Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
It's like some weird Monty Python routine.
A Christian Domestic Discipline marriage is one that is set up according to Biblical standards; that is, the husband is the authority in the household. The wife is submissive to her husband as is fit in the Lord and her husband loves her as himself. He has the ultimate authority in his household, but it is tempered with the knowledge that he must answer to God for his actions and decisions. He has the authority to spank his wife for punishment, but in real CDD marriages this is taken very seriously and usually happens only rarely.
*sigh*
Jim Downey
(Via MeFi.)
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Spank you very much
The subtitle alone gives me the willies: "Loving Wife Spanking in a Christian Marriage."
I know several married couples where the wife is the more competent one. In fact, I'm thinking of one couple I knew in Arizona where the husband wasn't even an adult. His wife had a good-paying career, and he was basically a big kid, irresponsible as hell. By necessity, SHE made the decisions.
Another couple I know, the wife is much the brighter one of the two, and they both know it and are okay with it.
I think of all the years of history where half of humanity -- the female half -- had to sit in the back seat on family and social decisions. I think of those countries where it still happens. Call a few of those countries to mind, and you'll realize that they're really pretty much third-worldy. It's just stupid and backward to think that you can take half your good minds out of circulation and expect that you're going to do well as a culture, or a nation.
Heh. Come to think of it, maybe I should be cheering these good Christians folks on. If they're voluntarily handicapping themselves in our larger society by cutting back on half their creativity, half their energy, half their productivity and pride, maybe that's a GOOD thing.
I don't think this is gonna catch on. If some little goddy sect is okay with doing it, I guess I'm okay with letting them. As long as they don't start thinking they can keep "their" women (and little girls) stuck in it a day longer than the day the women decide to opt out.
CDD/BDSM
He has the authority to spank his wife for punishment, but in real CDD marriages this is taken very seriously and usually happens only rarely.
I can't tell if she would like, or not like, this. Guess it depends on what they mean by "punishment."
*snort* Sorry.
"Please don't beat Teddy." - Teddy, Night of the Seagulls
bringing a knife to a gunfight
Darn there are some crazy christians out there that make things easy for y'all.
I got nothin'!!!
Not just a game of "Catch the Silly Christian".
Yeah, there are a lot of really silly Christians out there, and it is relatively easy to poke fun at the more absurd manifestations of religion such as CDD.
But understand that this is not just a game. I post these things with an underlying motive: to give some sense of the genuine horror that many of us non-believers feel about the prospect that people who have so abandoned reason as to believe this sort of thing would happily institute laws forcing all of us to have to comply with their nutty beliefs, if given half a chance.
And it isn't just the nut cases. Because their beliefs are really just a matter of degree different from your own, Bisch. Once you suspend disbelief, once you abandon critical thinking skills to the degree necessary to believe in God, you are susceptable to any manner of manipulation and religious extremism. Because the Bible (or the Koran) contains a wide enough range of conflicting religious instruction so as to allow the local Shaman, or the local Bishop, or the Pope, to "interpret" the will of God and tell people really silly things as part of accepted dogma.
I realize that this is one of the harsher assessments I have given of religion, and I hope you do not take it as a personal attack. Rather, I just want to explain my motives and perception that while you may look at the CDD types and shake your head, from our non-believer perspective it is really little fundamentally different from more 'mainstream' Christian belief. Consider the prospect that a group such as CDD (or the Taliban, et cetera) were to become a large enough 'movement', and gained political power, and then used that political power to force *you* to adopt their beliefs (or at least comply with their precepts). Then understand that this is precisely the way we feel about mainstream Christian sects wanting to impose their political values on us.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
example from the USA?
Has there been an example of this in the USA? I don't know of any example that a christian group has done this. Let's just stick with christians, since that's who I can speak for.
And what exactly do you mean by christian sects wanting to impose their political values? Gay marriage? Abortion?
Perfectly innocent questions
Who, us Christians? Us?? Bisch NEVER had the LEAST knowledge, anywhere, ever, of such things.
The level of intellectual dishonesty in this guy is about par for the evangelical Christian course. I'm going to keep pointing it out.
And we're back to:
1) Ask a reasonable-sounding question.
2) Gently but instantly reject the answer.
Etc.
discussion
Hank, we are having a discussion. I didn't reject the answer. I asked for examples.
I really am a decent guy, really I am. Could we start over? I'd like to have you contribute to the discussion, and I feel it can't happen in the current situation.
I would expect no less.
I see...
Who, us Christians? Us?? Bisch NEVER had the LEAST knowledge, anywhere, ever, of such things.
I think I'm seeing what you mean about this guy. t's actually more annoying than your garden variety scripture-spouting troll.
"Please don't beat Teddy." - Teddy, Night of the Seagulls
Who's "t"?
Am I "t"?
A bust about a typo?
Seriously?
"Please don't beat Teddy." - Teddy, Night of the Seagulls
t
I guess I am "t."
I wasn't sure about the t, or what it meant, if it meant something significant...sorry for the inquiry.
Impositions of Religion
Bisch-
Christians like you are already and have been imposing their beliefs on this country and have no intention of stopping anytime soon. Here are your examples-
1)In a previous thread, we spoke at length about Stem Cell Research. President Bush has decided without asking me that Stem Cell Research is immoral and he doesn't give a shit about how many Americans would be helped. Pro-life my ass!
2)The Supreme Court recently decided that Partial Birth abortion is not okay even if the mothers life is in danger. Pro-life my ass!
3)President Bush would veto a federal gay marriage/civil union bill and many states have made this illegal even though our Constitution guarantees the right of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
4)'In god we trust' and 'one nation under god' have been added to our money and our pledge of allegiance.
These are just a few examples off the top of my head. If I had time I am sure I could think of many more ways in which Christians have trampled my constitutional rights regarding the separation of church and state.
Since you claim to be able to speak for Christians, how do you justify your above statements?
2 ways
I guess I would answer in 2 different ways...
First, each point.
The reason he feels it's immoral is that it destroys human life. I hope you can see the difference between denying someone relief just for the hell of it, and not sacrificing one life to benefit another. I know we disagree on "life" versus "potential life" but that's how "we" see it. (By the way, this is probably the only thing on which I agree with the President.)
Again, not being willing to sacrifice the baby's life to benefit the mother's life is hardly being anti-life. How many times would the mother live after being told she was at risk? Saying the mother's life is more valuable than the baby's life is something, again, that we probably disagree on, but I am not willing to make that distinction.
I am actually okay with civil unions, but I don't get why homosexuals insist on calling their relationship a "marriage," when we already have a working definition of "marriage" that has served us well for quite a while now. Wait, I do get why they do it, but I don't agree with it. But I am okay with calling their relationship a civil union. In reality, from a pure political philosophical point, I don't like the government having any opinion about heterosexual or homosexual relationships, but that's a discussion for another time.
But clearly, nobody's proposing making homosexuality illegal. Nobody's liberty and the ability to pursue happiness is being infringed. If it was proposed that homosexuality be declared illegal, then I'd agree with you.
Our country was founded by theists. There's really not any way you can get around that.
BUT (and that's a big but), the caveat of all this is, I think, a lack of clarity on the issue. I think there's a huge difference between "imposing my beliefs" on someone to mean making them go to church with me and follow Jesus and punish them if they don't, kind of like militant Islam does if they can get Sharia law imposed in a country, and "imposing my beliefs" on someone to mean that elected leaders vote according to what they think their constituents want them to, or what they want to regardless, and so they pass laws that are pro- the christian perspective and the laws in the country end up having a christian flavor to them.
Atheists "impose your beliefs" on all public-school children by teaching evolution and not allowing to teach alternatives. Right now, that's what is the ruling. We can try to affect the process, but today, that's how it is. Do you see any difference between the teaching of evolution only "imposing the beliefs" of atheists, and the disallowing of homosexual marriage "imposing the beliefs" of christians?
But to be clear, I think we have a lack of clarity on what "imposing my beliefs" means.
Very Frustrating
Bisch-
I am trying not to lose patience, but these conversations are getting tedious. It is very frustrating talking with you because you either are incapable of or unwilling to discuss a subject using logic and reason. If we are going to be able to continue conversing, I must ask you to learn to be objective. If you cannot be objective, we might as well not even bother speaking to one another. I am trying to meet you half-way, and I feel I have shown extraordinary patience to this point.
On the other hand, maybe I am learning something about the Christian mindset. Is it possible that you substitute reason with faith? Are they the same thing to you? Can you put away your Christianity for a moment and only respond or ask questions using logic? Try being like a Vulcan or something. I guess what I am asking for, is for you to put yourself in an atheists' shoes when we discuss a subject.
Okay, with that out of the way let's try to work our way thru the previous few posts....
I was questioning your comment-
"Has there been an example of this in the USA? I don't know of any example that a christian group has done this. Let's just stick with christians, since that's who I can speak for.
And what exactly do you mean by christian sects wanting to impose their political values? Gay marriage? Abortion?"
I provided four examples in which Christians have imposed their moral values upon our society. Instead of agreeing or disagreeing you gave me rationalizations. This is why I am getting frustrated.
Subject 1- Is your opposition to stem cell research based on your Christian morals/politics and can you see why I would be opposed to those morals being imposed on our society? You even claim to agree with the prez. I am not asking for your opinion on stem cell research, I am asking if you can see how that is an imposition of ideology on non-believers like myself?
Subject 2- Partial birth abortion laws were passed by a republican congress and recently upheld by the republican appointed Supreme Court. R's openly profess their faith and claim their pro-life position is god's will. Again, can you see how that is an imposition of ideology?
Subject 3- Gay marriage/Civil Unions. As long as the government denies the rights of homosexuals to enjoy the same rights you or I have, this is discrimination and it is based on religious ideology. If you disagree, please tell me what ideology this position is based on. I am not claiming that the gov't is making homosexuality illegal. I am talking about the 1500 or so legal rights associated with marriage. I am asking how you can claim this is not another imposition?
By the way, I would be fine with the gov't getting out of the marriage business altogether and simply consider everyone as having civil unions. Marriage vs civil union...whatever, as long as it is equal for everyone. Until then, I don't see how a logical reasonable person would deny this is discrimination based on religion.
Subject 4- "In God We Trust" and "one nation under god". These are such obvious religious impositions, I can't even believe you would argue about them. Are you completely unaware of the Establishment Clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") in our Constitution? Some of our founding fathers were theists, some were deists, and many were atheists. I could provide dozens, maybe hundreds of quotes by Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Franklin that could only be interpreted as written by atheists. You should google the words Jefferson and atheism some time if you want to see for yourself.
The reason for the Establishment Clause was that the founding fathers did not want a repeat of what they considered the failings of England. Here is a link to Wikipedia. It's a whole page explaining the history of our fathers intentions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment
-----
It is late and I am too tired to argue much about your thoughts on how evolution is an atheist imposition. I will simply say this- atheism is the lack of god belief. Thats it. Nothing more, nothing less. Evolution is the basis for modern biology and medicine, not atheism. Please get out a dictionary. It is very important that you understand the meaning of the words you are using. Evolution is science. The reason creationism or intelligent design are not considered science is because they deal in the supernatural which cannot be considered science by any rational person.
I apologize if any of this sounded condescending. I am trying to have a discussion with you on the most polite terms possible. However, if you fail to understand the difference between faith and reason, there really isn't a point to further discussions.
Dirk
it seems to me it's simple
Hi Dirk,
I really thought it was a foregone conclusion that we disagreed on those subjects. I was explaining why I believe the way I do. And as an avowed anti-sociopath, I can take your perspective, and I do understand your opinion on those issues. The stem-cell research and abortion one especially. The homosexual marriage one not as much. And definitely, absolutely the "In God We Trust" one. So, although we disagree, with your lack of belief in God, it's perfectly understandable.
But I did say earlier
And I guess my perspective was inferred, but to be clear...if you agree with option 1, that "imposing my beliefs" means using force to make people come to church with me and to follow the precepts in the Bible, then I don't think I am imposing my beliefs on others. And option 1 is what I think of when someone says I'm "imposing my beliefs" i.e., by force. If you agree with option 2, that "imposing my beliefs" means that we christians try to influence public life and have laws passed that have a christian flavor, then we are guilty of that, but I disagree that this manner of action is "imposing my beliefs."
And the other side is true, too, namely, I don't consider when atheists try to pass laws that reflect their worldview that they are "imposing their beliefs." That would be option 2 above for atheists, it seems.
Focus on your own family
Bisch-
Thank you very much for the clarifications. Of course I don't agree, but explaining your point of view in detail definitely helps me to understand where you are coming from.
Just to make sure I have this straight, only 'imposing your beliefs by force' qualifies as 'imposing your beliefs'. 'Imposing your beliefs thru legislation' is not, in your view 'imposing your beliefs'. That is a very strange point of view, but at least I get it now. No wonder our country is so divided today.
I will agree with you that 'imposing beliefs by force' is a much more extreme imposition. I will however, caution you that 'imposing your beliefs thru legislation' may have the opposite effect you desire in the long run. Over the past six years, I have noticed a sharp rise in self identified atheists and agnostics. I believe this rise in atheism/agnosticism can be directly attributed to the rise in political power of the radical christian right wing. Speaking for myself, I can tell you that before 2000, I was somewhat politically apothetic. Since 2000, I have become diametrically opposed to the Christian dominated GOP. No matter how bad the Democrats might suck, I cannot see myself voting for a Republican in the near future. Now and for the rest of my life, I will work very hard to make sure we never have another president like George W. Bush. Still, I do not consider myself a militant atheist bent on the complete and total destruction of religion, but I can see that as a possible legacy of Bush Jr and the neocons.
Do you think it's possible to stay out of each others shit? Can Christians focus on their own damn family instead of mine? If my sister or daughter wants to have an abortion, can you just leave us alone? If my wife or daughter is brain dead, can you just let my family make our own decisions about how long life support should last? If my brother or son wants to marry a dude, can you give them the right to pursue their own form of happiness? Can you let scientists find cures for diseases and injuries even if it means the destruction of discarded cells? Can we get god off my money and out of my pledge? If you don't want to see the United States ripped apart from within, I would suggest Christians adopt a more libertarian 'live and let live' attitude.
I think there are many things we agree on, we just have to stop fighting among ourselves. Personally, I would rather see Americans come together and solve the bigger issues of the day like terrorism, global climate change, depedancy on foreign oil, non-carbon based energy, world peace, poverty, etc....
clarity is good
So do you think that it's unreasonable for you to push for legislation to continue to only teach evolution in public school class? Do you see that as imposing your beliefs on us christians?
I am similarly opinioned. I was very pro-republican in 2000, since then I have become diametrically opposed to the GOP. I don't see any appreciable difference in the Rs and the Ds nowadays, and am a Libertarian (by party), and a libertarian (by philosophy).
As will I. I think you're right to say he's damaged the cause of christianity in a big way.
Since I believe your sister or daughter would be murdering her baby, (I know you don't agree, but do you see my perspective?) I could no more leave you alone (in a figurative sense, of course) than if she said she was going to murder her 6-month old. Or better said, if murdering 6-month-olds was deemed legal by the Supreme Court, I would work to get that law changed.
I'm totally fine with that. I would want my wife to make decisions on when I would have life-support removed. The stickiness of the Schaivo deal was that her parents wanted to care for her, and her husband wouldn't let them. It was a complicated deal to be sure. Both my parents have passed away, but if I had that happen and my sister wanted to care for me, and my wife had already been living with another dude for years, I would hope she'd just let my sister care for me and wash her hands of it...
I'm different than most christians in that I think the government shouldn't acknowledge anyone's relationship, hetero- or homo-sexual. So I think that some church that is willing to say they are married, or a justice-of-the-peace that would do it, they should be able to go for it.
This is an interesting one. I admit I don't have your perspective, so I have a hard time commiserating with you on it. The example I have heard is with respect to Jews during Christmas and their insistence that no manger scenes be set up in public places. A Jew named Dennis Prager who has a radio show talked about that once, that he felt he didn't have the right to look anywhere he wanted and not see any evidence of Christmas, that if he didn't want to see Christmas stuff, he shouldn't look where there was Christmas stuff.
To this end, (and again I admit I can't appreciate your perspective like I can in other areas) I don't see why you can't ignore the line "under God" in the Pledge, and just not say it. Or leave the room when it's said. I don't see why "In God We Trust" on money is difficult, and why you can't just ignore its presence. But I do respect your right and ability to try to move to get it removed if you so desire.
The link about the Establishment Clause on wikipedia.org had a line that is the understatement of the century...
It was referring to the interpretation about the Clause applying to state and local governments.
I'm with you on terrorism, dependency on foreign oil, and non-carbon based energy.
Moral Majority
Bisch, from the founding of the Moral Majority on, the stated goal of many large Christian organizations is to impose "Christian Values" on this nation, including the deliberate erasure of any concept of the separation of church & state. Newt Gingrich's comments on Saturday at Liberty University have to be understood to mean just that. Further manifestations can be seen in the huge role that the Christian Right has played within the power structure of the GOP, up to and including warping hiring practices in the Attorney General's office, decisions about how the conduct of the Iraq War was carried out, and from a wide variety of policies across the spectrum. I remember James Watt, Reagan's Sec of the Interior, saying that since the bible gave man dominion over the Earth, there was no need for us to be worried about preserving wilderness areas...and after all, the Second Coming would be upon us before the real environmental impact was felt.
*sigh* Perhaps I am just grumpy about this after having to listen to all the platitudes about Jerry Falwell last week, talking about what a good man he was, et cetera, and how he was a leader who impelled Christians to become involved in politics, saying that it was a sin not to do so.
So, perhaps we're not a theocracy yet, but that is the rhetoric being used. I am not willing to just sit around and wait to see if they really mean it or not.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Read the MeFi comments...
...there's some hilarious stuff in there.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.