The Thursday Blog: It’s Not Rape if God Says It’s Okay Edition

One problem with religions in modern times (and no, this isn’t going to be one of those blogs) is that the popular ones didn’t come from modern times. The rules and morality largely date from a time before the measure of one’s strength of character came from anywhere other than the strength of his arm. Naturally this “might makes right” philosophy figures prominently in the moral structure of these religions. I call it the “College Football” phase of mankind’s ethical evolution. God is equated with “right”, and is also assumed to be pulling all the strings behind the scenes. Therefore, if my football team wins, it’s because god loved my team more. If I accomplished a thing, then it must’ve been okay with god, especially if I’m a pious dude. The same idea is shown as the Israelites victoriously battle various other desert tribes. (Although god doesn’t seem to take very consistently good care of his his pets where the Israelites are concerned. Okay, maybe it’s a little bit one of those blogs.)

And of course, the same idea holds true with rape.

Might may make right in the eyes of god, but historically women have very rarely held the mighty end of the stick. (No bigger around than your thumb, ya know.) And the Qur’an is hardly the only holy book that goes into detail about the proper way to subjugate the womenfolk. In America Christians often hold themselves as superior because of the way adherent Muslims treat their females, but these Christians are the same ones who ignore what their own bible has to say on the subject. (Thankfully.)

  • The tenth commandment, (tenth because it’s the least important) makes it pretty plain that women are property. No consideration is given to women “coveting” another woman’s husband because, well, who cares? The rules are for men because they’re the only ones with any importance attached to them.
  • If the daughter of a priest lost her virginity before marriage, she was to be burnt alive. If a woman saw her husband fighting with another guy and came to his aid by grabbing the other dude’s junk, (I’m not sure just how rife the ancient world was with this… but apparently god felt it was a big enough problem to make a law about it) then the wife got her hand chopped off. Proscriptions against dudes grabbing each others’ junk had nothing to do with fighting.
  • When a woman gives birth to a boy, she has to go into seclusion for a week and pay the priests to say daily rituals over her so she doesn’t infect others with her dirty girl cooties. It’s two weeks if she gives birth to a… non-boy.
  • Corinthians talks a bit about how women were created “for” men, and not the other way around. (Echoing Genesis.) It lines up the bosses thusly: God > Christ > Men > Clowns > Women.
  • Witches. The bible doesn’t just suggest that you not be friends with them, it Commands You To Kill Them. (Do make sure they have land the church can use first though.)
  • In Judges a dude is accosted by a mob after the bars have closed, and to keep himself safe he tosses ’em his virgin daughter and the girlfriend of a stranger. This is depicted as a totally legitimate move on the guy’s part, given the implication that the mob might have had a go for his booty-hole if he hadn’t had some chicks handy. (The “girlfriend’s” rape goes on for hours, though no one seems to give a shit.) This is not even the only place in the bible this type of scenario is carried out.
  • Timothy offers Eve’s temptation of Adam as proof that women should not be allowed to speak, nor “suffered to teach a man”. (Okay, the bible could be right on this one. 😈 )
  • Your wife cheat on you? Stone her to death. You cheat on your wife? Brag.
  • If a dude has (unmarried) sex with a girl, he has to pay the father 50 pieces of silver. (Her virginity is his asset, not hers.)
  • Ladyfolk are instructed to submit to their husbands in all things. (You know… things like anal, teaming up with her sister, or maybe donkey sex. The usual.) Men are the boss because penises require extra brains to operate properly.
  • Ecclesiasticus goes on and on about the wickedness and inferiority of women. How can you tell if a woman is wicked? Are you hard? Then she’s bad!
  • Judges, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Samuel, Exodus, and Zechariah all include stories about god handing over the women of defeated enemies as party favors, punishing men by having their wives and daughters raped, and the express enslavement of women, all with divine favor and even assistance. You wiccans that say god is a woman? You are not talking about the same person.

This is the short list of examples of how the bible feels about women. There are way more instances of women being treated (by Good and Pious men as well as god) as chattel… abused, defiled, and enslaved, and it’s all okey-doke with the man upstairs. Now believe it or not, this isn’t actually about god, or the bible. It’s about belief.

In the last election cycle the Republican Party swept to power in Congress on a wave of Tea Party elections. The Tea Party is dominated by what many look at as religious extremists, and the consequences are beginning to play out. Representative Chris Smith, (New Jersey) a long time opponent of abortion, has seized the opportunity presented by the elections to put forward a new bill intended to reduce the number of overall abortions — by removing federal funding from certain rape victims who lack the ability to pay for the procedure themselves. Now while I personally am in favor of a woman’s right to choose, I do understand that most anti-abortionists are acting from a good and protective impulse to prevent what they see as the murder of unborn children. (For the record, I see it that way too, I simply feel like that unborn child’s potential life is less important than the mother’s actual one.) However, this bill seeks to go about effecting that end by a circuitous and potentially dangerous route.

Smith’s bill, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, instead of simply saying that the government will no longer pay for abortions, parses out the types of rapes that it will and will not pay for. Specifically, the government would only pay for abortions in the case of “forcible rape”. Now on the surface, this seems like a non-issue, since rape is inherently not consensual, and therefore some force, whether physical or coercive, is implied. (Not sure if dinner and a movie counts as coercion. Might have to look that up.) This does immediately rule out statutory rapes where the thirteen year old wanted to make her thirty year old boyfriend happy with a quickie behind the Barbie Dreamhome… she better hope her daddy is the forgiving sort. It also eliminates funding for abortions by incest… in which cases daddy probably isn’t as likely to throw his little girl out into the streets. Unfortunately.

The biggest issue however, is that the bill doesn’t define what it means by forcible rape, leaving that up to the states. Now some states have different definitions than others, and some states have never needed to define the term at all. The result is that in some places getting roofied will qualify, and some it won’t. In others you will need to let your assailant pistol-whip you first, before he actually rapes you, since threats count differently. This is because even the states that have defined forcible rape haven’t all done so for the same purpose. In those that haven’t, expect a lot of lawsuits.

But more largely, what does this bill mean about the status of women in America? Parsing rape seems denigrating on it’s face, especially when there are more clear and effective means of stating your purpose. In our modern, non-bronze age society, a “good” Christian seems to be one who embraces the spirit of love and charity from his religion, and ignores the more inane bullshit it offers. The rise of religious fundamentalism in America brings the bullshit closer and closer to the surface, and make no mistake, some of these folks are firmly committed to legislating their religious morality. A Return to Values, they like to say. The worst thing is that while these are not bad people, they are people with a fervent belief in a thing that does not belong here any more. An ugly thing.

Too bad you just can’t keep an awful idea down.

86 Responses to The Thursday Blog: It’s Not Rape if God Says It’s Okay Edition

  1. Actually the line about witches only showed up in the middle ages versions. The original line was “Thou shalt not suffer a POISONER to live.” King James was nuts about witchcraft, so they changed it.

    That’s also why the Witches were in Macbeth.

    Don’t suppose you have actual chapter and verse references for those? I May wanna verify by actually looking it up, ya know.

    • יז מְכַשֵּׁפָה, לֹא תְחַיֶּה.
      17 Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live.

      Exodus chapter 22, verse 17. I think the version used in Firefly was a good literal translation- “thou shall not suffer a witch to live”, but the “sorceress” is the same. Whoever put “poisoner” in there was wrong, though I guess one of the uses for a “witch” is poisons and other such “potions”, which would explain why it was replaced.

      Just before it is the bit with paying for a virgin(but also a bit about marrying a virgin you’ve slept with, so that’s kinda nice given that non-virgin brides then were probably not a very hot commodity).

      Here’s a good site that brings the original Hebrew and English translations back-to-back: .

      • Somewhat OT – in classical Greek, the word “iatros” means not only doctor but also poisoner. I suspect this (and the Hebrew term) originally meant “those who work with potions”.

      • You know, I’ve had this thought for a while. Since there are some instances of ‘suffer’ meaning ‘to bear the burden of’, couldn’t the rule ‘thou shalt not suffer a witch to live’ be referring to the supplicants life? Like, a witch rolls into your desert camp, says ‘Gimme 30 gold or I hex your ass!’ and the pious man is supposed to resist the temptation to just pay off the bitch (sorry, I mean witch)? I.e. a modern translation would be ‘We do not negotiate with Witches’. Always thought that was the more obvious meaning of the rule…

        • I think the original meaning in the original text kinda goes against that. It just means “and a witch(you) shall not live”. The “live” verb here is in a tense where it’s connected with the “you”, as in “you won’t (let)live”. The tense that seems to mean that her life is in your hands. So I think a better translation would be made if you replaced “suffer” with “allow” or “permit”, simple as that. That’s the problem with translations, they tend to deviate or generate new, unrelated meanings from the meaning of the original text even when they’re trying to be faithful to it.
          And that’s not even taking silly Greek dragons into account. 🙄

    • I probably should have attributed as I went, but I’m certainly not going to go back and do it now. (I didn’t want to feed into the people who argue over each and every meaning.) However, there’s probably enough information there that you can look up any particulars with just a bit of research.

      • It would actually be nice to sometimes have sources for some of your Thursday Blog claims, as has recently been pointed out in one of your latest posts.
        Maybe we should start putting “citation needed” notes everywhere? 😉

          • No. My “claims” of what the bible says are not what this article is about. Literally every single person who can see this blog has access to dozens of online bibles and can look up anything they want. Including you.

            This article is about the bill that is in Congress right now. The biblical information is provided as context. I have zero interest in arguing about it.

            If in the future I quote something that is not easily verifiable by any and everyone, I will attribute it.

  2. Elfguy is, AFAIK, right about witches. I don’t know about the poisoner thing, but can confirm it’s a “King James Edition” thing.

    And kevin? All this makes me wanna puke :-/

    • Nope, Elfguy seems to be wrong. Regardless of king James’ obsession with witches, the original line WAS about witches, and if until then the translation was talking about poisoners(maybe the guys who made that got over believing in “real” witches and wanted it to be relevant?) then the older version was wrong.
      I guess that’s one of the many awesome perks of growing up in a religious family, and I mean a truly religious, not that junk you guys call Christianity where people don’t even seem to know their bible straight. But then they probably focus on their later version of it, The Amazing Adventures of Jesus&Friends.

      Sorry, I’m just annoyed by people who pretend to be religious and savvy about the bible but can usually be easily corrected by a guy who’s been out of it for over 10 years and who used to draw stuff like simple animations on the pages of his Talmud books(the ones he didn’t outright tear apart or stomp in front of people). Which reminds me again of the poor fate of my tefillin(I never managed to actually bash them open, those buggers are TOUGH!), wherever they’re now. 😆

        • It’s not funny when you have to wear it. 🙁

          And so you know, I’ve heard of at least one guy who was feared as a suicide bomber on a(American?) flight because he put on tefillin while praying, and the idiots thought it looks like boxes with wires coming out of them.

      • Hey Orald…if my original source was wrong about the Poisoner thing, what about the Unicorns? I always thought that the mideval rewrite substituted Unicorns for some other animal that the translator was unfamiliar with…I just can’t see the ancient hebrews believing in a horse/goat with a narwhale horn on it’s head…I’m pretty sure the Unicorn was a European myth, not a middle-eastern one…

        (Your searchable site didn’t come up with anything for “unicorn” so I’m assuming that is, in fact, the case.)

        • I seem to vaguely recall hearing something about unicorns in some European translation(English?), but I have no idea which translation or of what passage, if it’s even of the OT and not whatever they have in the NT.
          I suspect it’s the NT if you couldn’t find it, since that site only deals with the OT.

          I bet Jesus was riding unicorns all the time. 😆

          • The unicorns are at least as old as the Greek translation, possibly older. The dragons, basilisk, and something else… chimera? manticore? Something anyway, definitely date back to the original text.

            • There are “great/big crocodiles” in the creation story(Genesis), but no “dragons” that I’m aware of, or anything else on that list.

              Crocodiles(that are “in the sea”) are constantly translated as dragons for some reason. It’s fun when you say it’s in the text but it’s not, it’s all just bad translations. I’ve seen several examples which are outright simple, literal crocodiles with no reason to assume something else(seriously, crocodiles in Egypt are NOT dragons).
              Vipers are translated as basilisks the same as the above “dragons” for some reason.
              Haven’t found any instances of either “chimera” or “manticore” though.

              Overall it seems like whoever translated it to Greek was an idiot who wanted to make it more colorful and more “Greek-ish” so he replaced stuff with Greek mythological creatures.
              There’s an instance of the text literally saying “flying serpent”, whatever that means…seems to be a part of an allegory, (right next to one of the mistranslated “basilisks”, which is very funny), and yet you missed that fun bit.

              It’s all just…It’s so stupid and silly, but you’re going the wrong way when you’re inventing stuff or using a shoddy translation to base your attacks on.

      • Oh, and Christianity actually spends a lot more time (mis)interpreting the Old Testament (Hebrew bible) than it does actually paying attention to the message of Jesus And Friends (Which was pretty much “Hey, wouldn’t it be great if everyone was nice to everyone for a change?” Which apparently was a bad message for that particular time, worthy of getting nailed to a tree….)

  3. Traditionally, the witch / shaman makes the poison and gives it to the poisoner who administers it as part of a spell. With love spells it’s exactly the same, except it’s a good act if the target is into it, and an evil one if they’re not. Interestingly the people in modern society who distribute the most dangerous drugs and poison the most people are the CIA. But I digress.
    Kevin, which passage in the bible says wives have to give their husbands butt sex? I want to hold up a sign for that verse at every baseball game:) But seriously, butt sex is actually quite common in societies without modern birth control. Like Italy.

    • I fail to see how a love potion would be necessary if the target is already willing. Love potion then should always be looked on as “evil”. Unless you include stuff that help you with your erection as “love potions”.

      • Meh. Why resort to magic, when Chocolate and flowers does the same job as a “love potion” in many cases (Women don’t even need to do that…like Doctor Laura says, for males, “If I’m not horny, make me a sandwich” pretty much works.

            • Yes it’s a lot like cars and booze. In societies where love spells are used the idea is that if there is natural love there it will help it grow, kind of like perfume / cologne, or drugs and toys to make sex more fun. It’s regarded as a totally different thing from unwilling enslavement. Women usually buy them more than men, but either way, witches and shamans are supposed to increase FERTILITY of the tribe as a whole.
              I thought that might be the verse you were referring to Kevin, and it has been used that way. Just wanted to be sure you hadn’t found a funnier one:)

  4. This really is a terrible thing, and one I don’t feel like I’m qualified to talk about. My opinions would basically come down to me raving about how even 6 year olds aren’t people yet and how women are people and therefore…

    So let’s skip that.

    Anyway. Kevin, I’m rather curious about your views on what’s going on in Egypt right now. So yeah. What’s up with that? How about that awful UBB thing in Canada (THAT JUST GOT SHOT DOWN AWWWWWWW YEAH (also good job Harper you finally did something right)).

    • I almost did Egypt for this blog, but I had already started doing research for this one. I doubt my views at the moment are much different than anyone else’s. It certainly appears the people are firing Mubarak, and he’s just worsening the situation by paying and arming counter-demonstrators. Either he is insincere about wanting to step down in September or he thinks that’s how long it will take to drain the treasury. Either way he is taking a big risk, as the “leave or die” segment of the demonstrators has only been gaining ground.

      As for Canada… the Ministry have gotten involved and are promising to review the decision, and people from students to Industry Minister have announced their opposition. There are huge polls and public outcry, but…

      Well, if this were America, everyone would squawk, Congress would pass a bill called the Freedom of the Internet law or something — that didn’t discuss the internet at all and actually gave Congress a pay raise — then everyone would forget about it and every other service provider in the land would switch to the new system. Since it’s Canada I think there’s a better, if not necessarily good, chance this can be flipped backwards.

      • Concerning Egypt, last i hear Mubaraks followers targets western journalists blaming them for the fact that Mubarak is in hot water internasionally speaking.
        I know for a fact that one of the bigger norwegian newspapers are pulling out ther people and that several other newspapers and others are considering doing the same.

          • Care to elaborate? I’m pretty sure I don’t remember reading the words “Except for women” anywhere in the bill of rights…

              • If you are referring to the (long ago retconned) 3/5ths of “other persons”, that was a compromise between the abolitionists (who wanted NO ‘other persons’ to count for the census) and southern slave owners (who wanted 100% of ‘other persons’ to count in the census, and didn’t apply to women at all, who were, in fact, handled by the OTHER part of the same section, under “Citizens”

                • No, I was referring to the restriction of citizenship to non-dependent male. On inspection, I find the definition was defered individually to the states.

  5. You left out my favourite in the list. After declaring that no one should allow their daughter to marry into one tribe of Israelites (they had raped some guy’s wife and killed her, at some point her body parts were distributed to all the other tribes, but can’t remember if they did that or the other tribes did) the oath was regretted. So it was decided that if they turned a blind eye while their daughters were kidnapped and forcibly married into the tribe and not retaliate then that wasn’t the same as allowing the marriage to that bad tribe. This was a better choice than letting this tribe of upstanding men die out.

  6. I think the bit about making women seclude themselves after giving birth(aside from the “girl-birth gets longer seclusion”) is more of a primitive hygiene law, even if they call it Tumah(i.e impurity) and pretend it’s some kind of spiritually-related state and not just keeping the woman from catching some disease when she’s weak after giving birth.

    As to marrying or paying(in case the father doesn’t agree to you marrying her) for virgins you’ve despoiled(forcibly or otherwise), that’s more an example of a good-intentioned law in a crapsack world.
    Like I’ve said, since non-virgin brides were “damaged-goods”(yes, value dissonance, but I feel you’re mocking it from our PoV and neglecting to see the original intent) then marrying them or giving the father a large sum of money to cover his expenses(since he’d have to give a much bigger dowry for her to accepted as a bride) is actually the kind thing to do. Sure, their world is crap, but a lot of the rules in the bible try to make it better, with varying degrees of success. It’s only from our modern perspective that most of it is crazy, and I can say some laws should be used today, like “eye for an eye” which is the very definition of justice.

    I too am confused as to where you’ve pulled out the “anal sex” bit from, and I suspect it’s another case of mistranslation and deliberate misrepresentation of the rules for a comedic/critical purpose. “Submit to their husbands in all things” doesn’t literally mean all things, that’s just taking it too far for comedic effect, and I really don’t remember anything about anal sex being mentioned positively anywhere.

    Don’t forget that Lot also turned his daughters over to the angry mob to save the disguised angles back in Genesis.

    I’ve checked what this “Ecclesiasticus” is and it turns out it’s some kind of late-appearing text, probably by some crazy guy raving about his ex-wife or something, which wasn’t even accepted into Jewish dogma(but, naturally, the Christians did since it was translated to Greek as part of the rest of the bible, according to Wiki’). I admit it’s kinda hard talking about this stuff when there’s all kind of extra batshit-crazy stuff Christianity has let in. Ah, those wacky Christians… 🙄

    The real problem of course is, like you’ve said, that those rules were never really meant to stay in place for several thousand years over changing conditions. But they didn’t an amendment system in place and I doubt something like that can work with a “divine and perfect” text anyway. Personally that’s one of the things that amuse me most about religious folks- that they don’t go for everything. Everything’s sacred, right? Everything’s divine law. So you can’t just choose this bit and not do the other bit if you’re a true believer. Anyone who’s not a Taliban-level religious wacko is a reformist then.
    Then of course the Taliban and their ilk worldwide also don’t adhere to their respective holy books very well, so everyone’s a sinner.

    P.S. Forgive this rather disjointed post but I can’t bother rearranging it.

    • Pretty sure that “all things” does actually mean “all things”, otherwise the text would have read “almost all things”, or “all things except for butt sex”. The man represents Christ (and thus god) in the family, therefore a woman who refuses the obviously right and reasonable demands of her husband in standing is defiance of the divine. To NOT have butt sex in such a circumstance would be a sin.

      BTW, Judaism only looks more normal to you because you’re used to it. Trust me when I tell you it’s just as batshit crazy as the rest. Any group of people who have had as much boiling feces poured down their throats as the Jews have and can still consider themselves “god’s favored tribe” are definitely NOT seeing the same world the rest of us are.

      • So if he tells his woman to murder, steal and do just about everything else against the other rules then he’s OK(she’s gonna be stoned and burned, of course)? You’re deliberately twisting things around and exaggerating to make a funny point. There’s a prohibition against masturbation, and by extension everything but sex that leads to procreation is forbidden. You might argue that this still allows you to fool around during “foreplay” but only ejaculate in her vagina, but that’s not the spirit of the law(not to mention the puritanical look at sex which makes it more of a necessary tool for procreation), again, you’re twisting it around for a joke, and it might be worse if you actually believe it yourself.
        Even the laws about not having sex when the woman has her period is probably half about this(since she’s not likely to conceive with the eggs she’s in the process of dumping) and half about the “impurity” stuff(which always looks suspiciously hygiene-related).
        There’s so much stuff to make fun of, even in context, so when you’re forcing this kind of non-existent meaning for your amusement it just annoys me.

        Judaism is full of bullshit(the “God’s favored” bit has always been more of a “sure you are God’s favored, but look at all those sins you’re committing, now pay up through years of suffering!” ever since the first bad thing happened to the Israelites, at least as far back as after the exodus, so that’s a mute point), but Christianity took all that and has been steadily adding shit well after most people already heard about science. Just look at all those silly saints. Of course miracle-working saints, ancestors etc are a pan-human plague affecting every kind of mythology, but the thing is that Christianity has kept on doing this shit in its main office at the heart of modernization-leading Europe, not in some backwater tribe that’s never seen metal tools. It’s just so silly.

        • It’s a moot point. Mute means you can’t speak. Everybody mixes those up.

          The way the system is set up, the man would NEVER ask the woman to murder, or masturbate, or anything other than what he is lawfully and religiously compelled to ask for because to do otherwise would be WRONG. As the representative of Christ in the home, he could not do so. Which is obviously where the system breaks down, because let’s face it, if you have a woman who is obligated on pain of eternal damnation to obey your every whim, who ISN’T going to abuse the privilege?

          I wasn’t JUST making up shit to be funny, but also to point out how stupid and easily subverted the system is. That would be Parody. It’s a thing. Look it up.

          I am not getting into a pissing contest over who’s dumbass, made-up religion is the most stupid. I think they’re ALL winners there.

          • Yeah, my mess-up with moot and mute, though I suspected something was wrong because I was reading it as “m-iu-t” and not “m-u-t”. Just too lazy to check. 🙁
            I don’t really have much to say regarding theology now that I understand you’re talking about Christian theology which I don’t know much about.

            My point as to which religion is dumbest is mostly about how old it is/how advanced the civilization creating it was. The closer to modern times you get that a religion/sect was established the sillier it is in my eyes since “they should have known better” could be more easily applied, not to mention copycat-ing religions gives you a big boost on the silly-o-meter. That’s why the silliness grows from Judaism to Christianity and then to Islam, all the way up to $cientology(which has so many such “contributing” factors it’s over 9000 on my scale, and it only ever went up to 11 anyway).

            • Well it could be worse…you could have said “Decimate” (To reduce by 1/10th) when you meant “Devestate” or “Nucular” instead of “Nuclear”…

        • This reminds me of a joke-don’t worry, it’s not offensive. A rabbi was deep and prayer, and he murmured, “God, after all these millenia, you have still blessed and favored us above all others. Through slavery, the exodus, through the Holocaust and every other disaster that has befallen my people, You have watched over and protected us. I just have one small favor to ask: isn’t it time to let someone else be the favored yet?”

  7. Wow…Deuteronimy 22:5 is a trip…so Cross dressing is actually a SIN? Tsk…and here the church was promoting sin in Europe in the middle ages by forbidding women to be actors and thus forcing men to wear women’s clothing! Who Knew!

    • I saw a funny quote while I was researching. The basic idea was that the observer found it amusing that in the two most repressive institutions towards women in the nation, the church and the courts of law, it was the men who wore the dresses.

      • The men were probably just jealous of all the pretty dresses women got to wear.
        Also, it is a lot more comfy for a guy to wear a dress than f.i trousers.
        The junk gets to swing free. :mrgreen:

        • Which is why I’ve begun to abandon briefs and use boxers instead. Now go wash your eyes with bleach.
          Or if you don’t, call me. 😉

          • Well you could always move to Scotland, where the men wear skirts…Er…I mean “Kilts” of course…and no underwear.

              • Mel’s awesome and tells it the way it really was, not like those pinko liberals would have you believe. And he’s not afraid to stand against the Jewish-controlled media and show the world how the evil Jews murdered poor Jesus. Evil Jews.

                Mad Max 1&2 are still awesome though(and there were only two of them and we’ll leave it at that), but I never cared much for Lethal Weapon.

            • I’m quite fond of underwear, just make them roomy underwear. I don’t care how recently and how thoroughly you’ve cleaned your bum, I don’t want to sit on a bench where a few hundred hairy, sweaty asses have sat before me with nothing between them and the seat.
              Also, it’d be mighty unpleasant in the winter. 😯

  8. Moving on to the second section;

    “The Tea Party is dominated by what many look at as religious extremists”

    Really? Who is this “many” you refer to, other than Democrats (Who seem to consider anyone who puts up nonsecular Chrsitmas Decorations as a “Religious Extrimist?” and that it’s the height of politeness to refer to someone who disagrees with you politically as a “Tea bagger”) I wasn’t aware that California and Alaska were a hotbeds of religious extremism…there were quite a few (unreported) Tea party candidates around here.

    Tsk…now you’ve gone and made me start into that dang political mindset again…I FEEL LIKE I’M TAKING CRAZY PILLS! – Well…more than usual anyway.

  9. Well, I think this entire discussion shows how ridiculous the idea of “biblical literalism is. That said, “forcible” was dropped from the legislation, Kevin. So it’s one small victory for sanity.

    • You know, I’m perfectly fine with funding abortions for pregnancies due to rape, incest, fetal abnormalities, and mothers health issues. From all the data I’ve found on the net, that comes to about 5% of the total abortions performed in the U.S. annually. My question is, why should we fund any of the rest?

      • Because lefties think you should? (Just a guess, based on their past arguments)

        Seriously. Abortion should be an “in extremis” thing, not a procedure of convenience. If you really don’t want the baby, I hear there’s this thing called “putting it up for adoption” where you don’t have to raise the kid, and the kid gets to live, and a family that maybe can’t HAVE kids get to raise one…everyone wins!

        • Yeah…I’m a bit left of center…but I don’t believe abortion should be used as a form of birth control. Ethical issues aside, it’s pretty expensive and can cause some physical side effects that can be evaded if one uses the more standard forms.

          • For me it’s hard to pick a side. On the one hand it gets rid of a lot of unwanted babies, so it’s a definitive plus(also, this is not a joke), and I bet a lot, if not most, of these abortions are from women who either can’t support said babies due to financial problems and/or being too young/irresponsible to take proper care of them.
            Now these women are spiraling downward into poverty taking their hellspawns with them and probably creating even more idiots like them with later generations.
            It’s kinda like treating junkies and trying to rehabilitate them. Sure, it costs a lot of money, but supposedly(at least that’s what I understand the justification is, since pure altruism on the part of society/government looks suspicious) it’s still better off for the economy. Personally, I doubt that and would prefer such “eternal” junkies(or anyone who looks to be too into it) be shot and disposed of. Much cleaner, faster and better for everyone involved. Everyone that matters, of course, and junkies don’t(also also, this wasn’t a joke either).

    • The best response to “Biblical literalism” is to compare the sequence of creation as detailed in Genesis ! with that in Genesis 2.Remember they are both literal truth!

      • Now that’s just silly. Clearly, God is substituting “Days” for “Aeons”, and set up Evolution as his Creation Mechanism, so he wouldn’t have to manually think of every single species in existance…he set up the rules and just let things develop.

        Always remember, God has a sense of humor. Don’t believe me? Look at a duck-billed platypus.

        • That’s an old, old joke. Platypodes(apparently that’s the correct plural) seem to get through life just fine and are very well suited for their environment. You might as well mock an elephant it’s huge ears and long trunk, or a giraffe its awkwardly long neck.
          I think conjoined twins and the other host of serious defects and problems people can be born with is a much funnier and more obvious joke. Clearly God is a sadist.

  10. Seclusion for two weeks might not be a bad thing. It might be the only time in her life she does not have to cook, clean milk cows, harvest after giving birth. This is the start of the two week vacation.