Carrie Prejean, some might remember, is the California beauty queen who gained instant ignominy in some circles by agreeing with President Obama's ridiculous notion that marriage is a union between one man and one woman....The story is well-told at the link. Go there. I'll just highlight this:
[T]he high-powered, celebrity website TMZ claimed to have a sex video of the beautiful Prejean that was so outrageously explicit it hasn't posted it yet. But people can feel free to keep clicking back there every few minutes to check.It's all about the page views...
Prejean replied -- insert teasing pause here -- yes, there was a tape she had done as a teenager. She made it for a distant boyfriend whom she loved at the time. She said TMZ can call it a "sex tape" if it wants. But she was alone on the video and no one else was in the room.Teenager? Is TMZ threatening to post child pornography? In any case, what is it? Embarrassing topless nonsense?
Prejean said it was the "biggest mistake" she'd ever made in her not-yet-lengthy life. She regretted it. She felt mortified talking about it, but it was her own fault. And that as a Christian she'd never claimed to be perfect.You know, what is even imperfect here? I don't see anything unChristian about displaying your breasts to a boyfriend that you love. It's just foolish to allow photographs to come into being. But it's not unChristian to be foolish. (Saint Paul said: "We are fools for Christ.")
Now, trying to destroy the young woman over political disagreement and tormenting her by threatening to invade the intimate space between her and her lost young love... I'll hazard to guess: That's not Christian.
But TMZ — I don't read it much, but, again, I'll guess — does not itself parade as Christian. Prejean does, and so she will be held to the high standards of Christianity, while TMZ can say and do whatever it wants. ("When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly. ")
TMZ is following Rule 4 of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals":
Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.That's true. It's difficult as hell to live up to the standards of Christianity. But if the issue is living up to Christianity, let's talk about what Christianity really is. I'll start: It's not about teenage girls showing their breasts to their boyfriends.
Posts
348 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 348 of 348Why should anyone who is offended as Prejean is savaged by gay activists and their consorts care about this tape? Does her conduct make your intolerance and incivility less reprehensible?
What "intolerance?" I think it's fine that the Christian Prejean masturbated on video. The more the better! What "incivility?" Just calling things by their real names.
Christians are such babies. As soon as someone steps up and tells the truth about their, they call it intolerance and hate.
Not being a Wiccan, I don't spend a lot of time telling them what they're supposed to believe.
Not being a Muslim, I don't spend a lot of time telling them what they're supposed to believe.
Not being Zoroastrian, I don't spend a lot of time telling them what they're supposed to believe.
What is it about Christianity that causes a bunch of people who don't want to join the club to think they should dictate the rules?
Here is more of the true spirit of Christianity on display.
What is it about Christianity that causes a bunch of people who don't want to join the club to think they should dictate the rules?
If Christians would quit trying to dictate the lives of everyone else, no one would particularly care about their superstitious cult.
grinder wrote: During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. James Madison
The problem with relying on Richard Dawkins for your anti-Christian propaganda is that it makes you look as ignorant as he is. (Yes, I've read him too.)
It has not been my experience that lefties are interested in facts, so I won't suggest that you read the Madison quote in context. However, rereading the quote itself should help you to understand that Madison was not denigrating the Christian faith. I have bolded the operative portion of the quote in the hope that even you can see why.
PS Dawkins also quotes John Adams, a devout Christian, out of context, but what's a little disingenuousness among moral relativists, eh?
Hey Grinder...You just need to meet a better class of Christians. All sex in marriage is good, acceptible and perfect and the marriage makes it safer. I have also known Gay couples with a monogamous relationship for life. So just hire a lawyer and make your "union" safer, and quit whining about being a victim of Christians out to get you. If man/woman marriage makes children's lives safer and all Gays start as children too, then why not favor man/woman marriage, and do your own thing without wanting an end to that relationship favored as marriage?
"Moral relativists." Ha! That's rich, given that Christian extremists blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, shoot doctors who provide abortions, are are more likely than anyone else to support torture, and have the nation's highest divorce rates in spite of ol' Jesus H's specific and strong preaching against it.
Let's face it, your Christianity is a bloody mess. You spend your time making rules that you can't live up to yourselves, and devising excuses for your nastiness. Christians are forever looking outward for enemies as a means of distracting themselves from their own barren, twisted souls.
"Dark Eden is a guy. I have the jumbly bits and everything."
Oops.
My apologies.
(Revises mental picture.)
Dark Eden beat me to it, but I had the same sort of response lined up for re. the Enlightenment.
"Moral relativists." Ha! That's rich, given that Christian extremists blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, shoot doctors who provide abortions, are are more likely than anyone else to support torture, and have the nation's highest divorce rates in spite of ol' Jesus H's specific and strong preaching against it.
Let's face it, your Christianity is a bloody mess. You spend your time making rules that you can't live up to yourselves, and devising excuses for your nastiness. Christians are forever looking outward for enemies as a means of distracting themselves from their own barren, twisted souls.
>>>
Christians kicked my dog too.
If man/woman marriage makes children's lives safer and all Gays start as children too, then why not favor man/woman marriage, and do your own thing without wanting an end to that relationship favored as marriage?
Who wants an end of marriage?
Why are Christians such smooth liars and remorseless criminals? Answer: They know they are "saved," and therefore they can do anything they feel like doing on this earth.
Neat trick!
If Christians would quit trying to dictate the lives of everyone else, no one would particularly care about their superstitious cult.
What Christian is doing that, Grinder? And how are they dictating how you live your life?
We live in a Democracy. Everybody in this country has at least a little say in how others live their lives. Last I checked, Christians were primarily aligned with those who want to dictate our lifestyles the least.
Again... mirrors.
The *anger* here isn't coming from Christians. The insistence that the "other side" are haters, is not coming from Christians.
And while we can wish that Ms. Prejean was a little bit smarter and a whole lot more sensible, defending against those who want to destroy her because she doesn't hold the correct opinions doesn't give the luxury of picking someone more worthy.
Even foolish people deserve to have the right to their own opinions and the right to voice those opinions. The Constitution doesn't require either an IQ check, a hypocrisy check, or a religious test.
Last I checked, Christians were primarily aligned with those who want to dictate our lifestyles the least.
Christians are more likely than any other voting group to approve of the use of torture. Christians have been behind all of the political movements aimed at stripping homosexuals of their civil rights. Christians are shooting abortion doctors, and they are trying to outlaw the procedure. Christians even try to restrict the availability of contraception.
Christians are an organized hate group.
Oh, and Christian terrorists committed the most devastating act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history. Your hatred and violence knows no bounds.
Oh, and Christian terrorists committed the most devastating act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history. Your hatred and violence knows no bounds.
What do you call 9/11/01, idiot?
I take back my virtual high-five, you suck!
grinder wrote: What "intolerance?" I think it's fine that the Christian Prejean masturbated on video.
It is noble of you to try to pick up the pieces for Alex. Unfortunately, you seem to have missed the point as well, which is the way Prejean has been villified by you folks.
Prejean's conduct is not at issue unless she decides to marry a woman. Moreover, I suspect everyone here, Christian or not, is clear that you are neither competent nor fit to assess her faith.
But carry on. No need to be discouraged by your irrelevance.
Grinder wrote:
"You do realize that slavery, as an institution that honors the proper hierarchy of human beings, has been around for thousands of years, right? And that the abolitionist challenges have only taken place in the last few decades or so?"
Slavery and gay marriage are not equivalent. But, at any rate,
the point was not to say that because people justified it a thousand years ago, that therefore it's automatically justified today, but rather, when the institution was implemented, it was not created out of anti gay animus but because it served (and still serves) an important societal function that was (and is) valid and relavant as it stands, and therefore there are many people who still revere said institution who similarly do not reject gay marriage because they hate fags.
I'm sure that some people do hate fags, but is it inconceivable to proponents of gay marriage that there are people who value marriage as it stands because of the function in society as it stands? And that some people may not agree with the logic of expanding the definition of marriage to include things it doesn't currently because they simply don't buy the argument presented by the advocates of radical change.
Alex, the 9/11 attacks were foreign terrorism. Domestic terrorism is terror acts committed by Americans. The most devastating act of domestic terrorism was the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma by Timothy McVeigh, a Christian radical.
grinder - you are parsing language. 9/11 was an attack that took place on our soil. It wasn't a foreign missile launched from outside of America. The simple fact is you lefties just keep citing that one act of domestic terrorism as somehow relevant to 2010. What about ELF? More lefty terrorists.
The most nicely ironic thing about leftists, as amply illustrated by such as zlex and grinder, is how they are so hypocritical about hypocrisy, objecting to it only in others.
the point was not to say that because people justified it a thousand years ago, that therefore it's automatically justified today, but rather, when the institution was implemented, it was not created out of anti gay animus but because it served (and still serves) an important societal function that was (and is) valid and relavant as it stands, and therefore there are many people who still revere said institution who similarly do not reject gay marriage because they hate fags.
I'm sure that some people do hate fags, but is it inconceivable to proponents of gay marriage that there are people who value marriage as it stands because of the function in society as it stands? And that some people may not agree with the logic of expanding the definition of marriage to include things it doesn't currently because they simply don't buy the argument presented by the advocates of radical change.
No supporter of gay marriage is trying to keep anyone from being married. The only ones trying to do that are the hateful Christians, who despise homosexuals -- actually, homosexual men -- and deeply resent them for having lasting relationships.
As for the comparison between marriage and slavery, they are not the same thing. But they are both rooted in longstanding tradition. Abolitionists wanted to end slavery, and because slavery was endorsed in the Bible the Southern Baptists split off.
In the case of gay marriage, no one is trying to end anything. It is entirely a matter of inclusion of same-sex couples in a legal framework, and nothing else. Yet Christians are so consumed by their hate, and their desire to dictate how other people live, that just as in times gone by they cannot deal rationally with the subject.
Alex, you are wrapped around a tree about semantics. I used the term "domestic terrorism" to denote terrorism committed by Americans. You don't like that label. I'm not married to it; the label just seemed good to me as I was writing. My point is that a Christian radical committed the most devastating terrorist attack ever committed in America by an American.
I do not minimize the 9/11 attacks. I personally knew some of the victims, and was as shocked and horrified and angered as anyone else. Nor am I any supporter of, or minimizer of, other acts of terror including those by the ELF/ALF.
That much said, I think that when it comes to homegrown terrorism (how's that for a label, Alex?), the Christian right wing is far more of a threat than the left wing.
grinder is evidently one of Richard Dawkin's "New Atheist" trolls. Dawkin's The God Delusion encouraged his atheist idolators to become more contentious and, in his image, less civil.
Obviously, he couldn't make them smarter.
For the record, I've never read Dawkins's book. I'm familiar with him only as a mass media figure. To the extent that I've heard of him I approve of him, just as I tend to approve of atheists in general. But when it comes to anything specific, I don't know, and deeper familiarity could cause me to change my view.
That's the difference between me and the typical wingnut Christian. You are convinced of yourselves. Because you are "saved," you feel no need to follow the rules you lay out for others. Hypocrisy is thus inextricably embedded in the fabric of Christianity, as is hatred for anyone not sharing your superstitions.
"What's the slogan? "We're not as cruel as the other guys?""
When personalized it becomes, "See! See! He's worse than me!"
My point is that a Christian radical committed the most devastating terrorist attack ever committed in America by an American.
Wow! Sam Harris too!
And atheist dictators murdered 100 million in the twentieth century. So atheists are a horrible bunch, right? I mean we're talking a quantum leap of scales in terms of horribleness, right?
grinder, let me recommend Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The use of Reason and Logic In Everyday Life, by Kahane and Cavender. You will find it tough going, but stick with it. It has pictures.
And atheist dictators murdered 100 million in the twentieth century.
Hitler's party was elected in an overwhelmingly Christian country, and was backed and installed by Christian leaders. Sorry, Christians, Adolf Hitler is yours. You gave him to us. Roughly half of you were Lutherans, and the other half Catholics. Together, you turned on the 2% who were Jews and exterminated most of them.
Christians are certainly not the only mass killers, but they do love to try to wriggle off the hook for what they did do.
"Abolitionists wanted to end slavery, and because slavery was endorsed in the Bible the Southern Baptists split off."
Abolitionists were, almost to a person, Christians working from an *explicitly* Christian perspective. They felt God abhorred the practice of slavery and it had to end.
Wow... terrible Christians trying to dictate to other people again. Will they never stop?
Pretty much every time Atheists have gotten power in a country one of their first acts is to suppress religion and begin rounding up and executing priests. See Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc etc.
Clearly this means the Atheist on your street corner is a dangerous wacko who wants to murder all Christians.
Troll logic is kind of fun!
To head it off at the pass: Yes, we know that Hitler ran into some trouble with the clergy once he was in power. But Hitler was only one man. He couldn't have operated without widespread, deep loyalty and support. The good Christians of Germany, and collaborators elsewhere, did this.
The protestations of innocence by today's Christians would be hilarious in most circumstances, and in fact deserve to be viciously satirized. But I'm not much of a satirist, so instead I will do what I do best and point the finger at one more Christian lie.
"Troll logic is kind of fun!"
Yes, it is.
But I'm thinking that EverQuest2 might be more fun just now.
Keep on being enlightened and tolerant, grinder! What would you do without enemies?
As for Stalin, he was obviously a communist and communism is officially atheistic, but Russia is a deeply Christian country and it was the Christians who enabled and carried out Stalin's orders. Once again, the Christians wriggle off the hook. You people couldn't tell the truth if your lives depended on it.
We don't want Hitler.
You can have him back. There was a state church, but if you know anything about German theological history you'll know that the early 20th century was utterly consumed by Liberal theology--precisely the sort the Fundamentalists fought against here in the States. The conservatives--Bonhoeffer, Barth, etc. were quite against the Nazis. The dominant cultural trend in Germany was humanism. In other words, post WWI Germany didn't have a hope that would come from Christian perspective. The Nazis did use a cultural Christianity, however they increasingly substituted a religion of the Fatherland, with no little real interest in Christ. Indeed, there was a developing turn towards the Norse mythology. In other words, Hitler saw a stronger foundation in pagan ideals even as he utilized some Christian organization for his rise to power. Christianity was not going to give him the tools he needed for his ultimate philosophy.
It's also true that the United States, probably the most conservative Christian nation of the era, was the dominant player in fighting not only German but also Japanese aggression.
Abolitionists were, almost to a person, Christians working from an *explicitly* Christian perspective. They felt God abhorred the practice of slavery and it had to end.
Christians introduced slavery to the New World, and once industrialization took told and it became superfluous they invented some reasons to dump it. "Morality" was beside the point. The same Christians who were "freeing the slaves" were slaughtering the Indians.
Christianity has always been a matter of subjugation and extermination of "the other."
Yup, Paddy, when it comes to Christianity, your slogans are as follows:
"Hey, we're not as cruel as the Muslims!"
and
"We didn't do anything wrong! It's someone else's fault!"
You know who ended the Salem Witch Trials? Christians!
Didn't they initiate them as well?
As for Stalin, he was obviously a communist and communism is officially atheistic, but Russia is a deeply Christian country and it was the Christians who enabled and carried out Stalin's orders. Once again, the Christians wriggle off the hook. You people couldn't tell the truth if your lives depended on it.
>>>
So you're saying that Stalin suppressing the Christian Church in Russia is the fault of the Christian Church in Russia.
Just curious here... when you close your eyes at night do you see images of Christians coming to burn you at the stake? When you pass by a church do you cross the street lest you get christokooties on you?
Hmm checking Wikipedia for Timothy Mcveighs religious beliefs I found this:
Throughout his childhood, he and his father were Roman Catholics and often attended daily Mass. In a recorded interview with Time magazine[14] McVeigh professed his belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs." The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter to them claiming to be an agnostic.[15] McVeigh at one time said that he believed the universe was guided by natural law, energized by some universal higher power that showed each person right from wrong if they paid attention to what was going on inside them. He had also said, "Science is my religion.
That does not sound like a guy who is killing in the name of religion, unless you want to say he is killing for science or agnosticism. Sounds like Grinder is making stuff up out of whole cloth.
And abortion bombers? Seriously? How many abortion bombers have their been in the past 30 years?
Hey Christians, here's a novel idea: How about telling people what you are for? Give up the whole enemy thing.
Reality: It would never work. Without finding someone to hate, you people wouldn't have a single thing to do.
You know who ended the Salem Witch Trials? Christians!
Didn't they initiate them as well?
>>>
Well yes they absolutely did! I don't want to let Christians off the hook for the really vile and horrible things done in the name of Christ but I also don't want to lose sight of the fact that almost every Christian atrocity was stopped by other Christians who disagreed, not Atheists or Pagans or Agnostics or what have you.
Focusing solely on the negative gives a very warped and bigoted view of the religion that's all. And these days you hear all about Salem and the Crusades etc but never the good stuff.
Ha-hah! Althouse thinks that TMZ would publish this over a political disagreement! That's laughable! TMZ would publish any celebrity sleaze or scandal. Hint: That stuff sells.
Even if they were doing this for any reason having to do with Prejean personally, it would be because of her hypocrisy. The ROW (rest of the world) couldn't care less about this from a theological standpoint. What matters is that people who proclaim to uphold high "moral" (i.e. "biblical") standards or ideals often engage in the kind of fuzzy thinking that lends itself to hypocrisy.
You can make up your own theological dissertation on this all you want. But through the learned commentary of Danny Bonaduce this morning I discovered a detail that you seem way off on: She didn't just "bare" her breasts. She was masturbating on the tape.
I don't know how this changes or affects your wise and astute theological analysis. What it does do, however, is it sexualizes the image the public holds in its mind of someone who apparently thinks sex is a realm of life fraught with all sorts of tricky moral considerations - despite public disagreement with that person over whether it's any of her business to define what constitutes "sexual morality" (an absurd concept in itself) for others.
Grinder, in yet more of his collosal ignorance wrote the following:
Christians introduced slavery to the New World, and once industrialization took told and it became superfluous they invented some reasons to dump it. "Morality" was beside the point. The same Christians who were "freeing the slaves" were slaughtering the Indians.
Christianity has always been a matter of subjugation and extermination of "the other."
Here's another wikipedia article to add to your education about slavery in indian territory.
Ahem - "Slavery in Indian Territory has existed between Native American tribes since the beginning of existence. Native Americans would often exchange slaves as a form of payment or as gifts to other tribes. Most of these captives were prisoners of war who were condemned to either death or as lifelong servants. It is often credited to Christopher Columbus along with the discovery of the New World but what Columbus imposed on the Native Americans in the forms of slavery was simply the European system of slave labor."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Indian_Territory
So, Christians didn't "Bring the slave trade to the New World" nor did they bring the slave trade to the old world. If you look at the bible, the Israelites were slaves in Egypt and this was before there was a christianity. Slavery was not a Christian creation, slavery was a universal issue throughout much of history over the entire globe.
Congratulations, Althouse. You, too, have managed to capitalize on Prajean's embarassment by inviting all these responses to your bizarre post.
Get it right. Prajean is a manipulative young woman who met her match in an attorney who did his homework and discredited her.
And being the small minded bigot hat she is, she deserved it.
BSR - She was asked what she thought of gay marriage. She answered the question truthfully. And for this people like you want to destroy her as a hypocrite over everything like this. As if Christians are stuck in the 1800's in quaker garments and body covering swimsuits. The ones who come off as narrow minded and intolerant is you and your side.
Then again liberals like to make all sorts of tests you have to pass before you are allowed to disagree with them.
Wow, grinder, dude, are you trying to channel DTL here? -cuz you do a very good impression.
Take a chill pill or something.
grinder wrote: It would never work. Without finding someone to hate, you [Christians] wouldn't have a single thing to do.
It is evident from the posts that there is a hate-filled religionist commenting here -- and also several Christians.
I like the fact that Professor Althouse thought the most innocent explanation of the video was true.
It would be nice to see the person who leaked information to TMZ about the settlement be sanctioned by the court. Probably won't happen.
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/1562/grinderreminder.jpg
A picture dedicated to Grinder and the other Christ-o-phobes on here.
"BSR - She was asked what she thought of gay marriage. She answered the question truthfully. And for this people like you want to destroy her as a hypocrite over everything like this. As if Christians are stuck in the 1800's in quaker garments and body covering swimsuits. The ones who come off as narrow minded and intolerant is you and your side.
Then again liberals like to make all sorts of tests you have to pass before you are allowed to disagree with them."
I don't care about her career (hey! She even published a book for chrissakes! Good for her! Any idiot can write a book as a way to capitalize on their 15 minutes of fame in America!), or about her Christianity. I don't even care about her "truthful" views. She has a right to her view.
What she doesn't have a right to do is to pronounce on whether people she considers sexually immoral deviants have a right to sanctify and dedicate their own "truthful" love and then pretend that sex acts which she engages in, which seem sleazy when viewed on the videotape she "commemorated and dedicated" to her own lover, don't make her look hypocritical and worthy of the same stigma that she unwittingly (in her defense) contributes to forcing upon gays.
grinder said:
Here is more of the true spirit of Christianity on display.
And I suppose this is the true spirit of your cause?
Look in the mirror dude--you're fugly!
What she doesn't have a right to do is to pronounce on whether people she considers sexually immoral deviants have a right to sanctify and dedicate their own "truthful" love and then pretend that sex acts which she engages in, which seem sleazy when viewed on the videotape she "commemorated and dedicated" to her own lover, don't make her look hypocritical and worthy of the same stigma that she unwittingly (in her defense) contributes to forcing upon gays.
>>>
So when someone specifically asks her what she thinks of gay marriage, she's only allowed to be against it if she meets your criteria beforehand.
Can we get a URL for Leftist Disagreement Forms? We can fill out the paperwork and submit them to the Ministry of Truth and get our designated placards of Officially Allowed to Think For Myself that we can put on our foreheads?
Seriously if the answer was so controversial the question should never have been asked in the first place. But again the left likes to push this kind of intolerance in public. Parrot the Party Line or YOU WILL BE PUNISHED!
What she doesn't have a right to do is to pronounce...
I believe she a right to pronounce whatever she thinks and feels. If you don't like it-tough.
It's not like she's the President or anything with views like that.
The funny thing here is I am for gay marriage! But I am not so zealous about it that I want to DESTROY anyone for the simple act of disagreeing with me.
What she doesn't have a right to do is to pronounce on whether people she considers sexually immoral deviants have a right to sanctify and dedicate their own "truthful" love and then pretend that sex acts which she engages in, which seem sleazy when viewed on the videotape she "commemorated and dedicated" to her own lover, don't make her look hypocritical and worthy of the same stigma that she unwittingly (in her defense) contributes to forcing upon gays.
Actually, she has a right to say anything she wants to say, no matter how foolish, bigoted, and hypocritical. That isn't the issue. The issue is that the hyper-defensive Christians think that it's somehow off-limits for anyone to respond to this buffoon, and to cite facts (including pictures and videos, which are about as factual as it gets) that tend to impeach the Christian hypocrite's credibility.
Christians hate not only gays, but they hate freedom of speech too. They think their self-righteous crap somehow must be the last word, and never challenged by anyone.
@Blue Dog Stew: Hey welcome to blogger today.
Luv your initials!
LOL!
"So when someone specifically asks her what she thinks of gay marriage, she's only allowed to be against it if she meets your criteria beforehand."
Thank you very much. But both I and any "leftists" must refrain from taking any credit for devising the criteria for what constitute hypocrisy. It's much more universal and non-partisan than you seem to think. Assuming, of course, that you in fact are thinking.
"Can we get a URL for Leftist Disagreement Forms? We can fill out the paperwork and submit them to the Ministry of Truth and get our designated placards of Officially Allowed to Think For Myself that we can put on our foreheads?"
Ok. So I see we've established that you think this is a political thing. But it's obviously not. It's a hypocrisy thing. Do I get to join a political party and then not have the standards of what constitutes hypocrisy apply to me? Gee, wouldn't that be swell!
It would also make for a pretty uncompetitive and corrupt political party. But that's your problem.
"Seriously if the answer was so controversial the question should never have been asked in the first place. But again the left likes to push this kind of intolerance in public. Parrot the Party Line or YOU WILL BE PUNISHED!"
The court of public opinion has found Prejean guilty of dying by the same sword that she lives by and that the rest of the public is increasingly uncomfortable living by. She dwells in the limelight of her 15 minutes of fame and just as they were ending, the ubiquitous scandalous portion was thrown in for good measure. Guess what? If she had anything substantive to offer, this wouldn't just be coup de grace. She could actually, you know, become relevant to something other than beauty contests and celebrity TV shows. But she doesn't and now this is how her final exit from the stage of the celebrity culture that conservatives have come to love so much (after years of blasting it for the handy purpose of political grandstanding) will be remembered. Oh well.
I guess next time you'll have to pick a more intriguing and less unoriginal martyr to celebrify. But you won't, of course.
The funny thing here is I am for gay marriage! But I am not so zealous about it that I want to DESTROY anyone for the simple act of disagreeing with me.
No one has "destroyed" Carrie Prejean, except possibly Carrie Prejean herself, and the Christians who decided to make her their spokesmodel because she's hot.
I mean, did someone force her to take the pics and make the video? If that had been the case, then I'd be on her side. See, unlike the Christians who favor torture up to and including rape (including, interestingly enough, homosexual rape), I wouldn't ever condone using forced pics and videos. Not in a million years.
The issue is that the hyper-defensive Christians think that it's somehow off-limits for anyone to respond to this buffoon, and to cite facts (including pictures and videos, which are about as factual as it gets) that tend to impeach the Christian hypocrite's credibility.
>>>>
I believe its that crazy lefty trolls think they should be able to fling their poop at anyone at anytime with no consequences. When we call you out for the scum you are, you get your panties in a twist.
So as usual with the left... free speech for me, and none for thee!
Christians hate not only gays, but they hate freedom of speech too. They think their self-righteous crap somehow must be the last word, and never challenged by anyone.
Project much?
The court of public opinion has found Prejean guilty of dying by the same sword that she lives by and that the rest of the public is increasingly uncomfortable living by.
Ah yes, living by the sword and dying by the sword. That one's in the same bible that the Christians love to fling but not so much to read.
And speakin' of hypocrisy, ol' Jesus H., who I think was a pretty good dude, had a whole bunch of choice words on the subject, very few of which the Christians of today care to even read, much less think about.
"What she doesn't have a right to do is to pronounce..."
I believe she a right to pronounce whatever she thinks and feels. If you don't like it-tough.
Jeezus Chicklet! Holy dependent clause. Did you not read what I wrote? I said she has a right to her view. She can pronounce on whatever the heck she wants. What she doesn't have is a right to pretend that her view protects her from the same stigma that she pushes on gays when she is found to be hypocritical and guilty of her very own acts of "sexual immorality".
See? Doesn't it read a whole lot better when you don't edit my thoughts for me? Harder to attack that way, I know. But oh well...
The court of public opinion has found Prejean guilty of dying by the same sword that she lives by and that the rest of the public is increasingly uncomfortable living by.
>>>>
From what I have seen, the court of public opinion has ruled that Gay Marriage has virtually nothing to do with private sex tapes that are made public, or any of the other absurd 'hypocricies' that Prejean is supposedly guilty of (wearing a swimsuit! What a harlot! Posing for lingerie pictures! No Christian would do such a thing! Horrors!)
I think the court of public opinion has ruled that a bunch of left wing thugs are trying and failing to destroy a woman for the sin of answering a question honestly.
I believe its that crazy lefty trolls think they should be able to fling their poop at anyone at anytime with no consequences. When we call you out for the scum you are, you get your panties in a twist.
Whose panties are in any twist? Surely not mine. I'm havin' a great time here.
From what I have seen, the court of public opinion has ruled that Gay Marriage has virtually nothing to do with private sex tapes that are made public, or any of the other absurd 'hypocricies' that Prejean is supposedly guilty of (wearing a swimsuit! What a harlot! Posing for lingerie pictures! No Christian would do such a thing! Horrors!)
I think the court of public opinion has ruled that a bunch of left wing thugs are trying and failing to destroy a woman for the sin of answering a question honestly.
That's because what you have seen reflects the mores of old farts in sexual and ethical decline and not the young whippersnappers who actually have sex, engage in the tough reasoning required of challenging moral questions, and in the near future, comprise a majority of the voting electorate.
Fin.
or any of the other absurd 'hypocricies' that Prejean is supposedly guilty of (wearing a swimsuit! What a harlot! Posing for lingerie pictures! No Christian would do such a thing! Horrors!)
Um, naked pictures! Masturbating on camera! Not horrible at all, but let's at least call a slut a slut!
That's because what you have seen reflects the mores of old farts in sexual and ethical decline and not the young whippersnappers who actually have sex, engage in the tough reasoning required of challenging moral questions, and in the near future, comprise a majority of the voting electorate.
Fin.
>>>
No what I've seen reflects the mores of people who aren't Anti Christian bigots.
Fin.
BSR:
That's because what you have seen reflects the mores of old farts in sexual and ethical decline and not the young whippersnappers who actually have sex, engage in the tough reasoning required of challenging moral questions, and in the near future, comprise a majority of the voting electorate.
LOL. Yeah the young whippersnappers are just bursting with great logical reasoning skill these days. Excuse me but I just busted a gut!
Um, naked pictures! Masturbating on camera! Not horrible at all, but let's at least call a slut a slut!
>>>
Call up Dr. Laura, and ask her if it is immoral to make a private sex tape of yourself masturbating to share with your lover. Go ahead. You'd be shocked at how she'd answer, but then real life religious folks don't quite measure up to the shrieking demons that exist only in your mind.
If that's what you consider "logical reasoning" Alex, then I'm not surprised you don't recognize it when you see it.
Call up Dr. Laura, and ask her if it is immoral to make a private sex tape of yourself masturbating to share with your lover. Go ahead. You'd be shocked at how she'd answer, but then real life religious folks don't quite measure up to the shrieking demons that exist only in your mind.
As long as it's your heterosexual lover, huh? Ha ha! They should've shown it at the "Values Voter Conference!"
@BSR: I read your preamble-that's why I objected to your second paragraph.
Odd how grinder read the same message from your 6:26.
Troop's right about your prose you know.
Who cares what Laura Schchchclclesshehehinger has to say? A sex tape leaked. It scandalizes. That's the way it works.
Now if only your "Christian soldiers" or whoever the hell you're defending could find a way to bask in scandal then I guess you'd be on to something. But obviously you guys can't profess to anything without the shame component. Either scandal means something or it doesn't. You can pretend that just because you don't know how American shamelessness applies to you that you have outgrown a use for shame. You're a conservative. A politically impotent conservative, but a conservative nonetheless. Of course you have a need for shame somewhere. It's not like you're going to defeat your enemies with logic.
What she doesn't have is a right to pretend that her view protects her from the same stigma that she pushes on gays when she is found to be hypocritical and guilty of her very own acts of "sexual immorality".
She has a right to pretend anything she wants to pretend. She can pretend to be the long lost Queen of Neptune if she wants. But she and her Christian whiner friends had better be prepared to be laughed at.
BSR - the only constant here is your utter hatred towards Christians. There is simply no justifying it - and at the same time I'd doubt you'd have the guts to say it to a Christian man's face. You fucking sisys.
But she and her Christian whiner friends had better be prepared to be laughed at.
So says the hateful bigot who encourages his fellow mob/sheep to sling shit at a fellow human being...
Well yes its embarrassing. But somehow I don't get the weird anti christian 'anyone who has made a private sex tape should never Ever be allowed to state their opinion on gay marriage in public lest we brand them that worst of mortal sins... A HYPOCRITE! dun dun DUNNNNNNN!
It just comes off to me as pretty petty, juvenile and stupid. Like much of the left!
Of course you have a need for shame somewhere.
BINGO! Christians thrive on shame. Of course, they look for it everywhere but in the mirror. The louder they yell at everyone else, the more personal shame they are avoiding.
grinder - and you have no shame. I wonder which is worse!
Darcy - I am not or ever have been a troll. I swear on it. Pinky swear.
Ok Chicklet. Now I'm going to profess ignorance to what you're trying to say.
If you want to discuss your objection, pretend to care about what I meant, not about your interpretation of what I meant. Otherwise what reason to I have to care about your objection.
There was a dependent clause in there. It matters. If you don't understand why, or if anyone else doesn't...ask...for...help!
Why are you bringing Trooper into this? What does he have to do with anything? We both promote and often respect and enjoy reading what the other has to say. We both sometimes write crazy stuff. So what?
I don't get the weird anti christian 'anyone who has made a private sex tape should never Ever be allowed to state their opinion on gay marriage in public lest we brand them that worst of mortal sins
Carrie is "allowed" to state her opinion on anything she wants to. This is America, where people regularly make utter fools of themselves on camera. Christians are complete babies about it; they think there is something "hateful" when anyone notices that their spokesmodel against sexual unorthodoxy is a naked model complete with self-pleasuring videos.
Well, Christians, tough luck. And if Carrie Prejean is your spokesmodel against gay people, you're in deep doo-doo!
grinder - and you have no shame.
What am I supposed to be ashamed of?
I'm going to agree with Darcy. Alex is an idiot. I agree with daubiere too, now, with this confession.
I never said anything derogatory about Christians or Christianity. I've specifically rejected the injection of any theological arguments into this whole canard. They're moot. They're beside the point. Hypocrisy applies regardless of belief. That's how it goes.
What am I supposed to be ashamed of?
The fact that you are unashamed of a WHOLE DAY's worth of anti-Christian bigotry is proof enough that you have no shame or morals. I'm done with you.
BSR - because hypocrisy is exclusively with the Christian Right? Paging Al Gore...
Al Gore is just so topical to a discussion of how a promoter of sexual morality in the marriage department has received her comeuppance by having been scandalously sexually immoral in the out-of-wedlock department.
Okay, explain to me what support or lack of support has to do with a private sex tape that is made public again? How exactly is that hypocritical? In my mind the two have nothing to do with one another.
Poor Alex. I get the impression that he tries to fit a bunch of disparate memes into a worldview that he mistakenly, yet proudly, finds coherent. But coherence demands something deeper, something less shallow: A progression beyond knowledge of the day's memes and an actual understanding of... you know, ideas.
Alex has the intellectual heft of a tabloid reporter. He's like the TMZ of party politics. A self-styled rigid enforcer of partisan fairness, but without a clue as to what each party is up to. Poor thing.
The fact that you are unashamed of a WHOLE DAY's worth of anti-Christian bigotry is proof enough that you have no shame or morals.
I'm not "bigoted" against Christians. I am truthful about them, and you are such thin-skinned, self-righteous crybabies that you can't stand it when anyone has your number.
Shut up grinder you whinney little bitch. The exitable fairy role is already taken
Always nice to see the Christians finally get down to brass tacks, John. Forget all that phony junk about how you people aren't motivated by hatred.
Carrie Prejean made a mistake when she said that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
That statement is Christian. The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin.
Do0n't believe it? Look for yourself.
(Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Specifically Leviticus 18:22; 22 “ ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
23 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
24 “ ‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
29 “ ‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’ ”
So think about it. Societies acceptance of gays, homosexuals, fags, whatever you want to call them is also a sin.
Pompous Montanus' sock puppet returns.
Welcome Brazilian Montanus Rumpus.
grinder wrote:
One Christian sect I respect is the Westboro Baptists, who carry those "God Hates Fags" signs. Disgusting as they are, at least they are unafraid to express the essence of Christian thought, without any p.r. filter.
And yet I bet you'd find a majority of christians similarly Good for you if, in your blind hatred of christians (and note, its' not religion in general, just christians at who's feet you seem to place all worldly misery) you think you have found the perfect strawman with which to attack the christian faith. Unfortunately for you, the Westboro baptists are about as fringe as they come, even to most other christians.
If you're looking for hatred though, you might want to look inward at your irrational anger towards christians, because it seems to be based less on your actual dealings with christians or your grasp of history, but rathe straw men you consruct in your mind.
Always nice to see the Christians finally get down to brass tacks, John. Forget all that phony junk about how you people aren't motivated by hatred.
>>>
If you fling poop at someone all day long, after a few hours you might get one to fling some poop back at you!
VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMGZ TROLL POWAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
wv: woogre : When a wookie agrees with you.
I would think that Jeremy - pardon me, grinder - is someone badly in need of someone to listen to him.
It's too bad that no one here has the patience to do so. I certainly don't.
want to see Carrie's tits hard, bouncing and ready for hog.
Preferably with a rabbit in her cooch, ass and mouth.
Even if she is doing that I know she is a good Christian Girl.
Rabbit in ass of fag-gross.
Rabbit in ass of Christan Girl-cool.
Are yo with me fellow republicans?
And here is the threads' longest sentence which unintelligibly and incorrectly pontificates about Prejean's "rights" and "hypocri[sy]."
Brazilian Montanus Rumpus wrote: What she doesn't have a right to do is to pronounce on whether people she considers sexually immoral deviants have a right to sanctify and dedicate their own "truthful" love and then pretend that sex acts which she engages in, which seem sleazy when viewed on the videotape she "commemorated and dedicated" to her own lover, don't make her look hypocritical and worthy of the same stigma that she unwittingly (in her defense) contributes to forcing upon gays.
Of course, Prejean never said, "unwittingly" or otherwise, that she opposed gay marriage because gays are "sexually immoral deviants." BMR, aka BSR, just made it up as his ilk is wont to do.
Additionally, if these leftist nitwits persist in playing the hypocrite card, they should try to understand the concept (and the word).
If Prejean marries a woman, she becomes a hypocrite. If a 17 year-old girl who opposes homosexual marriage makes a videotape exposing herself to her heterosexual boyfriend, she is neither a "sexually immoral deviant", nor a hypocrite.
Don't make me explain this again. (LOL)
There is a lot of illusory superiority and actual stupidity from the left wing trolls on this site.
Let's be honest...Carrie is a whore.
Where is her whore parade?
Let's celebrate Carrie being a whore with a parade.
And let's repsect her by the fact that she desires and needs a frivilous law suit against the Miss America Pageant. She was our honored speaker at our CPAC convention? Hello, let's embrace her.
God bless Carrie....
Let's be honest...Carrie is a whore.
Where is her whore parade?
Let's celebrate Carrie being a whore with a parade.
And let's repsect her by the fact that she desires and needs a frivilous law suit against the Miss America Pageant. She was our honored speaker at our CPAC convention? Hello, let's embrace her.
God bless Carrie....
>>>
Um... no she's not. She made a private sex tape, posed for a topless photo that didn't actually show anything, and wore a bikini. If she's a whore, a significant percentage of the female population are whores.
There's this crazy idea among the leftoids that Republicans / Christians are prudes from the 1800's. I can personally testify that this is not true.
wv: inger. One letter swap away from a law suit from Al Sharpton!
I totally embrace Carrie getting fucked by the rabbit.
This is wholesome, family values.
Similar to Vitter wearing a diaper while doing a hooker and Ensign paying off his bestfriend after doing his wife.
But please no gays who are in relationships getting married, that is just fucking gross and against God wishes.
By the way is "family values" done in the repubican platform?.
I saw Carrie's before and after tits and all I can say is WOOWWWWW!
What a differenc silicon makes.
Her tits pre surgery were little, with small nips and barely poutying. totally disappointing.
Post titepectimy-major melons with huge nips that were ready to feed the world. Total gulp gulp and very pro family.
Totally love Carrie.
oh for heaven's sake ! this is all about prejean violating the morals clause of her contract with the pageant. besides the masturbation tape, there are the "wind blew my shirt open" professionally-shot topless photos of which she was certainly aware before swearing that no such things existed in her (recent) past.
it's ridiculous how her little non-story has become a cause celebre for the alleged persecution of so-called christians. the poor, dim girl allowed herself to be exploited by those for whom their life's work has been to deny equality under the law for gay citizens. who is persecuting whom?? far from having been silenced, she has turned this manufactured kerfuffle into a mini-career. what the 'christians' can't stand is that others have free speech rights as well and they are allowed to criticize.
"I had the same impression, more than just nudity. Which simply means that if it's published, it's explicit child porn."
isn't it actually a crime merely to be in possession of child porn? if she was a young teenager and flashing herself "Post-jeans" to the camera and playing the rub-a-dub-dub game, seems TMZ and everyone else involved ought to be shitting themselves holding the hot potato.
Of course, this being Eric Holder's America, she'll be the one arrested.
wv: "ountspl" -- something about squirting, I'm sure.
oh for heaven's sake ! this is all about prejean violating the morals clause of her contract with the pageant. besides the masturbation tape, there are the "wind blew my shirt open" professionally-shot topless photos of which she was certainly aware before swearing that no such things existed in her (recent) past.
it's ridiculous how her little non-story has become a cause celebre for the alleged persecution of so-called christians. the poor, dim girl allowed herself to be exploited by those for whom their life's work has been to deny equality under the law for gay citizens. who is persecuting whom?? far from having been silenced, she has turned this manufactured kerfuffle into a mini-career. what the 'christians' can't stand is that others have free speech rights as well and they are allowed to criticize.
>>>
So again we have a private sex tape, bikini shots, and a topless shot that doesn't actually show anything topless, and which at least one other pageant contestant has done and been excused for.
I'm not really seeing the gasp horror thing, only your own desire to destroy someone who answered a question honestly.
She didn't set out to proselytize or tell anyone how they should live. A leftoid asked her a question and she answered it truthfully. This is her horrible to sin to people like you.
the Westboro baptists are about as fringe as they come
No, they simply adhere literally to what the rest of you believe but are too afraid to state.
Let's celebrate Carrie being a whore with a parade.
I'm sure the gay parade would be happy to find a place for her!
So again we have a private sex tape, bikini shots, and a topless shot that doesn't actually show anything topless
You forgot to mention the masturbation. What's the matter, pussy got your tongue? Or is it the other way 'round?
Let me get this straight.
Jessica Valenti commits the crime of having breasts in the same room as a former President, and deserves ostracism from the company of decent people.
Carrie Prejean masturbates for the camera and deserves all sorts of compassion as she plays the Christian martyr.
This won't get posted anyway, so why should I hold back? Fuck you, Ms. Althouse. Seriously.
Note to Edward:
The Publish Your Comment button really does do that.
And it doesn't make you look that smart.
Carrie Prejean masturbates for the camera and deserves all sorts of compassion as she plays the Christian martyr.
Christians love to play the martyr. When not doing it, they love to make other people do it.
Let me get this straight.
Jessica Valenti commits the crime of having breasts in the same room as a former President, and deserves ostracism from the company of decent people.
Carrie Prejean masturbates for the camera and deserves all sorts of compassion as she plays the Christian martyr.
>>>>
Can you post a link to the thread where Althouse demands Valenti be ostracized from the company of decent people? Because there's comments like that in regard to Prejean all through this very thread.
Althouse's horrible post demanding Vallenti be ostracized from decent people:
>>>>>
I wanted to elevate a discussion from the comments section of a post from Wednesday, you know the one with the photo of the Daou-wrangled bloggers posing in front of Bill Clinton? The first commenter, Goesh, picks up on my prompt -- "Let's just array these bloggers... randomly" -- and wisecracks: "Who is the Intern directly in front of him with the black hair?"
Eventually, Jessica from a blog called Feministing, shows up and says: "The, um, 'intern' is me. It's so nice to see women being judged by more than their looks. Oh, wait..."
Snarky but somewhat conciliatory, I say: "Well, Jessica, you do appear to be 'posing.' Maybe it's just an accident."
Jessica Feministing returns and says:
It's a picture; people pose. And I'm not sure I understand your logic anyway. If I "pose" for a picture (as opposed to sulking and hunching over?) then I deserve to be judged for my looks? I don't see anyone talking shit about the other bloggers smiling pretty for the camera.
Provoked, I decide to actually give her a small dose of the kind of judgment for brains she seems to demanding:
Jessica: I'm not judging you by your looks. (Don't flatter yourself.) I'm judging you by your apparent behavior. It's not about the smiling, but the three-quarter pose and related posturing, the sort of thing people razz Katherine Harris about. I really don't know why people who care about feminism don't have any edge against Clinton for the harm he did to the cause of taking sexual harrassment seriously, and posing in front of him like that irks me, as a feminist. So don't assume you're the one representing feminist values here. Whatever you call your blog....
>>>>>
Funny this seems quite mild compared to the hateful rhetoric filling this thread in regards to Prejean.
wv: coloon - A loony lefty who has their heads shoved up their colon
She is getting what she deserves because of her outrageous homophobia and bigotry against homosexuals. Her comments were clearly meant to incite violence against gays who dare ask that their Constitutional rights be honored. She isn't really that nice looking anyway and I don't understand why any guys would like her. As for the child porn thing, she should be arrested for sending it over state lines.
She is getting what she deserves because of her outrageous homophobia and bigotry against homosexuals. Her comments were clearly meant to incite violence against gays who dare ask that their Constitutional rights be honored. She isn't really that nice looking anyway and I don't understand why any guys would like her. As for the child porn thing, she should be arrested for sending it over state lines.
>>>>
So when someone asked her what she thought about gay marriage in a pageant and she had 3 seconds to think of how to respond, she twirled her supervillain mustache and thought to herself, "How can I incite violence against gays? I know!"
Then she snapped her fingers, summoned the evil powers of Christianity and said, "Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I think I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman."
And then her black heart swelled and she thought to herself, "good job Carrie, that will get some gays killed! Mwahahahaha!" And she slunk back to her place in line and rubbed her hands together like supervillains do.
...
That's really how you think it went down? Seriously? This has been so blown out of proportion that when you quote what she actually said you can't even tell wtf was so horrible about it.
Let's be VERY clear here; no matter what you feel politically/religiously about the issue, Carrie Prejean was 18 or 19 when the video was made. TMZ was very clear and up front about the fact that she is masturbating in the video, and any of their overpriced lawyers would have told them to dump the video like a hot potato if they couldn't prove it was made when she was an adult (because othewise TMZ would be liable for child porn). Since Carrie Prejean is now 22, it was made 3-4 years ago, tops.
Why does this matter? Because heterosexual fornication has more condemnations in the new testament then homosexuality does. She was clearing having premarital sex, and moreover was clearly recording herself masturbating during the period. Now I don't personally care, but if you hold her opinion up as a beacon of theology when her behavior contradicts the very books you claim to take inspiration from than you're move of a hypocrite than she is.
And if you don't see anything in Paul's Epistles that makes premarital sex "unchristain" then frankly you must not have read the Bible...
The right isn't saying she's a paragon of virtue. The left is saying she's so terrible she should be ostracized from decent society. We disagree.
She made it for a distant boyfriend
Ann: her and her lost young love....displaying your breasts to a boyfriend that you love
Imagine what this girl will do for a non-distant boyfriend?
Easy like a Sunday morning.
I would be open to voting for a pro-gay marriage referendum, except for people like Grinder. As long as there are people like Grinder and Downtownlad out there, I will never reward their atrocious behavior and their ignorance with a vote.
It's worth it just to laugh their stupid heads exploding on Althouse.
Scott wrote: ...if you hold her opinion up as a beacon of theology when her behavior contradicts the very books you claim to take inspiration from than you're move of a hypocrite than she is.
No well informed person holds Prejean's opinion up as a beacon of theology. Prejean is interesting because she was savaged solely for expressing a political/social opinion that she said was based on her faith.
The Prejean story is not about Christianity, it is about the viciousness and intolerance of gay activists, their consorts and the lefty thought police, illustrated more than adequately on this thread.
You align yourself with them by spinning the "hypocrite" straw man.
Hilarious! Look at all the indoctrinated half-wits here, desperately trying to explain / cover up the constant hypocrisy, over and over and over and over, that comes out of their church. No matter how much you rationalize, no matter how much you lie to yourself, teen pregnancy and drug use rates are higher in bible belt states, and your moronic hysteria is what keeps you enslaved to your religion.
"No well informed person holds Prejean's opinion up as a beacon of theology."
Absolutely. She has all manner of issues that cause me personally not to see her as a particularly well-suited role model. However, we don't have to particularly like a person to defend them against a particular area of attack--one that is using her as some whipping girl to attack a broader opinion.
"If you hold her opinion up as a beacon of theology when her behavior contradicts the very books you claim to take inspiration from than you're move of a hypocrite than she is"
Have you read the very books? Shall we start from the beginning? Eve and Adam. Jacob and Esau. David--murderer, adulterer.
The woman at the well--five husbands and currently living with a man she wasn't married to. Peter--denied Jesus three times. Jesus was a friend of the sinners and tax collectors.
I don't think Prejean is entirely without her own issues, but don't try to use her on this issue to make a sad little play for hypocrisy in the broader movement.
This whole thread is a testimony that anti-intellectualism has really found it's place outside the church, in so many of those attacking it. Spotty history, emaciated logic, cheap rhetorical ploys.
Good Gawd almighty... all she is is a kid who wanted to win a beauty pageant. She got put on the spot by that pathetic piece of sludge, Perez Hilton, and answered truthfully.
For that the leftards will call her a whore, a slut, a hypocrite, and more.
There's no end to the venom on the left. It's like a mental illness.
I would be open to voting for a pro-gay marriage referendum, except for people like Grinder. As long as there are people like Grinder and Downtownlad out there, I will never reward their atrocious behavior and their ignorance with a vote.
Try doing something very unchristian: Tell the truth. You hate gays no matter what. It doesn't make civilized people feel good to know it, but you might as well say what you think rather than hiding behind excuses.
The Prejean story is not about Christianity, it is about the viciousness and intolerance of gay activists, their consorts and the lefty thought police, illustrated more than adequately on this thread.
The Prejean story is about an airhead and her Christian backers who picked her because she's hot.
The right isn't saying she's a paragon of virtue. The left is saying she's so terrible she should be ostracized from decent society.
I don't think she should be ostracized at all. I have always thought beauty queens of either sex are mentally challenged sluts. Nothing wrong with a mentally challenged slut from time to time, but I think we can do without their wisdom on anything sexual.
For that the leftards will call her a whore, a slut, a hypocrite, and more. There's no end to the venom on the left.
Hmm. And you were defending N.Y. Gov. Eliot Spitzer, correct? Right out there on the front lines!
@Fred4Pres said...
" I still do not get why Carrie Prejean thought she had a seven figure lawsuit against the pagent."
I think this is just a standard practice for actions like this. I'm no legal expert, but I think it's true that you have to ask for some tangible award. Asking for very large amounts is also pretty much the norm. You don't really expect to get it, but you hope the court will give you some substantial percentage of it.
Also...
Have you heard what Shannon Moakler had to say? How petty and immature can you get? To think that she was the loudest voice (after P. Hilton) denouncing her.
Of course, that couldn't be used as hard evidence if Carrie's suit were still in the works, but it's a pretty good glimpse into the mentality of the pageant that so mistreated her.
> What is it about Christianity that causes a bunch of people who don't want to join the club to think they should dictate the rules?
Nobody can dictate anything until they have the power to control others' behavior. It's been a long time since the law of the land in the Western world--the "rules" you're referring to--could enforce Christian, or any other, religious policy. Look at any real theocracy in the world, where clergy run the show.
Every time you see in the news something going on that Christians are protesting, you are seeing precisely how Christians are not dictating any rules. If they did, that thing they're protesting wouldn't be happening at all.
elHombraneus Masturbatorius pontificates on the new-found (and completely illusory) tolerance that he believes Carrie Prejean holds towards homosexuals, if not their actual, civil rights.
For what reason then, praytell, does she oppose their rights to the same civil marriages enjoyed by anyone else?
(el)Hombraneus Masturbatorius doesn't answer this one because he apparently believes anyone here is stupid enough to believe that her attitude is not informed by tradition.
He is actually stupid enough to think anyone here would believe that she has become a martyr among conservatives for some reason other than the fact that a ban on marriage reflects centuries of precedent set by religious institutions and authorities that, lo and behold, also consider homosexuality a grievous sin!
"SEPARATE THESE OBSERVATIONS FROM YOUR LEFTIST MINDS!" implores elHombraneus Masturbatorius. "PRETEND THAT CARRIE PREJEAN'S ATTITUDES EMANATED FROM THE SAME VACUUM THAT MY UNDERSTANDING OF LIFE DOES!!! They just spontaneously appeared and never bore any relation to the ancient religious injunction prohibiting homosexual behavior!"
"EVEN THOUGH CARRIE PREJEAN CONSIDERS HERSELF A TRADITIONAL AMERICAN WHO STANDS UP FOR "TRADITIONAL VALUES", HER REASONING FOR OPPOSING THE RIGHTS OF GAYS TO MARRY HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH TO DO WITH TRADITIONAL OR RELIGIOUS ATTITUDES REGARDING HOMOSEXUALITY - LET ALONE THE RIGHTS TO WHICH WE WILL SEEK DEPRIVE THEM!!!"
So elHombraneus Masturbatorius declares it, so let it be done.
Reality as everyone knows it has now been altered by the fat lips running the mouth of this alien being from a parallel universe of dipshits. Or so (el)Hombraneus Masturbatorius would have everyone believe.
Also, in the real world, what constitutes hypocrisy is not decided by the hypocrite, or her defender. It is decided by the people who are held to a double-standard by that hypocrite. The double-standard in question would be the willingness to apply "traditional" mores and the backlash for violating them to one person and not another. No matter how much her idiot lawyer (el)Hombraneus Masturbatorius would like to abridge that standard and pretend that Prejean opposes homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals "just because", this is not a credible position. Prejean does not oppose homosexuals' rights for inexplicable and nebulous reasons that just appeared out of nowhere, rather like Hombraneus himself. She opposes them because that is the "traditional" position on that matter.
Anyone who disputes that is either an idiot, completely disingenuous, or simply creative and idle enough to pretend they can fool anyone into not seeing through those first two reasons.
Newsflash!
Carrie Prejean considers her own actions wrong.
"It was for private use, but does that justify what I did? No. It was the biggest mistake of my life."
Now, I don't know why her actions are wrong any more than I can understand why it is wrong for gays to marry. But y'all are the conservative defenders of her virtuous opinion. Y'all are the virtuous defenders considering her own action in a different moral light than she does. Apparently she differs, however. She thinks what she did is unjustifiable. I'm not sure if she considers what she did as unjustifiable as the right of gays to marry, but clearly she considers what she did unjustifiable.
O, how lost are these silly conservatives if even their own martyrs aren't even willing to absolve themselves of their own sins! Where's the martyrdom without the absolution?
The conservatives are the new Jesus and the martyrs they appoint to their cause the new humanity.
But there's one problem: It's not clear whether Prejean agreed to be "saved".
Oh, and the other problem - just because you say that what she did wasn't wrong doesn't mean she agrees. She apparently doesn't.
What's the point in picking a martyr for the conservative cause if they can't even uphold your hypocrisy?
Such are the dilemmas of the cognitive dissonance that rules the right!
Download Carrie Prejean sextape HERE
Grinder - I couldn't agree more.
Hey Christians - this is the main reason why I can't respect your views - you take the parts of the book that appeal to you, including some negative ones when it suits (like hating Gay people) but choose to ignore all the batshit crazy garbage that the rest of the book is made up from. Seriously, have you guys read this book? It's hilarious.
Case in point - Leviticus.
Just STFU and become obsolete already.
Oh, and Salamander - "Christians were primarily aligned with those who want to dictate our lifestyles the least."
Hmm, what about that main character (I forget his name...:p) who wrote that rulebook, that we all must follow, under threat of the worst possible pain for eternity?
Y0u can download Carrie Prejean sextape DOWNLOAD
Try doing something very unchristian: Tell the truth. You hate gays no matter what.
Heh. The irony imbedded in those first two sentences is lost on you. I don't hate anyone, except maybe mujahedeen. I'm not expressing hatred by not rewarding your venom with my vote. It's more akin to housebreaking a puppy and teaching it not to shit on the rug.
The bigoted fool here is you.
I don't hate anyone, except maybe mujahedeen.
"Except maybe." Here's the reality: Christians are lost without hate.
Carrie Prejean's tape is over at http://shaunasandvid.com
"She was destroyed by sodomites - much like Jesus himself."
Wow. You people are mentally ill.
WOow.....!!!!
Carrie Prejean Sextape Stream online at...
http://carrieprejean-sex-tape.com/Part1
http://carrieprejean-sex-tape.com/Part2
http://carrieprejean-sex-tape.com/Part3
'One Christian sect I respect is the Westboro Baptists, who carry those "God Hates Fags" signs. Disgusting as they are, at least they are unafraid to express the essence of Christian thought, without any p.r. filter.'
True enough.
Blackmail? She signed a document stating no nude photographs or videos of herself existed. They do, and her bluff was called. This happens all the time in legal cases, and is standard operating procedure. Why anyone is surprised or critical is beyond me, except that religion and conservatism evidently manifests itself in irrationality and believing that the law doesn't apply for the special people.
Prejean is a hypocrite, like most of us. Most of us don't use our unearned celebrity to denigrate whole groups of people. To pretend that she's a victim is laughable.
If you are going to say that she is a flawed Christian, and we should not hold her to a higher standard because she is a Christian (some serious logic gymnastics here!), then shouldn't the same hold for the poor flawed Christian liberals? You rag on TMZ for promoting a political view, but I wonder if she were still a Christian and in favor of gay marriage how loudly you would be defending her sex tape making ways. "How dare someone defend or argue their political views, I am the only one who gets away with being a hypocrite!"
The only place to view the full, REAL version of the carrie prejean sextape, leaked by TMZ, can be seen at http://carrieprejeansextapevideo.com/ there's also a streaming version along with 30+ nude pics found at http://carrieprejeansextapestream.carrieprejeansextapevideo.com/
"The pageant officials stand up for her right to free speech, even if she made a bit of a fool of herself, and stick with her."
Except the pageant officials did not stand up for her right to free speech. Perez Hilton, one of the judges, as well as the director Keith Lewis said she no right to bring her politics and morality into the pageant, despite the fact that it was they, not her, who did so by asking the question. They were the ones who outed her on breast implants which was private info to embarrass for stating her beliefs. It was Lewis from early on who threatened to take away her crown purely because she belonged to a church he deemed extreme because that church sees living out gay lifestyle as sin (meaning he condemns all churches that believe the Bible as "extreme"). They have taken every opportunity back then to take shots at her for her views, with Shanna Moakler going into myspace and twitter saying she does not deserve tolerance because she is intolerant, and she lost because of lack of compassion in her answer and her answer did not speak for all Californians (as if her answer any other way would have done, showing the hypocrisy of the pageant there).
The claim the pageant respected Prejean's rights is untrue.
Post a Comment