Sep 302006
You should subscribe to the I’m Not Sorry RSS feed and follow us on Twitter. Thanks for visiting!
Since so many requested pictures of the new beasts, here they are. Neo is the white one (my husband is a huge fan of The Matrix and has been trying to saddle a cat with this name for years) and Max is the black one. Enjoy the cuteness!
Subscribe in a reader
Awwwwwww!
They are ADORABLE!
Meow 😉
Ohmigosh they are PRECIOUS!
Interestingly, I have observed a very high rate of kind, loving, adoring pet owners amongst the INS readership (perhaps maternal instinct gone wild?). Therefore, I was wondering what your response is to the staggering number of cats and dogs killed each year by the euphemistically monikered Humane Society which destroys 3-4 million pets annually Humane Society Statistics.
If a woman friend came to you desperate because her cat was experiencing an “unplanned pregnancy”, would you do everything you could to provide for her cat and kittens or would you support her “choice” to make a quick trip down to the local Humane Society to “take care of the problem”? Perhaps you would even offer to adopt the kittens from your unprepared, overburdened woman friend, but she refused your kind offer, saying, “I could never do that to MY cat! I would always wonder what would happen to the kitties. They might grow up unhappy or abused and neglected and therefore, I choose to kill them instead. They will be happier that way, besides I’m just not ready to have kittens.” Maybe you would even compassionately offer to pay for the additional expenses she might incur with the new precious kittens, but she still CHOOSES to kill them, afterall, it is her cat, her choice, right? And most assuredly, you would never be judgmental or have any disparing thoughts about your friend afterwards, for you would completely understand she was just exercising her legitimate rights as a pet owner. Maybe there would even be a new INS blog proudly proclaiming the great results of this wonderful, unselfish, liberating “choice”.
Just some thoughts to Meow over.
Abortionhurts…
Funny, as I read the post I was THINKING that some irrational pro-lifer (sorry, redundant, I know) would post something to that effect.
As Patricia said in Thursday’s post… people who are okay with their decisions to terminate pregnancies are not going to subscribe to your arguements. We are not all of a sudden going to see the “error” in our judgement… because that’s just it. It’s OUR judgement call to make. Not yours, and you’re not going to guilt, bully, coax, persuade, or intimidate us into thinking the way you do. If you don’t like abortion, then don’t have one.
The fact that you are now comparing cats and kittens to babies shows just how out-there you are. Do I need to go into the logistics of the differences between what it takes for a cat/owner to raise a kitten and what it takes for a woman to bear and raise – hell, even just bear – a child? I will make the assumption – hestitantly – that you are rational enough to see the difference.
Sorry, Patricia. Had to retort.
Long time lurker… love the site. Thank you!
Oh, and just for the record… the cats are adorable. So is my little 3-week-old nephew, but that didn’t stop me from aborting his cousin six months ago and not having a SINGLE regret.
ack — is it canadian gyrl? — ya beat me to it…
Here’s some Words (they may not be Words of Wisdom, just my own experience from 27+ yrs of working in the veterinary field!) — nor do I have time to dig out statistics for you either (damnit Jim I’m a DOCTOR not a computer geek!) — yes, it’s true, each & every YEAR we have our own little Holocaust w/millions of unwanted, abandoned, neglected, and abused pets having to be euthanized.
No sane person can equate that w/the termination of a nonsentient Z/E/F… Been there, done that & as the previous commentator mentioned, it is MUCH more difficult to give that lethal injection (saddest of all when it is a young healthy animal that we simply cannot find a home for)!
P.S. Count me as extra-evil — I also spay pregnant animals w/never ONE MOMENT’S hesitation! 🙂
You can’t be serious AH
A pregnant cat can’t choose to terminate. A pregnant cat can’t even tell if she wants it or not. Instinct and biology is what push them to reproduce.
I’ve worked in a no-kill cat shelter for a long time and I accepted that we can’t save them all. So no I’m not outraged by the amount of cats and dogs euthanized. The shelters are doing their best but they can’t find a home for each and every found animal.
Sad, but it’s life. It’s not the shelters’ fault. It’s the stupid owners’ fault. And I wouldn’t hesitate to abort a pregnant cat if she was stray and I couldn’t find home for the kittens.
*makes funny noise*
Kitties kitties kitties!
The cuteness!
Ignore me. My kitty rabies just got a lot worse jsut by looking at that picture!
Therefore, I was wondering what your response is to the staggering number of cats and dogs killed each year by the euphemistically monikered Humane Society which destroys 3-4 million pets annually..My response is that obviously many people do not properly care for their pets and I’m very happy that the Humane Society exists. Duh…
The rest of your post AH, does not really warrant a response but oh, what the heck. Although you make no sense whatsoever and I find that pathetic, you still made me laugh. Thanks for keeping me amused. By the way have you seen a doctor lately?
Patricia thanks for posting pics of your wonderful and very cute pets. For additional income I have a part-time pet-sitting business and I love to see and hear about people’s beloved pets. I have one dog; a very cute and furry Chow Chow.
I am owned by 6 cats m’self. Your cats are a-dor-able.
I will do anything to save an animal or human’s life ONCE IT’S BORN.
If I find a pregnant stray cat- unless she’s due -literally- any minute- I’ll have her spayed. I have never regreted it. The mini-holocause dealing with DOMESTICATED animals is not the animal’s fault- it’s irresponsible humans’ fault.
cattygurl
Well said. You can also equate your arguement with irresponsible humans who are either unequiped to be a parent, or their condition will cause a child to be either abused, or neglected
I love all life I encounter, but that does not hold true for everyone.
My point is that cats, dogs,etc.. have no choice in the matter. That is what makes human women unique. Women have the intelligence by right to decide what they desire in to conceiving, or not. My bet is that many cats would say sorry, not for me if they had that choice.
I find this arguement bordering on the absurd.
The denial of women having the right to choose for themselves is a vestage out moded paradigms that existed centuries ago. The religions, the societal paradigms, the ingrained temerity of male dominance is the driving force of these farcical arguements.
Choice will prevail because it is forward progress, rather than anal dispositions outmoded by {GASP} evolution
Robert, You say, “Choice will prevail because it is forward progress, rather than anal dispositions outmoded by {GASP} evolution”
Ummm…no, not really. Evolutionarily speaking, pro-abortion supporters who expend energy fighting for the “right” to kill their own offspring will cause their own Darwinian demise. Obviously, over time, the choice to kill will not prevail, nor is it “forward progress”, but rather a recipe for self-inflicted disaster as the pro-abortion disposition is killing itself out of existence. The demographic results of this “choice” will have an increasingly significant impact on the nation’s social issues as the birth rate of pro-lifers far exceeds that of the pro-abortion followers. Be ready for the paradigm pendulum to swing in a new direction, restoring morality to our great nation.
Ummmmmm…I think AH is from another planet. …the birth rate of pro-lifers far exceeds that of the pro-abortion followers It’s more like: in developing 3rd world countries where abortion is illegal and birth control is practically non-existent, the birth rate exceeds rates in developed countries. However, unfortunately infant and child mortality rates in 3rd world countries are also high and many of these infants and children will not reach adulthood.
Ummmmmm…the choice to kill really does prevail in places where abortion is illegal. Antichoicers, give yourselves a pat on the back.
Ummmmmm…living species throughout the ages do kill their own offspring periodically (offspring meaning BORN beings) and survive just fine; thank you Darwin.
I think AH’s pendulum swung into her forehead a while back…frying some brain cells.
I can understand the argument that evolutionarily speaking, pro-abortion supporters who ARE CHILD-FREE BY CHOICE who indeed leave no biological offspring will “die out.”
But plenty of people who are not pro-life still procreate. Also, while it`s true that most (though not all) children do absorb many of their parents` values, they don`t always agree with and consistently maintain every opinion (for instance, the children of conservatives are statistically likely to turn out to be conservative themselves, but not necessarily pro-life).
Also, immigrants are the wild card. Right now, they tend to be both conservative and procreative — and therefore are not surprisingly more pro-life than the general population. But as their next generation matures, and their economic status generally improves, their opinions will likely tend to start branching off into all sorts of combinations (e.g., conservative on some issues, liberal on others, etc.)
I dearly love studying all that demographic stuff.
“I can understand the argument that evolutionarily speaking, pro-abortion supporters who ARE CHILD-FREE BY CHOICE who indeed leave no biological offspring will ‘die out.’”
That won’t make them die out. It’s possible for sons and daughters of people who aren’t childfree by choice to become childfree by choice (and thus part of the childfree by choice demographic groups) themselves. The same goes for a lot of other categories of people, from informal fandoms to formal hierarchies. You don’t need genes from Trekkie parents to watch Star Trek and enjoy it, you don’t need genes from a Catholic priest to join that priesthood, etc…
Mina, I meant only that their biological lines would end, not that their ideas/influence would die out.
Ironic you should mention the priesthood — for centuries, the best and the brightest who wanted to pursue scholarship in Christian Europe did so by entering religious communities, thereby removing themselves from the gene pool. Oh well.
L, I see immigrants as a very positive influence on our nation’s morality and agree with your basic analysis, but how do you explain that they are largely conservative and procreative since they are often fleeing from oppressed conditions? It would seem that they would immediately relish their new-found “freedoms”, including the “right” to abortion. I’m curious why you predict that “improved economic status” will cause immigrants to transition towards liberalism when conservatives are stereotyped as the party of “the haves”? How do you define “conservative” in your assertion “the children of conservatives are statistically likely to turn out to be conservative themselves, but not necessarily pro-life”, since clearly the abortion debate is most often right along party lines?
Mina, the American Catholic Church is also relying on immigrants to fill the Priesthood as we have aborted/contracepted our once large family sizes into the cultural normative 2-3 children per family. Several decades ago, many American Catholic families had at least one child enter the religious vocation, but today’s Priest isn’t likely to have English as his first language.
AH, over decades, it isn`t as simple as “liberal” and “conservative,” and certainly not when it comes to “party lines.” Look at the Democrats of my grandmother`s FDR generation and compare then to Democrats today — lots of differences there. And economic status more often correlates to a desire for smaller taxes and smaller government (though of course not always) — I know many fiscal conservatives who are social liberals, and split their votes.
And thank god in modern America most babies now survive infancy, and we have every reason to believe that the “cultural normative 2-3 children per family” will all survive into adulthood. It made sense to have 10 kids when a third of them were likely to die off. The cultural normative changed for positive reasons.
<
OOPS hit the wrong key. Way to go Skate! nice post
I spent the last 20 minutes making a reply and I obliterated it with one stroke. Feel free to call me dumbass, because that is what I am doing now.
AH,
The point you make is wrong. It is societal in nature not some gene controlled behaviour that will die out. The evolution is that women have discarded their second class stature, and are demanding their proper due as equals in a society that claims to represent equality.
As for children walking the same road as their parents,my father is an extreme religious fanatic, and I diometrically oppose his views.
Also. I am the child of immigrants
and I can state that most immigrants do not relish the chance of having abortions. They are conservative in this aspect, but they support the Democrat party because their real issues are adressed, that being living wages, health care, and having support in advancing their well being. The exact same issues all your American ancestors related to when they came here
You seemed concerned that the new priests do not speak English. Did Jesus speak with a Southern english twang?
The real issue is that the church has been extremely tarnished by priests who have indulged in pedophilia. The Catholic church must do some honest,introspective review to reassert a position of integrity.
I,
You have nailed the head! A woman’s life expentcity was 35-40 at one time, the reason being they were compelled to bear as many children as possible, starting at the age of puberty. You are also so correct about immigrants and the children they bear, I am an example of this. My parents came here as refugees after World War 2. As I stated my father is an extreme evangalist and that makes us diametrically opposed.As I stated, it is not a matter of genetics. It is a matter of societal influence, and one having the ability to make personal decisions
I must also include your assertions of the brightest entering the religious enclave. You are so right on. Copernicus is an example of this. Problem is that he would not publish his findings untill after his death. Gallileo suffered the same consequances. For any one interrested get the book “Gallileos Daughter” It comprises the communications they had and provides a facsinating example of the period.
Robert, I greatly appreciate and admire immigrants, so your comment of “You seemed concerned that the new priests do not speak English. Did Jesus speak with a Southern english twang?” is offensive and ridiculous. My concern is that we Americans are not contributing our share of men to the Priesthood. I agree with you that “The real issue is that the church has been extremely tarnished by priests who have indulged in pedophilia. The Catholic church must do some honest,introspective review to reassert a position of integrity.” Well said, Robert, however, the same problem exists in other vocations such as the teaching profession and politicians, wherein adults are abusing our youth through pedophilia. Therefore, you advice should be applied far beyond the Priesthood.
AH,
Why do you find that as offensive? I found it offensive when you stated most priests do not speak English, but with your explanation I see where you were going.
Yes! of cource the problem of pedophilia crosses a wide range. We were speaking of the church and that is why I focussed on that area. It is particullarly troubling for me to see the extent of abuse by priests since I went to Catholic school and always believed priests were beyond reproach. The rest I could stomach because it naturally follows that a pervert would try to put himself in a position of having as much contact with children as possible,i.e. Scout leaders, coaches, guidance counselors….
“Mina, the American Catholic Church is also relying on immigrants to fill the Priesthood as we have aborted/contracepted our once large family sizes into the cultural normative 2-3 children per family.”
It’s more like aborted/contracepted/abstained our once large family sizes.
With more non-housewife job opportunities and less of the “spinster” stigma there’s less pressure on women to marry by our late teens or early twenties, whether in love or not, than there was in the past. This includes women who stay virgins before marriage!
Suppose someone uses no birth control in her life besides premarital abstinence. She’s still likely to have fewer children if she marries at 27 or 37 because she finally fell deeply in love, or if she never marries because she never finds a man she loves and trusts enough, than if she marries at 17 because housewife is her post-high-school career plan.
“And thank god in modern America most babies now survive infancy, and we have every reason to believe that the ‘cultural normative 2-3 children per family’ will all survive into adulthood. It made sense to have 10 kids when a third of them were likely to die off.”
OTOH, how many of them died because their parents couldn’t and didn’t take enough care of all of them (for example, dying because their parents could take care of 2 or 3 but had and barely fed 10 instead)?
Mina,
Great points. Their is no longer a valid reason for women to go through the debilitating procees of conceiving as many children as possible. That applied to an age of high mortality rates amoung children, but the collateral damage was that it killed women due to the strain it put on a woman to bear so many pregnancies.
The problem was, and is, in many countries today is that giving birth to a female is a disappointment to male dominated societies, and rural cultures, that rely on males to carry on the agricultural work, and inheriting the land of the family. Heaven forbid the concept of a female being capable of doing the same.
One point the anti-choice fail to realise {paticularly in third world nations} is that the population continues to increase while resourses decrease. Whatever one thinks about China, the government has been correct in realising continued growth of population will lead to disaster. Do they limit population growth or allow births to the point that their resources will not be enough to properly satisfy all in regards to a productive, and healthy life style?
Think of all the billions spent on Iraq today. That money could go a long way into providing relief for the people most in need of this
Robert, If motherhood is so debilitating, why have women outlived men throughout the history of humankind? According to this Harvard study “In all developed countries and most undeveloped ones, women outlive men, sometimes by a margin of 10 years,” Perls and Fretts note. “In the U.S., average life expectancy at birth is about 79 years for women and about 72 years for men.” “It seems likely that women have been outliving men for centuries and perhaps longer,” say Perls and Fretts. Even with the sizable risk conferred by childbirth, women have outsurvived men at least since the 1500s. In their studies of centenarians, Perls and Fretts found that a surprising number of women who lived to be 100 or more gave birth in their forties. These 100-year-old women were four times as likely to have given birth in their forties as women born in the same year who died at age 73. A study of centenarians in Europe by the Max Planck Institute of Demography in Germany found the same relationship between longevity and fecundity.
According to the Harvard study, “Although women can expect to live longer than men, the gap is closing. Death rates have begun to converge in the past 20 years. Some researchers attribute the convergence to women taking on the behaviors and stresses formerly considered the domain of males — smoking, drinking, and working outside the home.” For example, Perls and Fretts point out that deaths from lung cancer have almost tripled in women in the past 20 years. One study concluded that, on average, middle-aged female smokers live no longer than male smokers. “Smoking,” Perls and Fretts conclude, “seems to be the ‘great equalizer.’”
Copyright 1998 President and Fellows of Harvard College
You have a gift of twisting words to suit your arguements. I said bearing as many children as possible was debiltating {and is today, in impoverished countries}.
What is the percentage of women who lived to be 100, and bore children in their forties, prior to the 20′th century? Suprising is too “simplistic” as you love to use that term for anyone who disagrees. “Childish” being a close second.
So let me get this straight. The mortality rate between women and men is shrinking because women choose to emulate male behaviour?
Any of you women out there want to join me in a drink, and smoking a cigar, while we discuss female anatomy in a disgusting manner?
What was the average life span of women and men prior to the 20′th century? What was the status of these long lifed women?
So we must surmise that the women’s rights movement has shorthened the average life span of women? Just doing the twist here. Should we go back to women sitting at home, taking care of 5 or 6 children, and lovingly cooking dinner for their hard working husband? That certainly is a choice any woman can take if she finds that as an attractive life style, while they let their education go to waste.
How do you explain this to women who have gone to college, in order to use their intelligence to obtain goals they have,other than stay at home mothers? As I mentioned before, my sister is a vice-president at a major bank. She is doing what she has wanted to do. She neither smokes or drinks, though I do.{guess she will be attending to my funeral someday} She did not adopt male behaviour, she just sought to utilise her intelligence, and put it to use as she saw fit.
Another important point is that in today’s economics, both partners have to work to make a decent living for their familial unit. How much does it cost to properly rear and provide their children with a proper life, and the opportunity for the parents to afford a higher education for them?
How about health care? Where I work health insurance for a single working parent takes 160 dollars A WEEK, from their paycheck in order to insure their family.
The Harvard study fails to cover the realities of economics, today, and ignores the issue of women seeking to be something other than a baby machine{can’t wait to see the reply on that one}
“Should we go back to women sitting at home, taking care of 5 or 6 children, and lovingly cooking dinner for their hard working husband? That certainly is a choice any woman can take if she finds that as an attractive life style, while they let their education go to waste.”
That’s not necessarily letting her education go to waste, especially if she majored in something like early childhood education (very relevant for raising many young children) or she spent more time learning about attracting a romantic partner (very relevant for keeping a husband interested in working hard for her) than about academics when she was in school. Even a degree in math or chemistry may not be wasted if she’s homeschooling her kids or at least helping them with their homework in those subjects. The same applies for househusbands, of course.
However, one big risk of making one’s marriage one’s livelihood is that it makes the abstinence option a lot less affordable. I’m reminded a bit of this: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/bitingbeaver/116014605787356773/#99519
“…I was scared shitless of getting pregnant again after having birth control fail and have two babies in a row (on two different types of birth control, at that!). Not angry, but petrified. The result? I refused to have sex with my husband at all for two years. That’s just what the anti-choicers say they want, right? Don’t want a baby, don’t have sex. Guess what? Two years without sex leads straight to a divorce. So, great idea there. I’m sure that a divorce and two “broken home” kids aren’t exactly the result they’re aiming for, but that’s what you get when you do follow their dumbass directions.”
Again, I bet the same risk would apply for a husband who refuses sex for 2 years.
“How do you explain this to women who have gone to college, in order to use their intelligence to obtain goals they have,other than stay at home mothers?”
You sure don’t explain it by saying they’re “acting like men”! In all species, both males and females have survival instincts, hence both many men and many women wanting to earn a living.
“She did not adopt male behaviour, she just sought to utilise her intelligence, and put it to use as she saw fit.”
Exactly.
Mina,
After I re-read my post,I regretted the point I made about stay at home mother’s wasting their education. My sincere apology. Women have the right to choose what they want in life, whether that be a career or a stay at home mother.
I am a little confused about the “acting like men” part. Where did I make point?
I was refuting AH’s position, regarding that point.
My ex-wife and I also abstained for 3 years with the same result.
One of the most influential reasons why I log on and post in blogs like this is to get a better understanding of women, and their issues. To provide support as a male, said male must try to discuss with women in a humanistic rather than a sexual way. If I digress it is a matter of male ignorance,on my part. If I get critised, I welcome it, as long as it is constructive in nature.
Thanks!
“After I re-read my post,I regretted the point I made about stay at home mother’s wasting their education. My sincere apology.”
Cool, apology accepted. I was just thinking “wait a minute, is an education necessarily wasted if the graduate doesn’t end up working in the field she or he majored in?” and thought of some housespouse examples. Tons of non-housespouse examples exist too, of course. 🙂
“I am a little confused about the ‘acting like men’ part. Where did I make point?”
Oops, I should have made it clearer that I didn’t mean you’re the one who made that point.
“Any of you women out there want to join me in a drink, and smoking a cigar, while we discuss female anatomy in a disgusting manner?” Robert, well I would definitely join you for a drink but would have to pass on the cigar. Since I’ve heard my share of disgusting female anatomy discussions…it probably wouldn’t bother me 🙂 When I am out with my sports teammates (women’s team) we basically drink and can be quite gross at times – sometimes discussing male anatomy in a disgusting matter 🙂 Yes, indeed. When my gay and straight teammates are out at the bars together the topics get very interesting and it’s lots of fun. I am an assistant coach on a girl’s (U19) team and holy cow you should hear their language in the locker room. Worse than what I’ve heard from boys or men.
I don’t really have a point here other than girls and women should be able to act like themselves and not worry whether or not it’s appropriate for their gender. I have always been a total tomboy and still am at middle age – but I also like to dress up once in a while, do up the hair, put on the make-up, etc. – and just be a girl (woman, whatev). Generally, acting “like a lady” for me is icky and boring 🙂 but if it works for others; fine with me! Girls rock.
Mina,
Thanks again!
Insights, such as yours, are what I am looking for. I feel I am getting a well balanced view{unlike someone I have decided to ignore, AH} on what women really feel about issues in their lives. That is the great benefit of blogs. You get an honest perception of people by what they write. Something you never find in news stories or books written by writers with a personal agenda.
If I ever need to be critised again, I would appreciate it.
Skate,
I would love to share a drink with you. Never mind the cigars. They stink! I love reading your posts because you strike me as a person with her feet planted firmly on the ground. Also one who enjoys the fun in life, with a genuine sense of humour. You rock!
BTW….. Superbowl prediction..Bears 21 Denver 17. The Broncos have a super defense, but they need to find a way to score more. They happen to be my favorite team, after the Bears, of cource. I was happy for Elway when he won his first Super Bowl. He was deserving of that
Skate,
Watched the game today. Sorry your team lost. It was a great game with not so great results.
I believe EVERYONE should just be themselves and not worry what the proper behaviour constitutes. I try to view all people as individuals irrespective of gender. My best friends have been both male, and female. I want to explore the similarities rather than the perceived differences of genders. I believe most of the differences have been instituded by religions dominated by male influence. Extremist Islam is the most guilty of this, but is evangelical Christianity so far removed from the same position?
Both place women firmly as second class and subservient to male influence. One of the reasons I am non-religious.
I find it so sad that there continues to be such a disparity within our society. We are,after all of the same species. If we could get past obsolete paradigms I beleive we would be a much healthier society. Accept each other for our personal qualities, and screw what religion preaches.
Hey Robert,
Yeah it was a bummer that my team lost but it was a good game. The good news is that my most favorite team in the world, the AVs, (Super Jo is God…OK just kidding) won & in style too! This last weekend I was out of town playing in a tournament and then Sunday night I had a coed game so that makes 5 games in 3 days; my old body doesn’t like me right now…hah!
“I try to view all people as individuals irrespective of gender. My best friends have been both male, and female. I want to explore the similarities rather than the perceived differences of genders.” My beliefs are on the same page as yours. I get very tired of hearing all the arm chair psychology about how different men and women are. For pete’s sake we are all human beings. We do have our differences of course but a lot of the polarization between male and female genders happens at a young age. Girls start thinking they are second class people well before puperty.
I am a member of a Christian church and one that is quite patriarchal in it’s teachings. Within my faith there are groups of both women and men who are in opposition to these teachings and have formed organizations to support leadership roles for women. I “hang in there” because I have a spiritual life and respect the basic theology of my faith. The clergy need to wake up and realize that their faith is dying, not because of the spirituality (which is awesome) but because of some stupid rules & canons imposed by the early fathers of the church – mostly because at that time and in that area of the world – patriarchy was the name of the game.
I agree with you; screw what religion teaches! I firmly believe that we can progress rapidly as spiritual beings (which means nothing more than having humility and being able to care for other humans w/out whoring oneself out to religious beliefs that make no sense).
hiya Skate,
“The world distrusts us not because we are rich and free….They distrust us because we are deaf and blind,because too often we don’t understand and make no effort to understand”
Also….
“We have this cultural proclivity that says,’We know what is best and if we truly want to do something, whether in church or in society, no one has the right to tell us no’ That cultural proclivity which defines us in many ways, has to be surrendered or we will never be part of God’s kingdom”
The author of those quotes?
Cardinal Francis George, atchbishop of the Roman Catholic diocese in Chicago
Chicago Suntimes, 10/31/06 issue.
Sorry! I missed an important component of his quote……..
“Many of us are not rich and some of us aren’t especially free”
This is one relgious leader who “gets it” I was moved by reading this today. The part I wish he would have elaborated on is….”some of us aren’t especially free” My gut feeling is that he was referring to women in society, and within the church, as he included both entities in his quote. Almost makes me want to be A Christian again. Almost, but not quite. When I see more church leaders espouse his views, perhaps I will start to take them seriously again.
It is the blowhards, self-righteous, self-serving “Religious” leaders such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell,etc…that make people, such as me turn away in disgust.
“We do have our differences of cource”……The important point is whether we embrace those differences, and welcome them as enlightening, or we use them to further the precept of male dominance, as inherently suggested by biblical “teachings” as well as societal structure. You are so correct that second class status begins for girls well before puberty. It only intensifies as they grow older. Once they reach puberty, they become sexual objects for boys with raging harmones, and pedophiles with the brain of a teenager, meaning they never grew up.
I blame most of this on a society that refuses to address the issues in an honest manner, and religions that preach female subservience.
God! I am starting to rabble on.
Thanks for the reply.
Oh! Almost forgot. GO BEARS! {7-0} and good luck to the Broncos. Hope to see both in Miami, in January