Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Sex and Relationships

Sex in Crisis: How the Religious Right Is Trying to Ruin Sex for Everyone

By Dagmar Herzog, Perseus Books. Posted August 4, 2008.


The religious has right co-opted the language of feminism and the sexual revolution to try and make you feel bad about sex.
Advertisement

Editor's note: From the book Sex in Crisis: The New Sexual Revolution and the Future of American Politics by Dagmar Herzog. Excerpted by arrangement with Basic Books, a member of the Perseus Books Group. Copyright © 2008

The Religious Right is a capacious tent in which many agendas and approaches have found a home. There are conservative evangelicals who promise worldly prosperity and success (if only you trust enough in God's plans). There are others who gird themselves for Armageddon. There are the vehement defenders of "Merry Christmas" and school prayer and the enemies of evolution and intellectualism and "liberal elitism." There are highly intellectual (and themselves elite) members of the Religious Right. There are those who see the culture clash with neofundamentalist Islam as the current big threat, and those who work to justify the ongoing war in Iraq as a properly Christian cause. There are those who raise money for and organize tourism in Israel in the expectation that at the End of Days a majority of Jews will convert to Christ. But right-wing evangelicalism achieved power in American politics primarily through its sex activism. And in fifteen years of steady effort, it managed to undo the most important achievements of the sexual revolution of the 1960s-1970s.

This was accomplished through a selective appropriation and adaptation of key aspects of that old sexual revolution. Speaking in graphic detail both about sexual discontent and dysfunction and about the possibilities for ecstatically orgasmic and emotionally fulfilling bliss has been a core component. Without the promise of pleasure, the Religious Right would not have found nearly as many adherents as it has; repression alone is not sufficiently appealing.

Evangelical sexual conservatives took up some of the main concerns of the feminist women's movement of the 1970s-1980s. An interest in intensifying women's sexual pleasure has been a central focus of evangelical sex advice from the start. Many women's frustration at male fascination with pornography and emotional non-presence during sex -- another feminist theme -- and the need to help men get comfortable with physical and emotional mutuality, have also been taken up. So too have the classic women's movement themes of concern about domestic violence, child sexual abuse, and sexual exploitation of women. More recently, evangelicals have moved to adapt both feminist and mainstream advice about body image, in addition to generating a vast Christian dieting and addiction recovery industry. There is also an antiauthoritarian evangelical youth counterculture.

In its activism around issues of sexuality, the Religious Right has found ways as well to incorporate the insights of the New Age men's movement in its own program to transform an Internet-ogling insecure bumbler into a virile he-man who is competent at male-male friendship and rivalry as well as hot heterosexual romance. The movement has been wildly successful in part because of its extraordinary ability to present its own program as therapeutic. None of this, however, should distract from the fact that right-wing evangelicals have also been sadistic and punitive, eager to play to the most base human desires to feel superior to others who fail to live up to the expected norms.

While the roots of the Religious Right lie in anti-black racism (a history that has now been largely overcome but still goes woefully underacknowledged), it got its start in American national politics by organizing against abortion and homosexuality. In the wake of the legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade in 1973, and in response to the growing public visibility of gays and lesbians in the 1970s and 1980s and their demands for an end to discrimination, evangelical conservatives could count on these two issues, along with more general calls for restrictions on sex education and the restoration of "traditional family values," as their major fundraising and mobilizing tools. All through the 1990s, playing to homophobic reflexes was one of the Christian Right's most popular tactics. But nothing has been more successful in the early twenty-first century than its ability to hijack the national conversation about heterosexuality.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: religious right, conservatives, sexuality, sexual revolution, sex-ed

Dagmar Herzog is professor of history at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. She is the author of two pioneering books, Intimacy and Exclusion and Sex After Fascism, as well as numerous scholarly articles on the history of sexuality.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Sex only for the belssed
Posted by: carbon-based on Aug 4, 2008 3:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ruin sex fore everyone EXCEPT the Evangelical preacher who will "TAKE" all "CONTRIBUTIONS" offered. What a scam!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How Dare They! Posted by: ranchero42
» Sexy woman seeking sex Posted by: kissrosalove013
Oh, really?
Posted by: mainspark on Aug 4, 2008 3:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"But doctors now have good reason to fear that all second-trimester abortions could be interpreted as criminal. The language of the majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy has even more significant implications for that vast majority of abortions that take place in the first trimester. The decision is likely to serve as the basis for state legislators' efforts to introduce information into mandatory preabortion counseling sessions about the potential psychological damage having an abortion could supposedly do to a woman."

Does this "counseling" also include information about the "potential psychological damage" that can occur if the woman decides against the abortion, opting to give birth? For some reason, I doubt that this is the case. If the session was honestly meant to give a woman all the information necessary to make her decision, this must be included.

Equally as troubling is that those state legislators want to make the sessions mandatory. Again, they're telling women that they don't know what's best for themselves. It's not as if those women haven't already struggled with their decision and not given much thought about the pros and cons of the procedure.

"We, the state legislators (predominantly male), know what's best for you. Trust us."

Hypocrites.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh, really? Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Oh, really? Posted by: Cybershaman
little lapses into extreme ridiculousness
Posted by: Laplandi on Aug 4, 2008 3:54 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...Over and over, young people are told that self-restraint is self-empowerment..."

... and voila -- evangelicals come off as positively enlightened.

And such a well-intentioned author, too...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ain't Nobody's Business If I do...
Posted by: Babygoat on Aug 4, 2008 4:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do not tell me who to pray to-or- how to pray.
Do not tell me who to have sex with-or-how to do it.
You are not me.
You are no more adult than I am.
I do not require your guidence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sex IS Enlightenment
Posted by: terradea42 on Aug 4, 2008 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The mere fact that religious leaders want to control the sexuality of their flocks should prove to everyone that free sex is dangerous to religious leaders. Sexual freedom without guilt and without fear is one path to throwing off the shackles of religious oppression and the leaders know it. Responsible Sex (with condoms, of course!) should be practiced often, with many others, and encouraged among teenagers as a vehicle to self exploration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sex IS Enlightenment Posted by: richholland
» RE: Sex IS Enlightenment Posted by: Lilykins
» RE: Sex IS Enlightenment Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Sex IS Enlightenment Posted by: Lilykins
» RE: Sex IS Enlightenment Posted by: Lilykins
» RE: Sex IS Enlightenment Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Sex IS Enlightenment Posted by: Lilykins
» RE: Sex IS Enlightenment Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Sex IS Enlightenment Posted by: Lilykins
» RE: Sex IS Enlightenment Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Sex IS Enlightenment Posted by: oregoncharles
» an EXCELLENT conclusion! Posted by: zooeyhall
» RE: Sex IS Enlightenment Posted by: tap17x
» RE: Sex IS Enlightenment Posted by: Noella
Organizing in Crisis: What the Secular Left Could Learn from the Religious Right
Posted by: hagwind on Aug 4, 2008 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's the article I want to read. Maybe it's a whole book. I'd read that too.

What the article is saying between the lines is that the religious right is whupping the left's ass when it comes to organizing. Why? Because the religious right isn't a monolith, and it's more than an ideology. The "religious right" is thousands of churches and informal groups that make a difference in people's day-to-day lives. Sure, some of its prominent figures talk as if they're living in a world of their own, but we're suckers if we think that's all the religious right is about. What this article says -- again, mostly between the lines -- is that the religious right is capable of listening to people, and of responding to what they hear. If that doesn't scare the pants off you, or at least give you pause, maybe you're living in a world of your own.

The civil rights movement was organized out of churches. Churches provided meeting space, inspiration, and (at least at the beginning) cover. Even in my fairly secular community, grassroots cultural and political life would take a major hit if the religious institutions disappeared. And no, churches aren't the only spaces that can play this key role. Over the decades it's been done by union halls, immigrant clubs, bookstores, coffeehouses, pubs -- any place that welcomes all comers and doesn't charge too much admission. (Today's left-of-center depends too much on universities, which charge a steep admission and from which most people graduate.)

Maybe organizing is what happens when we stop obsessing about sex?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Insecurity Increases When the Paradigm Shifts
Posted by: popeurbanxxiii on Aug 4, 2008 5:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The sexual revolution of the '60 - '70's shifted the ground from underneath mainstream America. People didn't know what to make of their new freedoms. There was (and is) plenty of carnage along the road from those who couldn't handle the new freedoms and possibilities.

But with newfound freedom comes responsibility and self-reliance. All too many Americans -- and the Religious Right in particular -- are lost without a "Big Daddy" telling them what to do and how to behave. All too many of us have this "authoritarian" personality. And in any mass culture movement, the pendulum always swings back. "Big Daddy" Religious Right just stepped up and into the role HE percieves he is entitled to. After all, he is only doing it for your own good. (snark)

Truth be told, we must take care to integrate any newfound freedoms into the culture while retaining the best of who we are from the past. There is always a dynamic tension between the forces of liberation and authoritarianism. Both sides always push too far. Damage is always done by both sides. Now we are seeing the damage from the fundamentalists. But as in the political sphere, this force is running out of momentum, too. Even the Evangelicals are becoming a bit more "liberal".

Hope springs eternal...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does any of this criticism...
Posted by: Q30 on Aug 4, 2008 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...also apply to the anti-pornography articles which were featured on Alternet not too long ago? Seeing as how they were predicated on the unproven and empirically-untenable idea that pornography causes violence, does that not count as a faith-based idea?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you continue to look at only the plight of women and not both sexes, then of course you'll lose.
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 4, 2008 6:14 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both sexes were given their say in the 1960s and 1970s. However, for the past 3 decades, the "conservatives" and even fake "liberals" were ready to build up their male chauvinist base and over hyped female base respectively. As a result, the damage is being done to both sides. And by the way, what are the Democrats doing about it these days? Oh yeah, joining the GOP and selling you out. Just keep putting down real progressives and liberals and vote for any Tom, Dick, and Harry just because it has a D next to it and watch yourselves LOSE. I'm telling you. Even if Obama wins the White House, don't expect him to appoint even a social moderate at the rate he's pandering to the GOP and shooting his base down !

RALPH NADER FOR PRESIDENT !!!!

VOTENADER.ORG

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Here's a dark one Posted by: luckypuck
Christianity and The Secular World
Posted by: Godfather89 on Aug 4, 2008 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is my belief as a Christian that the evangelicals should not try to alter or change in any the lifestyles of others. They are your beliefs not everyone else's. This War on Religion bullshit is to me nothing short of a theme to Brave New World.

I see it happening more and more in the world today and nobody seems to notice nor care because they to busy trying to satisfy their carnal urges. Just because we came from animals does not mean we should act like animals, that's why their is problems everywhere. Theirs nothing wrong (to me) with knockin someone up or drinking or smoking or drugs once in a while but when you do it repetitively it kind of ruins the uniqueness of the situation making it common. When it becomes all to common it leaves room open for ABUSE. Think about it, when society emphasize booze than the sheeple (majority) will do so as well, when people are boozin all the time their killing off their brain cells, becoming stupider and stupider and we see that happening in our society as well.

Again, that's my beliefs I see my beliefs in relation to the world I see because of that, we are free to do what we want but we should have self-restraint because we are not going to be free if we are always dependent upon the vices to make us happy. We see the acting out of vices right now in this society and this society is largely superficial, largely ignorant and largely impulsive...

Superficial + Ignorant + Impulsiveness = Qualities that make you Malleable in the hands of the Few!

That's what happens when our society emphasizes the celebration of the vices and the seven deadly sins. Their deadly because too much of a "good" thing will destroy the society. We saw it in the past as well, Rome becomes prosperous and in time becomes an Empire forgetting their founding virtues and than it crumbles. THE SAME EXACT THING IS HAPPENING NOW; HOWEVER, UNLIKE THAN WE STILL HAVE THE CHANCE TO CORRECT IT!

DO NOT PRESUME I AM ANTI-Hedonistic, I simply choose not to emphasizes it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I have a question Posted by: luckypuck
Hitchens is Right
Posted by: jmmartin on Aug 4, 2008 6:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chris Hitch, although perhaps through an alcoholic fog, speaks the truth: God freaks really are ruining everything. What the Christer fundies don't want you to know is The Truth. The Hindu tantras said it all: the ecstasy of sex is the ecstasy of the knowledge of "God." Which is to say, the only god there is is the one between your ears.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hitchens is Right Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Hitchens is Right Posted by: reval
» RE: Hitchens is Right Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Energy Posted by: luckypuck
» RE: Hitchens is Right Posted by: Lilykins
Evangelical "christianity" and the Ugh quotient
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Aug 4, 2008 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The more the evangelical blatherers demonstrate their collective inanity, the more likely it is that they will extinguish themselves. Then, perhaps, this penal colony can switch horses and root for Pluto and Persephone to replace the prostitution of the Crucifixion. Might be the best thing for mankind and all of its embodiment. Anti-Christ? Nah, just anti-bullshit in every form. Selah!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's called freedom of speech, folks
Posted by: Jasonix on Aug 4, 2008 6:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People have the right to state clearly what they think is right. I don't see any reason to quake with fear over the fact that some folks in America are saying that 16 is too young to have sex, or that monogamous marriage is a worthwhile ideal. If they're trying to pass laws criminalizing these sorts of things, or limiting people's freedom to act on their own beliefs, then there's a problem. But simply pointing out that teen sex is risky business and that the promiscuous tend to be on the losing end of the evolutionary arms race against the microbe doesn't strike me as a sign of creeping fascism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Except... Posted by: BreeMass
A funny thing about that.......
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Aug 4, 2008 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it amusing (not ha-ha) that you think that evangelicals are positioning themselves around the issue of sexuality. The Religious Right have always been extremely vocal about 2 things sex & gays (or what I like to call my doctors office and my bedroom or DOBR).

I think that much like charity - they should start at home. You know those paiges weren't just playing with themselves! The Senator from Minnesota wasn't arrested for his "wide stance"! The biggest fraud "the Catholic church" with "hide and seek" priests! The pharmacist unwilling to fulfill a womans birth control prescription - because she was single and it was against his ethical principals! Pimps in the pulpit parading around as pastors!

Frankly, maybe if the religious right weren't sooo drastically repressed, they would remember not to cast those stones. Maybe instead of preaching to everyone else - they really should expend that energy and moral high-ground to the grander purpose of social justice!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wishing the Mayflower had gone off-course
Posted by: zooeyhall on Aug 4, 2008 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading articles like this and others about the tentacles of right-wing Christianity and how it has done so much to suppress the natural human spirit; almost makes me wish the Mayflower would have made a mistake in navigation and ended up in Southern Botswana or somewhere.

Or for that matter, that the Roman Emperor Diocletian wouldn't have been so half-hearted in his attempt to eliminate early Christianity. Things might have otherwise been so different today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Diocletian Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: Diocletian Posted by: davmills
» RE: Diocletian Posted by: Noella
If only the Mayflower had gone off-course
Posted by: zooeyhall on Aug 4, 2008 7:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading articles like this and others about how the Christian right-wing has suppressed so much of the natural human spirit--it almost makes me wish that the Mayflower had made a mistake in navigation and ended up in Southern Botswana instead of America.

Or for that matter, that the Roman Emperor Diocletian wouldn't have been so half-hearted in his attempts to suppress early Christianity. History might have been much better otherwise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Nanny State be it from the left or the right
Posted by: boing007 on Aug 4, 2008 8:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If they're trying to pass laws criminalizing these sorts of things, or limiting people's freedom to act on their own beliefs, then there's a problem.

They are not trying to pass laws, they are passing them. That's Creeping Fascism. And this codification of people's freedoms is a full-time occupation for citizens of all political stripes. Each person has to find her/his own Golden Mean. Live let live.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» examples, please? Posted by: pfeifer999
antiauthoritarian evangelical youth counterculture
Posted by: Xynyx on Aug 4, 2008 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an oxymoron.

Authoritarianism is what lies at the heart of the evangelical's universe. You can't be truly antiauthoritarian when you believe in a great sky-god who will come to judge the living and the dead and whose kingdom will have no end.

It's just laughable!

Similarly funny would be "antiauthoritarian catholic youth counterculture".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

With the exception of protecting minors...
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Aug 4, 2008 8:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The government has no business making any laws "regulating" consensual sex between adults. I think prostitution should be legal and regulated like any other service and all the old sodomy laws in many states need to get taken off the books.

As long as the law (or lack of laws) protects sexual freedom I could not care less how religious nutjobs want to live their lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here ye, here ye
Posted by: Grandma Crabby on Aug 4, 2008 11:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My proclamation to the religious right:

I am an old lady.
I shall f*** whom I want,
when I want,
how I want.

And a great time will be had by all!

If someone else does not like it, they can jolly well kiss my decrepit wrinkled ass.

Will I feel GUILTY or ashamed?

Not for one second honey-child. In fact, I'll be bragging about it at knitting club!

And may God bless all the self-righteous, uptight, sexually deprived, hypocritical jerks. Me, I have better things to do!

Luv,
Granny

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Here ye, here ye Posted by: sirios
» RE: Here ye, here ye Posted by: emmas
» Grandma Crabby Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: Grandma Crabby Posted by: Noella
Wow.
Posted by: Mystae on Aug 4, 2008 12:44 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow. Although I'm rarely at a loss for words, I find myself stumbling in this case.

I couldn't even finish the article, I'll say that first. So if I make a remark that doesn't quite fit, please feel free to call me on it.

However, I have to say this - in the name of open-mindedness regarding (in particular) sexual issues, the author of this book/article has done nothing but resort to the type of fanatical name-calling that the "Religious Right" is accused of... The feeling I got from the half of what I read of this was similar to what a black person might feel walking into a backwoods, deep-South, all-white restaurant (being white I can only conjure up thoughts of I would feel, but as that instance of serious racism actually occurred to a *very* dear African-American friend, I think I can say that this article brought about the same gut reaction... If that notion offends anyone, please know that that was not my intention in any way, shape or form)... The author might as well have said, "If you have any warm fuzzies/adherance to ANY Judaeo-Christian belief system, you're an idiot of unparalleled proportions and backwards and probably an inbred, trailer-park whore who goes to church every Sunday as well." Wow.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I agree with *some* of what has been said here. The "Religious Right" *HAS* done a lot of damage in their holier-than-thou pompousness, but simply because one believes in Christ and adheres to His teachings doesn't automatically make them an over-judgemental, Bible-thumping idiot. Good grief. That's like saying that that if one believes in evolution then they must sprout that third eye and move on to the next phase of it. If that were true, we'd have an awful lot of odd-looking, mid-evolutionary beings strolling around in the world.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that there seemed to be as much, if not more, mud-slinging and name-calling than those infamous "Religious conservatives" resort to. My suggestion: try a little more moderation, in language, in thought, in behaviour. Being kind while not conceding a point is a lot more efficient than being bitchy is (not that bitchiness doesn't have it's place :O), at least, most of the time. You don't have to piss *everyone* who doesn't agree with you off just to prove a point. I am (if you haven't gotten it by now), what I consider a relatively conservative follower of Christ... Although I am considered a black sheep liberal by some of those close to me. :O) That having been said, there was a lot in this article that I did agree with... Unfortunately, so much of what was said so completely lacked kindness and moderation that I ended up tuning out what I did agree with and just got pissed off enough to post a response here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wow. Posted by: fanny666
The Bible is a dirty, dirty book.
Posted by: fanny666 on Aug 4, 2008 2:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I own this book, it's a fun read. It basically chronicles all of the sex in the Bible. There's a "Lot" of it.

The X-Rated Bible: An Irreverent Survey of Sex in the Scriptures

(In case somebody didn't get my bad pun- "Lot" is a person in the Bible who offered his daughters up for rape by soldiers. His daughters also got him drunk so they could get pregnant by him. Sexy stuff.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» righteous Posted by: pfeifer999
religious right is neither religious nor right.- simply british agents working 4 england in US.
Posted by: avatar_singh on Aug 4, 2008 2:41 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
these protestant baptists((and so callled religious fundamentalists and evnagalicals bastards)) are the agents of england inside america and have always been.
thse baptists are the ones who created civil war for the benefit of british to reconquer america and during attack of britian in 1812 these baptists were acting as enemy agents inside amaerica.
these baptisat are called patrioit--now what a shame? the southern flag is sympbol of american patriotism when it was really an instrument of treachery to the american independence.

" I am afraid the meddling small minded, fearful white boy is indicative of a large group of the amerikan types who still support a corrupt regieme of neo-con syncopants. He and those like him live in suspicion and fear of anyone different from themselves.
He was once a settler who cut down and burned the forest of New England because he was afraid of the wildlife. He was once a trader who passed out smallpox blankets to the Indians. Then later a buffalo hunter who decimated entire herds and left them to rot on the plains. His grandfather herded Japanese into camps, his father was at MyLai. His brothers are at Abu Graib and Gitmo. Where will he be tommorrow?"

" but all non-WASP got (and still get) their time as scapegoat-du-jour: Native, Black, Chinese, Irish, Italian, Jew, Japanese, Catholic, Latino, and now Middle-Eastern, just to name a few. Along with the scapegoating goes the profiling, which is little more than prejudice and stereotypes made legal."



The recent director of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights, Michael Ignatieff, proposed in the New York Times in May 2004 that we should give U.S. presidents the authority to preventively detain U.S. citizens and to engage in “coercive interrogations” should the United States experience another terrorist attack like 9/11. Ignatieff argued that “defeating terror requires violence” and “might also require coercion, secrecy, deception, even violation of rights.” “Sticking too firmly to the rule of law simply allows terrorists too much leeway to exploit our freedoms,” he said.[1]



In addition to Harvard’s top human rights academic arguing on behalf of “torture lite,” Harvard Law School’s Alan Dershowitz supports “torture warrants” so that U.S. presidents can torture detainees in so-called “ticking bomb” cases.


britain is the number one parasite nation of this world and is the main eviul brain behind american offensive (perpetual war) everywhere in the world. Why? Because only through american military might can a fourth rate country like england hope to have some influnce in the world.
and the rest of the world is resopibnsible for this-why has aljarreza engagesd the british journalists like frost in the english version?lokk how much propaganda english eversion al zareeja is making agasint irana nd zimbawe -in otherworlds doing the bidding for british media and british govermnet lies.
it is high time that thr british are removed forcibly or killed from evrywhere outside britian or may be even inside if they are not goign to stop destrying other nations.
britian must be deafeated militarily-not a great diffciluty with a coward nation-and must be eliminated as serious challnege to humanity

(do not belive it? the queen of pirates ugly elizabeth 1 of destitue and pariah state called england made a pact with turks to loot christain ships to weaken to help the turks and weaken christinity in Europe.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

about sex codes
Posted by: cef on Aug 4, 2008 4:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many problems with religion I see are based on failure to appreciate the vastly different situations between when the biblical and rabbinical codes were formulated and present day realities. Codes of sexual conduct in ancient times were created to deal with the problem of underpopulation. Without a large population the ability of a community to generate wealth and an increased standard of living was limited. I need not tell you that we don't have that problem today. So, why do we cling standards of sexual conduct that are nowadays counter-indicated? Could some of you Catholics answer me that? Birth control and homosexuality mean to me a smaller carbon footprint and one more parking place downtown.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interesting
Posted by: Gravitas on Aug 4, 2008 5:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
just like the food police ruined eating for everyone!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nobody can ruin sex for you
Po