"However, I do not apologize..."

Yet another disingenuous apology/retraction from yet another Christian right asshole. After claiming to apologize for the language he used Baptist pastor Sean Harris then made it clear he did not feel sorry in anyway for the sentiment by adding, "However, I do not apologize for the manner in which the Word of God articulates sexual immorality, including homosexuality."

His lame excuse that what he said was meant to be a joke simply doesn't wash. After watching the video clip only a brain dead humorless prick could see anything resembling joviality in his delivery. His tone is serious throughout. There is nothing in his demeanor, gestures, or expression that even hints at a joke. It isn't just his comment about snapping back a "limp wrist" or punching the boy for seeming to be gay. He goes on to reveal himself to be not only an intolerant homophobic child abusing bigot but a sexist pig as well. He basically says that girls should be more concerned with being pretty than anything else.

This is a man of God? There was some slight laughter in the background but it is too faint to tell if it was of the nervous/uncomfortable variety. If it was perhaps there are a few decent human beings in his congregation. But why did they stay in their pews? Believe in God, don't believe in God, either way if this is the type of shit this man spews on a regular basis why put up with it?

Female Gap

Even before the GOP candidate circus started winding down there were random comments about the lack of enthusiasm for any of the potential nominees among women voters. Now that it seems all but decided that Romney will be the Republican candidate, the talk of a "female" gap has increased. Unfortunately, the majority of media pieces on this aspect of the presidential campaign are incredibly superficial. Virtually all of them have focused on perception and strategy. The various pundits, politicians, and journalists have been talking about how to more effectively sell the Republican platform and/or Mitt Romney.

It is sad that no one in the mainstream media is even bothering with assessing whether the platform is bad for women. Even when a brief comment gets made that women voters are wary of a given issue the line immediately goes into how this view can be changed rather than whether the view has merit or not. Personally, I see the platform and all the candidates as being very bad for the well being of everyone, especially women. Regardless of anyone's personal opinions the media should be assessing the issues and encouraging discussion rather than always playing up the strategy and marketing.

Another point that no one is bringing up at all is the role that religion has played in encouraging sexist policies and political positions. I do not think it is a coincidence that the major candidates all belong to denominations that are patriarchal and outright sexist. Just look at the last four contenders for the GOP nomination. They include two Catholics (Gingrich and Santorum), a Lutheran (Paul), and a Mormon (Romney). Though in theory each of these has liberal factions, the majority and, more importantly, the leadership is very conservative and quite sexist. None of these denomination allow for women in leadership positions or even in the clergy. The closest any of them come to female clergy are Catholic Nuns. Currently nuns are being rebuked by their own religious leaders.

A lot has been said lately about Romney's wife, Ann. Whether, women choose of their own accord to fulfill what are considered traditional roles is not really the issue. I am in no position to guess whether Ann really does like being a "homemaker" or not nor do I particularly care. What is not being examined is that the Mormon faith pushes women into those traditional sexist roles. According to the Latter Day Saint's (Mormons) doctrinal Family: A Proclamation to the World, "... father's are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." The Catholic Church is not that far from this position either. The entire gang of GOP candidates seemed to subscribe to the mentality that women should be barefoot and pregnant in kitchen.

Maybe, just maybe, that "female gap" exists for a good reason. The convergence in each of the candidates, Romney included, of the conservative movement and the religious right ideologies is just plain horrible when it comes to women.

Females Need Never Apply

Well ladies, here's a pleasant little theological Fuck You. Fr. Longenecker's tortuous justification for treating women as inferiors is entertaining only in terms of the level of bullshit he is able to pile on in such a short blog post. His March 26, 2012 piece titled "Why Women Cannot Be Priests" doesn't really contain anything new. It is mostly warmed over theocratic rationalizations. I just find it mind boggling that anyone with enough intelligence to tie their own shoes or complete a sentence still can't see this crap for what it is.

He dresses it all up in a considerable amount of verbiage, of course, but in the end his premise is not that sophisticated. According to the good father women are "co-equal" they just should never expect to put that equality into practical use. See woman are equal mainly because men need them to procreate. See how that works? Women are the other half of the coupling needed to produce more people. Since God commanded us to be fruitful women are needed. After that, women lose their significance in terms of theology. Fr. Longenecker, as you might expect, tosses out a few Biblical verses to justify the demand that women be subservient and like it.

He even goes further in pointing out that failure to accept this second-class role amounts to an assault on the Catholic Church. It's interesting how often abusers fall back on the claim that they are the victim. There was one aspect of the piece that did surprise me. In the last chapter Longenecker actually states that,"The Church does not have the authority to ordain women as priests." Really? I had gotten the impression over the years that most priests had long ago given about the delusion that the Church was entirely created by divine revelation. Most seemed willing to admit that the modern Church was predominantly a human affair, though still seen as divinely inspired. How can the Church not have authority? I haven't come across that justification before.

In the end, these excuses don't amount to much. The Church is still basically treating women as inferiors. Just saying the Church respects them as equals doesn't mean squat. And when most of the doctrines and policies are geared to treat women as an afterthought I fail to see why women put up with this kind of shit. I say flip the Golden Rule. To Father Longenecker and his fellow mysogynists I say Fuck You and your lame-ass excuses.