Mississippi Governor is a *insert expletive here*

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tonymerevick/mississippi-approves-religious-freedom-bill-governor-expecte

So... apparently in Mississippi, it is now legal to refuse service to someone because something about them offends your "religious sensibilities"... what in the flying hell?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, what do we really expect of Mississippi?

It's Mississippi. This is nothing more or less than we have come to expect from that ignorant wasteland known as "middle America". These are the "family values" that they stand for.

Hatred is a Christian virtue; this is America, after all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Except it isn't a Christian virtue, sadly... or at least it isn't supposed to be. Hatred isn't even a natural thing- it is is a learned behavior... people ask me sometimes why I'm so childlike, that's why; to see through the eyes of a child is to shed the preconceptions and stereotypes taught to us as we "grow up"... given that, I decided I don't want to ever fully "grow up"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Honesty is supposed to be a Christian value too. How many times and how many lies did Romney tell last year? I cannot recall a time he didn't lie. If these good republicans had to tell the truth, there wouldn't be much telling.

I live in a red state. It doesn’t get much redder here. It’s the home of the Koch brothers and our state has severe financial trouble. Our public employee pension funds are seriously underfunded. We don’t have enough money to fund education. And we have an essentially flat income tax structure. If you are a corporation, you pay no income tax.

But despite the state’s dire financial circumstances, republicans in the state house have more than enough money to spend millions defending a growing series of recently passed laws which are blatantly unconstitutional (e.g. gun laws which usurp federal and local authority, antiabortion laws, election laws, legalizing discrimination, etc.). And the state's dire financial state has not stopped republicans in the state house from turning down tens of millions in Medicaid subsidies from the federal government which would fully pay for the care of our indigent citizens. Instead, the republicans in the state house want to create their own healthcare system.

We don’t have enough money to fully fund our educational system, but by God, we sure the hell have enough money to pass unconstitutional laws and spend tens of millions defending those laws. After all, we are a red state! Law is something for the other guy.

 

Yeah, sadly that seems to be the case

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I know here in Harrisburg, our school districts spend gobs of money on sports (Heaven FORBID the football team not have new uniforms every year!) yet when I was in school, some of our textbooks were over 30 years old... it was terrible

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now I'm even more confused about the "Hey You Atheists" thread.

 

Abstract/Practical

Well, there is the abstract and then there is the practical.

Abstractly, I agree with you.

Practically, however, I think reality disagrees with us.

Bill Maher long used a flexible joke about Republicans and Christians, among others: I would be happy to be a _____, if only they would first.

Sometimes it seems only the liberals understood that joke. Even today, there are plenty of faithful who do not see how using the law of man to harm their neighbors is not a testament unto the glory of God.

And that's not just the South or "middle America". And in my corner of the world it's not just "east of the mountains". We have an infamous church in Seattle that strives to put women back in their places, among other things:

When Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals was caught with meth and a male prostitute, Driscoll pointed the finger at Haggard’s wife: “It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness.” Outrage on the part of feminists merely stoked Driscoll’s fire.

Another time, he set the blogosphere abuzz by recounting a self-congratulatory story in which he advised a woman in his congregation that she should apologize to her husband for the sin of not “serving” him, and then should get down on her knees and give him a blow job. By Driscoll’s account this excellent advice caused the husband to start attending church.

In Mars Hill theology, female members are viewed through the lens of complementarianism, a theological position that prescribes separate roles for women and men including male headship. A woman being advised to get down on her knees and give her husband a blow job represents just one of a spectrum of submissive behaviors touted for females, who are encouraged to find their meaning in the traditional roles of wife and mother. The virginity of women is prized, and by some reports Driscoll’s late discovery and fury that his wife had sex with another male as a teenager became bizarrely significant in their relationship and in the life of the church even though he himself was not a virgin when he married.​

But that sort of hatred isn't what turns off his congregation. Even though these issues are finally coming to the fore, it's a P.R. consideration. The real kindling for the fire about to consume the ministry is marketing. And Mars Hill is just the latest in a series of what would be embarrassing and disgraceful episodes except for the fact that we who are not in such congregations as Driscoll's, or those of his fellow bigot Ken Hutcherson, generally disown them. Once powerful enough to scare the legislature away from doing the right thing, they weren't powerful enough to stop voters from finishing the Evergreen adoption of marriage equality.

In earlier days, arguing in the Religion subforum, I would remind Christians to "clean their own house, first", before complaining about atheists, gays, women, or whoever else. The line itself is stale for repetition, but unfortunately it still applies.

In the end, it is unfortunate; many good, decent people of faith get stained by these outstanding hatemongers. And that is, to a certain degree, understandable; the constant stimuli coming from the evangelical sector is hateful. To the other, though, I am also aware of a faction among Christians who seem to get it. They don't bother trying to say, "That's not fair to Christians!" because they recognize that the hatred visited upon society has taken that name for itself. They get it, and know the difference between the "Christians" we talk about in large political issues and themselves. Trust is an astoundingly effective communicative aid.

But this is what Mississippi wants to assert. They wish to get up and loudly practice their (ahem!) "piety" before men in order to be seen by them. And for some reason, they think this is what they're supposed to do. I guess Jesus was unclear on that point.
____________________

Notes:

Tarico, Valerie. "Christian right mega-church minister faces mega-mutiny for alleged abusive behavior". Salon. April 3, 2014. Salon.com. http://www.salon.com/2014/04/03/chr...es_mega_muntiny_for_abusive_behavior_partner/

Constant, Paul. "Mars Hill Church Admits To Buying Pastor Mark Driscoll a Spot on the New York Times Bestseller List". Slog. March 11, 2014. Slog.TheStranger.com. April 5, 2014. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...-a-spot-on-the-new-york-times-bestseller-list

 

I was just about to say...

 

Tiassa... that is just... wow. I know in some ways I'm a bit of a Chauvinist in some peoples eyes, because I believe in the idea that a man is supposed to protect a woman. Now, to me, this doesn't just apply to a guy an his girlfriend (or the "male" in a homosexual relationship, for that matter); rather, it applies to all men and all women. If I see a gal being harassed on the street, I intervene; if it is someone I know being quite obviously harassed by someone I don't know, I may intervene a little more, hum, harshly than if it were, say, two people I don't know appearing to have a simple heated argument (with which I may interject a little soothing logic or may not, depending on if it seems needed).

Likewise, I hold the door for women more often than I do men (though I tend to do so for both if they are either near at hand, carrying something, or elderly) not because I feel they cannot open it themselves, but because I feel it is polite.

I am more inclined to stop to help a woman along the side of the road who has suffered a flat tire than I am a man; it is not because I don't think women know how to change a tire (though, admittedly, a lot of the women in my age range dont' seem to even know what a tire iron IS), but because, again, it feels like the right thing to do. A man, in my opinion, who is of driving age ought to know how to do this and have the capacity to do so; a woman may KNOW how, but sometimes lacks the physical strength to do so (lets face it gents... sometimes we have issues getting the damn lug nuts off now that shops use these damn pneumatic wrenches all the time).

I call it chivalry.

The notion that a woman is supposed to be SUBSERVIENT to a man though? That's just... well, it's disrespectful, demeaning, and degrading, all at once.

Now, that isn't to say a lady doesn't have certain responsibilities to her husband - compassion, caring, kindness, and patience to name a few... because lets face it guys... we aren't always the brightest bulbs in the pack! I know for me, my fair lady has lighted my path more times than I can count. HOWEVER, a gentleman has certain responsibilities to his wife as well - strength, passion, kindness, and above all empathy... this is because, again, lets face it - we are wired slightly different. In general, women tend to be a lot more emotionally attuned to their partners, while men tend to be a bit more practical minded. The problem here is that we, as men, are sometimes a bit slow to see when and recognize what something that upsets our fair lady is.

It's a two way street... plain and simple. If you want to live together, you HAVE to work together!

The interesting note is, this is true in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships... if you aren't willing to give your all to the other person... if you hold back... it will show, and it will ultimately ruin what you have.

 

Ch-ch-ch-changes ....

In truth, it's time for a new word. This aspect of chivalry presumes women inferior and incapable.

I do remember, though, men of my generation going through the confusion about holding doors or moving chairs, or whatever. My solution was simply to extend that courtesty to, or withdraw it from, everyone. Given my disposition, extension was the inevitable outcome.

And in that context, people generally use the word courtesy.

It's also one of the reasons the faith couldn't keep me. Too much of what I was supposed to believe contradicted the underlying lesson. Let us not overstate that reason, though; it's a long list.

However, for our purposes, Driscoll and Mars Hill are hardly alone; there is much in Driscoll's outlook that could be an adult (e.g., fellatio) version of Christians in Timberlake, Virginia grooming young girls to be subordinate to men. And much like Mississippi, these particular Christians like to loudly proclaim their "piety" in public, so that we can all see how "pious" they are.

Of course, this is America, so the political desire has no obligation to correspond to its justifications.

According to a dialectic of neurosis, this can all start to make a certain amount of sense regardless of our moral asssessment. But that facet is absent from general considerations of history, so we often end up dealing with a disjointed, immediate issue. To blast Mississippi and its Christians for such bigotry is what it is, but over time, if this really is about faith, they can expect a reckoning for abandoning that faith in order to publicly proclaim their piety and spread hatred among humankind. It would be best for everyone, specifically the rest of us sharing this temporal set with them, if these groups would reconcile their faith and politics, or else separate them entirely. Otherwise, they might as well piss on the Eucharist and call it an act of devotion.

 

Fair enough

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Somewhere in the Gospel of John I believe Jesus' followers intended to make him king but he fled to the mountains and I always understood this to mean that he did not wish to be worshiped or idolized. The message over hero worship was the goal, sadly because of the hero worship of many Christians the message falls short. So I believe Jesus was pretty clear, although, to no avail.

 

Explicitly so

Yeah, it's a point I'm having some fun with.

Jesus was, in fact, quite clear. Explicitly so.

 

You know if they could just get with the part about those without sin not casting stones, well, that would be great! I mean whatever happened to Love thy Neighbor, sheesh!

 

Can we talk about the title now?

 

Heehee! Okey Dokey, the Mississippi Guvna is a Moral Moron and a mental midget. How dat? I am just working on the M's right now.

 

He wrote "exploitative" instead of "expletive." lol

 

No I... *looks at title*... well... would you look at that...

Imporplar, exploitative... man, my fingers are all kinds of fubar today...

 

You know you're right, I think I assumed expletive without really noticing because I was so ready to jump all over this asshole. May be that he was thinking while writing title, how easy it is to exploit southerner's ignorance.

 

Mod Hat — Fixed

Mod Hat — Fixed

It happens. The title is fixed. Can we move on, now?