“In order to escape accountability for his crimes, the perpetrator does everything in his power to promote forgetting. If secrecy fails, the perpetrator attacks the credibility of his victim. If he cannot silence her absolutely, he tries to make sure no one listens.” ― Judith Lewis Herman, Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence – From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror link
Note: I do not want to get into a discussion as to who is the better/worse candidate. I trust all of you to think carefully and make the best decision you can in this trying political year and you certainly do not need anyone's advice on how to do so. However, we will allow discussion which is centered on sexual abuse, assault, etc. so long as you stick to the truth as best as you know it.
Last night, at 10:30, having no Internet or TV, I was sound asleep. Suddenly, the TV in my bedroom turned on, with the volume on maximum. I nearly landed on the floor. My son yelled "I guess you've figured it out, but the internet and TV are working now!!"
Today, I was referred to a post by Joe Carter at The Gospel Coalition and you could have picked me off the floor with this one. It seems that Joe Carter is suddenly concerned about sexual assault.
Why is that strange? Joe Carter is an ardent defender of CJ Mahaney and does not believe the victims of the SGM sex abuse scandal. He is so rabid about his position that he attacked me on Twitter a couple of years ago. The discussion on his part was so ridiculous that I had to put an end to the discussion. The Christian Post picked up the Twitter exchange as well as providing a history of the undiminished support that TGC and T4G have given Mahaney.
Joe Carter and his accusations directed at me.
The Christian Post wrote The Gospel Coalition, Christian Bloggers Spar Over Sovereign Grace Ministry, CJ. Mahaney on Twitter. When the Twitter exchange began, I was excited. I though that if I was super nice and offered Joe Carter a chance to meet with the victims, he would respond in a like manner. However, that was not to be. After this exchange, I was blocked from following Carter's twitter feed even though he was the one who made the accusations which included:
1. I was pathologically dishonest because I believed that CJ Mahaney had participated in the cover up of child se abuse.
2. I was defaming Mahaney by publishing posts that said I (and others) believed the victims' claims were true.
3. I was guilty of slander because I believed in the victims' claims.
4. I could be sued because I believed the victims.
He would not respond to me when I asked him if he would like to meet with some SGM victims. I then attempted to defend myself, to no avail.
Parsons defended herself, claiming that "everyone has a right to express their point of view. Also, I tend to believe the victims."
"Slander/defamation is well defined as deliberately telling a lie in order to hurt another. I have never knowingly told a lie at TWW & have never said anything to deliberately hurt another. When I have been confronted with an obvious mistake, I have apologized and corrected it," continued Parsons on Twitter.
I assume that Joe Carter continues to be a major defender of CJ Mahaneysince he has never said otherwise. However, Mahaneys church is no longer listed in the TGC directory. I would love to know if CJ Mahaney ever gave him any money for his ministry at TGC or church since I know that CJ Mahaney was quite generous with his friends, including Al Mohler/SBTS, Mark Dever/CHBC, Wayne Grudem, and even Thabiti Anyabwile's church.
Joe Carter is very, very concerned about Donald Trump and sexual assault.
I have come to the conclusion that The Gospel™ Coalition is quite concerned about sexual assault, etc. so long as it does not involve one of their friends. They never appear to speak out issues within their Calvinista churches but Jerry Sandusky and Donald Trump are worthy of scorn. To me, this is hypocrisy at its worst. As our readers' know, we are against sex abuse within and without Christendom.
Recently, he wrote Why Are So Many Evangelicals Condoning Sexual Assault?.
1. He believes that Christians must hold a sexual assailant accountable, even if he has not been tried in a court of law.
Understand what I am saying here. It is this exact argument that Joe Carter used to defend his good buddy, CJ Mahaney. He was not found guilty (or not guilty to ) in a court of law. But now, since it isn't his buddy, all bets are off. Not only that, by Joe Carter loves John Piper who has said that women should endure abuse for a season. But Carter wrote no treatise on the appalling numbers of Christians, himself included, who are fanboys of a man who would suggest such a thing.
These evangelicals are sending the message that to avoid a negative outcome, we must sometimes refuse to hold an assailant accountable. Using this same reasoning, a husband would be justified in telling his wife she must endure her boss’s groping since “she needs the job,” and a teenage girl may reasonably assume she has a moral obligation to allow her mom’s boyfriend to molest her since they can’t pay the rent without him. The evangelical enablers may reject the idea that this is what they are condoning, but it’s the signal they are sending to America by their actions. After all, if avoiding a negative outcome is reason enough at the national level to justify vindicating sexual assault and harrassment, how much more would it be applicable at the level of the individual?
2. He appears to draw an unreasonable parallel between Peter Singer and those who would support a candidate. Then claims he is suggesting no such thing. So why mention Singer, of all people?
While you may have never heard of Peter Singer, you live in an era influenced by his work. Singer is a bioethicist from Princeton University who has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the animal liberation movement, and he advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until age 2), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual). Until recently Singer was one of the most prominent advocates of preference utilitarianism, an approach to ethics that entails promoting and justifying actions as legitimate and ethical if they fulfill the preferences of the people involved.
I happen to know people who might support one of the candidates to whom I think he is referring. Seriously? I wonder how Joe would have responded if I told him that supporting a ministry with so many complaints of child sex abuse is like supporting child soldiers in Rwanda?
3. Carter says that women could not trust a pastor to sympathize with her story of abuse if said pastor supports the *wrong* candidate.
Once again, the blatant hypocrisy abounds in this statement. Joe Carter, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, Thabiti Anyabwile, Justin Taylor, and on and on have not only supported Mahaney and his ministry which has been credibly accused of the cover up of child sex abuse but have featured him at their conferences, joked about the Google presence of Mahaney, and have refused to meet with the SGM victims.
The implications of such reasoning are horrifying. How can any young college student trust she will be safe on campus when the staff, administrators, or even the university president shrugs away admissions of sexual assault by saying “We’re all sinners”? How can any woman trust a pastor will sympathize with her story of abuse when he is willing to allow powerful men to get away with similar acts? And how can anyone consider them knowledgeable about faithful Christian living when they have a lower standard of behavior and accountability than many modern pagans do?
How anyone can read this post and not think about Joe Carter's unfailing support of CJ Mahaney is beyond me although I suspect that Carter did not allow any comments on Mahaney. Why don't a couple of you try to mention Mahaney in his comment section to see if he will let it stand?
Where do I stand?
1. What Donald Trump has said is despicable and it makes me sick to my stomach.
2. What Bill Clinton has done with women is unconscionable.
One of them will be running around the White House in the next 4 years. Dee commences to banging her head on the table.
These guys are hypocrites. If their buddy is involved in anything, they’re cool. They’re only jumping on the bandwagon here.
I hate all the candidates. I’m this close to voting ‘cocktail party’ or ‘bourbon’.
@ Lea:
Also first. Apologies if cocktail party is too political.
Lea wrote:
Yep, toeing the party-line by parroting what the New Calvinist big dogs are saying.
It’s darn near impossible to find a national son (or daughter) to run for the highest office in the land who doesn’t have some sort of shame in their background. Heck, it’s even getting tougher to find a squeaky-clean pastor! America is a mess because the church is a mess.
@ Lea:
I think a party is in order to raise all of our spirits.
This is jaw dropping to the floor for me!!
“The implications of such reasoning are horrifying. How can any young college student trust she will be safe on campus when the staff, administrators, or even the university president shrugs away admissions of sexual assault by saying “We’re all sinners”? How can any woman trust a pastor will sympathize with her story of abuse when he is willing to allow powerful men to get away with similar acts? And how can anyone consider them knowledgeable about faithful Christian living when they have a lower standard of behavior and accountability than many modern pagans do?”
Is Joe Carter insane . . . WHAT DID JOE CARTER THINK POOR LITTLE GIRLS AND BOYS WOULD DO IN MAHANEY’S CHURCH WHEN SEX ABUSE WAS COVERED UP BY THE PASTORS!!!
What a flaming hypocrite.
The self-righteous indignation RE:Trump from these individuals I consider pathetic. Where were they back eight or nine months ago when it might have made a difference in selecting someone without such colossal character flaws?! It is not like these flaws were just recently revealed. To me, the lateness of their coming to this realization puts into question their discernment “skills.” And no, I do not endorse the other major party candidate when I say all of that. Character is in short supply in both major party candidates, IMO.
Bridget wrote:
There are 199 comments over there and not one about Mahaney. I bet you he is deleting them.
Glad this is being called out. It is such blatant hypocrisy. TGC owes a lot of apology to a lot of Christians, and gasp, bloggers, and after this divisive election is over, I believe the only way to healing and reconciliation will be radical humility and honesty. I’m glad these issues are being raised, however painful, but what an indictment of the evangelical church as a movement that they can’t even stand with victims against sexual abuse if it’s their celebrity implicated in some way.
Hypocrites and opportunists! Absolutely disgusting.
Thank you for pointing out this double standard. I would say it’s shocking, (it is) but tragically, it’s not surprising. It’s fairly typical.
I want to point out the enabling of the perpetrator, the public dismissal of and the public belittling of victims, that characterizes one of the presidential candidates. Mahoney did not apparently engage in actual molestation, but he allegedly covered up the attacks, denied they occurred, and thereby enabled the perps to continue their behavior. One of the presidential candidates has allegedly done the same thing. She has a long standing pattern of enabling and covering for an abuser. Other political considerations aside, this pattern is troubling at best.
@ Lea:
I think you should join the Party Party!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bERtaqXtBpI
I do think Trump’s words were uniquely unacceptable. Women wouldn’t let him do that because he’s that studly, they would let him do it out of fear and intimidation. As was the case with Dustin Boles’ victims. It is delusional for him to not recognize that. I don’t think it matters if it was a joke or not.
With that said, TGC’s #NeverTrump campaign has been going on for some time before this. I don’t think Trump ever presented social values as personal driving force in his campaign, and instead only an allegiance to social conservatives. Four years ago, the Republicans nominated a Mormon to advocate for the socially conservative lifestyle, and almost nominated a serial philanderer in Newt Gingrich. However Trump threatens Christians in American society, I think those two were a lot more of a problem. But back then of course, TGC was apolitical. If I was to vote for Trump, it was because I recognized that whatever he wants to do, and that really is whatever, he would have to do so with mainstream Republicans, and that is acceptable. My conception of morality in a political candidate’s personal life is as relevant as it is for maybe a co-worker – if you can get the job done and aren’t a deviant. There are conservatives who perceive their vote in this way, and not an endorsement on every event of that candidate’s life.
I caught this odd article from Joe Carter over the summer:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/do-churches-contribute-to-solving-social-problems
“Unfortunately, when it comes to religious liberty the church has relied too heavily on society recognizing the benefits we provide. For instance, churches and other religious institutions in American are almost always exempt from federal, state, and local taxes. The justification for this policy is usually that such institutions provide vital charitable benefits to society. But what happens when this argument is no longer perceived to be true?
Losing popularity is no great loss. Losing tax-exempt status, however, is a considerable loss, since it poses a direct threat to the religious liberty of churches and Christian institutions.”
So, when I put my conspiracy theory tin foil hat on, I think Joe Carter and Russell Moore and other power brokers are scared of churches’ tax exemption being selectively attacked through the Obergefell gay marriage decision in a Clinton administration, and thought Trump would lose anyway. Of course, for all us little people in the pews, feel free to continue to be “radical” in your tithing and suffer well. And thus, they started going full steam ahead with positive coverage of Black Lives Matter and anti-Trump as an offering.
And then the third-tierers all try to outdo each other in showing just HOW MUCH they support the approved ideas and a snowball forms. Check out Thabiti Anyabwile’s Twitter for an example.
From the main body of the article:
2. What Bill Clinton has done with women is unconscionable.
As if Lewinsky and Cuban cigars wasn’t bad enough, wanna know what was even more unconscionable?
(editor deleted a reference to a political situation.)
dee wrote:
Appears to me they’re not approving them.
“The implications of such reasoning are horrifying. How can any young college student trust she will be safe on campus when the staff, administrators, or even the university president shrugs away admissions of sexual assault by saying “We’re all sinners”? How can any woman trust a pastor will sympathize with her story of abuse when he is willing to allow powerful men to get away with similar acts? And how can anyone consider them knowledgeable about faithful Christian living when they have a lower standard of behavior and accountability than many modern pagans do?”
Oh, please! University students. Really? At least they can carry and use pepper spray, travel in pairs, etc. Carter is talking about grown women here. Yeah, the YRRS fret over protecting and speaking out on behalf of adult women in the secular arenas, but when a child is abused in church …….. sshhhhhhhhhh!
Even when an adult woman is abused in church ……… sssshhhhhhhhhhh!
Carter and his ilk have no right to voice their opinions about secular scandals until they clean up their own backyards!
Here’s the latest post I got up….
Can a person heal from sexual abuse in a 12 week program? What about in a church where the leadership is enamored with John MacArthur and C.J. Mahaney? This is the story of Oakhurst Evangelical Free Church in Oakhurst, California. This also looks at some statistics and indicators of child sexual abuse as well. Plus I ask the question…is there an epidemic of child sex abuse in the Evangelical Free Church of America?
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/10/12/oakhurst-evangelical-free-church-can-one-heal-from-sexual-abuse-after-a-12-week-program/
I may be off about this but because they are bent out of shape about Trump is not the alleged assault and the things he has said, it is because he was on Howard Stern and he said naughty words. I can’t understand why these “True Believers”© don’t see the parallels between their toleration and protection of people like CJ add the total denial of what happened to the people in the faith community under his watch. It breaks my heart the way women and children and alot of men are treated by the church.
I used to be an avid follower of the political scene but abandoned it four years ago, just in time I might add. My take away from that former interest is politics is full of hypocrisy, all sides, duh. Scratch the surface and most national politicians and their supporters appeared to have few principles other than acquisition and maintenance of power. While I left behind the interest in politics, I now unfortunately recognized the same level of sanctimonious insincerity is mirrored by so many religious leaders. They appear to have the same singular drive to obtain and maintain their power.
Nancy2 wrote:
Spot on.
Nancy2 wrote:
Can you clarify your comments re: University students? Are you saying there is not a sexual abuse problem on campuses or…..on which campuses can students carry pepper spray?….and is the fact of having to carry pepper spray not a problem?
Lea wrote:
Speaking of Kentucky (bourbon), could we have some of those Kentucky Derby foods at the party? I want one of those Hot Brown sandwiches. I’ve never had one.
http://www.epicurious.com/archive/holidays/kentucky/hot-brown-sandwich-brown-hotel
I also like hats. I look good in hats. And this would be my excuse to buy a hat.
Molly245 wrote:
I’m just pointing out that TGC is ignoring abuse that happens in churches.
Yes, abuse does happen on college campuses, as well as in other places. While I was teaching and taking masters level night classes, 2 rapes happened on the campus where I attended in a period of 3 weeks, and the university did not make the information available to the public ~ just like some of the churches . They tried to keep it “in house”.
It’s just that when TGC jumps on the political band wagon getting their names and brand out there, decrying sexual abuse/assault in the secular world while ignoring/covering it up in their own churches and promoting pastors that try to cover things up, , it just royally ticks me off.
Velour wrote:
Derby pie! Yum!
Nancy2 wrote:
Is that the chocolate-nut-bourbon pie?
http://americanfood.about.com/od/desserts/r/chocwalnutpie.htm
Joe Carter, how can you sleep at night? Do you now see what a hypocrite you are?
You portray yourself as having compassion for victims of sexual assault. is it real and genuine, or is it just the right thing to say as part of the narrative for your blog post and your reputation?
If it’s the former, you could contact the victims from Covenant Life Church, hear from them, talk with them, acknowledge that they exist.
Would you?
@ Nancy2:
Nancy2,
There are even Hot Brown casserole recipes!
http://eatathomecooks.com/kentucky-hot-brown-bake/
Where do I stand?
1. What Donald Trump has said is despicable and it makes me sick to my stomach.
2. What Bill Clinton has done with women is unconscionable.
One of them will be running around the White House in the next 4 years. Dee commences to banging her head on the table.
Amen to this!! The behavior that some politicians, an SOME preachers “Apostles” can get away with, and us pewpeons can not get away with is really mind blowing…
Joe wrote:
Ha. That’s cute.
This election has been probably the best example of why it’s really bad for these so called religious leaders to be too entwined with politics to the point of trying to pick people’s candidates.
Yep. Annus horribilis like she said. One good thing, though. It is way past time that the nation came to get a good look at deceit and corruption and abuse in high places before this nation goes down in flames since perhaps a people cannot, in fact, govern themselves without eventual destruction. Think: John Adam’s ideas on this. I don’t know whether or not it is possible for a democracy to survive, but I never yet have seen a position of oblivion to the dangers be a good survival mode for anything.
Nancy2 wrote:
I think the focus on college students is somewhat unfortunate because the studies I’ve seen say women who aren’t students are somewhat more likely to be raped and it takes all focus off them, but there are issues with campuses trying to handle things in house when they should be handing them over to the police instead. Somewhat like church issues in this regard except my understanding is that there is legal encouragement for campuses to do this that doesn’t exist in church (which I think is a mistake).
Incest involving a child within a family is not JUST sexual abuse. It breaks a major international social taboo. We are seeing ‘incest’ present in some highly publicized patriarchal type families, so somehow what is going on in the dynamics of those families is so destructive it has the power to break down this major social taboo and then activate the ‘secrecy’ thing that neo-Cals do so well in hiding mis-deeds and intentions.
What is that dynamic that is so very destructive that it can take down such a powerful taboo?
Is ‘patriarchy’ at its heart also a ticket to break not only the spirits of those being ruled over, but also a ticket to attack their very human personhood to the core?
How does this dynamic cross over in similarity to what was seen within the Catholic Church with clergy abuse and secrecy? How does this dynamic parallel the neo-Cal means of hiding predators and intimidating and punishing victims?
Can the large patriarchal family be examined as a microcosm of what goes wrong in a larger patriarchal faith community? There may surely be some helpful answers to be found in probing this possibility.
I am so sorry but I could not approve one comment and I edited another.
I know how strongly you all feel about issues, so do I. But long ago, we decided not to delve into politics. We get in enough arguments discussing the church and sexual abuse.
I hate not approving comments because I love free and open discussion and you all are thoughtful people. But I need to draw this line in the sand and I hope you understand.
@ Tree:
This is a good comment. You stuck to the knitting.
@ Stan:
This is an excellent comment.
Thank you
Daughter of Stan!
@ siteseer:
Agreed. If any one tries to leave one, let me know the outcome.
Nancy2 wrote:
Yep!
It seems the evangilebrities (I just made up a word) have gotten the memo that this is their narrative. Beth Moore spoke out against Trump as well, yet she was speaking at Prestonwood Baptist Church just a few weeks ago and gushing over Jack Graham on Twitter who, as TWW readers know, has covered up child sex abuse there. The Trump campaign isn’t on her speaking c$rcuit, but Prestonworld is. Follow the money.
This doesn’t have much to do with TWW or abuse, but in the comments I tried to engage Carter in a thoughtful discussion regarding abortion as a make or break issue, and when I challenged him that what a person believes about abortion doesn’t necessarily signal what a person would do for children in third world countries, he just deleted my comment.
This wasn’t even a situation where was calling him out about abuse or anything. I was just engaging in reasoned discussion.
brian wrote:
The most interesting part of this is that people like Beth Moore (who has an uneasy alliance but is also sometimes hated by these guys) are actively calling out men in church.
I don’t think they should ever have gotten this involved with politics, and that is their error. But if it leads to a change or even a discussion of the treatment of women in church? That could be a good thing.
Whoops. I was wrong. He didn’t delete my comment. My bad.
Would you please delete my comment here? (feeling silly).
Christiane wrote:
To disentangle the issues: there is adult consensual incest; there is incestuous sex with children, and there is non-incestuous sex with children.
I think discussion would be good, especially since incest if one of the issues being discussed in relation to our current laws. Some people want to make it legal, just like some people want to make sex with children legal.
I am not inclined to blame either incest or sex with children on patriarchy because there is so much of it in the population as a whole. The following link is balanced, I think. Note especially what the author mentions was Freud’s take on the issue of taboos.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201012/is-incest-wrong
okrapod wrote:
thanks for the link, OKRAPOD, and I appreciate your comment above.
I am wondering though, if there are any shared root factors involved in incest within families where the father’s wishes are the ONLY IMPORTANT ones to be catered to. Surely there is also some relation to what is going on in the larger population? Patriarchy as a subset of the larger population is not ‘exclusively’ free of contamination of the factors that cause incest or promote incest.
What sort of people are advocating for ‘legalizing’ incest?????
Seems to me they are outside of the ‘secrecy’ thing that patriarchy harbors.
Much food for thought in your comment. Thanks again for link.
brian wrote:
So it was cussing instead of SEXUAL?
And SEXUAL when the MenaGAWD who Anointed the Trump first noticed?
Until then, Trump was GAWD’s latest Anointed POTUS. (Like all the GAWD’s Anointed POTUSses of the Week in the 2012 “Not the Mormon!” primaries.)
It is really curious how the lines are drawn by theological “leaders.” Both sides are ignoring the behavior of powerful people who basically do what they want without accountability to anyone. Powerful rich people can do or say whatever they want, whether they are powerful and rich female candidates who trashed the victims of sexual assault because that was politically (and financially) expedient or whether the powerful rich male candidate availed himself of every sexual opportunity and spoke of women as objects.
I do not see a dime’s worth of difference between the behaviors of our presidential candidates on this issue. But the defenders of both of them will staunchly ignore or dismiss or diminish the behaviors and attitudes of *their* candidate while pretending that the *other* candidate is just doing what a devoted wife or alpha male does. It is truly sickening and depressing because I do not see the way back from this for our republic.
Joe Carter has a convenient memory. It was he who said that people who talked about the problems in the church “hate Christ’s bride.” That says it all for Joe’s ability to think through difficult issues.
Muff Potter wrote:
I’m bettin’ if it was one the editor agreed with it wouldn’t have gotten nixed.
Gram3 wrote:
I would like to know more about your perspective on this, but I know it’s hard not to go to a place where TWW doesn’t want to go.
For me, this isn’t about politics at all. It’s about revering and giving people power who are abusers. Trump is clearly one. I’m not sure about Hillary. Bill is the one who was abusive. All we know for sure about Hillary (on the subject of sexual violation) is that she was cheated on and remained married to him. I know there are allegations of his rape and her covering it up, but it’s impossible to know the truth with the evidence we have.
For my part (and again, this is not about politics, and to make that point, I’ll just say I’m not planning to vote for either major party candidate), since the election is Hillary vs Trump (and not Bill vs Trump), I think we have to be very careful not to penalize Hillary for not dealing with her husband’s infidelity as we might think she ought. I’m not saying anyone in this thread has done so, but I’ve definitely had friends who have suggested she is culpable for his affairs because she didn’t divorce him. We do not want to bind a women’s wills to their husbands like that. And we do not want to control survivors of abuse.
So I guess that for those who see no difference between Trump and Hillary with regards to sexual abuse, what is it that she’s done that rates the same as bragging about sexually assaulting women?
(If this discussion is going a place TWW doesn’t want to go, I understand- my opinion is this very much deals with abusive personalities and how our culture views women, but I know the political context makes it hard).
I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who read Joe Carter’s post and thought afterward, “What hypocrisy!”
Dee commences to banging her head on the table.
I share your sentiment but won’t join you in banging my head on the table. I get enough headaches as it is (work, for example) without the need to inflict one upon myself.
Jeff S wrote:
There’s the rub, they can’t engage in reasoned discussion because they’re not reasonable, their arguments cannot withstand analysis because they haven’t done a competent job of analyzing them, they’re apparently not capable of engaging another in a fair debate because they’re not fair people. They don’t know how to respond to decency or kindness in a debate from one who honestly has another perspective because apparently they’re neither decent nor kind.
@ Muff Potter:
Bill’s not running for President. Unlike neo-Cal women who have no voice in the home or in the Church, all other Christian women have the right to vote in this election.
There is no normative about certain behaviors. I think women know what they need to do in this election, yes. And so do men who have been reviled as being accused of ‘locker room’ talk that is an insult to THEIR basic decency as human persons also. There is no ‘normative’ about certain behaviors.
siteseer wrote:
Well, I know for a fact that they didn’t approve mine. Here’s what I wrote in response to commenter Brutus_1:
It got removed after a few hours.
Someone else with the handle “pam” posted a comment with a similar vibe, but didn’t name names. I wonder if that’s what got my comment booted.
Gram3 wrote:
So Joe is including Jesus, one of the harshest critics of religious institutions and leaders?
@ Muff Potter:
Nope. i promise you.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
The thing with voting is you generally only have a few choices, and all of them are flawed to varying degrees. No one ‘knows’ the perfect candidate, imo. No one can see the future. It’s a gamble. Some are better bets than others. Personally, I resent anyone who tells me who I have to vote for because I am female or Christian or what have (and many people try to use shame to do it, which I also hate).
But the point is that you have to make a choice of some kind between two people, neither of whom you may have wanted as a candidate.
That is so different from what happens in an abuse scandal in church. Generally you might have one pastor who runs the thing. He isn’t running against someone else who is also terrible. You can actually say NOPE and find someone else, when you find out your pastor is doing the wrong thing. If that person is terrible, you can kick them out too. You can leave the church. If they aren’t in your church, you can criticize them! These guys at TGC refuse to do even that little, and they refuse to do it not because they have a couple terrible options to choose between and they decided one is less terrible than the other. They do it because they love fame, and money, and powerful friends and don’t want to rock the boat. they do it because they dont’ care about children. Or women. Or perhaps they simply don’t profit from believing them.
Church is not politics. Politics is dirty. Church is not supposed to be dirty.
Christiane wrote:
Never even remotely implied that there was.
dee wrote:
Fair enough. I think we can safely drop it and move on.
@ dee:
DEE, please feel free to delete any of my comments that are too ‘political’ and may cause a problem …. I am unfortunately on fire today, having heard Michelle Obama’s New Hampshire speech. And I DO believe that some of the issues being addressed in that speech have to do with basic human decency and not just ‘politics as usual’.
Anybody who does not feel that they can bring themselves to vote in this election has the right to stay home.
Nobody has the right to try to tell other people how to vote based on their religion or gender.
I am going to get a star in my crown for passing up a whole lot of things I could have said.
Christiane wrote:
My grandmother died at 102 years old. I was raised with her telling us stories at the dinner table about what it was like for her to be in graduate school at university and NOT have the right to vote! She, her little old lady friends, and her women relatives helped get the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution passed. She always voted and told us to do same.
That was a hard-fought right.
Velour wrote:
Velour, if you have not seen it, I highly recommend ‘Iron Jawed Angels’ but it has some graphic scenes in it, one of forced feeding in a prison that is brutal to watch.
okrapod wrote:
I admire your restraint. I’m not so fortunate but I do recognize the need to keep politics out of this blog, where the focus needs to be kept on the victims of clergy abuse and the victims of neo-Cal policies towards the treatment of women in the home. I understand this rationally, but emotionally, is hard not to see how widespread is the vicious way in which women (and girls) are spoken about in our time. Sorry if I’m too outspoken and I will try to do better out of respect for our Deebs.
What ho, the reference to Peter Singer? (Yes, I have been spending time in the company of Jeeves and Wooster recently.)
I know of Singer and his work, and have even corresponded with him previously (along with Marvin Olasky). His work is curious (in the Wonderland sense) at best, and though he has raised some good questions over the course of his career, I believe the answers he has given stretch the bounds of propriety worse than the waistline of a Baptist preacher’s sansabelt pants at a homecoming potluck.
I fail to understand Carter’s reference. He argues: Peter Singer promotes ungodly activities and teaches that the ends justify the means; the evangelical leaders supporting Trump believe he will enact pro-evangelical policies and thus overlook his moral failures; therefore, the evangelical leaders are like Peter Singer.
It seems that he is casting aspersions and is straying dangerously close to employing the reductio ad Hitlerum association fallacy. That is an unworthy argument which sullies an otherwise important point: evangelical leaders such as Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, Jr., James Dobson, etc., are both supporting and willingly turning a blind eye to someone who in another context they would be boycotting and rallying against.
@ Muff Potter:
Muff, I’m sorry. I saw Michelle Obama’s speech today in New Hampshire and I was reacting to that. Please forgive me if I have made a mess of things. I do respect you and your work here. I’m going out for a while to cool off, ’cause if I make any more trouble, I will have to go to confession.
Christiane wrote:
Thanks, Christiane. I will add it to my list of movies to watch.
Lea wrote:
This is such a fantastic comment! Absolutely!
I was reminded this week of this quote by John Wesley. It’s good advice for this election, I think.
“October 6, 1774
I met those of our society who had votes in the ensuing election, and advised them
1. To vote, without fee or reward, for the person they judged most worthy
2. To speak no evil of the person they voted against, and
3. To take care their spirits were not sharpened against those that voted on the other side
Jeff S wrote:
I’ll try not to go there. 🙂 What I have in mind is that when the credible reports of multiple women and law enforcement officers that BC had sexually assaulted multiple women, HC defended “her husband” and his actions. To absolve her of responsibility for furthering the abuse of those women by denying the validity of their complaints against BC (it was just sex) and those accusations were just politically motivated and it wasn’t sexual abuse of Monica because she was over 18 (and we just had a post about power differentials and sexual abuse), then I think we have to deny what, IMO, is the fact that BC and HC are partners in a political/financial enterprise which benefits them both. At the expense of women who were abused initially by BC and then later (IMO) by HC and the other enablers and apologists.
Similarly, we see apologists for Trump saying it is just locker room talk. Not all men talk that way about women, but according to my most reliable male witness, some of them do. And it is wrong, no matter who does it.
There are other similarities between the two candidates, IMO, which are disqualifiers for the highest law-enforcement office in our country. I don’t like double standards which are really no standards at all.
As a general rule, I think that any parent who allows their child to be exposed to abuse without doing the best they can to mitigate that situation is condoning it. And I said “the best they can” because every single case is different, and I don’t want to blame the victim. I also do not want to absolve a victim who does not act to protect even more vulnerable victims in whatever way they can. I would not have made the decision that HC ultimately made to stay in that marriage, based on the little that I know. I also would not have made the decision that Marla and Melania made based on what is public knowledge.
Hope I haven’t gone over the line, and I realize that individuals make decisions based on incomplete knowledge and also on different criteria.
dee wrote:
Bourbon, derby pie AND knitting!?! Now THAT’S a party! 🙂
Joe wrote:
Only if they have LMFAO at the convention.
Gram3 wrote:
doublethink and blackwhite, comrade.
doublethink: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
blackwhite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak#.22Blackwhite.22
For what it’s worth, a couple SF litfan friends of mine are making odds on the USA having its first Dictator or first Military Coup by 2020. “AVE, CAESAR!”
Lea wrote:
“Ees POLITICAL Matter, Comrades!
Something that came to mind while sorting through another bucketful of political junk mail:
Something I vaguely remember from reading Dante’s Inferno some 40 years ago.
When the damned in Hell recognize Dante and want to say something to him, the only thing they want to talk about is Florentine City-State Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, and Politics.
Dante wrote a lot of people he didn’t like into Inferno; could he have been taking an additional dig?
Velour wrote:
“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.”
— G.Orwell, 1984
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I misstated Joe Carter. I think he said, “Don’t slander Christ’s bride.” George Orwell had great insight into humanity, I think. Need to read him again.
Depending on what the weather does where I am, I may not have much time to type. In the meantime.
Putting aside the staggering amount of Joe What’s- His- Face (Carter?) momentarily, I got to this part of the post and got stopped in my tracks.
OP:
Um.
Point 2. Animals cannot give consent, not really.
1. “necrophilia” If memory serves me, this is a living person having sexual relations with a corpse? I am too scared to Google it because who knows what grody things would turn up.
If my memory of the term is correct, a corpse cannot give consent.
Neither can someone who is blocked out, see this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8
Daisy wrote:
I meant to put the word “Hypocrisy” in there but forgot.
Jenny wrote:
Does crocheting count, too?
Funny, the explosion from evangelicals over the recent Trump tape. Oh, the irony! They way they distance themselves from him and promise us that they are against misogyny!
I call hypocrisy. These same evangelicals will preach about how daughters should stay at home and learn how to sew and cook until they are 30, when daddy finally chooses their husband for them (who will probably be as old as Donald Trump). Organizations like Focus on the Family, via the Boundless webzine, will scare young women into hurrying up and finding a husband, or else they’ll die alone with 200 cats. (I’m looking at YOU, Candice Watters!) We’re told over and over again by these same evangelicals how we as women have to support our husbands’ dreams, and never our own (unless our dreams including popping out more babies and sewing baby clothes).
Meanwhile, Donald Trump tells his daughter she can do anything, build anything, and succeed at anything she puts her mind to. He tells her to dream big. And so she does. She is a successful businesswoman, and a happy mother, all at the same time!
Who are the real misogynists here, exactly?
Seriously, I want these evangelicals to stop pointing the finger at a person who is not even a practicing Christian to begin with, and clean up themselves first. They disgust me!
Gram3 wrote:
After all, “slander” is one of their go to words.
@ Stan:
Stan, you said women would let Trump manhandle them not because they think he’s studly, but out of fear and intimidation. Actually, I think both of those are possible—but let’s not forget a third, closely related to the first: the groupie. What he said was despicable, but he is correct insofar as at least some women will put up with that sort of thing (or even welcome it) from a Celebrity, because of the notches-in-the-belt mentality. I don’t think that’s most women, or necessarily the woman the two of them were discussing, but they do exist. Not that that excuses such a cruel habit.
Lea wrote:
It has always been true but more so this time around which makes for interesting inconsistencies. If Joe Carter was typically a Republican voter, safe bet, then he likely thinks this will gain him street creds because he is hammering his own guy. Unfortunately he left out of the equation his inability to make similar judgements within his religious affiliations and is likely oblivious to his inconsistency.
For those typically voting the other way they are missing credibility if they overlooked credible allegations of rape and abuse lodged against a former president.
Bill M wrote:
Yes, it is. A Christian version of Political Correctness definitely is enforced. I consider each of their posts on Female Subordination a micro-aggression. 🙂
@ Bill M:
Voter Vertigo is my excuse for withholding my vote for the very first time in a presidential election.
Stand by for more articles like this over the next few weeks. Here’s one from TGC today: https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2016/10/13/seeking-clarity-in-this-confusing-election-season-ten-thoughts/.
It’s the same hypocrisy – calling out politicians while not doing the same within their own ranks.
NJ wrote:
Those that do are called “StarF’ers”, a type of Groupie.
And there’s also the dynamic of Trump being a Man of Power as well. There will also be a draw to suck up to Power, to be in the Inner Ring of the obvious Alpha Male.
@ dee:
Thanks! So earlier this year, I was sitting in a gospel(TM)-centered church, thinking about the Methodist church I was interested in visiting, and I realized: Don’t I dislike the UMC for liberal politics, and I’m now already in that situation? There’s something very contrived about the anti-Trump bandwagon.
Ill add to my original point is that if Trump gets really crazy, he would be very easy to impeach. Or just say this: if evangelical pastors were so wrong about politics for decades, how come they’re right now?
@ NJ:
That’s a very fair point and I’d buy it. In my own mind I interpreted it as an “I can do this to anyone” attitude, which is usually the mark of either a legitimate predator or a blowhard.
Ken F wrote:
Is he going tell the GOP to start mailing out membership “covenants”? The threat of excommunication and family disownment might have stopped a few Trump primary voters, I suppose.
Clockwork Angel wrote:
I laughed out loud!
Thanks.
Stan wrote:
I can honestly read it either way. And the last comment is just weird, phrasing wise, to me.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
He also has a lot of money. So there’s that.
Christiane wrote:
You have nothing whatsoever to be sorry for Christiane. I’ve never seen anything from you but kindness and tolerance. I’m at fault here for making a political statement with regard to Bill Clinton’s administration that was in direct violation of TWW’s ground rules.
Ken F wrote:
You aren’t kidding,
“Our fidelity to biblical truth, our personal holiness, our sincerity, our consistency, our ability to speak with grace and truth, our unwillingness to confuse the kingdom of this world with the kingdom of Christ, our realism in the midst of utopian promises, our hope in the midst of fear and loathing, our winsome witness to the gospel”
Yeah, “consistency”, I choked on that one till I read on and stumbled over “winsome”. Is there a diagnosis for such a conspicuous lack of self awareness?
Jeff S wrote:
To find out one of the things some conservatives have against HC that is similar in nature to what DT said or did, you may want to Google for the name “Kathy Shelton” maybe along with the name “Thomas Alfred Taylor”.
HC allegedly laughed at the victim (who was 12 years old at the time), and made comments that the girl “wanted” to “seduce older men” (the girl’s attacker was around 41 yrs old) or what not.
______
So nobody thinks I have an ulterior motive:
I am not going to vote for HC or DT because I do not approve of either one, and I do not care who other people vote for.
It is interesting and sad to see all the conservative evangelicals who are still publicly supporting DT even knowing how sexist DT is.
I’ve seen a few other cases of other famous Christians who are showing hypocrisy as it relates to endorsing Trump.
I find this a little strange, because in the 1990s, a lot of conservative evangelicals argued against Bill C. (HC’s husband) in light of his personal flings (one involving Monica L.), saying that character in private matters (liberals of that time took the opposing view).
Now in 2016, liberals are saying private sexual sleazy escapades, and one’s character matters, but conservatives are saying no, they don’t. Liberals and conservatives have totally flip flopped on this issue in the years since Bill C.
Clockwork Angel wrote:
I’m the stereotypical “crazy cat lady” and I have ONE cat. She’s demanding enough. It’s all about her.
@ Jeff S:
you’re just a really great person, Jeff S. One of a few diamonds in the rough.
Hypocrite? Obviously, and like pretty much everyone in the orbit of SBTS. But the Deebs are nicer than I. I am quite comfortable saying that Carter’s words are historically wicked, and exhibit the IQ of an especially privileged broccoli. He is a propagandist and while I despise him, I also realize that there are plenty of unhinged lunatics who have discovered twitter before discovering the limits of their own self-mastery. What really bothers me is that the False Gospel Coalition hasn’t denounced his words or tactics. He is a useful idiot to the $$$ machine.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Oh, I love that turn of phrase. I usually say ‘an IQ lower than their hemoglobin’ but that escapes some people. But broccoli is a great word for that.
It’s great to see this kind of hypocrisy being exposed. Christians should have the courage to call out sexual abuse and support the victims of it, even if the abusers are members of the clergy or celebrities.
@ Gram3:
I appreciate you explaining your though process. It’s not that different from my own, and I was closer to where you are earlier on. I think from looking at what evidence there is, it’s just not clear to me that Hillary isn’t a victim in all of this. I’ve known victims who have stayed with their abusers and forgiven them, and I just can’t make a judgement based on that. I also know victims who have gone through great lengths to defend their abusers because of the cloud of abuse.
I used to think that she must have stayed with him for political power, but I’m not actually sure that makes sense. If she had left him, I think she would have come off very strong and people would have championed her. So, I don’t know, it’s just hard to know.
Where that has left me is, I don’t know what Hillary is. I believe she’s politically ambitious for sure. I don’t trust her. And I’d prefer Bill Clinton be nowhere near the Whitehouse. And all of that is why I plan to vote third party. But I also feel like I know what kind of man Trump is (his pathology is clear as day to me); he doesn’t even try to hide it, so I just can’t see them as equivalent.
I wish things with Hillary were more clear. I don’t want to penalize any abuse victim for making a choice I wouldn’t; but at the same point, she has a lot of power and there were real victims that her husband hurt 🙁
In many ways, I see Trump as just the extension of all the things this blog deals with, but now it has erupted in a very public way beyond the church.
Again, mods, I understand if any of this is too political and needs to be edited, removed, etc. Thanks for your hard work in keeping this discussion profitable 🙂
@ elastigirl:
You are very kind 🙂
Jeff S wrote:
Thank you for writing this.
My own memory of Hilary during that time was when she and Bill were walking, and in the middle of them, holding each one by the hand, was their daughter Chelsea.
I’m glad I saw that. That is something that provides more insight into the workings of that family, that they raised a daughter together who is a loving, caring human being, who didn’t abandon her parents in their trouble, but came in the middle of them and held their hands and walked with them.
Sorry for commenting on that topic. Very distressed.
I did not approve few comments the debt with a topic that was not related to sexual abuse and the candidates. I am so sorry but that is a hill that I do not want to die on here. It is hard enough getting threatened for exposing abuse. I get where you all are coming from. I share many of the same concerns but I just do not wish to discuss them here.
@ Christiane:
It’s OK. I know many of these topics are incredibly important but I have chosen to stick to the knitting when it comes to politics.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I rather like this.
@ dee:
🙂 I can understand why. God Bless.
Clockwork Angel wrote:
New Calvinist single women, consider your options: a long miserable life with an authoritarian complementarian sorry excuse of a husband vs. life alone with a herd of loving cats vs. get the heck out of New Calvinism now and explore your options elsewhere!
dee wrote:
Myself, I rather liked Dr. Fundystan’s spin on words “False Gospel Coalition” after reading in Galatians 1 last night “there are men who are upsetting your faith with a travesty of the Gospel of Christ.”
Dee and I are together on the matter of avoiding political discussions in this forum.
Max wrote:
If I were single and young and had THESE options, I’d take the cats. 🙂
@ caroline:
Wesley’s 250 year old voting advice is still relevant today.
On another blog I follow, Peter Lumpkins offers the following considerations to Evangelicals for voting:
1) focus on the most significant issues at hand;
2) look into both the personal character and public positions of the candidates;
3) weigh the results in a balance reasonably geared toward a civil, republican democracy founded upon COTUS, keeping close in mind we’re not voting on the Kingdom of God;
4) make the best decision one can;
5) publicize it if you want; don’t if you don’t want;
6) vote in every election you can
7) don’t tell the Evangelical in your right hand what the Evangelical in your left hand is doing…
Amy Smith wrote:
Certain corners of Christendom have been using Beth Moore for years to support their theo-political platforms. She is only one of a handful of female teachers blessed by New Calvinism to speak to their women folk – they flock to her conferences and simulcasts by the thousands. Using someone is another form of abuse.
I think a lot of these guys need to read Nikolai Berdyaev, especially his critiques of authoritarianism and “authoritativeness”.
(I also think a lot of contemporary Russians need to read Berdyaev, too. I think he’d be turning in his grave at how authoritarian the Putin regime is, for instance).
caroline wrote:
The issue for me is that in the case of this particular election, there is a much greater issue at stake than who wins. I believe we will survive whoever gets in office. But the issue of seeing Christians make defense for yet another abuser is what I won’t sit silent about.
When I see someone, presidential candidate or not, abuse others, I believe we need to identify that and be clear to stand against such evil. So while normally I’m on the “speak no evil of the person they voted against” train, it doesn’t hold for this election. Similarly, while I will not fault anyone his or her vote (it’s a tough election), but when I see someone say things that normalize sexual assault or the abuse of others, that’s something that is rightly a dividing line.
Or to say it differently, it’s not worth dividing over political policy. But it is worth dividing when I see someone diminishing the weak and vulnerable in favor of the strong and powerful. Not that I have walked away from anyone, but I have been unfriended on FB, and I don’t regret what I said that prompted it, because I was standing up for the oppressed, not bashing political policy.
I know we’re not supposed to talk about politics here, but I would just like to say one thing.
For anyone on this thread who has ruled out voting for either major-party candidate, you might be interested in the American Solidarity Party. It’s a centrist Christian-oriented party whose platform is based on Catholic social teaching (Pope Francis would love the ASP), Abraham Kuyper, MLK, Lech Walesa, etc.
Jeff S wrote:
I think this is the best election I’ve seen to demonstrate why pastors and Christian leadership should NOT be aligning with a political party or individual.
Christians should be focused on principle, not politics.
@ Lea:
Which is not to say we shouldn’t have an opinion or vote, btw.
Really? To me that showed a woman setting a bad example for her daughter and other young American women. I have a real problem with women who stay with serial cheaters and don’t even get me started on abusers. Its one thing if a woman is in a disadvantaged position – small children and no way to support them- but even then I have a hard time with it! But I think it is unconscionable for a woman to stay when she is fully capable of supporting herself and her children. Furthermore, my single mom taught my sisters and I that you don’t get married until you are well educated and have a way to support yourself and your children because life happens and you need to be able to take care of yourself! @ Christiane:
BJ wrote:
I have a real problem when people tell victims what to do.
Jeff S wrote:
Is an enabler a victim or a co-conspirator?
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
I don’t think Francis would ‘love’ the ASP, no. 🙂
Jeff S wrote:
Which would mean, IMO, that in this case that nobody could vote for anybody except one of the smaller parties or write in some name. I am not willing to do that. I will vote for one of the major candidates regardless of what I think of their private lives.
Gram3 wrote:
And once all micro-aggressions have been Liquidated, the Kyle’s Moms discover nano-aggressions.
Clockwork Angel wrote:
PINKIE PIE: She’ll becomes a Crazy Cat Lady!
TWILIGHT SPARKLE: She only has one cat.
PINKIE PIE: Give her time…
Oh my gosh, it all starts to make sense now.
I live here in NC, which is a swing state. If I were not living in a swing state, I would consider writing in Nick Saban on my ballot Nov. 8 (“Make America Fit Again”). But I don’t have that luxury, Because Swing State.
Recently I posted at Facebook that, while I do NOT like Donald Trump, I plan to vote for him because I believe Hillary is so much worse. Lesser of Two Evils, IOW. I acknowledged that I have many friends who plan to vote third party or abstain altogether, and I specifically stated that I totally respect that. I have reluctantly concluded that I must vote Trump to stop Hillary (Because Swing State), but “your mileage may vary,” and I totally get that and respect it.
Well, needless to say, in our current highly charged, polarized atmosphere, that wasn’t enough for some people. One of those people is a staunch, committed member of a CJ Mahaney/Sovereign Grace koolaid-drinking church. She actually impugned my Christianity — well, quite apart from the fact that Calvinists don’t think Catholics are Christians anyway, LOL. But anyway, she said that Christians who vote for Trump (even reluctantly, holding their noses, etc.) are guilty of putting “fear of Hillary before fear of the Lord.” She announced that she would not get her hands dirty by voting for either of the two major candidates.
I thought (but did not say), “EXCUSE me? You support CJ Mahaney, and you think your hands aren’t dirty???”
I cannot wait till this election is over. It has brought out all the bossy, sanctimonious scolds, and I am sick of it. I am going out of my way to AVOID condemning those who plan to vote differently from me, yet, no matter how often I say “I respect your choice,” these bossy-boots feel NO compunction about getting in my face and condemning me to Nether-Hell because I am not voting *their* way.
Ack, don’t get me started. Giant Meteor of Death, just end it now!
Lea wrote:
In American society, Money and Power are conjoined twins.
Lea wrote:
Remember the RCC?
When they finally stepped away from direct power politics, the Pope became even more influential as a voice of public conscience.
okrapod wrote:
Probably a bit of both.
Like Marxists dividing humanity into Workers and Capitalists. According to my last tax returns, I’m 85% Worker AND 15% Capitalist. Where does that fit into a paradigm of 100% Worker OR 100% Capitalist?
okrapod wrote:
A victim is a victim. When someone lives in the fog of abuse, he or she may defend or support their abuser. There are multiple and complex reasons for this, but the fault is the abuser.
okrapod wrote:
Which is not something I would divide over. Like I said, it’s a hard election. If people suck it up and vote for the lesser evil, I understand why. It’s when behavior is excuses or overlooked that I start taking a real issue.
@ Jeff S:
I understand and share your concerns, Jeff.
I hope that recent allegations will at least allow sexual assault and harassment to be discussed and more openly. On the other hand, I was just blocked for commenting on a Facebook discussion that there are all sorts of reasons that women don’t tell anyone about sexual assault right away and that our first response should be to believe and support victims.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I spent an hour watching my little pony the other day and thought of you. (princess twilight sparkle is my fav)
Jeff S wrote:
Jeff, I appreciate your heart, I just disagree with your conclusions. She moved out into her own house in 2000/2001, at any rate.
Caroline wrote:
Particularly in the latest example, when the assault in question amounts to a kiss or maybe copping a feel? Who would bother reporting that? I wouldn’t.
But if it came up 20 years later, I might add my ‘hey, that happened to me too!’.
@ Caroline:
Yes, I agree. I am glad that there is a spotlight on this issue, and I hope people will understand, there is a lot of ignorance, but imo THIS reveals the mission of the church more than anything.
While Grudem and company are going nuts over just what women shouldn’t be allowed to do in church, there is a whole nation in denial over the dynamics of abuse and what an abuser might look like. So many people don’t look at Bill or Donald and see abusers. They see powerful, attractive men who are successful.
Hopefully the church can wake up and be salt and light to this broken culture instead of fiddling while Rome burns.
Bill M wrote:
Insanity?
@ Lea:
To be clear, I don’t have any conclusions about Hillary. I have concerns and fears. But my knowledge is limited, and so I try to be careful.
But one thing I’m very certain on is never to try and control a victims and tell her what she must do or how she must react. I had people telling me what to do, and it was just another tired layer of being controlled.
Daisy wrote:
If you find a good article and read the facts, what is going around is a misrepresentation of what actually happened . . . and I’m not an HC or DT fan either.
Bridget wrote:
I can’t find any ‘solid’ links on this alleged incident with the twelve year old.
okrapod wrote:
It is really hard to determine without all the facts and personal knowledge with the people involved.
@ Daisy:
I have looked into all of those cases. I’m not convinced, especially about the rape case she defended. I listened to the audio, and it was clear she was not laughing gleefully about getting the rapist off, but morosely about issues with the case.
The allegation that has me the most concerned is that she intimidated a rape victim. But I just haven’t found anything that cements the truth one way or the other.
I know we all look at the evidence and come to the best conclusions we can.
I’m not telling anyone what to do. I merely said that I didn’t think that a woman who stayed with a serial cheating husband or abuser was a good role model for young women – especially if they had the ability to support themselves. But that opinion comes from the model I had as a child. My mother was a shy, uneducated 31 year old with three little girls when she struck out on her own. We had to live in a poor, gang infested area because that was all she could afford. She worked like a dog supporting us girls with no child support or family help. Yet, she managed to buy a small house in that crummy neighborhood and put us three girls through college. She raised us to believe that women were strong and capable of overcoming their circumstances. To me, that’s a far better role model. Jeff S wrote:
Dee/Deb, may I post a link to an interview with four Christian Poli-Sci professors? It’s about the bigger issues about being Christian in the world, and does not advocate for one candidate or the other. Full disclosure: this is the magazine I edit at the college where I work. But I am rereading it during this “season of discontent” and finding it helpful.
Christiane wrote:
Is it known who first alleged about HC ‘laughing’ at the child?
@ Jeff S:
I suppose that when you talk about somebody living in a fog of abuse you are not referencing anybody running for president, because that would really be going too far.
@ BJ:
I agree. She sound like a great person.
Jeff S wrote:
I agree about the complexity of the issue and the fog which an abuse victim lives in. However, I think that the particular victim we are talking about has shown that she has basically ratified the behavior at worst and ignored it at least. It looks to me like a calculated decision. I never want to blame the victim, but in an abusive marriage there are frequently victims who are even more vulnerable than the adult victim.
I want to repeat for emphasis your most excellent point that victims of abusers live in a fog (as a way to survive) and that fog causes them to think and behave in ways which do not seem reasonable to casual observers.
My difficulty in this election is that, IMO, both candidates have disqualifying flaws (which are not necessarily the same disqualifying flaws) and I cannot personally make an affirmative case for either of them on any point as I have been able to do in past elections. Other people feel differently about both candidates, and we are all just going to have to live with our consciences.
BJ wrote:
I would never dismiss BJ’s testimony about her situation growing up. I can hear how difficult it was for her and her mother and family. And someone who has endured that nightmare has a voice that needs to be heard and learned from.
I saw Chelsea as a child who loved her parents and wanted to reconcile them. BJ saw something else that had meaning for her.
This is a perfect case of people seeing the same thing and viewing it from two different perspectives;
but maybe that’s not only ‘okay’, maybe that’s what God wants us to do in the Body of Christ …. to share what we see with one another so we can understand from the other person’s point of view.
@ okrapod:
Why?
One thing we know for certain, without any doubt, is that Hillary was a victim of Bill’s infidelity. That doesn’t mean she doesn’t have her own problems, but there’s no reason to believe she wouldn’t have suffered in the same fog of abuse that most victims do.
Christiane wrote:
It came from some sort of interview tapes. You can probably find them if you look.
@ Gram3:
I appreciate the conversation, and I understand where you’re coming from. 🙂
@ Jeff S:
During the Lewinsky incident, Hillary was heard to mention that she thought Bill ‘had gotten past his problem’,
so I took it that she believed he had sought some remedial help to deal with his behavior and she thought this had worked for him until the Lewinsky matter broke.
Hard to know the truth. But in the past few years, she has spoken openly of ‘my dear husband, Bill’;
so I suspect they have found reconciliation and renewal in their marriage. But no one knows this for certain, but them.
@ Lea:
The interview audio is easy to find. She isn’t laughing at the child in them, though, so I wasn’t sure if that was a separate allegation.
@ Lea:
Thanks LEA.
If anyone else has some leads, I’d appreciate the help also.
@ Christiane:
To be clear, I wasn’t at any point dismissing BJs testimony.
I actually share the perspective that from my vantage point, leaving appears to be the better choice. I just don’t want to judge her for making her own free decision, because it was hers to make.
@ Christiane:
Yes, it does appear that their marriage has found healing, and if that is true, then I can rejoice in that.
Of course, I always worry when I hear reconciliation stories. Sometimes I feel too jaded. 🙁
Jeff S wrote:
I think I listened at the time they broke, but it’s been a while. It may have been ‘rueful’ laughter at the polygraph being useless, from the transcript. I don’t want to criticize someone for taking a case, having a lawyer is part of our justice system. How the case was conducted is fair game, though.
Christiane wrote:
I am…much more cynical about this kind of talk from politicians than you are apparently. But then, I’m from Arkansas. I’ve been hearing dirt on the Clintons my whole life.
Lea wrote:
Definitely.
The Kathy Shelton case came out during the 2008 democratic primary. I think Newsweek did a story on it. Ms Shelton was interviewed, but not named. She did not reveal her identity until she heard the tape with the laughter. I did not take the HC laughter to be directed towards the victim, but it was upsetting to hear nonetheless. Just laughing at the circumstances seemed really inappropriate. The Daily Mail did a story on it last summer and it was just such a horrible case. It just seems that victims from poor, single parent households don’t get much justice, and I’m a little sensitive about that.
@ Jeff S:
I do not think that a spouse’s infidelity, per se, is abuse. And we all know from prior conversations that I have been there and done that. People are not abused every time they are sinned against. If that were the case then everybody could self identify as a victim of abuse of some sort because ‘in the world you will have tribulation…’. That does not create a world full of abused victims who, if the current thinking is correct, then themselves become abusers and victimizers. I think that you and I disagree on the vocabulary, and perhaps on the underlying expectations of how life is. The soldier who goes off to war and sustains a non-fatal injury for example has not been abused; injured yes but we do not call that abuse. I think we are using the words victim and abuse too widely and they are losing their meaning and their impact in the process. Not only that, the words victim and abuse carry the connotation of some degree of helplessness. I think that people need empowered, not labeled with words which are not empowering.
Now of course there are cases of abuse, I not saying that there are not. I am trying to look at the other side of the coin at the same time.
Jeff S wrote:
YES! I saw that. Sorry for any confusion.
BJ wrote:
From what I read from another news agency and the transcript from the tape:
*Clinton was appointed by a judge to represent the defendant [that’s a 6th Amendment right under the U.S. Constitution when facing felony charges. Attorneys can be jailed and disbarred, by the way, for refusing to represent a criminal defendant as they have an ethical obligation under law to do so in our adversarial system]
*Clinton was laughing not at the victim but at the whopper of a story that her client told that he hadn’t done it (and she didn’t believe him and she believed that he had done it)
*He got a year in jail.
Rules of evidence have changed a lot in the 40+ years since that case.
An attorney can make any motion for anything. And the judge doesn’t have to grant it at all. So I’d like to know the rules of evidence at that time for Arkansas, the state where this occurred.
Recently in my area of the nation (California) there was the case of Brock Turner, a Stanford University student who raped an unconscious woman, outside of a party. Turner was tackled by Swedes riding their bikes by who thought there was something wrong that the woman wasn’t moving.
Brocker Turner got just a few months in jail over the summer because the judge didn’t want to “ruin his life”.
California law had to be changed by the legislature mandating sentencing for rape, not giving judges discretion in sentencing, and the judge (Persky) is being recalled.
So we haven’t come a long way about sex crimes cases, even in liberal California.
@ okrapod:
I 100% agree that being sinned against is not always abuse.
I do think that marital infidelity is abusive, though. But, whatever the word is, I think we can say that without at doubt, whatever else she is or has done, Hillary was definitely hurt by Bill’s infidelity. Not because I know her or anything like that, but because no one walks away from that breach of trust unscathed.
Jeff S wrote:
Don’t feel bad. Strange times we live in, yes. There is a certain protection in being cynical, I suppose, but I think we give up a lot by being cynical also.
To be a Christian is to be hopeful.
Jeff S wrote:
Because you’ve heard far too many fake reconciliation stories.
Spin, Spin, Spin, Spin, Spin, Spin…
@ Jeff S:
Jeff, if you are still on this thread, a post I left for you has been published since yesterday, if you’d like to see it. Here is the link to it:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/10/12/joe-carter-and-the-gospel-coalition-demonstrate-blatant-hypocrisy-when-it-comes-to-sexual-assault/#comment-289040
Christiane wrote:
Since when?
Not the More-Calvinist-Than-Thous with their Utter Depravity and Worm Theology.
Not the Left Behinders smacking their lips over “It’s All Gonna Burn!”
Not the Holy Rollers with their Spiritual Superiority of Tongues, Tongues, Tongues.
Not the Acquire the Fire RADICAL Christians sneering at all us Lukewarms.
Bill M wrote:
doubleplusdoublethink?
@ Daisy:
I responded earlier 🙂
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/10/12/joe-carter-and-the-gospel-coalition-demonstrate-blatant-hypocrisy-when-it-comes-to-sexual-assault/comment-page-1/#comment-289108
Clockwork Angel wrote:
Your whole post is spot on, especially that part.
‘Boundless,’ and many other evangelical organizations and publications, do not grasp, or care to understand, that there are a lot of never-married Christian (and Non-Christian) singles over the age of 30 and older.
Most of their material pertains to 20-somethings (or at least that was true for a good, long time).
I could write even more about Candace Watters but will skip that. She does not understand adult singles, let’s just say.
Most churches / denominations continue to overlook singles, and they don’t know what to do with women over 30 who are single because their traditional or complementarian views really only view women as potential wives and mothers.
Jeff S wrote:
I definitely feel sorry for a younger Hillary. She must have been disappointed in her marriage. However, at a certain point, she made a choice. Whatever her reasons, we know they were not lack of ability/money/support to get away.
Lea wrote:
I tend to prefer the pre-Ascension Twi, when she was just a realistically-nerdy young unicorn. (And we crack up in the exact same way — I go through Lesson Zero breakdowns on a regular basis.) I’d even know where to take her on a date — used bookstore crawls and museum crawls, which I always end up doing alone, with nobody to share the experience.
Lea wrote:
For a Ring of POWER has a Will of its own.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I hear you, HEADLESS. But for a Christian, being ‘hopeful’ while sojourning through THIS world doesn’t depend on ‘the world’, thank God.
I find this insight meaningful:
““Hope is an orientation of the spirit, an orientation of the heart; it transcends the world that is immediately experienced,
and is anchored somewhere beyond its horizons.
It is not the conviction that something will turn out well,
but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.”
(Vaclav Havel)
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
!!! This sounds awesome.
@ Max:
I think it may have been the last thread I posted a link to a report of how a lot of evangelical women are appalled with male evangelicals for standing by a political guy they consider sexist, and they are speaking out quite loudly. (Moore was one of those women.)
Other than the current election season exposing the hypocrisy of Christians who stood by CJ Mahaney or covered for him, I think it’s also exposing the hypocrisy of complementarians.
Complementarians claim to think that women are “equal in worth just not on role,” but they have really demonstrated to some complementarian women (such as Moore) that this is not true.
You also have some conservative Christians and liberals noticing that (in their view) evangelical Christians who are supporting the male candidate are tossing the teachings and virtues of Christ under the bus to make a grab for political power.
This election season is exposing a lot of faults, hypocrisy, and other things. It’s fascinating to observe.
Daisy wrote:
I think most of them do, but maybe this more than usual. Particularly in the evangelical world, as previous candidates they supported at least seemed somewhat devout.
Lea wrote:
Whatever her reasons, we know they were not lack of ability/money/support to get away.
No. She may have forgiven him because for all the pain he caused her and others, she loved him anyway and thought the marriage was worth it.
Forgiveness is a tricky thing, especially because she wasn’t the only one that he hurt. But ultimately, her decision to forgive him for what he did to her, is not something I believe it is fair to judge her for. I think that’s the crux of this for me.
Caroline wrote:
I got into this on social media with some guy.
He and several other supporters of Candidate Z wanted to know why is this or that women JUST NOW speaking out and making allegations of getting groped?
I said, because a lot of sexual harassment or abuse targets bottle it up for months or years, feeling too afraid or ashamed to discuss it.
And maybe they feel so strongly about not wanting their alleged perp to win a big election that is the motivator that got them to break the silence – but the timing does not necessarily mean they are Lying McLiars.
(Once more, I am neither pro-HC or pro-Trump.)
Lea wrote:
may we always be moved by the knowledge of wrong done to other people, no matter who they are
Jeff S wrote:
Grudem recently came out and said he knew the whole time about DT’s past. You can read about it here:
http://religionnews.com/2016/10/13/what-i-wrote-was-completely-truthful/
@ Bridget:
I have read the facts about the story, yes.
@ Christiane:
If you Google for the names, you can find articles about it.
Christiane wrote:
The woman victim herself said so, and has been giving interviews about it the past few weeks.
Gram3 wrote:
My feelings exactly.
Jeff S wrote:
This thread is tricky, because I am trying not to get too political but it seems almost impossible! I wouldn’t say I blame her for ‘forgiveness’, more that I am skeptical about the reasons and that’s all I’ll say.
BJ wrote:
The victim said it wasn’t just laughing…
But that H. suggested that the 12 year old girl victim (who is now an adult) invited the abuse because she wanted to ‘get it on’ with an older man (her attacker who was 41 at the time).
There was other stuff like that mentioned in the reports.
Lea wrote:
I understand where you’re coming from. And I was exactly there a few months ago. Since then, after some soul searching and doing as much research as a I could, I decided that I just really don’t know what the truth is in her case. And that’s where I land: I don’t know.
So the main thing for me is to just make sure we keep in mind that we should never judge victims for behaving the way we think they should. There may be reasons to believe that Hillary is disingenuous. All we can do is come to our own conclusions. But if we are going to stand against her, it does need to be for some reason other than “she didn’t divorce that jerk”, because that line of reasoning sets up a dangerous precedent for other victims who don’t behave the way we think they should. And those victims are my real concern here.
Daisy wrote:
Do you know if the court reporter’s transcript has been released? Court reporters note…everything.
Daisy wrote:
Who is she?
You are correct. Like I said it was a horrible case – she had to have stitches in the private area and was unable to have children. What I can’t figure out is even when the swatch of his underwear with Kathy’s blood on it went missing, her physical condition and the other guys testimony should have been enough to put the creep away for a long time. @ Daisy:
@ BJ:
I have a reply that needs to clear customs.
Lea wrote:
Here is my problem with this discussion at this point. Let us suppose two possibilities. One is a person who is faced with a marriage crisis, is lost in brain fog due to abuse and does some debatable things at the time, but later reconciles with the spouse perhaps and weathers the personal emotional storm eventually. Or on the other hand perhaps the person that is faced with a marriage crisis, evaluates their options, decides the best course of action for themselves in the long run, and apparently barely misses a step in the process but rather acts based on long term personal ambitions for themselves. Which type of person would be better suited to deal with strong leaders of countries which do not exactly like us, be the head of the armed services and have access to the red phone and the you-know-what option.
I am not good with emphasis on emotional trauma in the white house, but I might be good with tough as nails and personally ambitious. Depending on who the other candidate was, of course, and what the real issues were.
why am I not finding credible info?
what I got so far: that the child was raped and the rapist requested a woman attorney to be appointed by the court to defend him, and the case was assigned to Hillary
the victim, Kathy, is now in her fifties and has come upon hard times, and stated that she cannot forgive HC for defending her rapist ….. but my problem with this is that HC was APPOINTED to defend the accused, she did not choose the assignment
in addition, I don’t know yet the circumstances of Hillary laughing about the child’s situation ….. where can I get credible reports of witnesses who heard this, if anyone knows please share a link to those reports and thanks
the deal-breaker for me is which candidate can be trusted with the launch codes
okrapod wrote:
Personally ambitious describes most political candidates.
@ Christiane:
The audio of her laughing is here: https://youtu.be/Tor00iWUhDQ
Christiane wrote:
I don’t know because there are tons of articles. Here is one sympathetic to Clinton:
<blockquote.As part of her handling of the case, Clinton filed an affidavit July 28, 1975, requesting that the girl go through a psychiatric examination. “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing,” Clinton said. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”
Clinton offered no source for the claims.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/11/the-facts-about-hillary-clinton-and-the-kathy-shelton-rape-case/
@ Christiane:
I posted a washpo article that is in customs. It quotes part of the affidavit that people have objected to.
@ Jeff S:
Thanks, JEFF
I listened closely and I heard her laugh because she was so surprised that the polygraph test was passed ….. nothing wrong with that and I can see why she said that she lost her faith in polygraph tests at that moment, yes.
I don’t hear any laughter over the suffering of the child. No. She seems to have had some interaction with the character ‘Maupin’ which caused a few chuckles. She DID take the pants to a scientist in Brooklyn to be tested, which shows me that she was not adverse to the truth being found out if evidence was there. Nothing wrong with that. Sounds more to me like she was hopeful that the perp would fail the polygraph and that some evidence against him could be found on the pants.
I don’t get the accusations against her if they were based on this interview tape. What did I miss????
@ Lea:
Thanks, LEA
when/if it comes through, I will look at it
Christiane wrote:
Sorry, but court appointed counsel doesn’t mean the court forced or required the lawyer to take the case. It means counsel was provided by the court. If HC was truly forced or required to take the case, she should so state that she tried to get herself excused, but was denied by the court. I don’t hear that from her.
Christiane wrote:
I agree, but I don’t want a candidate who will say something like, “What difference does it make at this time,” after the button is pressed.
Gram3 wrote:
I think you need to focus on their platforms and the direction they will take the country and not on their personal flaws. Their personal flaws are just a distraction.
@ Ken G.:
The prosecutor in the case said she skated the judge to be removed from the case and he said no.
@ Jeff S:
Asked
@ Ken G.:
I believe she took the case as favor when asked, but that she did not want to take the case initially.@ Ken G.:
not understanding your comment, could you please clarify ?
thanks
@ Christiane:
sorry, KEN
I conflated two responses. I did not understand your comment, this:
“I agree, but I don’t want a candidate who will say something like, “What difference does it make at this time,” after the button is pressed.”
Daisy wrote:
New Calvinist leaders have told their “girls” (that’s what Chandler calls his female church members) that it is OK for the women folk to attend Beth Moore gatherings, but would frown upon men doing so. Moore is OK with this since her teachings are intended for women and New Calvinism represents another market segment for her. Priscilla Shirer also gets a thumbs-up from the New Calvinists. They don’t have to worry about their girls getting tainted with Biblical balance on gender roles by Moore & Shirer teachings.
Daisy wrote:
I’ve read the reports, but since I work in the legal field I’d like to see the court reporter’s transcript (if it’s still around) because that’s the most accurate record of what actually occurred in court. It’s a primary source.
I don’t put much faith in a UK tabloid article that already, from my read of it, made errors about how the legal system functions, blaming HC for something that was the judge’s responsibility at trial.
Ken G. wrote:
Where private attorneys are appointed by the court, it is common that attorneys take turns representing criminal defendants. That is an ethical duty.
I wouldn’t expect her to get herself excused from representing a criminal defendant. When our law office has been appointed by the court to represent men and women criminal defendants, we’ve not gotten excused (which would have to be a very compelling reason). We have an ethical duty (legal ethics) to represent someone under the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Christiane wrote:
That’s also the problem I’m having with it. And I work in the legal field and where is the court transcript showing that. Court reporters document all of that at trial. (If a defendant appeals a conviction and an appellate court looks at the case for any judicial errors, they may look at the court reporter’s transcript.)
okrapod wrote:
Agreed. Nor do I.
Jeff S wrote:
Most (but not all) evangelicals see infidelity as an absolute deal breaker and so do many (but not all) non-evangelicals. Those who don’t will almost always do a cost-benefit analysis to see whether or not divorce has too negative an effect on a larger picture, some can look the other way and wink, some cannot. It’s my opinion that Hillary opted for the benefits of the larger picture.
@ Muff Potter:
I don’t think the issue is whether it’s a deal breaker or not as much as it is super painful.
Regardless of anything else, Hillary deserves sympathy for that pain.
@ Velour:
It is a tad different in our state. There were issues with the old system so in 2000 the legislature set up the Office of Indigent Defense Services, aka public defenders office and everything goes through that office. They have their own staff who do this for a living. They do use private attorneys to some extent but not as much as they used to by any means. The private attorneys they do use have to be on one of their approved lists based on area of expertise after applying and being approved to be on the list. The problem at the time was that the courts were assigning cases to those who wanted the case and doing the best they could to ensure quality of representation but it did not always work out for the best.
The legislature also set up a process/office for the determination of actual innocence. So we are progressing in the right direction it looks like.
Jeff S wrote:
Ummm. I think that more than anything else a candidate for the presidency needs respect. Sympathy/pity is a poor substitute.
okrapod wrote:
Thanks for letting me know how things run in your state.
In my state (California) it depends on the county. My county (Santa Clara County, where Silicon Valley is located) has a public defender’s office. Neighboring San Mateo County does not have one and attorneys are appointed through the private defender program.
Since our attorneys use both Santa Clara and San Mateo County Superior Courts, are members of both bar associations, they accept cases when judges appoint them to defend San Mateo County criminal cases.
okrapod wrote:
Good.
And I agree with you about the quality of representation.
okrapod wrote:
I’m not talking about her as a presidential candidate. I’m talking about her as someone who went through something most find traumatizing and painful.
She may be a terrible person now. She may be a calculating politician who is manipulative. She may have reconciled for love, devotion, mercy, or political ambition. But none of that means she wasn’t, at one point, a vulnerable woman who realized the man she married betrayed her for his own selfish desires.
Lea wrote:
Besty Wright?
dee wrote:
I tried to post a comment (I have a screenshot but can’t figure out how to include it in this comment) but, shocker, it never got approved.
Joe Carter, on what Peter Singer approves of:
“necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual)”
That’s quite a trick. Sex with zombies?
@ Jeff S:
Do you know how insulting it is when some man comes along and accuses a woman of vulnerability? That is what (a certain unnamed person) is alleged to have discussed in that thing with Howard Stern that is now going around where (certain unnamed person) allegedly said that such women were the best in bed-talking about emotionally messed up women and how you would not want one on a long term basis but in the short run there is nothing better. So I hope he did not say that. Dear goodness I hope he did not say that. But I am tired of defending women so I am headed for some PBJ and coke and a logic puzzle to work on to just get over this whole discussion before my peeps get back from the end of season party. Young grand-daughter got the MVP medal in spite of being out some games due to injury. Go kid.
okrapod wrote:
All of us – men and women – are vulnerable when someone we trust, are supposed to trust, are supposed to count on, betrays that trust.
@ Velour:
Yes.
Jeff S wrote:
I wonder if BC caught some heavy-duty backlash from HC in private? It wouldn’t surprise me at all if HC put him through the wringer, so to speak!
@ okrapod:
It wasn’t an accusation of vulnerability. Being in a marriage means vulnerability. We open ourselves to be kind of wounding that happens we spouses cheat. I did not mean it as a negative in anyway.
I believe vulnerability is one of the most magical aspects of marriage.
One big problem with our current political system is how it discourages honest, decent people to run for high office. I’m never shocked when politicians lie, cheat, and steal. Disappointed, frustrated, bothered, but never shocked. The system is designed for dirt to float to the top while the silver and gold sinks to the bottom.
The media is partly to blame for this. Quality investigative journalism is extinct. We are left with nothing more than tabloid sensationalism. There is nothing in the last month of revelations that could not have been known many months/years ago. The media only does this because it’s what the consumers (collective “we”) want. Sensationalism brings in money.
Getting back to the main thread, I don’t understand why religions “leaders” feel so compelled to give opinions on politicians. For all the emphasis new-Calvinists put on “sola scriptura” they don’t apply it in practice. The political system in Jesus’ day was not so nice. But he did not appear to comment on it. Neither did any of the NT writers. All of these writers lived and wrote during very interesting political climates, but they did not write about politics and did not endorse or condemn political leaders. That is something to think about.
Ken G. wrote:
What makes you think I am basing anything solely on their personal flaws? But character does matter and certainly affects how one makes decisions. Especially decisions under uncertainty and pressure. The only thing I am certain about with respect to both of the candidates is that both of them will look out for their own self-interests. A regrettably common human characteristic.
Gram3 wrote:
Agreed. To me, character matters a great deal and especially degrees of character, which is what I tried to illustrate with a comment that never made it through customs. I had attempted some pushback from what appears to be a bias against sexual peccadillos of any type, even consensual ones. And no, I am not defending any of these flatworms who truly assault women.
To me, there is a basic standard of morality a candidate must meet. Not hard stuff. Like, someone it would be safe to leave others alone with . . .
I’m not even gonna look at policy if I can’t trust a candidate.
Jeff S wrote:
+100
Jeff S wrote:
Our political system has evolved in such a way that the candidates (from any party) who can pass a basic standard of morality don’t stand a chance of ever becoming a leading candidate. They cannot survive the vetting process.
@ Ken F:
I’m not that cynical. Last election was not like this.
Ken F wrote:
It is my hope that this election does not affirm predatory behavior as ‘a basic standard’. There is sickening difference between ‘locker room talk’ and that kind of ‘talk’ which celebrates the violation of a human person’s dignity.
Christiane wrote:
You make that argument sometimes, and if you are limiting that to what catholic social teaching says about that, then well and good. But there is a problem here as to who gets to define and describe what human dignity looks like in application. Example: People do not agree on how far does one go to not ‘offend’ somebody lest they be, well, offended. Recently I have been reading that some schools are eliminating the recognition of academic rank such as valedictorian and such lest they offend those who did not do that well. When I look at the shifting attitude toward the avoidance of giving offense some of it goes to such extremes that it looks to me to be way over the line. Another example: I find offensive what I see in some of the participant behaviors in some street demonstrations when I see these pictures, mocking, taunting, ridicule and such. But much of that is perfectly legal as long as it is peaceful, and there are freedoms to be defended. There are unstable boundaries between freedom of speech and offenses to human dignity, depending on who does the defining.
So let me say about human dignity and the avoidance of violating (offending against) human dignity, it depends on how one defines human dignity. I am not defending the indefensible, but I am trying to point out some current issues with this concept We as a people have not agreed where the boundaries are.
@ okrapod:
Good morning, OKRAPOD
I do use this term in the religious sense primarily, because here at TWW victims often describe how their human dignity has been violated in faith communities that have ordained ‘male headship’ and humiliating ‘discipline’ methods as a part of their teachings….
As to Catholic social doctrine, I HAD thought that the active support of the human dignity of ALL human persons WAS a ‘catholic’ (universal) concept among most Christian people, as a ‘standard’ of our faith. REASON: because that human dignity is derived from our being made in the image of God and He has gifted each of us with a soul.
This basic respect for any human person is not the same as acceptance of all kinds of behaviors, no. So I think I am comprehending some of your comment to do with the very definition of ‘human dignity’.
In the context in which I had just written ‘the violation of a person’s human dignity’, I was referring to sexual abuse where no consent was either asked for nor given. At the core of this kind of abuse lies the inability of the perpetrator to SEE the victim as a ‘person’, so for the perp, the victim has become an object that does not have to be respected.
I appreciate your comment. You are right about defining terms. I’m all for it especially if it helps clarify communication on line, which is always difficult.
Do you think hyper-Calvinism as practiced by the neo-Cal YRR folk has lost the sense of women as human persons (although they speak of equal dignity) in the way that women are ‘silenced’ and told to be ‘submissive’? I do see it that way. For some among them, I fear it has opened the door to a boat-load of abusive treatment of women and children.
@ Christiane:
I have no first hand experience with comp-ism and I have had no personal interaction with anyone who had themselves been involved in it either for better or worse. I have heard it preached when I checked out on line what is going on at the local SBC mega. I believe what people say about their own personal experiences unless and until I have actual evidence to the contrary, but I have not myself seen it first hand. I have, however, seen a whole lot of awfulness in a whole lot of ways; it just had nothing to do with the current religious theology being discussed. From my experience I am loathe to narrow the issue to religion including but not limited to comp-ism. And I do not necessarily believe that people make decisions solely based on their religious beliefs regardless of how many bible verses they quote; the whole thing can be a facade and an excuse to do what they wanted to do and would have done anyhow.
I am not personally ‘radical’ in either direction. I agree with what N T Wright said on that video which somebody posted as a link regarding what Paul was saying in the area in which some debate has taken place. His position was, surprise surprise, very thoughtful and moderate and IMO workable.
I am not being evasive; I am defending ‘the middle way’ and the bigger picture which is a position often difficult to defend. I will point out that people who believe in and try to practice moderation in all things do not seem to be getting into trouble or victimizing other people by doing so nearly as m
2 comments not approved since they did not deal with abuse. The comments were good just not in keeping with my wish to laser focus on the subject at hand.
@ okrapod:
Oops. should read nearly as much as those who have strict gender roles and strict authoritarian beliefs.
Within three days after election day all federal offices will be closed, the banks will be closed and there will be military troops in the streets of most cites.
Wow! That’s some prediction. I hope you are wrong, but sadly the way things are going nothing would surprise me.@ Ken F:
@ Ken F:
Make that four days; we vote on a Tuesday.
okrapod wrote:
But the 11th is three days after the 8th, so I think my prediction is good.
okay I’m a bit sloooooow
@ okrapod:
yes, I understand
@ Ken F:
good one 🙂
@ okrapod:
we have seen the Holocaust pictures of bodies piled up including the corpses of children and babies, so we understand that we humans are capable of forgetting that even one human person is ‘too many’ to be treated thus
I think before we can be inhumane to others, we have ourselves lost our own sense of what it means to be a member of humankind itself. So at the heart of all this abuse of women and children (and men, too) in neo-Cal settings, the perpetrators have lost something of their own sense of worth first, as made in the image of God. So that ‘head-ship’ thing must be derived from the idolatry of the male gender, and the dismissal of the God Who has assumed our humanity into Himself in the Incarnation in order to save us. The male-headship teaching in neo-Cal theology also has built itself up from taking issue with the position of Christ in the Holy Trinity. So there is this to think about …. I wonder what ELSE their male head-ship teaching will demand of what is left of their ‘gospel’? It’s very sad when you think about it. I do know I see this from another perspective and likely am unable to understand properly.
Ken F wrote:
Of course, because it’s Veteran’s Day, a federal holiday!
BJ wrote:
Veteran’s Day is the day that Ken F. is talking about.
BJ wrote:
Sorry about that. I could not resist the weak attempt at humor. Especially when it only works on an election year.
Ken F wrote:
Also something to think about:
In Dante’s Inferno, the damned in Hell who recognize Dante from life and want to speak to him only want to talk about Florentine City-State Politics, Politics, Politics, Politics, and Politics.
okrapod wrote:
I’ve heard the same from other sources, including comments on these blogs. That being Dynamite in the Sack goes with Teh Crazy. Whether it’s true or not, the rep is out there.
okrapod wrote:
This is especially well said. It is true, that we have made so many folk into “victims” that we risk not recognizing victimization under our noses.
zooey111 wrote:
When everyone is a VICTIM(TM), nobody is.
Jeffrey M Brown wrote:
Makes me think of the movie Warm Bodies.
Perhaps Carter and/or Singer had in mind the idea of someone having their own body plastinated (BodyWorlds style) after they die so that they would essentially become a human sex doll, and in their will, giving certain people “consent”.
Which would be a really weird idea, and I think if there actually IS anyone who would consider doing that, they could probably all fit into a clown car.