Side note: When you refer to me, please do me the respect of calling me “Fargus” or nothing at all. None of this “Fargy” nonsense. I don’t need your condescension.

Her main thrust was clearly the misogyny. I’m throwing in other things that could be attributed to an unwavering belief in those doctrines of faith held so dear that people are willing to kill and die for them, and actions condoned by adherents to those doctrines. My bad for being confusing that. She was talking about misogyny, I was talking about the others.

I’m guessing that it was a throwaway comment that fit into the context of previous posts she’s had about the misogyny of the Catholic Church. Most likely, the passive role of Mary and the active part of God, in the “daddy” role, contribute in her view to the present and continued misogyny of the church.

Where does she mention or imply pedophilia (as if it were in Catholic doctrine in the first place)? Where does she mention a historical repression of science?

She jumps from the immaculate conception to misogyny. What I take from that is she thinks believing in the immaculate conception is somehow used to justify misogyny, which is, to say the least, a leap in logic, and on top of that, she doesn’t even justify her claim that the Catholic Church is misogynistic.

Excuse me, I did not mean that Kerry’s campaing was actively anti-Catholic. His position on abortion was, however, interpreted as anti-Catholic by many Catholics, causing them to vote more for a GOP candidate for the first time in recorded history. So, if something that is debatably and incidentially anti-Catholic, such as being pro-choice drives Catholic voters away, why would something that is overtly and intentionally anti-Catholic not drive even more away.

Note that you’re singling out the immaculate conception, and not the main thrust of her point, which was the misogyny of the Catholic Church. Or maybe its historical repression of science. Or maybe its condoning pedophilia in the priesthood. I dunno. Like I said, if it was all just believing in the Immaculate Conception and nothing else, then there wouldn’t be a problem. Just a disagreement.

The problem is that beliefs don’t end inside your head. People feel that they’ve got to go defend them, that they’ve got a monopoly on the truth, etc. So your assertion that belief in the immaculate conception is completely innocuous (again, what would you think of a claim today, in 2007, of an immaculate conception? Would you come down this hard on someone for saying that it’s a ridiculous assertion?) is only half right.

She is mocking the immaculate conception! It doesn’t take a phd to understand that!

Also, you weren’t even able to read what I just posted in this thread about how 2004 was the first time since exit polls were taken that Catholics voted GOP over Dem. Or so I assume by the your use of the fact that not every single Catholic in the country voted against John Kerry (when the trend lends itself more to support the claim that Catholics tend not to like anti-Catholicism).

I’m not ranking people’s beliefs based upon what seems reasonable (which is, after all, quite subjective). I’m ranking them on how many acts of violence they have compelled. How does believing in the immaculate conception directly cause anyone to commit a violent act?

Compare that to the number of deaths and violent acts that have been commited by people who believed that God wanted them to beat and/or murder their wives or blow up office workers, or slaughter school children.

I’m not going on the warpath; I have nothing but contempt for John Edwards, regardless of who his staffers are, and it doesn’t mean that much to me. The only reason I’m still blogging about it today is because of Edwards’ transparently lying statement of taking Marcotte at her word that she wasn’t trying to malign anyone’s religion.

But other people will go on the warpath, and they have a lot more firepower than Chris Bowers, for cryin’ out loud…

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

If anything, she’s taking for granted that the Immaculate Conception happened, and positing an alternate scenario taking place afterwards. Offensive? Depends on the beholder, of course. But my point remains: you’re standing there ranking people’s beliefs based on what’s more reasonable, and that gets you into a morass of nobody ever being able to say anything. Think Tom Cruise and Scientology are ridiculous? Perish the thought. It’s offensive to even think it.