Subscribe via RSS Feed

Bigotry is not all bad things

[ 139 ] March 5, 2014 |

Henry Farrell’s reply to Conor Friedersdorf’s mess of a column this morning. But I want to highlight one particularly clueless passage:

I don’t regard homosexuality as sinful. Unlike my friends in the orthodox Catholic community, I don’t regard sex before marriage or masturbation or the use of contraceptives or failing to attend Sunday Mass as sinful either. Knowing those Catholic friends neither fear me nor treat me with intolerance nor bear hatred toward me, it’s easy for me to see how they could view gay sex or marriage as sinful without hating gays or lesbians.

The difference, of course, is his conservative Catholic friends are not petitioning the state to deny him equal legal status via the denial of basic legal rights and protections, such as the right to marry and found a family, or the protection from discrimination in public accommodations provided by being covered by anti-discrimination law, despite the fact that he openly endorses and/or engages in all manner of activity they find sinful. It turns out that straight white males such as Friedersdorf find themselves being treated as full and equal citizens with relative ease, whereas GLBT struggle a bit in that category for some reason.

Among the many problems with Friedersdorf is his emotional response to, and utter lack of precision regarding the word bigotry. It’s a word with real meaning, not an insult, and petitioning the state to deny the basic rights and protections synonymous with full and equal citizenship is an act of bigotry. Bigotry is not synonymous with animosity. Bigotry is not synonymous with hatred. Bigotry is not synonymous with rudeness. Bigotry doesn’t cease to be bigotry simply because it comes from a place of ‘sincere religious conviction’  (which I doubt Friedersdorf would deny in other contexts–I have no doubt there are a few hundred million Hindus who seek to uphold the sigmas and exclusions of untouchibility due to ‘sincere religious conviction’).

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • efgoldman

    Bigotry is not synonymous with rudeness. Bigotry doesn’t cease to be bigotry simply because it comes from a place of ‘sincere religious conviction’

    Excellent and true synopsis. Wish I’d said it.

    • ThrottleJockey

      So many conservative Christians just don’t get this; so many of them try to hide their bigotry with a smile.

      I do wonder if there’s a middle ground that might be reached on a very narrow conscience clause, of the kind that we have with abortifacients that allow individual pharmacists the right to decline to dispense RU-486 for instance. The reason I’ve always supported gay rights is because I’m a civil libertarian. The right to marry who you love is fundamental, as is I think some narrow right to practice your religion in public. I may be naive but both gay rights and religious rights are very important to me and I’d like to think there’s a way to accommodate both.

      • Hogan

        I do wonder if there’s a middle ground that might be reached on a very narrow conscience clause

        With whom do you think that middle ground might be reached? Because I’m not seeing them anywhere in actual US politics, only in some people’s imaginations.

        • ThrottleJockey

          I have no fucking clue, Hogan, no fucking clue. The Christian Right is so bigoted they’re going to continue down this maximalist, bigoted position they’ve held since time began. And as I tell conservative Christians all the time they’ve pissed all over LGBT folks for so damn long, and so damn hard that LGBT folks and their allies are in no fucking mood to compromise now that their view is in the ascendancy. Andrew Sullivan is the only personality I’ve known to suggest a middle ground. Theoretically, if the Christian Right pushed for a narrow compromise they retain enough clout to maybe win one, but they’re so wrapped up in hate, they may not want a narrow compromise.

          • STH

            Why is it that when people propose a compromise with bigots, it’s always the powerless person who has to give something up? No, you may not take away my right to medical care because somebody else doesn’t like that I have that right. Somebody who cannot serve customers fairly should not have a customer service job. Period.

            • Another Holocene Human

              Hear, hear. Most professions’ ethics require them to serve everyone without prejudice, but I guess pharm techs aren’t a ‘profession’ and so ethics is out the door? It’s an absurd “compromise” that denies someone’s rights so that a small-town bigot can get their cruel on.

          • Malaclypse

            I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

            • ThrottleJockey

              Yup, I hear you, Mal. But don’t paint me as a moderate. I’ve always supported gay rights. I just also happen to think religious liberty is important as well. I don’t even think Christian Scientists should be forced to give blood transfusions to their kids. I believe in maximal civil liberties for everyone.

              • KmCO

                I don’t even think Christian Scientists should be forced to give blood transfusions to their kids. I believe in maximal civil liberties for everyone.

                Except for the liberty of children of Christian Scientists to survive?

          • JL

            LGBT folks and their allies are in no fucking mood to compromise now that their view is in the ascendancy.

            And why should we? Why should we be satisfied with anything short of full inclusion and equal position to others in society? That’s the only just outcome.

            • Rigby Reardon

              Exactly. I never understood why anyone would imagine LGBT people would be even remotely interested in accepting a compromise position on the issue of their own humanity.

              • ThrottleJockey

                I just believe in a world where everyone is free to be who they are, even if they’re a hateful bigot, and even if they’re a hateful bigot to me (the very reason I oppose hate speech laws). I believe in freedom of conscience even though bigotry is unconscionable. If someone considers it a sin to attend a gay wedding, I’m not sure the state should have the power to force them, even if the person attending is just a photographer. All rights have limits. There was a white church in MS who last year refused to let a black couple marry there. While I consider it manifestly racist, I nonetheless support their right to decide that.

          • Aimai

            I don’t even know how TJ can make this argument–do you not know that in South Africa they used to refuse blood transfusions to black people, and from black to white people? Is there some magic thing about women’s bodies that makes them fair game, to you, for permitting some lunatic to deny them the medical care they need? If a black guy came stumbling into a pharmacy with a prescription for a legal dose of this drug, which counteracts opiate overdoses, do you think the pharmacist should have the right to refuse to sell it because he doesn’t approve of addiction? No antabuse sold to alcholics by tee totalers?

            • ThrottleJockey

              Actually, I don’t disagree with what you’ve written here. I just think that there are multiple rights and values in every democratic society. I do think that of these equality is the most important, but I don’t think others–religious liberty, freedom of speech, property rights–are unimportant. Hence, some balancing is required. So, for instance, I don’t support hate speech laws even if I rather hate being called a nigger. I support conscientious objector exemptions to the draft because even though equality is important, people shouldn’t be forced to kill if it violates their religion. Values and rights are sometimes in conflict with one another.

      • efgoldman

        the kind that we have with abortifacients that allow individual pharmacists the right to decline to dispense RU-486 for instance.

        This is not “middle ground.” It is a refusal by state-licensed professionals to perform their duties and obligations, to the detriment of the patient – who, BTW, is always a woman.
        You gonna’ allow a Christian Science pharmacist (if such a thing exists] to refuse to dispense antibiotics, say, or blood pressure meds, or insulin?
        Maybe a Catholic religious, who is also a registered pharmacist, in a Catholic hospital pharmacy. Maybe. I’m even leery of that.

        • KmCO

          +1

          Pharmacists refusing to do their duties does not constitute any kind of “middle ground.”

        • Gregor Sansa

          If you could find an honest non-bigoted pharmacist who had a problem with RU-486 but wasn’t derping about regular contraceptives or plan B, it might be possible to have that dialog. Such a person probably exists, somewhere. But they are not the impetus behind the bigot-laws, because they are outnumbered 1000-to-one by bigoted culture warriors.

          tld̦r: You can’t make deals with unicorns.

          • Gregor Sansa

            And they’re not just unicorns, but quantum unicorns. Because, while it is possible to have this position and still be a non-bigoted truth-seeker, the evidence is against such views, so chances are that as soon as you start an honest dialog with this person, they’ll start to change their ideas.

            • pete

              “Quantum unicorns” is excellent.

              • Rigby Reardon

                Fantasy baseball team name.

            • ThrottleJockey

              Actually most Protestants favor contraception and oppose abortion. So, there are millions of people who hold that view…so I support conscience exemptions for RU-486 the same way I support conscientious objector exemptions to the draft.

      • herr doktor bimler

        of the kind that we have with abortifacients that allow individual pharmacists the right to decline to dispense RU-486 for instance

        The fact that RU-486 is not an abortifacient reveals a lot about this alleged right to abuse one’s position as gate-keeper.

        • Gregor Sansa

          I think you’re talking about plan B. RU-486 is, indeed, an abortifacient.

          It’s a reasonable mistake to make, because most of the so-called “conscience clause” debate is actually about plan B, and RU-486 is much rarer.

          • herr doktor bimler

            Apologies.

  • MAJeff

    I’m so sick of this bullshit.

    If your perspective is that my relationship and my community are evil and shouldn’t exist, you really are incapable of recognizing my humanity. That you are “nice” in day-to-day interactions doesn’t minimize your evil intentions. You may be “friendly,” but you are incapable of being my friend.

    • Aimai

      But they would totally sell you cupcakes! Just not a wedding cake. Why are you so whiny?

      • JL

        What about wedding cupcakes?

    • Totally agree.

      When I first read about the Kansas evil, my comment on Facebook was “You do not get a pass on this.” No one does. You can’t support this shit and be part of my society.

      If a relative of mine supports this, then we’re done (or we’re yelling). You Do Not Get A Pass On This.

      • ThrottleJockey

        What’s frightening–and appalling–is how many Christian conservatives try to defend the Kansas bill. Some of these guys don’t care that it was bigoted; many think homosexuality should still be criminal. And they have the audacity to complain about being called a bigot, when all they do is act like a bigot!!

        • Exactly.

          No pass. If you are going to go for legalized bigotry, then calling you a bigot is where I *start*.

      • UserGoogol

        Two wrongs don’t make a right. Everyone deserves to be treated with compassion and understanding; you can’t reject anyone from being a part of society. Everyone must be treated equally.

        • Where’s my wrong?

          I am absolutely under no obligation to maintain relations with such bigots in my personal life and I do not have to be more than minimally and appropriately professional to them in my professional life.

          I said “my society” in the sense of my social circle not in the sense of exile from the US.

          And no, I do not see that such bigots get a drop of anything from me. If you go you go to this place of evil, you get shit from me, period.

          • Pat

            See, here’s where you and I part in consensus.

            I have rabid, evangelical relatives. I visited with them this Christmas. And I brought up gay marriage (now legal in my state) and about meeting a cute pair of older lesbians in a candy store. They were buying presents for their new grandchild!

            The younger relatives smiled, and nodded, and tacitly agreed, “No big deal.” The older ones were shocked at him. But I’ll keep at it, with words about how futile it is to police everyone’s love life, until I get them to back down.

            I will not leave them to hate.

            • They’ll chose whether or not to stay with hate, as Jesus said, Let the dead bury the dead.

              • Pat

                If all the reasonable people leave them, all they will have left is hate.

                I’m not excusing bigotry. I cannot believe that separatism is the answer. Separatism allows charlatans to keep their sway over the vulnerable. Rescue the vulnerable, don’t abandon them.

            • I’m not against your doing this.

              I obviously have a duty to try to change someone who’s changeable.

              My strategy is for this to be my dealbreaker with you.

              This is an important line to draw.

          • UserGoogol

            Yeah, I think my post may have just been stupid and wrong: I had just woken up so there’s that. Yes, there’s nothing wrong with vocally judging someone as wrong, and there’s nothing wrong with choosing to not associate with people on an individual level. (Well, I suppose there’s a certain amount of harm in what amounts to shunning, but the harm is pretty minor at the individual scale, the benefit of expressing yourself compensates for it anyway.)

        • jackrabbitslim

          Nope. Nope, nope, nope. The government needs to treat everyone equally, public accommodations need to treat everyone equally but societal pressure is a thing that cuts both ways and compassion is not the same as tolerance.

          • jackrabbitslim

            Dammit. Tag fail.

  • Unless things have changed radically in the US for the worse since I left and it may very well have then bigotry is in fact constitutionally protected. It is discrimination that is outlawed. But, individuals are 100% in their legal rights to hold odious opinions about people of different sexual orientations, religions, and races. This seems right to me since the fact that certain people have bad ideas does not seem to be a problem. It is only the enactment of some bad ideas such as those denying rights to people that is a bad idea. But, I am sure that my reactionary bad idea that people should not be rounded up in mass and incarcerated for having these opinions will be universally rejected here.

    • MAJeff

      derp!

      • I am quite sure Loomis was advocating that the head of the NPR be incarcerated for life for his legal lobbying of congress not too long ago. So yes the left does advocate and has used state violence, particularly in the form of incarceration, against its political opponents for merely expressing “bad” ideas.

        • MAJeff

          OK, Jenny. Have a pancake.

          • KmCO

            The real J. Otto might be a tad miffed to see this tarnishing of his reputation.

            • MAJeff

              Trolls gonna troll.

              • KmCO

                The real tell? Only an oblique reference to living overseas, and nothing specifically about Ghana.

                • MAJeff

                  Oh, it’s actually JOtto.

                  Jenny, Otto, Dagchester…Trolls gonna troll.

                • efgoldman

                  Jenny, Otto, Dagchester…Trolls gonna troll.

                  I’m pretty sure that JenBob and Dagchester are two different trolls. JenBob is pretty straight wrong-all-the-time-in-a-Kristol-sort-of-way, plus UNLIMITED CORPORATE CA$H, of course.
                  DagChester, on the other hand, is pure, unreconstructed Savonarola hate, except Savonarola was probably more liberal an forgiving.
                  JOtto isn’t really a troll, he’s just boring, predictable, self-centered, and off topic.

                • KmCO

                  JOtto isn’t really a troll

                  Maybe not usually, but if the above is actually J. Otto, then troll be trollin.’

                • He is, most definitely, a troll.

                  That may not be all that he is, but it is part of what he is.

                • Rigby Reardon

                  Yeah, that reads like a straight-up Jotto post to me. If he’s been nymjacked, then JenBob has developed some solid mimicry skills pretty quickly.

                  (Jotto has in the past talked about living in Uzbekistan or Kazakstan or one of those ‘Stans, so a non-Ghana reference isn’t definitive either way.)

        • Anthony

          Maybe you have been out of America for too long because usually ‘lobbying’ is code for favor trading and bribery.

        • Hogan

          the head of the NPR

          You have definitely been out of the country too long.

          • jim, some guy in iowa

            or not long enough

            • DrDick

              And not far enough.

          • sparks

            Paragraphs written suggest he’s been out of oxygen too long.

          • Warren Terra

            I don’t recall seeing Otto fail to use colloquial English before.

          • UserGoogol

            If public radio is outlawed, only outlaws will have public radio.

        • BarrY

          That’s a good one! There are four errors which I can count well before the end of the first sentence.

        • TribalistMeathead

          They’ll get Peter Sagal’s tote bag when they pry it from his cold, dead hands.

          • Wait, wait, don’t tase me

            • Rigby Reardon

              I laughed at this.

    • KmCO

      But, I am sure that my reactionary bad idea that people should not be rounded up in mass and incarcerated for having these opinions will be universally rejected here.

      Way to dialogue in good faith, Otto.

      • KmCO

        Or has your gym been ‘jacked by one of the blog’s derpier trolls?

        • KmCO

          ‘Nym, not gym (though you could reasonably substitute one for the other, if you feel so inclined). Nothing to see here, carry on.

        • Who would claim to be that who was not? Hmm?

    • Hob

      Otto, you know why some people here think you’re either a very unintelligent person, or an intelligent person who doesn’t give a crap whether he is saying false and stupid things because he’s just trolling? Statements like your last sentence, that’s why.

      • J. Otto, I think you’re confusing libruls with the Spanish Inquisition.

        • DrDick

          I know he is.

        • Warren Terra

          Nobody expected Otto to confuse liberal with the Spanish Inquitition! His weapon is Ghana, Ghana and Stalin, Stalin and Ghana. His two weapons are Ghana, Stalin, and Kyrgyzstan. Amongst his weapons are …

          • +1

            • Another Holocene Human

              The nymjack theory is confirmed by the fact that Fake Jotto didn’t stick around to argue with everyone, defend himself, and try to act cute… or tell more Ghana anecdotes.

              • Not really. He sometimes does this sort of drive by.

                I’m really surprised than anyone would see this as anything but typical. He nymjack theory has no grounds at the moment at all.

                • I mean, it’s of course possible, but the current guesses seem to be based on theories of Jotto commenting that are not well supported.

                • DrDick

                  Agreed.

    • Tom Servo

      I am impressed at how consistently the point sails straight over his head sometimes. Worthwhile in his narrow area of expertise, yet, everything else. Is he dumber than dogshit or is it performance art?

  • KmCO

    I would ironically say “Never change, The Atlantic,” but there actually was a time when it was not the fetid cesspool of idiotarianism it presently is.

  • Lee Rudolph

    One more thing it’s not, courtesy of Wikipedia (where it’s the first full sentence in the article Bigotry):

    Not to be confused with Bigamy.

    • Lee Rudolph

      (Not to be confused with a full sentence, come to that. Bah.)

    • Vance Maverick

      I was confused and initially thought “what, bigotry is some good things too?”

      • Warren Terra

        Yeah, the title is entirely too easily confused with “not entirely a bad thing”

  • Nobdy

    The difference, of course, is his conservative Catholic friends are not petitioning the state to deny him equal legal status via the denial of basic legal rights and protections

    You don’t know what they get up to!

    • witless chum

      I was thinking “yet.”

  • Hopefully when Friedersdorf is being taken seriously in 2016 that progressives should support Rand Paul, this idiocy is remembered.

    • witless chum

      Erik, I have an appetite for trivia. Is that really Otto up there or one of the whackjobs spoofing his name?

      • Can we run a pool?

        I’m putting money on it being the real thing. That sort of comment is not atypical.

        • DrDick

          Ditto.

        • KmCO

          I just don’t know. I mean, Otto’s a nut, but is he really that nutty? The second comment in particular is straight-up JenChester territory.

          • Ronan

            I love J Otto so Im not piling on, but stylistically its him for sure

            • sharculese

              It’s absolutely his style, and Jenny is not a competent enough writer to mask his own style, much less nail jotto’s that well.

              • Rigby Reardon

                Exactly.

          • Ronan

            ..also the other trolls arent that intelligent

          • Yep, he really is.

            Consider his “Progressives are the real support for Israeli oppression of Palestinians” series. Or anything about his academic career. There are others.

            • Hogan

              It’s definitely him. I’m not going to stay up and hunt down the similar comments from other threads, but they’re there for anyone who wants to look.

            • sharculese

              Also this:

              But, I am sure that my reactionary bad idea that people should not be rounded up in mass and incarcerated for having these opinions will be universally rejected here.

              That’s so jotto it burns.

              • William Berry

                I don’t think so.

                The “in mass” is a giveaway. Surely J. Otto, an academic historian, would say en masse?

                • In mass is the term of art in Africa, to ask him to use academic language is to ask him to turn his back on his adopted homeland.

          • Malaclypse

            I remember J Otto and his trolling about Zimmerman. I call Real J Otto.

            • William Berry

              OK, according to djw, it is JO.

      • djw

        It’s him.

        • Another Holocene Human

          Upps, guess I was wrong. (See above.) Very unlike him to post and run. None of his usually NPD preening. Weird.

    • avoidswork

      Who can, in good conscience, align with CF?

      Poor thing is a libertarian, raised behind the Orange Curtain and in the column of issue, defended the integrity of Douthat.

      • sharculese

        Other smug, pseudointellectual dudebros, duh.

  • politicalfootball

    Friedersdorf:

    The facts of her case do suggest that she regards marriage as a religious sacrament with a procreative purpose, that her Christian beliefs cause her to reject same-sex marriage, and that her business discriminates against same-sex weddings because she believes wedding photography requires artistic efforts to render the subject captured in a positive light. She believes making that effort would be wrong.

    Portraying gay people in a positive light is against your beliefs, and this fact makes you a non-bigot. As djw says, a mess of a column.

    • efgoldman

      As djw says, a mess of a column.

      Also,clearly, a mess of a “thought” process.

    • STH

      This “procreative purpose” business pisses me off so much. It’s so fucking dishonest. Where are all the Catholics demonstrating to make marrying an infertile person illegal? What about marrying a post-menopausal woman? Or a man with ED? Shouldn’t that be illegal, too?

      • KmCO

        Not to mention, historically speaking, the burden it has always placed on women.

      • djw

        And it’s so obvious! No church ever frowned upon lovely widow and widower marrying to spend their golden years together, and everyone knows it.

      • DAS

        I think the argument is that God could work a miracle and cause a postmenopausal woman to have a kid (c.f. Sarah having Isaac), but God’s not gonna work a miracle and cause a d00d to get knocked up by another d00d.

        • God’s not gonna work a miracle and cause a d00d to get knocked up by another d00d.

          Pfft, what a loser. A real god would do that just for the lulz.

        • STH

          This god person really doesn’t seem to be worthy of the title if he can do one but not the other.

      • Pat

        It makes me think she must do porn stills on the side. Just to make sure.

      • Bruce Baugh

        It also makes one wonder about this in the specific context of wedding photographs. Does she insist on a fertility test for straight-looking couples? Does she refuse to shoot for couples who haven’t already produced at least one child before marriage? How the hell does it work?

      • Hector_St_Clare

        You don’t know a lot about marriage, do you?

        The Roman Catholic Church will absolutely deny you a Catholic marriage if you categorically refuse to have children, or if you have ED to the extent that makes the sexual act impossible. And quite a few clerics- Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, and Protestant- have gone on record in the last decade or so arguing that voluntarily childless marriages are selfish and immoral.

    • Anonymous

      I haven’t followed that closely, and I’m not going to read Friedersdorf’s column, but I wonder if this Christian photographer has ever photographed a Jewish wedding. Or even a Christian wedding that’s not exactly the same strain of Christianity as her own (Catholic, maybe?). Because I’d bet good money she has, even though those weddings would also violate her beliefs. Which would then give away the whole “sincerely held religious beliefs” vs “straight-up bigotry” game.

      • Warren Terra

        Or even a Christian wedding that’s not exactly the same strain of Christianity as her own (Catholic, maybe?)

        If Catholic, the wedding of a divorcee …

  • sharculese

    Y’know, a lot of Conor’s work could be translated to “I refuse to consider experiences outside my comfortable, self-satisfied existence” with absolutely zero loss of meaning.

    • DocAmazing

      I don’t really know why anyone reads his stuff. He’s the male McMegan.

      • sharculese

        Honestly, I don’t think that’s fair to him. Yes, he’s just as clueless, sheltered, and incurious as McMegan, but he’s not vicious about it the way she is.

        • efgoldman

          Clueless and vicious are not mutually exclusive. In fact the former can often lead to the latter.

          • I don’t think his argument requires them to be mutually exclusive. Friedersdorf is clueless, sheltered, and incurious. McMegan is clueless, sheltered, incurious, and vicious.

            • DrS

              She’s a salty one

            • Increasing dilution usually decreases viscosity. Maybe we need to chop her more finely and dump her in a bigger pool of water.

      • imag

        I’ve read a few Friedersdorf columns, and until a few minutes ago I thought that he was okay and wondered why some people complained about him. Now I get it.

        • JL

          He’s sometimes okay, but sometimes terrible. I remember liking him better when he was an Andrew Sullivan intern who got to fill in when Sullivan was away, oddly.

          Sullivan’s place produces an odd mix of folks – Friedersdorf’s a former intern there, but so is Zack Beauchamp from ThinkProgress.

          • Anonymous

            I remember liking him better when he was an Andrew Sullivan intern who got to fill in when Sullivan was away

            Probably because he wasn’t nearly as awful as Sully’s other young conservative fill-ins, Peter Suderman and Ross Douthat.

      • TribalistMeathead

        Still riding his Wave Of The Future cred from the failed Culture11, would be my guess, but I think that should run out fairly soon.

      • Rigby Reardon

        He’s the male McMegan.

        I’ve always thought of him in exactly this way, but I figured it was because he came to my attention because she mentioned him in a particularly egregious column or something. Also, because he has guest-blogged for her in the past, and the mouthbreathers who inhabited her comments section didn’t even notice (they kept calling him “Megan” in an apparently sincere manner).

        As for his comparative lack of viciousness, maybe it’s because he doesn’t have to be vicious to advance his career.

  • Barry Freed

    Major props to you, djw. You’ve been really hitting them out of the park of late.

  • sibusisodan

    I’m slowly coming round to the idea that if Paul had been the kind of Christian who makes the news and the lawsuits in the US, the letters which bear his name would have consisted of HALP, HALP, I’M BEING OPPRESSED – and nothing more.

    It’s depressing.

  • pete

    The video embedded in Farrell’s post is completely awesome and wonderful and if you thought you didn’t have ten minutes to spare to watch it, you were wrong.

    • Uncle Ebeneezer

      Agreed. Quite moving too.

    • Aimai

      I think its hysterical–because of course, as a woman, I’ve had the experience of men catcalling me, or throwing things from moving cars at me, and turning on the television and debating what “women want” and why “women can’t be satisfied” or want “special rights” or whether they can be “good parents” and how children suffer when they only have a female parent. He’s just getting the abuse women have always gotten.

  • Pingback: [BLOG] Some Thursday links | A Bit More Detail()

  • Pingback: Left Wing Intolerance | iParallax()