In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

While we’re worrying about Jeremiah Wright…

Perhaps we should be focusing on the fear-mongering and outright lying on behalf of anti-choicers. Amanda tackles the hypocrisy of Wright’s critics — the same people who attack him for repeating inaccurate messages about HIV/AIDS were the primary architects of Bush’s anti-science, deadly HIV/AIDS policies abroad.

And while Wright’s conspiracy theories about where HIV came from are a little whacked out, when you know the history of medical experimentation on people of color, you can understand his paranoia a little better. Heck, even today, people of color tend to receive medical care from lower-skilled professionals, and are more likely to be “teaching subjects” than white people.

None of that is to say that his statements about HIV are correct. But Wright is only Obama’s pastor, and he has never been invited to influence policy — unlike, say, Jerry Thacker, a man who called AIDS a “gay plague” and homosexuality a “death style” and was rewarded with a nomination from President Bush to serve on the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS.

And the mainstream anti-choice movement spreads all kinds of lies about HIV/AIDS and other diseases — except they don’t keep it in the pulpit, they bring it into the classroom. A large anti-choice website — prolife.com — “warns” people about condoms, implying that HIV can penetrate microscopic holes in latex and flat-out stating that condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission 31% of the time. The site also says that “one out of every three teenage couples using condoms will become pregnant each year.” They further falsely claim that all STDs can be spread without exchanging body fluids:

STDs are frequently passed through “skin to skin” contact even when condoms are used. This can happen because the bacterial or viral germs that cause many serious STDs (such as human papillomavirus, chlamydia, herpes, and syphilis) do not infect just one place on your body. They may infect anywhere in the male or female genital areas.

So, even if the virus or bacteria isn’t passed through tears or holes in the condom itself, you can still get diseases because condoms don’t cover or protect all areas of the genital region. That means condoms don’t prevent many of the STD infections that take place during sexual contact.

This is what young people are learning from “pro-life” groups. And anti-choice groups are being well-funded by federal abstinence-only dollars to teach this kind of BS in the public school classroom.

But, yes, let’s be upset that Rev. Wright made a ridiculous statement about the origins of HIV to his church. After all, that will have absolutely no effect at all on what people do when it comes to HIV/AIDS prevention, but it’s a tasty news tidbit to bandy about in an effort to make Obama look like a run-of-the-mill crazy/paranoid/racially-divisive black man. Why would the mainstream media take a step back from the headline du jour and instead worry about the millions of people here and abroad who are being told that condoms don’t work to prevent HIV? That won’t have any negative public health consequences, right?


32 thoughts on While we’re worrying about Jeremiah Wright…

  1. I believe I’ll use prolife.com’s “logic” in the ongoing immigration debate: Since a “border fence” still wouldn’t stop every single immigrant from getting in, we should just not have one, and throw the borders wide open. Problem solved! Thank me later, Lou Dobbs!

    Preposterous? Sure, but no less preposterous than sitting idly by and hoping against hope that humankind will magically stop wanting to fuck.

  2. I agree with all of your very correct indignation: one cavaet though. STIs can be passed through genital to genital skin contact in the presence of a condom. I am sure about HPV and Herpes, not so sure if that is true with the bacterial caused infections such as syphillis.

  3. I agree with all of your very correct indignation: one cavaet though. STIs can be passed through genital to genital skin contact in the presence of a condom. I am sure about HPV and Herpes, not so sure if that is true with the bacterial caused infections such as syphillis.

    Some STIs can be spread through skin-to-skin contact. Herpes and HPV can. Syphilis and chlamyda cannot. Plus STDs are not going to slip through tiny holes in latex. That’s where they got it horribly wrong.

    And condoms are incredibly effective at protecting against herpes and HPV. Yes, they can be spread via skin contact, but condoms reduce the risk immensely.

  4. On some other blog, someone kept DEFENDING the Tuskegee Study with the logic that “The researchers didn’t deliberately GIVE syphilis to black men, they just didn’t TREAT them for it, to see if they reacted to syphilis the same way white men did!”

    How about this: Treat the black men who have syphilis, and see if they react to treatment the same way whites do!

    (Guess you’d have to really doubt the efficacy of syphilis treatment for black men if you considered black men a separate species, or 4/5 of a human being, or something.)

    I didn’t have a problem with Wright’s remarks until the nonsense about Hillary Clinton not knowing what oppression is. Nope, she doesn’t know what it’s like to be called a n*****, that’s for sure. Neither do Wright and Obam know what it’s like to be called a slut, whore, bitch, cunt, ballbuster, etc. And uh, Hillary HAS had to work twice as hard to get where she is.

    Then, the comment about Bill Clinton was vulgar and gratuitous.

  5. The condom bit isn’t completely true. Sheep skin condoms are not recommended for preventing STI transmission. But half-truths are still truths, right? Crazy anti-choice people.

    Any lesion or viral outbreak not covered by a condom can be spread by skin to skin contact (e.g. scrotum-to-vulva contact).

    [I’m a feminist, pre-med, peer health educator, fyi]

  6. That 31% statistic comes because they factor in people who don’t use condoms consistently – in other words, if condoms are only used 2/3 of the time, they’re 33% effective. So that’s not false, see?

  7. Thanks, Jill, for addressing this issue. I’m glad people are getting the message out about the hypocrisy of the right’s indignation of Wright.

  8. God, I just ranted about this last night on my LJ. This guy I work with has been liking Wright to fucking Imus! And when I told him that I didn’t really agree with most of what Wright said, I understood the anger behind it and see some of his points. The guy at work (who, clearly is an older, white, male, GOP) has actively NO SPOKEN TO ME SENSE. Except to tell me that that was NOT how the world worked. I don’t even understand that statement? How doesn’t it work? Are people not ALLOWED to be mad because they are being oppressed??

    Wow. I just went off. Apparently, this whole thing has turned into a soap box for me.

    I really hate people this week.

  9. Some STIs can be spread through skin-to-skin contact. Herpes and HPV can. Syphilis and chlamyda cannot.

    Jill, that’s not actually the case. A condom will not completely prevent syphilis or chlamydia transmission, though is effective in reducing rates. I’m not defending the website because there’s plenty of awful stuff there, but the passage you quote from them is accurate and doesn’t seem all that inflammatory. Any comprehensive sex education course would definitely need to include that information.

  10. Jill, that’s not actually the case. A condom will not completely prevent syphilis or chlamydia transmission, though is effective in reducing rates.

    Sure. Except read what I said — I didn’t say that condoms are 100% effective at preventing syphilis or chlamydia transmission. Lots of times, though, a condom will completely prevent transmission — that’s why lots of people who have sex with infected partners don’t get the diseases themselves.

    I’m not defending the website because there’s plenty of awful stuff there, but the passage you quote from them is accurate and doesn’t seem all that inflammatory.

    Except it’s not, at all. Of course a comprehensive sex ed class would point out that condoms are not 100% effective 100% of the time; it would not, however, say that there are always microscopic holes in condoms that allow diseases to pass through. It also wouldn’t say that STDs infect “anywhere” on your genitals — that’s true for some STDs, but not all of them (it’s not true, for example, of STDs that are transmitted via body fluids). Finally, even skin-to-skin STDs are far, far less common with consistent condom use — a big comprehensive study at the University of Washington found that, of women who used condoms 100% of the time, none contracted HPV, despite the fact that HPV is the big abstinence-only boogeyman that they claim isn’t preventable with condom use.

    The section I quoted from is both inaccurate and totally over-blown. It makes it sound like condoms are useless, when in fact they’re incredibly effective when used properly and consistently.

  11. > How about this: Treat the black men who have syphilis, and see if they react to treatment the same way whites do!

    You DO grasp that there ARE biologically significant differences, you nit? (No, of course not, it’s not “PC”)

    “Black” people have far greater preponderance of Sickle-Cell Anemia, for example (it confers upon them a greater resistance to malaria, but creates greater issues where that is not a substantial problem). A treatment for malaria which works for black people might not work for whites, because it may involve improving the sickle-cell elements that whites lack. A racial difference in response to treatment. Duh.

    People of European descent generally have some background of exposure to the Black Plague, which seems to confer a statistically detectable measure of resistance to AIDS. Studying why “white” people have this resistance is highly relevant to developing effective treatments for all human beings, including “blacks”. The question is, what has been passed on via the DNA of Europeans which adds to the bodies’ ability to fight off AIDS? A racial difference in response to treatment. Duh.

    People with “black” skin have more resistance to sunburn than people with “white” skin. A sunburn preventative that worked fine for someone “black” might fail dismally for someone “white”. A racial difference in response to treatment. Duh.

    Q.E.D. — As a result of these differences — some obvious, some not obvious (and the fact that some may not even be known at this point) — treatment studies can and should verify if there are “race-based” differences in responses to treatments, so that the causes of those differences can be identified, and the treatments can be adjusted to act more effectively to the individuals involved.

    “Racism” is wrong when it is based on ***opinions*** and particularly upon presumptions of inferiority or superiority of basic humanity.

    “Racial” distinctions, nonetheless, do actually exist in nature, your damnfool absolutely-no-difference-of-any-possible-kind “PC” rules to the contrary.

    A rational person grasps this, and applies them carefully in solving problems.

    CLUE < ——- Get one, they’re absolutely FREE!

  12. “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”
    – Jeremiah Wright
    (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/14/obamas-spiritual-adviser-questioned-us-role-in-spread-of-hiv-sept-11-attacks/)

    “You’ll think I’m off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical – in a positive sense – in its approach to Africa since Kennedy,”
    – Bob Geldof
    (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/may/28/disasterresponse.famine)

    “Clinton was a good guy, but he did fuck all.”
    – Bob Geldof
    (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/may/28/disasterresponse.famine)

    “Clinton talked the talk and did diddly squat, whereas Bush doesn’t talk, but does deliver,”
    – Lord Alli
    (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/may/28/disasterresponse.famine)

    ” This is the person who has quadrupled aid to the poorest people on the planet.”
    – Bob Geldof
    (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717934-2,00.html)

    “I spoke to Blair about you before I came on the plane. …(snip)… He said you don’t see color. To remember that you employed the first black secretaries of state”
    – Bob Geldof
    (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717934-2,00.html)

    “Stop coming to Africa feeling guilty. Come with love and feeling confident for its future.”
    – G.W. Bush
    (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717934-2,00.html)

    “When we see hunger we feed them. Not to spread our influence, but because they’re hungry.”
    – G.W. Bush
    (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717934-2,00.html)

    “In my second debate with Al Gore, I came out for debt cancellation and AIDS relief. I called AIDS a genocide. I felt and still do that it was unacceptable to stand by and let a generation be eradicated.”
    – G.W. Bush
    (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717934-2,00.html)

    “A 1% increase in trade from Africa, will mean more money than all the aid put together annually.”
    – G.W. Bush
    (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717934-2,00.html)

    “Even though oil still accounts for the vast amount of African exports to the U.S., the beneficial impact of AGOA on such places as the tiny country of Lesotho, and its growing textile industry, has been startling.”
    – Bob Geldof
    (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717934-2,00.html)

  13. OBloody Hell, wow, that made me lose a few brain cells. Especially the part about sickle cell anemia. Do you even know HOW sickle cell anemia prevents malaria? Did you even think that ALL black people have sickle cell anemia? The ones that don’t are just as likely to get malaria as any white person, unless you can think of some other made up biological difference.

  14. You DO grasp that there ARE biologically significant differences, you nit?

    Are you actually arguing that it was smart and right and good to not treat the participants in the Tuskegee study? Who of course gave nothing remotely like informed consent?

    I thought the suggestion that responses to TREATMENT should be compared rather than response to NON-TREATMENT was actually a very valid one, and t.h. definitely is not a “nit” or in serious need of a “clue” for having suggested it.

    There was certainly no scientific basis to suspecting treatment would be so different or harmful to black men that it was actually going to be BETTER for them to be untreated. This was just “scientific curiosity” along the lines of that of Josef Mengele, with the same roots in considering the subjects to be less than fully human.

    If you actually think those running Tuskegee had the best interests of their black patients as their primary motivation, then you’re the one who needs a clue.

  15. > Are people not ALLOWED to be mad because they are being oppressed??

    Even if we grant you that supposition (which I don’t) — So two wrongs make a right?

    Propagating more racial hatred and dissension are the solution to presumed racial hatred and dissension?

    “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
    – M.L. King, “I Have A Dream”

    How do any of Wright’s hate-speech laden diatribes support that laudible goal?

    How does espousing lunatic conspiracy theories about AIDS being specifically invented to target black people promote that laudible goal?

    Yes, at one point:
    “How can you justify being nonviolent when your churches are being bombed, and your little girls murdered…. If it is right for America to draft us, and teach us how to be violent in defense of her, then it is right for you and me to do whatever is necessary to defend our own people right here in this country.”
    – Malcom X –

    When was the last time you heard of a black church being bombed? Of a black man being lynched for associating with a white woman? You might find something like that in the last 20 years, but it’ll be notable for its uniqueness, not for its commonality. And I’ll lay odds, if it has happened in that time, that the people responsible were diligently sought and probably brought to justice.

    Wright is promoting an ideology of hatred and harming blacks as well as whites by doing so. Any black person who claims, when we have had two successive Secretaries of State be black, that there are ANY offices, wealth, or functions truly denied them, is a lying hypocrite or a deluded fool. I’ll Wright the benefit of the doubt, and assume he is the latter. But THAT he is.

    Are there racists out there? Yeah. And Wright is one of them, too. Black racism is just as evil and pernicious as white racism — probably more, because whites were “raised wrong”. Modern blacks cannot claim the ignorance of inexperience.

    Until you can look at someone and NOT see the color of their skin, but only what they bring to the table of society, for the benefit of all, YOU are a racist.

    Until you can grasp that asians have suffered most of the same ignominies and past depredations as blacks, yet manage to excel beyond whites despite those past problems, you cannot and will not grasp that the solution to black problems must come from within, not from white handouts or special dispensation. The history of the last forty years of such have only reduced black literacy, reduced black capability to function as members of society, and massively increased black incarceration and crime. They have massively reduced the availability of reasonable successful black males for black females to marry, and, regardless of racial boundaries, one strong statistical indicator of societal success is the presence of a father in the family — white or black (Yes, good, even mediocre men do serve a valid purpose in a family).

    The plight of the “coolie” was only marginally better than that of the black slave, and asians were lynched for daring to associate with white women, just as blacks. Their position in society was just as “secondary” to whites as blacks for *longer* — “Julia” starred a black woman in 1968. For “Kung Fu”, in 1972, the producers selected David Carradine, a white man, over **Bruce Lee**. It was not until 1994 that Margaret Cho became the first “oriental” star of a TV series, and blacks are still far more prevalent on TV than “orientals” (I use “oriental” because “asian” includes vast swaths of peoples not from the Orient).

    By the end of the 1970s, racism, while far from gone, ceased to be a significant impediment to black progress in the social sphere. By the mid-80s, the most popular TV program in America, for many years in a row, was about an affluent black family. It’s quite clear from that that an entire generation has now passed the majority of whom have no problem whatsoever with the notion of meeting and knowing a successul and capable black person. While such troglodytes certainly do exist, they are not so prevalent that a black man or woman cannot find a niche in which to thrive and succeed.

    These policies, designed to increase tensions between whites and blacks, by improperly focusing blame and guilt, are clearly the WRONG “solution”. Continued attempts to blame modern whites for problems mostly more than a generation gone are doomed to continue this evil, pernicious meme, and the enhance and extend the suffering and misery it entails.

    It’s time to stop trying to pin the blame on “whitey” and figure out where it lies. I have my own ideas on this, but until people like Wright stop selling their people a bill of goods filled with hate, ignorance, and dissension, there is going to be no progress towards an actual solution, since there is no dialogue not based on frothing, lunatic anti-white ravings.

    Such swill has no place in human interaction.

  16. > OBloody Hell, wow, that made me lose a few brain cells. Especially the part about sickle cell anemia. Do you even know HOW sickle cell anemia prevents malaria? Did you even think that ALL black people have sickle cell anemia? The ones that don’t are just as likely to get malaria as any white person, unless you can think of some other made up biological difference.

    This presumes you had a few to begin with, since you somehow managed to ignore my express and explicit use of the term “greater preponderance” in your desperate attempt to paint me as making a broad, racist statement of ignorance. Those two words indicate nothing but that the quality is notably more common in blacks than whites. As a result, a treatment regimen can CLEARLY demonstrate a racial difference in results, which is why any studies of treatments should and must include racial distinctions as a possible factor, due to known and/or unknown differences in DNA which show up along classic “racial” lines, due to generations-long inheritance chains.

    > Are you actually arguing that it was smart and right and good to not treat the participants in the Tuskegee study? Who of course gave nothing remotely like informed consent?

    I’m not arguing the morality in any specific case (particularly since you provided no link to the detail you just added to the discussion, and since Tuskeegee has been involved in plenty of studies throughout its history, I’m unsure of exactly which one you have referred to).

    In ANY treatment studies, there are people who are treated and some who, receiving placebos, are not. If one is testing the effectiveness of a treatment then it is quite reasonable to include both a control group representing typical black people as well as a placebo group, also consisting of a representative sample of black people. The latter group would “not recieve treatment”, at least, not until the study was completed. The race-makeup of a study group is certainly one factor which may affect the results, and, as such, is certainly a potential factor in selecting the data pool which will be divided into the recipient group and the control group that gets the placebo. I would generally expect race, if it is a factor, to appear across both groups, but I don’t know the specifics of what was being tested and why, so I’m not assuming there is not some potentially valid, non-racist rationale for an exception to that general presumption.

    Give me more details, and I may well agree with you, but your limited initial pronouncement lacked any such supportive comments, it simply decried testing using racial distinction as a possible expectation of different results.

    Ideally, treatment regimens should be “double blind”, so that no one associated with the actual medications applied, the conditions being treated — including the recipients — has any knowledge of what is being studied, tested, or determined — their job is only to produce and to collect data. Any knowledge on their part might bias the data collected as to the efficacy of a treatment.

    In practice, this is often harder to implement, and yes, it often presents a certain set of ethical questions about not treating someone who you know is (or might be) receiving a placebo, esp. as those implementing the tests may well grasp, during the course of the treatment, what the condition is that they all have in common.

    The end result, though, is to provide valid information as to the effects, and side effects, of a treatment. If a treatment group has 90% of them get headaches, but only 10% of the control group gets them, then that suggests that headaches are a side effect of the treatment. The only way you can know this is to know that some of them did not get the treatment at all. Otherwise, it could be just about any random thing that they had in common, you wouldn’t know.

  17. I have to say I think both parties are lying like bastards. The comprehensive sex-ed crowd just push things the other way.

    “…a big comprehensive study at the University of Washington found that, of women who used condoms 100% of the time, none contracted HPV…”

    This is a big comprehensive sex-ed lie which Jill’s been deceived by, here’s the abstract of the actual study:

    “The incidence of genital HPV infection was 37.8 per 100 patient-years at risk among women whose partners used condoms for all instances of intercourse during the eight months before testing, as compared with 89.3 per 100 patient-years at risk in women whose partners used condoms less than 5 percent of the time… In women reporting 100 percent condom use by their partners, no cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions were detected in 32 patient-years at risk…

    http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/25/2645

    Condom users were catching HPV at a rate of almost 40% a year.

    The section I quoted from is both inaccurate and totally over-blown. It makes it sound like condoms are useless, when in fact they’re incredibly effective when used properly and consistently.

    ‘Incredibly effective’ is just the vague hyperbole comprehensive sex throws around rather than educating people. If you put the numbers on it, condoms in the HPV study had a failure rate of 100/89*38 or 42%. Incredibly effective? I don’t think so.

    And there are microscopic holes in condoms. There’s no debate here: FDA rules allow 1 in 250 to leak water.

    This is just a partisan lie fest. One group of liars want people to use condoms, and so lie about the benefits. The other group of liars don’t want people having sex, and so lie about the risks – don’t be taken in.

  18. > it’s a tasty news tidbit to bandy about in an effort to make Obama look like a run-of-the-mill crazy/paranoid/racially-divisive black man

    Actually, it says far more about his ability to make rational choices about both what he exposes his children to for many years but also on what will have a deleterious effect on his political career. Making the correct choices, and anticipating their consequences, is a significant factor in a good presidential candidate. In both regards, continuing to attend that church shows exceedingly bad judgement.

    The man was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. “I never noticed any such thing” is just flat out bovine excrement. He raised his children in an environment where a man who regularly spewed racial hatred and lunatic anti-white conpiracy theories was a respected authority figure, *by definition*. And failing to realize over a decade ago that this connection would not look good once anyone actually paid any serious attention to him, as they inevitably would, is patently ludicrously bad judgement.

    Ergo, he clearly and evidently does not anticipate the consequences of his decisions very well. I don’t think that bodes well for his capacity to act as president, and make the kind of long-lasting and far-ranging decisions a PotUS inevitably makes in the course of his four-or-eight years. We may one day have a black president. I don’t believe it will be him, and if it is, I believe he will leave office without a positive record as a legacy, and that will hurt the election chances of the next candidate who happens to be black.

  19. O bloody hell-

    My girlfriend’s parents brought her to Catholic Church every Sunday the entire first 18 years of her life, where she heard homophobic, sexist, and anti-choice remarks. Her parents do not agree with these parts of the church. They believe in birth control (only had the one kid then her dad got his shit tied). She’s an out bisexual and her parents have no problem with that, and they fully believe in gender equality. I view what her Priest said as horrible. I disagree with a LOT of what he said. So do her parents. Yet, they went back… every Sunday.

    Does this make their Priest a crazed bigot…

    or do you only care when a minority is actually speaking out AGAINST the majority?

    This is all a bunch of bullshit, and I can’t believe I am feeding the troll. But really, you’re not impressing anyone here with you “statistics” and “medical knowledge” about whites and blacks.

    And your list of quotes… I don’t even get it. Are you trying to show how CARING the Bush Admin is? Cause I don’t think you need us busting out with examples of not what he’s said… but what he’s DONE. I don’t care what he’s said. his action speak WAY louder.

  20. Meggygurl asks:

    “Does this make their Priest a crazed bigot…”

    Yes. I was raised a Catholic and those priests who aren’t pedophiles are all crazed delusional bigots who hate women and LGBT folks. It stems from their belief in some imaginary sky fairy who is an incredibly hateful bully.

    Crazed bigot is part of the job description for priests, also imams, mullahs, reverends, etc.

    No gods, No masters.

  21. > Does this make their Priest a crazed bigot…

    1) I only have your interpretation of the remarks to go by. I tender those remarks because:
    .a) Like it or not, the Bible does explicitly take issue with homosexuality. If a church decides to ignore that, then it has ceased being a church of God, and become a collection of like-minded people. I would therefore expect anyone who claims to be able to preach “the word of God” to take issue with homosexuality. THAT SAID, there are certainly hate-filled ways to approach the issue, and non-hate filled ways. Unfortunately, some people cannot grasp the difference between those two, and conflate anything said against homosexuality to be “hate filled” and “homophobic”. There is a substantial difference between disagreeing with someone’s choices and hating them for them. The pastor in question may well have done so in a hate-filled way, and, if so, I would agree with you that he was a bigot.
    .b) Sorry, I am sure I’m likely to get jumped on here, but I do believe there are differences between the sexes. They are generic differences, and there are exceptions on all levels (i.e., no statement is true for all people by any means, particularly those about “differences between the sexes”). I certainly believe in equality, but I’ve noticed that, for a lot of women, especially those who classify themselves as capital-F Feminists, they push for all the so-called “advantages” for being male while never, ever pushing for any of the disadvantages which come with the territory (and, yes, they are widespread). I’ll hammer this point with a quote:
    “What Feminism has contributed to women’s options must be supported. But when
    . Feminists suggest that God might be a She without [ever considering] that the Devil might also be female, they must be opposed.”
    . – Warren Farrell –
    Simply put, if it’s never occurred to you (to say nothing if you’ve never openly suggested) that The Devil might be female, then you are, in the old parlance, “A female chauvinist pig”. For any idea you support, reverse the genders involved. If it is still “fair” then fine. If it’s not, you have a hidden sexism you’ve been unaware of.
    . The relevance of the above is that, sexism, like homophobia, is a term often misapplied. While there are inarguably sexists in the world, a pretty large percentage of them are women. Without hearing the comments made by the pastor, and the manner in which they were made, I won’t accept your analysis — primarily since I don’t know you at all, so I don’t know how “even handed” you are with the term.
    .c) “Anti-choice remarks”? Gimme a break? At a **Catholic Church**, for cryin’ out loud? What possible misapplication of the precepts of reason would lead you — anyone — to expect anything else? The church has a position, and on this is it’s a very strong one. I personally disagree with it, and do so openly. If I joined a church, I would expect them to be reasonably “low key” about this position, or I would find another church (not because I out and out disagree with it, but because I don’t believe it should be LAW). As a result, I would not go to a *Catholic* church. Your presumption of inherent “rightness” here, casts doubt on your position. I *disagree*, strongly, with the notion that the LAW should be anti-choice, but I can certainly understand that the other side feels strongly about it — they perceive it as murder of an innocent, pure and simple. I can kinda grasp how they’d feel fairly strongly about that. As such, I am willing to accept a measure of passion over the subject, as I feel reasonably strongly over the murder of innocents, too (I note this because such passion could be misargued as “hatred” once again).. One hopes that you are capable of grasping this position, even if you (as I expect, and do myself) disagree with it. Your opposition on this, in general, is not evil, does not wish anyone ill, they are acting on their heartfelt beliefs, and believe you have rationalized what is, to them, a blatantly wrong action (I obviously exclude anyone who caused harm to doctors, clinics, etc.). I believe it is quite possible for them to oppose you in your beliefs without hating YOU for having them.

    I don’t consider someone a bigot because they *disagree* with me.

    I consider someone a reprehensible person because they HATE ME for disagreeing WITH THEM. I consider someone a bigot because they encourage other people to HATE in a generic way.

    Disagreement is possible without HATRED. Or should be. If it’s not, it’s a character flaw you should work on.

    More critically — IF YOU consider the pastor of which you speak a bigot, how do YOU justify NOT calling Wright a bigot?

  22. > I love the fact that OBloodyHell is claiming to have never heard of a study that’s so famous that they made an award-winning film about, based on the award-winning play.
    I guess it’s easier to make idiotic points when you’re deliberately ignorant.

    Gee, I missed the HBO TV Movie on the subject. Sorry, what class was that required watching in for you? Always interesting how TV watching substitutes these days for actually learning anything. ‘Cause TV Movies, you just know — they ALWAYS get their facts –exactly– right!

    Nice to see you are actually capable of disputing all these “idiotic points” with simple handwave, rather than “easily constructing” actual counterarguments. So much easier, innit?

    A good thing you named yourself after Memory, because it’s remarkably obvious that Wisdom clearly isn’t your strong suit.

  23. > Yes. I was raised a Catholic and those priests who aren’t pedophiles are all crazed delusional bigots who hate women and LGBT folks. It stems from their belief in some imaginary sky fairy who is an incredibly hateful bully.

    Crazed bigot is part of the job description for priests, also imams, mullahs, reverends, etc.

    Suzan,
    a) Your experience to the contrary, not all religious people are either crazed or bigots, at least not in a rational interpretation of the term “bigot”.
    b) There is a massive difference between even an “average” Catholic Priest and the vast majority of imams, mullahs, etc.

    Hopefully, you are just using hyperbole, but I’ll take the time to make a few points:
    .1) How often have you seen accounts of Christians — of any stripe — in the last, oh, two centuries, cutting off someone’s head with a dull blade for a religious offense?
    .2) Can you actually recall anytime in the last two centuries when a girl, raped by her father, or any man for that matter, was blamed for it **by religious authorities** and sentenced for this “crime”? Please provide a link. If you are aware of one, something I doubt, then I will bet it’s notable for its uniqueness, not for it being common (I’m not saying that the act in question does not happen, nor that some involved don’t blame the girl for it — I’m saying it’s NOT DONE BY A LEGITIMATE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AUTHORITY). The same cannot be said of Islam by any means. There are numerous cases every year of exactly that thing happening. In most cases, to Islam, if a woman gets raped, “It is her fault”.
    .3) Are you aware of any legitimate Xtian church which agrees to the barbaric practice of clitorectomies?

    Q.E.D. — there are blatant, inarguable rational differences between anything but the most extreme Xtian cults and typical Islam. It’s not a fine line, it’s not even a fence — it’s wider than the Grand Canyon.

    You might consider that when you consider who you support in what.

  24. What I wonder is why one sort of hatred is bad, and another is justified?

    Why is it O.K. for one group to subvert the teachings of Jesus, while we revile others who do the same thing?

    I don’t care if it’s Wright or Falwell — hate is hate.

    Anti-gay bigots are all the same — doesn’t matter if they are Black, White, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddist, or Wiccan. They use the idea of difference, of “strangeness”, to effectively dehumanize folks who are “not us”. It’s a cheap way to make your flock feel better — define a whole lot of folks as beneath you, as “bad”, “evil”, “immoral” — just so you also have someone to look down on. Hate the black man, hate the white man, hate the Jew, hate women — “put them all in their place”.

    Then claim to preach “love”, forgiveness, and peace”.

    We all know it’s a crock. It’s just a way to indulge in some of the “Seven Deadly Sins” and feel righteous about it

    Anyone who preaches hate of “the other”, is a bigot, and not one to follow, or see as a “spiritual advisor”. Doesn’t matter if it’s Obama or McCain.

    If we look at it with an open mind, it seems every religion hates someone, every “religious identity” movement sees fit to dehumanize, “other”, someone.

    By the way, why not look at the misogyny that is preached by just about all “fundamentalists” of any stripe (including Wright).

    Can’t have it both ways — can’t condemn McCain while giving Obama a pass. Can’t ignore facts just to continue supporting a “feel good” campaign. For one thing, the disillusion, the disappointment, when the cult figure is shown to be “just another politician” will be even greater.

    In the first place, this is a SECULAR nation. This is not a “Christian Nation”. We actually have the right to freedom FROM religion.

    Why am I beginning to think Obama is more a Republican than a Democrat? Could it be the permanent tax cuts? The less than progressive mortgage “bailout” plan? The desire to privatize Social Security (on again, off again – now following the lies put out about the trust fund – who really knows where he stands)? Perhaps the far less than progressive health care proposals?

    Why are we sidetracked by Rev. Wright? Why did Mr. Obama’s response, as good as it was, seem to walk around the entire issue?

    Where do we see a sign of a new “uniter”, not a divider” at work?

    Doesn’t anyone else see a lot of this stuff as the result of an inability to see the consequence of decisions made, or not made? Does that look good for our future?

    Yale MBA, now Harvard Law — what’s wrong with this country — don’t we EVER learn?

  25. > And your list of quotes… I don’t even get it. Are you trying to show how CARING the Bush Admin is? … what he’s said… but what he’s DONE.

    OK, did you actually READ them? Did you note the SOURCES? No, once you saw that they didn’t fit your whole froth-at-the-mouth bias, you just ignored the content utterly.

    a) None of the sources of the Bush-related quotes are “right” sources, like, say, Fox — Time, The Guardian. All noted LEFT-LEANING media bodies.
    b) Exceptiing the direct quotes from Bush, the person speaking rather blatantly is NOT a Bush supporter. Geldof is hardly a GOP shill. Lord Alli was the youngest person to attain a peerage. He’s Labour. He’s also gay. Again, hardly a shill for the GOP or the Bush admin. When he makes a statement like “Clinton talked the talk and did diddly squat, whereas Bush doesn’t talk, but does deliver,” I think one has substantial reason to believe he might mean it. Since he’s high in political circles, he probably even knows what he’s talking about.
    c) The Bush quotes are offered only to show that his attitude is not one of indifference, much less evil. He simply doesn’t agree with (presumably) you as to the means to do GOOD. One of them is to show that his interest in Africa isn’t even recent, but has been there since before he was even PotUS.

    The point is, Bush isn’t perfect, he’s not what you want, but get a bloody clue — he’s certainly not half as evil as you think, and he’s damned sure done a lot more for Africa than Clinton ever did. The “Chimpy-McBush Hitler” thing is a gross and cheap caricature, not a reality.

    If you aren’t going to give someone credit for what good they do, then you’re sending a pretty awful message to ANYONE who is thinking of doing good: “Don’t bother, my hatred of you will not allow me to ever see any good you do. EVER. Really, I mean it: DON’T BOTHER”

    If you can’t grasp that, then I didn’t write for you at all, trust me. Just go away and ignore me. *We* have nothing to discuss, by your own decisions.

    I’ve wrritten for people who are rational human beings capable of figuring out that they might be missing something in this whole froth-at-the-mouth-anti-Bush thing.

    I’ll debate anything I’ve said above. If you think a handwave is all you need then to write it off, neither of us is going to have anything to say to each other — and I didn’t write it for you.

    I simply don’t presume everyone is so certain of their opinions that polite discussion is closed, and, excluding a couple remarks here and there, I’ve limited it to rational arguments. So far, the responses have been mostly naysaying hand waves: “Nah Nah Nah Nah, you’re wrong, so THERE!!!” Impressively intellectual response. If my arguments were irrational, then it should be remarkably easy to fisk them apart. So far, I see no evidence of it.

    I’m sure most of you want good. What you fail to grasp, on the surface, appears to be that maybe BUSH DOES TOO.

    “But goodness alone is NEVER enough. A hard, cold wisdom is required, too, for goodness to accomplish good. Goodness without wisdom invariably accomplishes evil.”

    — History is rife with examples. In their zeal to do good, people often forget the paving material on the proverbial Road to Hell.

    I’m not claiming Bush is perfect by any means, nor that he has been right on any specific issue (well, except maybe African Relief) — but getting someone to openly acknowledge that he isn’t The Devil personified in flesh is step one.

  26. Gee, I missed the HBO TV Movie on the subject. Sorry, what class was that required watching in for you? Always interesting how TV watching substitutes these days for actually learning anything. ‘Cause TV Movies, you just know — they ALWAYS get their facts –exactly– right!

    Apparently OBloody Hell also missed the several books on the study and is incapable of typing “Tuskegee syphilis study” into Google.

    In ANY treatment studies, there are people who are treated and some who, receiving placebos, are not

    And is unversed in medical ethics. Effectiveness testing, as I understand it, is done against the current standard of care, not necessarily against placebo. If I remember correctly, it is also true that a study must be stopped and all participants treated with the more effective protocol if it becomes clear at any point that one treatment is indisputably superior to another.
    Is OBloody Hell aware that the participants in the Tuskegee study were never informed in so many words that they had syphilis? That they didn’t have the option of dropping out of the study, given that doctors not involved in the study itself had been told not to treat them? That the study was not even meant to determine an effective treatment for syphilis, but only to see if the late effects of syphilis – the serious, life-threatening late effects – occurred at different rates in blacks than whites?
    Exactly which bit of that is defensible?
    Next time, try making at least a minimal attempt to find out what the facts are before running your mouth.

  27. Oh Bloody Hell sez

    “Q.E.D. — there are blatant, inarguable rational differences between anything but the most extreme Xtian cults and typical Islam. It’s not a fine line, it’s not even a fence — it’s wider than the Grand Canyon.

    You might consider that when you consider who you support in what.”

    Look they all believe in imaginary sky fairies and the scribblings of goat herders.

    As far as I’m concerned there is no god and any belief in any so called religious teachings is extreme nonsense. but for your information people kill others all the time in the name of their imaginary friend in the sky.

  28. The following tells you all you need to know about religion – any religion (even though this a a joke Baptists tell on themselves):

    “I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, “Stop! Don’t do it!” “Why shouldn’t I?” he said. I said, “Well, because there’s so much to live for!” He said, “Like what?” I said, “Well, are you religious or atheist?” He said, “Religious.” I said, “Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?” He said, “Christian.” I said, “Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, “Baptist!” I said, “Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!” I said, “That’s great, me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?” He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God!” I said, “Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?” He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!” I said, “Die, you heretic scum!” and then I pushed him off.”

  29. Tuskegee Syphillis Study

    OBloodyHell – you can argue that Wright’s a bigot all day long, and I won’t have a problem with it, per se. The problem is that people are going nuts over Wright’s bigotry when politicians they support have been associated with (and even given policy power to) people just as bigoted or considerably more bigoted (and frequently for far less reason) for decades with barely a peep of protest. If Obama’s association with Wright is cause for scandal, then half of Congress should never have been elected.

    Double-standards. Daily fare in US politics.

Comments are currently closed.