TwitterFacebook

VA Governor Backs Down on Invasive Ultrasound, but the Bill Still Stinks

No state rape - just state-mandated slut-shaming
Politics • Views: 26,885

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell has issued this press release, backing down on the trans-vaginal ultrasound issue, and calling for amendments to Virginia’s proposed “informed consent” law stating that invasive procedures are not mandated.

Over the past days I have discussed the specific language of the proposed legislation with other governors, physicians, attorneys, legislators, advocacy groups, and citizens. It is apparent that several amendments to the proposed legislation are needed to address various medical and legal issues which have arisen. It is clear that in the majority of cases, a routine external, transabdominal ultrasound is sufficient to meet the bills stated purpose, that is, to determine gestational age. I have come to understand that the medical practice and standard of care currently guide physicians to use other procedures to find the gestational age of the child, when abdominal ultrasounds cannot do so. Determining gestational age is essential for legal reasons, to know the trimester of the pregnancy in order to comply with the law, and for medical reasons as well.

Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.

For this reason, I have recommended to the General Assembly a series of amendments to this bill. I am requesting that the General Assembly amend this bill to explicitly state that no woman in Virginia will have to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound involuntarily. I am asking the General Assembly to state in this legislation that only a transabdominal, or external, ultrasound will be required to satisfy the requirements to determine gestational age. Should a doctor determine that another form of ultrasound may be necessary to provide the necessary images and information that will be an issue for the doctor and the patient. The government will have no role in that medical decision.

Gov. McDonnell says, “No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.”

But why does it matter whether the procedure is invasive or not? The state has absolutely no business mandating any kind of unnecessary medical procedure, and the very fact that this is even being considered is incredibly offensive.

The reason why McDonnell is now willing to back off on trans-vaginal ultrasounds is because there are still plenty of other slut-shaming provisions in the bill. If it passes, the anti-choice cavemen still come out ahead.

For example, the bill also says that if a pregnant woman lives at least 100 miles from a clinic, the mandatory ultrasound must be performed at least two hours before the abortion, to give plenty of time for mental suffering to be inflicted.

If it isn’t clear by now, I have no respect at all for these 17th century religious fanatics or the regressive laws they’re forcing on American women. This bill is an abomination, and should still be protested by anyone who gives a damn about women’s rights.

Jump to bottom

153 comments

1 HappyWarrior  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 12:34:49pm

I said downstairs that McDonnell will get slammed for backing out of this if he ever seeks high office from the right to clarify. Still say that's true even though as you point out, most of the meat of the bill is still in. And I will again repeat this, McDonnell is no moderate conservative. He may not foam at the mouth like AG Cuccinelli but he's equally nuts.

2 Archangelus  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 12:35:05pm

Working hard to win the coveted "A**hole Vote"....
In seriousness though, it's scary to realize that so many people holding office across the nation hold such loathsome, bass-ackward views in this day and age...

3 Targetpractice  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 12:41:43pm

re: #1 HappyWarrior

I said downstairs that McDonnell will get slammed for backing out of this if he ever seeks high office from the right to clarify. Still say that's true even though as you point out, most of the meat of the bill is still in. And I will again repeat this, McDonnell is no moderate conservative. He may not foam at the mouth like AG Cuccinelli but he's equally nuts.

McDonnell's taking the most politically expedient course, calling for amendments to the most visible bit of the bill while leaving the meat intact. That way he tells female voters "I stopped them from wanding you!" while telling the crazies "I still made it a lot fucking harder to get an abortion!"

4 Jimmi the Grey  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 12:43:41pm
...amendments that help clarify the purposes of the bill...

So, he wants the bill to state directly that it's about shaming women into accepting state sanctioned theological values?

5 Lidane  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 12:47:15pm

The predictable bleating from the wingnuts has begun.

RedState: VA Governor Bob McDonnell Hangs VA GOP Out To Dry

6 nines09  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 12:49:13pm

Doesn't change a damn thing about the intent of the bill. It is still there and if there was not an uproar the bill would have gone through. They are just testing the waters and nothing has changed. The only change will be when people vote them out. I also have not an ounce of respect for the self serving pricks who push this legislation and those who support them.

7 lawhawk  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 12:53:37pm

Charles - you might want to revise your statement:

But why does it matter whether the procedure is invasive or not? The state has absolutely no business mandating any kind of medical procedure, and the very fact that this is even being considered is incredibly offensive.

The state mandates vaccinations, for public health purposes, and anti-vaxxers are more than willing and do use this kind of line of thought to claim that the government has no right to force the vaccination of children.

There are legitimate reasons to mandate certain medical procedures - vaccinations being one, blood tests for genetic disorders being another. But the procedures being considered here should be left to the doctor's discretion in consultation with the patient.

8 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 12:57:22pm

re: #7 lawhawk

I added the word "unnecessary."

9 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 12:57:53pm

Epic fail:

WASHINGTON: Sarah Palin believed the Queen, not the prime minister, was responsible for the decision to keep British forces in Iraq, according to research for a new film chronicling her political rise.

The former Alaskan governor reportedly made the comment during the 2008 presidential campaign as aides to John McCain, the Republican candidate, tried to bring his surprise choice as running mate up to speed on foreign affairs.
Mrs Palin's confusion emerged during a coaching session with Steve Schmidt, a McCain adviser who asked her what she would do if Britain began to waver in its commitment to the Iraq war.

In one of the many rambling responses that eroded her credibility, Mrs Palin reportedly replied she would ''continue to have an open dialogue'' with the Queen. A horrified Mr Schmidt informed her the prime minister, then Gordon Brown, would be responsible for the decision. She also mistakenly believed Saddam Hussein ordered the September 11 attacks.

10 Lidane  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 12:58:04pm

Heh:

11 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 12:58:25pm

re: #7 lawhawk

It's got no business mandating any medical procedure for any reason other than medical treatment, that's for damn sure.

12 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:00:09pm

Dana Loesch spewing vitriol at me again:

13 lawhawk  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:01:03pm

re: #11 Obdicut

Agreed. They're pursuing this kind of policy because it's a collateral attack on Roe v. Wade and the ability of women to obtain abortions. It's all in the quest to throw roadblocks up that may yet hold up in courts across the country that further restrict access to abortions.

It has nothing to do with medical need.

14 Targetpractice  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:01:13pm

re: #9 goddamnedfrank

Epic fail:

Princess Dumbass of the Northwoods, the gift that keeps on giving.

15 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:01:16pm

re: #12 Charles Johnson

Amazing how many progressive men use the topic of ultrasounds to act as creepy peepers into women's lady business.

What is this I don't even.

16 lawhawk  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:02:47pm

re: #12 Charles Johnson

Amazing how many progressive men use the topic of ultrasounds to act as creepy peepers into women's lady business.

Except it's the GOPers who are demanding that doctors carry out ultrasounds in the most invasive manner possible.

Craven.

17 Gus  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:02:53pm

re: #12 Charles Johnson

Dana Loesch spewing vitriol at me again:

WTF?

Amazing how many progressive men use the topic of ultrasounds to act as creepy peepers into women's lady business.

What rock did they turn over to find this cretinous creature?

18 Interesting Times  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:03:09pm

re: #12 Charles Johnson

Dana Loesch spewing vitriol at me again:

Thanks for reminding me to post this:
CNN: Stop using Dana Loesch as a commentator - petition on Change.org

19 Kragar  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:03:27pm

re: #12 Charles Johnson

Dana Loesch spewing vitriol at me again:

Doesn't she have some necrophilia to ogle over?

20 TedStriker  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:03:58pm

re: #19 Kragar

Doesn't she have some necrophilia to ogle over?

And "watersports"....

21 Targetpractice  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:04:01pm

re: #16 lawhawk

Except it's the GOPers who are demanding that doctors carry out ultrasounds in the most invasive manner possible.

Craven.

Now now, they're not demanding it be the wand, they're just writing the law in such a restrictive manner that the wand is the only option to remain within the constraints of the law.

There is a difference!

///

22 Simply Sarah  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:04:29pm

re: #12 Charles Johnson

Dana Loesch spewing vitriol at me again:
...
Amazing how many progressive men use the topic of ultrasounds to act as creepy peepers into women's lady business.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 22, 2012

Look, OK, I'm the first to admit (And show my displeasure) at the fact that a lot of so called progressive men aren't actually all that progressive in how they think of and treat women.

That being said, I have no idea what the hell she's attempting to say here. I can't even start to speculate because of how nonsensical this statement is. Just trying to puzzle it out makes my head hurt.

23 Gus  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:06:52pm
24 kirkspencer  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:07:24pm

re: #22 Simply Sarah

Look, OK, I'm the first to admit (And show my displeasure) at the fact that a lot of so called progressive men aren't actually all that progressive in how they think of and treat women.

That being said, I have no idea what the hell she's attempting to say here. I can't even start to speculate because of how nonsensical this statement is. Just trying to puzzle it out makes my head hurt.

There's an old "joke" about gynecologists, that the only reason they went into that field was it was the only way they'd see that part of the women.

I'm guessing she's riffing on that theme. Not defending it, just trying to comprehend it.

25 celticdragon  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:07:26pm

re: #12 Charles Johnson

Dana Loesch spewing vitriol at me again:

[Video]

Dana should have watched "Morning Joe" earlier today. Joe said that he watched and listened to a group of Republican, pro life women, including his wife, discuss how the GOP has gone over a cliff on social issues. The vaginal probe thing in Virgina was apparently brought up, and it seriously creeped them out, along with basically everything Santorum has said in the last two months.

Even conservative Republicans are beginning to bail on this.

26 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:07:44pm

re: #23 Gus

But still including all the other nasty shit, right?

27 Targetpractice  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:07:55pm

re: #23 Gus

Fuckers are quick, aren't they?

28 Gus  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:08:16pm

re: #26 Obdicut

But still including all the other nasty shit, right?

I imagine so.

29 Simply Sarah  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:09:39pm

re: #27 Targetpractice

Fuckers are quick, aren't they?

Well, you're also assuming this hasn't all just been political theatre for the benefit of Gov. McDonnell.

30 Targetpractice  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:12:54pm

re: #29 Simply Sarah

Well, you're also assuming this hasn't all just been political theatre for the benefit of Gov. McDonnell.

I assume nothing, because I pretty much know that this was all planned ahead. McDonnell conveniently expresses "concern" over the bill and calls for an amendment that the legislature already has in waiting to slap on the bill like a fig leaf, then ram the bill through before folks can stop and say "Hey wait, what about the rest of this shit?"

31 Gus  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:14:40pm

re: #26 Obdicut

But still including all the other nasty shit, right?

You can read more here:

[Link: twitter.com...]

32 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:16:11pm

re: #22 Simply Sarah

Look, OK, I'm the first to admit (And show my displeasure) at the fact that a lot of so called progressive men aren't actually all that progressive in how they think of and treat women.

That being said, I have no idea what the hell she's attempting to say here. I can't even start to speculate because of how nonsensical this statement is. Just trying to puzzle it out makes my head hurt.

It's directed at me - she's continuing to spread a smear that she started last week, that I'm a "pervert." Every time she tweets something like that, it gets immediately retweeted by dozens of wingnut goons.

33 b_sharp  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:16:14pm

re: #22 Simply Sarah

Look, OK, I'm the first to admit (And show my displeasure) at the fact that a lot of so called progressive men aren't actually all that progressive in how they think of and treat women.

That being said, I have no idea what the hell she's attempting to say here. I can't even start to speculate because of how nonsensical this statement is. Just trying to puzzle it out makes my head hurt.

It's not easy overcoming years of paternal indoctrination. Even those of us who know acting as if women are the weaker gender, the less capable gender, the less decisive gender catch ourselves being stupid. It takes a lot of discipline to notice and reverse highly ingrained habits.

Luckily, most of us in the old guard will die off and the younger generations should be increasingly better at it. (unless the maniacal right takes over.)

34 Kragar  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:16:55pm

Rush Limbaugh: Rick Santorum gave good answer on Satan

I'm still waiting to hear Santorum's position on invisible ink unicorns and pixie dust abuse.

35 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:17:24pm

re: #12 Charles Johnson

Dana Loesch spewing vitriol at me again:

how many progressive men use the topic of ultrasounds to act as creepy peepers into women's lady business.

How many progressive men are submitting these ultrasound requirements?

Projection. Gotcha.

36 Targetpractice  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:18:20pm

re: #31 Gus

You can read more here:

[Link: twitter.com...]

Like I said, this was all a bit of political theater for the rubes, something to serve as a fig leaf until the bill could get through the House. There's still the chance it will die in the Senate, but if not, then there's no doubt McDonnell will sign it now.

Bastard didn't "back down" from anything, he just moved the goalposts.

37 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:18:27pm

re: #35 Learned Mother of Zion

How many progressive men are submitting these ultrasound requirements?

Projection. Gotcha.

I like the new nic!

38 Simply Sarah  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:18:32pm

re: #32 Charles Johnson

It's directed at me - she's continuing to spread a smear that she started last week, that I'm a "pervert." Every time she tweets something like that, it gets immediately retweeted by dozens of wingnut goons.

See, that's the thing. I get she's attacking you. But even given that, I just cannot fathom the supposed reasoning behind the comment. It's just such a massive non sequitur.

39 iossarian  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:19:55pm

re: #38 Simply Sarah

[...] supposed reasoning [...]

Wait, we're talking about right-wingers, correct?

40 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:21:05pm

re: #38 Simply Sarah

See, that's the thing. I get she's attacking you. But even given that, I just cannot fathom the supposed reasoning behind the comment. It's just such a massive non sequitur.

I know - she isn't even trying to make any kind of logical sense. It's just a twisted attempt at projection coming out as sheer animus.

41 Gus  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:21:12pm

SNFAU

42 b_sharp  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:21:31pm

re: #38 Simply Sarah

See, that's the thing. I get she's attacking you. But even given that, I just cannot fathom the supposed reasoning behind the comment. It's just such a massive non sequitur.

She's exhibiting Dunning-Kruger, currently with insults, probably later she'll exhibit it in everything else.

43 Simply Sarah  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:23:07pm

re: #40 Charles Johnson

I know - she isn't even trying to make any kind of logical sense. It's just a twisted attempt at projection coming out as sheer animus.

Yes. Animus towards my poor brain.

44 Petero1818  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:23:55pm

re: #15 Obdicut

What is this I don't even.

My guess is that it is a continued idiotic reference to Charles being in her words a "pervert" by suggesting that the picture Charles has used a few times now on this topic is somehow perverted or sexualized. Its basically an image from a medical textbook I am guessing with a word or two changed (appropriately enough) by Charles or someone else . Wingnuts now believe that medical textbooks are perverted. I suppose a wand peaking behind a fig leaf may have been more appropriate in her virgin eyes.
This woman is showing increasingly that she is suffering from a derangement not unlike the shrieking harpy. She is so angry over Charles' rightly pointing out her insanity that she responds with bizarre rantings.

45 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:25:59pm

re: #44 Petero1818

My guess is that it is a continued idiotic reference to Charles being in her words a "pervert" by suggesting that the picture Charles has used a few times now on this topic is somehow perverted or sexualized. Its basically an image from a medical textbook I am guessing with a word or two changed (appropriately enough) by Charles or someone else . Wingnuts now believe that medical textbooks are perverted. I suppose a wand peaking behind a fig leaf may have been more appropriate in her virgin eyes.
This woman is showing increasingly that she is suffering from a derangement not unlike the shrieking harpy. She is so angry over Charles' rightly pointing out her insanity that she responds with bizarre rantings.

I just can't figure out what these guys are angry about half the time anymore.

46 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:26:47pm

re: #44 Petero1818

Oh my god, who could fix that picture sexual? Yeesh.

47 freetoken  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:27:09pm

re: #45 SanFranciscoZionist

I just can't figure out what these guys are angry about half the time anymore.

They probably don't either, but they're addicted to the adrenaline rush.

48 Simply Sarah  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:27:41pm

re: #44 Petero1818

My guess is that it is a continued idiotic reference to Charles being in her words a "pervert" by suggesting that the picture Charles has used a few times now on this topic is somehow perverted or sexualized. Its basically an image from a medical textbook I am guessing with a word or two changed (appropriately enough) by Charles or someone else . Wingnuts now believe that medical textbooks are perverted. I suppose a wand peaking behind a fig leaf may have been more appropriate in her virgin eyes.
This woman is showing increasingly that she is suffering from a derangement not unlike the shrieking harpy. She is so angry over Charles' rightly pointing out her insanity that she responds with bizarre rantings.

Because if there's one thing that really turns me on, it's textbook images of an object shoved up a...OK, wait, maybe that's a bad example.
/

49 freetoken  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:28:37pm

Speaking of generalized anger, I wonder which of the 4 tonight will try a nuclear option, given this is the last debate before Romney either makes or breaks it, and go whole-hog on topics like abortion, "Satan", Islam, etc.

50 iossarian  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:30:19pm

I gave up trying to figure out what motivates Republicans and their utterances a long time ago.

51 Simply Sarah  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:30:26pm

re: #46 Obdicut

Oh my god, who could fix that picture sexual? Yeesh.

Speaking seriously, I have no idea. If anything, it's utterly dull outside the enraging context of what it shows is being intended for women.

52 Targetpractice  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:30:49pm

re: #49 freetoken

Speaking of generalized anger, I wonder which of the 4 tonight will try a nuclear option, given this is the last debate before Romney either makes or breaks it, and go whole-hog on topics like abortion, "Satan", Islam, etc.

I imagine what we'll see is Newt and Santorum taking turns beating Romney's head in, while Paul stands to the side and once again reminds us of how "evil" the Fed is.

53 Big Steve  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:31:45pm

re: #12 Charles Johnson

Dana Loesch spewing vitriol at me again:

If this were grade school.....it would appear that she has a crush on you.

54 Petero1818  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:32:01pm

re: #45 SanFranciscoZionist

I just can't figure out what these guys are angry about half the time anymore.

To be honest, I am not sure they can either. I find sometimes that the entire blogosphere is rife with ad hominem attacks that distract from the issues. I have on occasion even thought that of Charles, though I believe his is far less responsible than others, and that his comments are usually topical and relevant. I sometimes forget that for the writers, these are often personal pages, notwithstanding they are public in nature. I tend to gloss over many of the posts about Geller, Dana, and Derp, and Breitbart. I just get tired of it. Not that Charles is wrong, just that its almost become like a fight in high school that the rest of us sit around and watch. When one of the participants in that fight is a complete moron, as apparently is the case with Ms. Loesch, it deteriorates rather quickly. Apparently her only beef with Charles is that he is a pervert. She has never substantiated that claim in any way but it doesn't stop her from using it in every tweet.

55 b_sharp  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:32:44pm

re: #53 Big Steve

If this were grade school...it would appear that she has a crush on you.

Next step is dipping her pigtails into the ink well.

Young whippersnappers may need to look that up.

56 Big Steve  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:33:00pm

by the way....several site reporting that the jig may be up on faster than light neutrinos due to the original experiment having a faulty connector...Faster than Light

57 Interesting Times  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:33:34pm

re: #56 Big Steve

58 Targetpractice  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:33:57pm

re: #56 Big Steve

by the way...several site reporting that the jig may be up on faster than light neutrinos due to the original experiment having a faulty connector...Faster than Light

In related news, a chuckle was said to be have been heard from the grave of one A. Einstein.

//

59 Simply Sarah  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:34:55pm

re: #54 Petero1818

To be honest, I am not sure they can either. I find sometimes that the entire blogosphere is rife with ad hominem attacks that distract from the issues. I have on occasion even thought that of Charles, though I believe his is far less responsible than others, and that his comments are usually topical and relevant. I sometimes forget that for the writers, these are often personal pages, notwithstanding they are public in nature. I tend to gloss over many of the posts about Geller, Dana, and Derp, and Breitbart. I just get tired of it. Not that Charles is wrong, just that its almost become like a fight in high school that the rest of us sit around and watch. When one of the participants in that fight is a complete moron, as apparently is the case with Ms. Loesch, it deteriorates rather quickly. Apparently her only beef with Charles is that he is a pervert. She has never substantiated that claim in any way but it doesn't stop her from using it in every tweet.

Well, like I always say: One woman's pervert is another woman's sub.

60 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:35:40pm

Dana Loesch, peer-reviewed studies have shown that you're an ignorant moron. This is the current scientific consensus. However some skeptics argue that the consensus is wrong and you're actually a moronic ignoramus. Developing...

61 b_sharp  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:35:59pm

re: #58 Targetpractice

In related news, a chuckle was said to be have been heard from the grave of one A. Einstein.

//

All I heard was the sounds of dice.

62 Archangelus  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:36:17pm

re: #18 Interesting Times

Thanks for reminding me to post this:
CNN: Stop using Dana Loesch as a commentator - petition on Change.org

Was spreading that one yesterday after seeing it two days ago, so thanks for reminding me to remind to others - the more the better...

63 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:37:24pm

It's been awhile so I thought I'd repost this. This is how they really view things.

64 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:38:35pm

This may seem kind of silly--but if you can't get a good external ultrasound of the fetus/embryo, then it is undoubtedly still within the window when abortion is allowed.

65 Petero1818  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:39:05pm

re: #12 Charles Johnson

Dana Loesch spewing vitriol at me again:

[Video]

From the sounds of the debate in question, it does not appear that women's lady business is under attack from progressives, on the contrary. The only threat against women's lady business appears to be coming squarely from the Conservative side.

66 Targetpractice  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:41:52pm

re: #64 To hold my temper, most of the time.

This may seem kind of silly--but if you can't get a good external ultrasound of the fetus/embryo, then it is undoubtedly still within the window when abortion is allowed.

Yeah, but it's not what they want, which is to believe in their bullshit that forcing a woman to look at a grainy picture while a doctor points out what features he thinks he sees and plays a heartbeat will shame her into thinking about "murdering" her baby and choose to continue with the pregnancy.

Basically, they think women are too stupid to understand what is inside them, which I guess is somewhat true after years of pushing abstinence-only sex ed.

67 engineer cat  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:43:23pm

re: #56 Big Steve

by the way...several site reporting that the jig may be up on faster than light neutrinos due to the original experiment having a faulty connector...Faster than Light

Big Science have got no QA???

68 Simply Sarah  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:43:54pm

re: #66 Targetpractice

Yeah, but it's not what they want, which is to believe in their bullshit that forcing a woman to look at a grainy picture while a doctor points out what features he thinks he sees and plays a heartbeat will shame her into thinking about "murdering" her baby and choose to continue with the pregnancy.

Basically, they think women are too stupid to understand what is inside them, which I guess is somewhat true after years of pushing abstinence-only sex ed.

Although what they fail to realize is that if we women are as clueless as they seem to want to pretend, our likely response to an early pregnancy ultrasound image would be "Look how deformed it is! Kill it! Kill it now!"

69 BongCrodny  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:45:36pm

re: #45 SanFranciscoZionist

I just can't figure out what these guys are angry about half the time anymore.

You're doing 50% better than I am.

70 Targetpractice  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:46:20pm

re: #68 Simply Sarah

Although what they fail to realize is that if we women are as clueless as they seem to want to pretend, our likely response to an early pregnancy ultrasound image would be "Look how deformed it is! Kill it! Kill it now!"

They seem to believe that women are such emotional creatures that, if the "reality" of their situation is forced upon them, they'll accept it rather than trying to "deny" it through abortion. Personally, I think it just them wanting to make an already difficult decision more traumatic, but they think that a small price to pay if their twisted moral superiority is assuaged.

71 iossarian  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:46:21pm

re: #69 BongCrodny

You're doing 50% better than I am.

You mean you can figure it out 33% of the time? That's still pretty good.

/math

72 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:47:13pm

Carla strikes again.

73 Political Atheist  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:48:14pm

re: #12 Charles Johnson

Dana Loesch spewing vitriol at me again:

[Video]

Wow she has aged a lot for an eight year old.

74 freetoken  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:49:39pm

Katherine Bagley does a nice summary of several recent pronouncements here:

GOP Not Listening to Its Own Scientists on Climate Change

A rather straight up diagnosis of the problem:

[...]

The same goes for Calvin DeWitt, an environmental scientist who researches climate change at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. DeWitt is a vocal evangelical Christian and although he won't affiliate himself with a single party, he does admit his religious and cultural beliefs fall in line with the majority of Republicans. He has played a significant role in nearly every intersection of climate scientists with evangelicals and politicians, including the creation of the Evangelical Climate Initiative in 2006, a group of over 300 senior evangelical leaders who believe the nation needs to address global warming.

In recent years, however, DeWitt's efforts have been thwarted, he told InsideClimate News. "The times I've tried to reach out to politicians, I have not been welcome. I think the basic problem is that it no longer pays to talk with scientists, but to those who fund you."

[...]

Recommend the whole article.

75 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:49:50pm

re: #12 Charles Johnson

Dana Loesch spewing vitriol at me again:

[Video]

Is this a bug that a "[Video]" appears above?

76 engineer cat  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:52:49pm

Saint Ricky Surge Past Peak, Fading

guilded age beats medieval pope enny day of the week

77 Archangelus  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:52:51pm

re: #66 Targetpractice

Basically, they think women are too stupid to understand what is inside them....

Theirs seems to be a depressingly simple and twisted logic to follow... If they can prove that "Women = Stupid", and they know that "Stupid = Controllable", then "Women = Controllable".
And that's what it's all about - Control. Plenty of these cretins pine for their fantasy ''good ol'e days'', when Americans different than themselves had less/no rights (African-Americans and women). Since they wouldn't dare to try anytime soon with the former, they're now focusing on the latter, by any means they deem legitimate (as in anything they can get away with)...

78 Kragar  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:54:45pm

re: #76 engineer cat

Saint Ricky Surge Past Peak, Fading

guilded age beats medieval pope enny day of the week

gilded

79 Simply Sarah  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:56:40pm

re: #77 Archangelus

Theirs seems to be a depressingly simple and twisted logic to follow... If they can prove that "Women = Stupid", and they know that "Stupid = Controllable", then "Women = Controllable".
And that's what it's all about - Control. Plenty of these cretins pine for their fantasy ''good ol'e days'', when Americans different than themselves had less/no rights (African-Americans and women). Since they wouldn't dare to try anytime soon with the former, they're now focusing on the latter, by any means they deem legitimate (as in anything they can get away with)...

Right on the nose. They'll never admit it, but that's exactly what this is about. And I refuse to be controlled, especially by the likes of them.

80 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:57:30pm

re: #75 J. Bastard (Buttland Institute)

Is this a bug that a "[Video]" appears above?

Not really a bug, just an inappropriate term, but thanks for pointing it out. I just revised the Javascript code for the Reply function to say "Embedded content" instead.

81 TedStriker  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:02:05pm

re: #74 freetoken

Katherine Bagley does a nice summary of several recent pronouncements here:

GOP Not Listening to Its Own Scientists on Climate Change

A rather straight up diagnosis of the problem:

Recommend the whole article.

In recent years, however, DeWitt's efforts have been thwarted, he told InsideClimate News. "The times I've tried to reach out to politicians, I have not been welcome. I think the basic problem is that it no longer pays to talk with scientists, but to those who fund you."

That's what happens when the people you're trying to advise choose the almighty dollar and political power over doing what's right.

You backed the wrong horse, Calvin, but it's not too late (yet)...

82 SpaceJesus  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:08:49pm

Muwahahaha

[Link: alldeadmormonsarenowgay.com...]

83 Bubblehead II  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:13:52pm

re: #82 SpaceJesus

Tacky and tasteless.

85 Bubblehead II  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:21:13pm

re: #84 J. Bastard (Buttland Institute)

WTF? The costumes looks like something out of Buck rogers in the 25th Century. The lyrics? Well they leave a bit to be desired as well.

My glow plug in your socket?

Sad Sergey, just sad.

86 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:22:03pm

re: #85 Bubblehead II

WTF? The costumes looks like something out of Buck rogers in the 25th Century. The lyrics? Well they leave a bit to be desired as well.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

87 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:23:31pm

So will Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich show up tonight with ashes on their foreheads?

88 SpaceJesus  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:26:09pm

I think we decided yes to Santorum, no to Newt in the other thread

89 Bubblehead II  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:26:32pm

re: #86 J. Bastard (Buttland Institute)

Your Link says it all. At least for me.

90 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:29:47pm

re: #89 Bubblehead II

91 A Man for all Seasons  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:30:00pm

re: #87 Charles Johnson

So will Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich show up tonight with ashes on their foreheads Foreskins?

Why yes..Yes they will

92 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:31:35pm

Lots of people out on the streets with ashes on their foreheads. Religious tolerance is a nice thing.

93 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:32:39pm

re: #83 Bubblehead II

Tacky and tasteless.

Yeah, the web design totally sucks.

94 ProMayaLiberal  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:33:03pm

re: #91 HoosierHoops

I think I just threw up a little.

95 zora  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:34:11pm

re: #49 freetoken

Speaking of generalized anger, I wonder which of the 4 tonight will try a nuclear option, given this is the last debate before Romney either makes or breaks it, and go whole-hog on topics like abortion, "Satan", Islam, etc.

we need a church lady font for tonight. "mr. santorum, what to do think is the biggest threat to the american way of life?" santorum: "Satan"

96 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:35:40pm

re: #95 zora

we need a church lady font for tonight. "mr. santorum, what to do think is the biggest threat to the american way of life?" santorum: "Satan"

We need the return of the McCain lady.

97 A Man for all Seasons  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:36:22pm

re: #94 ProGunLiberal

I think I just threw up a little.

LOL...Someday the Church will learn it's not what's on your head but what's in your heart.. That is true religion my brother..

98 SpaceJesus  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:36:51pm

re: #91 HoosierHoops

Tacky and tasteless.

99 Bubblehead II  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:37:01pm

re: #87 Charles Johnson

So will Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich show up tonight with ashes on their foreheads?

Nope. Newt didn't go to Church today, and if Frothy shows up with it on his forehead, it was put back on after they prepped him for the debates.

*snip*

"There is no regulation or even a suggestion regarding how long the ashes remain," according to Monsignor Rick Hilgartner, the executive director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Secretariat of Divine Worship.

*snip*

Receiving ashes is a symbolic gesture, said Hilgartner. He notes in different countries the ashes are distributed in different ways. In Italy, for example, ashes are sprinkled over the top of the head. Last year on Ash Wednesday, Pope Benedict XVI received his ashes sprinkled on the top of his head.

But then again, Frothy just might show up with the "ashes" on his forehead just to show how pious he is.

BTW, couldn't this be construed as the "mark of the Beast" in some Evangelical circles?

/ Only half though.

100 A Man for all Seasons  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:37:27pm

re: #98 SpaceJesus

Tacky and tastless.

Thank you..*wink*

101 Bubblehead II  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:37:37pm

re: #90 J. Bastard (Buttland Institute)

/// You hate me, don't you?

102 Bubblehead II  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:38:47pm

re: #93 Learned Mother of Zion

Amongst other things.

103 TedStriker  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:44:50pm

re: #82 SpaceJesus

Muwahahaha

[Link: alldeadmormonsarenowgay.com...]

re: #83 Bubblehead II

Tacky and tasteless.

It may be tacky and tasteless, but no more so than the Mormon practice of posthumous baptisms, especially of Jews.

104 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:48:14pm

re: #103 talon_262

re: #83 Bubblehead II

It may be tacky and tasteless, but no more so than the Mormon practice of posthumous baptisms, especially of Jews.

It's not really analogous tho, since Mormons don't do posthumous conversions.

105 Bubblehead II  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:48:45pm

re: #103 talon_262

Agreed. But invoking the MBF doesn't make it right. Only disrespectful.

106 Bubblehead II  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:51:05pm

New Thread -------->

Heading upstairs.

107 b_sharp  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:53:47pm

re: #104 J. Bastard (Buttland Institute)

It's not really analogous tho, since Mormons don't do posthumous conversions.

What do you call an after death baptism if not a form of conversion. It's the same type of conversion as on the website, a nonsensical one.

108 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:55:27pm

re: #107 SH1T My Conscience Says

What do you call an after death baptism if not a form of conversion.

It would be a conversion if the dead were counted among the Mormons, but they aren't. Mormons believe that the baptism only opens an option to the dead, and whether they accept it or not depends on their choice.

109 TedStriker  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:58:24pm

re: #105 Bubblehead II

Agreed. But invoking the MBF doesn't make it right. Only disrespectful.

It also doesn't change the fact that it's (very valid) satire of a very arcane and controversial Mormon rite that even the LDS leadership in SLC has had to back away from, due to its use on Jewish Holocaust victims and others over the years (including Simon Wiesenthal's parents earlier this year by "an individual member" of the church).

You shouting "MBF" doesn't change any of that.

110 SpaceJesus  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:58:49pm

So you're giving them something they didn't have before they were dead

111 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:59:40pm

re: #110 SpaceJesus

So you're giving them something they didn't have before they were dead

And it's good, if you believe that stuff. It's illogical to leave people without choices affecting their alleged eternal future.

112 SpaceJesus  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:04:49pm

re: #111 J. Bastard (Buttland Institute)

It's also illogical to leave them without the gift of gay if being gay is something important to you

113 b_sharp  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:05:53pm

re: #108 J. Bastard (Buttland Institute)

It would be a conversion if the dead were counted among the Mormons, but they aren't. Mormons believe that the baptism only opens an option to the dead, and whether they accept it or not depends on their choice.

They can accept the baptism after the fact if they want but they can't exercise the same option when it comes to the actual baptism. The point of the analogy is the arrogance of non-consensual action.

Some Mormon baptizes me after my death and I'll come back and haunt the bastard.

114 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:05:59pm

re: #112 SpaceJesus

It's also illogical to leave them without the gift of gay if being gay is something important to you

Sure, as long as this is not just a temper tantrum singling out a single weird religious ritual, while ignoring the fact that all religions contain fishy stuff.

115 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:07:23pm

re: #113 SH1T My Conscience Says

They can accept the baptism after the fact if they want but they can't exercise the same option when it comes to the actual baptism. The point of the analogy is the arrogance of non-consensual action.

But the actual baptism doesn't do anything but open this alleged option. It doesn't have to be consensual. No more than someone praying for me should ask me first if I wished to be prayed for.

116 b_sharp  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:10:11pm

re: #114 J. Bastard (Buttland Institute)

Sure, as long as this is not just a temper tantrum singling out a single weird religious ritual, while ignoring the fact that all religions contain fishy stuff.

It doesn't matter what other religions do. How common strange acts are certainly doesn't mean I have to accept them. Waiting until the person is dead and unable to say yeah or nay before performing a ritual possibly insulting had the victim been alive, is cowardly.

117 SpaceJesus  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:11:08pm

re: #114 J. Bastard (Buttland Institute)

temper tantrum is the wrong way to describe it. more as a "oh hi, you like to give people posthumous presents? so do we!" kind of thing

118 TedStriker  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:11:38pm

re: #116 SH1T My Conscience Says

It doesn't matter what other religions do. How common strange acts are certainly doesn't mean I have to accept them. Waiting until the person is dead and unable to say yeah or nay before performing a ritual possibly insulting had the victim been alive, is cowardly.

This.

119 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:16:54pm

re: #116 SH1T My Conscience Says

It doesn't matter what other religions do. How common strange acts are certainly doesn't mean I have to accept them. Waiting until the person is dead and unable to say yeah or nay before performing a ritual possibly insulting had the victim been alive, is cowardly.

You may disagree with this ritual but there's nothing cowardly about it. They're not waiting for the death just because they're afraid to do it while (s)he is alive (in which case it would, indeed, be cowardly).

120 b_sharp  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:19:06pm

re: #119 J. Bastard (Buttland Institute)

You may disagree with this ritual but there's nothing cowardly about it. They're not waiting for the death just because they're afraid to do it while (s)he is alive (in which case it would, indeed, be cowardly).

Then why do they wait until after death? Why not perform it before death?

121 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:19:09pm

re: #116 SH1T My Conscience Says

It's really not any more insulting than saying a prayer for the souls of the departed, which most religions do.

122 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:20:09pm

re: #117 SpaceJesus

temper tantrum is the wrong way to describe it. more as a "oh hi, you like to give people posthumous presents? so do we!" kind of thing

That's the temper tantrum. Obviously, this Mormon activity bothers whoever created this site for unknown reasons. In reality, if someone does any rite with any names, it affects nothing and changes nothing. So, meh.

123 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:20:33pm

re: #120 SH1T My Conscience Says

Then why do they wait until after death? Why not perform it before death?

Because that's the rite.

124 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:22:08pm

Also, accusing Mormons of cowardice is mighty strange, considering their missionary efforts. It's not like they're afraid to preach.

125 b_sharp  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:24:25pm

re: #121 Obdicut

It's really not any more insulting than saying a prayer for the souls of the departed, which most religions do.

They pray for members of their own religion. The Mormons are baptizing members of groups they consider less fortunate than themselves. It strikes me as arrogant.

126 b_sharp  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:26:51pm

re: #123 J. Bastard (Buttland Institute)

Because that's the rite.

That's the rite?

There is no reason for doing it after death? Then don't do it after death without asking before death.

127 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:27:03pm

re: #125 SH1T My Conscience Says

They pray for members of their own religion. The Mormons are baptizing members of groups they consider less fortunate than themselves. It strikes me as arrogant.

It strikes me as compassionate. It's certainly better than someone believing that "less fortunate" groups go to eternal fire and being OK with it. And that's most Christians for you.

128 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:27:42pm

re: #125 SH1T My Conscience Says

They pray for members of their own religion.

No, really, many pray for all the dead. When someone dies, often people say "My prayers are with you". When people hear someone is hurt, they say they'll pray for them. It happens all the time. I really do feel Mormons get singled out because they're just slightly more obvious about it and they're the one of the non-mainstream religions in America.

129 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:29:49pm

re: #126 SH1T My Conscience Says

That's the rite?

Yes, that's the rite. They don't do it because of "cowardice" but because that's what their religion teaches them to do.

There is no reason for doing it after death? Then don't do it after death without asking before death.

Unfortunately, your name is not Joe, and your surname is not Smith ;)

130 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:29:58pm

re: #127 J. Bastard (Buttland Institute)

Heh. Yeah. If someone really sincerely believes that this ritual is necessary to stop people from eternal punishment, they'd actually be assholes if they stopped doing it. By doing it, they're just being irrational and creepy.

It really is something they should stop just because it has become A Thing, though, and the Mormon Church in general agrees-- this is just being done by individuals inside it now.

But if you really sincerely believe in your religion, and that your religion is necessary for salvation-- as many faiths do-- then really being evangelical about it, and doing whatever magical tricks you can, is ethical behavior. It's irrational, but ethical.

131 b_sharp  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:30:29pm

re: #124 J. Bastard (Buttland Institute)

Also, accusing Mormons of cowardice is mighty strange, considering their missionary efforts. It's not like they're afraid to preach.

They're afraid they'll be refused. Missionary efforts are arrogance not bravery.

132 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:32:31pm

re: #130 Obdicut

They should minimize because they can afford it religiously - they don't actually think that if they don't post-mortem baptize everyone right now, all will be lost. They believe that this baptising work will continue after the second coming (or something like that). They still do it here because it's a commandment.

133 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:33:20pm

re: #131 SH1T My Conscience Says

They're afraid they'll be refused. Missionary efforts are arrogance not bravery.

?

If you can read their minds, so be it.

134 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:34:31pm

re: #131 SH1T My Conscience Says

They're afraid they'll be refused. Missionary efforts are arrogance not bravery.

It's probably a mix of a lot of things that motivates missionaries, but I've certainly met missionaries who are, honestly, just full of love, and-- to my mind, sadly mistakenly-- think that spreading their faith is the best expression of that love. The religion in and of itself could be seen as arrogant, but the people themselves aren't necessarily so.

135 b_sharp  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:35:01pm

re: #127 J. Bastard (Buttland Institute)

It strikes me as compassionate. It's certainly better than someone believing that "less fortunate" groups go to eternal fire and being OK with it. And that's most Christians for you.

It's all nonsense, but it does show the arrogance members of some religions have for those outside their group.

Again, Sergey, acceptance of one group's action based on cross group popularity isn't an good argument.

136 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:35:09pm

If people get wildly pissed at the Mormons for this, they should also get wildly pissed at Obama for saying "God bless America" as he does at nearly every public appearance.

137 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:36:56pm

re: #136 Obdicut

If people get wildly pissed at the Mormons for this, they should also get wildly pissed at Obama for saying "God bless America" as he does at nearly every public appearance.

But then we'll be called those angry pissy atheists.

138 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:39:33pm

re: #137 J. Bastard (Buttland Institute)

But then we'll be called those angry pissy atheists.

I do think it's funny that, given that I loathe the Mormon church's involvement in politics and am a hardcore atheist, I often wind up defending them. But just because their religion is more easily mockable doesn't make it more harmful or odious. I do think that the religions that believe everyone who isn't part of that religion is damned without any hope of salvation are much creepier and inspire a lot worse trains of thought.

139 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:41:34pm

re: #138 Obdicut

Same here. I will openly call the Mormon hierarchy evil, but that doesn't project towards lay members. And the only reason it seems more mockable is because everybody is used to the absolute nonsense of the traditional religions. Seems inconsistent to me.

140 b_sharp  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:43:40pm

re: #128 Obdicut

No, really, many pray for all the dead. When someone dies, often people say "My prayers are with you". When people hear someone is hurt, they say they'll pray for them. It happens all the time. I really do feel Mormons get singled out because they're just slightly more obvious about it and they're the one of the non-mainstream religions in America.

Prayer is a shared action, pretty much all religions use a form of communication with their god that can be described as prayer, so insult is not likely. However, baptism isn't as common leaving more room for insult.

I don't really care if it's done to me, I think it's all nonsense, but I do think there are people out there who believe very strongly that will find insult in receiving an unwanted rite.

It's the belief in the significance of the act that makes it real to some and more than just meaningless hand waving.

Some may be quite pleased about it. Good for them. Others may be quite upset, which in my mind, is enough of a reason to not do it in such a blanket manner.

141 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:45:24pm

>> And the only reason it seems more mockable is because everybody is used to the absolute nonsense of the traditional religions.

> pretty much all religions use a form of communication with their god that can be described as prayer, so insult is not likely. However, baptism isn't as common leaving more room for insult.

Voila! ;)

142 b_sharp  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:45:29pm

re: #129 J. Bastard (Buttland Institute)

Yes, that's the rite. They don't do it because of "cowardice" but because that's what their religion teaches them to do.

Unfortunately, your name is not Joe, and your surname is not Smith ;)

How do you know? I could be B Joe Smith Sharp.

I did marry a Jones.

143 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:46:30pm

re: #140 SH1T My Conscience Says

Prayer is a shared action, pretty much all religions use a form of communication with their god that can be described as prayer, so insult is not likely. However, baptism isn't as common leaving more room for insult.

No clue what that's supposed to mean, sorry. Why does how common it is matter in the least?

I don't really care if it's done to me, I think it's all nonsense, but I do think there are people out there who believe very strongly that will find insult in receiving an unwanted rite.

Sure. Which is why the Mormon Church doesn't condone it.

It's the belief in the significance of the act that makes it real to some and more than just meaningless hand waving.

I'm sorry, I don't get that either. Because the Mormons believe that they're doing a very good thing by doing this, it's a bad thing?

Some may be quite pleased about it. Good for them. Others may be quite upset, which in my mind, is enough of a reason to not do it in such a blanket manner.

Wait, are you talking about the dead people?

144 b_sharp  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:55:04pm

re: #134 Obdicut

It's probably a mix of a lot of things that motivates missionaries, but I've certainly met missionaries who are, honestly, just full of love, and-- to my mind, sadly mistakenly-- think that spreading their faith is the best expression of that love. The religion in and of itself could be seen as arrogant, but the people themselves aren't necessarily so.

I wasn't talking about the individuals, they do believe they're doing what is right. The idea itself has an inherent arrogance. Three of my grandmother's brothers were missionaries to different parts of Africa, and they used to visit us and show us their pictures. This was back in the '60s, but I still remember thinking there was something weird about it even then.

145 b_sharp  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:56:00pm

re: #137 J. Bastard (Buttland Institute)

But then we'll be called those angry pissy atheists.

I am an angry pissy atheist.

146 b_sharp  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:57:50pm

re: #136 Obdicut

If people get wildly pissed at the Mormons for this, they should also get wildly pissed at Obama for saying "God bless America" as he does at nearly every public appearance.

I think most people understand that is just lip service, although I do get annoyed when that lip service is given too much play.

147 b_sharp  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 3:59:15pm

re: #138 Obdicut

I do think it's funny that, given that I loathe the Mormon church's involvement in politics and am a hardcore atheist, I often wind up defending them. But just because their religion is more easily mockable doesn't make it more harmful or odious. I do think that the religions that believe everyone who isn't part of that religion is damned without any hope of salvation are much creepier and inspire a lot worse trains of thought.

I try to be an equal opportunity religion hater. I just try not to hate the individual members.

148 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 4:01:30pm

re: #147 SH1T My Conscience Says

I try to be an equal opportunity religion hater. I just try not to hate the individual members.

I think that by singling out this practice of the Mormons, and making the argument about how common stuff is mattering, you're explicitly not being an equal opportunity hater.

149 b_sharp  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 4:11:39pm

re: #143 Obdicut

No clue what that's supposed to mean, sorry. Why does how common it is matter in the least?

Simple numbers. If your religion uses prayer, then being prayed for isn't likely to upset you. If your religion does not use baptism then being baptized is going to look like non-consensual conversion.

If 90% of people belong to religions with prayer, praying for a random person has a 1 out of 10 chance of being considered insulting. If 70% of people belong to a religion where baptism is used, there is a 3 out of 10 chance if it being considered insulting.

It wasn't an appeal to popularity.

Sure. Which is why the Mormon Church doesn't condone it.

That's news to me.

I'm sorry, I don't get that either. Because the Mormons believe that they're doing a very good thing by doing this, it's a bad thing?

Not the Mormons, everybody else.

Wait, are you talking about the dead people?

Huh? The dead don't care, but people do care what may happen to their carcass/soul after they die, and for some reason relatives and friends of the deceased also care what happens after death.

150 b_sharp  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 4:14:24pm

re: #148 Obdicut

I think that by singling out this practice of the Mormons, and making the argument about how common stuff is mattering, you're explicitly not being an equal opportunity hater.

Take another look. I wasn't talking about me, I was talking about those that take this practice seriously.

151 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 4:15:43pm

re: #150 SH1T My Conscience Says

Take another look. I wasn't talking about me, I was talking about those that take this practice seriously.

Then why the hell are you speaking on their behalf?

152 b_sharp  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 4:25:52pm

re: #151 Obdicut

Then why the hell are you speaking on their behalf?

The same reason both of us have spoken on behalf of women.

The convo started when it was claimed the website SJ linked to wasn't using an analogy with an equivalent point. I disagreed and made the point.

What we see now is the evolution of the conversation.

My point is, because there are people who will be insulted by the practice, and the practice is in essence non-consensual, the website was justified in exercising a bit of tit for tat.

153 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 4:39:59pm

re: #152 I'm a Lefty Moron

The same reason both of us have spoken on behalf of women.
.

I speak on behalf of women because of actual harm being done to them, not because their religious feelings are getting insulted.

My point is, because there are people who will be insulted by the practice, and the practice is in essence non-consensual, the website was justified in exercising a bit of tit for tat

I don't think Mormons are going to give a shit about that website, though.

So I don't think it's really tit for tat.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

TwitterFacebook

Turn off all ads for a full year by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day (per month) or 22 cents a day (per year), our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...

► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form
LGF Pages

This button leads to the main index of LGF Pages, our user-submitted articles. You can post your own LGF Pages simply by registering a free account with us.

Create a Page

This is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.

Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.

Last updated: 2014-03-07 2:19 pm PST

LGF User's Guide
Recent Pages
Randall Gross
Purported Cure-All Juice Maker Must Face Suit
A recidivist scammer must face a class action alleging it falsely advertises a pricey "super juice" as a cure for cancer, Alzheimer's and heart disease, a federal judge ruled. Lisa Pontrelli filed a putative class action against MonaVie Inc. ...

6 hours, 41 minutes ago
Views: 109 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
The War TARDIS
Doctor Who “Into the Dalek” Open Thread
This episode will echo old Dalek episodes, both with a bit of a twist. Also, Clara will be finding someone, as she seems to be moving from her feelings of the 11th. But, this for talking.

7 hours, 16 minutes ago
Views: 111 • Comments: 34
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 2
FemNaziBitch
Roger Goodell: ‘I Didn’t Get It Right.’ -NFL TAKES A NEW STANCE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell admits he was wrong on the Ray Rice decision, and Goodell took an important step Thursday towards showing the league is serious about cracking down on domestic violence as well as sexual assault. In a ...

1 day, 13 hours ago
Views: 168 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 3
sagehen
Doctor Who Spoiler Thread
For those who want to post immediately... live... without having to hide spoilers behind the button.

1 week ago
Views: 649 • Comments: 99
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 6
EiMitch
Escapist: Maniac Cop
escapistmagazine.com Link broken? The gist is that this is an impressively sarcastic review of an old slasher flick based on the "unrealistic" premise of a cop abusing his power to murder people.

1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 472 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
Hyped Up On Ganja
Hunt for German neo-Nazis was ‘complete disaster’
BERLIN (AP) -- Police and security services in Germany's eastern state of Thuringia bungled the hunt for three neo-Nazis, who years later turned out to be the main suspects in a far-right murder spree. Story

1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 680 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 4
Rightwingconspirator
A Lizard’s Regenerating Tail
Don't ya hate it when that happens? You feel so short for a month. Anoles are curious little lizards capable of ditching their tails when they feel threatened. This self-amputation, called autotomy, takes about 25 days for the tail to ...

1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 486 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 5
CriticalDragon1177
Io9 - Everything You Need To Know About Lemuria, The Lost Continent Of Lemurs
Esther Inglis-Arkell talks about the weirdest lost continent myth, I've ever heard. Its the only one I know of that ever included giant telepathic lemurs. No seriously! In 1858 a young zoologist, playing around with an idea, came up with ...

1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 656 • Comments: 4
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 7
Laughing Gas
Scumbag “HBD believer” claims Michael Brown charged officer
WARNING: LINK TO HATE SITE He links to some ijreview, a right wing site: This guy makes me sick.

1 week, 5 days ago
Views: 1,514 • Comments: 6
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 1
 Frank says:

Freak me out, Frank!