he needs reassurance, at least once a year.
She’s supposed to be part of their “straight news” block, but you couldn’t pick her out of a lineup with Beck, Hannity and O’Reilly without looking for tits.
How about a prayer that has nothing to do with religion?
How bizarre is a world where a Constitutional scholar can be forced to engage in un-Constitutional behavior in order to garner support from people that lie about their desire to defend the Constitution from “activist judges”: Whatever the fuck that means.
Or we could keep the National day of prayer and add a National Secular day!
This might be better as it would elevate Secularism to be on an equal par with all the religions (in the eyes of the government). It also would not be contrary to the constitution.
We could celebrate reason, ethics and all the sciences: astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology etc with an emphasis on evolution!
I wonder what the religious would say about that.
Grr… My blood pressure’s up again.
“Those atheists(*hiss*) get all uppity about EVERYTHING! Why can’t they just shut up and deal? With their… feeling all marginalized, and whatnot?”
I’d like to ask Megyn Kelly how she would feel about “In [Flying Spaghetti Monster/Odin/Zeus/Ganesh] We Trust” on US money, and a day dedicated to encouraging taking “a moment, and stop, and acknowledge the role [The Flying Spaghetti Monster/Odin/Zeus/Ganesh] has played in the formation of this country and it’s laws?”
Of course, that doesn’t fly, because the only religion that is to be respected by the government is one that involves the King James Bible.
Of course you don’t. It may not explicitly acknowledge what you believe, but it’s a short trip from NDP to “PRAISE JAYSUS!” (which, I assume, is the short version of whatever she believes)
Things like this are why I like Pharyngula so much. I’d guess that about 70% of the people on this earth are fucking crazy. Pharyngula is a good place to come for a healthy dose of sanity.
@givesgoodemail
I clicked the link. Guess what the Ads by Google gave me?
I signed the FFRF’s petition. They are a wonderful orginazation the protects the seperation of church and state.
I noticed that there are only 2000+ signatures…
I guess PZ should have said it was a poll that needed correcting (sarcasm).
Come on people, it took 60 seconds of my life to sign the petition. I feel better, knowing it could help the cause.
Please sign the petition.
2000 sigs is nothing.
Pretty please?
If the NDP is ultimately held as unconstitutional then surely “In God We Trust” on the green stuff is unconstitutional too.
You yanks are a funny bunch.
one step at a time.
@#5 Of course we pay for it. Majority rules. Just like we may not pay a direct church tax as in, say Germany, but we pay extra property taxes so churches can pay none while the morons in the pulpits tell their flocks how to vote, usually against our better interests; I’m guessing that’s the same where you are. So, it may not be huge amounts of money going to support NPD but it’s certainly the most annoying amount.
you couldn’t pick her out of a lineup with Beck, Hannity and O’Reilly without looking for tits.
Doesn’t Beck have tits?
@#12 Already signed earlier this AM and emailed some friends to do the same. Also, I joined the FFRF a while ago – not much money and goes to a good cause, unlike dropping cash in the collection plate, I’d wager.
Fox hosts make my ears bleed. Their astonishing level of impudence is unbearable. They are steamrollers of propaganda.
I want to see Fox News fall within a generation. They need to be erased and join Goebbels in our collective memories. Carthago delenda est!!
This is exactly why I don’t understand Conservatives. “The government can’t do anything right. We shouldn’t have the government telling us how to run our lives. BUT we should use the government to promote our religion!”
If the government sucks so badly at everything what makes you think that they will teach your religion correctly? That wall of separation is there to protect both the government and the church.
Meh. Obama’s a politician. What’s more he’s a politician whose been accused of being a “seeecret Mooooslim Manchurian candidate” ready to sell us all out to his Arab masters at the drop of a hat. I can see plenty of political, non-religious reasons for at least putting up a show of a fight against this decision, whether he thinks a day of prayer is a good idea or not.
@13:
Not necessarily. The phrase “In God We Trust” and crap like it has long been considered “ceremonial deism” that doesn’t contradict the establishment clause. The religious aspects of the phrase are neutered because the “God” in that phrase could just as easily be a pantheist “God of Einstein” version of god as it is the Christian/Jewish/Muslim interventionist, personal relationship God (though that’s just a convenient fiction since in practice we know which god was meant to be elevated by the phrase, and it ain’t the pantheist god). This federal judge didn’t think that the NDP conformed to ceremonial deism, apparently. We’ll see if it holds up in later courts – I tend to doubt it. My prediction is that the SC will overturn this decision and the NDP will be declared Constitutional in the end. They’ll decide that “prayer” is generic enough that it could mean any religious activity so all religions are included and no particular religion is being elevated higher than others. Therefore this doesn’t violate the Establishment clause. Atheists will be told again to go Cheney themselves.
I personally don’t think we’ll see “In God We Trust” shot down until monotheistic Goddess worship is a large enough religion to be taken seriously politically, and then a couple of generations pass to get people on the court who take it seriously. We’re probably stuck with it for a long time to come.
Instead of prayer, let’s have a day
To celebrate the freedom
To tell the world’s religions that
We frankly do not need ’em
Looks like we’re jamming FFRF with petitions. I couldn’t get mine through. Will have to try later.
I’d sign the petition, but I can’t get to it – when I try the link in the main blog entry, I get a File Not Found error.
It’s possible reverend Lynn is a secret apostate.
But, but, but Obama is an atheist!
well thanks for that video.
I´m no american, and as a (non believing) son of a, what you would call, reverend, i was allways amazed, how stupid and hypocritical most religious americans seem. especially in public. mr. lynn here gave me back a little faith, that people can be rational and believe in things, others might consider stupid.
all in all i still don´t understand, why such single-sided stupidity, like megyn kelly is allowed to be broadcasted by such a big network.
Is Kelly for real? As an outsider, I always thought that your constitution trumped everything. The W administration started changing my mind. Now, seeing a woman (my gender is shamed) arguing for a marriage between church and state on network tetelevision, I can see how far the pendulum has swung.
Sorry, guys. I wish you luck dealing with the issue.
It’s not uncommon for Congressmen to actually support and fight for something they know is unconstitutional. The rational is “it’ll be shot down in the courts and I get the brownie points without there actually being any long term effects.”
Megan Kelly says: “Why cant we take a moment to acknowledge the role played by God in the formation of this country and its laws. Whats so promotional about religion there?”.
I have been living here for a few years now, and only recently started reading up the Bill of Rights (meaning, in the last 1 hour :-)), but I think what Megan Kelly says is ridiculous. I am sure she knows the First Amendment better than I do, but isnt it obvious that ‘God’ and ‘Religion’ are not independent.
She later says “They (atheists) feel marginalized by ‘In God We Trust'”.
I wondered how ‘In God We trust’ slipped through, and wikipedia says
“the motto first appeared on a coin in 1864 during strong Christian sentiment emerging during the Civil War
…
The Supreme Court has upheld the motto because it has “lost through rote repetition any significant religious content”. In such related decisions as Zorach v. Clauson, the Supreme Court has also held that the nation’s “institutions presuppose a Supreme Being”
wow.. I hope Obama selects a GodLess liberal to the supreme court. We need one to counter all the looniesm that can apparently only be settled in the supreme court.
In SLC, Utah, the heartland of Mormons, the NDP had a National Pretend to Talk to Invisible, Undetectable Sky Fairies Day. The Mormons asked to be included. The committee refused on the basis that Mormons aren’t Real Xians, a common fundie position.
But this isn’t a sectarian and blatantly religious event, not at all. Imagine what they would have done if Hindus, Moslems, or Wiccans had tried to be included.
I sent this email letter to the Prez:
Dear Mr. President,
I wish you would follow in the footsteps of Thomas Jefferson by not issuing a government endorsement of prayer. Thomas Jefferson was very clear about the meaning of the first amendment to the Constitution when he wrote, “…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
I hope you have read the entirety of Judge Crabb’s decision that a proclamation for a national day of prayer is unconstitutional. I have. I ask you also to consider, in the interest of equal treatment of all Americans, what a proclamation of a Day of Rational Thinking might look like. It should read like this:
Proclamation of a Day of Rational Thinking and Action
Whereas history is full of religious myths and superstitions;
Whereas religion in our country has been the justification for burning our fellow humans as witches, for massacering Native Americans, for keeping fellow humans as slaves,
for opposing equal rights for women, racial minorities and gays, and for the enduring hostility to non-believers;
Whereas rational citizens know there are no gods and prayer is folly and is futile;
Therefore we implore citizens, through their reason and natural abilities, to refrain from praying to non-existent deities, and work together to improve our world and reverse rampant superstition and the damage it has done to our nation;
Therefore we proclaim a Day of Rational Thinking and Action.
Mr. President, if you are not willing to make such a proclamation for the non-believers in our country, then you ought not to be making a proclamation for the believers.
FWIW, there is absolutely nothing preventing the churches from running their own National Talk to Undetectable Sky Fairies day. The National Council of Churches and any coalitions or interested parties could run their own. It is a free country.
They just cannot legally expect the government to finance or endorse it.
This will probably never happen. The various xian sects hate each other. When they aren’t hating each other they hate other religions. One would think they could suspend their hate for a day to cooperate but pigs will fly first.
oohhh, I like it. It’ll never happen, but I like it.
Well, there’s god egg sausage and god, that’s not got much god in it.
As an Americans United staffer (and a big fan of yours), I’m thrilled to see you highlighting this clip of Barry, PZ – and I always love to see your “I am a Proud Supporter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State” badge on your blog, too. :)
Hope your readers will visit Americans United on the web to see more of Barry and AU’s work – we’re at http://www.au.org and on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/americansunited. Thanks again!
Anyone who thinks that this decision will stand is a dreamer. Even if it’s not reversed in the Seventh Circuit, (unlikely, but possible), there are already five solid votes against it in the Supreme Court, the four rightwingers, plus Kennedy. Kennedy is already on record, with his County of Allegheny dissent (1989), pointing to the National Day of Prayer as something that should be upheld.
My favourite part was when Megyn was wondering why atheists feel marginalised, before listing a rather long (and non-exhaustive!) list of things that slip religion into the public discourse.
You can’t have it both ways Megyn – either we have only a short list of things to complain about, or we are being marginalised, and hence have a long list of things to complain about. We can’t have a long list of things to complain about and ot be considered to be marginalised!
Marginalized? WTH? Atheists are widely hated by a lot of the religionists. Cardinal Cormac called them the “greatest of evils” and “subhuman”.
Cardinal Cormac, BTW, is up to his pointed hat in the RCC child rape problems.
How many open atheists hold political offices in the USA? Probably count them on one hand.
Did anyone notice how Kelly was basing her argument on the Founding Fathers, then when she realized Lynn knows more about history than that the word God appears in the Declaration of Independence, she shifted the goalposts to focus on the Supreme Court?
A lot of things are possible, but not worth serious consideration. Thousands of religious believers are involved with Americans United because they understand that they benefit from a strong wall of separation between state and church; this should not surprise you.
We get pretty ticked when arrogant believers accuse us of secretly believing in their gods. Barry Lynn doesn’t do that, so let’s return the respect.
I’ve met Lynn a few times — he’s sincere. It’s not a problem, because as you notice, he’s also sincere about keeping his religion personal and within the church.
What actually trumps everything is a maudlin nostalgia for the 1950s as they never actually happened.
It’s vitally important to read the Constitution as the Founding Fathers intended it to be read during the Cold War against the godless Soviets.
@#16:
No, but Rush Limbaugh does. He and Megyn both prove the axiom: “If it has tits or tires, you’re going to have trouble with it.”
I have to thank a good friend for showing me that joke.
amodeo65 | April 24, 2010 12:33 PM:
WHAT!??!!! No, you communist European fool. The “Constitution” was written on HEMP PAPER. Marijuana. Which clearly shows its origin in the drug-addled delusions of the 1960s. The “Constitution” is a hoax invented by liberals and dirty fucking hippies.
@llewelly #44:
And pinko bastards. You can’t forget how those pinko bastards tried to force us to obey a single, overarching law of the land. Nazis, all of them!
deriamis | April 24, 2010 2:20 PM:
Clearly, all your friends, lovers, and vehicles should be lean, rangy young men, because women and fat people are scum. But those lean rangy young men think that axiom is naive and sexist. Maybe you should just ditch the axiom.
My first reaction was “Mss Fox News” is such a hack an ignoranus
but then I thought for a minute didn’t Rush the fat man say he was an entertainer. Whether or the people on Fox news think of themselves as being entertainers or not the management of the broadcaster clearly thinks about them as primarily as entertainment. their main function is to get viewers to watch and the dumber the watchers the better they spend easier if they can do that and promote their own the (ownerships) political views and interests so much the better but the main interest of the management is to make money and it seems that shit sells
no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public
Marvin– “God I’m so depressed”
uncle frogy
@llewely #46:
Oh, stuff a rag in your bloody vagina already. You have no idea what I believe or support because you just got all hot and bothered over a motherfucking joke. A joke, by the way, that was meant to be off-color, insulting, and rude in much the same way that Limbaugh and Friends are. Get over yourself and your need for everyone around you to worship your sacred cow in a manner that pleases you. Not all feminists think we shouldn’t be able to laugh at ourselves from time to time.
I agree with Ms Kelly: Why does the Reverend want to take god out of everything?
*snicker*
Deriamis- I agree with llewely. I recognized it was a joke, and I wasn’t especially laughing. Just because you support women’s equality and progressive politics or in fact are a woman (assuming that’s what you implied at 48), it doesn’t mean women have to ignore misogynist language you use. Especially your language at 48. That was ugly.
–
Why do they call it an “interview,” when it’s just a non-journalist repeating lies to fill up as much air time as possible so that the interviewee isn’t able to get a word in edgewise?
@great.american.satan #50:
Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Groucho Marx, Billy Hicks, and many others would disagree with you. I think it’s very funny how I can say something I totally don’t believe and people react as if I do. I think it’s fucking hilarious that people can be so choosy about the things they deem worthy to laugh at. Sure, we can laugh at everything else, but don’t touch our sacred cows or you’re just not funny anymore – no, you’re a damned misogynist.
It’s absolutely the funniest thing I have ever seen that people who talk so much about how we all should be free to insult religion and goddamn the people who are offended get their panties in a twist when someone starts making off-color jokes about women. Because, you know, we can insult all those other people, but when someone starts poking at the things we hold sacred, the fact that we are offended suddenly matters. I just don’t understand why more people aren’t laughing at the uptight assholes who think their offense matters more than anyone else’s.
So, my misogynist language was ugly? Really? If you don’t think I knew that before I ever set fingers to keyboard, you’re truly a moron. And I mean that in the insulting, clinical sense and not in the limp-wristed colloquial sense. Also, I am perfectly happy that you found what I said offensive. Please do – it means you are a quality human being in at least that respect. Just don’t think that I shouldn’t find the hand-wringing, pearl-clutching, fainting daisies around here who take umbrage at every mention of their particular Achilles’ Heel funny, especially after they say they say something similar about others.
You know what’s fun about watching comedians?
Watching them.
Body language is usually a good percentage of every joke.
Hmmmm…we need a way to counteract the NDP…maybe on the same day, we unbelievers could pledge to engage in at least one extra sin for every praying believer you know. Masturbate a little extra. Take the name of Gawd in vain. Predict the weather and were garments composed of more than one textile. And let those who have taken to their knees know that you are ruining their attempt to curry favor with Bog Almighty. PZ (a powerful overlord) could create a thread on which we could log and revel in our iniquity…
National Day of Ruining the National Day of Prayer through Sin.
This could be a lot of fun.
Man, who is on the rag today, deriamis? I like George Carlin as much as the next guy and I agree censorship ain’t cool. But rudeness is rudeness. It’s our free speech to tell you where you can stick it as well.
As they said in Happy Days, …
Oh we can’t do that, Megan, because America isn’t mentioned in the bible. *eyeroll*
I signed the petition, didn’t have any problems.
Best comment on the thread, Abstruse!
deriamis: That shit’s not gonna fly here. Knock it off. Most of the readers here like naughty humor, and we aren’t wilting violets. But coming into a place and making sexist, racist, or homophobic “jokes” is incredibly poor form. Screeching back at people who legitimately object to it is even worse.
Things would very different if the types running the NDP were promoting any religion other than Christianity. That is, if the NDP were run by, say, Muslims, Fox News would be all over it trying to get rid it.
@chgo_liz #53:
Agreed. In the textual medium that is the primary means of interaction with the Internet, we amateur comedians don’t tend to do very well at this. Then again, others better than myself have been erroneously identified as in support of their own jokes, so I guess I am in good company.
@great.american.satan #55:
Do you know why Lenny Bruce was arrested so many times? Because he was rude. Literally, he was arrested by undercover detectives in his audience because he used offensive language and obscenity.
Do you know why KPFT and George Carlin had to fight that silly “Seven Deadly Words” case with the FCC? The name of the case should tell you – he used bad words that some people didn’t like. Some fainting daisies who had every opportunity to tune into a different station had the vapours when he said the word “cunt” in a most offensive context.
It is truly your prerogative to tell me where I can stick my own rudeness. (But please tell me how – it sounds interesting!) It is also my prerogative to tell you that I think you are an hypocritical, stuck-up prude for your willingness to use your free speech to tell me not to use mine because it might offend someone.
Now, if you don’t mind, I have to go visit my mom on her job. She’s no longer the superintendent because some machismo-soaked executive decided to blame everything wrong on her because she’s a woman. Now she’s a Paramedic, working in a woman-owned private ambulance service.
Not that you’d care to know any of this. After all, I am just an offensive misogynist who needs to shut his mouth, right? Yes, a misogynist whose mother has worked in male-dominated industries nearly all her life and has challenged every notion of the proper role of a female. Makes sense to me, dumbass.
If you’re talking about acknowledging the “fact” that God Himself actually played a role in the founding of the United States, that’s clearly a religious view about what God has done. If you’re ‘only’ talking about acknowledging the fact that many people used their religion views as part of the inspiration for founding the United States, the Day of Prayer is not about learning about the past — it’s about acting in the present, being actively religious, and encouraging others to be actively religious.
This is just so obvious, it’s hard to believe that people aren’t pretending they miss it.
deriamis, you are not a comedian, nor are you taking a creditable stand. You are coming across as a person unable to critically appraise yourself and why others don’t appreciate your lame non-jokes.
OK, I think I understand now….if you have a mother who ever worked outside the home as anything other than a nurse, secretary or elementary school teacher, by definition you can’t be a misogynist.
Does that mean people with mothers who were homemakers *are* misogynists?
Strange Gods, #42:
Quoted and shouted from the rooftops for truth.
Wondering why so many people mistake the 1950s for the era of the Constitutional Convention. As if every Founding Father was really a strange gestalt of Pat Buchanan, William Jennings Bryan, and Rupert Murdoch.
Ugh. Now I have to rinse my brain out with soap and Zinn.
@blf #62:
How is reminding people that sacred cows are the antithesis of reason not a creditable stand? If I can’t be offensive, then I have no freedom to speak. I will not give in to others’ desire for my silence. The ability to speak freely is the ability to offend and to be offended by others.
And you come across as a lame-brain who obviously cannod read critically. I know where I stand and I have stated it. What you’re not understanding is how this disagreement started. Someone decided to assert his right to be offended as an excuse to silence me.
The silly part of all this is that there isn’t a disagreement about whether what I said is offensive. Nor is there any disagreement about why others don’t find my jokes funny; it’s just because those same people don’t understand what the joke is, despite my being very explicit about it.
Do you know what the difference is between a joke and an offensive comment? Time and perspective – both of which are personal factors. If you don’t think it’s funny when my ironic espousal of a position I find antithetical to my entire life provokes hypocritical rage from others, then you don’t really know what a joke is.
The first rule of holes, it when in over your head, like deriamis is, is to stop digging. Apparently he/she/it hasn’t learned that basic concept. Lessens the impact of what else they might have to say.
@bart.mitchell #1 –
Some people understand that religion involves metaphor, just like the epic of Gilgamesh, Shakespeare’s sonnets or the collected works of Douglas Adams. And no less a god-supporter than Karen Armstrong argues fairly persuasively that the typical religious person today actually has a LESS well developed understanding that religion contains metaphors than an average medieval peasant probably did. (Not informed enough about medieval peasants’ beliefs to tell if that’s true, but it suggests to me that even religious people view literalism and fundamentalism with alarm.)
@csreid #10
QFT! I might put the percentage higher, unfortunately.
@raven #30 & 38 –
The organizers of NDP would say something like “Those people aren’t “really” religious – only people who think like us are “really religious.” And then they’d pat themselves on the back for including a Unitarian, without realizing that UUs don’t consider their organization to be “Christian.”
Well, there’s that city council member in Asheville, NC, whose election has been challenged on the grounds that he’s an open atheist and the NC constitution prohibits atheists from holding public office. (The unconstitutionality of such a provision has been settled law for almost 50 years, but so what?)
PZ #41
Lynn also doesn’t seem to go around yammering about how science and religion are compatible and thus doesn’t give the ID and creationist fools anything on which to hang their hats. Wouldn’t it be great if religious scientists (like Francis Collins) simply stated “I’m a scientist and I speak about science in public; I only speak about religion within my religious community?” The thing that’s so massively irritating is to listen to people pontificating as if their dual membership in religious groups and the scientific community gives them some magical right to speak on how they really go together just fine.
Now can I vent for a moment on the stupid term “Judeo-Christian tradition?” I am so tired of Judaism being incorporated into some weird amalgam of western Christianity, and I’m even tireder of people like the NDP folks figuring that everyone shares their idea of the magic sky fairy. I’ve gotten close to getting tossed out of my son’s Boy Scout troop for pointing out that there is a longstanding and (in non-orthodox circles, at least) non-controversial atheist tradition within American Judaism.
Right. And next, we can have a Christian day for people acknowledge Allah.
Um…. does Kelly know what the word “secular” even means?
@Nerd of Redhead, OM #66:
Really? I thought the first rule of holes was to stick whatever you liked in it repeatedly and often. Like my own opinions into the holes in others’ arguments.
But thank you for referring to me in the gender-neutral form in an attempt to placate my righteous anger at not being properly referred to as male. (And a gay one, too – faaaabulous!)
Thank you also for admitting your desire to silence my criticism of this holier-than-thou community of freethinkers who seem to think the right to free speech is the right to silence others you don’t agree with. You know, despite all shouting to the contrary. I’m looking for the evidence here, and your snarky (and ineffectual) attempt to silence my criticism without addressing my point isn’t it.
Indeed. So does bleating that criticism of what was said amounts to censorship.
Deriamis- You’re still not funny. I wonder if your delivery is better in person… Wait, no. I don’t. There might be something to calling me a hypocrite on this issue. My favorite song is “Last Caress” by the Misfits and I pretty much avoid Zuska’s blog because it antagonizes my penis-having. But you still aren’t funny.
Wow, they sure do pick ’em dumb over at Faux News. Megyn Kelly manages to completely miss the point that freedom of religion is only meaningful if paired with freedom from religion. She suggests that a secular solution would be to meditate on the role of god in American history (slight problem with comprehending the meaning of ‘secular’ there, eh Megyn?), and of course, she has a good old whine that atheists just will not be reasonable and do the ‘right thing’. In other words, just shut up and pretend they don’t exist. I mean, going about saying that you are marginalised (even when the evidence of such marginalisation is evident for all to see) is just soooo oppressive to the poor little Christians…
If her own arguments were used to justify a day recognisisng the importance of any other religion in America’s history she would doubtless be spitting blood, and she would certainly scream the house of Representatives)down about it being unconstitutional, but she just is not quite bright enough to apply the same standards to her own chosen woo.
@blf #70:
So, saying that the words I used were misogynist and therefore should not be said isn’t censorship? It is. It’s just not the administrative kind – it’s the peer-pressure kind.
Similarly, making a ridiculous counter-claim that because I believe my mother is a strong woman for what she does, I would believe the progeny of a homemaker is a misogynist is a clear example of someone who desperately wants to believe I am what I am not. No reasoning, no clear sense of who that person may be hurting by what was said – just a desire to point the finger and have others join in the attack. (And, by the way, I told my mother about that comment and her response was a sincere “fuck you” to the person who said it.)
But just in case you’re not understanding the depth of this problem, I ask you what would have happened if I had come here making nothing but gendered compliments of women. What if I had said that I believe all women are inherently more intelligent than men? Would I be confronted with the same level of anger and vitriol then, or would I have been told that there is nothing inherently anything about a woman except what biology dictates? Might I have had men assuming I am a woman who hates men?
I think I know the answers to those questions, and hence my role as court jester at this moment. I think there is a serious hypocritical bent to some of the comments made in this very thread about free speech and I intend to identify it until I am blue in the fingers.
Secularism is off!
All this proves one thing: You atheists are just trying to get the government your way. As Kelly said, why do you want to change what’s working for us Christians? Why? Why why why I why don’t why understand why you people why and your why “feelings.” Go why be nonnegligible somewhere else.
Yeah, it means “let atheists do whatever they do too along with us,” right?
—-Meanwhile, on #Pharyngula in an alternate universe—-
deriamis: ha ha having tits = being troublesome ha ha ha
llewelly: ^^ sexist and not funny
deriamis: okay Miss Vagina, I was being ironic, mkay? methinks you’re sensitivity undoes your comprehension.
great.american.satan: didn’t sound like you were being ironic
deriamis: Lots of cool people are rude. Laughing at women being, well, you know, women (*snicker*) is suddenly not cool? Now you want to censor big bad ol’ me? Sheesh. Can’t figure me out? Then your an moron. I mean it.
great.american.satan: Wasn’t talking about censorship m’kay. Just sayin’ you’re a prick.
Josh, Official SpokesGay (moderator): Nice try deriamis, but it’s not working.
deriamis: Oh boohoo, I’m being rude. Good, I’m a rebel, just like X and Y and Z. And just so you know I completely see the prejudices against women in the real world: in point of fact, my mother got demoted because some asshole thought she was troublesome, because she was a woman (can you believe that?).
blf: Um, dude…
chgo_liz: Fuckin hypocrites, how do they work?!?
deriamis: Trying to put mah down, eh peeps? I see that’s what you lame-brains are after. But I will not shut up! You will not silence meee! Goddamn you people just don’t understand how I make jokes, do you?
Nerd of Redhead, OM: Ho hum.
deriamis: ^^ Haters gonna hate.
blf: Pssst.. I don’t think he understands what’s going on.
great.american.satan: You still aren’t funny.
—-
But seriously though. Maybe your initial comment wasn’t intended to be mysoginist at heart, deriamis, but you did a good job of camouflaging it as such and refuse to acknowledge that. Then you whined about being misunderstood and everybody has now made a huge deal of it. And no I don’t care about snark or style or feelings or any of that shit, nor am I telling you to shut up. I just think you’re funny and I’ll inform you of why I think so.
Megyn Kelly is one of those people that creeps me out so hard I can’t even watch her in action. I started to watch the clip for just a second then hung it up.
I’d like to think someday that I will have that effect on my political opposites. I’ll have to work harder, I guess.
How is reminding people that sacred cows are the antithesis of reason not a creditable stand? If I can’t be offensive, then I have no freedom to speak. I will not give in to others’ desire for my silence. The ability to speak freely is the ability to offend and to be offended by others. – deriamis
Also, in your case, the ability to show what a pompous, self-important ass you are.
deriamis @ 43;
And @ 48;
And @ 52;
@Colors #75:
Yes, you do live in an alternate universe if you think that’s what is going on. From one comedian to another, I do say sincerely:
Go fuck yourself.
Yes, that was a steal from one of my favorite people. Because I’m so edgy like him and have no clear identity of my own. And no point to make, either, because people who are brainless enough to point out the hypocrisy of the Pharyngula horde must be summarily destroyed and thrown into the dungeon to rot. Anyone who disagrees with us has no point – just a desire to run the gauntlet.
Meanwhile, in the real world that Colors clearly does not inhabit, this free-lovin gay male feminist atheist is still looking for someone to acknowledge that comments that come off like “Christians are stupid because of their religion” are worse than unhelpful and are hypocritical in the extreme when made by a freethinker.
Damned blockquote fail…
That should be:-
(Emphasis added)
Surely you can see that such terminology was very likely to give offence? The Pharyngula regulars are laudably intolerant of misogynist and otherwise discriminatory language, and if you have any prior experience of this blog, you must have realised that these forms of language would inspire a negative response.
You appear to be saying that this is an issue of censorship, and by implication that you are boldly standing up for your right to free speach. However, just as you are free to express your opinion, the others here are free to point out that they find your language offensive. You are not being censored until you are no longer allowed to post. I would point out that this is PZ’s blog, and if he chooses to ban you, he may do so at his own discretion. Until that time, your claim that attempts are being made to;
Rings somewhat hollow.
In the interests of free speach, let me contribute my opinion. I think that your choice of language may, with the uttermost straining of the benefit of the doubt, be considered simply ill-advised.
It seems more likely to me, however, that your casual use of discriminatory langauge reflects an insensitivity toward the feelings and rightful status of others. The expression of such crass opinion is your right, but if you choose to go that way, you must accept that the path is thorn-strewn, and recognize that any complaints you make upon getting your first splinter will likely fall on deaf ears.
Show of hands: anyone else unable to read the snark in my post #63?
Yeah, I thought not.
Sweetie, either you cannot comprehend simple English, or you lied to your mother just to get her sympathy.
When no one understands you but your mother, that should be some sort of clue.
My hand stayed down, just so you know. I noticed the snark, and that was one of the things that disturbed me. What was the point of saying what you did? To point out a hole in my argument with a clear straw man? I don’t think you were being intentionally mean-spirited, but I can’t ignore the fact that you have now twice made the comment that my feminist mother is secretly harboring a misogynist son and without a shred of evidence to support the claim.
So, really, why are you making such an accusation, snarkily or otherwise? As I have said, I think it is to pressure me into silence. You still have not addressed my claim.
doohoho *blushes*
I know I was rude, but stop trying to silence me deriamis.
I actually thought the “tires or tits” comment was pretty funny, but I can understand why it might be offensive as well. For the record, I have tits and have owned a number of wheeled conveyances – I often have trouble with both myself (especially spending too much time on Pharyngula) and my Darwinfished minivan (like the time I was roadraged by a Jesus believer who thought that almost causing a car accident and hanging out the passenger window brandishing a book and screaming at me would attract me to their beliefs).
All the defensive blathering afterwards, including the “stuff a rag” comment? FAIL, loser.
@deriamis –
The “accusation” by chgo_lz was a *humorous* way of pointing out that, much like having a Black friend doesn’t prevent you from being a racist, having a feminist mother doesn’t exempt you from saying some seriously misogynistic shit.
Chgo_lz was making what could be thought of as a *joke* to make a *point*. This is, you may or may not notice *different* from spouting off misogynistic shit because you are so *hipster ironic.*
I do not think that most of the people here are necessarily saying that Christisnas are stupid because of their religion. Mostly, we point out when people who are Christians say manifestly stupid things as a result of or in support of their religion. We also discuss the lack of evidence for religion and the harm that religious belief causes to society at large.
We also do not limit our critique to Christians. We go after all shades of woo from Islam to homeopathy.
Religion is, afterall, a choice made by the believer. It is not an in-born characteristic like sexual orientation, race or gender. If a person chooses to cling to an irrational belief in the absence of any evidence and that flies in the face of all we know about the universe, then (as an element of that free speach you were advocating earler) we are entitled to point out the gaping holes inherent in their position.
A position, lest we forget, that usually amounts to no more that ‘goddidit’ but is employed to justify all manner of intrusive and socially harmful laws and is the basis of the shield behind which religious malefactors (like, say, paedophile priests) tend to hide despite its weakness from a rationalist standpoint.
@Gregory Greenwood #80:
My only response to what you have written is that you are the closest person so far (among those who have commented) to understanding the problem. I’m not nearly as insensitive to the intolerance of Pharyngulites as you seem to think I am, though; on the contrary, the entire reason I used such language was because I have noticed the trend toward intolerance around here. I have simply decided to use the tools of the masters to point it out.
It is funny, though, how paranoid the responses have been. Everything from insulting my upbringing to disbelieving my own words has been used against what I said, but not a single person has addressed the issue I have identified. Not one. Even you have decided to use the Creationist Defense of “I believe what I believe and nothing you say can change it” rather than recognizing that what I am pointing out may be valid and needs to be addressed.
Dammit. I had a funny idea (#54), and this dust-up with deriamis is totally stealing my thunder.
See, what we do is to counteract the day of prayer by having a day of sin…each sin undoes a prayer, and we publicize the sins as we commit them so that those on their knees beseeching the blessings of the Lord have to pray harder and harder and harder to keep the USA in His good graces and on His good side. And the sins can be fun sins; e.g. onanism, or maybe ass-coveting.
It just doesn’t seem fun now, but back before the whole tits ‘n tires incident, I was totally tweaking on this. Zut alors!
Just a note that I am not a moderator (PZ is the Singular Tentacled Overlord); I have no special standing here. My name refers to my position with Teh Ghey, Inc. When issues fall outside my jurisdiction, my associate Locutus of Gay speaks for The Collective.
Yawn, sometimes a STFU or an apology is something everybody needs to do when they find themselves in an indefensible position like deriamis. He/she/it doesn’t have the guts or the integrity to just do either one. Hence, they keep flailing around futilely and getting nowhere. Funny how they always claim we are censoring them. Must be a character defect…
Some of my favorites:
Oh, so you completely missed where I explained what that was. That it was indeed not defensive but purposefully offensive? That was kind of the point.
Oh, but my joke wasn’t funny, despite being every bit as offensive and rude. Because you happen to agree with him, right? Hmmm. But I do like the “hipster ironic” label, even though I have never identified myself as particularly hipster. Though I have been in Starbucks a couple times. Wait – does that make me a hipster?
I was thanking you for being rude in the best way I knew how – by poking my textual finger at the air and in your general direction. You should be happy that I used the most offensive way I know of to express my disgust without telling you to stop talking, much in the same way it was originally used. I was laughing while I did it and I was hoping you would as well. Alas.
Really, people, get with the program. I am talking about something specific that I would hope others would find disturbing about the attitude shift around here. Where we were once eviscerating the occasional concern troll, we have begun equating a belief in God with poor personal character – to the point that PZ had to say something nice about the man to stave off an attack on him.
Sure, I think a belief in God is somewhat silly, but to me it’s the same kind of silliness that I see when a Star Wars Übergeek fantasizes about a trip in the Millennium Falcon. And I know people like that, too. That doesn’t mean we need to be nice when “Mr. Solo” tries to recruit us for a voyage (though I would be more tempted to have him committed), but why not recognize that you may have beliefs that are just as silly to someone else, even if you think you are right?
troll:
We have entered the realm of absurdity.
From the FFRF signature confirmation page:
Ouch.
deriamis @ 87;
Perhaps I failed to express myself properly. I was not commenting on any intolerence of Pharyngulites toward dissenting opinion. Rather, I was saying that Pharyngulas is a blog where most of the regular commentators are very quick to identify language that is discriminatory toward a person based on an aspect of themselves over which they have no control, such as gender. This is something of a red rag to the Pharyngulite bull, and results in a sharp rebuke.
I persinally do not object to the denormalising of potentially discriminatory language. Even if the words are used without discriminatory intent, they are still offensive and they still run the risk of creating am environment convivila to genuine bigotry.
I do not believe that I have fallen back on such an irrational position. Would you mind pointing out the exact form of words I employed that you believe constitutes the use of the ‘Creationist Defence’?
@Nerd of Redhead:
Why should I apologize to anyone who deliberately dehumanizes and depersonalizes me as a means to “discredit” my argument?
And who is this “they” to whom you refer? Shadows? Or are you trying to equate me with some nebulous enemy to which people commenting on this blog tend to identify? Methinks I know the answer to my own question. Address my point or admit you have nothing constructive to say.
Or continue blabbering about nebulous enemies like we’ve seen other, less “coherent” persons do around here. It’s not like I would ever impinge upon your right to look like an idiot.
deriamis, whatever point you were initially trying to make appears to have been lost in your foul-mouthed rant about how oppressed you are.
Urgh, the spelling in my last post was just horrible. I need to check more carefully before posting in future.
Deriamis:
1. If anyone says “Christians are stupid because of their beliefs,” then that would be a stupid statement.
2. It’s amazing that you have no capacity to empathize with how women feel when you make a sexist joke. Come on – as a gay man yourself, you ought to know better. Replace the tits reference in your “joke” with a reference to fags. How would you feel? How do you like it that “gay” has become all-purpose youth street slang for “stupid?”
And please don’t say, “I just let it roll off my back” or “There’s a difference.” As someone who’s experienced societal stigma, including the casual equation of your status with a word for “stupid,” it really shouldn’t be hard to empathize. Other people’s feelings count, even if they’re not in line with your feelings.
Don’t you hate when a homophobe or an ignorant straight person tells you what you ought and ought not get upset about when it comes to antigay sentiment?
Please have the decency to apply that same standard to other people when they tell you they find something offensive.
What man? When? If you’re talking about Lynn, you can’t read for comprehension.
@Gregory Greeenwood:
This, despite my direct statement that I am indeed sensitive to the feelings and rightful status of others and also the indirect statements I have made about my own mother and my position in society as a gay man; this is why I believe you have fallen into the irrational “Creationist Defense” position. If it is a mere mutual misunderstanding, then I apologize for jumping the gun.
At first, when deriamis just couldn’t tell the difference between a professional comedian saying something offensive as part of a carefully crafted comedy routine and him being an ass, it was kind of pathetic.
Now that he’s been digging this long, it’s just hilarious.
YAWN, deriamis still can’t get it. What a mental midget. And, gasp, can’t understand why their inane attempts to justify the indefensible are found amusing. I needed a good laugh today deriamis, and you are providing it with your lack of cogency. You are fun to laugh at…
Were you not paying attention when I identified the statements as an ironic attempt to point out the hypocrisy present in this thread when some of our holier-than-thou elements start talking? Or how about when I stated my complete and unconditional disagreement with the sentiment I expressed in the joke, to the point of giving you the facts with which to evaluate the sincerity of my statement?
I’m not laughing anymore. I’m just plain disturbed at the people around here who dehumanize and depersonalize those with whom they disagree. I’m confused at how I can make a factual statement and have it ignored in the rush to “blame the misogynist”, whether or not the anger is misdirected.
So, I can’t say things that are hurtful to women, eh? Why, because it’s hurtful? Should I just shut up, then? If I shouldn’t be making rude jokes about women, what about the rude jokes people like to make around here towards Christians and Creationists?
Again, I ask you what would have happened if I had made gendered compliments towards women. Would anyone have noticed? Would I have been attacked and soundly beaten for my misandry?
On second thought, never mind. I don’t think those questions will be answered because the angry people are angry. And I think this obvious misogynist (who’s really just defending himself by trying to look like a human being!) is done poking the bear for now. I need to go out and get groceries.
That’s just plain stupid – come on. Do yourself a favor and come back to this thread in a couple of days, then re-read it. You may see things a little differently.
Yawn, deriamis –> killfile for terminal insipidity. Apology for bad behavior is strong force. Try it.
@Deriamis:
Your excellent joke made Me laugh out loud. Of course, I will laugh louder while I torment you eternally in Hell for being gay.
deriamis @ 100;
While you did say that you are respectful of the feelings and rightful status of others, it is difficult to interpret a statement such as;
As anything other than a form of language that equates a statement that you consider oversensitive to an attribute of femininity, the period, and specifically the long-debunked myth that women experiencing their period are so emotionally unstable as to be incapable of forming a coherent thought.
While I have no desire to belittle your life-experience of impugn your integrity, the fact that as a homosexual man you have likely encountered intolerence and bigotry does not prevent you from expressing intolerent positions in and of itself. While it perhaps might make you more aware of discriminatory language and behaviour, there is no certainty of this.
As an example, there are movements among the black community that are extremely homophobic despite the grotesquely unjust discrimination that black people have been forced to endure for centuries. Your sexual orientation is irrelevant to the question of whether or not your statements were misogynistic.
Equally, the statements you made about your mother’s life experience do not mean that you are necessarily incapable of holding a discriminatory opinion or of using discriminatory language. Even if, as appears to be the case from your subsequent posts, your intent was not to give offence, the forms of language you employed are difficult to read as being anything other than offensive to women. Unlike with criminal law, there is not neccesarily a mens rea element to discriminatory language. The language itself is offensive in almost any context. To continue the legal analagy, the actus reus is sufficient in and of itself to give offence.
It does not matter how meta or post-modern my humour is supposed to be, if I were to refer to a woman as a ‘good for nothing slut who should be alternately tied to the sink and the bed’, then I would be using language that I know would give offence, and from that point on I could hardly complain if people took umbrage at what I had said.
While my mode of expression may have been inadeqaute, I do not think that this amounts to an example of the ‘Creationist Defence’.
Damn, does deriamis sound exactly like Newfie…
This makes zero sense. If you were looking for a thread to use as an example of a home for “comments that come off like ‘Christians are stupid because of their religion’,” you couldn’t have made a worse choice. And of course if it really happens and it upsets you, the rational response would simply be to point to those comments and challenge them.
Bye!
Deriamis ‘ 103;
I do not wish to be pedantic, but a gendered compliment to women would not be misandronistic in itself. In order to be misandronistic, the statement would have to belittle or insult men because of the quality of their masculinity.
So, for instance, sying that; ‘all men are rapists-in-waiting who are incapable of controlling their sexual urges’ would be misandronistic. Whereas saying that; ‘women are a boon to humanity who make the world an altogether better place by virtue of their presence in it’ would not.
“I’m not a racist. I have lots of black friends, and I even let them use my bathroom”
I second the “Day of Sin” idea. I really should get a webcam so I can participate in blasphemy challenges and the like. What do those cost, like two bucks?
But is it BYOTP for them?
Ooh, Ooh
*waves hands*
A quote from a racist pig who used to post here…
Must be one of those 2-sink bathrooms.
nope, though I wouldn’t put such sentiments past some of them…
remember that Louisiana judge who wouldn’t marry a mixed race couple out of worry for the tough life their kids would have?
Well, the racist pig part is right. Oh my, looks like I’m wrong for the rest. I guess I’ll just have to apologize to you’all for my mistakes… *hangs head in shame…*
So how, precisely, does one distinguish defensive blathering from deliberate offensiveness, especially via text communications following being reprimanded for something? If my kids tried to make such a distinction, there would be a rapid maternal correction of their reasoning…
Great. Another thread derailed by an obnoxious and self-defensive person.
—
[On Topic]
Whilst I’d like to sign the petition (do internet petitions have more credibility than internet polls?), I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to do so, not being American.
g.a. satan: Thanks…it took a long time to get an Amen.
ur welcome, bro! :-D
One problem with it is that many sins violate youtube’s terms of service, or don’t photograph well (thoughtcrimes fer example).
Problem two is it doesn’t have the commercial appeal of, say, a boobquake (quaking boobs… oh boy). Might take some work to get the idea noticed.
But good luck, if you’re willing to try it!
“National Day of Sin” … I dig it.
Not much of a youtuber (not sure I want to film my best sins anyway) but I an aggressive thought criminal. The confession of the thoughtcrime is evidence of the thoughtcrime. I can document this in text, although it may make for lame reading…Imma think about it more. After I’m done having impure thoughts.
And then malevolent thoughts.
None of my neighbors have hot wives… One less opportunity to thoughtcrime up in here.
That is not my sentiment and you know it.
@Gregory Greenwood:
No, go right ahead – you are correct. That was sort of the point I was making, though. A gendered compliment to a woman would have resulted in little to no comment here. If I had started talking about how great men were in the same way, it would have very likely seemed to others I was at least passively misogynist.
Similarly, a male-gendered insult (such as calling a man a dick) doesn’t invite much criticism, but calling a woman a bitch does. It’s very lopsided. I wouldn’t go so far as to say both should be equally offensive – because I’m not so thin-skinned as that – but I am very intrigued at the reaction.
So, when the first person here did what I knew would happen when I first saw someone mention “tits” as part of a joke, I took the opportunity to poke the bear and make my point that the criticism in this community is easily as hypocritical and inane as anywhere else on the Internet. I don’t like hypocrisy in the community to which I consider myself to belong, and I will continue to point at it until people begin to take notice.
I am not, in fact, a misogynist. This is despite what the thin-skinned and holier-than-thou crowd before you would like you to believe. They would like me to just shut up about their flaws, so they’ll invent any reason for you to see me as something you should despise. I’ve been doing it here for years now, and they still haven’t caught on that I’m a Poe.
By the by, did anyone else have as much trouble as I did signing that petition? It took forever for the page to reload. I hope that means lots and lots of people are signing it now.
[meta]
Deriamis, can you defend your offensiveness on The Thread, or somewhere else?
You’re totally out of topic here, not to mention being functionally a troll.
@John Morales:
Oh, I’m not defending my offensiveness. I was that, and very intentionally. In any case, though, I am done. I think everyone who is going to “get it” has already done so. Besides, I have cookies to bake for my friend’s birthday party tonight and I have to get on it. Good night!
That’s one convoluted batch of drivel. You’ve offered no evidence of others’ hypocrisy. You have offered evidence, however, that you can’t read; that you’re an asshole who, for whatever reason (and I doubt anyone cares what that is), certainly wants to act the misogynist here; and that you’ve been trolling this blog for a while now.
Oh?
You haven’t pointed to anything outside your little peabrain.
I don’t like hypocrisy in the community to which I consider myself to belong
Oh, honey, that pointy thing in your back is the doorhandle hitting you on the way out.
Weak, weak, weak.
“So, when the first person here did what I knew would happen when I first saw someone mention “tits” as part of a joke, I took the opportunity to poke the bear and make my point that the criticism in this community is easily as hypocritical and inane as anywhere else on the Internet. I don’t like hypocrisy in the community to which I consider myself to belong, and I will continue to point at it until people begin to take notice.”
Don’t feed the trolls people.
Rats; I’m late to the party, as usual. SC and the rest of y’all have already opened a large can of whup-ass on deriamis. deriamis, it would be wise, in the future, to omit the soi-disant drollery. Your point, assuming you had one, was lost in the static generated by your quite incredibly nasty language.
Let me remind you of some of the rules of the Pharyngula road:
In that spirit, I cordially invite you to stuff that bloody rag you mentioned down your throat until you choke on it.
Jesus Christ, you went to the grocery store, took a couple of hours off, and when you came back, you were still the same dick that you were before?
May I suggest Mr. Ray’s Wig World?
Cry me a river. You’re not some free speech, I’m-calling-you-all-to-account hero. You’re just a dick.
http://xkcd.com/322/
The members of the AU are there to protect their own interests by keeping religion out of politics – just as in the days of Washington and Jefferson, they know that the first religious cult to control government will do its best to exterminate all other cults or at the very least cram its dogma down everyone’s throats. So the civilized thing to do now, just as it was over 200 years ago, is to maintain the compact to keep religion out of politics. Of course the religious nuts who want to tell everyone else how to live oppose that and happily accuse the AU of wanting to get rid of god, just as they whine about (a different group) the ACLU being commies while simultaneously petitioning the ACLU to take up a case for them gratis.
@deriamis:
Well, there’s a pretty good reason for that. Men haven’t exactly been the target of a whole lot of sexism. Women have been dealing with it for thousands of years. Offensive terms aren’t spoken in a vacuum. With zero context and history “breeder” and “fag” appear to be similar insults. Once you take a look at the history and how the two terms are used the difference is readily apparent. One is more or less a joke, the other was used as a slur against a minority group and often yelled while killing a member of that group.
FWIW, I found the original joke kind of funny, but the defense of it to be condescending. Of course I’m a cynic, so my opinion on what is or isn’t funny isn’t to be trusted. The irony of the situation is that you became offended when accused of misogyny after making a misogynistic statement that was intended to offend.
“If it has balls and a keyboard it’s going to give you trouble.”
How bout it?
“the role of god in the formation of this country and its laws…”
“what’s so religious about that…”
I’d like to make a comment about this, but the non-sequitur is so dazzling, it’s making my brain hurt.
@135
That’s as may be, but _I_ tend to feel a whole lot more insulted when people suggest that my gender should be sheltered like a pretty flower because women have a history of being discriminated against.
If I (or anyone else, for that matter) call my sister a bitch, that’s misogynistic*, but if I call my father an asshole, it’s totally ok. My sister and I are no more oppressed than my father is, so is it the possibility that we COULD be oppressed that’s the reason for the special treatment? I personally don’t want it.
I tend to think that being too trigger-happy with immediate accusations of misogyny every time someone uses the word “bitch” actually does more to “harm the cause” as it were, than simply letting minor linguistic points of contention go and focusing on making sure that rights are not being trampled and inequalities are not upheld. But, of course, that’s purely my opinion. Some people read great importance into those linguistic points, and that’s their right, just as it’s my right to think it’s silly.
Still, as an outsider in this community, I can see some of what your newest “chewtoy” was trying to say (albeit not particularly successfully) about different standards for things the In-Group agree with and don’t agree with, or even things being said by members of the in-group vs the same things being said by members of the out-group (e.g. If Josh described something or someone as limp-wristed (whether or not he would actually say such a thing, which I can’t make any judgement on as I don’t know him at all), I doubt he’d have been jumped all over for it the way the non-regular was, despite said non-regular having identified himself as gay). But that’s not surprising in an online community. It’s pretty much par for the course, reasonable or not. (I fully expect to be referred to with impersonal third-person pronouns by Nerd of Redhead, for example, just for daring to comment in a way that suggests disagreement with any established members. That’s ok.) This is not to say, of course, that members of the in-group never disagree with each other or have heated arguments. Not so. But there IS a tendency towards knee-jerk reactions to disagreement from outsiders, as if the validity of one’s position (if it is a dissenting one) is dependent upon their level of acceptance into the group. Intelligent, thinking people who generally hold that nothing is sacred are not immune to this type of human habit either, amirite?
*I was going to say “despite my being a woman myself” but that suggests that I’m ignorant of the possibility of women being misogynistic in a “my role is to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen” sort of way, via scads of conditioning from their Superior Patriarchal Overlords. Still, I think a distinction can and should be made between calling another woman a bitch and suggesting that all women should submit to the whims of patriarchal society. Again, that’s my opinion. I just don’t consider words like “bitch” or “cunt” to hold that much power today, despite their origins, at least not in my life (unlike words like “nigger” and “kike” which most certainly retain every ounce of their racist meanings). Others have different experiences, to be sure.
la tricoteuse, I don’t usually get involved in the discussions over the use of certain words others find bad. I’ve learned over the years of multi-cultural living not to say those words that might offend people unnecessarily, even as an in-group joke. If I do offend someone, I apologize and move on. If deriamis did that, the whole kerfluffle would have ceased. But in vainly attempting to defend a minor joke, the whole discussion became a dogpile with deriamis at the bottom. Not because of any in/out group think, but basic public decency. Certain words are not said in public, and a blog is a form of public speaking, unless said very carefully, in controlled circumstances, and unless part of a performance, ready to be apologized for. If certain ladies here choose to call themselves the b-word, that is their privilege. I won’t call them by that word. Nor does mean that the word is fair game for everyone. The folks who try using those words usually consider themselves to “edgy”. Mean is a closer description, as they are deliberately insulting women.
I’m surprised nobody here has mentioned emailing kelly@foxnews.com. Seems to me that just one email from everyone here could make a big difference in how she evaluates her performance. It might even get more atheists (or atheist sympathizers) on TV.
I thought the commenter was being sarcastic or making a joke. You mean they aren’t?
For the record, just in case, the role of god in the formation of the USA and its laws was somewhere between low and zero.
Most of the edicts and rules in the OT are illegal under US law. You can no long sell your kids as sex slaves, stone people to death for working on the Sabbath, beat your slaves, or torch witches, wizards, and heretics. Wearing cloth made of two different fibers is legal as is eating pork and shellfish.
PS Dermainus is just a troll derailing the thread because he has no life or functional personality. Really not worth feeding.
People, people….Listen to Mr. Lynn and take a cue from what he said – the National Day of Prayer is yet another result of the communist scare of the late 1940’s and early 1950’s. Google: “The John Birch Society,” or “red baiters.” It resulted from the need for politicians to assure the American people that they were not commies, and not atheists. The joke’s on you – they are instead, in the immortal words of P. J. O’Rourke, a parliament of whores. They were then; they are now.
Next to being called an atheist or “fag,” “Communist” was the single worst epithet one could be called during the 1950’s. I was there, I know. During the 1960’s, if you differed from others, didn’t support the VietNam War, had long hair or thought right-wingers were nuts, you were branded a communist. And, Ronny Raygun, the last and greatest red-baiter (who ended up taking down the Soviet Union – props to him), managed to make the National Day of Prayer an even bigger deal. Not a coincidence!
Sadly, even without the Soviet Union breathing down our necks now, red-baiting is back. Every time I get a letter published in the Austin paper – usually on the subject of separation of church and state – I get hundreds of emails calling me “commie,” “Marxist,” or worse. Boy is red-baiting back, and with a vengeance! BTW, I’m a Democrat!
I never write all caps, but folks, READ A HISTORY BOOK, PREFERABLY ONE FROM A BLUE STATE SCHOOL SYSTEM THAT HASN’T BEEN PURGED OF FACTS BY CHRISTIANS.
People, people….Listen to Mr. Lynn and take a cue from what he said – the National Day of Prayer is yet another result of the communist scare of the late 1940’s and early 1950’s. It was the same scare during which federal employees were required to sign loyalty pledges, so many Hollywood careers were ruined (almost including that famous redhead Lucille Ball), and “under God” was added to the pledge of allegiance. Mr Jefferson no doubt was spinning in his grave that day!
Google: “The John Birch Society,” or “red baiters.” It resulted from the need for politicians to assure the American people that they were not commies, and not atheists. The joke’s on you – they are instead, in the immortal words of P. J. O’Rourke, a parliament of whores. They were then; they are now.
Next to being called an atheist or “fag,” “communist” was the single worst epithet one could be called during the 1950’s. I was there, I know. During the 1960’s, if you differed from others, didn’t support the VietNam War, had long hair or thought right-wingers were nuts, you were branded a communist. And, Ronny Raygun, the last and greatest red-baiter (who ended up taking down the Soviet Union – props to him), managed to make the National Day of Prayer an even bigger deal. Not a coincidence!
Sadly, even without the Soviet Union breathing down our necks now, red-baiting is back. Every time I get a letter published in the Austin paper – usually on the subject of separation of church and state – I get hundreds of emails calling me “commie,” “Marxist,” or worse. Boy is red-baiting back, and with a vengeance! BTW, I’m a Democrat!
I never write all caps, but folks, READ A HISTORY BOOK, PREFERABLY ONE FROM A BLUE STATE SCHOOL SYSTEM THAT HASN’T BEEN PURGED OF FACTS BY CHRISTIANS.
Are you sure about that? It’s extremely unlikely unless you are so wealthy that you do not have to work. If you do work, then you are probably a victim of sexism, though you may not be aware of it since Title VII creates an incentive for employers to be discreet.
Everyone HAS an asshole; everyone has the potential to BE an asshole.
Megan Dunning-Kruger?
That interview was a shining example of someone who does not know shouting loudly over someone who did know, wasn’t it?
I have a problem with the petition site. At the end it offers two choices for the question “are you a member of the FFRF: Yes and No, but would like more information.
If you want people to sign your petition, you don’t want to be adding them to spam lists. Fortunately the petition seems to have worked without clicking either choice, but I don’t want to join, I don’t want to get spam, and I don’t want to get junk mail. Unfortunately having this question gives me no confidence that the information I gave for the petition will not be used to beg me for money or otherwise bombard me with spam. If the petition matters, then there should be a clear option for “don’t contact me.”
The “ceremonial deism” that one poster brought up is the Supreme Court’s device for holding on to governmental promotions of religion that the Court would prefer not to toss out. Usually, practices (such as putting “In God We Trust” on the coinage) that have been around for a long time and would irritate a lot of people if jettisoned get the ceremonial deism pass. It doesn’t harmonize at all well with the rest of the Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence; but fact hasn’t stopped those Justices who’ve invoked it.
Will the Court as presently constituted uphold the National Day of Prayer? Unfortunately, I think it’s quite likely–and I fully expect to see the conservatives on the Court argue that a National Day of Prayer doesn’t differ signicantly from putting God on our money.
Also: for Americans, who may have the most abbreviated sense of history of anyone on the planet, it won’t matter that the Day of Prayer was ONLY instituted in 1952. For Yanks, it might as well have been a provision in the Lex Hortensia (287 B.C.)