Now let me begin by saying that we must draw a distinction between being happy about Trump and being Trump Happy.
If I had thought that a scheduled surgery tomorrow was going to take my right leg off above the knee, and the doctor came in to announce a change of plans, meaning that he had decided we only needed to remove a couple of toes, I really would regard this as a bit of good news. It would not be stand-alone good news, but compared to what I had been thinking the alternative was, it would still be good news.
And while saying this, I do acknowledge that certain cabinet announcements thus far have felt more like a foot rub by a trained masseuse than a toe amputation—particularly Education, EPA, and Health and Human Services—and the reaction to all this by the progressives . . . well, the entertainment value has been high.
But precisely because the entertainment value is high, a caution is in order. There is a common logical fallacy committed by Christian conservatives, and I think it really will be a possible snare for us here. For example, how many Christians think that a biblical view of sexuality is “anything that makes feminists angry?” I mean, talk about a low bar. Virtually anything makes them angry, and I am afraid it is not the case that virtually anything is a biblical view of sexuality. Feminists don’t like Proverbs 31 women, but then again, they don’t like Vegas fan dancers either.
And George W. Bush was not a movement conservative simply because of the existence of the Bush Derangement Syndrome. The fact that Bush could get progressives to start barking at the moon does not mean that whatever he was proposing was somehow in line with a biblical world and life view. Sometimes it was, and other times it was not.
Now I believe that when it comes to Trump and any resultant derangement syndromes, we are about to have a record-setting four years. In other words, Trump will release another YouTube video, and he will say, “My fellow Americans,” and thousands will go off like so many bottle rockets.
So look around you. How many Christian conservatives did not vote for Trump, or voted for him with high levels of reluctance and discomfort, only to discover themselves thrilled and delighted with the pathos of the screaming progressivist reaction to their Hillary loss? That freak out has been de profundis, untouched by however many puppies the diversity offices of our nation have tried to apply to all the emotional butt hurt. And how easy it will be for these reluctant Christians, initially reluctant about Trump for good reason, to breathe a sigh of relief and go back to their jobs? “The liberals are going crazy. America must be in good hands.”
My only point here is to encourage us to keep our political engagement principled, and the discomfiture of liberals is not that principle.
Timely. Liberalism usually takes whatever form is opposite to conservatism. Let’s not make the reverse true.
Liberalism is the pursuit of liberty and equality.
Conservatism is the pursuit of liberty and equality — but not quite as much as the liberals are demanding today.
Who can forget Rick Santorum, the strong fambly valyuhs conservative, commenting on Bruce Jenner?
“If he says he’s woman, then he’s a woman.”
Yeah, conservatism is pretty much useless.
Wait, what? I thought liberalism was the PANTSUIT of liberty and equality, an unfortunate compromise that makes the worst of both. (?) ????
ashv wrote: Conservatism is the pursuit of liberty and equality — but not quite as much as the liberals are demanding today. It’s fun to poke at spineless conservatism, but ashv doesn’t bother to make such important distinctions. Nor does ashv ever actually define conservatism in terms of principles and features. Instead we find that ashv is prepared to reject even conservatism with a spine, and exchange it for some form of autocratic monarchy. Ashv seems to have let the liberals define liberty and equality for him — on their terms. He may tolerate useful vocabulary being taken away from… Read more »
The modern (perhaps not the authors’) reading of the Declaration of Independence’s line “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” seems to be that every human being (over a certain age, perhaps) is entitled to the liberties of a freeman merely by virtue of existing. It’s not clear at all to me that this is implied by, or compatible with, the teaching of Scripture or church tradition. Yet this seems to be… Read more »
ashv wrote: What terms would you like to define liberty and equality on, other than these? I’m sure ashv is aware, but our equality and natural liberties go back a bit earlier than the Declaration of Independence. God has created all men in His image from the start, and this is the basis for dealing equitably with all men, particularly when they come to the law for justice. In terms of natural liberties, we see certain ones being protected in God’s commandments, such as liberty to direct one’s own property without having it be stolen. Now, of course these natural… Read more »
As dear William Pitt said in 1762, “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail — its roof may shake — the wind may blow through it — the storm may enter — the rain may enter — but the King of England cannot enter — all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!”
Plus the Petition of Right in 1628 and the Bill of Rights in 1689. Surely these were rooted in Christian doctrine.
I made a comment somewhere on another site that I wish I could find, because I went through a list of some of the early expositors of rights in Europe, and a huge number of the fundamental philosophers were very clearly working off of Christian principles which they believed and held dear. My post there was a contradiction to someone who thought that rights had been an Enlightenment secular freedom from Christianity, but it counter’s ashv’s odd position as well.
I think that some people, particularly in the Scottish Enlightenment and some in the French, did take aim at Christianity. But I agree with you that this does not mean that all Enlightenment principles were unchristian. As I understand him, ashv doesn’t accept claims of equality and liberty even those we see as rooted in Christian teaching.
If you want to defend a definition of “liberty” and “equality” different from the standard American/progressive one, you’re going to have to make a positive statement of it, otherwise nobody else will understand what you’re talking about. This is a good start, but you need to acknowledge you’re trying to recover definitions that have been entirely paved over, both within and without the church.
ashv wrote: If you want to defend a definition of “liberty” and “equality” different from the standard American/progressive one, you’re going to have to make a positive statement of it, otherwise nobody else will understand what you’re talking about. This is a good start, but you need to acknowledge you’re trying to recover definitions that have been entirely paved over, both within and without the church. I’ve offered a positive statement, and I’m happy to provide clarification if it is really necessary. However, is ashv saying that a defense of truth is too much for him, and that he has… Read more »
I’m willing to agree to whatever definition of “liberty” or “equality” you want to put forth. I’m not particularly attached to the terms in either direction. I merely have been noting that the referents of these terms have drifted considerably in the past few centuries.
Yes, there is always drift away, and pull against, truth. Where I differ with ashv is in his wholesale critique and abdication of words like liberty, equality, conservative, with no attention to the underlying principles which are true. I don’t mind if ashv wants to use some different words to capture and preserve each principle, but he’s not showing any bona fides. Ashv does not do the work of defending the core of what is true, or cut against the abuse of language by progressives. Not only this, but he makes a habit of challenging those who do. Ashv concedes… Read more »
Katecho is still ignoring the issue.
What issue am I ignoring? Ashv needs to speak up.
What do you mean by “liberty” and why do you think the modern political application of it (by conservatives or whoever you like) is based on Biblical principle?
Realizing now that I don’t much care about “equality” because it’s clear both from nature and Scripture that there’s no such thing, and the idea of “equality before the law” in its modern sense arrived with classical liberalism. “Impartiality” or “equity” are quite sensible terms and can’t be confused with any of the modern errors.
ashv wrote: “Impartiality” or “equity” are quite sensible terms and can’t be confused with any of the modern errors. Ashv can’t be this naive. Natural liberty and equality before the law had a well established meaning before they were co-opted too. Why does ashv think impartiality and equity are immune? But, given his pattern, I expect ashv will dutifully abandon the words impartiality and equity once the modern progressives attempt to co-opt them. And ashv will challenge any Christian who continues to use and defend the terms that he has abdicated. That is his strategy, right? One thing still puzzles… Read more »
ashv wrote: What do you mean by “liberty” and why do you think the modern political application of it (by conservatives or whoever you like) is based on Biblical principle? It’s ironic to have ashv ask me to define a term. Of course I’ve defined natural liberty in the past, multiple times, and given examples, including life, control of property, freedom to defend oneself, freedom from conviction on the word of only one witness, etc. All natural liberties are explicit, or necessary inferences, from Scripture, but my point has never been that liberty, as touted in popular culture and politics,… Read more »
You seem to be having a conversation about something else entirely so I’m going to, once again, stop treating you as a serious interlocutor.
As someone who proudly voted for Trump in a pathetic attempt to get under my skin, I’m not sure that ashv is in a qualified position to comment on who is a serious interlocutor. I certainly can’t force ashv to make necessary distinctions or to resolve the apparent contradictions in his terms and tactics. He is free to “LOL” or to beg off at any point, as he usually does. It doesn’t affect my ability to critique what he is promoting. I take his efforts to dismiss principles of equality under law, natural liberty, freedom of association, representative government, etc,… Read more »
So……………,
Would that make Ashv’s “conservatism” something like “liesure suit” conservatism?
????
Is equality worth pursuing? If so, what equality?
I think equality before the law is an ancient and noble goal. I think that social equality is mostly pretense, based on good manners, even in “classless” societies.
Equality before the law. Scripture also refers to it as equity, or lack of partiality.
I agree. And I think this is ashv’s point (or part of it). Rhetorically, “equality” is a hopeless cause. The law should be impartial to all people (which it largely is). Thus, the pursuit of “equality” is not worth pursuing as it is a pursuit for things unbiblical.
bethyada wrote: The law should be impartial to all people (which it largely is). Thus, the pursuit of “equality” is not worth pursuing as it is a pursuit for things unbiblical. The law in the U.S. is certainly not impartial to the unborn. However, my difference with ashv is that he doesn’t make necessary distinctions, advocates alternatives that strongly suggest that he rejects those distinctions, and he confronts those who try to offer those distinctions. Bethyada helpfully provides the obligatory scare quotes when referring to the term “equality” in the mouth of progressives, but ashv does not. When given many… Read more »
Liberalism usually takes whatever form is opposite to conservatism. Let’s not make the reverse true.
Oh, you don’t have to worry about that.
Why you’d leave out the second part? Which is that, five or ten years later, conservatives adopt the liberal position, what used to be the opposite of conservatism, as the new, improved non-hateful conservatism.
I don’t see that changing any time soon.
40 ACRES wrote:
Conservatives, or some conservatives? What label has 40 ACRES reserved to name the proper response to liberalism, and what are its principles and distinctives?
What label has 40 ACRES reserved to name the proper response to liberalism
Stuff-that-doesn’t-suck-ism
and what are its principles and distinctives?
Stuff that doesn’t suck
So vaccume cleaners are out :P . Might I suggest ‘popular american christianity of the 1930s’ as a more accurate lable for 40s ideal anti liberalism.
Does it really matter much who is heading up those agencies like HHS, etc.? Those appointments are a facelift. Imagine Hillary with a facelift? Would that make you feel better? In fact, the facelift could have a real negative impact on our economy and nation. If those agencies are to the economy as sand is to an internal combustion engine (and they are), do we really want a more “productive and efficient” head? I want the stupidest, laziest, most incompetent federal agency head that can be found. In fact, we might all be better off if we doubled every federal… Read more »
Does it really matter much who is heading up those agencies like HHS, etc.? I would say “Yes”. Whether it matters depends on that those heads do with those agencies, and what those heads do with agencies depends on their political leanings, and their political leanings depend on who they are. Which is a terrible syllogism, but whatever. If they run them as they have been run, doing what they have been doing then that will be a continuation of the bad that’s been done with them. If they strip the agencies to their component parts, and return them to… Read more »
Feminists don’t like Proverbs 31 women, but then again, they don’t like Vegas fan dancers either.
Doug, you’re a bit behind the times. You’re stuck on the Andrea Dworkin model of feminism from the 1980s. But that’s pretty much dead.
The vast majority of feminists these days have no problem with women choosing to “empower themselves” and “own their sexuality” through prostitution, pornography, dancing naked, etc.
In fact, many feminists celebrate these women as role models and heroines.
You are right about this. I was reading an article by a Harvard feminist studies professor who wrote about prostitution as the vehicle by which women finally take control of their own bodies and overcome the sense of shame foisted on them by the patriarchy.
Right in part. I think it’s an “ongoing battle” between different camps of feminists, or something like that.
Yes, exactly. I was helping my daughter with some research for her essay on sex trafficking, and I was startled to find this division between traditional and libertarian feminists. The first see prostitution as inherently exploitative, while the latter see it as a form of sexual and economic empowerment. Amnesty International’s position paper last spring said that governments must protect the free agency of sex workers and ensure that men such as the physically and psychologically disabled must have access to prostitutes because commercial sex improves their quality of life. I found this unbelievably irresponsible. What if your particular sexual… Read more »
Can you link to that paper? I found and read what I thought was the paper you were talking about, and it did mention protecting sex workers but I didn’t find the part about protecting men’s access to prostitutes.
“Policy on State Obligations to Respect, Protect, and Fulfil the Human Rights of Sex Workers.” Amnesty International. May 26, 2016. Index number: POL 30/4062/2016. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol30/4062/2016/en/ . Accessed November 18, 2016. b. “Amnesty International believes states have a positive obligation to reform their laws and develop and implement systems and policies that eliminate discrimination against those engaging in sex work. Additionally, states must actively seek to empower the most marginalized in society, including through supporting the rights to freedom of association of those engaging in sex work” This was the section I found particularly disturbing as it seemed to place needs… Read more »
Also, there’s no such thing as a “Proverbs 31 woman.”
As the text makes clear, it’s an epilogue to Proverbs, which is all about getting wisdom. It’s a summation of the benefits of getting wisdom, and compares having wisdom to marrying a non-existent miracle woman, which it says right off the bat – Who can find a woman like this?
Besides, it’s not only feminists who would hate an actual Proverbs 31 woman. Christians would, too, as she is described as owning slaves.
I like Mark Horne’s comments on Proverbs 31:
What does Mark say about the “Proverbs 31 woman” getting up before dawn to make breakfast for her slaves?
Well, come on. Who’s going to be opposed to that? There’s no virtue in a late breakfast. ;-)
She sounds way too busy to be much fun. Where is there time in her day for the two of them to snuggle on the sofa watching Naked Gun marathons?
That’s probably what the slave girls were for.
Concubines are real labor-saving devices (if you know what I mean).
FAAAK, remember scripture does not prohibit slavery so, your left jab missed entirely.
If 40 ACRES wasn’t always playing gotcha with the Christians, he might find himself saying something constructive.
FAAAK, remember scripture does not prohibit slavery Which was kind of my point. It’s not forbidden, and according to the standard interpretation among evangelicals, godly women should strive to emulate the wife in Proverbs 31. So why aren’t they lobbying to make slavery legal? They not only don’t want to make it legal, they believe a person who would own another human being is a complete scumbag, and can’t be a Christian. Because, no matter what the Bible says, Christians believe that owning another human being is just about the worst thing a person can do. Worse than murder or… Read more »
FAAAK, she is too busy working and not eating the bread of idleness to lobby congress. That’s your job.
Ah, but it’s only empowerment if no man ever sees them do this. If a man sees them then it suddenly becomes exploitative and the Patriachy’s ™ Vehicle of Oppression (Which probably doesn’t even burn ethanol-laced gasoline!)
Please come back when you’ve acquired a clue.
We’ll chat then.
Oh, I forgot the /prog tag, didn’t I?
A clue? You’ve never heard feminists make that exact argument in reference to ” sex work”?
My, aren’t you sheltered!
Don’t give up. I know it looks bad right now, but things are changing.
As someone who isn’t worthy to untie my shoes once said:
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”
http://bit.ly/2dp3SZt
The information in that link will help you in your self-categorization, I’m sure.
Congratulations on finally having words to describe your condition!
Can we ever be Adam again?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9snlOE-V7w
Vast majority of feminists? Where are you getting those stats from? From my POV the typical liberal feminist hates women who are portrayed as sexual objects like in pornography. Anita Sarkeesian for example is a modern day feminist that makes popular youtube videos where she points out supposed acts of sexism against women in videogames. She words strong disapproval of any female character that is dressed in a sexually provocative way.
There was a survey of feminists about these topics in last month’s issue of Popular Mechanics.
You are in fine form this Monday afternoon!
They are as uptight as ever. If modern day feminists were really about getting naked and being way into sex then people wouldn’t hate them so much.
I think (or least I hope) that when people on this board deplore feminists, it’s because they are pro-abortion, anti-traditional family, and grossly unfair to men. I certainly hope it’s not because they’re not naked and way into sex.
Another deep thinker.
Great.
How do you breathe with your head so far up there buddy? I do not see modern day feminists as you see them. So I must be an idiot.
LMAO
You’ve got a real Socratic dialogue going on there!
You want Socratic? OK:
Why should I not LMAO?
Frankly I can’t think of a single reason given the quality of argument with which you were invited to engage!
But I do like a nice Socratic dialogue. Would you rather be stuck in an elevator with Andrea Dworkin or with Susan Brownmiller? And why do most blonde Republican spokeswomen look anorexic?
Would you rather be stuck in an elevator with Andrea Dworkin or with Susan Brownmiller? Aw, man…do you really want to talk about two radical Jews who hated white Christians and did everything they could to destroy our culture? But I guess Brownmiller, if I had to pick. If I chose Dworkin, I could easily suffocate if she suddenly moved and I got pinned between her and the wall. And why do most blonde Republican spokeswomen look anorexic? I believe that started in the last 80s. It was a preventative measure, a way to make sure Andrea Dworkin didn’t kill… Read more »
In about three months, it will be Lent again. Then, every time you make me laugh at something I ought not to find funny, I will have take a hat pin and stick it in my arm. Remember that when the time comes.
I don’t think there are many Christian men on this board who wouldn’t object to the portrayal of women as sex objects as in pornography.
Moto, the current feminists embrace a culture that allows women to be beaten, honor murdered and to otherwise be discriminated against in the most egregious mannerisms. FAAAK is only pointing out the feminists who do call for empowerment in all roles including the sex trade. The percentage of such supporters might be up for debate, but if you watch Mark Dice videos, the percentage is relatively high.
Mark Dice is as looney as Alex Jones.
Moto, you may think Dice looney, but there is no denying that his videos capture the essence of young American’s lack of basic knowledge, inability to think clearly and the ability to only parrot popular phrases rather than being able to support the point in question.
The videos are funny to watch; yet, at the same time they call us to pray for the lost souls of America and to pray for Godly leadership.
I am a feminist. I have also been married to my husband for 40 years, have 6 grown children and 11 grandchildren. During my life I have been a stay at home mom , a tax accountant and a foreperson on a civil grand jury. Where do I fall in your spectrum?
Where do I fall in your spectrum?
You’re a feminist.
And? There are many definitions of feminism. I bet there are even some in your own church. And I bet you wouldn’t kniw a feminist if you saw her, or him for that matter.
Bet I would!
I think your definition of feminism is very different than mine
Thank you.
And that means???
It means 40 acres is a troll and he got the response from you that he desired.
It shan’t be long now.
Best be all prayed up, brother.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V4yjcW_MSk
The guy is an idiot. You’d be wise to follow arwenb’s advice.
Don’t put your trust in men, moto. Men will always let you down.
Did Billy Graham die for your sins?
No, he did not.
But he did have Evie Tornquist sing at one of of his concerts, so all is forgiven.
Man, she was a cutey pie.
Whoa…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4da2WbC19Y
It was wrong of me to call you an idiot. I am very sorry and I repent. I hope you will forgive me.
Thanks. No worries.
A perfectly normal woman. Not all feminists hate men or marriage, glorify abortion, think children are an inconvenience, and fit the stereotypes some people have of them. A considerable number are…gasp…even Christian.
I think the problem lies with defining the word. So many of feminism’s earliest goals have been achieved in this country–the vote, access to the professions, and so on–that feminism as a descriptor no longer applies to beliefs that many of us take for granted. In other words, describing yourself as a feminist tends to mean something more than recognizing women’s equality before the law and in the workplace. That “something more” usually means, nowadays, support for women’s full reproductive rights and support for weakening existing perceptions of gender roles. It also frequently means an attitude of disrespect for women… Read more »
> [T]he discomfiture of liberals is not that principle.
Very true but if the liberals are not discomfited you’re probably doing it wrong.
This reminds me of Chesterton’s point (which he takes a long time to make) in The Everlasting Man. Concluding several chapters making a roundabout but brutal case for the need for Christ and the perfect timing of his Advent, Chesterton takes up the second Punic War. In his reading this was a war between the gods and the devils. The Romans holding to the more benign and by comparison good gods vs. the devilish idols of the Carthaginians (to whom babies were sacrificed). In such a war you might root for the Romans. But when they have won, you wouldn’t… Read more »
Overall I’ve been more pleased with Trump’s principles than with movement conservatives’.
The value of the emotional histrionics of leading-edge progressives is not just schadenfreude. Trump’s ability to continually keep them off-balance prevents them from presenting their façade of being the Intelligent, Reasonable, Sensible people — which helps shift the Overton window to the right again. The longer they allow themselves to be emotionally manipulated the more credibility they lose. (They still control the media, universities, and the permanent government, so this is hardly enough. But it’s a good start.)
“My only point here is to encourage us to keep our political engagement principled, and the discomfiture of liberals is not that principle.” Of course it is. That is the entire point, nature, and purpose of politics. The shameful thing is that we have now taken that same attitude into our faith, so the “discomfiture of liberals” has become the principle behind our Christianity and that is an ugly thing indeed. “For example, how many Christians think that a biblical view of sexuality is “anything that makes feminists angry?” Yes, foolish things tend to make fems angry, things like pedophilia,… Read more »
Why don’t those things make you angry?
They do make me angry, but “the church,” indeed, even conservatives, are far more interested in bashing liberals and attacking feminism than they are addressing any of those things.
In the end both sides of the political spectrum just give refuge and redemption to pedophiles while casting victims aside. Wilson speaks of principles as if they are ordinary, common, but people don’t have principles, we just have our tribal allegiances, and for the most part, that’s all we ever care about. So what makes a pedo a pedo? When he’s not on our team.
Mmm. So, did you hear a lot of outcry from conservatives/Republicans when Dennis Hastert was convicted?
You mean the longest serving Republican Speaker of the House whose crimes spanned at least 50 years? What do you want, me to start passing out a little gold star for those who so belatedly discovered their principles?
What does that even mean?
It means I share the anger of feminists and I’m rather ticked off the church has not lead the way and done a better job handling these issues.
You’re right, it’s the church’s fault that a man sinned in secret and wasn’t discovered sooner.
Given that you and I have been assigned leading roles in the Inquisition, I am surprised that it’s not our fault.
So… no?
Your accusations seem rather unfounded. (Personally, I’m disappointed Hastert is still alive.)
I didn’t follow that closely. Wasn’t he convicted for paying out hush money, rather than for the sex crimes themselves? Is there any reason that anyone in the House should have realized what was going on?
There were published rumors that Hastert is a homo way back in 2006. I believe Mike Rogers’ Blog Active is where I read it back then. He had some very unusual living/sleeping arrangements with a male aide. I can’t recall if there were whispers back then about him raping teenage boys long ago, but I think there were. It couldn’t have been a huge secret in GOP circles that he was a homo if Mike Rogers knew it. And homos who spent years coaching high school boy’s wrestling should be looked at closely. In fact, it should be assumed they… Read more »
Oh dear.
Actually, the only account I can find of a person talking about the molestation allegations back in 2006 is from Wayne Masden, and he has zero credibility. He also wrote a column later about Obama, claiming that in the two years that Obama was a US Senator, he had homosexual affairs with many, many DC politicians, including two right wing fambly valyuhs GOP Senators, Bill Frist and Trent Lott, and another gay affair with President George W Bush. Masden seems to accuse everyone of everything, or at least treat as fact every wild rumor he’s ever heard. Looks like every… Read more »
The mind boggles.
So Memi, who are the pedophiles, rapists and wife beaters in your church? How did you find out these sins and crimes were committed?
Were the suspects confronted as Jesus directs?
People should not get angry before they know the facts. Perhaps Christians, for the most part are good at the proper presumption of innocence. Didn’t your dad deserve more of that presumption than he got? I know I did and still do.????????????
In this cockamamie world, the presumption of innocence is what stands between us and Stalin-esque show trials. People shouldn’t be willing to toss it out to get quick results that comport with their prejudices.
Pray for me and the Fam. On Wednesday Jilly. Lord willing, my antagonists will be learning a hard lesson about the presumption of innocence. A presumption they abandoned at the expense of truth.????????????
I will hold you in my prayers. God bless you all.
Wilson has at least two CONVICTED sex offenders within his church while the victims, those who were actually harmed, have been cast out. Welcome to the seeds and root causes of feminism.
How would you have me go forth and defend “the church” now? I cannot, “the church” doesn’t have a leg to stand on. I find that grievous. Apparently I am alone here. Why is that?
So……., If they are convicted, the church and the state did something about the sins and crimes. If US law was what it used to be, Wilson would likely have walked with those two, up to the gallows as well. So far as I know, no “victims” were cast out. Natalie changed her mind and left of her own accord. She could always go back and be cared for. Then there is my family Memi, here on the east coast, wrongly accused of “abuse” by ignorant, cult addled church ladies . But you can do something Memi, pray for Justice… Read more »
I’ll pray for God’s justice for you and your family, A-dad. But can’t we also remember that there are real live victims of abuse within our churches and that our collective failure to respond to them properly has been a grave injustice?
I think all of us can pray for that my dear! I have, and I will! I bet we could sign up Jilly! Katcho and lady Dunsworth as well.
Hang in there Memi!????????????????
I will pray for that.
Perhaps ME is alone because she has grossly misrepresented the facts.
Do you dispute the fact that there are now two convicted sex offenders within the Moscow tribe as well as victims of those abuses now outside the Moscow tribe who were hurt and abandoned by their church?
I don’t even belong to Wilson’s church and yet that truth, that undeniable fact presses on me.
Two references to the “Moscow tribe” sounds as if you are viewing tribes a little negatively. Did something change over the weekend?
Something is pressing on ME, but it doesn’t appear to be the whole truth. Who, by name, was cast out, and by whom?
She recently accused another blogger of being pro-BDSM, and a quick perusal of his blog showed nothing of the sort. In fact, he made at least three anti-BDSM statements. You’re dealing with a habitual liar here. I’d recommend disengaging in the convo. Remember what the Bible says about fools and folly.
Aren’t all women liars and sluts in your opinion? So, if you think I’m a liar, a victim of abuse doesn’t stand a chance in your world.
Wilson, men like mkt are the fruits of your ministry. You might want to ask yourself why.
I’d like ME to answer my question, and name the innocent party who she claims was cast out from Wilson’s church, and by whom.
I’d never tell you anything at all. You’ve proven yourself untrustworthy. That`s probably how every little girl at Wilson’s church feels too. Silenced.
ME wrote: I’d never tell you anything at all. You’ve proven yourself untrustworthy. I’ve proven myself untrustworthy because I asked ME to provide the name of someone allegedly cast out? I’m not even allowed to ask who it was, or who cast them out? What happened to the “undeniable truth”? Whatever ME may think she is pursuing, it isn’t impartial justice. What if ME refuses to answer because it would be immediately obvious that the person wasn’t actually cast out at all? ME may want to consider that her internet accusations are not based on reliable knowledge, and that she… Read more »
There you go again. I’ve never said anything close to your ludicrous “liars and sluts” comment. And I don’t think you’re a liar, I know you’re one based on your above comment and dozens of others.
She’s the kind of person who would accuse someone of being into gay threesomes, BDSM, and bestiality if she heard them listening to Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport.
Not the best example when we look at the recent history of Rolf Harris!!
He painted such a nice portrait of the Queen, but now it’s been taken down and hidden.
Uh-oh.
What did I miss?
Better start googling.
Eww… I didn’t even know the guy’s name. Never dreamed he was still alive, let alone a sick, convicted pervert. I just remember that song being huge for a while, a long, long time ago. Edit: Although I must say that, with the exception of murder, it’s outrageous that you can be arrested for something that occurred thirty years prior. That’s not how things used to be in the countries of Christendom. Feminism sucks. It’s also outrageous that having sex with a 19 year old woman is considered “child molestation.” Now I’m starting to wonder if the guy did any… Read more »
It was a great shock to those of us in the British Commonwealth who grew up on his songs–classics like “My boomerang won’t come back.” Well, grew up on two of his songs, because I can’t think of any more right now!
It’s still outrageous that he was even arrested, let alone convicted.
Except for murder, no one should be arrested for something that happened 30 years ago.
Treason?
Probably treason, too.
And a good case can be made for some especially vicious assaults, sexual or otherwise.
But feeling up a 16 year old girl?
No.
I think he might have admitted to some wrongdoing, but I’m not certain. He wasn’t charged with a lot of things that were pretty consistent but not necessarily criminal, like touching young girls improperly. I mostly heard about it from my Brit relatives. I agree with you that 30 years is too long a time for someone to bring a claim.
It looks again like you all just a bunch of fraternity brothers. To you a woman is a sorority sweetheart or a slut. I only glance at this website 2 or three times a year if I am bored. Nothing has changed. See you in April.
Please don’t go.
What are you wearing?
A Kevlar vest. Adieu to you.
Ooooh, sassy!
I laughed. Sorry.
ME, you should stop with the ranting. No one was abandoned by Christ Church at all. One very vocal individual turned away refusing any help. Stop telling falsehoods.
I would have left, too. I also would have become very vocal about it. What was done to her was a huge betrayal, made all the worse by the clear biases being expressed in Wilson’s posts and the arrogance exhibited by those who support him.
I agree.
ME wrote:
So which is it? Did someone choose to leave, or were they cast out? ME is the one who asserted the “undeniable fact”, but she has not named the innocent party that she claims was cast out.
ME, she was not betrayed by anyone except herself. That is a fact. You need to understand that you have extremely limited vision on this subject and that you are forming false opinions on internet chatter not from having been there. It is past time for the lies to stop. The story keeps changing but the facts don’t. Fact: Her dad set up the entire debacle. Fact: Her family kept it under wraps for six months before taking it to the police or to the church. Fact.: As soon as it was exposed, action was taken. Fact: No one shamed… Read more »
And to think all this butt hurt was caused by the “Alt. Russians”!????
I wonder what their uniforms are like? I bet Austin Powers knows!????
Trump was on his “thank you” tour in Michigan a few days ago. When Hillary Clinton was mentioned, the crowd resumed the chants to “lock her up”. Trump shushed them by saying, “That plays great before the election — now we don’t care, right?”
Trump closed the deal that mattered to him. Did they expect him to follow through and clean house now? It was as if a bunch of people suddenly had their eyes opened.
Perhaps Trumps new motto should be, “Now We Don’t Care.” It could fit on a bumper sticker with a smelly swamp in the background.
How people can gloss over this level of deceptiveness is simply beyond me. I don’t think it was an appropriate campaign promise in the first place. But to make it and then say it was a political ploy is disgusting.
I wonder if anyone actually took Lock Her Up seriously.
I didn’t.
But I can be sort of cynical at times.
But I think lots of people did think he was serious.
Matt wrote:
Given that Trump already won the election, why were they still chanting about it in Michigan? If they didn’t think Trump was serious about at least following through with an investigation of the new evidence, why weren’t they shouting about something else instead?
I didn’t pay real close attention to Trump’s Hillary stuff. I know he used to egg the crowds on when they’d start chanting about locking her up, and I know he said in a debate that if he were POTUS she’d be in jail.
But other than the debate, did he ever claim he was going to prosecute Hillary?
I only heard it in the debate.
Hey, maybe he read Pastor Wilson’s post about it.
Recall that ashv reassured the doubters by proposing that Trump was making his promises out of genuine self-interest, and therefore they should be taken at face value until shown otherwise.
I think fresh evidence is coming in that Trump will say things just for effect; to close the deal.
“That plays great before the election — now we don’t care.”
Ashv clearly didn’t see that coming. Self-interest indeed.
Yeah, Trump’s not a trustworthy type man. Watch him, and rebuke him when he’s wrong. But he may do better than we expect. Read today’s National Review article on Trump’s turn to the right (12 Dec ’16)..
You’ve had a few of these posts now where you say that you are happy that Trump won but that this doesn’t mean you are happy that Trump won. It’s almost like you are trying to convince yourself at this point. Maybe Trump is just your guy. He is brash, doesn’t really do nuance, loves a good insult, makes liberals mad…let’s face it, he’s what right-wingers have wanted for a while now.
Oh and GWB was absolutely a movement conservative. No rewriting history! Movements are judged by what they produce, and that goes for good conservatives’ movements too.
Matt is ignoring all of the distinctions that Wilson just made. Wilson wanted Trump like an amputee wanted to lose a toe instead of an entire leg.