Archive for the ‘religion’ Category

Angela Fiori

November 5, 2009

Just found a female antifeminist columnist named Angela Fiori. (I think a commenter recommended her to me a while back.)

Feminism’s Third Wave

Average men continue to be outraged by this perennial female adulation of either sociopaths or extremely good looking men who use them up and move on. They see no rationality in such a warped set of preferences. The key word here is rationality. The default mode of thought in women is not rational, it’s emotive. Criminals and philanderers are interesting and mysterious – that’s the key. It’s irrelevant that they offer no real future. In a nutshell, they’re crass entertainment like ditzy afternoon soaps. (I know so many of you men were certain there was some stunningly profound answer to this question, but there isn’t. Sorry for the letdown.)

All of this is exactly what decent men should wage a revolution against. They are the ones called upon to pick up the pieces of shattered relationships and foot an enormous bill as both stepfathers and taxpayers. Today, the staggering cost isn’t just financial in terms of ready-made dads drafted to foot the bill for two or three of another man’s kids (or thousands as taxpayers). The cost is emotional as well. Good men don’t like to admit it – for fear of being pegged as wimpy – but off the record many express deep resentment at having to struggle to build sexual intimacy with women who have been sexually plundered by so many past partners.

To Single Men on Today’s Women: Caveat Emptor

(Tonight – 6/24/01 – I’m watching Fox News’ Only on Fox where a female minister in Seattle is actually holding ceremonies that have the look and feel of a wedding, but are for couples celebrating their divorce! At the end of the ceremony the parents, children, and minister all gather in a circle for one big “hug-in.” How thoroughly twisted.)

Yet again: women should not be ordained.

The Feminist Road to Abu Ghraib

All these lies plus the problems at Abu Ghraib are piled on top of (no pun intended!!) the usual enraging stories about physical double standards between men and women and the added costs to the military of intersex fraternization. The solution to all these problems is for the military to do for women what it did for General Janis Karpinski: remove all of them from duty in the armed services permanently.

Advertisements

Addendum to my last post

September 27, 2009

Thought I should clarify a remark I made in my last post, which now that I reread it might seem to imply that the Reformation gave everyone freedom of speech.

It didn’t, of course. For the first couple of centuries that Protestantism existed, it burned heretics and witches and suppressed dissidence if anything more sternly than the Catholic Inquisition ever did.

However, by breaking the enormous political power of the Catholic Church, Protestantism did pave the way for the Enlightenment, which was where the idea of freedom of speech was born. Much as the selfish, lying cunts known as “feminists” want to claim women’s freedom of speech as their own heroic achievement, it was actually a gift from men like Thomas Jefferson, and they gave it to everyone, not just men. Find some historical evidence to the contrary! You can’t, because there isn’t any.

Pretty ironic that feminists are now trying to claim credit for freedom of speech, when they’re working so hard to suppress it in anyone who doubts the Holy Gospel of women’s equality, pacifism, global warming, socialism-by-another-name, and all the rest of the cowshit they’re trying to force on everyone.

Just didn’t want it to sound like I’m anti-Catholic, because I’m not.

P.S. Protestantism was launched by a man named Martin Luther. The Enlightenment was initiated by another man, Rene Descartes. Women didn’t do either, men did.

Why women should not be ordained, cont’d.

July 25, 2009

Remarks of the Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale

Well Operation Save America came, they saw, they harassed, and they annoyed; but they did not close the clinic. The clinic stayed open, no patients were turned away, and the doors never closed. We remain victorious. And that victory is a good thing – but, make no mistake, even though OSA has gone home; our work is not done.

If we were to leave this park and discover that clinic violence had become a thing of the past, never to plague us again, that would be a very good thing, indeed; but, still, our work would not be done.

If we were to find that, while we were here, Congress had acted to insure that abortion would always be legal, that would be a very good thing; but our work would not be done.

Just how could Congress do that? They have no way of preventing future Congressmen from changing the law.

How will we know when our work is done? I suspect we’ll know it when we see it. But let me give you some sure indicators that it isn’t done yet:

– When doctors and pharmacists try to opt out of providing medical care, claiming it’s an act of conscience, our work is not done.

Let me say a bit more about that, because the religious community has long been an advocate of taking principled stands of conscience – even when such stands require civil disobedience. We’ve supported conscientious objectors, the Underground Railroad, freedom riders, sanctuary seekers, and anti-apartheid protestors. We support people who put their freedom and safety at risk for principles they believe in.

But let’s be clear, there’s a world of difference between those who engage in such civil disobedience, and pay the price, and doctors and pharmacists who insist that the rest of the world reorder itself to protect their consciences – that others pay the price for their principles.

A feminist abortion advocate is complaining about doctors and pharmacists insisting “that others pay the price for their principles”? I couldn’t make this shit up.

This isn’t particularly complicated. If your conscience forbids you to carry arms, don’t join the military or become a police officer. If you have qualms about animal experimentation, think hard before choosing to go into medical research. And, if you’re not prepared to provide the full range of reproductive health care (or prescriptions) to any woman who needs it then don’t go into obstetrics and gynecology, or internal or emergency medicine, or pharmacology. Choose another field! We’ll respect your consciences when you begin to take responsibility for them.

I’ll give you another example, Kathy, and not a particularly complicated one either. If your conscience demands that you promote the murder of babies, don’t get ordained as a Christian minister.

Also, don’t become a Christian if you’re a moral relativist. The two are mutually exclusive.

Why women should not be ordained

July 14, 2009

Via the Editrix:

Episcopal presiding bishop terms individualistic salvation ‘heresy’

The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church called the evangelical notion that individuals can be right with God a “great Western heresy” that is behind many problems facing the church and the wider society.

Describing a United States church in crisis, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori told delegates to the group’s triennial meeting July 8 in Anaheim, Calif., that the overarching connection to problems facing Episcopalians has to do with “the great Western heresy — that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God.”

“It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus,” Jefferts Schori, the first woman to be elected as a primate in the worldwide Anglican Communion three years ago, said. “That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being.”

Jefferts Schori said countering individualistic faith was one reason the theme chosen for the meeting was “Ubuntu,” an African word that describes humaneness, caring, sharing and being in harmony with all of creation.

“Ubuntu doesn’t have any ‘I’s in it,” she said. “The ‘I’ only emerges as we connect — and that is really what the word means: I am because we are, and I can only become a whole person in relationship with others. There is no ‘I’ without ‘you,’ and in our context, you and I are known only as we reflect the image of the One who created us.”

Jefferts Schori said “heretical and individualistic understanding” contributes to problems like neglect for the environment and the current worldwide economic recession.

Just a few years ago, I got angry with a traditional Christian of my acquaintance for his blistering criticism of female ordination. I didn’t then have any particular stance on women’s ordination, though I was already a misogynist; it was how harshly he worded it.

The more articles I read about female clergy, the more opposed to women’s ordination I became. The above heresy from someone who was ordained into a church she clearly despises is a perfect illustration of why.

Women, witchcraft, and the vote

July 12, 2009

Well, it looks like the feminist idiots have gotten bored with trolling me for recommending that women not put themselves in situations where they would be easily rapeable. When I found out that the hysterical male feminist wasn’t just whining about me, he was telling women that it is safe to strip and get into bed with men they have no intention of having sex with, I banned him for aiding and abetting rape by giving dangerous advice. But he kept commenting, even though he knew I was deleting his comments unread. This guy claims that women can take off their clothes and get into bed with him and he’ll “respect” it when they tell him no, but he won’t respect it when a woman tells him, repeatedly, that she’s not interested in wasting her time on conversation with someone as stupid as he is. Maybe he figures that when I told him, “No, I’m not going to have a conversation with you,” and then proceeded to discuss the viewpoints he expressed with smarter people, I was giving him “mixed messages”. I guess I’ve learned a lesson about giving stray morons who comment here even the slightest encouragement.

On to today’s links. First, the Editrix has posted debunking the Margaret Murray feminist crap about witch-burnings.

Burning of witches was almost unknown and strictly rejected by the popes. In the 17th century, when all over the Protestant regions north of the Alps the stakes were burning (there is an estimation of 25,000 victims), not a single witch trial was performed. In Spain, about 300 “witches” were burnt at the stakes, in strongly Catholic Ireland 2.

The frequently traded number of 9 million victims can, interestingly, be traced back to Heinrich Himmler, the second most powerful man in the “Third Reich”, who intended to fuel thus anti-Catholic resentments. In fact, even his “research team” couldn’t fabricate more than 30,000 victims.

This is one of those things liberals try to gloss over these days: one of the many things that Nazis had in common with today’s liberals is that they practiced pseudo-pagan religions. After they had won the war and finished killing off the Jews, their plan was to abolish Christianity, which they saw as a Jewish sect. Today liberals try to demonize Christianity, but neopaganism (Nazis) and secularism (communists) have killed more people in a few decades than Christianity’s worst moments did for centuries.

Thanks to feminism, the history of the European witch hunts of the late 16th and early 17th centuries has become ideologized and bent out of shape to their liking and, interestingly, 9 million is the number incorrectly and widely bandied about. While witch hunts were seen in the early 1900s as outbreaks of religious hysteria for which an ever-sinister and oppressive Catholic church was responsible, in the Seventies, feminist revisionist historians claimed that they had been a systematic campaign by the patriarchal system to do away with the remnants of — Yeah, right! — goddess-worshiping pre-Christian religions.

A Razor for a Goat is a detailed debunking of Margaret Murray’s revisionist history of witchcraft.

Anywhere, more evidence to throw on the pile that women have no business voting: Unmarried Women Deliver…Big Time

Last night unmarried women supported Barack Obama by a stunning 70 to 29 percent margin according to calculations based on the Edison/Mitofsky National Election Pool published by CNN. This margin exceeds the support Obama generated among both younger voters and Hispanic voters. Unmarried women similarly supported Democratic House candidates by a 64 to 29 percent margin, matching their progressive support in the 2006 elections.

In fact looking back at martial status, unmarried women consistently generated large progressive margins, but never as large as we saw last night. In fact, there emerged a 44-point difference in the behavior of married women and unmarried women. If not for the overwhelming support of unmarried women, John McCain would have won the women’s vote and with it, the White House.

Ann Coulter once figured it up and said that if we threw out the female votes, there would only have been one Democrat president since women’s suffrage happened. I rest my case!

Also, Roissy:

Why There Is A Gender Gap

In short, women are voting more Democrat because the Democrat Party is the prime force for turning the government into the world’s biggest provider beta.

Women, witchcraft, and the vote

July 12, 2009

Well, it looks like the feminist idiots have gotten bored with trolling me for recommending that women not put themselves in situations where they would be easily rapeable. When I found out that the hysterical male feminist wasn’t just whining about me, he was telling women that it is safe to strip and get into bed with men they have no intention of having sex with, I banned him for aiding and abetting rape by giving dangerous advice. But he kept commenting, even though he knew I was deleting his comments unread and not reading his blog posts. This guy claims that women can take off their clothes and get into bed with him and he’ll “respect” it when they tell him no, but he won’t respect it when a woman tells him, repeatedly, that she’s not interested in wasting her time on conversation with someone as stupid as he is. Maybe he figures that when I told him, “No, I’m not going to have a conversation with you,” and then proceeded to discuss the viewpoints he expressed with smarter people, I was giving him “mixed messages”. I guess I’ve learned a lesson about giving stray morons who comment here even the slightest encouragement.

On to today’s links. First, the Editrix has posted debunking the Margaret Murray feminist crap about witch-burnings.

Burning of witches was almost unknown and strictly rejected by the popes. In the 17th century, when all over the Protestant regions north of the Alps the stakes were burning (there is an estimation of 25,000 victims), not a single witch trial was performed. In Spain, about 300 “witches” were burnt at the stakes, in strongly Catholic Ireland 2.

The frequently traded number of 9 million victims can, interestingly, be traced back to Heinrich Himmler, the second most powerful man in the “Third Reich”, who intended to fuel thus anti-Catholic resentments. In fact, even his “research team” couldn’t fabricate more than 30,000 victims.

This is one of those things liberals try to gloss over these days: one of the many things that Nazis had in common with today’s liberals is that they practiced pseudo-pagan religions. After they had won the war and finished killing off the Jews, their plan was to abolish Christianity, which they saw as a Jewish sect. Today liberals try to demonize Christianity, but neopaganism (Nazis) and secularism (communists) have killed more people in a few decades than Christianity’s worst moments did for centuries.

Thanks to feminism, the history of the European witch hunts of the late 16th and early 17th centuries has become ideologized and bent out of shape to their liking and, interestingly, 9 million is the number incorrectly and widely bandied about. While witch hunts were seen in the early 1900s as outbreaks of religious hysteria for which an ever-sinister and oppressive Catholic church was responsible, in the Seventies, feminist revisionist historians claimed that they had been a systematic campaign by the patriarchal system to do away with the remnants of — Yeah, right! — goddess-worshiping pre-Christian religions.

A Razor for a Goat is a detailed debunking of Margaret Murray’s revisionist history of witchcraft.

Anywhere, more evidence to throw on the pile that women have no business voting: Unmarried Women Deliver…Big Time

Last night unmarried women supported Barack Obama by a stunning 70 to 29 percent margin according to calculations based on the Edison/Mitofsky National Election Pool published by CNN. This margin exceeds the support Obama generated among both younger voters and Hispanic voters. Unmarried women similarly supported Democratic House candidates by a 64 to 29 percent margin, matching their progressive support in the 2006 elections.

In fact looking back at martial status, unmarried women consistently generated large progressive margins, but never as large as we saw last night. In fact, there emerged a 44-point difference in the behavior of married women and unmarried women. If not for the overwhelming support of unmarried women, John McCain would have won the women’s vote and with it, the White House.

Ann Coulter once figured it up and said that if we threw out the female votes, there would only have been one Democrat president since women’s suffrage happened. I rest my case!

Also, Roissy:

Why There Is A Gender Gap

In short, women are voting more Democrat because the Democrat Party is the prime force for turning the government into the world’s biggest provider beta.

Women’s Ordination

July 28, 2008

Dying Church of England Now Ordaining More Women Than Men
“What is left in this nation is a spiritual vacuum” says critic

The Daily Telegraph reports Sunday attendance in the feminized, mostly ultra liberal Church dipped for the first time below one million out of a total population of almost 51 million. The slight drop in attendance follows two years in which numbers increased or remained steady. About 1.7 million people attend a Church of England church each month, while around 1.2 million attend services each week, and just under one million each Sunday.

Acceptance of women into the priesthood, which The General Synod approved in 1992, has not halted the decline in Church membership and has likely accelerated the trend. The move has been identified by many as a break with the historic stream of Christianity as significant as the separation of the English Church from its Catholic origins.

Women Usurping Authority

This is where such things as the WELS feminist creed and hymnal are going.

All right, I’m convinced: Women’s ordination is a very bad idea.

Celibacy: Freedom From Women

May 1, 2008

I’m not Catholic, but I’m very much in favor of the existence of Catholicism. The world would be a poorer place if it had never existed.

I’m always amazed, incidentally, that many non-Catholics, particularly atheist feminists, are so furious that women can’t be priests. I certainly won’t presume to tell Catholics how to run their religion. Since the days when one could be burned at the stake for not being Catholic are long past, why should anyone care how Catholics go about being Catholic? I don’t crash the local Wiccan gathering to tell them they’re drawing down the moon the wrong way. Of course, they just hate the idea that there is anywhere they can’t get, even if they don’t want to get there; this is an immature refusal to accept limits. Also, of course, they hate that there are men out there who are free of them.

I happened to be thinking about the celibate Catholic clergy last night and realized abruptly how important that is. No, I don’t think that the clergy of all faiths should have to be celibate, but I hope and pray the Vatican can stand its ground on this matter as well as on the ordination of women.

Marriage (that is, monogamous patriarchal marriage that can’t be abandoned at whim) is a good thing. It has a good effect on people and society. However, a married man, even in a patriarchal society, will inevitably be influenced by his wife, who in the majority of cases is going to be his moral and intellectual inferior. (One of the benefits of proper marriage is that it binds almost every woman to a man who can influence her morals for the better and stop her from making too many bad decisions.) Even a man who has been encouraged all his life to stand his ground as a man should can be worn down by having the one who cooks his meals and sleeps beside him constantly nagging him against his better judgment. In addition, men who are pursuing women for affairs or romance are all too often led into folly by their wish to impress the object of their desire. Sometimes this is good; this urge has led men to make fortunes, improve themselves, and so on, but it has also led them to do foolish, destructive things.

The Vatican, therefore, provides us with a powerful group of men who are completely free of such motivations. (We will here ignore the decadent phases where many priests openly kept mistresses and so on, as well as the few who will always fall and sin. For the majority of its history, the Catholic priesthood has been celibate, despite the efforts of Hollywood to convince us that Catholic priests are real ladies’ men. Of course Hollywood people can’t believe anyone could really give up sex!) Priests should remain celibate because celibacy renders them free from women, their mental and moral inferiors.

Indeed, I have read that the eunuchs who guarded Arabian harems considered themselves fortunate to be unencumbered by the need for women. I am certainly not suggesting we revive the custom, merely pointing out that it has its good points!

I am not, by the way, a big fan of female ordination. I can’t say I’m militantly against it, but I’m glad that some denominations are standing firm against it. Also, the particular house of worship I attend is presided over by a man, and I know I would never choose one that was shepherded by a shepherdess. A few of them might be good at it, but really, if a woman has so defied tradition as to take that position, she is probably already unsuited for it. Part of the point of religion is that it’s supposed to preserve tradition and time-tested truth against ideological fads, such as feminism, so a religion that promotes feminism is not doing its job. I’m not surprised that even in those Judeo-Christian faiths that have allowed women’s ordination, male clergy invariably far outnumbers female. Judeo-Christian religion is basically masculine; it tells its followers to resist their nature and emotions, something few women can do without massive social support, and instead do what is right. Doing what is right when this is not popular is masculine behavior; women evolved to survive to reproduce, and female survival has always depended on keeping the favor of other members of the tribe. In short, the cloth is not a profession for which women are really suited.

Notice also that, despite the enormous political power of feminism, the trendy feminist religions, the various forms of Goddess-worshipping pseudopaganism, haven’t managed to get organized, or powerful in the sense that many Judeo-Christian organizations are. It’s run by women, and unlike the female vote, men have no motivation to help it along; what do you expect?

Judeo-Christian religion – and, for that matter, all civilized religions – sees God as masculine. That’s “masculine”, not “male”, because He is not literally male. He does not have a body. But we cannot help anthropomorphizing Him, and because of this, it is vital that we see Him as a Father, not a Mother. Even the Catholic Virgin Mary is the Mother who loves unconditionally and forgives us even when we do not deserve it, and who will intercede with God when we have sinned. God, being a Father, is less quick to forgive; He expects us to behave properly. The parallels with the normal family should be obvious. Children who grow up without a human father are amply demonstrated to be more delinquent, neurotic, shiftless, etc. A society without a Father God shows every sign of being the same.