Star Parker and the Gosnell Controversy: She Still Doesn’t Get it


Star Parker penned an op-ed for Newsday recently that demonstrated a stunning lack of understanding about the real meaning of “choice” and attempted yet again to blame the abortion rate in the Black community on Planned Parenthood and Black women.

As I read her piece, I was initially heartened. She’s the only anti-choicer I can recall actually absorbing the pro-choice argument that women who lack access to safe abortion care will resort to unsafe abortion care—because if a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, she’ll find a way to not be pregnant, by hook or by crook. Parker seems to get that. She writes:

Reports are coming in from around the nation indicating that more Gosnells are out there.

The abortion lobby claims that as long as we have tight regulations on abortion, a black market will exist. Abortion, they argue, is like any product or service that consumers want and government prohibits or overregulates. If they can’t get what they want legally, they will get it illegally.

We also hear that we get Gosnells when government refuses to pay for the abortions of poor women. The Hyde Amendment, which prohibits Medicaid compensation for abortion, makes unsafe abortion inevitable, they say.

According to this reasoning, poor women — desperate because of an unwanted pregnancy, pressed because regulations and costs make abortion difficult to get — turn to sleazebag doctors who will do it cheaply, with no regard for the woman, the law or safety.

Yes! That’s precisely right. The horrors that took place in Gosnell’s clinic are a direct result of policies that have been chipping away at the abortion rights established in Roe v. Wade. Gosnell’s sadistic and illegal abortion practices are the result of injustice in reproductive health care—women who have the right to abortion care but lack safe access.

Despite what anti-choicers would like you to believe, Gosnell is not the norm. He does not represent the type of care that anyone who is pro-choice advocates. He was a murderer and an opportunist who preyed upon the most vulnerable women who chose to terminate a pregnancy, but because of lack of health insurance, lack of public funding for abortion, and prohibitively stringent regulations that have forced abortion clinics to shutter their doors, found themselves with no place else to go. So yes, desperate women will turn to “sleazebag doctors” like Gosnell who have no regard for women’s health, the law, or safety.

By George, I think Star’s got it! But, no, not really. Parker continues:

But it is ironic that those who call themselves “pro-choice” argue that the only alternatives facing low-income women are unsafe abortions done by sleazebags or government-subsidized abortions.

There is another choice, but those who call themselves don’t want women, particularly poor women, to consider it.

This option is called birth.

So close, Star. So close. But, alas, close doesn’t cut it when it comes to respecting women’s right to bodily autonomy.

The point of the term “pro-choice” and the work that pro-choice activists do is to ensure that “choice” encompasses all choices. The choice to have children. The choice to have children when you want to have them. The choice to stop having them after you already have them. It’s the choice to decide for yourself.

Indeed, it’s the same choice Parker made when she chose to have four abortions. Whether or not she regrets those abortions, the fact of the matter is: pro-choice advocacy and the laws which Parker seeks to overturn enabled her to make those choices. And now she would deny those choices to other women because she’s had a change of heart. Now she thinks all women should be forced to give birth against their will. That’s not right. It’s not right and it’s not fair.

Moreover, it’s not reality-based. Women who don’t want to be pregnant will find a way not to be pregnant. Women in Texas are already heading across the border to Mexico to obtain RU-486. “DIY” abortions are on the rise. Simply telling women to “choose birth” ignores that some women simply don’t want to have babies, and no amount of regulations or counseling will change those women’s minds. Choice doesn’t mean “choose birth or choose birth.” That’s not a choice. That’s a mandate. That’s a directive. And that’s a violation of women’s rights as humans.

In the middle of her op-ed, Parker makes a valiant attempt to convince readers that conservatives are the party of personal responsibility, and they care deeply for “the individual in trouble” (the unhappily pregnant woman, presumably). To read the sentence out loud is to understand its sheer ridiculousness:

When conservatives talk about a culture of responsibility, we’re not just talking about the personal responsibility of the individual in trouble. We’re talking about the responsibility the rest of us have toward that individual.

Render unto me a break, lady. The members of your party—the people who you have chosen to serve on the advisory board of your organization, the goal of which is purportedly to jump-start a national dialogue on race and poverty—don’t feel any responsibility to individuals in trouble. If they did, they would maintain the same level of concern that they harbor for the goings-on in Black wombs until well after the contents of those wombs have exited and become members of society.

Parker and her supporters love fetuses but could care less about babies, as evidenced by the conservative free-market principles that Parker claims will “renew the urban core,” but which actually will do nothing to help Black babies, Black women, and Black families.

Furthermore, that Parker lauds crisis pregnancy centers—anti-choice propaganda centers that exploit and deceive women—belies any claim that she cares about the Black community.

There are now thousands of crisis pregnancy centers operating nationwide. More than 2,000 are affiliated with either Care Net or Heartbeat International. I maintain a regular active speaking schedule for, and consult with, these centers.

They work with pregnant women in trouble and provide them the services they need to have their children. They provide ultrasound, parental counseling, life-management counseling, help with the physical needs of the mother and child and, if need be, help with adoption services.

Unwanted pregnancies often are the result of loneliness, fear and a lack of information. Crisis pregnancy centers deal with all this.

Setting aside the ridiculous notion that unwanted pregnancies are the result of loneliness, or that women are too stupid to make choices about their own bodies, ultrasounds, counseling, and help with adoption services do not necessarily help Black women. The implication that Black women should just suck it up, carry a fetus to term, and give it up for adoption ignores the sad fact that Black babies in this country are generally unwanted. Black babies don’t get adopted at the rate that white babies do. Indeed, as of 2010 couples were paying an extra $38,000 for babies that were non-Black.

So Parker is advocating that Black women who choose abortion because they are not financially able to care for a child, and don’t want to raise a child in an environment in which that child won’t be cared for, should give birth to children who will likely end up languishing in a foster care system that doesn’t give a damn about them—a system that lacks the funds to properly care for foster kids because of the policies that Parker and conservatives support. Here are some of those policies:

The brutal truth is this: The far right wing politicians and individuals so obsessively “concerned” about the abortion rate in the Black community are the reason that the abortion rate in the Black community is so high.

Quite simply, Star Parker and her ilk give Black women no indication that they give a damn about what goes on in the Black community, even as they persist in pushing their anti-choice narrative on our backs. And because they think we’re stupid, they enlist members of our own community to lie to us, as if we would be more inclined to believe their lies if spewed out of the mouth of a fellow Black person.

They toss out nonsense platitudes about how the most dangerous place for a Black child is a Black woman’s uterus. They call Black people an “endangered species”—because comparing us to animals will convince us that you care about our rights as human beings. They erect offensive websites pithily called “Klanned Parenthood” to spread the already debunked claim that Planned Parenthood is the devil (because, they of course contend, Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist who wanted to spread birth control and abortion in the Black community in order to ethnically cleanse us out of existence, of course).

They continue to lie and claim that 80 percent of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics are located in minority communities (they’re not). They liken abortion to slavery and the KKK, and generally degrade the experience Black Americans have had fighting for civil rights in this country by comparing a woman’s choice regarding her own bodily autonomy to forced labor and lynching.

It’s vulgar.

Listen up, Star. If you want us to believe that you care about the Black community, stop lying to us. Stand with us, not against us, as we fight for reproductive rights and justice. Trust Black women to make their own reproductive choices—like you trusted yourself to make your own choices.

And most importantly, stop letting the white anti-choice lobby use you as a puppet for their conservative anti-woman and racist agenda. It’s so unbecoming.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Imani Gandy on Twitter: @AngryBlackLady

To schedule an interview with Imani Gandy please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • John H

    Scathing, trenchant, and spot-on. Nice!

  • http://www.facebook.com/CYMBREE Katrina Myers Bowser

    Do you even listen to yourself? You DO have a choice. It’s a choice NOT to get pregnant. There’s a multitude of methods and products to prevent that from happening. However, you do NOT have the choice to MURDER another human being. Call it what you will and legalize it if you want… still does not make it right. Not only are you a murderer and a servant of satan in the eyes of the Lord but you preach your filth to others. All is not lost, though. If you believe on Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour, trust and obey, you CAN be forgiven. HE loves you! Praying for your deliverance from satans grasp.

    • L-dan

      And for those who don’t believe in your particular faith? They’re servants of satan I suppose…so there’s not much debate to have here. I reject your faith and deny that you have any right to ask that I adhere to it. Your shouting isn’t going to change any minds here with that as its base.

      And for those who didn’t have a choice about becoming pregnant? I suppose that’s just God’s will? Sorry, that’s a God I’m staying far, far away from, because he’s sick and sadistic.

      • http://www.facebook.com/CYMBREE Katrina Myers Bowser

        I’m not asking you to believe in my ‘faith’. Do you believe in God? I was raised in the Church, but still found it very confusing as a child to be taught the ‘theories of evolution’ and such in school. Another thing that is very confusing for people, myself included, is the difference between the old testament and the new. The Bible is a historical accounting of what happened in those days. It is the oldest Living book as it contains the Living Word of God. The old testament showed God’s wrath. The New Testament shows his Love. God does not control us. We have the ‘choice’ to take the high road or the low road, to do what’s right or what’s wrong. If something ‘happens’ to us against our will it’s because of the ‘evil’ choice of another and is not God’s will that it would happen to you, but He is watching how you handle it. Does it build strength and charachter or something else?
        For those who don’t believe and prefer to think we evolved from monkeys that magically appeared or evolved from some other species. I ask that you consider our own timeline. Ask yourselves what year it is and when and why did the zero or first year begin? Everything we know is based on the birth and death of Jesus Christ. Even if you don’t believe in Him… he believes in YOU. He LOVES you. He gave his Life so that each and every one of us who believes in Him can be washed of our sins, forgiven, and live eternally with Him in paradise. Regardless of what I think or say on here we ALL will be judged by Him. If we deny him he will deny us before the Father.
        You know the old saying, “If you’re not for me, you’re against me?” It is as simple as that. We try to make it more complicated but it is black and white, good and bad. This physical life is but a mere drop in eternity, an interview for the next spiritual life, if you will. We will all be here eternally, but will you be here in life or death, heaven or hell. Both are very real. Have you read the descriptions of both? Given the choice I wouldn’t want to take any chances, but that is just me. God Bless and keep you. Love in Christ, Katrina.

        • Jonathan Kuperberg

          This is a specifically proabortion site and 90 per cent of posters are also pro gay and pro strict separation of church & state, so you won’t get much approval here- but I respect you as a fellow pro-family believer for trying to witness to’em . At least they can’t accuse you of “not having a uterus” like some do when a male pro-family advocate speaks about abortion. Love in Christ, Jonathan

          • Dez

            I’m proud to be for the American constitution and protest against a Christian theocracy you want.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            I’m proud to be openly AGAINST the American constitution in its present form. If the 1st Amendment was repealed and replaced by a Christian Nation amendment I’d be for it.

          • Dez

            That is never going to happen.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Well if it doesn’t, God damn America. God above country, always.

            I don’t know why one of the South or Central American nations with large numbers of anti-sodomy anti-feticide Catholics and Evangelicals doesn’t invite pro-family Americans to come in the millions and set up a hardcore conservative Christian theocracy. There are under 20 million Jews in the world and they have Israel (which I strongly support, except I’d like it to become much more Orthodox which should happen with the demographics moving in that direction.) The Muslims have a whole region of the world for conservative faith-based governance. It is fair that there be an explicitly Theocratic Christian Nation for those who are fed up of depraved documents like the godless Constitution and European “human rights” laws being used to enforce the immoral agenda.

            At some point in the 21st century if there is sufficient cooperation between believers from different cultures a pro-family Christian oasis should be set up along the same lines, with a version of the Israeli law of return so any young (18-35) ultra-conservative Christian in the world prepared to integrate can live there and raise their family in peace from the sodomites, baby killers and godless humanist scoffers and all the other enemies of God. I say young as I would want it to be for people starting their families- like a massive version of an intentional community- not the old folk who agree with most people in their age group anyway; there are too many older ones for it to be practicable and it’s young people in the First World who reject the Satan-driven new cultural norms and live outside the mainstream consensus like me who may one day be persecuted if they have nowhere safe to go.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So you do want a theocracy. That’s not what you’ve said previously–suddenly you’re all Rushdoony. Want to bring back stoning as well?

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Sorry: Rushdooney and his taxes are theft, pro-slavery, child-beating, kill the gays, stoning for witchcraft and apostasy, Blacks aren’t really human, ReKKKonstruKKKtionist set is WAY too extreme for me!!! Like, so much more extreme that I’d prefer a secular humanist country provided I had full freedom of religion- sort of like the one I live in now.

            By theocracy I mean a country where Christian values are enshrined in law…not the Old Testament, more like much of the West before 1960. I shouldn’t even use that word, but when I say Religious Right which is very different to the crazy extremism of Gary North, Bahnsen, Chilton and R.J.R. I get called a “Theocrat” and “Xtian Taliban” by supposed moderate Christians and secularists anyway. So I decided I may as well use it.

          • fiona64

            At no point in US history have “Christian values” been enshrined in law … no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise. The UK has no separation of church and state, but even then “Christian values” were not the basis for common law. Did you miss that day at school?

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            OK- so not the WORDS “Christian values”- but without Bible-based moral beliefs why were there laws against abortion, obscenity, pornography, sodomy, adultery, birth control, Sunday trading, various forms of gambling, candidates who “deny the existence of the Supreme Being” taking office in various states, anti-Catholic laws in highly Protestant states, prayer and Bible reading in school, etc. etc. before the Supreme Court decisions of the 1960s and 70s? Were they all just a coincidence? You could say they represented the moral consensus of the times, but why was the moral consensus that way in the first place? Because of the religious views and traditions of the vast majority.

            Even if one *was* to find a reason for all the sexual, vice-related and other laws entirely outside of this- it’d be harder to explain away the openly Christian instruction of many (not all) *public* schools, explicitly Christian prayers said and Scriptures quoted in record of federal and state government business, and other blatant mixing of faith and government.

            Mainstream history (not David Barton or Reconstructionism) books I have read state that the US did indeed have many laws based on Judeo-Christian moral and spiritual concerns, many of which were voided by a liberal activist Supreme Court in a time of great social change as part of an overall shift away from traditional authorities and ways of life.

            Thus the federal court interpretation of S.O.C.A.S. mutated from an “accommodationist” one which forbade the government only from establishing/preferring a specific sect or prohibiting any peaceful faith expression but worked from a solid consensus Judeo-Christian conservatism to a “strict separationist” one in which this consensus was supplantged by a more secularised, libertarian and egalitarian (post)modern pluralism as the guiding stone for what the law should be and how the Constitution is interpreted.

            I know my British history too and know that before the 1960s here many more laws were based on explicitly Christian rather than secularist principles, without us ever being a theocracy in the strictest sense since Oliver Cromwell.

          • fiona64

            I would strongly suggest that you get busy reading the second of Locke’s Two Treatises on Government, as *that* is the basis for US law. We have laws not because of “morality” or “values” but because of the rights of *victims.*

            If you understand US history at all, you know that treaties have the force of law unless and until they are revoked. The Treaty of Tripoli has never been revoked, and it states quite explicitly, in article 11, that the USA *is not founded upon the Christian religion.*

            The Founding Fathers had plenty of opportunity to base the government here upon religion, but they opted not to do so because they understood how pluralistic the country could potentially become and did not want churches meddling in politics … or vice versa. They learned well the lessons of UK history, you see. You know, that whole “turbulent priest” and Anne Boleyn business … just to name two.

            I have already acknowledged that there is no separation of church and state in the UK; there *is* here.

          • HeilMary1

            You’re just as crazy as Rushdooney.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I, for one, am very grateful that you are not American, you’d be a very poor one indeed and we really wouldn’t want you. And no one is going to persecute you, but you’d sure do that to others if you had the chance.

          • Rachel

            Mr. Pro-family wants to dump the grand-folks off the cliff? What?

          • fiona64

            You should see how he talks about his parents. :-( Really quite sad.

          • HeilMary1

            He joined the religion that has slaughtered millions on both sides of his family.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            How is it sad that a person grows up and develops different values to their parents, exactly? I still love both of them (and my dad’s new wife, the ultraliberal Muslim HeilMary speaks of- actually not the other side of my family but she wouldn’t have known that), and my Jehovah’s Witness aunt and uncle, and my lesbian spiritualist cousin in Canada, and all the rest of my family. Just because I don’t have the same beliefs and think they made certain mistakes- like everyone does- in how they raised me doesn’t mean I am “against my family”.

            You were raised Mormon pro-family conservative and became a universalist, sexual revolutionist, Religious Right hating elite liberal who thinks young adults are “know-it-all children” if they disagree with you…and I was raised with cosmopolitan values and still appreciate parts of them but have replaced others with pro-family Christianity. Where’s the shame in that?

          • fiona64

            Actually, my parents converted to Mormonism when I was an adult — which you would have known if you’d actually *read* what I said instead of deciding who I am. My mother had an abortion in the early 1960s, before it was legal, because she got German measles during a crucial stage of fetal development and my folks decided they could not handle bringing a blind, deaf, severely mentally disabled child into the world. So, I guess, according to you, that’s “anti-family,” because they made a decision with which a 19-year-old twit disagrees. Boo-hoo for you.

            I walked away from church at age 18 when the “who would Jesus hate” crowd took it over and told me that I could no longer be friends with the gay man who was my best friend, that I couldn’t listen to secular music anymore … in other words, when the control freaks like you came in to tell me that things I did that harmed *no one,* including myself, were verboten.

            At the same time, I had very black-and-white views of what life should be like … and, to my surprise, it just didn’t turn out that way.

            Guess what? Every single 19-year-old on the planet has black-and-white views about how life should be — because they lack the life experience that will teach them otherwise.

            So, I guess the shame is that you couldn’t be bothered to actually *Read* anything I posted. ::”shrug:: Nor to understand that your parents were trying to prevent you becoming the kind of hyper-religious, uptight freak that you have ultimately become. I feel sorry for them.

            I’ve nothing of which to be ashamed, Jonny. You see, unlike you, I can look back at myself at age 19 and see just what kind of a know-it-all I was … and how wrong I was. That’s why I know what your future holds, far moreso than you do; I’ve had 30 years of additional life experience since age 19 that show me things are not nearly so black-and-white as I thought.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            “Every single 19-year-old on the planet has black-and-white views”… so what’s with all the liberal/moderate religious 19-year-olds and the secular humanist ones who you don’t seem to have nearly so much of a problem with? And how do you explain that most people grow more conservative with age, and lean more permissive, liberal and/or radical in their youth?

            I don’t say *everything* is black and white anyway as that would be pretty stupid of me. I simply believe there are some absolute truths and moral values, which is not exactly exclusive to the young.

            I’ve discussed the “secondary separation” and no “worldly” music ideas before as things I personally oppose but I can respect people who believe in them. I accept fundamentalism is another way of living out faith in Jesus Christ, not the one for me; you seem to see it as a mental disorder needing secular psychological/psychiatric help or a cultural adjustment and an unmitigated evil built on hatred and resentment.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I don’t think she’s really talking about what side of the fence you come down on, more about the absolute certainty that comes with youth. You mentioned radical, which can apply to right as well as left, as you’ve acknowledged. My political views have changed quite a bit since I was 19 (21 years ago–eek!), from left to center-right to moderate left again but I remember thinking at 19 that I was very sure of everything, that there was only one right way to be and that my views were never going to change. I read so much, and studied a lot and thought I knew so much. And boy, was I zealous–I thought that any other way was wishy-washy. Black and white. But the older I get the more grey I see (not just talking about hair, here ), and the less certain I am about everything. And instead of thinking about how much I know, I’m more aware of how much I really don’t know. Maybe you’ll always see things the way you see them now–I’m certainly not psychic. But this is my experience.

          • fiona64

            Yep. I was a Bible-thumping, anti-choice zealot at age 19 as well … even though I knew that it was stupid to say that I couldn’t be friends with gay men or listen to secular music. I had all of the answers at that age.

            Johnny consistently fails to understand that older people were once his age and knew it all too. Hell, I was convinced my father was the stupidest man alive … until I was about 25 years old, that is.

          • Jennifer Starr

            That’s why you have religious groups like Acquire the Fire and camps like the one you saw in the documentary Jesus camp–they try to capture that zeal and absolute certainty that generally comes with youth and turn it in a certain direction.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            I have seen Acquire the Fire. Given the antipathy most people my age have to (ESPECIALLY conservative) religious faith around here I’d love it to be *much* more popular. I’d rather people be saved and a little too zealous for my liking than unsaved and/or godless. For me, I preferred The Response South Carolina: watched online, very spiritually exhilarating, improved my relationship with God.

            Equally I’m not for radical indoctrination but would rather send a child to an overstrict Christian private school than an overly liberal secular one, given my belief in parents’ duty to train children to be Godly and my life experience so far of having my faith and politics ridiculed at high school and college; many youth are not strong enough emotionally to come out of that without compromising important worldview items.

            Thank you for not being as arrogant as Fiona in accepting you’re “not psychic”; I *expect* change will not come as far as my basic beliefs (theological, not political- IE I don’t ever expect to fall away from my faith in Christ as Savior.) I could still be wrong, no-one can predict the future. Just because one person changes substantially from age 19 to 49 doesn’t mean they can assume it will happen to me: there are plenty of believers and atheists, right and left wingers and centrists, who have held basically the same worldview from youth until old age, allowing for minor alterations.

          • fiona64

            I don’t say *everything* is black and white anyway as that would be
            pretty stupid of me. I simply believe there are some absolute truths and
            moral values, which is not exactly exclusive to the young.

            I’m pretty sure you fail to see the oxymoron in your own comment …

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Nope- no oxymoron. Do you not get the difference between “some” and “all”? As an exclusivist and Evangelical I believe some things are absolute. As a nonfundamentalist I believe others admit of varying shades of grey. I think you’re trying to set up a false dichotomy between pure relativism and militant fundamentalism.

          • fiona64

            Any time you declare *anything* to be an “absolute truth,” it’s black-and-white thinking. If it’s one thing I’ve learned since I was 19 years old, it is that there is no such thing as “absolute truth.”

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            You cannot be sure of that.
            I believe there IS absolute truth. (no parentheses)
            And there are people of ALL ages who agree with me, even if they disagree on what that truth is.

          • fiona64

            I believe there IS absolute truth.

            Yep, black-and-white thinking.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Amen. Which *still* leaves intact my point- that is, that I do not hold a black and white view of *every* issue.

          • HeilMary1

            Sensible people become liberal as they age. I was a black-and-white fetal idolater/virginity bully like you too when I was a scorned, scorched 19-year-old brainwashed victim of your Catholic sex haters cult. Now grow up before your hatred puts you in a mental ward or even on death row for religious terrorism.

          • HeilMary1

            You would rat out Jesus to the Romans for dining with hookers, gays, feminists, midwife-abortionists, and unwed mothers like HIS MOM.

          • fiona64

            I don’t know why one of the South or Central American nations with large
            numbers of anti-sodomy anti-feticide Catholics and Evangelicals doesn’t
            invite pro-family Americans to come in the millions and set up a
            hardcore conservative Christian theocracy.

            I can’t speak for anyone else, obviously … but *rock on with your bad selves.* Get the hell out of the UK, and the USA, and let people in pluralistic societies *live in pluralistic societies.*

            If you want a taste of theocracy, check out Iran. Apparently it’s going just swimmingly … if you’re male. And that, really, is what *you* like about your theocratic concept … if you’re really honest with yourself. Your Bible-based theocracy would put you at the top of the proverbial food chain. The real truth is that you’re pissed off that people remain unimpressed by you … and your Imaginary Land(TM) wouldn’t allow for that.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            No, I will not live in a Muslim theocracy and THAT IS THAT.
            I have the right to oppose pluralism and I will do so.

          • fiona64

            But … you told me that you would live anywhere as a proud Christian, even if it were some other kind of theocracy.

            Oh, wait. You only want to force other people to live in accordance with *your* beliefs, not be subject to the same treatment. I keep forgetting that.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            I meant if I was born there, of course… not that I’d choose to go somewhere where I would be persecuted.. If I was on an airplane for a holiday or business trip one day in the future and the plane had an emergency landing in a Muslim theocracy or other Christian-persecuting nation and there was some catastrophe which led to me ending up stuck in that country, then I would indeed preach Christ no matter the consequences.

            I don’t *want* or *intend* to become a martyr, though. That would be rather macabre. And as Francis Schaeffer wrote in A Christian Manifesto, I believe that Christianity is Final Truth, not just “*my* [sic] beliefs” and the mere existence of people who deny that will NOT cause me to relativize my convictions any more than I will equivocate over global warming because deniers exist or say the historicity of the Armenian genocide is in doubt if a few folk believe otherwise.

          • fiona64

            Well, I guess that this is a mellowing of your previous, rather strident position that you would be a proud martyr if necessary …

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Exactly- if *necessary*, not as some sort of planned or deliberately chosen event. So not a change of position at all. I am still a strident defender of the Faith (NOT in the plural.)

            The discussion began four months ago after I called out David Schwartz on WBEZ for suggesting that I would give up my beliefs if society moved on and my government made them illegal, quoting his historical research which showed the number of Christians fall significantly whenever they were persecuted by the state. I referenced Bonhoeffer and told him that the history was on *my* side unless there were *zero* people who had chosen death over obedience to a persecuting power, because I am *far* from a “numerical-majority” person in my attitudes anyway and I am uncompromising enough to die for my faith, and further contra your talk of brain development that both under- and over-25′s have opted for proud martyrdom throughout the past over denying God before men and that the friends I had asked who would choose that were mainly people over 25 too, who I knew online (e.g. American survivalists and post-trib end times believers) and who had responsible jobs and families- so it had nothing to do with my age or stage of development but the fervency with which the Holy Faith of the Lord Jesus dwells within me.

            After several posts in that thread you accused me of being “obsessed” with martyrdom and made a comment I found extremely hurtful, something like “go ahead and die for your faith” which seemed like you were dismissing me. I then made it clear that I did not expect it to become a reality, but I would do so rather than compromise my faith in the unlikely event things come to that.

          • HeilMary1

            You are drooling for the bad old days of concentration camps for “sinners”.

          • Dez

            Nope. Thankfully we ignored your religion otherwise I would be enslaved, native americans would be wiped off the map, white rich men would rule the government, and women would be second class citizens. Our society is rejecting your bullshit and progressing to a society with equality for all no matter gender, sexuality identity, race, or belief. Christianity stands in the way of that.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Part of that so-called “progress” is demonic schemes; if “society” rejects Christ, I will just believe differently to the rest of society and no-one will stop me. The doctrine of Manifest Destiny is nowhere in the Bible- look from cover to cover, it ain’t there- thus your wicked lying about “my religion” standing in the “way” of Native and Black rights is exactlythat, lying. How many Black,white and other Christians worked for civil rights? More than were opposed to it. The Bible further does not teach rich men alone should rule let alone white supremacy.

          • Dez

            There’s no such thing as demons. You can believe whatever you want, but our secular laws keep you from forcing it on me and others thankfully. I think your religion is full of shit and that is why I am not a Christian. It is not lying. You apparently do not know the history of this country. Slave owners used the bible to justify enslaving my ancestors. Slavery is condoned in your book. That is a fact whether you like it or not. Christians only tried to stop slavery once society started seeing the evil that is was. Many Christians in the south like Paula Dean would like to go back to those days. Fortunately liberal Christians and society reject Christian fundamentalism. Our course it teaches white male supremacy. Most depictions of Jesus is white and the Christianity teaches men are dominant over women. Look at how many white Christian men we have as politicians. Like women and gay rights Christians have always stood in the way of progress. Society has to drag Christians like you into the modern age. Of course Christians will try to claim like slavery that equality for gays and women were their ideas. We have the internet to show how discriminatory you Christians really are.

          • HeilMary1

            And let’s forget the 100,000 Native American kids kidnapped from their parents in the U.S. and Canada for “residential boarding school” DEATH CAMPS that were run by brutal pedophile Catholic and Protestant clergy over the past 100 years.

          • HeilMary1

            Catholic missionaries genocided possibly a 100 MILLION Native American “heretics” through military invasions funded by several European monarchies.

          • HeilMary1

            Go back to Nazi Germany, you fascist troll.

          • colleen2

            You need to find another country.

          • fiona64

            I remain constantly amazed by the Puritanical types. Truly.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            I have every right to be “Puritanical”- but do not see myself as such- and anyone telling me to leave my country is showing blatant disdain for my rights as a citizen, resident, and national. I do not agree with the majority political or cultural views of my country; I still have the right to live there. If I find another country to be more suitable for me at some point in the future and the logistics work out then that’s up to *me* and whoever’s controlling immigration there, not some stranger who dislikes my posts on the Internet.

          • fiona64

            I’m just wondering where, from my statement that I don’t understand the Puritanical mindset, you have concluded that I am telling you to leave your country?

            OTOH, you have repeatedly expressed a desire to live in a Dominionist theocracy … so it seems that you are the one who wants to depart the shores of Old Blighty.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            No, I don’t want to “depart”. I would prefer Dominionism, yes, but I have my religious rights protected in current law here and no state persecution so I would not move. I am disgusted by your talk about “Move to Iran” and other such bigoted eliminationist filth, which ignores the fact I am not Muslim and that there are important truth differences between Christianity and Islam and elements of Iranian culture I will not accept.

            There is a Communist Party in America. They could “Move to China” or “Move to Cuba” or “Move to North Korea” but they are Americans and they choose to stay put. (The same with Western European Communists.) There is a Green Party too. They could get far closer to their left-wing ideal just by moving across one border to another English-speaking Western nation… but no, they were born in and are citizens of America, so they choose to live in America and not Canada even though they know that means they will probably spend their whole lives as members of a minority party living under a system far to the right of what their “imaginary land” would look like. That’s exactly how it is for me as a Dominionist Christian in England, and I am NOT leaving. Accept it.

            You’re not a fool. You know that a preference for one political system or another does not equate in the real world to a move to a country where it is already in force, for a whole lot of reasons.

            I trust nothing you say about religion and government because I questioned you to explain SPECIFIC FUCKING LAWS- like laws which said no trading on SUNDAY, the CHRISTIAN sabbath, or laws making some forms of sex illegal between two adults, or the reading of PROTESTANT Bible devotionals in public school which was *required* by law in some states, even laws requiring CHRISTIAN PRAYER during public events and you went on about the “rights of victims”. Well that may be the deepest philosophical basis behind American law as a whole but those laws are quite clearly NOT about “rights of victims” and the reason they were struck down is because they are now seen to violate the separation of church and state as well as other rights. In the past, they were NOT. Which proves all *my* points that the US used to be a nation with laws extensively based upon Christianity, although it was never a “Christian Nation” in the sense that the Federal Government was run under a specific faith. Heck, when that Treaty of Tripoli was signed that separationists keep pushing at me… States could still have their own ESTABLISHED CHRISTIAN CHURCHES because the Bill of Rights was not yet incorporated below the Federal level! The relationship between religion and government has changed massively over the past 200 years in both the US and UK, and you will NOT change me by quoting a second-grade, black and white platitude about “one has separation of church and state, the other doesn’t” when you and I both know well that the phrase has been interpreted in many different ways by legislatures and courts across that time period.

          • fiona64

            But you’re also the one who said you’d be a Christian even if you lived wherever it was illegal. Which is it?

            As usual, you’re ranting like a three-year-old when someone points out the hypocrisy of your position. Really, you need help.

            Your questions were answered. That you don’t like the answers is hardly my fault.

          • HeilMary1

            Try Afghanistan.

        • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

          Well you claim to have been taught evolution, but you apparently didn’t learn enough because you complete misrepresented the theory. You also need to read a bit more about dates and years–that would be good for you to do. And yes, there was a time when, like you, I used to think things were black and white. But then I grew up.

        • L-dan

          Let’s see, you’re trying to convince me that a god who is supposedly all powerful, all seeing, all knowing, yet allows evil to flourish in order to see whether or not his creations react in the ways he deems appropriate, is a god worth my time and energy? Assuming he exists, this isn’t exactly evidence of love, it’s evidence of an abusive asshole.

          Add to that the fact that nearly all of the things his followers tell me are sinful seem to be cherry picked from scripture to suit their needs, and can be refuted with other scripture, and you can color me very dubious about folks who think that sort of mess = black and white.

          He sent his son to die, so that we could be rinsed of our sins. Sins that, according to you, he set us up for to begin with? Yeah, sorry. Job was a sucker. I’m not.

          I’m sorry you found evolution confusing and decided that the comfort of fairy tales was a better bet. I find neither evolution nor the Bible confusing. My lack of confusion is why I reject your mythology. Sorry.

        • canaduck

          “For those who don’t believe and prefer to think we evolved from monkeys that magically appeared or evolved from some other species. ”

          There is no way you learned about evolution if this is what you got out of it.

        • Mike

          Ok.. but then, who created your “god”?

          You are exactly what’s wrong with United States politics and the world as a whole. You claim to be tolerant, but only if it coincides with your “faith”. Never mind the fact that your “faith” is just completely ridiculous. There’s a reason why scientific facts are taught in school, and that is so students don’t turn out disillusioned like yourself. I truly feel sorry for you, and if there is some Jesus Christ who believes in “us”, I’m pretty certain he feels even more sorry for you than I do.

          I have no problem with people who want to believe whatever faith they want, no matter how ridiculous it is, as long as it doesn’t effect me or anyone else (that isn’t their self, obviously). You can believe that Evolution is some made up jargon typed up by Satan himself, I really could care less. However, you try to force those beliefs on others or in an educational setting such as schools, then I have a huge problem.

          Science never sets out with this definitive vendetta against religion or the desperate people who choose to follow it. No, science sets out to ask questions, push boundaries; all in an attempt to further mankind’s knowledge of how this Universe truly works (not how some random authors thousands of years ago wanted it to work.. And never mind the fact that the Bible has been translated how many times now, since the absolute original? I realize you didn’t learn a whole lot in that school you talk of, but I can remember playing a game called “telephone” in which someone would whisper a phrase, and by the time that phrase got passed on through 11-12 students, it was a completely new sentence.. But yes, I’ll totally take your book of ancient fairy tales that’s been passed along in thousands of different languages, through millions of people who were equally inadequate to use logic and reasoning like yourself, word-for-word..).

          But I digress.. Science isn’t the one fighting religion, it’s religion struggling to grasp ideas that have proven to be wrong and/or irrelevant. You mention Evolution (although incorrectly) and discredit it because of why? Because a book says so? However, science mentions creationism and discredits it why? Because of the discovery of Evolution. See, even our knowledge “evolves” (at least for most of us). Believing in whatever “faith” you want, for whatever reason you choose, is completely your freedom. If coming up with a single word excuse, “god”, helps you sleep at night because it vaguely explains what mankind ‘currently’ does not know? Then fine, I have no problem with that. But when people choose to stop questioning that ‘unknown’, or disregard proven facts simply because your current vague explanation of “god”, no longer fits perfectly? Then I DO have a problem.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            God has existed from eternity. The Absolute needs no creation. He pre-exists and transcends His creation. You have used a triply offensive construct *your “god”* [sic]: the personal pronoun is inappropriate and offends me, that g shouldn’t be lowercase and then you make things even worse by adding scare quotes? Oh and even if you are an unbeliever, faith is a real HUMAN attribute, so scare-quoting it is even worse.

            And I will be home schooling or sending my child to a pro-family Christian school should I have one. Not because I oppose evolution being taught but over the condom-pushers, sodomy apologists, non-judgmentalists, exculpationists, intersectionalists, no-God squad, values clarification proponents, secretive teachers who refuse to inform parents what minor boys and girls say to them about intimate matters, and other pondlife who creep around government schools with their slippery demonic agenda. I was brought up around WAY TOO MANY of these people to let any innocent children be sucked into their schemes.

        • fiona64

          For those who don’t believe and prefer to think we evolved from monkeys
          that magically appeared or evolved from some other species. I ask that
          you consider our own timeline. Ask yourselves what year it is and when
          and why did the zero or first year begin?

          Well, it does rather depend on whom you ask, doesn’t it? In the Persian calendar, it’s the year 1392. In the Bahai calendar, it’s 170. In the Chinese calendar, it’s GuiSi. In the Hebrew calendar, it’s AM 5773.

          How egocentric of you to presume that the Gregorian Reform calendar is the only one.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Ethnocentric, you mean? It’s more about that being a cultural standard than her individual personality… so yes, but the fact that globalized industries and quasi-governmental bodies around the world have settled on the Gregorian calendar makes it unsurprising that people would not see it that way.

          • colleen2

            I’m pretty sure she meant what she said. ‘Egocentric’, btw, would be a good word for you to learn to use. You could practice saying it in front of a mirror.

          • fiona64

            No, I meant egocentric. Rather like you, she presumes that only her version of Truth(TM) is valid.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            It’s not “my” version is the only one valid. It’s Christian faith is the only one valid, as God’s Word says and as millions of people with *different* views to me on all sorts of points of doctrine believe.

            It’s not about “ego” but about the One who shed His blood for me.

          • fiona64

            Once again, it depends on whom you ask. People of other faiths are just as convinced that *they* are correct.

            It is indeed about ego, when you insist that you, and you alone, know the Truth(TM).

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            No, it is not about ego. It is arrogant in the extreme- and spiritual lying-to read God’s only Written Word, the Bible and reject it for lies.

            Just because other people belong to false faiths and are not saved does not mean that those who accept God’s Truth are less right. At the last day everyone will know that. I have told you enough times already that I oppose relativism and consider this to be obedience to God, not “ego” or “arrogance”.- you can disagree but you’re not turning me away from Christ.

          • fiona64

            And no one is trying to turn you away from anything. I’m trying to point out that you are not the only person who thinks they have it all figured out.

            I realize that you’re convinced that you know everything you need to know; it’s part and parcel of your youth. Been there, done that, burned the t-shirt. As you get a little bit older, you will discover that there are a vast number of things you don’t even *know* that you didn’t know about.

            I guarantee it.

            It takes a lot of ego to believe you know everything you need to know and that you have all of the answers.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Except I believe no such thing, and I suspect that *you* keep using the same toxic combination- subtle misquotes, attacks on my motivations and attempts to put everything down to my *in*experience- with the intent to interfere with my mind. My *five years* experience fighting off liberal attempts to change my attitudes, feelings, and values by various manipulative techniques is enough to be able to stop you,

            I believe that Christianity is Final Truth as regards the basic doctrinal points shared among all orthodox groups.There are many other secondary spiritual issues and aspects of life outside of theology which I don’t claim to know all or even much of yet and will develop with further life experience. So you’ve just shot another strawman. It is NOT “ego” and I do NOT have “all” the answers just because God has given me blessed assurance on a couple of things…

          • fiona64

            You keep telling yourself that, Jonny. I hope I’m able to find you in another 10 years or so; I’ll have some questions to ask you. :-)

    • HeilMary1

      You are another example of a heretic pagan with Fetal Idolatry Derangement Syndrome. If Jesus opposed abortion, he would have whipped the midwife-abortionists instead of the money changers, and you know it but won’t admit it!

      • disqus_I9ERiegRth

        Love this

        • HeilMary1

          Thanks!

    • gr0o

      ” It’s a choice NOT to get pregnant.” Unfortunately people get pregnant in spite of their best efforts. Or they are raped. Or they don’t have access to contraception. Etc.

      Women have the right to not be pregnant if they don’t want to be. If they make the incredibly difficult choice to end their pregnancy it is between them, their doctor, and their g-d if they have one, and not any busybodies who use their bible as a weapon to shame women.

      • Jonathan Kuperberg

        You have the First Amendment right to live by and advocate such antimoral views in this life. However, that doesn’t make them true: when you die, you will face the only REAL God and be judged by THE HOLY Bible- not “my” “personal” “god” with a lower-case “g” or “my” “bible” with a lower-case “b”. His wrath and punishment is rather more severe than what you call “shame” (actually moral disapproval of murderers, by the Holy God’s standards.)

        • gr0o

          I don’t believe in your g-d. In fact, I categorically reject the idea of a god that urges his followers to shame women and treat them like public property.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Well I believe that He will punish you for not believing in Him, and He is God- not “my” “g-d”. And the fearful, the UNBELIEVING… shall have their place (in eternal death)

          • gr0o

            See you there!

          • Dez

            Oh noes!! Your imaginary friend will get mad at us. What will we do? Lol.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            I am way too old for imaginary friends.

          • Dez

            Apparently your not since you keep talking about yours.

          • HeilMary1

            At your age, your imaginary friend is proof of schizophrenia!

          • colleen2

            and yet….

          • L-dan

            And we know that he’s *The* deity…rather than Vishnu, or Zeus, or
            Allah, Tezcatlipoca, etc. … how? Sorry, the Bible doesn’t really count
            as a convincing argument, many other religions also have holy books.

            Yeah, I’m not exactly worried about your myths. I’m going to stick to advocating reality-based morality instead of shaming women for *gasp* having sex.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            I did not write one word about sex, let alone shame any woman. Maybe someone else has voices in their head, or hallucinations.

            “Many other religions” do indeed have books which they falsely claim as holy, but they are not like Christianity. The other religions are lies devised by men, with or without demonic involvement; Christ however really came to Earth, died at Calvary shedding His blood as the propitiation of God’s wrath for our sins, and was resurrected in the body in front of many witnesses, confirming His supernatural status along with His miracles, and crushing atheist/naturalist nonsense plus every single false religion.

          • fiona64

            Um, Jon? All religions are devised by men.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            A relationship with Jesus through **God’s** Word, the Bible, is different. If you’re born-again you know that.

          • fiona64

            ::sigh:: All religions are devised by men. If you’d paid attention in school, you’d know that. One man’s religion is another man’s mythology.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            ::sigh:: there’s a difference between men inspired by God and just plain uninspired men. Also, Jesus had a big part in Christian formation and He’s God in the flesh. What the unsaved think doesn’t affect the Truth of Christian Truth claims.

          • fiona64

            Jesus (Yeshua) was Jewish. He was long dead by the time Paul of Tarsus started the cult of Christ.

            What the ignorant think doesn’t affect reality.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Jesus was God in the flesh and He was resurrected and is in Heaven with His Father.

            I am NOT ignorant, you anti-Christian fanatic. I am simply an old time conservative Christian who rejects all of your spiritual beliefs as false.

          • colleen2

            See, what he means is that he and other born agains are special and they KNOW the word of God and ARE the word of God. Their understanding of the Bible (and thus all spiritual matters) is superior to ours because God agrees with them about everything. Particularly the uppity womenfolk.

          • HeilMary1

            You’ve shamed all the women here and called us all kinds of names.

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            Not to be rude, Jonathan, but every single faith out there is convinced that they are also the one true faith, and they state it just as vehemently as you do. What makes you any more right than they? And as a sidenote–what is this obsession you have with capitalization?

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            The Holy Written Word and Christ’s substitutionary atonement followed by His witnessed Resurrection makes me right and them wrong.

            And “God” with a big G is a matter of respect, like He when referring to God, Christian, Bible, etc. Godless people deliberately spell those words with lower case to show their disdain for Truth so I stand against them.

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            Did you witness the Resurrection? ( remembering to capitalize so you won’t have a cow—oops, Cow)

          • HeilMary1

            Yeah, Cows are sacred deities in Eastern religions. And Dogs are sacred to the dyslexics.

          • L-dan

            Nah, we spell them in the lower case because we don’t think God is a proper noun so much as another term for deity, both mythological terms with no actual beings attached to them.

            Repeating myths over and over doesn’t make them true in the sense that they actually happened, though they are true in the sense that any story is true when it illuminates true elements of the human experience. Sacrifice being one of those, there is a lot of power to the various iterations of the dying king myth. Beyond that, I’m done. There’s no actual debate involved in watching someone point at a book of mythology as ‘proof’. There’s no changing minds on either side as neither of us has arguments the other will listen to.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            It is NOT mythology. The similarities between myths in history and the Bible are because heathen man still has eternity in his heart so seeks to find meaning for life, and can come up with something approximating the Truth without ever being exposed to it. However, Jesus Christ was a real Person, fully God and fully man, he literally died and was then literally resurrected. Naturalism is a wicked lie. I am a supernaturalist who believes God can break the laws of nature any time He likes; however, God has also provided for the general orderly running of the Universe and given man the ability to use the knowledge of such processes for our benefit to His glory.

            (This is to answer hardcore anti-theists who moan that Christians and other theists should get off our computers and stop seeing doctors if we really reject naturalism, because the science that made them possible was based on naturalism. The elementary difference between methodological and metaphysical naturalism makes this a nonsense, hence no serious atheist philosophers use it, just idiot godless types deliberately riling up their “enemy” on the internet.)

            I believe in God and I believe He is a real Triune Supreme Being, personal and NOT mythological. So I write His name with a capital G.

          • Origami_Isopod

            I don’t spel gawrd with a capital “G” because I have no respect for imaginary beings.

          • Trollface McGee

            Oh yeah, well I believe that my God can beat up your God. Not only is my God bigger, he’s got the high score at Pac Man. Can your God get the high score in Pac Man? Without cheating?
            And your God just smites, mine smites and makes perfect toast and if you order now, my God will throw in another Deity for free! (limited time offer, s&h applies, other Deity chosen at random, not available in RI or MA)

          • enuma

            Any god that would dispense infinite punishment for the finite pseudo-crime of disbelief is not only a god that is wholly unworthy of worship, but it’s also a god that is evil enough to break any promises he’s made to not do the same to you. If your god existed, he’d probably give you a spot in the lake of fire right next to the unbelievers just so he could giggle at the surprise on your face.

            Be glad the evil being you worship does not exist.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Perverted, destructive theology based on sentimentality and lies. Away with you.

          • enuma

            It’s not theology. It’s an objective assessment of your deity’s character, and he gets a failing grade for obvious reasons.

          • HeilMary1

            My Goddess condemns YOU to unholy jackass hell.

          • http://www.auctiva.com/stores/viewstore2.aspx?id=811370&styleid=12 jerzygirl45

            Hi Jonathan. I believe in God. He just spoke to me. He thinks you’re being a dick

          • HeilMary1

            Keep your schizophrenia to yourself, punk.

        • Origami_Isopod

          Fuck you and fuck your sociopathic genocidal deity.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            God has the absolute right to commit genocide. He created life and He has dominion and He can end any life whenever He likes. “Sociopathy” cannot apply to God as He is above and beyond society and His thoughts are greater than ours, His ways are beyond our ways, so we cannot classify the Almighty in terms referring to human psychopathologies.

          • Dez

            And that is why many people reject you sick fantasy. If you worship a god that feels like slaughtering men, women, children just because he can then you are a sick and disgusting person.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            It’s not “fantasy”. Your disrespect for the omnipotence and sovereignty of God duly noted.

          • Dez

            Yes it is a fantasy until you can prove that your deity actually exists. I will disrespect fairies and goblins as well since they do not exist. You do not get automatic respect for your beliefs. You get respect when you can actually prove your claims.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            God is NOT “my” (sic) “deity” (sic). He is the Supreme Being and one day He will judge you.

          • Dez

            Sorry but you can not force your delusions onto others. You have not proven that your deity even exists, so it is your god. LOL. Yea threatening those who don’t agree with your fantasy is typical Christian behavior. Believe as we do or else. What a sick religion you have.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            But being judged by God is not dependent on your agreement or belief. Just like a person who convinces himself police are an illusion then robs a bank will still get arrested, when you die you will still get judged even though you are at present wrongly convinced God is an illusion.

            God is NOT just “my” “deity” [sic] or “my” “god” [sic].

          • Dez

            And the flying spaghetti monster loves you no matter if you believe in him or not. That is how ridiculous you sound. So no actual proof for your imaginary friend except that you really really believe he exists. Lol.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Well I believe YOU sound absolutely ridiculous with your talk about fantasies, imaginary friends, telling me I am talking about “mine”, etc.

            So the feeling’s mutual.

          • Dez

            Wow you are dense. Obviously it was a joke. What your deity says or feels is about relevant as what the flying spaghetti monster says or feels. Unless you can prove your delusions are true, we can dismiss you as a nut.

          • HeilMary1

            We’ll reserve psychopathology just for your rantings.

        • HeilMary1

          When you die, you’ll find out what a hateful jerk you are.

      • http://www.facebook.com/CYMBREE Katrina Myers Bowser

        Do you have any idea the number of women who would give their lives for a chance to be a mother? You can’t sacrifice 9 short months of your ‘life’ to gift your child with it’s own ‘life’ and a barren woman the gift of motherhood? You are right. Anyone can choose to murder another human being, or not. My prayer is that everyone of them who considers abortion makes an ‘informed’ choice and knows ALL their options. It is NOT like having a gall bladder removed. It IS another person. Your own flesh and blood…your mothers grandchildren and your grandma’s great-grandchild. What if your mother had chosen to abort you? God Bless, peace and love.

        • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

          Goodness, you just crammed about ten bumper sticker slogans in there. The fact that some women can’t have babies does not make another woman obligated to go through a pregnancy in order to provide them with one. Want a kid? Adopt some of the ones currently languishing in the foster care system. They would do literally anything to have a permanent home.

        • gr0o

          By espousing the belief that you should be able to compel women to bring a pregnancy to to term because “some women” might want to adopt the result of a full term pregnancy literally means that you believe pregnant women to be public property who should be forced to breed for others.

          • fiona64

            Why not just start a farm of young women at optimum breeding age and
            churn out babies for all these desperate mothers you’re so eager to see
            fulfilled?

            Hey! I know of someone else in relatively recent history who did that very thing: Hitler. Look up the “Lebensborn” program.

        • Dez

          Not you or anyone else gets to use me as cattle. Keep your mythology and magic spells to yourself. I don’t want them anywhere near my life or body. Why can’t believers comprehend that?

        • canaduck

          “You can’t sacrifice 9 short months of your ‘life’ to gift your child with it’s own ‘life’ and a barren woman the gift of motherhood?”

          How DARE you?

          “What if your mother had chosen to abort you? ”

          Then I guess I wouldn’t exist and I wouldn’t be reading your dumb comment.

        • Origami_Isopod

          I don’t owe anyone a baby.

        • enuma

          What if my mother had chosen to abort me? What if my mother had declined to have sex the night I was conceived? What if the drunk driver who killed my dad’s first fiancee had decided to call a cab instead? All three scenarios would have the same effect of preventing my existence. From where I sit, your question is equally supportive of banning abortion and legalizing drunk driving.

        • fiona64

          Do you have any idea the number of women who would give their lives for a
          chance to be a mother? You can’t sacrifice 9 short months of your
          ‘life’ to gift your child with it’s own ‘life’ and a barren woman the
          gift of motherhood?

          In the mean while, hundreds of thousands of children age out of foster care daily without ever having been adopted. Where are those desperate, self-sacrificing “barren women”? Why aren’t they adopting any of these children?

          No one owes the contents of their womb to anyone else. Why should I, for example, put my life and health on the line to hand over an infant to some woman who is too god-damned selfish to consider one of the hundreds of thousands kids already awaiting homes?

        • h2o_girl

          My body is not an incubator for infertiles with a sense of entitlement.

    • HeilMary1

      And you’ve given yourself many early abortions just by consuming caffeinated beverages, holy wine, and hundreds of other plant-based food products.

    • Shan

      Katrina, unless you’re advocating that all abortions should be illegal all the time, then I think you should consider a bit more carefully. Because if any woman should have the legal choice to have an abortion, then ALL women should, no matter how they got pregnant. Whether they were raped, didn’t use birth control, used it incorrectly, had it sabotaged by their partner or their chosen method of birth control simply failed. Because that means someone – and you should ask who that is – gets to judge who’s worthy of having an abortion and who’s not.

    • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

      Oh sure, because birth control never fails, and women and girls never get raped–and of course we all are able to send telepathic messages to our ovaries to stop them from releasing eggs–tell me, is that our body’s way of ‘shutting that whole thing down’, Katrina? Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve had enough of sarcasm, so I’m going to trot off to do the whole ‘servant of Satan’, thing, whatever that involves. You have a nice night spewing your vitriol at those less ‘holy’ than you. Okay?

    • Kitty Smith

      Prayer, the easy way to pretend you’re doing something.

      • Jonathan Kuperberg

        Actually, prayer is speaking to God [capital G, and no, He isn't just "mine"-as a mortal I am not capable of owning the Supreme Being.]

        • Kitty Smith

          SO it’s the easy way to talk to the voice in your head AND do nothing?

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Fool, you think yourself wise. Godless moonbats aren’t anything new or clever- King David had them figured out in the Bronze Age.

          • Kitty Smith

            Hey, who you talk to on your own time is your business, but if I wanted to solve a problem I’d talk to someone who could deal with it.

            Speaking of, why am I talking to you again?

        • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

          Boy, it really bothers you that some people don’t share your religious beliefs, doesn’t it?

          • http://www.facebook.com/CYMBREE Katrina Myers Bowser

            God loves us ALL and doesn’t want anyone to perish in the lake of fire. As Christians we are convicted to share our love for Him and our beliefs in His Word so that you too can come to know Him. God Bless you.

          • Dez

            Why don’t you tell us about Zeus and Odin too?

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Because Zeus and Odin are idols. Idolatry=sin

          • Trollface McGee

            And when you die, and meet his grand FSM and have to explain why instead of worshipping his royal noodleyness, you have instead been worshipping a sadistic, genocidal murderer and torturer.. you’re gonna look rather silly.

          • Dez

            They’re as just as made up as your deities.

          • fiona64

            Depends on who you ask, now, doesn’t it?

          • HeilMary1

            Zeus and Odin consider YOU the idolater.

          • Cactus_Wren

            “God loves us ALL and doesn’t want anyone to perish in the lake of fire.”

            And yet he’s set it up that people are automatically directed there if they’re not able to believe in him.

        • Dez

          If you have voices in your head you might need some mental help.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            God speaks to me through His Word, the Bible, not “voices in my head”- and prayer is me speaking to Him. BTW- being atheist doesn’t mean you have to be such an anti-Christian bigot.

          • Dez

            I can’t be a bigot against an idea that has not been proven. Until you prove your deity exists and talks to you, you can be dismissed as delusional.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            “your deity” again :( An anti-Christian bigot is someone who makes hateful, inflammatory or intentionally false remarks against Christians- human beings,like me who believe Christ is our Risen Lord and was God in the flesh. In the same way you can be an anti-Muslim bigot without Islam having to be true…

            but you already knew that.

          • Dez

            I’m a bigot against people that believe in fairies, monsters, demons, or deities without evidence. I support your right to believe it, but I do not respect not should anyone. Until you prove your mythology is true and accurate, it can be dismissed as ridiculous and irrelevant.

          • HeilMary1

            Your “deity” is Satan, punk.

          • HeilMary1

            Your being a heretic faux Christian doesn’t mean you have to be as hateful as the Vatican Inquisitioners.

      • http://www.facebook.com/CYMBREE Katrina Myers Bowser

        Oh, Kitty, thank you so much for the opportunity to witness. No, I don’t hear voices, but God does answer every one of my prayers. I have so many stories to tell you, but I will just choose 2. Even as Christians, especially as Christians, Satan works overtime to tempt and seduce us and we are just as susceptable as non-Christians with the exception that we can call out to him and receive help if we ‘choose’. When I was a young mother I considered myself a weekend warrior, meaning twice a month on paydays I would party which could include alcohol and/or indiscriminate drugs. On one such weekend I was offered something that turned out to be something else and, long story short, ended up addicted to crystal meth. During this time I separated from my husband and had a restraining order against him for abuse. I knew I was in trouble and feared losing my son. I was considering giving up custody and admitting myself… so I prayed. Later that evening a friend and co-worker of my husband stopped by, out of the blue. Never had been to my house before. I didn’t even recognize him. He explained who he was and asked if we could talk. He prayed with me and told me that I didn’t need to admit myself. I was strong enough to do this on my own. At the same time I was also losing the house we were living in. I needed a place to stay, but had a son, no job and only $300 a month child support in California. All my ‘friends’ (fellow drug addicts) asked me why I was not looking for a place to live. After laying out the situation I was in I told them, “Jesus Loves me and will provide”. Approximately 2 hours later they were all witnesses to my visitor. A friend whom I had not seen or heard from in approximately 4 years showed up unannounces with his new wife and offered my son and I a place to stay and fed us for that $300 monthly child support. I was able to wean myself off the drugs and found employment. That story occurred in 1987. My second story begins in Spring 2004 in Florida. I am divorced but living in sin with my fiance’. We take our sons boating on the St. James river, go swimming in the springs and go fishing after. We’re not catching anything so my fiance’ tells us all to wrap it up so we can get going. His son is 6 years old at the time and I really hoped he and his brother would get excited about fishing so I sent up a little prayer asking God to let me ‘hook’ a fish for these boys. I said I didn’t need to catch it, just hook it so they would get excited… in Jesus Holy Name, Amen. My fiance’ tells me again to reel it in and I tell him 1 second. Wham… a fish hits my line… it was a BIG GAR with lots of teeth. The boys were squealing and telling ‘Bryan’ how big it was. I told him that I had prayed for that to happen. He told me to pray for something useful. I asked him what he had in mind. He wanted to win the Florida Lottery. Do you know what God’s answer was? Wait. Wait for 1 year to the day. Wait until we were married. I can tell you so many more stories and all had witnesses and KNOW that it was God. I am not perfect… in fact, the opposite. I’m a sinner, no matter how hard I try. I am weak, but He is strong.

        • Dez

          Until you have scientific proof that can be peer reviewed your personal stories of your deity can be dismissed as fantasies or delusions.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            He’s not “her” deity- just Deity.

          • Dez

            She only can speak about her deity. There are many out there. She has to prove her assertions are true.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            No, she speaks of the One Lord who is mighty to save. False gods do not actually exist- so there are not “many” and Almighty God is not personal to the individual.

          • Dez

            Blah, blah, blah. Yea I can make shit up too, but that does not make it true. Provide some actual evidence or else you are just as delusional as someone that believes in fairies and bigfoot.

          • HeilMary1

            Please keep your schizophrenia to yourself.

          • HeilMary1

            Religion is the term for shared delusions.

          • ChesterCheetah

            LOL about scientific proof that’s peer reviewed!!! You clearly have no clue about the state of science today. Can you name some journals where you have submitted a study for peer review?

            Wow, are you educated? What was your major? Let me guess: humanities. Wait, let me guess again: Feminist Studies. Bingo! That’s one no-prize for me. Feminist study majors are the most brainwashed people on the planet. How much of your field of study can be replicated in a laboratory?

            Science is often blinded by bias, just like any other field of study. You are not open-minded. You should do some indpependent study to educate yourself about opposing points of view. Ask a scientist if there is bias in their field…

          • Dez

            Your ignorance is astounding. The burden of proof is one the person making the claim. Until you actually provide evidence you claims can be dismissed as delusions. Science is the best tool we have to observe the world around us.

          • ChesterCheetah

            I apologize for my ignorance. Was I right about your major?

          • Dez

            So you do not have proof? Typical theist. Spout off against science and evidence because you do not have any. The rest of your misogynist and ignorant rambling will be ignored since it does not contribute to the discussion.

        • Kitty Smith

          And did you ask if I wanted to be a witness? I’m going to do you a favor and keep myself from having to testify. Also, you might not want to talk about whatever crap you wanted me to witness, but then given how many idiots post stupid stuff to FB and Twitter, I suppose I should not be surprised.

    • Ren Chant

      katrina myers bowser-fuck off. no-one requires YOUR permission for anything.

    • cjvg

      Your religion started with the widely celebrated out of wedlock rape of a virgin.
      You really think it believable when you claim your god loves and respects women

      • Jonathan Kuperberg

        Blasphemous claims the Lord is a rapist won’t win anyone over.
        Using the term “your god” with a lower-case “g” is sacrilegious. God rules over everyone- the Earth is the Lord’s, AND THE FULLNESS OF IT. And Mary was impregnated without sex by a miracle; God has no penis (except when Jesus was incarnate, which was not before His conception.)

        • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

          I find it slightly creepy that you’re so well-acquainted with his nether regions.

        • Kitty Smith

          Wait Jesus is your god’s penis?

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            First of all, your question is a nonsense in that I do not own any being known as a “god” with a lower-case “g”, which refers to idols existing only in the minds of idolaters, or representations thereof, and having no salvific power. I worship God, Who is the Supreme Being who created and sustains all that exists, seen and unseen.

            What I am saying, which I suspect you know well as facetious responses to pro-family posts are your style, is that Jesus- Who has always existed, and is now at the right hand of the Father in His ascended state- took on the form of a male human being in the mystery of the Incarnation. Which would indicate He had a penis during his time in the flesh, but not that He “is” one, any more than you “are” your uterus- unless one speaks in synecdoche [not referring to the place in New York].

          • HeilMary1

            Religion is another name for mass schizophrenia.

        • cjvg

          Read your bible again, particularly genesis the creation!

          I’ am not of your religion and was not created by your god.
          Your god does not hold dominion over me and i own my body, thank you very much.

          (Genesis 1:26) The [Elohim] said, “Let us make humanity in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves.
          Elohim is a plural word, including male and female, and should properly be translated “Gods” or “Pantheon.” (1: 27) The Gods created humanity in the image of themselves.
          This is before the Garden of Eden, and Yahweh is not mentioned as the creator of these people.

          The next chapter talks about how Yahweh, an individual member of the Pantheon, goes about assembling his own special little botanical and zoological Garden in Eden, and making his own little man to inhabit it: (Gen 2:7) Yahweh God fashioned a man of dust from the soil. Then he breathed into his nostrils a breath of life, and thus the man became a living being. (2:8) Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden which is in the east, and there he put the man he had fashioned. (2:9)

          Then Yahweh decides to make a woman to go with the man. Now, don’t forget that the Pantheon had earlier created a whole population of people, “male and female,” who are presumably doing just fine somewhere “outside the gates of Eden.” But this set-up in Eden is Yahweh’s own little experiment, and will unfold to its own separate destiny. (2:21)

          So no, I do not bow to your god or adhere to your religion.
          I have no need to bow to your false god

          Nowhere in the bible it explicitly states that there was no sex, besides in the Jewish tradition an unmarried woman finding herself with child was often referred to as the virgin birth.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Actually, it is entirely immaterial whether you are “of” Christianity or not, because the Bible is Truth and the fullness of this earth is God’s, He holds dominion over every man, woman and child on it. If you believe otherwise you are deluded.

          • cjvg

            So the Elohim is the holy trinity ?
            That contradicts your bible since the holy trinity was not mentioned until the birth of jesus Christ the son (!)
            But hey, logic and truth , who needs them if you can lie about what your bible says!
            Except when you run into someone who has actually read the darn thing!

            The Elohim in genesis does not refer to your holy trinity but are separate entities and yahweh was part of them.
            Genesis also clearly spells out that the Elohim made their own creation as did yahweh since he just did not play well with others, apparently neither do his followers
            the holy trinity is one and the same as the bible explain numerous times, it is not separate, read the thing for a change!

            Now go worship whatever.
            Stop trying to make your own fear and insecurity go away by forcing others to adhere to your religion. I know it makes you feel better because you can almost convince yourself that you must be right if you get to dictate to others how they must live like you, however I don’t like to play your game.

          • fiona64

            Erm, not so much. Elohim is a plural, genderless noun meaning “gods and/or goddesses.”

          • ChesterCheetah

            Did you learn this in college, perhaps in a feminism brainwashing session? Have you read the Bible? All I learned about my religion as an adult came from the Holy Bible directly, the Word of God.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Amen. I called her out on her personalistic lowercase-”g” nonsense and she got mad that someone would disapprove of her anti-Christian rhetoric. There are few things I find more annoying than someone who thinks God Almighty does not deserve a simple capitalized G or should be preceded by “your”.

            I was reading WV newsfeed lately and found a tribute to pro-Family specialist Alice Moore who led the forces against far-left eltists’ new age social engineering plot in public education, Kanawha County,1974 and forced the liberal outside agitators used to having things their own way to listen to parents’ wishes… and I discovered the *first* thing she picked up about the books before the radical leftist readings, intrusive questions about home life, values clarification, cursing and glorification of communism and violence was… a poem in her 9-year-old’s workbook that referred to the Lord as “god” with a lowercase g. If it wasn’t for that she may not have checked out the rest of the filthy textbooks and the “experimental center” affective outcome change plans of the outside agitators in shadowy psychological research, globalist and other groups may have gone ahead.

          • cjvg

            Again read your genesis, but that would require actually opening that bible you never look in!

            Apparently you only read your little special excerpts that are satisfying your needs, not very religious of you!
            However since you are so mentally impaired I will here restate the story with the the appropriate bible verses listed!

            (Genesis 1:26) The [Elohim] said, “Let us make humanity in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild beasts and all the reptiles that crawl upon the earth.” Elohim is a plural word, including male and female, and should properly be translated “Gods” or “Pantheon.” (1: 27) The Gods created humanity in the image of themselves, In the image of the Gods they created them, Male and female they created them. (1:28) The Gods blessed them, saying to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and conquer it. Be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven and all living animals on the earth.”

            Yahweh, an individual member of the Pantheon, goes about assembling his own special little botanical and zoological Garden in Eden, and making his own little man to inhabit it: (Gen 2:7)
            Yahweh God fashioned a man of dust from the soil. Then he breathed into his nostrils a breath of life, and thus the man became a living being. (2:8) Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden which is in the east, and there he put the man he had fashioned. (2:9) Yahweh God caused to spring up from the soil every kind of tree, enticing to look at and good to eat, with the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the garden. (2:15)
            Yahweh God took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden to cultivate and take care of it. Now this next is crucial: note Yahweh’s precise words: (2:16) Then Yahweh God gave the man this admonition, “You may eat indeed of all the trees in the garden. (2:17) Nevertheless of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat, for on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die.” (!)

            Yahweh decides to make a woman to go with the man. Now, don’t forget that the Pantheon had earlier created a whole population of people, “male and female,” who are presumably doing just fine somewhere “outside the gates of Eden.”

            This new set-up in Eden is Yahweh’s own little experiment, and will unfold to its own separate destiny. (2:21) So Yahweh God made the man fall into a deep sleep.
            And while he slept, he took one of his ribs and enclosed it in flesh. (2:22) Yahweh God built the rib he had taken from the man into a woman, and brought her to the man. Right, man gives birth to woman, sure he does, but that’s the way your story is told here. (2:25) Now both of them were naked, the man and his wife, but they felt no shame in front of each other.

            (Gen. 3:1) The serpent was the most subtle of all the wild beasts that Yahweh God had made, asked the woman, “Did God really say you were not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?” (3:2) The woman answered the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees in the garden. (3:3) “But of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden God said, ‘You must not eat it, nor touch it, under pain of death.” (3:4) Then the serpent said to the woman, “No! You will not die! (3:5) “God knows in fact that on the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil.”

            Your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil(!) why could that possibly be a bad thing? do good parents not want their children to learn and make good choices!
            The Serpent directly contradicts Yahweh. Wouldn’t it be a good thing, to have knowledge and become like thy father, to become “like gods, knowing good and evil”? Or is it preferable to remain in ignorance?
            Obviously one of them is lying.

            (Gen. 3:6) The woman saw that the tree was good to eat and pleasing to the eye, and that it was desirable for the knowledge that it could give.
            She took some of its fruit and ate it, as did her husband who was with her(3:7) Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they realized that they were naked.
            They sewed fig leaves together to make themselves loincloths and cover their nakedness.

            (Gen. 3:8) The man and his wife heard the sound of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from Yahweh God among the trees of the garden. (3:9) But Yahweh God called to the man. “Where are you?” he asked. (3:10) “I heard the sound of you in the garden,” he replied. “I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” (3:11) “Who told you that you were naked?” he asked. “Have you been eating of the tree I forbade you to eat?”

            And so the sign of the Fall of Yahweh’s followers becomes modesty (!)
            The descendants of Adam and Eve will be distinguished throughout history from virtually all other peoples by their obsessive modesty taboos, wherein they will feel ashamed of being naked.
            It follows that those who feel no shame in being naked or of their bodies are, by definition, not carriers of this spiritual disease of original sin!

            Yahweh had said back there in chapter (2:17), regarding the fruit of the tree of knowledge, that “on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die.” The Serpent, on the other hand, had contradicted Yahweh in chapter (3:4-5): “No! You will not die! God knows in fact that on the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil.” So what actually happened? Who lied and who told the truth about this remarkable fruit? The answer is given in the next verse: (3:22) Then Yahweh God said, “See, the man has become like one of us, with his knowledge of good and evil. He must not be allowed to stretch his hand out next and pick from the tree of life also, and eat some and live forever.”

            Yahweh himself admits that he had lied! In fact, and in Yahweh’s own words, the Serpent spoke the absolute truth! And moreover, Yahweh tells the rest of the Pantheon that he intends to evict Adam (and presumably Eve as well) to keep them from gaining immortality to go with their newly-acquired divine knowledge. To prevent them, in other words, from truly becoming gods!
            So who, comes off as a benefactor of humanity, and who comes off as a tyrant? THE SERPENT NEVER LIED!

            Outside of eden (Gen 4:1) The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain… (4:2) She gave birth to a second child, Abel, the brother of Cain.
            Now Abel became a shepherd and kept flocks, Cain tilled the soil. (4:3)
            Time passed, and Cain brought some of the produce of the soil as an offering for Yahweh, (4:4) while Abel, for his part, brought the first-born of his flock and some of their fat as well.
            Yahweh looked with favor on Abel and his offering. But he did not look with favor on Cain and his offering. Cain was very angry and downcast, both brothers had brought forth their first fruits as offerings, but Yahweh rejected the vegetables and only accepted the blood sacrifice.
            This was to set a gruesome precedent: (4:8) Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out;” and while they were in the open country, Cain set on his brother Abel and killed him, after all Yahweh favors blood sacrifices!

            Accursed and marked for fratricide, (4:16) Cain left the presence of Yahweh and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
            Your bible states cain “left the presence of Yahweh” which clearly indicates that Yahweh is a local deity, and not omnipresent.
            Now Eden, according to (Gen. 2:14-15), was situated at the source of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, apparently right where Lake Van is now, in Turkey.
            “East of Eden,” therefore, would probably be along the shores of the Caspian Sea, right in the Indo-European heartland.
            Cain settled there, among the people of Nod.
            He married one of the women of that country.
            Here, for the first time, is specifically mentioned the “other people” who are not of the lineage of Adam and Eve. i.e: the Pagans.

            So one of our healing women takes pity on the poor sucker, and married him… (4:17) Cain had intercourse with his wife, and she conceived and gave birth to Enoch. He became the builder of a town, and he gave the town the name of his son Enoch.

            With both of their first sons lost to them, Adam and Eve decided try again: (4:25) Adam had intercourse with his wife, and she gave birth to a son whom she named Seth… (4:26) A son was also born to Seth, and he named him Enosh. This man was the first to invoke the name of Yahweh. Now it doesn’t mention here where Seth’s wife came from.
            Another woman from Nod, possibly, or maybe someone from another neolithic community downstream in the Tigris-Euphrates valley. But her folks also, cannot be of the lineage of Adam and Eve, and must also be counted among “the other people.”

            Adam, way back there in chapter Gen. 2:17, was warned that when he eat the magic fruit of knowledge he would die the next day!
            Jahweh told him that “on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die.”
            So, when did Adam die? (Gen. 5:4) Adam lived for eight hundred years after the birth of Seth and he became the father of sons and daughters. (5:5) In all, Adam lived for nine hundred and thirty years; then he died!
            Nine hundred and some odd years isn’t bad for a man who’s been told he’s going to die the next day!
            Not big on the truth your god!

            Your Bible is filled with admonitions to the followers of Jahweh to “learn not the ways of the Pagans…” (Jer 10:2) with detailed descriptions of exactly what it is we do, such as erect standing stones and sacred poles, worship in sacred groves and practice divination and magic, worship the sun, moon, stars and the “Queen of Heaven.” (Goddess)
            Your bible admonishes you that “You must not behave as they do in Egypt where once you lived; you must not behave as they do in Canaan where I am taking you. You must not follow their laws.” (Lev 18:3)
            For Yahweh, as he so clearly emphasizes, is not the god of the Pagans (!).

            We have our own lineage and our own heritage as your bible clearly states.
            Our tale is not told by your god or in the Bible.
            We were not “made” from dirt by your god and do not owe him any worship
            We were born of our Mother the Earth, and have evolved over aeons in Her nurturing embrace. All of us

            Nearly all of our ancestral tribes lack that peculiar obsessive body shame that seems to be a hallmark of the original sin alluded to in the story of the Fall. We can be naked and unashamed!
            Why, our God(des)s even tells us, “as a sign that you are truly free, you shall be naked in your rites.” Not being born into sin, we have no need of salvation, and no need of your Christ to redeem us

            Neither heaven nor hell is our destination in the afterlife; we have our own various arrangements with our own various deities.
            The Bible is not our story; we have our own stories.

        • Trollface McGee

          That’s right, God is the Big G, the OG… I’m a big fan, some good tracks though.. he needs some new material.
          And yes, God has dominion over everything so it’s not rape, it’s more like a master using his minions for his own pleasure and entertainment. Be grateful minions!
          I do take exception with God having no penis. I mean, the whole of the fundamentalist Abrahimic religions are rather obsessed with God’s big penis, rather gay if you ask me.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            “fundamentalist”, funny you say that, as the only religious people I have ever heard suggesting God may have genitals and be a sexual being are far-left new age anything-goes types with their “queer readings” of Scriptures and mysticism.

    • cmarie

      Even for people who don’t want to use birth control and end up planning an abortion, they have the choice to do it in the first trimester. They would at the very least avoid the likes of Goswell. I would avoid the preaching because obviously not everyone is a Christian to begin with.

    • disqus_I9ERiegRth

      Do you have a moment to speak about the Word of Cthulhu?

    • Jonathan Kuperberg

      Respect. Star Parker is the ’13 EZOLA FOSTER #ProFamily. Her organisation, CURE also shares its initials with the original group set up by traditional Catholic Onalee McGraw to oppose New Age subversion of education and anti-God secular humanism before she founded the EGI with Women for Faith and Family in the mid 80′s. One works for strong urban Black Baptist/Charismatic families and the other mainly for strong East Coast white Catholic families: liberals undiscriminatingly hate(d) both. Why not? Pro-family work within communities can provide for justice and empowerment for oppressed people without one dime being dispensed by the coastal condescenders or one proposition of theirs being assented to, and they can no longer get that warm feeling inside from dispensing their carefully supervised prescription for the prosperity of all their redneck or backward inferiors.

      People ought to listen to Parker/Foster/ E.W. Jackson/ Jesse Lee Peterson/Alveda King and so on and strike at every single one of these white liberals who put them down as “token blacks”, “Uncle Toms” or “minstrels” (most recently Ed Schultz only last week vs. EWJ) and only propose a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-nuclear family and anti-private Christian school agenda. These are the SAME people who called out Bill Cosby, no right wingnut, for his personal responsibility remarks- preferring to exculpate those who do wrong as automatons driven by first by unbreakable poverty and secondly by the institutionalised racism, both of which they claim can only be stopped by massive activist federal government- which is pretty convenient when that equates to voting for those elitist sophisticates with all their precious “sensitivities” and grandiloquent professions to empathy and inclusivity and despite their hostility to family values. Too many permanent positions in liberal press, policy institutes, the academy, blue state government and various social agencies would be lost forever if people stopped buying their ideology for long enough. I do find it unfortunate that some of those dissenting voices have claimed a “Democratic plantation” exists, but as someone brought up around too many privileged cosmopolitan Intersectionalista’s it is more like a matriarchal family with an indulgent mother nurturing her free-spirited babes at her voluptuous bosom and enjoying her protective role far too much to consider that they can develop without so much cosseting. Oh & of course no father (God, moral simplicity, strict values transference and swift punishment) anywhere to be seen but Mommy tells stories of evil man-beasts instead.

      If they *really* want to call out racism they could start with respecting ALL people of all colors and not only liberals/Democrats. That would mean at least not questioning the identity or integrity of EVERY Black and Latino who gets anywhere in the Republican Party or the pro-Family Movement.

      God bless you in the name of Jesus, Katrina. JK

      • Dez

        Sorry I didn’t drink the kool aid. You can keep your mythology and shove it. I don’t want it anywhere near my life or body.

      • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

        She also writes for World Nutjob Daily, run by Joseph “pornstar moustache” Farah. It’s also a birther site. Someone who does that doesn’t really deserve respect.

        • Jonathan Kuperberg

          I didn’t know that because I haven’t paid attention to WND since a few months after the 08 election, when all it spewed was far right incoherently Obama hating race-baiting nonsense. I’ve called it WingnutDaily myself and consider Birtherism to be at least 98% racism. One can be profamily, like me, and also oppose racism and tin foil hat bullshit (which usually turns out Anti-Semitic anyway, see ADL on Glenn Beck and co)

          Do you not think her writing on a site with bigots may be because the mainstream would make it difficult for any conservative Black female (you’ll get “profiled” for questioning on not being a straight ticket Democrat for just one, let alone both.) The same for the woman I compared her to, Ezola B. Foster- she was “excommunicated” from the mainstream and black media for supporting CA Prop 187 [far leftists tried to kill her at an event and she had to leave Bell] then saying that family values in urban areas like the one she worked in nearly all her life would get people out of poverty more than trusting the elitist Massachusetts/SF type liberals. After that she appeared with conspiracy nut John Birch members, mostly racist “patriot” groups and ran for POTUS with racist/almost neo-fascist Pat Buchanan. Yeah, they’re bad apples but can you blame someone whose community was trying to silence her from finding any port in a storm?

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            Honestly, it’s hard to say. The Republican party has moved so far to the right in recent year that most of the conservatives of old (Nixon, Ford, Bennett, even the much venerated Reagan) would find it hard to recognize and they probably would be considered RINOs. But there must still moderates (somewhere) out there that she could align herself with. And as a sidenote, I didn’t like Prop. 187 either–particularly the bit about school attendance–it was just bad legislation all around. I don’t recall Ezola Foster, but then again I’m not a Californian so that’s probably why..

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            I also oppose banning undocumented children from school, and agreed with the court decision to strike it down as going beyond the legitimate rights of a state. My point wasn’t to support 187; I was pointing out the extreme reaction, including physical violence, that she faced. At least most of the white liberal San Francisco Values/ Hollywood mob kept off of her back that time, and the Latinos who were targeted left to *speak for themselves*, perhaps because 57% of African-Americans AND 56% of Asian-Americans voted for it.

            No, the cosmopolitan litmus test enforcers usually prefer to “sympathetically” accuse pro-family Blacks of hating themselves, having internalized the prejudice of the less..um… delicate and understanding whites [understood by all present as meaning the less comfortably off, urbane and well-adjusted- a group they empathise with 90% of the time and get mad at in the height of election season, when their conservative votes stop the elitists from fully engineering society to their predilections ] and not get involved when two minority groups go at each other, more likely they watch on the sidelines and whisper among themselves that it’s so sad to see, but we can’t be surprised, because it’s all our responsibility that they growing up in a system that makes them have to hate someone else who we’ve mistreated in the past just to feel good about themselves… and so on until some Fellini-loving professor of child welfare interrupts to say how much she feels for the maladjusted souls in the Log Cabin Republicans.

            Moderate Republicans are getting hard to find, you’re right there- I’ve been *very* unimpressed with their so-called rebranding effort so far, they need a good purging of their conspiracy-mongers, racial arsonists and free market fundamentalists and a little discretion on the social issues. If they can’t even manage that, it’s hardly surprising that some poor and/or minority voters will swallow their pride and make do with the coastal condescenders offering tea , sympathy, lax morals, their “responsible supervision” to provide social justice on their terms, an embrace of the prodigal sons among them and fervent opposition to any of their people going to play for the wrong team.

            Doesn’t Star Parker at least have the right idea though, sacrificing the respect of a lot of people close to her which is NO easy task to set up CURE- an independent Black organisation, no matter how many people want to call her a sellout- designed to advocate uplift and empowerment for poor African Americans through their own work as individuals and families, adherng to traditional moral values with the help of churches and nonpartisan organisations?

            Therefore simultaneously avoiding 1)coming under the thumb of a party which has admittedly thrown them under the bus in the not so recent past, still flirts with voter suppression tactics and suspect language on crime and welfare policy, then having to hold their nose amid the racist bomb-throwers of the GOP too often putting their foot in their mouth, AND 2) going outside their community to beg for support from white (ultra)liberals, many of whom are no-compromise culture warriors incompatible with the Black Church, and exploited for the satisfaction of metropolitan elite Messianic streaks and/or assuaging of guilt all while their votes are taken for granted forever… or 2164 if LBJ’s two centuries has any basis in fact.

            What could be better than that? Other than a moderate third party that would take a strong line against racism and far-right Teabagging nonsense while promoting moral values and not swinging 180 the other way- which isn’t on the horizon?

          • HeilMary1

            You are a sex-hating, intersex-bashing racist extremist who has never practiced family values himself, so you couldn’t recognize moderate family values and racial equality if they fell on you. Move to Afghanistan and leave us moderates and liberals to clean up your schizophrenic Nazi mess.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Number one, bigot, I will NOT be forced out of my country for my religion or politics. My country has a better human rights record than to do that to its people.Number two, bigot, ableism is not cool.

            Number three, ridiculous bigot, how does my clear opposition to racism count as “racist extremist” and how am I failing to recognize racial equality? I could be a little bit racist as anyone could- most white people growing up in a society that views them as the norm may assimilate prejudices and/or fail to recognize privilege. But “racist extremist” when I am speaking out against it? The whole point of being anti racist is to support reduction in inequities between races caused by institutional discrimination and the overturning of systematic White supremacy and privilege. I’m on board, are you? With your apparent concern *only* for Black liberals?

            “What
            galls me is that my fellow white people have become so conniving they’ve
            figured out a way to turn black people into
            white people!” When I first heard Clarence Thomas speak, I thought: “Haven’t white people got enough people already?” Blacks push the white agenda. They speak out against affirmative action, even though many of them got into college thanks to affirmative action. They blast welfare mothers, even though that’s who their own mother was, struggling for years in poverty so her son could grow up to debase her and her kind. They speak out against homosexuals, even though AIDS has devastated black gay men more than any other group. They despise Jesse Jackson, even though he spent years being arrested
            [for their freedom]…It’s the saddest thing to watch, this Uncle Tom porn. How much are these
            freaks being paid? … These sell-outs?”-
            Michael Moore, Stupid White Men
            AKA “Elitist Multimillionaire White Men who betrayed their pro-family Catholic community to push the culture warrior Manhattan/ Boston/SoCal agenda, mock antiabortion women and right-wing Blacks and attend Hollywood cocktail parties and Truffaut retrospectives while claiming to be a working-class guy from Flint, Michigan who just wants the best for plain folk.”

          • HeilMary1

            The Washington Post thoroughly debunked Ezola and her husband as nutty racists.

          • Jennifer Starr

            She even appeared on a white nationalist radio show called The Political Cesspool and allegedly opposed the civil rights movement as well, despite the fact that she probably would never have been allowed to run for office without it? And she sometimes works with the John Birchers?? I don’t support physical violence against someone for their political beliefs, but from what I’ve just read, this woman is waaaay out there.

          • HeilMary1

            Yes, she came across as a conceited / self-hating nut if you can imagine such a crazy contradictory combo — just the right twisted twist for a nut job like Jonathan. She and he could have written additional Orwellian Nazi slogans for the death camps that surpassed “Freedom is Slavery”.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Yes, I’ve read the “far-right hand of Pat Buchanan” article on WaPo about her Reform Party VP candidature. I believe, as I said, that she got this way in a sort of revenge once the mainstream Black community went crazy at her for opposing Ebonics (back when they were using “restricted code” as a racist code word, contra Basil Bernstein’s intention) and the welfare state in favor of Standard English and family values. She was a public school teacher for most of her life in a mainly Hispanic community in LA. Why would someone who hated themselves do that?

            This nonsense about “self-hating” is what’s fundamentally racist. I’m white and can say something conservative or progressive without anyone challenging me by reference to race. A Black person or other person of color has the same right of expression, and no-one has the right to deny another person’s identity based on their beliefs about morals or the size of government.

          • Jennifer Starr

            A black person espousing conservative views would not make me think they were self-hating. I know quite a few black people who lean to the right and have conservative views. We disagree in some areas but I don’t think they hate themselves. But I have to say, the fact that a black person would consent to appear on a white nationalist radio show would definitely make me think that they hate themselves.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            This is what she said on the Political Cesspool, according to ALIPAC (which seems to be a far-right anti immigrant website: it’s the only one that I could find information on.)

            “Keynote speaker Ezola Foster discussed a variety of issues from political parties to political correctness and race relations. As an African American woman, she said race was becoming a divisive tool in America, used by corrupt leaders and liberal professors.

            “It is so embarrassing to us to have these hoodlums-turned-preachers leading us,” she said.

            She also said black history month “is nothing more than teaching hatred to our black students,” and argued that the Confederate flag has its roots in a Christian symbol.

            “I tried to tell some of my more liberal friends that (the Confederate Flag) was St. Andrew’s Cross…they just told me that I was just supporting the white man. That is so sad that someone can be brainwashed that way.”

            ^^I’ve heard that sort of “colorblind” thing before, nearly always from white people though- that we should get rid of Black History Month and “just teach history”, Ethnic Studies and hyphenate American terms are “divisive”, the media should stop reporting voting, income and other statistics broken down by race and the Confederate flag should be “respected as Southern heritage” instead of it becoming an issue of black vs. white.

            I definitely don’t support her points here. I believe that it could only work if there was a true level playing field, which there isn’t- otherwise the disparities in present institutions will be reproduced indefinitely. It also seems to be trying to encourage people who were marginalized to forget their history, or not bring it up, lest white people get upset- which is not fair on minorities at all.

            But if you’re a libertarian-leaning conservative like Foster and have been struggling against the liberals in your own community and their white supporters for 20+ years (this was in 2005) I’d expect her to feel that the whole “race thing” should just be over, even if her suggestion of basically ignoring it is unrealistic.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            “Cain is nothing more than a minstrel show… the Koch brothers pay this minstrel show”
            Bigot Mike Papantonio, Methodist (Christian Century reading professional ecumenical type,not Evangelical Methodist- of course)

            If the G.O.P.’s 2000 convention took on the ridiculous trappings of a multicultural minstrel show, this year’s spectacle might be called “Queer Eye 2004.”
            Bigot Joe Conason, New York metropolitan ultraliberal

            I defended President Obama when conservatives used dog-whistles and overt racism against him. I expect to be defending Clarence Thomas against Section 4 related white liberal race-baiting today…

          • HeilMary1

            Ezola is a racist hypocrite with schizophrenia, just like you.

          • http://littlemisshaldol.tumblr.com/ LittleMissMellaril

            Um, NO! Most people with schizophrenia understand more then this shitbag!

      • HeilMary1

        Star is a spoiled overpaid liar for GOP racist fascists and she wouldn’t be alive today if she hadn’t had those blessed abortions THAT SAVED HER LYING ASS from deadly childbirth. Star, Ezola, Jackson, etc. are racist intersex bashers who make millions spewing Uncle Tom hatred for the racist GOP. Alveda King is a disgrace to her dad.

        • Jonathan Kuperberg

          Riight, I promised I wouldn’t respond to you again but this really interests me… How *exactly* can a Black woman or man be RACIST AGAINST THEMSELVES? I do not use race-baiting language to bash Black Republicans OR Black Democrats, because I respect 100% of them, not those who support a specific political agenda. I *do* call out every white ultra-liberal on their race-baiting bullshit and support the likes of Star Parker and Ben Carson even when I find them wrong on other issues for not letting it fly.

          “Any person of color in the Tea Party has Stockholm syndrome”-
          Bigoted Jeneane Garofalo

          “I can’t see how ANY Hispanic would vote Republican”-
          Bigoted Harry Reid

          “Why did you sit on the sidelines?”-
          Lawrence O’Donnell to Herman Cain re Civil Rights Movement.

    • fiona64

      Every single method of contraception, including surgical sterilization, has known failure rates.

      And a fetus is not “another human being.” It’s a fetus.

      Praying for your deliverance from irrationality …

    • http://www.auctiva.com/stores/viewstore2.aspx?id=811370&styleid=12 jerzygirl45

      And I will pray for your deliverance from the grasp of insanity, ego and condescension

  • HeilMary1

    Star wants black women to follow Sanger’s mother, who died young from 17 pregnancies. How would a sudden massive boom in orphaned, abandoned and poor black babies improve an already vastly unemployed and under-employed black community? And Star would be screaming for free abortions on every street corner if she had passed on any of her abortions and suffered ghastly childbirth injuries instead.

  • Shan

    Nicely done, Ms. Gandy.

    I’m pretty sick of the “Black Genocide” meme myself. Nobody would be using that term if suddenly some statistics popped up showing that Black women were down to zero unintended pregnancies. Nobody is wringing their hands over the actual BIRTH rate for Black women, are they? Just the abortion rate, as if it were a stand-alone symptom. You don’t get a disproportionately higher rate of abortion without a
    corresponding higher rate of unintended pregnancies and therefore a
    higher rate of births. The only people who seem to be worried about birth rates are the Demographic Winter folks, and they’re only worried about the White birth rate being lower than – you guessed it.

    It’s the same presumption the “50 million lost children since RvW” meme has. Namely, that women who have abortions don’t ALREADY have children and don’t go on to have children they might otherwise NOT have had. Because they completely forget about that funny thing women of ALL colors are endowed with: self-determination. Given the choice, we generally end up having the number of children we WANT to have in our lifetimes.

  • FlightlessPigeon

    This is a a beautiful rebuttal to Parker’s deeply patronizing article. I would add one thing: some adoptive couples, it’s true, don’t want black babies. But adoption agencies look with deep skepticism on couples who are considering interracial adoption; a very large number outright forbid it. Granted, interracial adoption requires a LOT more sensitivity than many families expect (“If we love the child, s/he won’t care what color/ethnicity we are!” has screwed up many children), but if these agencies open up to the idea and just make sure families respect the child’s heritage, adoption rates for black babies could improve in a big hurry.

  • Cactus_Wren

    It’s interesting to note that Parker is another pro-liar who was perfectly fine with abortion when *she* needed to be able to choose, but turned against other women’s right to choose once *she* was no longer in danger of unwanted pregnancy.

  • insectman

    Butchering children is murder whether they are in the womb or out.