Since Pandagon is currently being slammed six ways from Sunday by everything from regulars to curious first-timers to spammers, it’s down, and you thereby are missing out on a great post by Amanda which really reminds me why I’m a Christian that kinda dislikes a lot of other “Christians.”
——————–
[Amanda Says:]
Update: To correct misinformation in the comments, I was not “fired”. I offered my resignation and it was accepted.
Because I had the nerve to be critical of the Catholic church’s stance on birth control and abortion—nevermind their political opposition to distributing condoms to fight HIV, a stance that has helped usher thousands and possibly millions to their untimely deaths—I’ve gotten a number of letters from people who call themselves “Christians”, as Bill Donohue also calls himself. Chrisitians are people who are supposed to follow the behavior and teachings of Jesus Christ. I mention this, because it seems to me that therefore, when Christians are contemplating an action that is morally questionable, it appears they should consult the Bible before acting.
Luckily, I happen to have a Bible laying around this house, because even though I’m not a Christian, I was an English major, and it is important to Know Your Ancient Mythologies if you are reading poetry. And I flipped to this passage that seems to have solid advice on what to do if you’ve got some asshole dragging a woman in front of an angry crowd and yelling, “SINNER!”:
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
Granted, I don’t think criticizing the church for policies that hurt families and even get people killed is a “sin”, but my letter writers do. But I thought I’d bring up this story for two reasons. One, I’ve always been impressed by the subtext of the story. I suspect, strongly, that this story is part of the reason that Christianity was so attractive to women in its early days, because this sort of random misogynist scapegoating is all too real in a patriarchy, and this story must have touched a lot of women at the time, who would be impressed with Jesus’ unwillingness to play into such misogyny. In fact, from everything I understand, much of the history of Christian misogyny is one 2,000 year long backlash against early female power in the church.
I’m also impressed by how so many people who claim to follow Jesus have basic reading comprehension problems when they regard this story. (Not all—for instance, some fellow Pandagonians take their faith seriously enough to read the Bible and try to follow its precepts.) From my mailbag:
I pray that I had some small part to play in your “resigning” from the Edwards campaign you libelous fraud!
That’s from a Vivian Thomas, who also wants me to know that I’m a worthless hag.
Catholics are concerned about killing unborn children, you stupid bitch. Chop away if it suits you, but we don’t have to accept that as moral. That’s why it’s called a religion. Look into it.
Frankly, if I were a churchy person, this “Look into it” thing would insult me, since R.R. from Tallahassee, FL is all but saying that religion is his excuse to declare his misogyny “moral” so he doesn’t actually have to think and decide what his morality is for himself.
Amanda,
after reading your vile screed against Catholics and the Holy Spirit, I just had to see what you looked like. (I envisioned you eyebrow-less, with no visible pupils, and a blank, dead stare.) I see I was correct about the blank, dead stare, but other than that you’re not too bad. I then thought maybe you were mad at God (and by proxy Catholics) for making you ugly, but now I’m figuring you’re just mad at him for making you a woman.
Annette D’Amato is somewhat right, that I’m angry—but not that I’m a woman, but that people like her have such uncalled for contempt for women. But I am impressed that I gave her a small bit of education. Contrary to what people have been telling her, feminists are not demons without eyebrows (she missed the boar’s teeth and snakes on our heads), but human beings.
Andy Driggers from Dallas, TX was also so moved by my criticisms of religious anti-choicers, that he wrote:
Problem with women like you, you just need a good fucking from a real man! Living in Texas myself, I know you haven’t found that real Texan yet. But once your liberal pro feminist ass gets a real good fucking, you might see the light. Until then, enjoy your battery operated toys b/c most real men wouldn’t want to give you the fucking you deserve b/c the shit that would come out of you ears.
Reminder: Donohue was claiming to be so hurt by my “bigotry”. Yet, for some reason, his supporters write me and they are more interested in telling me that my womanhood is repulsive to them. Interesting—almost as if his claims to speak for Catholicism were in fact dog whistles to scare people about women’s equality.
As I told some close friends in the days that Donohue was on the news, spraying code words about “get the feminists” (which explains why he roped Shakespeare’s Sister into this, even though she really had nothing to do with any of this—except she’s pro-equality, which is what is really what offends Donohue and all the people who gave that anti-Semite airtime), a good half of my hate mail could be summed up, “You have a pottymouth, you stupid cunt.” An example, from Paul Bernard of Scottsdale, AZ:
i like the way you trash talk i don’t particularly want to have sex with you but i would like a blow job.
Right wingers right now are pretending like sexism has nothing to do with me, which is an argument that works if you think a) men get emails about how they need to suck a dick on a regular basis and b) that there’s nothing whatsoever sexist about allowing men to curse but hitting the fainting couch if a woman does.
Bud Phelps, another person who opposes “bigotry”, as defined by right wing shill Bill Donohue.
It’s just too bad your mother didn’t abort you. You are nothing more than a filthy mouth slut. I bet a couple of years in Iraq being raped and beaten daily would help you appreciate America a little. Need a plane ticket ?
Time to wake up and smell reality—real bigots follow the siren call of the fascist right wing. Why would they even bother with liberals and all our equality and human rights and other tedious ideas?
Romanco De Leone was also moved by Donohue’s poignant claims about insulating the Catholic church from legitimate criticisms.
YOU RACIST WHORE. FAT UGLY BITCH. SUCK MY LONG COCK ASSHOLE I HOPE YOU KIDS NEVER LIVE AND YOUR PARENTS DIE A TRAGIC DEATH YOU ASSHOLE BITCH!
I HOPE YOUR WOMB IS BARREN AND YOUR CAREER PLUMMETS TO HELL YOU BITCH
But I shan’t belabor the point. I haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of the hate mail the Bill Donohue’s “Christian” campaign against me has inspired. This is all stuff from days ago—I’ve gotten more than 100 since. Hell, from the looks of my email from last night, I’ve had more than 100 in the past 12 hours from self-proclaimed Christians who want me to know that I have hurt their feelings and this has nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with their own misogyny and tendency to witch hunt.
——————–
[Auguste Says:]
Take it from me: Real Christians don’t get offended (well, much, anyway) by the kind of things that Amanda has to say. A lot of them agree with her, and those that don’t agree recognize that what others believe or don’t believe has no effect on one’s own personal faith.
Until and unless they lead massive campaigns to make damn sure that you either follow what they believe, or suffer for it. It’s sickly funny that the “oh-no-dhimmi” types who love to tell scare stories about how Muslims want to make sure that non-Muslims have no options, or opinions, or rights to live as they want, have no problem making common cause with William Donohue, a Christian Dhimmist of the very first order.
Patrick Hynes, of Ankle Biting Pundits, is also a consultant for John McCain’s PAC. Now, in terms of conflict of interest, a blogger working for a political candidate is (as ruled on in the landmark case Rightwing Assholes v. Kos) Not A Big Deal. It was, however, to Patrick Hynes (from Wonkette):
“On Tuesday the former Director of Internet Organizing for Dean for President, Zephyr Teachout, revealed that the selfsame Markos Moulitsas Zúniga (who goes by the handle “Kos”) had been a paid shill for the Dean campaign, accepting fees for promoting the campaign of the angry little ex-Governor of Vermont on his blog. Oh yeah, Zúniga also gave “advice” to the campaign…. This mini-scandal is, probably, the blog equivalent of Rathergate or the Williams scandal.”
Kos, you’ll remember, had a disclaimer up. Hynes, later, did not.
(Parenthetically, this part of the Wonkette post also caught my eye, but I won’t comment further:
Sadly, since ABP’s pre-June 2006 archives were scrubbed in a site relaunch, we can’t find what else John McCain’s blogosphere mole had to say about ethics, disclosure and payola. Too bad.
)
But this was all covered last summer. Remember? Remember the shitstorm it churned up when it was revealed that Hynes was a total hypocrite and corrupt to boot? Neither do I. Especially interesting considering that Hynes seems to regard “conflict of interest” as nothing more than a random combination of three english words.
Radley Balko, a policy analyst at Cato who blogs at The Agitator, questioned Hynes’ integrity in working for AARP soon after leaving Cato, where he said Hynes’ job “was to be the PR point guy for Cato’s Social Security Choice campaign.”
Balko complained that AARP is “probably the one group that did the most to derail President Bush’s plans for private [retirement] accounts.” “Perhaps one of the righty blogs defending Hynes’ integrity can explain his representation of … the group that wants to expand Medicare, kill private accounts and enact all sorts of other monstrous, big-government federal entitlements,” Balko added.
Reached by telephone, Hynes said such criticism is irrelevant because he is “not even doing any policy work for AARP.” He reiterated his previous description of the consulting work: “They have a blog, they want to make it a better blog, and I’m helping them do it.”
But here’s the thing: I’m not even writing this post to point out Hynes’ ethical lapses. No, I’m here to highlight Hynes’ extremist stances on social issues.
Hynes wrote a book called “In Defense of the Religious Right”, which, among other things, compared today’s Christian moralizers to - I’m not kidding - abolitionists. Daniel McCarthy, writing in Reason:
“[T]he GOP is, perhaps, God’s Own Party,” not only because religious voters today prefer Republicans but because the party originally arose from the Second Great Awakening and the abolitionist movement. Abolition itself, he writes, “was the result of Christians imposing their moral values on their fellow Americans.”
You could probably get more facile and incomplete than that statement, but you’d have to be working really, really hard. By that standard - and with an actual understanding of history - slavery was the result of Christians imposing their moral values on their fellow Americans. Moreover, comparing the abolitionist movement to the war against contraception or gay marriage seems grossly offensive.
But even allowing for his ethical lapses, and the occasional offensive statement, McCain especially screwed up in not vetting his blogger’s points of view. Hynes is a fringe character, the wingiest of wingnuts. From Reason:
In support of his contention that “secular leftists are determined to remake American culture and society in their own warped image, to tear down traditional pillars of America’s moral strength,” Hynes cites a litany of court cases, legislative acts, and instances of civil disobedience: Griswold v. Connecticut (which effectively legalized contraception nationwide), the Stonewall riots (which launched the modern gay rights movement), 1960s New York and California laws legalizing abortion (the California law was signed by Gov. Reagan), and more.
If McCain was looking for a blogger to move him out of sync with the American people, he looked in the right place. The majority of Americans support civil unions, if not outright marriage. 62% oppose overturning Roe v. Wade. And given that 96% of Catholicsuse birth control, treating Griswold v. Connecticut as a Commie pinko plot from hell is not likely to play in Peoria.
McCain would be wise to fire Patrick Hynes now, before America wakes up to the kind of extremist he has working for him. It’s not usually considered good strategy to embrace the minority position on every issue. It’s a sure path to what I like to call “not getting elected.”
——
Contact information for the McCain PAC can be found - Okay, listen. Obviously, I’m not seriously arguing that Hynes ought to be fired, unless his ethical violations are a serious problem. But my argument against Hynes’ politics ought to have about as much influence over McCain as Pepsi has over Coke. (Or Coolah Energy - seriously, that shit is awesome.)
Bloggers know their audience, and I’m betting Hynes doesn’t spend a lot of time wooing McCain’s moderate voters by threatening to take their condoms away, just like I know Amanda’s not going to be saying “fuck” in a press release. “Scuttle-the-blogger’s-career” is not a winner for the Republicans.
All non-feminists who wish to initiate a discussion of the “end of sexism” and the “nonexistence of the patriarchy” must immediately and fully defend this story. Said defense may not consist of the words “isolated” and “incident” unless they are preceded by “this is clearly not an.”
Hogue said that the officers did not technically violate departmental procedure. During their initial investigation of the rape, they discovered the victim was wanted for failing to appear in court on a juvenile case. Since the records showed the young woman still owed $4,500 in restitution, she was arrested.
That’s where, the chief says, the officers’ supervisors should have stepped in.
“Our procedures did not provide supervisors with discretionary oversight,” he continued. “We have amended our policy so that shift commanders have the authority to review circumstances surrounding incidents involving victims of violent crime and make a final decision that appropriately balancing compassion and duty.”
That’s not a complete response, of course, but at least they’re not closing ranks.
So on Thursday, over at Rox’s, I announced an upcoming series in which I read and respond to Dinesh D’Souza’s new book. Well, Rox’s is not around anymore, sadly, although rumor has it that there may be some sort of “compromise position” (see her last comment on that thread.)
But, for the time being, the series will be carried here unless otherwise noted. Maybe.
Yes? Yes? Where’s the first installment of the actual series, you idiot?
Well, I ran into a technical difficulty over the weekend. To wit:
Apparently all you have to do to gain the respect of the great* Wolcott is espouse atheism.
It has been some time since I’ve spoken to the snazzy, personable, yet vaguely scary Mac Donald, but now that I know that she’s a unashamed atheist like yours truly, it’s clear we have much to jaw about.
I wrote The American Conservative piece out of frustration with the preening piety of conservative pundits. I attended a New York cocktail party in 2003, for example, where a prominent columnist said to the group standing around him: “We all know that what makes Republicans superior to Democrats is their religious faith.” This sentiment has been repeated in print ad nauseam, along with its twin: “We all know that morality is not possible without religion.” I didn’t then have the courage to point out to the prominent columnist that quite a few conservatives and Republicans of the highest standing had no religious faith, without apparent injury to their principles or their behavior.
Even this liberal theist was semi-impressed, until I actually went and read the interview (which appears to my layman’s eye to be at a racial-genetics-fixated blog, so go at your own risk) Wolcott links to, where I found gems like this:
When multiculturalism hit the academy (several years after I had graduated), I was appalled that barely literate students were allowed to trash the most astounding creations of Western civilization before which we should all be on our knees. I came to New York in 1987, in the midst of a particularly craven period of capitulation to racial extortionists. Taking up journalism in the early 1990s exposed me to the total disconnect between liberal dogma about the underclass poor and the reality of their self-defeating behavior. I still have no idea how New York Times reporters can visit the same homeless shelters and welfare offices that I have and remain confident that the “clients” of those facilities are the victims of racism, rather than their own bad decisions…
Ah, arguing from anecdote and not-predetermined-at-all conclusions. The mark of a forward racial thinker.
For all the barbarity of popular entertainment and the historical ignorance of the American public, American civilization and the West generally are at the top of their games-contrary to war on terror hysteria that holds that we face an “existential threat” from Islamists. The rate of technological innovation is higher than at any point in human history and will undoubtedly only accelerate in the future. We are reaping a whirlwind of unfathomable benefits from scientific research.
Yeah, but America won’t be leading the way, and I’ll give you a hint - that isn’t the fault of the “barbaric” liberal culture.
Given that the liberal elites have ignored the 70% black out-of-wedlock birth rate for decades in discussing the causes of black poverty, I am confident that open borders conservatives will prove just as capable of ignoring the 48% Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate as they perpetuate the myth of redemptive Hispanic family values.
*blink*
Yeah, even if I were an atheist, I don’t think I’d have anything to jaw about with Heather Mac Donald.
I’m a pacifist, you know. I may have mentioned that. I also don’t go in for the “us vs. them” rhetoric so popular among the hawks, setting up the “war on terror” as a clash of civilizations, the civilized vs. the savages, any voices wavering from the party line to be called treasonous and anti-American.
If you’re like me, you thought his book - The Enemy at Home: I and My Entire Cohort Are a Bunch of Seditious Fuckwits - was released like two years ago, given how long D’Souza’s been taking hits over it. No, it’s out now, and to borrow a phrase from Teri Hatcher, it is spectacular. (more…)
It turns out that Chuckles, who not-incidentally was one of the very first commenters on this very blog, works in a video store in the Washington DC area. It also turns out that Tucker Carlson likes to rent videos in the Washington DC area. It further turns out that Tucker Carlson apparently has some sort of Technorati alert system set up to deliver all appearances of his name right to his, Tucker Carlson’s, master underground command center for his perusal and overreaction. (Hence my repeating of Tucker Carlson’s name, because I want him to read this.) How else to explain a national television personality’s concern over a joking post on a small blog*?
And concerned Mr. Carlson apparently was. To make a long story a bit shorter, he got Chuckles fired. Over a blog post.
But it doesn’t stop there. “No,” you say, “it must stop there. What more madness can there be?” Oh, there’s madness, my friend. TO SPARE.
Chuckles says:
Tucker Carlson’s lawyer or someone claiming to be in this position has hassled my friend and former coworker around 7:30 to 8:00 pm this evening. This person marched into the video store and demanded information about me and insisted that my friend divulge my full name, place of residence and any other further places of employment I might have. My friend is totally effing rad and rightly told this person that there was no way in hell he/she was giving away any information about me and then demanded that this hassler then produce their name and place of employment. The hassler claimed that this information was confidential. My friend then said, “Well, now you know how I feel.” I am rather in awe of the loyalty this friend displayed and I should find some appropriate way to pay him/her back for the aggravation suffered.
If this harassment does not cease by 5 pm Tuesday the 9th, I will be forced to take further legal action.
So, assuming that this person really represents Carlson, this has officially turned from a WATB freakout to a full-blown vendetta. But a vendetta carried out by a national media figure against a humble erstwhile video store employee is not really a vendetta, is it? It’s class warfare.
That’s right, I said it. Worse things are said about Tucker Carlson every day than the inside jokes that Chuckles made about him, many of them on television. But they aren’t said by a member of the service class. They aren’t said by a person who has no career leverage over his employer, who is essentially replaceable immediately (although not in our hearts, of course, Chuckles), who will be cut loose the minute someone with an expensive suit** starts throwing their weight around.
Tucker: Jon Stewart calls you a prick on national television and you mewl like a kitten. A blogger jokingly suggests sending you 10,000 copies of Jon Stewart’s book and you bring your full wrath to bear. This is what is known as “bullying.” And bullies are shit. I won’t complete the obvious syllogism, because you might come to my massage parlor and knock the mop out of my hand.
Throughout history, the autocrats have relied on the ignorance and docility of the peasants to maintain their power unquestioned. The thing that today’s neocons really hate about America is that, especially due to the internet, you can’t tell who the peasants are anymore.
From the looks of this story, I may have to send back my t-shirt:
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said he will not renew the licence for the country’s second largest TV channel which he said expired in March 2007…
Radio Caracas Television, which is aligned with the opposition, supported a strike against Mr Chavez in 2003.
But the TV’s head said there must be some mistake as its licence was not up for renewal in the near future.
Marcel Granier also vowed to fight against the president’s plans in Venezuela’s courts and on the international stage.
Well, shit. I mean, being a good liberal, I’m on the Hugo Chavez Marching Orders Yahoo! Group, but I never bargained for the suppression of free speech. Still, if that’s what it takes to help spread the international communist conspiracy, I suppose there’s nothing I can do about it.
Responding to constituent e-mails about newly elected Rep. Keith Ellison’s decision to use the Quran at his ceremonial swearing-in, a Virginia congressman warned that “many more Muslims” will be elected demanding to use the Quran unless immigration is tightened.
Republican Rep. Virgil Goode made the comments in a letter sent to hundreds of constituents about Minnesota’s Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress.
First of all, what business is it of Virginia’s whether Minnesota elects a Muslim congressman?
Second of all, ELLISON WAS BORN IN DETROIT.
I’m not sure whether to be depressed that bigots like Goode and Debbie Schlussel feel more free to let their white sheets show, or optimistic that this is finally letting the average, non-shrivelhearted American see what lurks beneath the surface of most anti-immigration conservatives.
In fact, the Washington Post was kind to Goode. The Roanoke Times quotes the letter more fully:
“I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped,” Goode wrote.
The brown hordes are coming for your children. Have you checked them yet? THE CALL IS COMING FROM INSIDE THE COUNTRY!!!!
