You should blog THE webisodes. You know the ones.

No fair thinking that what someone* has said in the past has any bearing on what they think now!

You have to present the new situation to them, let them make something completely new up, then either write it down or let them say it on air without interruption or contradiction. I watch cable news, so I know this.

* A conservative, that is.

“Guess what? Wives aren’t asked to submit to anyone else’s husband! Just their own!”

Oh, yeah! That makes me feel a lot better! I mean, that’s TOTALLY different from how patriarchal oppression currently functions in our society.

I mean, see, I mean, what I mean to say is, what a PRICK.

Warren - he’s just so easy.

Well the Apostle Paul didn’t really want anyone marrying anyway, thinking the best option was pure abstinence. But marriage was the least bad alternative if you were going to be a hussy.

Yeah, it’s another version of “But, but, but…..who’s the man?”

Well the Apostle Paul didn’t really want anyone marrying anyway, thinking the best option was pure abstinence. But marriage was the least bad alternative if you were going to be a hussy.

I love the image of a frustrated Paul, throwing up his hands in defeat and going, “If you MUST fuck, here’s the only condition where in god will allow you to fuck. And don’t enjoy it! It’s for babies.”

I wonder how Rick would’ve described slavery: “It’s not that negros have to obey ALL white people, just their masters.”

I see a slight - very slight - silver lining to all of this.  It’s not a good thing in itself, of course, and I’m certainly not happy, but here’s the thing: we knew when we elected Obama that he was center-left.  Which is far better than the hard right that’s been running this country for so long, but in this country the “center” is still too far to the right.  We also knew that gay rights was his weakest point.  In other words, we knew that we were going to have to watch him like hawks. 

With that in mind, it’s good that he learns now, in his honeymoon period when he thought he was untouchable (and before his decisions have any power over people’s lives), that he faces an absolute shit-storm if he tries to build his bipartisan appeal by selling out gay’s rights and women’s reproductive rights.  If he learns to fear for his re-election chances every time he compromises on those, even in a symbolic matter like this, we might avoid another Bill Clinton.

Why do people care what Paul had to say about anything? He wasn’t God, or Jesus. He was a human…with issues. LOTS of issues.
And really, the whole idea of being in a relationship where one person is in charge of the other is kinda creepy. If I was of the heterosexual persuasion, I’m not sure I’d want the kind of marriage these wackamoles endorse, where I’m the “head” of the woman. It makes me think of some kind of Master/Slave thing. Ick.

You should blog THE webisodes. You know the ones.

Amanda,

If you do this, please provide spoiler warnings and place any Season 3 and 4 reveals after the jump (I know we don’t have to worry about your being so gauche as to put a reveal in a post’s title). I’m wrapping up season 4, and I’m wouldn’t be surprised if there are still people here working their way through 3.

On-topic: I think we now have plenty of questions to pose to Obama’s team regarding the specifics of his points of disagreement with Warren. Please send those e-mails, so we can get a statement from the Obama camp that will make his inauguration stage ideologically toxic for the likes of Warren.

Yeah, cuts on bsg posts would be great.  It seems to be the one show ever that 1, I have watched roughly, but not quite at the same time as the rest of the world, and 2,  the one show no one can seem to remember to use a damn spoiler warning for.

In a sanctified Chr*stian BDSM relationship, any part of the relationship of any gender can be the submissive, so stop pushing and get in line, would ya?

This whole thing is irritating.  I’m tired of being expected to tolerate people that would not tolerate me based on what I am.  I know that anti-choice initiatives went down in flames this election while anti-homosexual initiatives won, and that is why Warren’s anti-GLBT remarks are getting more press than his anti-woman opposition of reproductive freedom.

But where are the posts today about Bush’s outgoing regulation that could make it a federal regulation that pharmacies can deny to fill birth control prescriptions for “moral” reasons?  I saw posts in the past, but for some reason, they talked about it on NPR today, and being a straight woman on bc, the thought of this added hassle to my life isn’t very exciting.  I don’t know what more can be said about anti-woman intiatives like the new regulation, called a “clarification”, but I hope that the new government makes it a priority to take it away.  I might have a few facts wrong in my description, still, the silence on this issue was odd.

Rick makes the same mistake that most evangelicals do: reading Paul thoughtfully leads to the conclusion he’s pretty darned egalitarian.  For example, Ephesians 5:21 is the controlling purpose for what follows—regardless of how the NIV chooses to break up the chapter. (I’ve blogged about this a billion times, and the Christians for Biblical Equality nail this on their site.)  Paul advocates mutual submission, just as he clearly advocates radical equality in 1 Corinthians 7:4.  The proof-texting the right does to turn what was a revolutionary and egalitarian movement into a vehicle for defending misogynistic tradition is a heartbreakingly familiar tactic.

“Wives aren’t asked to submit to anyone else’s husband! Just their own!”

Wow! ! !  That’s great news! !!

I’m tired of being expected to tolerate people that would not tolerate me based on what I am.

Nitpick time:  you *do* tolerate them.  I mean, I assume you don’t want to pass a law making them illegal.  You don’t agree with them, which is your right. 

They won’t tolerate you but insist you agree with AND tolerate them.  Which is a crappy deal.

Yes, Pat, thank you for that clarification

I found this quote on matociquala’s blog on livejournal, and immediately appropriated despite its lack of provenance.

“After much consideration, I have decided to tolerate only those religions that do not name me an abomination before a nebulous God and call for my destruction.”

“After much consideration, I have decided to tolerate only those religions that do not name me an abomination before a nebulous God and call for my destruction.”

Waah!  Waah!  that is so intolerant!

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands.” Guess what? Wives aren’t asked to submit to anyone else’s husband! Just their own!

Clearly he’s never been to that one Christian web site. You know the one I mean; based out of Arizona.

If this was the Nazi era and I was of Jewish descent and a president elect chose a vocal anti Jewish Nazi sympathizer to participate in his inaguration; how should I feel. Obama’s lack of sensitivity and outright pandering with overtures to conservative extremists only says to the gay community that Obama tolerates their claims of equating gay men and women with pedofiles and gay marriage rights as a slippery slope to beastiality. Quiet desperation, stunned into a rage of betrayal is how the gay community finds itself. First Obama’s betrayal on FISA, then his Pelosi/Reid like capitulation to Lieberman coupled with his continuation of obvious right of center choices for his cabinet and the choice of this bigot homophobe to participate in his inaguration; only demonstrates what many in the gay community feared all along, Obama is showing his true Christian Black Homophobe roots.
This president is not a friend of the gay community. His selection of Rick Warren is tantamount to condoning racism.

Inolerance of intolerance is so intolerant!  Why do you have to be so bigoted towards bigots?  They have rights too!  Just because they want to make sure you don’t have all the same rights is no reason to try to marginalize their opinions!

See…  tolerance (a positive) times intolerance (a negative) equals a negative.  Tolerating bigots is not tolerance.  It’s approval of bigotry.

Submission does not mean women are under the authority of men in general. I love the King James Version’s rendition of Ephesians 5:22 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands.” Guess what? Wives aren’t asked to submit to anyone else’s husband! Just their own!

What jumps out at me when I read this, is the tone. It’s an odd sort of ‘cutesy’ tone, as if Warren were trying to twit those silly feminists. But if you read what he’s actually saying, it’s surprisingly vapid. So he just comes off as an ass, trying to be funny and sound ‘cute’.

Well I’m glad he cleared that up, because trying to obey all men all the time was getting kind of confusing!

trying to obey all men all the time was getting kind of confusing!

Seriously. Even if you try to do Jonah Goldberg one day and Richard Dawkins the next, it just gets tiring.

Am I the only one who, upon hearing about this (among other disappointments), had a sense that the Left, the netroots. the LGBT community, all those people who got Obama elected, were just maybe going to have a relationship with this administration like the one the fundies had with the Republicans? Where they depend on our help getting elected and thereafter shine us on?

Interesting insight on Rick’s theology: he’s choosing the Biblical interpretation he likes based on what best fits his preconceptions.  Yeah, that’s devotion to the unchanging Word of God all right.

Tell you what, if Rick gets to do that, can I use the Greek New Testament where Paul says Jesus only became the “Son of God” because God chose to resurrect him?  Thus, Jesus is no more divine than say, Amanda.

Is this like how Bible is “against” slavery? Slaves are only asked to submit to their own owners, not other people…

But the fundies don’t feel like they got what they want. They want the theocracy imposed, like, yesterday.

But they did get a lot of symbolic gestures along with some real stuff.

What’s weird here is I think we all know we’re not going to get everything we want on policy matters, but we’re also not getting the symbolic gestures, which makes us even more concerned about the policy stuff.

Why is this passage so hard to take ?  Did your daddy leave when u were little, so you hate men and marriage ?  I submit to my wife, so what ?  That’s how relationships work.  So, don’t get married, please don’t have kids….we don’t need your genes being passed down to a new generation of malcontents.  How is your hate different that those you criticize ?

h0tr0d…I doubt you “submit” to your wife in the way that Warren and Dobson want us women to “submit” to our husbands. I suspect what we have here is a failure to communicate what the dog whistles really mean.

Unless you mean to suggest that if your wife regularly physically abused you, you would just put up with it and hide the bruises and accept it in a spirit of submissive humility? Because Dobson wants just that, and says that women ‘make’ their husbands hit them in order to get sympathy and an (inappropriate) get-out-of-marriage-free card.

How could you think that is what he wants ?  I thought we were talking about Warren, who I am no fan of, but I think you are taking the biblical statement of women submitting to their husband to an indefensible extreme.  I submit to my wife by doing things that I don’t necessarily want to do but I do because she wants me to, or to make her happy.  Extrapolating that to domestic violence makes you as radical as Dobson.

But the fundies don’t feel like they got what they want. They want the theocracy imposed, like, yesterday.

I think they do know how good they have things. I think they’re just very good at being uncompromising, unsatisfiable assholes.

h0tr0d, *I* am not taking the biblical statement of women submitting to their husband to an indefensible extreme - Warren and Dobson have done so. Their own writings make these statements. I am quoting Dobson when I say that he defends wife-beaters and I am quoting Warren when I say that he agrees with Dobson.

If you are unaware of the writings of these men on this issue, it seems poor form for you to show up and portray a smug asshole fighting against the bitchy women whose genes we’d all be better off without, which was the gist of your first post.

Foul language does not make you look any smarter.  This post was about Rick Warren, not Pat Dobson, although it’s clear why you are trying to conflate the two.  Is there a link you can send me that would educate me on Rick Warren’s support of wife beating ?  Your description of yourself as a bitchy woman is interesting, as I never used that language.  Apparently wild exaggeration is encourage here ?

Way to misunderstand, h0tr0d… Ellen is simply pointing out that the ‘extreme’ statements come from Warren and Dobson, not from her. If you don’t like the statements, then you know from that you don’t like Warren and Dobson. Don’t shoot the messenger.

h0tr0d, I don’t wrestle with pigs.

Everything I’ve said about Dobson and Warren is plain fact. If you can’t be bothered to buy and read their writings, I can’t blame you, but don’t think you know more than the people who have actually slogged through their shit. I’ve owned and read most of Dobson’s books, and Warren has stated regularly that there is no difference between him and Dobson on these and other matters.

You statement that we “hate men and marriage” is, I believe, shorthand for “bitch”, by the way.

OI…where to begin

To atheist:  If your not following along…I am challenging Ellen on her statement that Warren is on record as being in support of wife beating.

To Ellen: Plain fact is apparently whatever is blogged in the feminist echo chamber.  The only thing Warren is on record for domestic violence is that woman should forgive their husband but not take them back.  Just in case your not familiar with Christianity, forgiveness is a basic tenet.

About your definition of bitch…..of course you see it that way.  My original post was not even directed at you, but apparently you internalized it immediately.  Should I derive that your daddy ran out on you too…or more likely mom kicked him out?

Foul language does not make you look any smarter. 

h0tr0d, how old are you?

h0tr0d

From reading your comments, it seems to me that you are intentionally misconstruing the passage which was highlighted, and the other commenters reasons for opposing it. You are taking the statement by Warren in a way that he clearly does not mean it, and attacking the other commenters for perceived meanings which they did not intend either. This kind of pretense is very tiresome in a conversation, as well as being very unconvincing to intelligent people. In addition, your tone is nasty, and you are making insulting allegations about the lives of people you have never met.

You should moderate your tone, stop making personal attacks, and start to engage with the material in a more honest way. Otherwise, I think you will find that you’ll get little or nothing out of this blogging community.

atheist, i suggest you hold up a mirror to your face.  As an example….you might enlighten me on what is “clearly” meant by what Warren said.  And how you and this group mind think are the only ones that can interpret the “clear” meaning ?  It is only clear to you based on your preconceived notions about the man and your own politics.

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands.”

Warren isn’t talking about mutual give-and-take within a marriage or relationship, as you were suggesting. Warren is talking about the necessity that women submit to their husbands. The power dynamic needs to go one way and one way only, in other words.

Why is this passage so hard to take ?  Did your daddy leave when u were little, so you hate men and marriage ?  I submit to my wife, so what ?  That’s how relationships work.  So, don’t get married, please don’t have kids….we don’t need your genes being passed down to a new generation of malcontents.  How is your hate different that those you criticize ?

If you don’t see how the bolded language is over-the-top nasty, then you must be really stupid.

He is quoting from the bible.  If you don’t know that, you must really be stupid.

“Clearly, the only solution is to avoid getting married altogether, at least to a man. Then you don’t have to submit to any husbands whatsoever, yours or anyone else’s”

This is what was posted by Amanda.  This was over the top and nasty to me.  This is who I was directing my post at…...  Just in case you have trouble following along.