Schlafly: You Can't Rape the Married
Remember when the Gazette reported that the CRC's then-president, Michelle Turner, was in St. Louis giving a presentation at the Eagle Forum? That group's founder, leader, and face to the world, Phyllis Schlafly, was in the news this week. See what you think:
This is a perfect alliance: Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum and the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum. Just who Montgomery County needs to tell us how to educate our kids about sex.
At one point, Schlafly also contended that married women cannot be sexually assaulted by their husbands.
"By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape," she said.
It was not a popular proclamation. But it was nothing out of the ordinary for the St. Louis homemaker who portrays her political stance as "pro-family" and has made a career of denigrating women who aspire to go beyond that role. Schlafly cranks up agitation at Bates
This is a perfect alliance: Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum and the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum. Just who Montgomery County needs to tell us how to educate our kids about sex.
posted by JimK at 2:44 PM
18 Comments:
It's a family tradition
Many of the most rabid anti-gay crusaders have spawned gay kids. Coincidence?
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=oid%3A57404
Andrea-not anon- says
So Schafley supports the right of men to abuse their wives. She is an idiot but why am I not surprised- look at her supporters.
I wonder how Mrs. Schlafly feels about the husband's duties in the marriage bed. The man got married too, so according to her logic, he has "consented to sex" too. Does she think the husband has to perform sexually whenever his wife wants it just like she does whenever he wants it?
"The government can't put love in your heart. But what we can do is when you find love and find the drive, we can help put it in action."
-- George W. Bush, telling graduates at St. Vincent College why he created the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
Anon, does that statement seem to have something to do with "faith-based" initiatives? Is he trying to say, or are you trying to imply, that faith-based providers have more love in their hearts than any other? That is crazy, plain insanity, and an ugly insult to the good people who work hard to do nice things for others.
JimK
It would be nice if Bush intended his statement to apply to all Americans, but his support for a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite gender couples shows that he does not want to help everybody put their "love" "in action." He wants LGBT people to remain in the closet and to keep their love to themselves. He'll gladly let LGBT people to serve their country in the military but rather than being allowed to put their love in action, they have to hide it away to serve.
Shame on the President for denying love to LGBT Americans.
Andrea- not anon
Jim, it is not clear what Bush is trying to say- and he never has any idea what he is saying anyway. Find out who wrote it and ask that person. Have they uncovered any corruption in this "godly" office, giving grants to friends and family? Like the bad education work done by "No child Left Behind"- a bad program, bad curriculum but at least some administration cronies, family and friends made big bucks.
Andrea
"Is he trying to say, or are you trying to imply, that faith-based providers have more love in their hearts than any other?"
No, he isn't. He's saying they have compassion that needs to be harnessed. Before Bush, there was worry that faith-based social work couldn't be supported because of church-state conflict. Bush recognized what a foolish waste that was.
Of course, Mr TTF,just last week, was arguing that faith-based social workers have to conform their moral standards to secular society or be banished from the activity. Anti-faith forces persist in our society,lurking as they await opportunity to attack these groups.
"hat is crazy, plain insanity, and an ugly insult to the good people who work hard to do nice things for others."
Well, since it's a figment of your imagination, what does that say about your imagination?
Anonymous said "Before Bush, there was worry that faith-based social work couldn't be supported because of church-state conflict. Bush recognized what a foolish waste that was."
Its clear that Bush's support of superstition-based social work does violate church state seperation. During the New Orleans relief work such organizations often required people seeking help to listen to proselytization speechs prior to getting help. This raises the problem of such organizations making help contingent upon taking the religon that comes with it. As well, such superstition based organizations have frequently been known to refuse to help LGBT people in need. Clearly they can't be trusted to treat all equally - to them religion is more important than helping those in need. Support that doesn't go into religionist organizations isn't wasted, it goes into secular organizations that help people without attaching strings to that help.
Anonymous said "Of course, Mr TTF,just last week, was arguing that faith-based social workers have to conform their moral standards to secular society or be banished from the activity. Anti-faith forces persist in our society,lurking as they await opportunity to attack these groups.".
Poppycock. Superstition based social workers are allowed to live by whatever "moral" standards they want but are not allowed to force their beliefs on others. In religionist's twisted world being prevented from forcing their beliefs on others is somehow supposed to be an "attack". To reasonable people the most they ask for is to be able to live as they choose. Sadly for religionists this is never enough - they insist on the right to dominion over lives other than their own.
So Phyllis Schlafly states that a woman can't be raped? I guess in a highly technical sense that might be true, but I strongly suspect that in an abusive marital relationship that matters very little. Even, and especially, in a marital relationship when one spouse forces themselves on the other they fail to understand what a marriage is all about...
Schlafly would do well to keep her mouth shut and her thoughts to herself. Not only is she an embarassment, but her words surely wound those that have been in abusive relationships most severely. Never paid any attention to what she has written or said...now I know the reason why.
Randi writes,
During the New Orleans relief work such organizations often required people seeking help to listen to proselytization speechs prior to getting help.
I understand your concern, and I share that concern...in emergencies religious based relief groups need to supress the urge to preach, and simply let their charitable work speak for itself.
I know after Katrina/Rita hit, Denver Colorado Archbishop Chaput authorized a "second collection" with the proceeds going directly to Catholic Relief Services and earmarked for hurricane relief. I went to the CRS website and found that 94% of their budget is allocated to program services, a sign of institutional efficiency (and perhaps a major reason so many governments also contribute to CRS, since they recognize how much more efficient they can be at delivering assistance...and faster as well). And the CRS has only one criterion for receiving aid: are you in need?
"During the New Orleans relief work such organizations often required people seeking help to listen to proselytization speechs prior to getting help. This raises the problem of such organizations making help contingent upon taking the religon that comes with it. As well, such superstition based organizations have frequently been known to refuse to help LGBT people in need. Clearly they can't be trusted to treat all equally - to them religion is more important than helping those in need."
While I'm sure there are organizations that tried to deliver spiritual help with material assistance, do you have any documentation that organizations who received government support refused to help anybody based on a moral code?
They may see the work as a part of spreading the gospel but in that case they would tend to discriminate in favor of people they see as lost, not against. And I don't think you understand that "lost" in an evangelical sense is not non-compliance with some moral code but simply a refusal to acknowledge God. What you're saying really makes no sense.
Orin said "I went to the CRS website and found that 94% of their budget is allocated to program services, a sign of institutional efficiency".
Its one thing to allocate it, and quite another to achieve it. If an independent non-religious auditor stated they had actually achieved this I'd be much more impressed.
Anonymous said "do you have any documentation that organizations who received government support refused to help anybody based on a moral code?".
Sorry, I didn't save any of the articles I read about this. I have read about this sort of thing frequently with regards to superstition based organizations refusing help to LGBTs.
Anonymous said "They may see the work as a part of spreading the gospel but in that case they would tend to discriminate in favor of people they see as lost, not against. And I don't think you understand that "lost" in an evangelical sense is not non-compliance with some moral code but simply a refusal to acknowledge God. What you're saying really makes no sense."
They discriminate in favour of non-believers and against believers?! Please, that's laughable. You obviously haven't encountered the same Christians I have. My religious sister refused to help me and cut off all contact with me because I don't believe in her god. Oh yeah, Christians are happy to "spread the gospel" to non-believers, but that friendliness is mighty short-lived if you make it clear you're not going to go along with their desires. Then you see how truly callous and heartless they can be, like we're not even human, like we're as important as a rock on the side of the road. And to most Christians I've met non-compliance with their "moral" code is a refusal to acknowledge "god", particularly non-compliance with their insistance that we not be LGBT.
Orin said "I went to the CRS website and found that 94% of their budget is allocated to program services, a sign of institutional efficiency".
Randi replies,
Its one thing to allocate it, and quite another to achieve it. If an independent non-religious auditor stated they had actually achieved this I'd be much more impressed.
Excellent point; it is one thing to claim something, and another thing to have that claim substantiated. Here is their latest report,
http://crs.org/about_us/AR_2006.pdf
and on page 19 you can find the signed statement by McGladrey & Pullen, Certified Public Accountants (Baltimore, MD)
I also found this, on page 14,
‘Extraordinary People’
“The worldwide problem of sex trafficking of women and children is a human tragedy. This confounds me because I’m a woman and I’ve raised two daughters, working hard to educate, protect and guide them. It is hard to conceive that in many parts of the globe the daughters of other women live in such poverty.
“Some extraordinary people working at CRS in India arranged for me to meet a remarkable woman, named Dr. Sunitha Krishnan, who has devoted her life to the rescue and rehabilitation of victims of sex trafficking. Through her CRS-supported organization, Prajwala, Dr. Krishnan provides shelter, psychological counseling, education and vocational training.”
—Christine Baranski,
actress
And this blurb is accompanied by a picture of the actress with a young girl from India, helped by a CRS supported program.
Yeah orin, and Benny Hinn is a good charitable Christian too. And don't forget Jim Bakker. You want to look at what percentage of what they took in went to charity? And let's not forget the good work done by christians like Jim Jones and David Koresh.
Unfortunately I can't verify your claims about this Catholic organization. Long PDF's don't load properly over dialup. In any event anything done by superstition based charities can be done by secular charities just as well, if not better without the risk of religion getting in the way.
Randi writes,
Yeah orin, and Benny Hinn is a good charitable Christian too. And don't forget Jim Bakker. You want to look at what percentage of what they took in went to charity? And let's not forget the good work done by christians like Jim Jones and David Koresh.
Focusing on Benny Hinn, Jim Bakker, Jim Jones and David Koresh as what represents the Christian religion is as revealing about what you think as what they did...I am sorry that is the only impression you seem to have.
Unfortunately I can't verify your claims about this Catholic organization. Long PDF's don't load properly over dialup.
I sent the audit statement of McGladrey & Pullen, CPA to you as a JPEG.
In any event anything done by superstition based charities can be done by secular charities just as well, if not better without the risk of religion getting in the way.
So, it really does not matter to if a religious charity is squeaky clean and totally above board?
Does it matter that Christine Baranski, a well known pro-choice and pro-gay activist, would lend her name, image and a statement in support of the charitable work of a CATHOLIC group? I don't for a moment doubt that she strongly disagrees with catholic teachings as they relate to sexual morality, but that she feels passionately that sex trafficking of women and children should be stopped and is willing to set aside (for the moment) such differences to support one aspect of CRS is to her credit.
One the subject of religious versus secular charity work, see "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism" a relatively new book written by Arthur C. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. I started the book, but got distracted and have yet to finish it, though it is on my "short" stack to pick up again and finish.
Orin said "I sent the audit statement of McGladrey & Pullen, CPA to you as a JPEG.".
Yes, I received that unfortunately it doesn't specifically say that 94% of their budget actually went to program services and neither did you. You said 94% of their budget is allocated to program services, once again its one thing to allocate and another to achieve. I can't verify from what you sent that this was actually achieved.
Orin asked "So, it really does not matter to if a religious charity is squeaky clean and totally above board?".
But they're not totally above board and squeaky clean. They oppress gays and do everything they can to disrupt and diminish gay relationships and protections under the law. Its the same as having a South African government agency from the apartheid era doing charity work. The fact that one of their policies is evil casts doubt on any efforts they make to do good. If you can't trust them to do the right thing in all areas, how can you trust them to do the right thing in any area?
Orin asked "Does it matter that Christine Baranski, a well known pro-choice and pro-gay activist, would lend her name, image and a statement in support of the charitable work of a CATHOLIC group?".
I've never heard of her and have only your word for it that she's pro-gay. In any event I know pro-gay people at Exgaywatch for example who would support anti-gay organizations in some actions that I totally oppose, so no it doesn't matter that she's purportedly pro-gay.
It may well be that such Catholic organizations on the whole do good, but it would take a lot of convincing before I'd believe they do it without unnecessary negative baggage as a result of backwards and discriminatory beliefs they're committed to. Given the option I see no point in having services delivered by an acknowledged biased group when a secular group committed to human rights is available to do the same work. Would you trust an apartheid supporting organization to do the right thing over an apartheid opposing organization?
"Yes, I received that unfortunately it doesn't specifically say that 94% of their budget actually went to program services and neither did you."
Randi
I just looked and the statements that McGladrey has attested to show 561 million out of 597 million dollars spent by CRS went to program services. Comes out to 94%.
As for the rest of your remarks, your fanaticism makes you look so bad, there's really not much anyone can add to it.
Anonymous, I'll believe it when I see it.
Post a Comment
<< Home