10
   

Why Women Aren't People (But Corporations Are)

 
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2014 03:39 pm
Hobby Lobby Spent Millions Funding Accused Child Molester and Cult Minister Bill Gothard

http://s25.postimg.org/i1iwujl33/Untitled_82.jpg

Yesterday Bill Gothard released a statement. Just as notable as what he refused to admit to is what he did admit to. Here is the relevant paragraph:

This emphasis on outward appearance was also manifested by bringing selected young people to serve at the Headquarters and causing others to feel rejected and offended by my favoritism. My actions of holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong. They demonstrated a double-standard and violated a trust. Because of the claims about me I do want to state that I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent.


Several women have gone on record saying that Gothard kissed them or fingered them while they were working at Headquarters as teens. But the most consistent accusation across the testimony of at least several dozen women is that Gothard played footsie with them, spent long periods of time holding their hands, and touched their hair—all of which Gothard has now publicly admitted to. And if you ask me, that Gothard would feel so backed against the wall as to admit to these things rather than continuing to deny them rather confirms the the reliability of these women’s stories in general.

But why, you ask, would I assume that Gothard isn’t being honest here? Could it not be possible that the women who have accused Gothard of kissing or fingering them were making that part up to sensationalize their stories? My regular readers are unlikely to believe Gothard’s denial for the same reasons I am—Gothard has been finding ways to get away with his predatory behavior for over three decades, and that makes him therefore more than a little bit untrustworthy. But some in Gothard’s camp may be predisposed to believe that he is now being truthful.

Except.

Does Gothard honestly expect anyone to believe that a 50 or 60-year-old man could play footsie with a 16-year-old girl, hold and stroke her hands for long periods of time, caress her hair, etc., all without any “sexual intent”? Especially a 50 or 60-year-old man who leads a religious empire and teaches his followers that couples should not touch or have physical contact before marriage? Why in the world, if not with “sexual intent,” would Gothard touch these girls like this, violating not only his own rules but also the girls’ consent and their parents’ trust?

Source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/04/shorter-bill-gothard-playing-footsie-isnt-sexual.html



Back in 2003, Midwest Christian Outreach president Don Veinot published a book called A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life. In it, Veinot detailed the history of Gothard’s ministry and accused Gothard of being legalistic and unscriptural.

In that book Veinot said nothing about concerns regarding Bill Gothard’s behavior toward the young girls sent to work at headquarters. Instead, Veinot focused only on Gothard’s theology. In the wake of Recovering Grace’s new revelations regarding Bill Gothard’s sexual molestation of young employees, Veinot has published a new article on the Midwest Christian Outreach website.

It turns out that he knew and intentionally chose to say nothing.

We also knew we had information about his behavior and sexual proclivities which we did not use or comment overly much about in the book. We knew, for example, that he is far too, shall I say, familiar with the young females he selects as his personal assistants. The reason we did not go into that too much was that we had spoken with the families of some of the former IBLP women and/or their families and realized that Bill had done so much damage, we did not want to subject them abuse to additional shame or possible embarrassment by making it more public. We decided that we could make our case that he is unqualified for leadership in a Christian ministry without having to describe his more prurient behavior toward those under his authority.


Source: http://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/bill-gothard-when-people-know-and-do-nothing/



- Through various trusts and corporations, the Green family / Hobby Lobby donated millions of dollars worth of real estate to the Gothard organization beginning in 2000. This includes the Little Rock Training Center, the Nashville Training Center, the New Zealand Training Center, and the Big Sandy Campus.

- David Green (Founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby) is listed on Amazon as an endorser of Gothard’s 2010 work The Amazing Way.

- In 2009, Steve Green (President of Hobby Lobby and son of David Green) shared the stage with Bill Gothard at the Big Sandy Regional Conference. In 2012, he was listed alongside Gothard as a speaker at the Business Leaders Seminar, held at the IBLP Headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois. Steve Green is also a featured speaker on Gothard’s online Embassy Institute.

- In 2009, Bill Gothard was invited by David Green to speak to Hobby Lobby employees and distribute IBLP materials to employees at one of their retail locations.

Source: http://redemptionpictures.com/2014/07/03/hobby-lobby-duggars-bill-gothard/
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2014 07:49 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
Accused Child Molester


Look at what Obama is accused of. Can you really say accusations matter? You need to start thinking. And he sounds a lot like Bill Clinton.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2014 08:11 pm
@coldjoint,
Quote:
Look at what Obama is accused of.


More importantly, look at who the nutcases are doing the accusing.

Can you say coldjoint, coldjoint?
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2014 08:35 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Can you say coldjoint, coldjoint?


Can you say Marxist troll?http://www.acidpulse.net/images/smilies/chuckle.gif
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2014 08:38 pm
@coldjoint,
Yes, I can. You are a Marxist troll.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2014 08:43 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Yes, I can. You are a Marxist troll.


Night Pee Wee
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2014 08:49 pm
@coldjoint,
You are a chickenshit, Marxist troll.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2014 08:56 pm
Quote:
Howard Zinn was born in August 1922 to Jewish immigrant parents (both factory workers) in Brooklyn, New York. He joined the Army Air Force during World War II and was assigned as a bombardier in the 490th Bombardment Group, which targeted sites in Berlin, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary. After the war, Zinn attended New York University on the GI Bill, graduating with a bachelor's degree in 1951.


Member of the Communist Party

In the late 1940s, Zinn served as vice-chairman for a Brooklyn branch of the American Labor Party (ALP), an organization run and dominated by Communists. As historian Ronald Radosh writes, "The ALP was but the first of many Communist-led groups with which Zinn would lend both his name and his active participation." Among these were the American Veterans Committee, the American Peace Mobilization, and the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee.

In 1949, the FBI opened a domestic security investigation on Zinn (the 423-page FBI File #100-360217) because of his involvement with Communist front groups like ALP and his status as an active member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). (Zinn's membership in the party lasted from 1948 until at least 1953, and perhaps as late as 1956; he was known to attend party meetings as often as five times per week.) Notably, however, he never acknowledged his Communist Party membership, and whenever he was asked about it, he denied it.

In 1951 Zinn taught a “Basic Marxism” class at the CPUSA's Brooklyn, New York headquarters, where he emphasized that “the basic teachings of Marx and Lenin were sound and should be adhered to by those present.”

The FBI again scrutinized Zinn's activities in the 1960s on account of his criticism of the Bureau's civil-rights investigations. At that time, Zinn was a pro-Castro activist and a supporter of such organizations as the Black Panther Party, the Progressive Labor Party, the Socialist Workers Party, and the Students for a Democratic Society. A 1964 FBI memorandum says that in 1962, Zinn “publicly protested United States demand for withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba”; i.e., he was in favor of the U.S. being vulnerable to a Soviet nuclear attack. Moreover, Zinn was named on the FBI's “Security Index” and “Communist Index”; the former included individuals who were judged to represent a high enough risk that they could be detained by the government in the event of a national emergency.

In 1966, Zinn co-sponsored a testimonial dinner in honor of Herbert Aptheker of the American Institute for Marxist Studies and the CPUSA.

In February 1969, Zinn was listed as a sponsor of the Massachusetts Committee to Abolish the House Un-American Activities Committee, a Communist Party front group.

The FBI investigated Zinn still further in 1974 when he traveled to North Vietnam with Daniel Berrigan to publicize his anti-war positions and his desire to see America's Communist enemies win the Vietnam War. That same year, the Bureau ended all its investigations of Zinn.


http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=939
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2014 09:01 pm
@coldjoint,
You write this as if you think there is something wrong with it, cj.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2014 08:13 am
Costco & Hobby Lobby: When the Double Standard is the standard

Over the past week, we've seen the Supremes take another step in validating corporate personhood...this time in the form of enabling the religious believes of owners trump the law.

Three cheers from the right on that one.

Yesterday we have a Costco decision to drop Dinesh D'Souza's most recent book from distribution.

The right's position - this is the most egregious first amendment violation ever and it's all because the CEO of Costco is an Obama supporter. How DARE he assert his political opinion in a way that limits D'Souza's right to get his message out. D'Souza's most recent FB post is essentially a "How dare they?" rant about how this could adversely impact his livelihood - and it's all because of politics. This is the common line from Rushbo to Drudge to Fox - an Obama supporter has quashed the free speech of a dissenter (while continuing to carry Hilllary's book), endangering America's access to the truth and putting the author's livelihood at risk.

Let's skip the fact that there's no right to have your free speech distributed. Let's skip the fact that D'Souza is an overpoliticized hack trying to legitimatize the "truth" of his single minded anti-Obama opinions by positioning his work as "scholarly". And let's skip the fact that businesses for time eternal have been making decisions about their merchandise - adding and dropping items as they see demand change.

Let's skip all that.

Where's the outrage for the cashier at the local Hobby Lobby now denied her access to the full range of appropriate, legal, and sometimes necessary health care? You think that inaccessibility impacts her livelihood?

As always, the double standard is the current that flows beneath the party line. The livelihood of a hack right wing writer challenged - bad. The livelihood (and health) of thousands of women nationwide put in peril - no problem.

You pick the topic, they'll find the double standard. IOKIYAR. Sheesh these guys are slimy.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2014 08:19 am
@coldjoint,
Moron. You Marxist troll.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2014 08:25 am
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
A true conservative would notice that all businesses pass their costs onto the consumer so Hobby Lobby would simply have its rates raised to pay for the coverage they don't want to pay for but the insurance company will pay for.

What does that have to do with the outright lies from Democrats?


It shows you are so full of **** you don't recognize lies when you see them.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2014 01:10 pm
@parados,
Quote:
It shows you are so full of **** you don't recognize lies when you see them.


Really? I guess I should listen to a paid liar like you. Don't hold your breath, try a gun it is quicker.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2014 01:25 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Earlier today, five men agreed that closely held corporations with anti-birth control religious beliefs cannot be required to provide contraceptive coverage to female employees. Corporations are people, my friend. Women? Not so much.
Do u allege that men of the MALE gender
have a legal right to free birth control? Condoms??
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2014 02:53 pm
@coldjoint,
You write that as if you think there is something wrong with it, cj.

There is of course. The FBI shouldn't be spying on its citizens.

But please elucidate.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2014 09:04 am
Quote:
So why all the vitriol? Why all the talk of coercion? In a very insightful post at Bloomberg View, blogger Megan McArdle explains the situation. In fact, it’s one of the better posts I’ve seen on the controversy.

McArdle says three factors are involved. First, the left cannot understand why religion should merit this sort of deference. Although “the religious right views religion as a fundamental, and indeed essential, part of the human experience,” she writes, “the secular left views it as something more like a hobby.” For the left, therefore, “it’s as if a major administrative rule was struck down because it unduly burdened model-train enthusiasts.” In fact, although McArdle doesn’t put it this way, the Court has allowed religion to interfere with sex, which really is “a fundamental, and indeed essential, part of the human experience.” It just seems crazy.

Second, about coercion. From the classical liberal perspective, in which rights are principally negative rights, the Hobby Lobby case does not involve coercion. As McArdle writes, “How is not buying you something equivalent to ‘imposing’ on you”? But if we consider that our society confers many positive rights as well as negative ones, the situation becomes much more complicated:

“Do what you want, as long as you don’t try to force me to do it, too” works very well, which is why this verbal formula has had such a long life. But when you introduce positive rights into the picture, this abruptly stops working. You have a negative right not to have your religious practice interfered with, and say your church forbids the purchase or use of certain forms of birth control. If I have a negative right not to have my purchase of birth control interfered with, we can reach a perhaps uneasy truce where you don’t buy it and I do. But if I have a positive right to have birth control purchased for me, then suddenly our rights are directly opposed: You have a right not to buy birth control, and I have a right to have it bought for me, by you.

Third, she writes, the classically liberal distinction between the state and civil society has broken down. Classical liberalism accepted a large public space that did not belong to the government. Now, however,

For many people, this massive public territory is all the legitimate province of the state. Institutions within that sphere are subject to close regulation by the government, including regulations that turn those institutions into agents of state goals—for example, by making them buy birth control for anyone they choose to employ. It is not a totalitarian view of government, but it is a totalizing view of government; almost everything we do ends up being shaped by the law and the bureaucrats appointed to enforce it. We resolve the conflict between negative and positive rights by restricting many negative rights to a shrunken private sphere where they cannot get much purchase.

In this context, it’s possible to believe that Hobby Lobby’s founders are imposing their beliefs on others, because they’re bringing private beliefs into the government sphere—and religion is not supposed to be in the government sphere. It belongs over there with whatever it was you and your significant other chose to do on date night last Wednesday. In that sphere, my positive right to birth control obviously trumps your negative right to free exercise of religion, because religion isn’t supposed to be out here at all. It’s certainly not supposed to be poking around in what’s happening between me and my doctor, which is private, and therefore ought to operate with negative-right reciprocity: I can’t tell you what birth control to take, and you can’t tell me.

McArdle agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision, by the way (as do I), which makes her willingness to see things from the opposite perspective all the more welcome. Read the whole thing.


http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/07/what-explains-the-reaction-to-hobby-lobby
0 Replies
 
nononono
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2014 09:09 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Hobby Lobby did NOTHING wrong.

Why should insurance pay for women's birth control, but not for men's condoms?

Eat like 500 penises in a row...
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2014 09:51 pm
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/345/125/92a.png
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2014 10:02 pm
@coldjoint,
You wrote that as if you think there is something wrong with it, cj.

There is of course. The FBI shouldn't be spying on its citizens.

But please elucidate.

0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2014 11:36 am
http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples_resource/image/thumb/31145
 

Related Topics

Hobby Lobby and Christian Values - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/17/2021 at 07:24:48