5th August 2010

“The worst enemy women have is in the pulpit.”

Susan B. Anthony (suffragist)1820 – 1906

20 Responses to “5th August 2010”

  1. solomon Says:

    No comment. Tech’s issues. But I wonder why so many women aproach the pulpit if this quote is true.

  2. Margaret Says:

    Why “approach the pulpit”? a nice short article about this:


    The biggest lie: god loves you. Emotional appeal for sure. Women love love, and will put up with alot for it, even if it is only imaginary. It is not socially acceptable to be a man’s crazy bitch obsessive clingy girlfriend–he will run screaming from you. But be god’s crazy bitch obsessive clingy girlfriend, “Hallalujah, brothers and sisters, she’s on fire for the lord! Let us speak in tongues and dance and jump up and down and roll around on the floor. Praises on high, Brother Larry, fire up that guitar!” (If any of you have ever been to a Pentecostal service down South, you know what I am describing.) How does someone walk away sane from that? Even the somber Church of Christ or Baptist congregations give emotional kudos for obsessive love for the lord.

    I am finished for the day. I refuse to exhaust myself and exasperate the rest of you today. I described, in part, the bait the church uses to lure the females in, and will listen to your descriptions of the hook. Only the lucky fish wiggle off the hook, most do not make it. Most religious women stay religious. As atheists, many of you life-long rational people, many of you ex-believers, how do you see the paradox of women being more religious than men, even though the Abrahamic religions are patriarchal? What harm does it do to women, and to men?

  3. CaptainZero1969 Says:

    Sorry – Hold over from yesterday…
    Sol says “TRUTH…yes…worth defending..” yet doesn’t offer a defense. What gives, Sol? Please, tell us what precisely I’ve lied about. You called me a liar for my support of yesterday’s quote. How did I lie? A simple question, no? and you say truth is worth defending. Well, defend it. if you can. Let’s narrow the field, if it helps. The quote and I agree that sharia is homophobic. I offered evidence that this is so. Now, please offer evidence that this is false. Or, shut your gob.

  4. CaptainZero1969 Says:

    Margaret – The in love with love idea resonates. Witness women falling in love prison inmates. Clearly, many women (and maybe just people in general) will invest in relationships that are obviously not in their best rational interest because it fills some need. I think religion creates the need and then moves to fill it. I don’t know that women are more vulnerable to it than men but considering the low regard that religions usually have for women it’s a measure less easy to comprehend.

  5. solomon Says:


    I don’t have to expose it. The one who lies will surely knew it.

  6. solomon Says:

    {A husband has the moral and religious right and duty to beat his wives for disobedience or for perceived misconduct.}

    “Treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers.”
    From the last sermon of Prophet Mohammed.

    CaptainZero1969 lie #1 exposed. More to come.

  7. tech Says:

    Are there just as many different beliefs in the atheist sect as there are in different religions?I see no where in bible where it says its ok to beat your wife. We are all created equal. Also another point that should be made is that many men are in abusive relationships. Yes men who are beaten by their wives. Equal Rights??? I wonder!

  8. Atheist MC Says:

    At the risk of sticking my neck out and raising feminist ire, I think one reason women “approach the pulpit” is because they (rightly or wrongly) perceive the church as a moral anchor for familly which gives them a source of authority over the behaviour of their husbands. I’m thinking of women in the religiously inspired temperence movement for example.

  9. Simon Says:

    Margaret interesting theory, also maybe a bit of misogamy in this life is a small price to pay for avoiding eternal damnation in the next.

    Realistically if you want to argue against sexual equality you have to take a religious stance because you’re arguing against reality.

    As for women approaching the pulpit, all I can say is that historically some of the bitterest critics of feminism have been female.

  10. captainzero1969 Says:

    Qur’an 4:34
    “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (Ali’s version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

  11. captainzero1969 Says:

    What you did was dishonest. The full passage you used to ‘prove’ women’s equality with men has a bit different flavor:

    “O People! it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allah’s trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with anyone of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste.”

    This says, that as long as they do what men want, they have a right to be fed and clothed. THAT IS NOT EQUALITY. If Muhammad was trying to say that men and women are equal in all ways and share all the same rights, he could simply have said so.

    Quote:1, Sol:0.

    And you had to commit a lie of omission to try (and fail) to prove your point.

    Actually, the point I asked you to address was whether or not sharia is homophobic. Is there some reason you answered the unasked question?

  12. YourSkepticalGuy Says:

    Thank you Margaret for that link. To partially respond to your query, I have no clue why women would be more religious than men. The linked article offers some thoughts – that men may be more risk adverse. Before spending too much time on this point, I do have to say that I am not sure of the validity of the premises or that we all would agree on what it means to be religious. Is this self-reporting? Are there reliable data? How many people are called to the pulpit? What percentage are women? Is this number skewed by the barriers to accessing the pulpit? I tried to find some surveys (honestly, very little time devoted to finding a survey and nothing leaped out as useful).

    Religion is anti-evolutionary and as such, is injurious to the survival of the human species (but taken from a really big picture, if a species gets sidetracked by religion then it has no place in the universe and must move aside (and will move aside kicking and screaming and attributing it to <>) for more qualified life forms).


  13. solomon Says:


    ‘Religion is anti-evolutionary and as such, is injurious to the survival of the human species’

    Homosexuality is dangerous to human species.

  14. solomon Says:


    ‘beat them (lightly)’…see only a gesture as a sign of disagreement. But you made it look like a terrible bashing. Next time don’t try to exaggerate islamic rules to tarnish it. I will not refrain from exposing your other lies if you repeat it.

    ‘This says, that as long as they do what men want’
    These are all not men wants. Can’t you see from the surah you posted are all things that God wants.

  15. captainzero1969 Says:

    Thank you Sol for proving 2 of the 3 points raised in yesterday’s quote. If you wouldn’t mind, do prove the 3rd point that sharia is un-democratic. Come on, mate! Go for the trifecta!

    P.S. – If god wants you to beat your women, your god is a monster as is the pathetic maggot that would take such advice.

  16. YourSkepticalGuy Says:


    Some, who humanity should pay to not breed in efforts to save itself, periodically assert that homosexuality is anti-evolutionary (without citation or explanation) demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

    I believe it should be pointed out t is a myth that natural selection cannot explain homosexuality. There are numerous evolutionary mechanisms that might explain homosexual behavior, which is common in many species of animals. It is extremely limited thinking to assume that homosexuality means not having children. Even without technology intervention, non-exclusive homosexuality/bisexuality can result in reproduction of the species.

    For example, same-sex partners may have a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies. This provides improved opportunity and access to the opposite sex – making them better at propagating the species.


  17. solomon Says:


    Homosex is acronym to animals who cannot use their thoughts to think of useful or useless behaviour, just following their animal instinct. Would you want to be one of them?

  18. solomon Says:

    Homosex=causes aids
    Homosex=leaves wifes in lusts=cheating wifes=crumble the family institution

  19. solomon Says:

    “P.S. – If god wants you to beat your women, your god is a monster as is the pathetic maggot that would take such advice.”

    There you go again Captn’, but this time twisting God’s good intentions of making things right. I’am not going to waste my time responding to some skeptical dude.

  20. Margaret Says: