Anyway, I don’t have time to write a proper response right now, but I promise, I’m gunning for you on Monday, Marc.

Jesus would be so proud of him.

LOL. Hi pot, I’m a kettle. What up?

First, delagar ought to know that “bint” is the Arabic for girl (maybe he does.. who knows?) so “you fucking lame-ass bint” is sheer poetry. Zesty misogynism, great line.

As for the rest of this, you all are pathetic. I assume you think that you are all without religion? Here’s a little newsflash: no one is without religion. Etymologically the word comes from the Latin for “obligation, reverence,” and is of the same root as “ligament.” Re-ligare = to re-bind. It’s not necessarily, or even in many cases primarily about God. It’s about worldviews and community. It’s about foundational belief, what we all share in common, what we hold sacred and inviolable, what draws us into relationship with one another, and maintains those relationships. So feminism and secularism are in this primary sense “religious” creeds or cultures, that serve to define and unify.

As for the monotheism that you so evidently scorn, know this: the liberalism that you so love is ineluctably related to it, particularly Judaism & Christianity.

For what – pray tell, oh excuse me “do tell” – is your personhood rooted in? Why should I respect it? If you – and I – are not transcendent, why should not the strong annihilate the weak? What difference would it – does it – make, anyhow? Where is your justice, and by what right do you expect mercy? I mean, are “you” “you” anyhow? On what ethical basis do you expect respect? Forget about women – who would likely lose if there was a real “war between the sexes” – or gays – whose “sexuality” isn’t even sex, and would never perpetuate a community, but for the condescension of the wider community, who can actually have babies – no, let’s just talk about everyone. If a fetus is not a person, then why are you? Is it based on your fleeting illusion of consciousness alone?

You say belief in transcendence is irrational and puerile. But without it, we do not even truly exist as persons. Without it, we are but illusions to ourselves. The ethical implications of that are pretty apparent. And they won’t be pleasant.

So how about this, why don’t you all cut the crap, and stop calling the likes of me “godbags?” Why don’t we all just break it down, get all pruny in the nihilism, and call each other “highly encephalated feeding tubes” or maybe even “cumbags” (which is nicely resonate, whether “you” be giving or receiving the cum.. least I think it has a ring to it..)? I’m sure you wits can come up with even better stuff.. or maybe not.. godbags, is after all, pretty lame..

Cause anyone who would dispense with 4,000 years of religious – philosophical and ethical thought – with such flippancy is either a moral or intellectual retard. You – and Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Russell & Co. – should be consigned to middle school eternally (a species of purgatory you imminently deserve) to memorize the Beatitudes, Ecclesiastes and the prophet Amos- say, just for a start- in the vain hope you might realize that without the transcendent and sacred we have nothing to save us form nothingness- from selfishness, rapacity and inevitable annihilation. You live at the mercy of hundreds of millions of imperfect – mostly nominal – Christians. Do not try to strip them of the faint illusion that “you” all are actually “persons” deserving “respect.” I beg you, for my sake as well as yours.

Puerile Fools. (Oh, sorry, is that an oppressive or substantive insult..? Oh fug it.. it shouldn’t matter to you idiot nihilists anyhow.)

well, anyway, enough for now.

But if your goal is to, say, build a bipartisan coalition that includes a number of feminists, if not necessarily the most radical/fringey ones, then you probably want to at minimum be judicious about using (name your Dworkin stereotype) interchangeably with “feminist.”

My thing is–and this is not what was happening here, again, I realize, but I do see it crop up pretty frequently among people I otherwise agree with on most things–the conflation of “godbag” (“fundie,” “crazy zealot”) with “religious folk.” partly because personally I don’t agree that it’s the religion itself that’s the problem, necessarily, although, or–well, that’s a more complicated subject. but also because I think there are too damn many religious folk in this country to afford to burn that bridge.

so, Kos, I dunno; Obama (sometimes, anyway), more like.

which i think was already being talked about in this discussion and presumably the one that preceded it; the remarks about religion itself being problematic (or so i initially read it) as opposed to just the zealots is what pushed my buttons; because, well, this has been a pet theme of mine for a while.

but also I do think there’s a fine line between “mock your enemies effectively enough so that they look bad to reasonable people” and “shame your allies in an attempt to bring them back in line.” not saying the latter’s being done here; like I say, two separate themes I’m working out here. also not saying i walk that line particularly well myself.