You really don't want to read about another terrifying crazy Republican woman, do you? Too bad. Here it is: a good Christian homeschooling mom who doesn't like gay people. And by "doesn't like", I mean "wants them stoned to death and everything they touch blown up."
A friend recently sent me this article about a "gay-friendly" high school. If we were living in a biblical society, homosexuality would be punishable by death so such a school would be unnecessary. Although I'm against the special accommodations, perhaps this new trend of segregation will protect straight kids from these predators. With any luck, some radical will blow up the gay school. No, I'm not condoning vigilantism--I'm merely saying that it would be poetic justice.
This has been yet another chapter in Our Scary American Electorate.
(via 2000 Years of Deception)
- Log in to post comments
That's a special kind of evil right there... I wonder how many Biblical violations we could find if we went through her closets.
"Poetic justice"?
I am shocked that someone can say this online and not get a visit from the FBI.
A quote from the author found in the comments section:
Hahaha!
i weep for her poor children and the ignorance and intolerance they are being taught to embrace and wallow in - just WOW
oh yeah, and i hope that if her children disrespect her that she makes sure to kill them - like it says to in the bible.
It's frustrating the powerlessness one feels when they know that there are children out there being abused by failed human beings, and there is nothing I can do about it.
Reading that woman's website makes me sick to the stomach. I guess the public school's in her area are kind of lucky they don't have to deal with her.
What really confuses me about people like this, is why do they get so caught up in being hatefull bigots? Aren't the key teachings of Jesus things like "Love thy neighbour", or "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? "Judge not lest ye be judged"? Stuff like that?
I hope none of her children don't turn out to be gay and have to deal a horrible monster of a mother like her.
Oh no you're not. If they said that about a Hagee's church or McCain maybe.
Trust me, I've been visited by the Secret Service for threatening the life of a Pres candidate. They care about that stuff.
"Fags", they could give a fuck.
God hates fags ...
"...perhaps this new trend of segregation will protect straight kids from these predators."
Yes, we all know how poor straight kids in High School fell victim to, "The Gays." I remember back in High School when, "The Gays," would walk down the hall proudly redecorating at will, and God help anyone that dared get in their way. The poor jocks would run crying from the locker rooms all the time as the gays would gang up on the poor helpless halfbacks. It was so tragic...
""With any luck, some radical will blow up the gay school. No, I'm not condoning vigilantism--I'm merely saying that it would be poetic justice.""
Yes, in fact you are condoning it, as well as reveling in its possibility.
but but there WAS homosexuality in Biblical times. I thought it was pretty much accepted by Biblical scholars everywhere that David had a male lover and God blessed their relationship.
Or maybe my Bible history class at Catholic school was way liberal. :/
How do these people breed? The anatomical expertise required must be beyond them...surely!
You know, I just keep wondering how long it's going to be until the nonbelievers are going to organize ourselves into an association remotely as powerful as the Christian right.
How long does it have to be until we finally stop letting ourselves get bashed on by the crazy people and step up?
How on Earth does one reconcile this:
with this:
without having one's head explode?
Hauntedchippy at #6 posted:
nothing I can do about it.
That's one way to look at it. Another way would be to work for things like education that combats this sort of crazy ideology; donate to good causes in money or volunteer time as a visible demonstration that atheists (or whatever descriptor you subscribe to) are decent people who try to help instead of harm; try to raise your own children (if you have them) in a way that will brighten the world, not darken it; and so on. Granted, those aren't direct intervention in the lives of the children suffering under the bile, but I'm not convinced that we, out here in the world, are completely without recourse.
Someday those kids will encounter, for better or worse, the world outside their mother's hatred. They'll be ill-prepared for it, is my guess. Maybe they'll go insular and retreat into what they know. But they might just meet some cool people (some of whom might even be gay) and change their minds along the way.
No kings,
Robert
She makes my head want to explode. With all this unfiltered hate popping up around the election, I am trying to remember that intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance . . . okay, I'm intolerant.
I am shocked, shocked I tell you. The warm and fuzzy homeschooling mommy thinks that homosexuality is worse than murder.
I have seen too gay and lesbian children of parents like Raani. Most are either extremely self loathing or were tossed out of their home while still kids. My hatred for people like Raani is vast.
And what a revolting shit-streak she is. Why do people like this want to live under a constitutional democracy, anyhow? You'd think there would be a lot of countries that they'd like better -- for instance, some kind of repressive theocracy. I hope her kids get out sane. Does anyone know the escape rate from this kind of upbringing? I've heard it's >30%, but I don't have the real figures.
Hopefully the gay-friendly high school gets off the ground. H. Milk is a truly amazing success story which deserves to be duplicated in a whole lot of places.
Well, I just adore how she describes herself and her blog:
Yes, Raani. There is something dear.
Wow - that is one poisonous woman.
How can 'moderate' christians explain how some people, like this woman, can read the same holy books as they do, and presumably call on the same god for enlightenment but end up with such a different worldview?
One christian explained it to me once as a 'signal to noise' ratio problem - apparently god sends believers messages but it gets distorted (I don't know how so don't ask!). Loads of holes in that argument - but I reckon on that explanation's basis they would say this woman is getting way more noise than signal.
She might not condone vigilantism, but I do! Specifically, breaking this hag's kneecaps so she can't harm innocents.
:P
I said it elsewhere. It bears repeating here. It's time for us liberals to seriously consider arming ourselves.
There are thousands upon thousands of gay people out there growing up in homes with sick parents like this despicable creature. Guess nobody bothered to tell her that her "beliefs" are complete bullshit.
gazza at #20 posted:
but it gets distorted
The Debbil! The Debbil can haz EMP?
No kings,
Robert
What do you mean "consider"?
Choice bits:
"Did you know that God actually hates some people? The Bible says God hated Esau. Try reading the Bible from cover to cover and maybe you will better understand God's holiness."
"How people who claim to be Christians can have such a soft spot for people that God burned up and commanded to be put to death is beyond me."
"I think Sodomites have already blasphemed the Holy Spirit by changing "the truth of God into a lie".
"They will never discover that people are born gay, because it just isn't so."
"That said, I believe that a homosexual can no longer get saved. They weren't born gay and God wanted them to get saved at some point. The reason they are that way is that they have pushed God too far and he has given up on them."
Moderate and liberal theists will of course accuse us of picking an "easy target" that isn't representative of real Christianity (when they are not accusing us of being unfair for going after moderates and liberals when there are fanatics around.) But this woman is clearly sincere, has studied the Bible, and no doubt feels that she has been moved by the Holy Spirit to understand how to interpret it.
Once you start trying to argue against her views from Scripture and what God really meant, then there's no real way to arbitrate. You can invoke scholarship -- but if it's worldly scholarship, they've been warned about that.
Her views are anathema from a secular point of view. And there is nothing in religion which requires that it be fit into a secular point of view. If you can do that, then you don't have a religion: you have a philosophy which borrows poetic metaphor from the cultural past.
I suspect this woman loves her children, her family, and her God. But not in that order.
Anyone want to go over to this shrew's blog and pretend to be a homeschooling mother who's been inspired by Raani's words to beat the gayness out of her baby?
What is frightening is that these paranoid delusional parents are confining children in these Home Skinner boxes, but eventually they are turned loose and unleashed on the real world, the workplace, and on us.
This is the basic problem with incarceration of any kind, it produces a class of anti-social dysfunctionals.
In this case, young adults go out on their own, into a world full of people that they have been taught are EVIL!!! That's a hell of a way to enter adulthood.
Of couurse, I know all you goddam mutant primates are evil, too, but I arrived at that conclusion in a perfectly rational manner.
@27: If anyone does this, also say you're going to kill your atheist neighbors. This bitch probably doesn't understand Poe's Law, so she'll think it's sincere. Also, she'll probably support your decision. -_-
Posted by: Sastra | October 21, 2008
I suspect this woman loves her children, her family, and her God. But not in that order.
But if any of her children ends up being a homosexual, watch how quickly that child is tossed out the door. Call it a conditional love.
It's amazing what people can justify when they think they have divine will on their side. Intolerance is looked down on except when it's God.
Kari - Yes, you are right. David did have a male lover.
And to see some real fine homoerotic art, head for the Sistine Chapel. It's covered in it.
Christians, the only finer hypocrites than politicians.
"The homosexual agenda wants people to think that homosexual men are safe for women to hang around and even be alone with. Nothing could be further from the truth. The stories about Sodomites in the Bible teach us that they do violate women as well as men."
The "they are after our (white) women" appeal never gets old it seems.
Octopod @ #18- "Why do people like this want to live under a constitutional democracy, anyhow?"
Where have you been? They DON'T. And they come right out and say so, in places like the movie "Jesus Camp".
Let's not fool ourselves about these wackaloons- this shit has been going mainstream for a long long time.
(Full disclosure- I've been openly gay for 20+ years. Believe me, this wretched woman is hardly alone in her "beliefs".)
Gee, wouldn't we all love to bop into this idiot lady's blog and blast her, but she is obviously censoring comments she does not like.
This is a Palin supporter, no doubt.
Many of "us liberals" have already armed ourselves. Now we consider ourselves to be classical liberals, or libertarians. Consistent advocacy of civil liberties is a good thing.
Raani ..... sounds like one of those "foreign" names. Certainly doesn't sound christian to me. I talked with God the other day and he definitely said he didn't condone things like that. Her depraved parents must have named her that way and, clearly, keeping it has been her choice. Maybe we should stone her to death for being different. "Since there is no hope for" weird named people ", we would be better off without them. They are recruiters and not reproducers so the safest solution would be the death penalty."
She tries to explain her blog by stating that "... there is something here for everyone" ...... unless your gay (or any other type of normal, rational person), evidently. What a sad life for her and her kids..... Any guesses who she's voting for?
Pdiff
What's scary to me (besides the entire thing) is that she's pregnant again with #5.
What's scary to me (besides the entire thing) is that she's pregnant again with #5.
The other long-term problem with this situation (aside from the obvious ones mentioned, e.g. socialization of the kids, hypocrisy, etc.) is the exclusionary self-feeding that has to occur.
Assume this woman, who I believe suffers from what the DSM-IV refers to in technical terms as "Batshit Kuh-ray-zeeee," gets her wish someday and "they" come for all the "sodomites" and spirit them away to concentration camps for execution.
Then what? She'll need to find something new to hate. Hate needs direction. I suspect she's got an awful lot directed at herself, but that's another issue. So she'll start looking for atheists, and once they're all on the pyre, then it's "those who claim to be Christians but aren't really," and so on.
Eventually it eats itself. Eventually the most devoted, ardent supporter of whatever eliminationist wackaloonery she has starts to look suspicious: haircut, clothing choices, food choices, music choices, etc.
It lends weight to the interpretation of Christianity, or at least her brand of it, as a death cult: so much fascination with not being here.
No kings,
Robert
Sastra: I suspect this woman loves her children, her family, and her God. But not in that order.
I suspect she is a sociopath and even her church finds her insufferable and cruel (but OK since she mouths their formulae). There is a level of cruelty that reflects on her character in general, and not just on her ideology.
Imagine what this woman does to her children when she finds them twiddling themselves!
I would really like to think that these episodes we keep seeing are indicative of the waning influence of fundamentalism. As it gets more and more impotent, its denizens scream louder and louder, trying to be heard. After all, if everyone in the country agreed with her, there would be no need for her to spout off like that. It's much more pleasant to watch and see it as the death throes of an incompetent worldview. The only trick is to make sure that's exactly what it is.
Er... this is kind of important: She believes it would be vigilantism to kill gay children. Not murder, vigilantism. It would be ok if law enforcement agents were to round them up, have them tried, and kill them for being gay.
Children.
Now those are some motherfucking family values.
Well, I can't say she's not being a good christian right there... It's in the darn book...
Too bad I hate her.
I was sincerely hoping this was a Poe, but after looking at her photos, other blog posts, and official website, there's just no way someone would put this much effort into trolling for fun.
This is the lowest form of scum I have ever seen.
I posted this comment, which no one will see but her:
RevEnki, please read what I posted in #17. She thinks being gay is worse than committing murder.
info_dump at #46:
I know you probably won't post this, but at least you'll see it.
My guess is she won't read past that point. She's into some major, big-time insularity.
And she'll feel even more self-righteous. But good on ya fer tryin'.
No kings,
Robert
info_dump, if Raani would deem to answer you, she would ask why you show pity for those that her big sky daddy condemned.
Thou shalt only kill people with whom thou dost disagree.
The woman sure has a virulent strain of homophobia. It also looks like she won't let anyone post on her blog unless they quote from the sky fairy's Bible. I suppose she'd stone her own children if they turn out to be gay. Pathetic.
I feel cornered sometimes. I just never know when some bible-believer will drag out another bible quote that makes no sense in the real world, but since it's in their favorite book, it makes sense to them.
It seems hopeless at times.
So, she wouldn't murder 1,000 people, but she'd be okay with it if someone else did. Is that about right?
Real nice.
I want to see Raani come here and defend herself.
She proudly announces that she's 6 weeks pregnant.
That kid is up shit creek.
frog #41 wrote:
I doubt that very much. Just a brief look around the rest of her site shows that she has a lot of interests, cares deeply about her kids, enjoys pets and hobbies, likes to help others, etc. The problem is NOT this woman.
The problem is her religion. Flat out. Her beliefs are toxic, and her sense of commitment, her integrity, and even her good and kind qualities have been hijacked and distorted by a world view which is simplistic, cruel, and ultimately arbitrary.
I don't want to live anymore.
I usually just lurk this blog, content to read without participating, but reading this was so depressing I felt I had to mention something that not everyone may have noticed :
there is a button in the Blogger banner at the top of that blog, allowing you to report violations of their terms of service, such as, say, hate speech.
I wonder what would happen if we all clicked it ?
Sastra: The problem is NOT this woman. The problem is her religion.
Yes, and Hitler loved dogs, Mengele was a fine dinner guest, and Goebbels was very witty. Not all sociopaths are incompetent at social interactions --- some serial killers are quite good at displaying proper emotion.
The problem is her religion and herself. The religious hatred that drips off her tongue is an expression of an inner state that is not determined by the language. The religious language makes it easier to express and develop that hatred --- but that hatred, that lack of empathy and recognition of common humanity is a part of her independent of it's religious expression.
Some folks are just good party-members, and some folks love the party.
It's too bad people people think like this but I think that religion is just a tool for this type of person. If religion didn't exist they would find some other mechanism to turn their fear of the "other" into a comfort zone of hate.
A person like this must be afraid of the world and unable to think through it. Since religion is filled with easy answers and there is a community of fellow believers to help support them from the "other", ie., rest of world.
When most of humanity lived in a world where the "other" was usually at a relatively safe distance, this "tribal ideas probably served a real good purpose of social organization and cohesion. However, today with people like her (including her less radical co-conspirators) it is turned up side down and inside out. Instead of helping society move forward it is a reactionary hindrance.
Sadly, having a rational discussion with people like her is impossible. One can only hope something in the world or their lives will be able to make them change.
I can't say I have much, but I do have a little.
I posted a comment to her also giving her some bible verses to read condoning rape/murder. I don't think she will post it but at least maybe she will read it.
Bethor #56,
Her blog gets removed.
Let's do this!
I only have enough skills to post here, so for all you whiz kids that can post on her site - how about giving her this gem-
Malachi 2:3 "Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts."
Or how about a direct commandment from her gawd to eat shit?
Ezekiel 4:12 "The Lord commanded: And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight."
She loves scripture, what the hell, give her some.
"...Although I'm against the special accommodations..."
Oh. I see. So by special accommodations, could she mean anything like the tax exempt status for her church? or does all other "Church Privileges" not count as special accommodations?
"If we were living in a biblical society, homosexuality would be punishable by death so such a school would be unnecessary."
Her "biblical society" would be a bloodbath.
"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death".
"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death".
"Those filled with unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, hate for god, despite, proud, boasters, inventions of evil things, disobedience to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, unnatural affection, implacable or unmerciful nature: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death".
That last one wipes out just about everyone.
Check out her marriage 101, and count the number of times the word "submit" is used. Then compare with her "quiverful of arrows" ideology!
Yup, there's a massive sadomasochism mechanism at work here --- massive. Teh Gays are just down the rungs from women. Imagine, they actually want to be "catchers"!
Just lie back and think about sweet, sweet, SWEET JESUS!!!!!
Take back the republican party ya'll!!
http://joshxiong.com/?p=108
People like her give home schoolers a bad name. It really pisses me off that this has become the perceived norm of the home school setting. There should be a support group for atheist home school students are something.
Despite one's view of the Bible's integrity as being historical, one's interpretation of its content is usually personal, and in Raani's case is influenced by her personal levels of prejudice and apparent terroristic nature for those who break a widely Christian Norm. Academically interpreted using basic semantic-anaylis, the story of David and Johnathon's relationship reads as a romantic one.
Consider:
1Sa 18:3 Then Jonathan 3083 and David 1732 made 3772 a covenant 1285, because he loved 160 him as his own soul 5315.
1Sa 20:17 And Jonathan 3083 caused David 1732 to swear 7650 again 3254 , because he loved 160 him: for he loved 157 him as he loved 160 his own soul 5315.
2Sa 1:26 I am distressed 6887 for thee, my brother 251 Jonathan 3083: very 3966 pleasant 5276 hast thou been unto me: thy love 160 to me was wonderful 6381 , passing the love 160 of women 802.
Nothing can justify Raani's horrifying thoughts, or her violation of basic human rights. That said, perhaps she should research the history of her religion, and re-evaluate her interpretation of the book that tells, only part of, the story.
perhaps this new trend of segregation will protect straight kids from these predators.
Bullshit. We don't try and turn people gay. In fact, it's frowned upon. There's a bias in the community against bisexuals already because of confused straight girls breaking hearts when they realise they really want cock.
For proof that she's not alone in her sick beliefs, just read the comments on that CNN article that's linked to. Most of the comments are homophobic.
Like nearly everyone else here, upon seeing this idiotic moron rant about something she knows little about, something struck me. Yes, there are ignorant imbeciles who pretend to be guided by some fantasy of the divine, but they have always existed. The difference is that with the internet, we're overexposed by idiotic rants. It may seem like they're everywhere we turn our heads, in fact, they're a minority. Yes, they may be a significant minority, but they're equally on the fringes. We're constantly getting worked up over these buffoons, and PZ's doing a magnificent job orchestrating their ignorance, but a point is reached where we have to stop and look back. We have to maintain some degree of emotionless rationalism in spite of such blaring ignorance. If we get worked up over every single twit that says something ignorant, we're in for a long and stressful life.
My suggestion would be to step back every now and then and take a deep breath. It reminds me of the cops who deal with so many crooks and liars that they feel as though everyone they encounter is lying and cheating them. It's a natural fallacy of personal experience. The more we encounter something negative, the more we feel as though the whole world is conspiring against us. There are plenty of good reasons to vote, and to be aware of these ignorant assholes, but constantly fanning the flames every time a moron voices their empty heads is overkill.
Well for every mom like this there are some whose love for their (queer) children supersedes their religious conservatism.
I was lecturing on queer health care at the Texas Tech Medical School in Lubbock TX last year and I was talking about the suicide attempt rate among queer youth and particularly among transgender youth. To illustrate the severity I spoke about a friend of mine who child is transgender who is just about the single best mom a transgender kid could have. She's supportive, allows her kid to be herself, and is in fact is a community organizer. And yet her daughter was still depressed and suicidal in gradeschool. Then I said: "If even in the best circumstances these kids face a lot of challenges imagine how bad it would be for a transgender kid who is the child of closed minded, un-accepting, evangelical Christian conservative parents living here in Lubbock?"
After the lecture a middle aged woman came up to me and waited till everyone else had left and said (literally not even making eye contact with me): "You know that child you talked about? The transgender child with Christian conservative un-accepting parents living in Lubbock? Well that's my child." My partner was there with me and blurted out: "No you aren't, you're here tonight." (Thankfully he was there because I was busy kicking myself for using that example...)
We ended up talking to her for over and hour and his poor woman had been told by her friends at church that if she accepted her son, she would be ostracized. She had also been discouraged from going to PFLAG (yes, there is one in Lubbock) because her friends told her PFLAG wouldn't allow her to join unless she rejected her faith. But she read a flier about my talk and came to hear me. I was floored by her bravery (and it was brave given what she was taught to believe) and said as much. She started crying and showed me a picture of her son and said that she decided that it was worth risking going to hell if she could help her baby.
So for all of those evil witches like Raani, there are people who while misguided and believing in sky-fairies value their kids more than their faith.
I feel sorry for her kids... so much woo-woo and magical thinking in that blog, not to mention the anti-others hatred!
herbal remedies for high-blood pressure! (and on that note... what kind of healthy diet includes mac-n-cheese...?)
mirena coils cause abortions!
The Moon Landing was a hoax!
It's painful
I know someone who writes software for homeschoolers. I'll ask him and get back to you guys.
Kasa - You have a very unusual way of scripture quoting. I'm intrigued, want are the numbers for?
I just flagged this twat's blog for containing hate speech and threats of violence against persons or groups. If enough people do this, Dumbo's bound to notice. Getting her blog knocked off the web might not change this cretin's viewpoint, but it might make her aware that her deranged "values" are NOT shared by the majority. Maybe she, and "people" like her will just go back to hiding in caves or under rocks, and maybe, just maybe, Social Services can do something about the kids trapped in these xtian madrassas.
Kobra #56
Blogger specifically states that "material that promotes hatred toward groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity is not allowed on Blogger"
Reported.
@ Bethor
Thanks! I just reported her blog, and I hope that many others do so as well.
Heliopogenus @ #70 wrote- "There are plenty of good reasons to vote, and to be aware of these ignorant assholes, but constantly fanning the flames every time a moron voices their empty heads is overkill."
I couldn't disagree more. If it gets overwhelming, by all means, go take a walk around the block, or hug your SO.
But we should never EVER let up the spotlight on shit like this. Like fungus, this shit grows in the dark of isolation and insularity. That's part of the problem.
The more these beliefs are kept in the open, the more marginal they'll become. NEVER let up.
The character of a christian is reflected in the parts of scripture they think important. Decent folk read about feeding the hungry, comforting the sick, etc. . Sociopaths dwell on the punishment of sinners.
@12 - But birds and bees do it. ;)
Tab A into Slot B, C, or D. Eventually something will happen. It would explain some young adult mating rituals, wouldn't it?
J
Well, since it seems that displays of unmitigated bigotry is the motif today, here, might as well toss this one in, too (Palin Supports in Johnstown, PA, 11 Oct 2008):
http://bettybowers.com/betty4president/?cat=54
Patricia,
Yeah, but I suspect that had a lot more to do Michelangelo's personal sexual preferences than the teachings in the Bible, still some pretty good artwork there with strong papal endorsement to back it up...
How can you write that unabashed?
Please...
You're insulting shit streaks.
Really sad. Another instance of an otherwise normal and moral person doing an evil deed (hate-speech) because of religion. I doubt Christopher Hitchens will be happy to hear this though.
@RickR,
It's not about letting up, but about practicing some restraint. Every time some mindless fuck spouts empty headed bullshit, we're going to jump at the jugular? It's one thing for a presidential candidate to spout ignorant bullshit, but a completely different thing when some idiot who few even care about becomes a focal point of attack. All we're doing is giving them a platform and allowing other empty headed morons who come to these pages to link to their mindlessness.
It comes down to levels of magnitude. I'm as equally willing to attack those that have some influence, but there are plenty of empty headed nit-wits who spout piles of shit that we can ignore. I'm not saying every one has to ignore it, but for me, as I'm sure for a few people here, some of these morons just don't register on our radar. If we're going to fight the good fight, it's better to fight those that give voice and fodder to more than a handful of people. Well, at least that's my opinion. Besides, you're right, many times, I'll distance myself a bit from all this,and come back thinking less with raw emotions of anger, and more with rational thoughts of mitigating this bullshit without hysterics.
ditto
Blog Reported
This part I have to agree with. God's holiness is often indistinguishable from raving genocidal madness.
I, too, am going to report this blog for hate speech.
How would blowing up a school full of gay people be "Poetic justice"?
Also, homosexuality is not a disease that straight kids can catch. And what is with the word "predators" to describe homosexuals? Is this lady conflating homosexuality with child molesting? Does she think that all homosexuals are serial rapists?
Someone send this lady a T-shirt with "FAIL" printed on it in big letters.
Reported as well.
These people are so upsetting! It makes me want to cry and beat something out of rage at the same time (don't fret, I'm not doing either). This is an unacceptable level of ignorance and bigotry, and the more I see these absurd people, the more frustrated I feel. It would be one thing to simply be wrong, but it is another entirely to completely close yourself (and children) off from opposing viewpoints and advocate death-by-mob for those who oppose you. RAWR
I agree with the step back, take a breath stuff. On the other hand I did go and flag her blog too. She is hateful enough to warrant at least that. And it made me feel better as well. Thanks to posters who suggested that.
: )
And of course she deletes any negative comments. Wouldn't want her Christian readers to actually read a contrary point of view.
DAMN. I'm getting tired of being the lone sane homeschooler running around, frantically waving my arms and shouting to normal people, "Not all homeschoolers are weird! Some of us were homeschooled because we lived in shitty mega-religious school districts! Don't lump us in with these crazy people!"
But seriously, we aren't all insane. I think this Pride Campus sounds like a great idea, if only because the gay kids should be protected from people like her.
Also, I clicked over to her blog and it's scary as hell.
Poetic justice? How about she has enough kids (and still popping them out as fast as possible) that 1 is bound to be gay. Odds get better every time she breeds.
"Poetic justice"? "Poetic Fucking Justice?
I've got a little bit to say about "poetic justice"--
It strains the bounds of rhyme and meter, strong as my disgust is.
To speak of terrorism with the words "with any luck"
Exposes Raani Starnes as this week's batshit stupid fuck.
If any are offended, you can take it up with Raani;
I hope she has a good excuse, cos I can't think of any.
Check out her "politics" tag. She believes the moon hoax stuff too!
flagged as hate speech.
Rather than concentrating on this particular pernicious nutbag, I'm worrying about all the mainstream "normal" Americans who's intolerance is actually forcing a separate school just so GLBT kids can feel safe. That's horrifying.
Reported too, but it's a shame there's nowhere that can you enter why you think it constitutes hate speech. Presumably they'll find the With any luck, some radical will blow up the gay school. No, I'm not condoning vigilantism--I'm merely saying that it would be poetic justice, passage without too much difficulty.
Reported it too. They really should add a "why" field....
I don't expect a reaction though. They must get so many...
I've reported her to Wordpress as well. Vile, hateful woman, a true representation of the Good Book (TM).
I wonder how many Biblical violations we could find if we went through her closets.
No need for that. Right off the bat, she's on the wrong side of "love thy neighbor as thyself". Any Christian should be able to spot that.
-jcr
Fernando @82 - Yes, you are correct about the artist. But he was also painting it to spite the church. In the last book I read about him he hated, the catholic church's hypocrisy.
I didn't know about the art before. There's so much gay fondling going on I was amazed. But my favorite is the portrait of gawds rear end mooning everyone right over the popes throne!
That was genuinely disturbing. I may have trouble sleeping tonight because of it.
I think the preferred response to this would be something toward Desertphile's bemoaning the creationist whackjobs on Youtube.
If you don't know, it's one of his 'I can't live in a world with such morons' rants, where he uses camera tricks to fake a suicide by shooting a tomato. Pretty much summed the sensation up accurately..
Who else but a homeschooling Christian xenophobe would willingly euthanize her children's intellectual capabilities?
@Derek, 88:
Yes, they do think that homosexuality = child molester / rapist / menace.
The majority of my wife's family holds this opinion, and it's the reason why we are now practically the only family support her transgendered sister has in the world.
It's truly sad to see, as well as makes the blood boil. I can't stand most of them anymore - even more so since becoming an atheist. I just don't want to bother any more, sometimes.
Yowza! I was having a poke around at some of this woman's other entries. It's just bat-shit crazy all the way down. The fact that she was swayed by a television program on the moon landings to believe they're a hoax should say a lot about how soft and malleable this woman's mind truly is.
This is someone who could wind up in a cult worshiping eggplants or something, but she chose an evil strain of Christianity with more hatred and bigotry that anyone could handle. So, subsequently, she and her soft mind are terrified of every little difference in the individuals that make up our planet's population.
In other words, she wants to live in a safe, little box with her fingers in her ears and her eyes and mind slammed shut.
What a waste of a life she is.
Rrrreeeeeported!
#65
Stop posting links to a rather shitty conservative blog.
Oh yeah, also reported the blog. Does this mean we've moved from poll crashing into something a bit more satisfying?
Eggplants! Hey thanks Capitol Dan. I haven't made eggplant pizza in a blue moon. Six cloves of garlic, hot damn. :o)
Flagged.
I've never before been so happy to report a blog. Actually, I've never reported a blog before this one...
Eggplant pizza? Hmmm...With artichoke?
I'm all for her right to be able to spout off whatever crazy bullshit that she wants, but "poetic justice?"
How exactly is blowing up a group of people who have a history of systematic physical and mental abuse "poetic justice?" What a loon.
Omfsm...every time I see one of these fuckheads go on about gays, I go back to the same question...but *why*? There are so many people in the world for them to worry about, who do things that are *actually* wrong and harmful to others, so why are gay people their biggest concern in life? Seriously, they are obsessed, they think about gay people 24 hours a day, wtf.
And reported.
Since her blog is probably going to be taken down, here's a backup of the content so no one can claim we misrepresented her:
http://www.webcitation.org/5bkUen3to
Good point, Bethor @ #56. I humbly submit to your command.
This just convinces me more that if Christians could get away with it, they'd kill every non-Christian they could, jihad style. Good thing our government does a good job of keeping them flabby, fat, lazy, and unmotivated.
Now you just hold on there Cal George @65 - you can't go bible quotin like that and confuse the Pharyngula fry. They'll squirt off, like half cocked little barracudas to feed on that dumbass womans website, without the words of sweet baby jeezus.
Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."
Honor thy father and mother with that. *big Palin wink*
Bethor in comment #56 had a great idea. I did exactly what was suggested. Let's hope something comes of it.
Blogspot's Content Policy says, "HATEFUL CONTENT: Users may not publish material that promotes hate toward groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity." Using the word 'faggot' (and I don't think she was speaking of a bundle of sticks), and her opinion on bombing the school should be enough if the FLAG BLOG button is hit by enough concerned citizens. I will be checking back on her blog to see if an effect was made.
Cal George @ 63. Gawd damn, sweet baby jeezus has that stuck on stupid effect even after 2000 years.
Need more wine.
Oh Sweet Jesus (metaphorically speaking). Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves (Hardball and then Palin on CNN today, not to mention Obama's class act at stilling the "boos" before he moved to moderate a panel discussion between four swing state governors and economic experts in FL).
Hey Stacey: Do clue me as to who you are going to report what. As a "fake" American, I can only refer to the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
As a "fake" American, I will give my life to protect that.
So what's your problem, Stacey?
Posted by: gazza @ 20 "...How can 'moderate' christians explain how some people, like this woman, can read the same holy books as they do, and presumably call on the same god for enlightenment but end up with such a different worldview?..."
They don't read the same. Their pastors/preists takes them by the hand and tells them what bits to read (ignoring the bits that say something inconvenient) and what it means. They may also read articles written by others that believe similar to the way they do and associated and interact almost exclusively with their fellow church members, so their Sunday lectures are reinforced.
They never learnt to think for themselves, they are actively told not to, but to believe the word of god, which is conveniently interpreted by the pastor. Thinking for yourself is taking the forbidden fruit of knowledge and would be rejecting god. They are told to take of the tree of life, which is unthinking faith in god.
Raani is a disgusting creature. I did a search for "evolution," and one of her posts claims that she censors evolution from what her poor, mentally-abused children get to read.
And, of course, she censors blog comments. Typical Christian.
#84 LotharLoo-"Really sad. Another instance of an otherwise normal and moral person doing an evil deed (hate-speech) because of religion."
I can't imagine how you can credit her with any morality, none is evident to me, though I agree religion is the prime factor here.
While the woman is obviously unhinged...
...flagging her blog? How will this help?
If no reprimand comes her way, she'll play the 'persecution' card due to the negative comments she's received and claim that she was right, but that the light of jeebus saw her through and she stood strong.
If her blog is suspended/removed, she'll simply play the (ridiculous) 'persecution' card and the 'martyr' card. She'll start another blog, full of her 'righteous' knowledge (a.k.a. bullshit) that she is better/stronger/'righter' for it.
Free speech means free speech. She's a complete want-wit, but she has every right to spew her drivel. The only answer to free speech one finds offensive is more free speech. Let her know what you think, and let her keep tying her own noose by continuing to vomit forth her imbecilic rhetoric.
Not only that, but the FBI should be able to find her much more easily this way...
Sorry Guys, my #123 refers to Stacey's # 113.
Guess I was just *so* excited at being reported that I forgot to make the appropriate references.
I eagerly await the in-waiting mini-Cheney's attempt to hunt me down and blow off my face. I hate offense and I can hold my own on defense.
Like the others, I suggest flagging the blog:
1. Click the blog's button (very top left) that says "flag"
2. Check "hate or violence" and click continue
3. Click continue on the disclaimer page
4. Click Submit on the last page
Thanks to those who brought this feature up. If enough people flag it, maybe they'll take this crazy woman offline.
I found this gem on her blog: "As a Christian, I try to hate the same things that God hates."
This was in one of her comments... About someone liking her dish at a pot luck and wanting the recipe. Read her "irate rants",
-A
God may hate fags, but fags don't hate God.
In fact, they like him....they like him very...very much
/George Takei
O.M.F.G.
People like that make me furious. Not just because of her blatant hate-on for gay people but also because of how she is smearing (by association) the repute of Christians and homeschoolers everywhere. My parents are Christian/agnostic (one of each) and my Christian mother homeschooled my siblings and me for years. I turned out just fine - an atheist with a science degree. But because of people like her I feel like I have to be circumspect in talking about how I was brought up :-(
I also flagged her blog. Free speech or not, she is quite clearly violating Blogger's TOS.
#53
Yeah, the fact that the cunt is pregnant is fucking scary. It's sad to think that someone has to be raised by someone so socially inept.
Dear PZ and everyone. I've been reading this blog for about a month now (after hearing about you via the Skeptics Guide podcast). Can I just say that it is a huge eye-opener for an Australian to see the degree of extreme bigotry and hate expressed by the the subjects of your blogs. Americans, especially these people, should know that their views do nothing to promote America to the rest of the world.
Good work for continuing to expose these people, and I only hope that by turning the focus back on them, they might come to realise that a significant proportion of society condemns their ignorant beliefs.
@Bethor #57:
Batshit crazy sociopath duly flagged.
Free speech means free speech. She's a complete want-wit, but she has every right to spew her drivel.
But Blogspot is not required to host it, and their policy is clear that they will not host it. Reporting her is simply alerting them to a violation of their values.
Duly submitted. Toxic bitch!
no no no.... poetic justice would be one of her kids, or her husband, turning out to be gay.
I FUCKING HATE THIS WOMAN. RAH.
there is a button in the Blogger banner at the top of that blog, allowing you to report violations of their terms of service, such as, say, hate speech.
I wonder what would happen if we all clicked it ?
done.
"Thanks for reporting this possible Terms of Service violation. We will examine it soon and take action as necessary."
Stoned to death for being homosexual in Biblical times? That's a right laugh! There was a part of the Bible that was edited out some point in history because your beloved Jesus was a pedophile. He had sex with a kid! Yeah, nice and hypocritical, just how I like my Christians. :)
Reported also, with a caveat (here, unfortunately, since they have no mechanism for placing one there). I am fully in favor of this woman's right to spout any bullshit right up to, but no including, calls to violence against other people. It's a close call here, but she probably didn't really cross that line.
That said, I also am in favor of Blogger's right to decide what sort of fucking filth they will, and won't allow on their private servers. This woman may as well have smeared her feces all over them, bonobo style.
Ah, I took me a while but now I see the light.
Christian = terrorist
Stoned to death for being homosexual in Biblical times? That's a right laugh! There was a part of the Bible that was edited out some point in history because your beloved Jesus was a gay pedophile. He had sex with /gasp/ a male kid! Yeah, nice and hypocritical, just how I like my Christians. :)
What, you have the special teachers edition of the Bible or something? Share!
Better yet, as you note that it's not in the Bible and it's certainly not common knowledge among Christians, how exactly are they therefore* hypocrites?
*Yes they are hypocrites for myriad other reasons, but this?
Haha! The Google ads this brings up are deliciously ironic! Gay hotels and gay adoption! Does that qualify as poetic justice, or at least a poetic "you suck" from her god?
Sounds like this woman would fit in perfectly at Rapture Ready.
People who don't put enough chili powder in their damn chili are basically evil incarnate; I don't think there's any argument remaining about that.
Tom @ #53:
I once knew a woman about as bad, although not quite as vocal. When I heard that she was pregnant, my first comment was "well, nature or nurture, the kid's shafted either way".
Just another garden variety, nasty baptist. Nothing really new or unique there aside from the idea that she's possibly slightly more open and honest about her feelings and her justifications.
But that's ok, religion is such a civilized force in the world.
Thinking Ape - eggplant pizza, artichokes? Not mine, but you can add some to yours! ;o)
Mine - spread large slices of eggplant with - olive oil, 6 sliced cloves of garlic, 1 small sliced onion, 1 pound of fresh tomatoes, chopped, tablespoon of fresh Oregano, 1/2 cup each of mozzarella and cheddar cheese, 4 oregano springs and four springs of chopped basil. Bake at 350 degrees for about 40 minutes, and oh yummy!
The Grouchy Old Bastard and I grow artichokes every year in our garden for the simple minded pleasure of watching and photographing bees in the giant, beautiful blossoms. We never eat our own artichokes, the wailing of the bees would be over whelming.
Whoo-hoo. Liberals with guns? Libertarians with guns?? I wanna see Libterines with guns!!!
Coincidentally, on the Colbert Report, tonight, the president of Patrick Henry College was interviewed.
That is a college for graduates of Home Schooling. Colbert got some digs in, some of the language you might read here.
It'll be on the website at Comedy Central tomorrow if you missed it.
"As a Christian, I try to hate the same things that God hates"
Someone should really send her a link to the stuffgodhates blog, heh.
Also, flagged. I'm all for freedom of speech, but I felt no qualms about clicking the button. It's not like I impinged on her right to spread hate. As mentioned above, she can easily find another avenue for her garbage.
I merely acted upon my right to tell her, through a symbolic gesture, to stfu.
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49
Patricia-Ooooo, that sounds good. We just got a pizza stone, and have yet to use it. I'm going to try your recipe out tomorrow.
Also, Homophobes f$#k off.
Great.
Comedy Central will also be showing reruns of tonight's Daily Show and Colbert Report throughout tomorrow. In fact, the Daily Show is on in about 15 minutes, and Colbert's on after that. So, for those of you who missed the matinee...
This now concludes today's broadcast of pointless information.
Carry on, citizens, and fuck off crazy Baptists!
You can submit a TOS violation here:
http://help.blogger.com/?page=troubleshooter.cs&problem=&contact_type=m…
I'm game. Any ideas?
Can we start some sort of Centrist Party as well? I'm weary of political extremism as well.
Final comments at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/texas_petition.php
@161: We are neither right-wing, nor left-wing. We're the head of the goddamn bird!
Everybody - let's blitz this hateful woman's blog! She allows anonymous comments (for now at least). I've already posted at least half a dozen comments. I'm sure she won't publish them, but she might get a sense of the reaction to her vile comments. And we don't have to be unkind or rude - just point out that she's ignorant, misinformed and uneducated about the topic.
I'm sure there are some 'good' Christians out there, but this kind of thing leaves a sour taste in my mouth!
!!!Sputter sputter and wildly concerned hand waving!!!
How can anyone seriously support a gay friendly high school?!!
Think about it.
A gay friendly high school would result in the utter decimation of the theater departments of the other high schools in the area!! No more high school musicals! (And no High School Musical IV).
I have the urge to call CPS on her. Is this a good enough cause for CPS, though? Will they come and get the kids to protect them from the religious wackaloonery?
Killing kids that you don't like definitely equals family "family values" and all those other bullshit cliches these people use. I haven't felt this sick in a very long while...
She's beyond hope. We'd be better off without her.
her blog-friends are just as batshit crazy... ZSuzsanna is probably the craziest one: homophobe, literalist KJV'er, anti-vaxxer, paranoid about government, paranoid about modern medicine, thinks day-care is child abuse....
I don't understand how one person could be filled with so much hate. It should be leaking from her pores and dripping in a black, viscus puddle around her shins by now.
Everyone, please flag the living shit out of her blog. Blogger does not tolerate discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Thinking Ape - I'm such a garlic whore!
I flagged her blog as violating their terms of service re: hate speech. I would not expect it to remain there for long.
Although, I must say that I am frequenting *this* blog less for similar reasons, at least based on stuff within the comments. It's fine to express disgust at this crazy lady, but when I see all this talk of arming oneself and breaking kneecaps and such, I personally don't feel at home here. Just because you're "on my side," doesn't make the way you get worked up into a violent frenzy over things seem any less distasteful.
Just my opinion.
I flagged her, but somehow I wish I never entered her blog. It's so disgusting, I feel like I had fallen into a sewer. I know I should not be so naive but this kind of hatred and venom still amazes me.
A post from this insane xenophobes site:
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Three Reasons People Think I'm Crazy
* The age differences in my kids (I have four kids ages 14, 11, 5, and almost 2....AND they all have the same dad)
* I homeschool my kids
* When people ask me if I am "done, yet", I just shrug my shoulders
I sure we could supply her with many more, and far more valid reasons as to why people think she is CRAZY.
Guys-I just flagged her blog and encourage the rest of you to do so as well. I am gay. She is, in no uncertain terms, calling for the deaths of gay people. I am considering writing blogger a personal letter/e-mail as well. Do not let this slide.
Poking around her blog fills me with both utter revulsion and deep pity. The reason for revulsion is obvious and has been covered by everyone else. The pity comes from her apparent struggle to convince herself that her life is a happy one.
From a post on fitness:
From the Marriage 101 post:
And this one seems rather insulting to her husband and men in general:
I can't help but think that the vitriol she spews is her reaction to living such a repressed life herself. How dare other people enjoy life, give in to desire and follow their passions when she isn't allow to do so? Doesn't the world understand that fun=sin?!?!?!?
I just posted on her blog commenting that her "Jesus" is a devil and a coward and finished with an "I'll pray for you." I should have thrown in a "You're not a real Christian", too. I reckon that if there's any sort of twisted logic that might get through to these types, it's their own.
Probably won't get posted. I'm going to report this shite.
#75, how ironic that you called the ignorant, intolerant subject of the post a word used to demean women.
Ooo... Now there's a real "gotcha."
I called her a witless, window-licking, clown car. Is that demeaning?
By the way, irony? I don't think it means what you think it means.
#197: I called her a witless, window-licking, clown car. Is that demeaning?
I dunno if it's demeaning but I just burst out in laughter at 2:30 am at work, so I guess I better sign off.
Good one, Cap.
Clown Car just moved to TX a few months ago, oh boy, another one, just what we need.
This is where you pull out the »West Wing« DVDs to watch President Bartlet's put-down of the religious talk show host who is against homosexuals. If you don't remember this is where he asks what would be a good price to sell his daughter into slavery, whether he should kill his chief of staff personally for working on the Sabbath or call the police to have it done, and whether the Notre Dame football team should wear gloves to avoid becoming unclean when they touch the ball (which is made from the skin of a pig). All of these things are straight from the Bible, and Bartlet gives chapter and verse for each. Great stuff. The episode is »Midterms«, in the second season.
I flagged it. And for those of you who think that's a violation of the right to free speech, the GOVERNMENT is prohibited from restricting speech (except in certain extreme instances). Service providers not affiliated with the government (and anyone with a website, newspaper, whatever) may set whatever policies they choose. And while we have a right to free speech, that doesn't protect us from any and all consequences of our speech. Look at laws regarding libel and slander, for instance. Here is the explanation from the Blogger site:
"Blogger strongly believes in freedom of speech. We believe that having a variety of perspectives is an important part of what makes blogs such an exciting and diverse medium. With that said, there are certain types of content that are not allowed on Blogger. While Blogger values and safeguards political and social commentary, material that promotes hatred toward groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity is not allowed on Blogger."
It's their freedom to set restrictions that prevent misuse of their site and bring dishonor to their company name, which the content in question clearly does. That crazy woman is free to say almost anything she wants to say, but that doesn't mean that anyone has to listen.
And you know that people like her work to silence us all the time, so if we let that go in one direction, eventually they have a right to speak and we don't.
#71
"If even in the best circumstances these kids face a lot of challenges imagine how bad it would be for a transgender kid who is the child of closed minded, un-accepting, evangelical Christian conservative parents living here in Lubbock?"
Yeah, that describes me pretty much exactly, except that I live in a different but close part of Texas.
It's, uh... it's a ton of fun!
Stew,
you know that reporting those things to pharyngula is a much stronger punishment, than reporting it to blogger?
Sure, you know. She deserves it!
Tilia - big shout out to the Raytractors
I emailed my blog post to PZ, as well as a few gay activist sites. I know he's a busy chap and didn't really expect him to pick up on it.
I am torn between free speech issues, rent-a-mob and a genuine fear that crazies like Raani actually have a sizeable groundswell support.
It has also been very helpful to me to see some of the analysis here in Pharyngula comments. Many people see beyond what she says.
Some people on my blog have pointed out my hypocrisy between posts I have made urging people to get a thicker skin, (if there's a blog you don't like, just don't read it) and calls to get her blog closed down.
I admit it, there is a conflict.
Flagged her blog. She's basically endorsing terrorism, regardless of her rather unconvincing disclaimer.
I sometimes wish I could get inside these people's heads to try to understand what makes them such psychopathic raving lunatics. It'd be kinda like walking through a sewer, only worse.
How can 'moderate' christians explain how some people, like this woman, can read the same holy books as they do, and presumably call on the same god for enlightenment but end up with such a different worldview?
Well, I'm a very liberal theist (not so much Christian as post-Christian) but my view on the matter would be this. Apart from Leviticus - a Bronze Age legal code which has no relevance to the modern world, and which prohibits the eating of shellfish and the wearing of clothes of mixed fabric, among other things - all the quotes which fundamentalists deploy against homosexuality are taken from the letters of Paul. Even if one doesn't consider the problems with translation (the Greek word used, arsenokoites, does not really correspond in meaning or substance to the modern concept of homosexuality), I don't believe that everything Paul said must be taken as the indisputable truth. I don't doubt that much valuable moral guidance may be obtained from Paul; but in the end, his views are not, to my mind, infallible or necessarily divinely inspired. He was from a conservative Jewish background and was steeped in the moral codes of a very different era. And, if one thinks about it logically, why must one ascribe to the letters of Paul the status of "the word of God" when we do not do so for other writings of the early Church? The choice of which books are included in the canonical Bible, and which are excluded, was made at various Councils of the early Church for broadly political reasons. There's nothing even to suggest that Paul himself expected his epistles - which were merely letters to his friends in the nascent Christian community - to be treated as part of scripture. He was just giving people advice which seemed helpful to him in the context of the time.
I'm not sure I believe in a literal, personal God; my God is, rather, a symbol of good and righteousness, and the human capacity for enlightenment and good works. While that God can certainly speak through the Bible (as I don't doubt that he can through other religious traditions), I don't think that blind, irrational hatred of homosexuals - or of any other group - is an expression of any God in whom I would care to believe. Rather, blind hatred and fear of those who are different is part of the human capacity for evil. To quote Star Wars: "fear is the path to the Dark Side; fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering." Being able to quote-mine the Bible does not automatically put a person on the side of good; and the Bible, like any other text, can be used to justify great wrong and harm.
I've been following this thread all evening. I'll admit I was troubled by the calls to report her blog and have it closed down.
I was torn. On the one hand, I think the best thing you can do with bigot shit like this woman is let her rant, and point as many people to it as you can. She's her own best public service message for why shit like this hs no place in a civilized society. I thought that silencing her would only add fuel to her (I'm sure) already sizable christian persecution complex. "Those bad commie fag atheist bastards are taking away my free speech!!!!"
But, on the other hand, I believe her statements clearly do violate the Terms of Service of her blog host. So fuck her. Let them close her down. She's perfectly free to find another host that will not have the same restrictions on content, so she can spew her bile til jesus returns.
But no one has to make it easy for her to do so.
So yeah, fuck her, and her hateful blog.
Patricia @ 103,
I suspect that Michelangelo had quite the sense of humor!
You are right, of course, about his lack of high esteem for the whole Catholic line of BS.
What won't this woman do for a Bill Ayers of the Right. Hopefully she will give him a blowjob.
I wonder whether she thinks the "poetic justice" would be greater if the school was blowqn up with or without students present. No, I believe I know the answer.
AND THEY'LL KNOW WE ARE CHRISTIANS BY OUR LOVE!
AND THEY'LL KNOW WE ARE CHRISTIANS BY OUR LOVE!
AND THEY'LL KNOW WE ARE CHRISTIANS
AND THEY'LL KNOW WE ARE CHRISTIANS
AND THEY'LL KNOW WE ARE CHRISTIANS BY OUR LOVE!
I just flagged her blog as well.
It's rather refreshing to see the liberals who post here correctly assert Google's property rights to specify the content of what's hosted on their servers. As someone pointed out, this crazy woman's blog probably violates Google's TOS. It's not an issue of "free speech" since there is no government censorship.
Still, I must titter at the ironic spectacle of liberals defending the property rights of a large company. I suppose that's an easy position to take in this particular case. Alas, if only everyone did this consistently... but that's like asking conservatives to, oh I dunno, consistently accept all science (sigh).
TO FOXFIRE: I was referring to the womans blog, you know, the one that everyone on this comment thread is talking about. Not Pharyngula. I had assumed that everyone would know that, I guess I was wrong.
I flagged her a few days ago, but I support other people flagging her blog and have told as many people I know to do so.
She posted one comment on the Raytractors Blog and then ran away as she realized she couldn't control the content there. She never did answer why she didn't follow all the rules found in Leviticus and what Jesus said about gays, or even what Leviticus says about Lesbians, hint the answer to the last two are "nothing". Thank you Roy Zimmerman for this argument.
Add me to the list of people flagging that blog.
In the meantime, I found some fine quality crazy at Dark Christianity, a LiveJournal community dedicated to keeping an eye on the Religious Reich. These guys are good as sniffing out the nutters. It's also been commented on at Corpus Callosum.
From another entry in her blog:
'...but homeschooling is quite flexible and doesn't take as much time as people think.'
I think this explains a lot...
@172:
Yeah, but I was joking. Haven't you ever read my website? I joke about that kind of thing. Other topics I joke about include necrophilia and euthanasia. It doesn't mean I would actually do or support either one.
I mean, I can understand how the suggestion of breaking a woman's kneecaps is vile, but it wasn't a serious suggestion. That's the difference between that comment I made about her, and her equating the murder of potentially hundreds of gay children with vigilantism.
There is a distinction between bigotted hate speech, and incitement to violence. I don't think liberals need to feel like politically correct Nazis because they think speech advocating violence needs to be shut down.
Jeanette's point, at 82, that they would shut US down, is kind of bogus. I don't think scientists, skeptics, and atheist generally talk about the religious with anything approaching "hate speech." Mild condescension is the best we can drum up, mostly. At worst, we attack them as stupid gobshites, but still recognize their basic humanity and right to exist. And we'd all agree advocating violence against Christians is a big no-no. Thought experiement: if there was an atheist blog that had posts like,"We need to Kill All the Christians. No, just kidding. But seriously, they should all be crucified. Wouldn't that be poetic justice? I'm not saying anybody should do it, but, they really do love that cross. But obey the law everyone," how many atheists would think it crossed the line? I would think it WOULD cross the line, and we should put that atheist blogger in the same banned bin as this nutjob belongs in.
Walton writes:
Tell me again how a symbol of something can speak at all?
I was tempted to respond on her blog but I see that she's decided not to post negative comments so I won't bother trying.
These people are the dregs, by which I mean that they're embattled and isolated, and on the way out. We only notice them now because a generation ago they would been camoflaged against the general backdrop of condemnation of homosexuals.
So let them rant, let them pull up the drawbridge and attempt to bring up their children in hatred. Those same children will grow up to repudiate their parents' hateful teachings, and that will be the victory of the secular world against those who use religion as a vehicle to teach hatred.
Anyone remember the mom in 'Carrie'?
.....yyyyyyyeaaaaah.
Man, what a tool. I am shocked but honestly not surprised. When religion comes into play all things are on the table. It amazes me all the things religion helps "come to light" for people to hate. If it wasn't for religion we wouldn't hold those "true-isms" as such. It condones and even promotes mild to moderate, and I use that term as loosely as possible, individuals to judge and condemn others for not holding what they believe to be true, as true. Not only true but THE ONLY WAY.
@keri: (#11)
depends on who you ask. it is a somewhat accepted idea in some schools that david and jonathan were not only lovers, but MARRIED.
@Rick R: (#34)
in the spirit of full disclosure, i've been places like that. i spent some of my teen years as a fundamentalist christian, and several of the various camps and meetings and revivals i went to left me so angry and disgusted i couldn't find the words. in the end, it was the behaviours of the everyweek kind of church i went to that made me leave, and the people i thought i trusted.
i found "jesus camp" far too careful, and tried far too hard to be "fair." the reality... the reality can be so much worse.
@CalGeorge: (#63)
it'd be about like iraq today. biblical law and shia law have a good deal in common. perhaps this irony is lost on the people who, on the one hand condemn america for not enforcing biblical standards, and on the other condemn "the terrorists" who just want to enforce basically the same standards they do. i'm not sure the reading that "everyone would die" is accurate, but it'd certainly be the same wonderfully oppressive religious rule.
Wingerx:
Really? So, calling for violence and murder is free speech? Having served in the military, I actually DID something to preserve your rights to speak freely, but hate speech is NOT free.
If she just said that her version of a sky fairy doesn't like a particular group, that's all well and good. Once she crosses the line into saying that it would be "poetic justice" for a thousand people to be killed violently then she has gone to a place that is NOT covered by our constitution.
#127:
That's precisely what I'm doing by flagging her blog. Blogger provides this means for pointing out such things to the forum provider, and I took advantage of it. That is using free speech to counter offensive free speech.
This is just sad. When will it all end, when will people open their minds?
I also flagged her, as everyone should who reads it.
I left a comment and dared her to post it. She wont because she is a coward but we should all try.
"The United States does not adhere to many of the laws that the children of Israel lived by...."
Thank Christ !!!
The thing is that in this case it's not a matter of free speech. Blogger is a free service which offers conditions of use. If it was her server, she'd have all the fun she wants on it and bitch all she want about gays and jews and I wouldn't give a damn. But in this case, she has no rights. It's against Blogger's terms of use. She does NOT have complete free speech rights.
Michelle: Free speech also depends on your ISP/server, if you have an independent blogging platform. They can, and will, feel free to shut you down if you say something they don't like.
No, "poetic justice" wouldn't be about bombing the gay-friendly high school. Poetic justice would be if at least one of her four little angels comes out to her. Then we'll see how awful Teh Gay really is.
Yeah, but I'd like if Blogger gave those rights to all its users.
Rich Sage:
Yes, of course it is. However, you don't have the right of "free speech" using someone else's property without their consent. If this nutcase woman were spouting her hateful nonsense using her own server, the government should have no right to censor her. In this case, by contrast, she's probably violating Google's TOS using their servers, so they have the right to shut her down. It's totally a property rights/violation of contract issue, not a free speech issue.
I think real poetic justice would be if there actually WERE a christ and these people got tossed into their own hell for being the hateful pricks that they were and the gays and the aeteists ruled the world because at least we all learned to actually think for ourselves.
Ahh, but I dream I win the lottery, too.
Flagged. A rotten, filthy excuse for a person. Hoist her from fer own petard!!
Holy sh** is this woman crazy and F*%$'n scary. She would have made a great wife for Hitler!!
I just can't get past the fact that she doesn't have the slightest clue what "poetic justice" means.
BB: Yes, of course it is
There's no of course there -- it's clearly speech, but whether or not it's protected speech depends on whether you see it as incitement to violence. The real world has real results.
This simplistic "property rights" analysis is just weak. Everyone (with sense) would agree that phone companies shouldn't be filtering conversations to cut off "objectionable" speech. That would also fall on "property rights".
The real world of law is complicated -- and it can't be reduced to some single (or small set) of principles. That's the same kind of sad, simpleton type thought that the religious use.
The question is whether Blogger is acting as a common carrier, what the limits of such a status are, how many alternate (equivalent) options there are to communication, and how accessible those options are. You can start pretending that this is a pure "contractual" issue when Google pays me back for all the taxes I paid in infrastructure, R&D, roads, education, health care, and security they've benefitted from.
Libertarianism is for dummies.
inkadu, @199:
I was not at all suggesting that our speech is equally vile, and don't understand how you read that into what I said.
My point was that they silence those with whom they disagree, so we shouldn't be timid about standing up to them, or cry too much about their "right" to hate speech.
The fact that we're not engaging in hate speech and they are doesn't make my argument weaker, it makes it stronger.
Some people have said on here that they don't want to infringe on her right to rant about how gays should be stoned to death and someone should blow up a school. Yet those of her ilk wage campaigns against depictions of homosexuality on t.v., ban books they don't approve of, kick evolution out of science classes, strip sex education classes of crucial information, and on and on.
Synopsis, in case you still don't get it:
[They even ban speech that's necessary to a basic education, so it's absurd to suggest that we shouldn't inconvenience them by trying to shut down a blog that condones terrorism.]
Isn't ironic that by hating on gay people that she directly contradicts her religions teachings on love and kindness?
If a person truly belived in this 'god' and wouldnt they try to be loving and compassionate to all people despite their differences? She obviously has no perception of love whatso ever is she believes that fellow humans should be murdered, expecially at the hands of other humans as oppsed to "God".
She is in all honesty a pathetic, one minded, ignorant and uneducated individual.
No wonder some people cannot see the evidence of evolution when they themselves have not yet grown above apes.
Another truly disturbing aspect of this woman, is the disgusting personalities she has instilled in her children. Through this woman's blog, I found a link to her daughter's blog in which states reflects her mother's frightening outlook:
These people make me sick and afraid.
She is probably a shameless seafood eater.
Since she is refusing to post criticism of her ideas she clearly doesn't think any criticism of her, however mild-mannered, is protected by the notions of free speech. Therefore I feel quite justified in trying to have her blog removed from view. Your right to free speech comes with the responsibility to honour and protect that of others. It's a two way street bitch.
Buy a bulletproof vest first.
(There's an absolutely great scene in a spaghetti western with Clint Eastwood and Lee van Cleef. You know what I'm talking about?)
Obviously.
Normally I'd try to talk her out of her incredible ignorance -- I think I could go a long way toward this by just quoting the Bible! --, and of course shutting her blog down will feed her persecution complex, but she's calling for terrorism and murder. That is too much. I reported her blog, and I'll do it again from home.
Evidence, please.
Huh? The Democratic Party's left wing already fulfills that function.
She's closed comments on that post. (I wonder why?) We'll have to post our vitrol on one of her other posts. I'm going straight-up Poe on her ass!
Licetne bovi quod licet Iovi...?!?
She defends her incoherence by another incoherence.
I reported her site as abusive for hate and condoning violence. However, since "Religious Grounds" almost always get a pass, the site admins will see Baptist in the URL and go no further. Recall the kid who wore the anti-gay T-shirt to school and won a law suit, not because of his First Amendment right, but his "Religious Right."
(pun intended)
I also reported it for hate speech.
In a "Biblical society" anyone who did any work at all on the Sabbath - balancing their chequebook, grocery shopping, mowing the lawn, picking up the kids, would also be punished by death. (Exodus 31:14, 31:15, 35:2 and Numbers 15:32-34)
In this society, women would be nothing more than property. Women couldn't divorce their husbands even if they were being violently abused. Women caught in adultery would be stoned, but men wouldn't be punished. Men and women would get married when they are 12-13. Concubinage and polygamy would be perfectly legal. You would be expected to marry your dead brother's wife if he died. Rich people (which would be any North Americans) aren't going to heaven. People who act in self defence when attacked are sinning.
Abortion would not be murder, but a minor sin fixed with a small restitution. (Exodus 21:22) (Actually, the notion that 1st trimester abortions are murder is a recent development. The Church didn't believe that a foetus was "ensouled" until a mother could feel it kicking, for most of Christian history.)
Somehow that escapes the wingnut crowd.
I'm not sure why I did it, I guess it's some masochistic thing, but I read through some of her older posts.
This is a good one.
frog: "The question is whether Blogger is acting as a common carrier, what the limits of such a status are, how many alternate (equivalent) options there are to communication, and how accessible those options are. You can start pretending that this is a pure "contractual" issue when Google pays me back for all the taxes I paid in infrastructure, R&D, roads, education, health care, and security they've benefitted from."
Blogger is not a common carrier, the intertubes are the "common carrier". That's the infrastructure you paid for, not Blogger's servers. Those are in fact private property and Blogger has every right to restrict their content. If they do so, Mrs. Starnes has numerous other hosting services to choose from including purchasing her own server and setting it up to host her drivel. No free speech issues are involved in Blogger's enforcement of their TOS.
frog: "Libertarianism is for dummies."
I think the book you were looking for is "Libertarianism FOR dummies". Understanding of an ideology should probably precede attempted criticism of it. IOW, FAIL.
Oh Jesus fucking christ. She's a Moon Landing Hoaxer too.
"The real world of law is complicated -- and it can't be reduced to some single (or small set) of principles." - frog
True. There's an unfortunate wrinkle however (assuming one is liberal-minded). The justification for law is rooted in the assumption that it reflects the common norms of the citizens it's applied to (some think it's rooted in God's laws, but they aren't liberal). Without this justification, the justice system can't reasonably expect individuals to know the law, and it follows that it can't reasonably expect a citizen to abide by an unknown set of rules. So, the theory is that people don't need to know the law in its full complexity because that complexity reflects what people already know.
In essence, while the encoded version of law can't be reduced to simple principals, the principals on which those laws are premised must be as simple as the average citizen (constitutions are an exception, but that's why they exist in the first place - still, a constitution should be digestible by the vast majority of citizens). Said another way, the law isn't reduced to simple principals, but rather, is itself an unpacking of simple principals.
It's all rather slap-dash if you ask me. As someone who lives in a multicultural society, I'm always at a loss as to what exactly the common norms are at any given moment. Sadly, the less one is connected to the mainstream, the more arbitrary the law is. But I digress...
With that in mind, I think, in the U.S. anyway, free speech is the norm to which extraordinary exceptions are applied. It's completely reasonable to say "people should be able to say whatever they want", because the burden of justification is on the request for extraordinary exception. Likewise, and for the same reasons, it's perfectly reasonable to say that someone must have permission to make use of a media regardless of its content.
That said, I am in favour of hate speech laws, not because they reflect societal norms, but because they compensate for a failure of societal norms in a pluralistic society.
Now she has posted all the hateful things people left but not the reasonable ones. Bitch. So mjuch for free speech. She also disabled the comments section. I reported her for hateful speech.
My suggestion is to go to other posts and comment.
But she is also fulfilling her religion's edict to hate "the other," to cast out the transgressor, the unclean, to wish death upon the enemy, those who threaten the in-group.
That's why religion, even when it aligns with pro-human values like love and kindness, is always wrong and always bad: even if you're doing the right thing, you're doing it for the wrong reason.
Well honestly she has no obligation to post any comments. She can pick and chose as she pleases. Your free speech is only in question if the gov't is keeping you from exercising it.
You can't blame her for it completely. The death penalty for gays is "official doctrine" of the Baptist church she attends.
See: Faithful World Baptist - Doctrine
What a weird thing to obsess over.
Keep in mind Blogger allows flagging these sorts of blogs for their hateful speech. Shortcut to flagging as Hate Speech.
Actually, hate speech is protected as free speech. How else would Fred Phelps get to tour the country being a jackass? His cavalcade of bigotry says terrible things like this on an almost daily basis, but the terrible things he says are absolutely within free-speech rights.
She posted some vile words on her site, which may or may not violate her TOS with google. If so, she'll lose her that particular blog...
...but at the end of the day, which law did she break?
I'm sure comments like this can earn oneself a visit from the local police or even the FBI. Still, she didn't exactly yell 'fire!' in a crowded movie theater. The Supreme Court has made it quite clear that the limits on free speech are very specific and narrow.
Since she posted, she has acted in a predictably close-minded way (no negative comments posted, claiming people hate her because she's a christian, etc). She will probably never back down from her comments, just like she will probably never admit that homosexual people actually are people.
She crossed many lines: moral, ethical, rational (I could go on). She has earned our scorn, ridicule, and ire, no doubt. However, I'm not convinced that what she said was unconstitutional.
I guess Raani chose to read and accept only certain chapters in her science textbook in a similar fashion to what bible verses she chooses to acknowledge. People like this woman make me ill.
Please Raani, continue to homeschool your children. I might not have the ability to help your children but at least we can all be rest assured in knowing that the other the kids in school will be free from the infectious bigotry and hatred which you spread.
If you look at some of her older posts, her brother is a preacher.
This one is particularly disturbing.
Just in case Blogger takes the site down, be sure to bookmark her link to "easy craft ideas" first.
I also reported her to blogger for hate speech.
What a bass-ackward sentiment. It's the homosexual kids who need protection from predators like her. I know, I went to a "country" school where one of my peers had to leave school after receiving death threats after he came out, and a kid a couple years older than me had his head bashed against a metal locker for being gay. Such hatred.
She took the page down. Guess she feared the wrath of blogger admins.
Visited her abortion of a blog again this AM. She also doesn't believe in the moon landing. It was a "hoax":
Raani's Fake Moon-Landing Bat-Shittery
The page has now been taken down.
SCORE!
Brand new:
"The blog you were looking for was not found."
She's gone.
See ya in hell, Raani!
...She's advocating blowing up a school. With children in it. Children. Because they're gay. You're sick, lady. Just sick.
If the government wants to go looking for terrorists, they should start with people like this.
@Tom: she's still there, just this post that has been taken down.
http://baptisthomeschooling.blogspot.com/
Actually the site isn't down; she just yanked that particular post. If you take out everything after ".com", the rest of the site is still there in all its glory.
Judging from the pictures, she has cute kids.
Too back they're fucked.
She just removed that specific post. The blog is still there. Go to another post and comment if you want to.
You're right, it's still there. And I meant to write "Too bad they're fucked." Curse you, Post button! Curse you, technology!
Search on her blog under the tag "Politics" and you'll find the fake-moon-landing story (complete with video "proof"!) a few entries down. I failed to link to it due to my HTML ineptitude.
What the fuck guys? Who gives a shit if it violates the blog's TOS, you just worked against free speech.
We need MORE people like her to speak out, as loudly as possible. It forces people to evaluate their own prejudices and take a second to look at their own motivations and think about whether they might be the same as this hateful woman.
I hope there's a screencap somewhere. Please? ^_^
I was looking at some of her posts on homeschooling and found exactly what I expected. Here's the quote:
"I will be teaching all three students World Geography and Cultures from My First Atlas. I have censored references to evolution and I have altered statements that do not treat Biblical accounts as irrefutable. A Sharpie permanent marker in a few places does the trick."
Is anyone surpised? :P
Just found another gem on this woman's blog.
Seriously, I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. If only more people understood what kind of degenerates religion is cultivating.
This is a link to the cached post in Google, for as long as that lasts, anyway.
not gonna happen. this much self-reflection just doesn't happen often enough within the fundie Christians, and the rest just claim that those aren't REAL Christians anyway. Meanwhile, she is committing incitement to violence, which I think it's perfectly ok to protest by giving her a hard time with her blog. acting against her free speech would be taking legal actions against her, or trying to get her banned for simply expressing a non-violent opinion
She's now disabled ALL comments...
This seems to be the same Raani Starnes at:
http://baptisthomeschooling.blogspot.com/
I followed the sermon link to YouTube.
Many comments on the video.
Including some from Raani:
raanistarnes (7 months ago)
Keep preaching against the faggots, Brother!
Gone! And good riddance too.
Careful now, Rani has moved on to more controversial topics.
The Blood Of The Lamb, you're soaking in it!
I'd rather we DID NOT try to get such blog articles censored, please. It just drives them underground.
It's gone. Splendid.
On the topic of TEH MOON HOAX~!!11!!!!! :
"Before you refuse to even consider the evidence, please ask yourself why with more modern technology, we haven't been back to the moon in the last 35 years!"
I went to Australia in 1992. Despite the advances in aviation technology, I haven't returned since. Ergo, I never went to Australia in 1992. Apparently.
Janine @267:
Someone ought to pose as a concerned fellow Xtian and tell that witless crackpot that Gain and Ivory are owned by the OMGSATANIC!11!! P&G. (Ref to the stupid '80s urban legend ... hey, given the amount of conspiracy-theory crap she believes, what's one more to her?) Why does Raani Starnes love Satan??? lolol.
Sorry PZ, I have to disagree with you here. I'm a gay man, and I'm tired of these nuts getting a free pass to spout hatred. Suggesting that blowing up a school is an ok thing to do is just wrong, no matter how you look at it. Allowing this to stand gives it legitimacy and other readers may come to the same conclusions. Eventually, some nutjob might just agree and take her up on that proposal. Personally, I'd rather not worry about being safe. If using the option provided by her blog service to report such words can help quell the hatred, then I'm more than willing to use it. No one, gay or straight, should find this acceptable and should speak out against it. Since debate with this nutjob is out of the question, reporting the entry as hate speech is the only way to go.
Just noticed the accursed blog was gone. I too wish we didn't have to do this kind of thing - but it needs to be done.
She advocates murder. She advocates hatred. She needs to go. Free Speech does not extend to this. frankly, it does not extend much beyond "political" speech, but we make adjustments.
Congrats to the horde for doing the right thing. Next?
JC
"I feel like I've been a victim of recipe rape."
- Raani Starnes
Yes, she really said that. Check out her "irate rants" section (as opposed to the isle of sanity and reason that is the rest of Trailerschooling Tips")
Agree with PZ. We should *not* be trying to get this woman censored. He speech should be highlighted and exposed, sure, but we only contribute to the problem when we try to censor people.
Put the shoe on the other foot - how would you feel if your comments were removed from a site because you're a "Godless atheist"? Wouldn't you suspect that the folks doing the censorship must not feel too confident in their positions if they have to censor you? Rightly so.
i get a "page not found" error from blogger. is that a good thing, a bad thing, or just a it's not working for me right now thing? i don't know.
Congrats to "the horde," Rodney. Really? As supposed freethinkers, I think the members of this horde ought to ashamed of themselves.
Do you think censoring her made her change her mind? And now there's also one less concrete example out there on the Web of where Biblical literalism can lead.
Thanks for that. Thanks a lot.
Oh, and by the way - it was *her* blog. Not yours. Not Scienceblogs. Will you be hoping to go into people's homes and censor what they say there next?
Sorry, that was Jack C., not Rodney
Robert: Google's property, and they choose what is allowed to be posted on their own servers. As they do not want people spreading hate speech on their own website, flagging it isn't all that inappropriate. Google doesn't want the damage to their image caused by this.
Pointing "Google" is just changing the subject, Leigh. I'm talking about the actions of so-called freethinkers and their lack of intellectual consistency *here*.
Nice try though.
They have the flagging system in place for people to point out such things (since they lack the manpower to do so themselves), and have rules against such posts... I don't really see the big gripe.
Free speech doesn't exist on other's property.
Addendum: I believe that she removed the post herself, not Google. Whether that was due to the response it received, the fear of bannage, or what, I do not know.
I'm sure Sarah Palin would be happy to use your argument to remove books promoting gay marriage and atheism from public libraries, too.
Well done "horde." Well done.
Libraries are considered public constructs, and she was posting on the equivalent of private property. If she were running her own domain, then that would be a different issue entirely.
Public and private are completely different issues. Much like I can micromanage comments on my private blogs, or allow all comments, or a combination of the two.
PZ: "It just drives them underground".
Although I am not a fan of censorship, she was advocating violence against children. Given that we are not allowed to physically DO anything to her, driving her underground is our best option. If she is underground, she'll only be able to preach to those who already believe this insane crap.
There are lots of people who share her views, but in a much more moderate way. To let her publicly state that she wants to blow up the school lends her a legitimacy that may allow other people, not initially inclined to that kind of thinking, to agree.
I believe that everyone is allowed their views (even views as horrible as those held by this woman), but what she was doing was more a call to action than a statement of her beliefs. In my opinion, this crossed the line and needed to be removed from public view.
If she removed it herself, good riddance. We still have it quoted directly here. Or would the "horde" like for PZ to remove the offending quote from here, too? Or are you happy to dwell in your inconsistency?
Sorry, but this made me mad. I'm really disappointed to see so-called freethinkers use the same tactics they'd criticize when used by the religious right.
"Much like I can micromanage comments on my private blogs, or allow all comments, or a combination of the two."
You do see the irony of what you just said right? Talking about maintaining your own blog versus someone else coming along and censoring it?
Robert, put yourself in MY shoes for a bit. As a gay man, there are parts of this country (and the world) that I cannot travel to without worrying about my safety. Hatred against gays seems to be an acceptable form of free speech these days. Why are we allowing this?
She can say any crazy thing she wants to...however, there is a line that can be crossed. If she thinks gays are bad, fine. If she wants to home school her kids and teach them that gays are evil, fine. Suggesting that gay folks be blown up is a different story entirely. No rational group of people should allow that kind of statement to stand and if reporting the entry to the blogging program she uses is the only way to go, then so be it.
So Mrs. Schaarschmidt, I assume you believe PZ should also rmeove the quote from his blog? Right?
I mean, if you're going to be consistent in your censorship.
Robert S(tandard Concern Troll).
This hypothetical library of which you speak. Does it already have a policy of not "hosting" said books? Is Sarah Palin pointing out that these books are in violation of that particular policy? Is your analogy somewhat flawed?
JackC: I disagree. Censorship is not the answer. Censorship is hardly ever a good answer.
Also, free speech absolutely extends beyond 'political' speech.
I'm free to say the sky is made from blue tissue paper and that the moon is really a giant bag of light bulbs. If I say those things, you're free to call me a raving idiot. How would any of our statements in this case be 'political'?
If one's speech is actionable, that's different, of course.
Hateful, closed-minded, fundamentalist, ignorant twits like Raani have exactly the same right to spew their drivel as anyone (and everyone!) else.
Free speech is important when I'm expressing my opinion.
Free speech is critical when someone else is expressing theirs.
I fail to see the irony, Robert. Google can manage its own blogs, and has a report button for people to point out those that are breaking its rules. If Google decides to remove her blog, a post on her blog, that is their business. While we may bring it to their attention because it is distasteful, that is exactly why they want people to bring it to their attention.
Sabazinus, I understand your point, and am a staunch supporter of gay rights, but censorship is not the answer.
Do you think PZ should remove the quote from his blog?
If not, all you're really supporting is a personal attack on this woman. It may (or may not) make you feel a little better for a moment, but it does nothing to engender dialogue.
So that's what I'd like to submit: when we do this sort of thing, we're just justifying our own desire to retaliate.
If there were true concern about the actual words themselves appearing on the web, you would all be clamoring for PZ to remove the quote from his own blog.
You know what may have really been helpful? Writing to the lady to explain why what she said was wrong - i.e. engaging in dialogue. Then maybe she may have changed her mind and written a post about why she did so. Maybe not. We may never know.
OK, I've said more than enough. I'll give it a rest. PZ, comments?
Threats of violence are punishable by law. Therefore, beyond the threshold of freedom of speech. I will go to my grave defending the right to freedom of speech, but even I think her statement bordered upon an subtle threat, or a call to action.
So Leigh, Dan, et al, should PZ remove the quote from his blog or not?
Isn't it just as offensive here or not? Why do you not want it censored here?
In case anyone was wondering, she broke two rules on Blogspot/Blogger/Google:
HATEFUL CONTENT: Users may not publish material that promotes hate toward groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity.
UNLAWFUL USE OF SERVICES: Our products and services should not be used for unlawful purposes or for promotion of dangerous and illegal activities. Your account may be terminated and you may be reported to the appropriate authorities.
Also, what she posted may in fact have violated several laws, in regards to terroristic threatening.
Robert: Does PZ, or Scienceblogs have a policy against posting such things to criticize them?
Also, posting to criticize is not the same as espousing the ideas. As he's not advocating the actions, it is quite a different situation.
Um, she wouldn't allow dialogue...she refused to respond to comments and deleted what she felt didn't belong. Unless, of course, the comment included quotes from scripture that somehow worked for her. There was no reasoning with her to try and attempt to have her tone down what she was saying or to even debate it with her.
Retaliate? Sure. I've put up with this hatred and stupidity for far too long. I'm tired of these people just getting a pass. I'm tired about not feeling safe being in public with my partner. I'm tired of seeing reports of other gays being beaten. Blogger doesn't condone hate speech, and neither do I. Therefore, I'll use the flagging system they have in place and report her especially since she's not open to any kind of dialogue.
Why should it not be censored here? Oh, something to do with context : the quote is being highlighted as a scandalous example of bigotry. Were PZ a) endorsing her hateful beliefs, then I would want it removed from here as well, and would be raising all kinds of hell about it.
Ultimately, this is the webt00bz, and there are many places where she can make posts like that ad infinitum, if she wants. Unfortunately for her, she chose somewhere that has a policy of not permitting hate speech.
Stupid fingers, spelled my name wrong.
Forgot to add...No, PZ should not remove the contents of her post. Why? We're free to debate and criticize what she's written. She didn't allow us the luxury of that at her blog.
Well, I don't even see comments on her blog, so apparently she moved them. Clearly she isn't open to dialogue. You're right.
I still don't think censorship is the answer. And I'm still disappointed to see free thinkers reach for it so quickly.
Sabzinus, I respect your right to retaliate against threats directed at you - hell, I'd retaliate with you.
But, having grown up in a fundamentalist environment, I know this is the sort of mindless thing this sort of person says when they don't think about the fact that actual, real people might be affected by what they say. I know for a fact that when confronted with their hate, *some* of these people snap out of it.
By the very fact that we're all hanging out here, chances are we agree on a lot of ground. I happen to disagree on this particular subject - perhaps *because* I grew up in a fundamentalist environment, where censorship was the norm. I just can't see the good in it. I hope some of you who have disagreed with me will at least entertain my point of view.
Otherwise, I'm sure many other topics will come up, whereupon we will heartily agree.
Shine that bright light, I say. Let the world see the hateful spew of the "Christian" Right.
She seems to have taken down that post, and disabled comments across the board on her blog. Couldn't take the heat, apparently. I wonder if she'll ever figure out that she wasn't the victim.
"PZ:
I'd rather we DID NOT try to get such blog articles censored, please. It just drives them underground."
That applies to any law, i.e., by outlawing child pornography, we are driving them underground too.
Whether or not hate-speech should be illegal is a totally different matter but as long as it is deemed illegal, there is no point complaining about its enforcement.
Robert S: I think calling it "censorship" is a red herring. Sure, she was exercising her right to "free speech", but then so were those of us who pinged Google about her transgressing their terms of service. Are you saying we didn't have a free speech right to do that?
It seems that there's always going to be conflicts of this sort if you take an absolutist position on free speech (whose protection in the Constitution isn't absolute, of course, e.g. shouting "fire" in a crowded theater).
I think most people clicked the "flag blog" link in order to register their disgust at what she wrote. If the side-effect of many people doing that is to get her blog taken down (which so far it hasn't been), then, oh well. She'll pop up again, as crazy as a loon, I'm sure.
BTW your asking "should PZ remove the quote from here" is lame. Anyone can see the contextual difference between the original posting and its being quoted here. The words themselves aren't the issue - words are just words - it's the intent behind them.
P.S. If anyone wants to know how I know a fundamentalist can change his mind on this issue, when confronted with their bigotry, please read this post I wrote on my blog almost 4 years ago:
http://stribs.blogspot.com/2004/11/i-was-twenty-something-gay-basher.ht…
Cheers.
"Are you saying we didn't have a free speech right to do that?"
No, of course not. I'm saying I wish they'd resisted the temptation to censor on their own, because I think free speech is a right every thinker should embrace. It's choosing what to say, that's important. By exercising their right to flag a post, they didn't "say" much at all.
Lotharloo, child porn isn't the same thing: young human beings are directly damaged in its creation. Words versus actions.
"The words themselves aren't the issue - words are just words - it's the intent behind them."
That's my very point. Words are just words, so why suppress them there and not here. I'm making the case that the real motivation is only non-productive retaliation.
I don't think that's "lame" - I just think you didn't consider my point.
Robert S.
child porn isn't the same thing: young human beings are directly damaged in its creation. Words versus actions.
I am not claiming they are the same. I am saying the objection that "it drives them underground" is flawed. If you enforce any law, then the illegal activities will be done underground. That is hardly any reason to give up law enforcement.
So, the question is whether hate-speech or incitement to violence should be outlawed. If you believe people must be allowed to say "Let's burn and kill all the black people" then that is your opinion but apparently, the majority have decided that outlawing such statements does not threaten free-speech or the freedom of the individuals.
Robert: Commented on your blog entry you linked, though mostly not relevant to the current subject, especially considering that she moderates comments to prevent being confronted.
You're right, Leigh. One can only hope that some of what she did read might sink in - and that if she removed the post out of feeling shamed, she'll think about why she felt that way later on.
Thanks for visiting my blog.
Lotharloo, please don't try to make me look like a bigot because I defend free speech. That's the same argument the right wing uses against the ACLU. Defending free speech is not the same as agreeing with what parties are saying. You can find plenty of speech like you're describing across the Web and you won't find people getting arrested for it in the United States - despite how distasteful and bigoted the opinions may be.
Robert, LotharLoo did not say you were a bigot. His/Her point is that speech that advocates or incites violence is illegal. This woman's post advocated violence.
You have said two or three times that you think the people who flagged her blog were being intellectually inconsistent. What specific evidence do you have for that claim?
Is the whole blog gone now?
30 something male, unmarried, hung around with a group of men. Got busted in a public park after dark in the company of a load of guys.
Remind you of anyone?
Oh, no. Only the link broken...
Her pastor's wife has a blog too. You have to dig for the fag remarks, but they're there.
http://stevenandersonfamily.blogspot.com/
FWIW her blog entry has been deleted. Here's the text for posterity:
Perilous Times: Sodomites in School
When I was in the process of moving and did not have internet access, I often visited a local library to check my e-mail and look at real estate listings. This particular library was in a small town and seemed to be a popular after school hangout for teenagers. One day as I was surfing the net, I couldn't help but overhear a conversation that was going on across the table from me. An openly gay teenage boy who was surrounded by female "friends" was talking about how he had recently had a relationship with a girl. I couldn't help but feel sorry for the girl's parents. Not only was their daughter sexually active, but she had engaged in some very high risk behavior by sleeping with a gay male.
Yes, I've seen the previews for Will and Grace where they're lying next to each other in bed platonically. Isn't that cute? The homosexual agenda wants people to think that homosexual men are safe for women to hang around and even be alone with. Nothing could be further from the truth. The stories about Sodomites in the Bible teach us that they do violate women as well as men. I've also known of people personally over the years who were known as gay yet "experimented" with the opposite sex. The term bisexual is an unnecessary distinction, because a faggot wants to defile anyone or anything he can get his hands on.
A friend recently sent me this article about a "gay-friendly" high school. If we were living in a biblical society, homosexuality would be punishable by death so such a school would be unnecessary. Although I'm against the special accommodations, perhaps this new trend of segregation will protect straight kids from these predators. With any luck, some radical will blow up the gay school. No, I'm not condoning vigilantism--I'm merely saying that it would be poetic justice.
Yes, looks like our special friend has another blog in which she has posted the following:
"Remember when I wrote about how I was pretty much forced to give my enchilada casserole recipe to a vindictive, old crone? If so, then you probably knew this day would come. Even though the theme of today's church potluck was "Texas Barbecue", "Gabby" attempted to duplicate my Mexican dish. Believe it or not, I risked food poisoning by tasting it, and of course it didn't taste like mine. Why would it when I purposely left out a few ingredients of the recipe? Anyway, a few people thought I had made the unrecognizable slop which was one of the scenarios I had feared would play out. If she wants so badly to compete with me, maybe she could start by losing a hundred pounds and getting a life!"
I suppose it should be some small comfort to gay people like myself that she is also mean, nasty and petty to her very own church family!
RobertS
Thanks for noticing. It is astounding what you have to do around here to get noticed.
JC
"Words are just words" - Robert S.
Words can be, and are, used to incite violence, and to terrorise vulnerable minorities. The kind of evil this woman was spouting has repeatedly played a key role in making hatred and violence against minorities socially acceptable. Freedom of speech is of great value, but it does not always trump all other considerations.
She's disabled comments on her blog, but still allows you to sign a guest book on her other site. No matter which side of the censorship argument you're on, I'd urge you to leave a comment for her to mull over here.
Hmmm.... link not working. Try this unwieldy one:
http://www.sitedelux.com/svcs/dcc.jsp?tpage=http://baptisthomeschooling…
child porn isn't the same thing: young human beings are directly damaged in its creation. Words versus actions. - Robert S.
That may be so now. It won't be in ten years, when it will surely be technically possible to make images indistinguishable from videos of real child abuse by modifying videos of adults - it may even be possible now, for all I know. Yet such imagery may well encourage actual child abuse. Should it be legal? The same questions can be asked about porn depicting and endorsing rape, torture, murder even if there are in reality no such crimes involved. I don't have a yes-or-no answer here; I am saying the absolute "freedom of speech" position is problematic.
Not so fast, she has posted this:
http://baptisthomeschooling.blogspot.com/2008/10/special-guest-pastor-s…
Did you all notice that she just had a pastor come in as a guest and write a new post called "The Truth About Homosexuals"? I guess this is "revenge" at all us librul gawd-hatin' queer-lovers.
http://baptisthomeschooling.blogspot.com/2008/10/special-guest-pastor-s…
A quote from the the new post: "It is time that preachers and Baptist people take a stand against the Sodomite freaks and turn off the television that tries to shove their perversion down our throat."
I was going to try and post something about Ted Haggard's perversion down throats but the comments don't work. (Even though I knew she or her pastor friend would be the only ones to see it.)
I believe that that pastor is her brother. I could be wrong.
My new mission in life: Wander around religulous blogs, posting about a) McCain's adultery and b) how I don't want my Army son, serving in Eyerack, to possibly be commanded by a wooman. Because the Bibble says it's BAD BAD BAD. With chapter and verse, of course, as I am a preacher's kid.
The latest on this nut-lady's blog: as of 3:14 pm Pacific Time, the blog is gone. I clicked on PZ's link yesterday and got there. Today - it's gone.
Not to worry, she's got another rant about Gays posted.
And curiously, she's removed her photo...
Okay. And? Retaliation is not inherently bad. In this case she has learned at least one thing: her hatred is not welcome in the Blogspot community. If she's got two more neurons to rub together, she may also have an inkling that her hatred is no longer welcome in modern America.
If she's shamed into shutting the fuck up, and consequently some gay kid isn't physically assaulted, then the world is a better place.
The blog post and comments were saved for academic record, so I'm not worried by PZ's complaint that we've driven it further underground: http://www.webcitation.org/5bkUen3to
The special guest entry is gone as well now. Possibly the whole blog, not 100% sure.
For a Christian, she sure is filled with hatred.
The blog is still there but there has been some changes. She has taken off the photo of herself and one of her children. And her name is no longer Raani. It is now...wait... here it is; JANINE!
I am just so tickled.
Still showing up for me
http://baptisthomeschooling.blogspot.com/
The new page is explicitly calling for hatred against gays, and is again in violation of Blogspot's TOS.
http://baptisthomeschooling.blogspot.com/2008/10/perilous-times-sodomit…
http://www.webcitation.org/5blmOcIwS
The gods of irony have touched her:
She hates gay people.
And she uses only King James' bible.
I tried the link at #324 and it didn't work. Seems like the blog is still accessable from the front page.
I think what the people arguing this as a censorship issue are missing is this- the "hordes" and the "ilk" can all complain to Google about the content of her blog, but not a single one of us can "censor" her. If her blog is taken down, GOOGLE did so, because she violated their Terms of Service.
If her blog is removed, she is the one (and only one) to blame.
Like I said earlier, let her find some other hosting situation without such "restrictive, anti-christian" policies. Fuck her.
Ha! I guess god couldn't protect her from the Atheist Hordes!
#334's first link takes you there. I guess she changed it since I posted the one at 324.
The post to which PZ linked is gone. This one:
http://baptisthomeschooling.blogspot.com/2008/10/perilous-times-sodomit…
However, baptisthomeschooling.blogspot.com is still there.
Maybe she thought if she removed that particular post no one would see her.
Rather like that Monty Python film where the conspirators are "hiding" from the Romans in plain sight.
Now she has a video of some nutty preacher ranting about sodomy.
My, these people sure are obsessed with gays.
Hmm. I seem to recall the old adage that (s)he who complains about gays the most has yearnings in that direction.
Damn, this thread is still raging?
I can't agree with you on this, PZ. Yes, if we speak out by flagging such blogs (essentially exercising our free speech by sending in a complaint to Google), that drives them underground, but that's exactly what we should aim for.
At one time, the KKK lived openly in many communities, and their values became the norm. In some places they practiced their hate so openly that public officials didn't bother to hide the fact that they belonged to the KKK. Here in Colorado, for example.
Being driven underground didn't stop the KKK from existing, of course. But nobody is going to get the mistaken impression that their values are normal, and that prevents them from defining norms in our communities. That makes it much harder for them to recruit new members.
When communities don't speak out against hate, the haters become more blatant and more people join with them, and it corrupts the values of communities as they redefine what is normal.
People such as this woman aren't just speaking on the internet; they're doing the same thing we're doing, creating a sense of community around shared values, and organizing ourselves to better be able to fight for our values.
So I think we should drive them underground, so that like the KKK, they'll only exist openly in the armpits of this nation.
(And on her removing comments from her blog, we'd be considered trolls on there, and we wouldn't hesitate to remove troll posts from our sites.)
Fred Phelps does drag? Who wouldla thunk it?
What Jeanette said@342. Also, I think a necessary condition of a black person having a good chance of winning the Presidency was largely eliminating overt racism from mainstream politics - and that didn't happen automatically, it was pushed by those who objected to written or spoken racist language, as well as to racial discrimination in housing, education, employment, etc.
If you want to know the extent of the madness and extreme points of view of the Christian right, check out The Institutes of Biblical Law by RJ Rushdoony and google Christian Reconstructionism and theonomy. This is a group of Christians who want the world to be a theocracy, and to have homosexuality, adultery, heresy, blasphemy, and apostasy to become capital crimes. Slavery would be reinstated, and all of the Biblical punishments by stoning would be reinstated as well. Do your research about these people. They have removed themselves from society as much as possible and operate outside of the law. Many of them are in militias. Their ideas are dangerous and we can't fight them if we don't know how, why, and what they think.
Know thine enemies.
She's back on... she was gone, and the link from the quote doesn't work anymore. Now she has a pastor supporting her inane arguments. It amazes me that she doesn't know that Sodom was a city, and the Sodomites were ALL of its residents. I mean -- who doesn't know that?!? What an imbicile.
Thanks Natalie.
Sorry Robert but I was not in any way trying to imply that you were bigoted. I basically had two points:
A) If you are advocating absolute freedom of speech (including hate-speech, incitement to violence, ...), please think it through. The situation is not simple.
B) People might reasonably disagree with you and consider some limitations that does not inhibit anyone's freedom. It is not fair to portray them as if they are against freedom.
Jeanette, the point is that a large group of people rightfully find that suggesting that bombing a group of people would be a positive is hateful, and the post was against the TOS of the blog hosting site. It made it a convenient way to send the the message loud and clear that we do not appreciate what she's saying, and we'll hold her accountable for it.
...she's also a KJV-only-ist, and references av1611.org in a recent post. this is a ridiculous position among ridiculous positions.
for those who aren't quite aware of what this particular brand of fundamentalism is, it's the idea that the ONLY valid bible is the KJV. other translations are out. but wait, there's more! the source documents are out too. the masoretic hebrew old testament? not the word of god. the septuagint? not the word of god. the koine greek codices of the NT? not the word of god. ...only the KJV is, as it was delivered out of thin air by god himself in 1611.
OK, fair enough. As I think about it, it's not really, technically censorship, because the government didn't shut her down, she was voted down.
I think at the root what bothered me though is that at free-thinkers I personally believe we should always be trying to engage in dialogue first rather than immediately reaching for a muzzle.
That said, if this were post were, say, a video on YouTube, admittedly, I'd feel quite free to vote it down - and add a comment in an attempt to change someone's mind. (Tho this was her blog, not YouTube, a much more public forum.)
Nonetheless, we all do agree: her views are damaging, irrational and anti-human. God forbid* she have any gay children growing up in that household. As many kids as she has, it's not unlikely.
*Figure of speech ;)
asdfghjkl @ 348: Yeah, I know that. Where did you get the idea that I don't get that? I've been endorsing that action all along, at great length in some cases, and would like to know where you got the idea that I was saying anything to the contrary. WTF?
OMFG, arachnophilia, are you serious...? God spoke Elizabethan English...?
*facepalm*
this is idiocy I can't wrap my head around, no matter how hard I try...
Changing her name just opens up a whole new vista of googling fun. See this page and its sequelae to see how she & her wacky brother are too crazy even for other Baptists (she shows up on page 2 of the thread; n.b. her account is now marked "Banned").
WAAAAAAAA!! The crazy!!!! It hurts my head!
Nerd of Redhead @ #341. Hmm, I was lining the poisonous, obsessive ranting up with what Peaches excavated about hubby @ #176.
Do you smell ... bumsecks?
All the Septics I've ever met have been disconcertingly polite, highly intelligent and absurdly healthy-looking. I didn't know you had this dodgy secret back home.
Go on, you can tell your Uncle Dusty. You're breeding these wretches for food, innit?
You need to go report this post as hateful too.
http://baptisthomeschooling.blogspot.com/2008/10/perilous-times-sodomit…
Druidbros at #356: That post is genuinely sickening. Whether it should be removed I don't know - I have little interest in getting involved in the free speech debate here - but it should be rejected and excoriated.
Insofar as I believe in any sort of God, God is a synonym for good; the human conscience and capacity for good works is, for me, an expression of an immanent "God". Someone who quote-mines the Bible in order to promote hate and evil must have abandoned their own natural conscience and empathy - and therefore, to my mind, if there is a God, this "pastor" has abandoned Him. (Of course, there is great apparent evil and intolerance in the Bible, running counter to human conscience and reason; hence why I don't believe in Biblical infallibility any more than I do in papal infallibility. Both were proclaimed historically for political reasons, like much of accepted "orthodox" doctrine.)
I also find it bizarre that he places so much analytical weight on the precise wording of the King James translation of the Bible. Even if the original texts are taken to be infallible, why ascribe superior status to a particular seventeenth-century translation, which is likely to be far less accurate than modern versions (since it worked with fewer source texts and less linguistic knowledge)?
Are these people actually capable of thought, analysis or basic human decency?
(To clarify, I'm talking about the post by "Pastor Steven Anderson" quoted by Druidbros at #356.)
Priceless quote from one of her curriculum posts:
WingerX@290
Free Speech, as guaranteed at the time of writing the Constitution, can be assumed to refer to political speech, by which I mean speach which if not protected would incur censorship by Governmental action due to the seditious nature of that speach.
It suffers, however, from a distinct lack of detailed commentary at the time of writing (references here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html ) "Debate in the House is unenlightening with regard to the meaning the Members ascribed to the speech and press clause and there is no record of debate in the Senate"
Yes, you are correct - Free Speech extends well beyond the political. As you say, you can believe the sky is any colour and construct you wish, but I don't believe the intent was there for a requirement of a Constitutional Guarantee of that particular speech. I believe that is a "logical extension". You may not, however, enforce with violence your particular viewpoint against those who refuse to cower under your steely gaze. Neither may the Government specifically prohibit you from your viewpoint (and speech), unless you do so attempt such enforcment.
All of us should know the First Amendment pretty well, however the entire text reads thus: (from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html )
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There are those - and I am one - that consider this to be a specific reference to "speech" relating to the Government - and not much more. I recognise that, much as the 2nd amendment, the interpretation may vary depending on a person's position.
I absolutely do not deny that any US citizen has the right to speak in nearly any manner they choose - saving the necessary restrictions we have addressed here, however, IMO, these are NOT necessarily Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. A tiny difference.
Many have noted what has been addressed and done here is NOT "censorship" in so much as the attemped (and partly successful?) removal of inciteful and hateful speech is in NO way guaranteed.
Had this nutjob not made the comments she did regarding her desire for the destruction of certain people, the actions taken by some here (I tried, but it was already done) would be far less than appropriate. As it is, relying on the TOS for her blog to take her post down was both necessary and right - in my opinion.
My position is, and has long been, the right to Free Speech means you must fight most strongly for those with whom you disagree. This position has a line though - that line is when the opposing viewpoint includes killing me for mine. Or others for theirs.
I think we agree there, and frankly, on most the rest as well.
JC
Her pastor is almost famous on YouTube for this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDxcyqeRc-4
It's quite possibly the funniest Christian sermon on the Web.
With weekly doses of this, it's no wonder the woman is crazy.
But I thought the fundies wanted the gays to learn to sleep with women?
I guess she's not a fan of the whole "ex-gay" thing...
"But I thought the fundies wanted the gays to learn to sleep with women?"
The fundies don't want anyone to sleep with anyone really. Unless you have a wedding ring on your hand.
Read the one about how women should submit to their husbands:
http://baptisthomeschooling.blogspot.com/search/label/marriage
Yeah, but this lady, like Fred Phelps, thinks that most fundies are hopelessly gay-friendly. I mean, the commenters--who of course are extremely conservative Christians as well, because she doesn't publish comments by anyone else--are trying to argue her into accepting that it's at least theoretically possible for a gay person to repent and be saved.
Compared to her, Jack Chick is a voice of sweet reason.
Wow. The way the video was shot, with the wall so prominent, I was expecting him to end his sermon by whipping it out and doing some manly Biblical anointing.
I must say, his is perhaps the most novel theory I've heard for American decline....
This is just great. I'm going to send it to her to see if she likes it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzbNkyXO50
http://americaphile.blogspot.com/2008/10/deborah-welcome.html
OH!!!!!!!.....YES!!!!!!! YES!!!!!!! YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TODAY WE ARE WITNESSING SOUL-WINNING, MOUNTAIN-MOVING, DEVIL-KICKING, PIAPS-DEFEATING, AMERICA-STRENGTHENING, RAPTURE-READY REVIVAL ACROSS AMERICA UNDER THE POWER OF THE DEBORAH ANOINTING!!!!!!!
REVIVAL!!!!!!!!! REVIVAL!!!!!!!!!! REVIVAL!!!!!!!!!!!
DEBORAH ANOINTING!!!!!!!
DEBORAH ANOINTING!!!!!!!
DEBORAH ANOINTING!!!!!!!
THIS IS A GREAT TIME FOR ALL OF US TO BENEFIT AND BLESS AMERICA WITH THE CELLPHONE ANOINTING, SIMPLY BY TEXTING THE URL ADDRESS HTTP://TINYURL.COM/THEMORNINGAFTER TO EVERYONE ON YOUR CELLPHONE'S LIST!!!!!!!
CELLPHONE ANOINTING!!!!!!!!
CELLPHONE ANOINTING!!!!!!!!
CELLPHONE ANOINTING!!!!!!!!
AS MANY DEMBLIBS ARE TRAPPED IN ROMAN CATHOLICISM, WE CAN EXPECT SARAH'S TESTIMONY OF HER OWN ESCAPE WILL LEAD MANY AS THE ROMAN POPE HAS BEEN EXPOSED AS AN AGENT OF PIAPS!!!!!!!
FORMER PIAPS-LOVERS ARE BECOMING PRO-AMERICAN AND RAPTURE-READY!!!!!!!!
RAPTURE-READY!!!!!!!! RAPTURE-READY!!!!!!!! RAPTURE-READY!!!!!!!!
WOOOOOOOOOOOO-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
WOOOOOOOOOOOO-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
WOOOOOOOO-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
SET THE CAPTIVES FREEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!
FREE FROM PIAPS!!!!!!!!!!! FREE FROM PIAPS!!!!!!!!!!!
FREE FROM PIAPS!!!!!!!!!!!
YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
FUCK YOU, PIAPS!
BWAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ralph - you know you're cycling, right? Take the pills, Ralph.
RALPH's page reminds me of TimeCube.
She made it invited-only for readers.
Wow what a response!! The homeschooling mother has EVERY right to raise her children the way she chooses.
I am a homeschooling mom, and my reasons and decision came after monthe of trying to work with the teachers at our local public school, to no avail. Finally after hearing that my daughter would have to repeat the first semester in her freshman year, but she would have to wait until her sophmore year to do it, I decided that enough was enough. My daughter is not allowed to show cleavage in public, she is not allowed to wear clothing that exposes her bellybutton,nor is she allowed to have any part of her body pierced other that her ears. Why because the man who marries my daughter deserves to marry a pure woman, who is ready to love, Honor and yews Obey her husband. Think I'm coming way out of left field?? Check the Holy Bible , I Corinthians Chapter 13, otherwise known as "The Love Chapter". My children study the Bible as a part of their curriculum. Each one of my children carries at least Eight subjects. They do the same ammount of work as public school students, only it takes much les time. When my son took ACT test last fall, he scored a 92. MaYBE not geinus level, but while in public school, he preceeded to get into marijuana, alchohol, and attempted scuicide. The hospital stay was quite lengthy so the school was the one who suggested homeschooling to get him caught up. I first tried using the regular school books, but without the Teachers manual It was very difficult. So we ordered the same curriculum, only from a private Christian book company. Math is math, only the books designed for homeschooling are more geared for independant study, and much more explanitory. Why the public schools don't use them I do not understand. I understand the ones that use the ever-so-threatening words like God, and Father in Heaven. But my children have learned that they have value, and when they don't understand something we can spend a day or two working on something until they do understand it! How many times have your kids come home from school and said "Mom, I don't get what the teacher is talking about, and she said she didn't have time to spend with everyone, so I was just going to have to ask one of my classmantes." Or something similar?? If our public schools were doing so well, then we'd have no need for places like Sylvan and other private tutoring businesses. Public school doesn't cost anything more than the taxpayers money...unless you have la child who struggles, then you have few options. You can either pay out hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to a tutoring business, or spend about $300-400 purchasing homeschooling materials, and taking charge yourself. Not all homeschooling pearents have choosen to homeschool for religious reasons, some of us have done it out of desperation and frustration...being able to raise our children in our faith is just one of the glorious benefits! One last thing. Why my son attempted scuicide, he was being bullied about being a vergin, not dating until he was older, and the fact that he choose to read his Bible in his studyhall, after he had completed his work. He even had a teacher go so far as to tell him that school was not the place to be reading his Bible, but that he should be doing somehting constructive. All I can say is that maybe the other homeschool mom is a little extreme about putting the homesexuals to death, but homesexual activities ARE immoral, they are an abomination (Soddom and Gamorrah were destroyed for this very reason.) and no I will not stand for any institution that uses MY money to teach MY children something that goes directly against the Bible!!!
My huaband and I have allready talked about the possibility of having to pack up, leave our families and move to New Zealand, just like our ancestors did two hundred years ago, when they came to America.
...Soddom and Gamorrah [sic] were destroyed for this very reason...
Actually, there's no reason to assume that from the text. The sin that the men of Sodom committed was attempted gang-rape (of the angels who took refuge in Lot's house); there's no comparison between that and consensual same-sex relationships. The narrative does not say that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed simply because their inhabitants practised same-sex relations. Indeed, later parts of Scripture seem to suggest that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were much wider than that.
It is, of course, true that the commandments of the Jewish law forbade homosexuality - just as they forbade the eating of shellfish or pork, or the wearing of clothes of mixed fabrics, and mandated circumcision of all males. Those laws were given for their time; they served a purpose in a primitive prehistoric society, but do not serve a purpose today. And as we can see from Peter's vision in Acts chapters 10-11, the strict provisions of the Jewish law are not binding on Christians.
As to your other points, I agree that you have every right to homeschool your child. That's not the issue here. The issue is whether hatred and incitement to violence are legitimate content for a blog.
Glad to see you using a work of fiction for your holy book. Have you ever really looked in to the history of how and why it came to together? A book put together by a committee based on records written down well after the time they describe. Not a book I would have any faith in (even after reading it cover to cover twice).
If you want your children to be homeschooled, do so, but don't expect me to pick up the tab. Otherwise, I get a say in what they are taught, which means evolution and no god.
Obviolusly, I misunderstood the comments preceeding this to be an attack on homeschooling pearents who have done so for the fact that they want to keep their children pure and safe. I apologize. I do not agree with her on teaching her children to take the life of another person for any reason other than self defense. As to wether there should be a blog about this type of hatred, look at the response, tha alone should tell you it is worth it even if some (several) of the comments are psychotic.
To sastra at #26
I'm quite a moderate theist, and I make no excuses for a woman like that. In fact I think she's one of the most despicable humans (and I use that term loosely) that I've ever encountered online. I weep for the fact that she not only feels the need to go online and bray her insanity but also that she is responsible for the raising of children.
I also won't accuse anyone of picking an easy target or say that she doesn't represent Christianity, because sadly she does represent a frightingly large segment of the Christian population. She definitely doesn't represent me or any other Christian I would ever associate with. I also think that viewpoints like this need to be brought to light. I think Christians like her are one of the biggest problems facing our nation right now, and I want nothing to do with her or anyone of her ilk. She's condoning murdering children what a sick bitch.
I need a shower after reading that stuff.
homeschooling christian mother: Your writing and spelling skills are so poor that I suspect you are doing your children a disservice by presuming to teach them at the high-school level. Please do not make the mistake of throwing them into the deep-end of college without sufficient preparation; it's extremely discouraging and demoralizing for a student, especially one with existing emotional problems. As for those, it is easy to blame "bullying" but in my personal experience, the cognitive dissonance of attempted brainwashing into a worldview that explicitly contradicts reality (I speak of your own evidently Bible-based christianity) is likely to play an even more important role.
I'm trying to be nice here.
My huaband and I have allready talked about the possibility of having to pack up, leave our families and move to New Zealand, just like our ancestors did two hundred years ago, when they came to America. - homeschooling semi-literate bigot
If you do, I'm afraid you'll find it's full of ATHEISTS!
Homeschooling Christian Mother. The boogie man IS out to get you and your family.
Lizzie #376 wrote:
Interesting, because I'm an atheist, and in a sense I am making 'excuses' for a woman like that. Don't misunderstand me -- I find her views despicable, and most Christians -- and most versions of Christianity -- don't take anything like her extreme stance on homosexuality (among other things.) I'm not going to say that 'real' Christianity is like this.
The point I was trying to make earlier is that, when you're dealing with religion, you can't simply assume that mean, nasty people select mean, nasty religions. Nor can you assume that this is a mean, nasty woman who would be just as judgmental, thoughtless, and violent in any other religion.
When I look through her site, so much of it looks chillingly normal. I see someone who is otherwise caring and compassionate. I could be wrong of course -- someone reminded me that "Hitler liked dogs" -- but it really doesn't seem to me that she's masking sociopathic tendencies with phony caring and pretend compassion. Instead, it looks like these basic positive personality traits are being squeezed through a filter which distorts the way the world appears -- and are now coming out twisted and negative.
Within the context of her church, God, and world view, she's simply being protective of her children, family, and society. Gay people are repackaged into being predators and child molesters. Had she been writing about child rapists, her blog would have attracted no attention. Change the facts, you change the conclusion.
I still think the problem isn't her -- it's her religion. From a secular point of view, she's in a nasty version. But it goes deeper than that. Her world is grounded in faith and revelation. Why, then, should she consider the secular point of view? Why should ANY religion require that its believers consider the secular point of view as anything other than an inferior point of view? It's God vs. The World.
Who should win that one?
As a Christian, you have to agree that, technically, nobody can say what "real" Christianity is except God. That's the final and absolute arbiter. When it comes to trying to persuade her that she's wrong, this leaves us with no common ground to stand on, no ability to demonstrate that she is wrong to interpret as she does. She doesn't think she's "interpreting" any more than minimally necessary. In which case, she's going to frame it as God vs. you and me. And she's going to put God first. As all Christians should -- shouldn't they?
The problem then isn't just that she's got ahold of a "bad" version of religion. The problem is the methodology of religion. Faith and revelation don't just take away the common ground we need to stand on to call her speech hateful. It takes away the common ground the two of you, as Christians, need to stand on to call her views "unchristian."
homeschooling christian mother,
Home school is illegal in New Zealand.
Failure to ensure that your kids attend school until they are 16 is a crime. The police even have special truancy officers to check up on kids who are absent repeatedly from school. If they have to look for your kid too often, the State takes your kids away from you.
New Zealand also has a lot of Athiests.
In short, you don't want to come here.
Home school is illegal in New Zealand.
Not according to the NZ Department of Education, according to whom there were 6,473 students being homeschooled as of 1 July 2007.
http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/maori_education/schooling…
It is illegal in some countries - Germany being the only example I can think of - but legal in most.
And while most countries, including most US states, do have compulsory attendance and truancy laws, parents are free to homeschool or to enrol their children in private schools. It would be an incredibly authoritarian state that actually required all children to attend a government-controlled local school, and I would strongly oppose such a policy. (Disgracefully, until the mid-90s it was Labour Party policy here in the UK, though I doubt they would have implemented it had they been elected at that time. But I digress.)
The crazy lady's blog really has gone now.
Chris P
"When my son took ACT test last fall, he scored a 92."
How the fuck did he do that? A perfect score on the ACT is a 36, making a 92 quite impossible. I smell bullshit.
I know nothing about how the ACT test is scored, but at a guess, 33/36 = 92%?