|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Oct 22, 2009 18:06:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Oct 22, 2009 18:40:34 GMT -5
Pardon me, I just need a moment to RAGE AGAINST THE STUPID. Rawwwrrrr! ... Okay, that's done. Anyone else taken by the irony of the Johnsons voting for McCain because they support Palin, a woman doing it all wrong by their self-professed standards? I'm glad somebody mentioned the Annunciation error in the comments. That stood out to me immediately as something Protestants don't really care too much about.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Oct 22, 2009 18:57:00 GMT -5
Pardon me, I just need a moment to RAGE AGAINST THE STUPID. Rawwwrrrr! ... Okay, that's done. Anyone else taken by the irony of the Johnsons voting for McCain because they support Palin, a woman doing it all wrong by their self-professed standards? Yes the mind boggles!! I will confess that when I first started reading the "Meet the Johnsons" section I felt.. an appeal.. pulling me in.. some sentimentality for a past vision washed over me. Maybe it was the "immaculate" "modern furniture and appliances" and polite children rising early to do their school work. Then I slapped myself and asked "if they lived in a mobile home out in the country would you find this so appealing?" And then all the bible stuff started and I was well and truly puking over it. What stood out for me was just how different they view women from men, how much weaker and needing protection from the world they see women. Oh women can't do things outside the home, we must protect them from the world blah blah.. it's just so weird to me now. Like a science fiction story about two different races living on the same planet.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Oct 22, 2009 19:48:41 GMT -5
Anyone else taken by the irony of the Johnsons voting for McCain because they support Palin, a woman doing it all wrong by their self-professed standards? sierra ~ you really should make this point over in the comments section of the news article. Wow, huh? So many obvious contradictions ~ and yet, we were totally convinced of the logic of it all.
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on Oct 22, 2009 21:25:36 GMT -5
what?!?!?!?!?! wow, what a delusional perspective. women aren't more likely to get raped, women who are raped are more likely to speak out!
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on Oct 22, 2009 21:31:17 GMT -5
oh yeah, and since I'm talking about that part of the article... the story about Dinah... I don't remember it saying explicitly that she was raped. it says some guy "took her, lay with her, defiled her". and this is written from the POW of the brothers/father of Dinah, so who knows what "defiled" means. I suppose it could mean she was raped, but maybe it was a tragic romance instead. the guy did want to marry Dinah after all, and he was willing to do some weird shit to get permission to marry her
|
|
nimue
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by nimue on Oct 22, 2009 23:26:56 GMT -5
I like the part about no standing army and unjust wars. If doesn't seem to occur to her that if every American woman had as many children as she absolutely could, war would be absolutely necessary. We do not have the resources to support that kind of population growth. And if every other country started doing this too, what exactly does she think would happen. But the scariest thing is that her husband is a pilot and I have to fly a lot!!
|
|
|
Post by justflyingin on Oct 23, 2009 2:09:59 GMT -5
I guess I'll have to go look at the actual article. I get these in my Google reader and there was only the part about Vyckie and her family in it. Nothing about Palin, etc. Fascinating.
Anyway, Vyckie. This is the strongest statement of "antiChristianity" you've posted til now. Up til now you've preached tolerance. Now you are calling anyone (according to what I read) who is a fundamentalist "mentally imbalanced."
I'd ask for the kind of freedom to believe from you that you wish to have from your former friends. It's called tolerance to believe what you want without being labelled something nasty.
Not all "fundamentalists" are wacky and mentally imbalanced. Please remember that.
We ask for respect as well. You want it. I know at least some of us "fundamentalists" give you the liberty to believe what you want without calling you mentally imbalanced. Why don't you give others the same benefit of the doubt?
Just a reminder. Freedom to believe (with tolerance) needs to go both ways.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Oct 23, 2009 8:32:41 GMT -5
Justflyingin -
I can understand why you are feeling judged by some of us for your fundamentalism because I have been harshly judged myself. I've been called 'mentally ill' and 'crazy' my entire life.
Of course, I know I'm not mentally ill (really - been evaluated for statistical purposes) so I take all that harshing with a horse-sized salt lick. But I've also been in a very suicidal place - like Vykie - and it was a time of depression so deep as to be pathological. It passed, thankfully, but only because I recognized that I was ill and took steps to correct it.
Vyckie, I think, is well within her rights to characterize hard-core fundamentalism as an unrecognized mental illness - she knows better than almost anyone because she's been there. Made 'crazy' by patriarchal religion.
So maybe your experience with fundamentalism is absolutely wonderful but based on my own observations throughout my life, I'd put money on you, as a fundamentalist woman, being in a very tiny minority.
|
|
|
Post by castor on Oct 23, 2009 8:42:42 GMT -5
Reading this article made me feel sick. Really sick. I thought I'd got used to all the sexism in the quiverfull movement. I thought I knew I disagreed with the quiverfull ideas about gender very much, but that they didn't shock me anymore, and that I didn't physically react to them anymore. But they do and I do.
I wonder why Theron Johnson and John Stoos, don't try to sugar coat their views. Aren't they afraid everyone will be appalled and avoid them like the plague from now on? Isn't everyone appalled?
I don't understand how Theron Johnson can talk about experiencing racism, and wishing for a society without it and at the same time wish that that society will treat women als lesser beings than men (and I know, that's not how he says it, but that's what he's wishing for). He has experienced being treated as a lesser human being, he has experienced it because though he's male, heterosexual, middle class, able bodied etc, he's black. He has personally experienced how our society favors certain people because of what we usually call patriarchy. And what does he want to maintain? Patriarchy. Oh but without that little part that makes HIM fall outside the favored group. Ugh. I it's more than normal he wants to have the chance to be a full human being, but infuriating that he doesn't realize that others might want that too, that he doesn't want this for any woman. He and his wife are free to make their own decisions (though I have to admit I cannot stand looking at their picture). But his idea that an ideal society would be one in which women have less rights than men (men would have the right to vote, hold office, but not women)? That's making me mad. (And I know, people can be anti racism and in favor of sexism, and the other way around. But I don't get it)
Sierra, yes, the Palin thing, so stupid.
And did you see the caption under the picture of John Stoos (I hate looking at his picture too)? "Church of the King Pastor John Stoos preaches that men should be fruitful and multiply. Women should facilitate the process."
Women should facilitate the process. Of the multiplying of men. Really? Really? A woman's highest calling is to bear children. Her highest calling. But no that doesn't mean she's multiplying. No. She's facilitating the men who do the actual multiplying. This is just disgusting.
AAAAARGGHHHHHH!!!
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Oct 23, 2009 12:45:36 GMT -5
I am going to come clean right here and now and say I don't have a smidge of tolerance for fundamentalism myself - but take note that I will not attempt to speak for Vyckie or anyone else in saying this. This emerges from the raw bleeding edge of my own childhood that still cuts whenever I hear a televangelist, see a tract or read an article like this one in which women's roles are prescribed simply on the basis that they are women. I have known since I was young enough to know anything at all that I was repulsed by what they asked of me. I have not for one moment in my lifetime tolerated the idea that I was to be a housewife or mother (and please don't mistake my fury at all the coercion I faced for animosity towards those who freely choose this lifestyle - I knew it was not for me and was never allowed to express that without serious repercussions). And it frankly enrages me to see parents raising their children without allowing them to express their own natures - to decide freely if they agree or disagree with their parents' convictions.
I have never met a fundamentalist parent who gave their children legitimate alternatives. Who explicitly asked them if they wanted to go to church in the first place and let them know that it was okay if they didn't. Who told them they could be anything they wanted to be no matter what their gender was. Who told them they'd still love them if they turned out to be homosexual. And for that matter, just being dragged along to church on a daily-to-weekly basis undermines a child's ability to make a free choice to become fundamentalist or not because the message coming across the pulpit is so damn coercive. "Be what we want you to be or burn in a nuclear holocaust" was the message in my church. Not much room for honest questioning there - just lots of angst about whether or not my mind was properly subjected to Christ so I wouldn't die like a hunted animal. I have nothing but seething bile for the preachers in fundamentalist churches who tell vulnerable young women growing up as daughters that they have no value apart from submission and motherhood.
My lack of tolerance may sound fundamentalist itself, but I don't believe it's the same thing. I take my position from the lived experience of being a square peg hammered into a round hole, nursing the scars and knowing that my original shape might never fully grow back. So I may respect what one person chooses for their own life, but I have no tolerance for the infliction of that choice on unchoosing children.
Edit: I should add that my mother believes fundamentalism has enriched and enhanced her life and I in no way wish to take her faith away from her. But I've also seen it rip out every self-protective instinct she had and subject her to thirty years of abuse... So I can try so damn hard to be happy for her when she talks about her faith but my glasses are permanently coloured by the pain I saw as a direct result of that loathsome "submission" tripe.
|
|
|
Post by mamamia001 on Oct 23, 2009 12:57:39 GMT -5
wow. all i can say is wow. ok, maybe that's not all i can say. this makes me inordinately ANGRY. women not being allowed to VOTE??? WTH. these patriarchs are just so wrong on so many levels. OMG - and "In this view, feminism and equal rights are to blame for violence against women."..... WHAT?!!!! we're to blame for violence against ourselves? No. if someone is violent against us, it is THEIR problem, not us. that's just such BS. thanks so much for sharing this article, vyckie. you know, i've been reading your blog for a long time now, and i just couldn't NOT write about this one. OMG, it just makes me so F-ing mad.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Oct 23, 2009 13:52:35 GMT -5
Sierra - So passionately and clearly said. Thanks ---- Welcome to the forums, Mamamia!
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Oct 23, 2009 14:29:42 GMT -5
I found myself wondering how Theron Johnson would react if he were reading an article about white supremacists who wanted to end the right to vote for African Americans and to deny them the right to participate in any level of government.
We worked damn hard to get the right to vote and we're not giving it up without a fight!
|
|
nimue
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by nimue on Oct 23, 2009 15:35:59 GMT -5
Anyway, Vyckie. This is the strongest statement of "antiChristianity" you've posted til now. Up til now you've preached tolerance. Now you are calling anyone (according to what I read) who is a fundamentalist "mentally imbalanced." I'd ask for the kind of freedom to believe from you that you wish to have from your former friends. It's called tolerance to believe what you want without being labelled something nasty. Not all "fundamentalists" are wacky and mentally imbalanced. Please remember that. We ask for respect as well. You want it. I know at least some of us "fundamentalists" give you the liberty to believe what you want without calling you mentally imbalanced. Why don't you give others the same benefit of the doubt? Just a reminder. Freedom to believe (with tolerance) needs to go both ways. Every self-described fundamentalist that I have ever met has been trying to interfere in my life by calling for the outlawing of abortion, contraception, equal rights laws, and gay marriage-just to name a few. These actions harm a lot of people. Tolerating your beliefs means not trying to have you thrown in jail or discriminated against for them. Which is a lot more respect than most "fundamentalists" give to gay people. It doesn't include approving of them, respecting them or not speaking out against them if I deem them harmful to society or individuals.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Oct 23, 2009 15:41:58 GMT -5
Anyway, Vyckie. This is the strongest statement of "antiChristianity" you've posted til now. Up til now you've preached tolerance. Now you are calling anyone (according to what I read) who is a fundamentalist "mentally imbalanced." I'd ask for the kind of freedom to believe from you that you wish to have from your former friends. It's called tolerance to believe what you want without being labelled something nasty.... Hi justflyingin ~ thanks for the note. Actually there's already a discussion going on about my reference to the fundamentalist mindset as a form of mental illness over in the "Dear Frank" thread: nolongerquivering.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=schaeffer. I've been giving more thought to this, and it's kind of turning into more than just a forum comment ~ be looking for an article on the blog addressing this issue in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by pandapaws on Oct 23, 2009 15:42:15 GMT -5
Anyway, Vyckie. This is the strongest statement of "antiChristianity" you've posted til now. Up til now you've preached tolerance. Now you are calling anyone (according to what I read) who is a fundamentalist "mentally imbalanced." I'd ask for the kind of freedom to believe from you that you wish to have from your former friends. It's called tolerance to believe what you want without being labelled something nasty. Not all "fundamentalists" are wacky and mentally imbalanced. Please remember that. We ask for respect as well. You want it. I know at least some of us "fundamentalists" give you the liberty to believe what you want without calling you mentally imbalanced. Why don't you give others the same benefit of the doubt? Just a reminder. Freedom to believe (with tolerance) needs to go both ways. Every self-described fundamentalist that I have ever met has been trying to interfere in my life by calling for the outlawing of abortion, contraception, equal rights laws, and gay marriage-just to name a few. These actions harm a lot of people. Tolerating your beliefs means not trying to have you thrown in jail or discriminated against for them. Which is a lot more respect than most "fundamentalists" give to gay people. It doesn't include approving of them, respecting them or not speaking out against them if I deem them harmful to society or individuals. Right on!
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Oct 23, 2009 16:01:14 GMT -5
Nimue -
Yes, yes!
*Edit to add: well said and in a nutshell
|
|
|
Post by anifail on Oct 23, 2009 18:46:59 GMT -5
It's kind of a worrying reaction, but I have to say that all I could think after reading this article was that these people are my *enemies*. They want to enslave me! I guess if it comes down to it...look for me in the resistance!
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on Oct 23, 2009 19:18:10 GMT -5
and
yes, indeed. it seems a lot of people seem to conflate respect for people with respect for their beliefs. The former comes automatically from being a fellow human being, and means I cannot coerce you, punish you, take your rights away etc. for what you are and what you believe; the latter needs to be earned by the merits of the beliefs, and if your beliefs result in violating other people's rights, then they deserve no respect and only the absolute minimum of tolerance (i.e. I shan't stop you from having those beliefs, but I will stop you from forcing them on others)
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 24, 2009 0:45:31 GMT -5
"Personal liberty and freedom reign supreme." Hah. That just made me livid.
Personal liberty and freedom only for heterosexual Christian males. The whole article made me want to barf.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Oct 24, 2009 4:25:36 GMT -5
yes, indeed. it seems a lot of people seem to conflate respect for people with respect for their beliefs. The former comes automatically from being a fellow human being, and means I cannot coerce you, punish you, take your rights away etc. for what you are and what you believe; the latter needs to be earned by the merits of the beliefs, and if your beliefs result in violating other people's rights, then they deserve no respect and only the absolute minimum of tolerance (i.e. I shan't stop you from having those beliefs, but I will stop you from forcing them on others) Well said!
|
|
jeb
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by jeb on Oct 24, 2009 7:18:40 GMT -5
There's a song in 'South Pacific' that has resonated with me down through the years who's words never grow old and teach the truth about 'us and them' in a very graphic way. You all probably know it or will remember it when you play the clip but I've wept over this one many a time when I've looked at our world of strife and dissent. Give a listen, eh? www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHKzn8aHyXg&feature=fvwY'all treat each other kindly, eh? John
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Oct 24, 2009 8:43:39 GMT -5
Are we dating ourselves?! Actually this song (and the film in general) is studied at film school in "Film & Social Change' type classes... Also, South Pacific was my dad's favorite (although he would sing "Maria" from West Side Story when he was particularly happy with me - he claimed I look just like Natalie Wood(!) but I don't...)
|
|
fern
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by fern on Oct 24, 2009 8:57:58 GMT -5
It's kind of a worrying reaction, but I have to say that all I could think after reading this article was that these people are my *enemies*. They want to enslave me! I guess if it comes down to it...look for me in the resistance! I feel the same.
|
|