A while back I put up a post about the different attitude toward disagreement on political blogs and non-political blogs. I noted that
One surprising lesson I've learned is that people take offense much more easily on parenting blogs than at places like Daily Kos and MyDD.
Well, in the past few days I have gotten myself banned at a blog for the first time ever. It was Jess's Christian parenting/simple living blog Making Home, where I had been commenting for a few months. Jess is one of those bloggers who moderates comments not to screen out spam but to screen out views she considers “personal attacks” or intended to lead her readers astray.
I had tangled with the blogger before, resulting in her censoring my comments, but the last straw for her was the thread below this post, in which she made all kinds of ridiculous assertions about evil society vs. perfect Christian womanhood. She did post my first comment, under which she commented that in the south they have a saying: if you throw a rock over a fence, it's the hit dog that hollers.
Meaning that if I objected to her absurd stereotypes about women who don't share her values, my disagreement is proof that she must be right and must have struck a nerve.
I tried to respond to her (and to her husband, who fancies himself a real Biblical scholar) several more times, but never made it through her editorial screen again.
Elsewhere on the thread, I noticed that Jess, her husband and several of her readers tag-teamed to attack “Christine,” who had previously identified herself on the blog as a terminally ill theology student who had felt Jesus Christ's healing power in her own life. Christine's version of Christian faith was insufficiently judgmental and narrow-minded for Jess. I felt bad for her, but when I tried to post a comment supporting her, of course Jess did not let it through.
I don't post this in any effort to drum up a blogswarm, because there's no point–Jess would never let any of those comments through either.
But I did find it amusing that after years of participating in all kinds of arguments at Daily Kos and MyDD, handing out and receiving fewer than a dozen troll ratings during all of that time, I managed to get banned from one of these non-political blogs in a matter of months. It's amazing how thin-skinned some of these people are.
14 Comments
"Perfect Christian Womanhood"
I put a comment out there on her blog. I doubt that she will post it. Oh Well.What on earth could you possibly get out of that drivel she posts? She is a Christian bigot! I guess she missed the part in the Bible that talks about being tolerant and forgiving. What a self-righteous dork.
the-demo-memo Mon 3 Sep 9:38 AM
my husband asks the same question
Sometimes, frankly, I am just trying to make things interesting on a thread that has a lot of “great post!” comments on it.
I think it’s important for someone to challenge her stereotypes, because blogs like hers have a very large following. Many of the women attracted to them are initially interested in posts about cooking, living on a tight budget, and so on. Then the blogger hits them with a big diatribe about evil society, and I want there to be at least one voice of sanity on those threads.
I found Jess’s blog through a friend’s blog, walkslowlylivewildly.com. My friend also is an evangelical Christian with what I consider some odd ideas about husband/wife relationships, but her blog is mostly about environmental and simple living tips. More important, my friend does not moderate comments and doesn’t freak out when opposing points of view are posted, even on her “Christianity” threads.
desmoinesdem Mon 3 Sep 10:54 AM
Christian tolerance and forgiveness.
She is a Christian bigot! I guess she missed the part in the Bible that talks about being tolerant and forgiving. What a self-righteous dork.
What a wonderful post. I’m truly floored by the depth of your argument.
shamgar Tue 4 Sep 10:20 AM
Shamgar
You have to admit that Jess seems to have little interest in tolerating opposing points of view. On the contrary, she repeatedly calls on her readers to separate themselves and have as little contact with the outside world as possible–no work outside the home, no school where kids could come into contact with kids from different backgrounds.
That is convenient, because then they will have little direct experience to contradict the ridiculous stereotypes she sets forth about society.
She also seems not to understand that other people, Christians and non-Christians, may have different ways of reading and interpreting the Bible and its message. Anyone expressing a different point of view is immediately accused of rejecting God’s clear message (as Jess understands it).
desmoinesdem Wed 5 Sep 2:36 PM
DesMoinesDem
I don’t have to admit any such thing. She and I have had my discussions with opposing points of view. Not the least of which was our back and forth on Huckabee only recently. We’ve also had them in person. What she is not interested in is having her blog used as a podium for ideologies she does not agree with. I again state this is her right.
I have nowhere seen her call for people to have as little outside contact with the world as possible. That’s just silly. Just because one chooses not to have the government educate their children, or to be a wife and/or mother exclusively does not mean you never see anyone else. Quite the contrary. If you knew Jess at all you’d know such an accusation is positively ludicrous.
She also seems not to understand that other people, Christians and non-Christians, may have different ways of reading and interpreting the Bible and its message. Anyone expressing a different point of view is immediately accused of rejecting God’s clear message (as Jess understands it).
What is put forward is that they do not understand God’s clear message as God has revealed it in Scripture. That doesn’t mean she’s never wrong, or indeed that I’m never wrong. It means that you’re going to have to be willing to actually demonstrate it from Scripture. And from an actual understanding of it following good exegesis and hermeneutical principles. You can’t just slap a couple misquoted out-of-context verses and call it good.
Jessica and Doug have a very firmly grounded worldview and understanding of Scripture. Doug is, in fact, well educated in biblical doctrine and church history. Offering a different point of view is one thing, offering one which is false on its face (which is the usual) is another.
Think of it this way, if you knew the sky was blue, and you further understood all the reasons WHY the sky was blue, scientifically, and someone told you it was green and orange stripes you would know they are wrong. Maybe they’re wearing weird glasses such that it DOES look like it’s those colors, but it is NOT in fact those colors, and you know well it is not.
You may well be willing to be better educated on why it is blue, or the details of how it comes to be seen by us as blue, but you know enough of the details already to know it is in fact blue and no amount of silly assertions to the contrary are going to sway you without some very serious evidence for why everything you know about it is wrong, and why YOU in fact are the one who is seeing it wrong.
Because you see, God has spoken. Because of that, what he has communicated to us CAN be known. We may not, any one of us, hold all of the truth of that, we all will always be wrong on some fine point or another (though the basic truths necessary for salvation are not in question). As a result, when two people disagree on what it says and means, there is actually a truth to get at, and one or (in some cases both) of them are wrong.
It’s well worth the discussion if both people are willing to take the discussion seriously, but if one side is just going to say “I’m right because I say so, because that’s the way I feel” then that’s a different story altogether.
shamgar Wed 5 Sep 4:52 PM
attend a Torah study session sometime
You might meet some people with a very firmly grounded worldview and a deep understanding of Scripture. But they probably have a different way of reading that Scripture than you do.
Even Mike Huckabee said during one of the GOP debates that he wasn’t sure whether the six days of creation literally refer to six days, or whether they represent some longer period of time during which the world was created.
You and I are obviously never going to agree on matters of biblical interpretation, which is fine.
I do object to Jess’s wholesale slander of mothers and wives with whom she disagrees. And yes, she does repeatedly imply that we love our children less or have inferior marriages if we do not subscribe to the strict division of household labor she promotes.
I may disagree with your political and religious perspective, but I would never claim that you love your family any less than I love mine.
desmoinesdem Wed 5 Sep 8:35 PM
Disagreement
I have had conversations with orthodox jews in the past actually.
Mike may not be sure, I am pretty well convinced. However, I don’t think what a person believes between those two options is a test of fellowship. (God as creator, and creating ex-nihilo is, but not how you interpret the ‘day’)
Incidentally, I quite frequently *do* agree with orthodox jews on the rules of biblical interpretation, which incidentally run contrary to what I have read from you to date. The problem between you and I, I think, is one much deeper than how you interpret scripture to what Scripture is.
shamgar Fri 7 Sep 8:58 AM
Orthodox Jews and Reform Jews
don’t agree on much when it comes to biblical interpretation, it’s true. No doubt you would agree with the Orthodox perspective more.
But it is false for you or Jess or Doug to claim that anyone who doesn’t read Scripture 100 percent literally is “rejecting” God or the Bible or its message. As I have tried to explain several times to Jess, one can find meaning in Bible stories without agreeing that everything happened exactly as written.
And I suspect that even Orthodox Jews would acknowledge that the Bible contains contradictions, which is why the Talmud is so long and there are so many differing commentaries regarding various biblical passages.
A few years ago, at the height of the media circus surrounding Terri Schiavo, I attended the Des Moines Jewish community’s event to celebrate Purim. It was held at the Orthodox synagogue in town, and I had a chance to catch up with the rabbi (now retired) who had led that congregation for decades during my childhood. He has been a rabbi for more than 50 years.
I asked him what he thought of the Schiavo case. He said he hadn’t had a chance to study the matter (and all the relevant parts of Jewish law) in detail. He asked me what I thought, so I told him, and I also told him about the official statement of the Reform Jewish rabbinate on the matter, which differed from my opinion.
He shook his head and said he needed to study before he formed an opinion on the Schiavo case.
Why did he need to study? Because one can cite biblical passages in support of continuing to keep Terri alive on a feeding tube, and one can cite biblical passages in support of letting go a person who is near death.
There are many contradictory parts of the Old Testament, and even inconsistencies in the New Testament (though I am much less familiar with those, there are two different versions of the Lord’s Prayer in the canonical gospels, and there is dispute over whether the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain refer to the same event, or even whether the Sermon on the Mount happened at all as opposed to being written when a studen strung together lots of the teachings of Jesus).
desmoinesdem Fri 7 Sep 1:34 PM
Interesting perspective
Laurie,
I’m sure you know who I am (I’m obviously not making any attempt to hide it). I’ve posted to Jess’ blog before, sometimes in response to you.
Jess is one of those bloggers who moderates comments not to screen out spam but to screen out views she considers “personal attacks” or intended to lead her readers astray.
Does she not have a right to do this? Is it not her blog? If I came here and began campaigning on behalf of my preferred political candidate and arguing for my preferred point of view would you not be fully within your rights to say that’s not the purpose of your blog and shut it down?
I would say it is. I am a guest here, much as I am a guest on her blog. She has opted not to post things I have posted before, and that is her right. It is not like she pretends her blog is open to any and all comments. She is much like a radio call-in show. Where the calls advance the purpose of the show and carry the discussion along they are allowed. Where they step outside the bounds of courtesy or begin to take the show astray they’re screened.
I also find this kind of argumentation interesting:
her absurd stereotypes…her husband, who fancies himself a real Biblical scholar…
And that’s just in this post. I could go back and pull out some other nasty ad-hominems that you have chosen to employ in your “responses”.
You may not agree with some of the things she posts, but disagreement may be voiced in a proper manner and you opted not to do that.
You’re right that political blogs are more tolerant. And that’s because they are generally places that expect a certain amount of trolling, and definitely a fair amount of disagreement. There is also a much higher tolerance for nastiness.
That is not the kind of Forum Jess seems to be trying to promote. For you to take that same attitude and try to play it there and then be surprised you got banned seems somewhat silly to me.
shamgar Tue 4 Sep 10:19 AM
Shamgar
You can argue whatever point of view you like on this blog. I am not afraid of people disagreeing with my political or other views out in the open.
Jess employs ad hominem attacks frequently against individuals and large groups. She then invites discussion, but as soon as someone challenges her assumptions about people she knows little about, she says, “This thread is not for you.”
She also screens out plenty of disagreement that is not “nasty” in any way–such as a comment I wrote about tandem nursing and a comment I wrote listing various contradictions in the Old Testament (a direct response to Doug’s challenge to Christine to find just one contradiction in the Bible).
It seems to me that few things are nastier than telling Christine that her Christian faith isn’t good enough and that she is “lost” to God, but Jess and Doug have no problem doing that.
Few things are nastier than implying that any one who delayed marriage or childbearing, or who doesn’t share a particular narrow brand of Christianity, cares less about their spouses or children than you do.
In one of my comments that failed to pass through Jess’s screen, I advised her to take a lesson from Sara at walkslowlylivewildly.com.
Sara promotes her vision of Christian living without reducing everyone else in the world to an absurd stereotype. She also does it without screening out disagreements in the comments section. Lo and behold, the world has not come crashing down because I occasionally disagree with one of Sara’s posts.
I wanted to come to Christine’s defense on that thread so that she would not feel isolated, but frankly, she did not need my help to make her points about tolerance and pride.
On a different subject, what did you think of your man Ron Paul questioning whether homosexuality is in fact immoral?
desmoinesdem Wed 5 Sep 2:31 PM
continue....
Jess employs ad hominem attacks frequently against individuals and large groups.
Ad hominem has a meaning. I admit I do not read every post, but to date I have yet to see a single ad-hominem attack. Simply disagreeing with someones beliefs, lifestyle, etc is not an ad-hominem attack.
She also screens out plenty of disagreement that is not “nasty” in any way–such as a comment I wrote about tandem nursing and a comment I wrote listing various contradictions in the Old Testament (a direct response to Doug’s challenge to Christine to find just one contradiction in the Bible).
Yes, she has stated that her forum has a purpose, and it does not include being an apologetics organization. It is her blog, and as such she has every right to guide the content.
I can’t speak to your specific post on challenges, but since she let Christine’s challenge through I doubt that was the prime reason. I can’t speak for Jess on that. (or on anything really, but I can’t even offer conjecture on what I am not privvy to).
t seems to me that few things are nastier than telling Christine that her Christian faith isn’t good enough and that she is “lost” to God
Actually, I think that was another poster there who suggested her comments might reveal that she has yet to fully face her plight before a holy God and repent, seeking his grace and mercy alone for her salvation. Personally, I think there is nothing more loving in the world than to share the truth with them – especially if that truth can save them.
Few things are nastier than implying that any one who delayed marriage or childbearing, or who doesn’t share a particular narrow brand of Christianity, cares less about their spouses or children than you do.
This is a strawman. You are opting to put the worst possible face and intent on Jess’ posts and purpose.
On a different subject, what did you think of your man Ron Paul questioning whether homosexuality is in fact immoral?
I’m not quite sure that’s an accurate characterization either. I wish I had had time to talk to him about that this weekend, as I do have questions to ask him. The big question at issue there is how he was using the word ‘homosexuality’. The temptation to sin is not itself sin – but something we all live with.
It is not a sin for me to face heterosexual temptation, and in that sense, heterosexuality is not a sin. Yet if I were to engage in adultery with one, (whether by lust or by deed) then it would be. In the same way, merely preferring your same gender is not itself a sin, it is the acting on it that is a sin, whether in lust or in deed.
If this is not what he’s getting at, then I disagree with him. However, given that he is a strict constitutionalist it doesn’t really matter. He wouldn’t pass a law regarding homosexuality of any sort. (However, I believe he would – and I would hope for – repeal any involvement by the government in marriage in the first place.)
shamgar Wed 5 Sep 4:41 PM
if you read the post
that inspired the whole argument with Christine, you will see that in fact Jess does imply that women who live more secular lives are obsessed with self-promotion or their careers, and should have had children when their hormones were raging between the ages of 15 and 25.
Ron Paul is an interesting person. I disagree with most of what he says, but I respect him for having a relatively coherent point of view and for refusing to blindly support this war.
Most of the Republicans in Congress I used to have some respect for have totally lost my respect because of their tendency to rubber-stamp whatever idiocy the Bush administration proposes this week.
I would encourage you to put up a diary here with your impressions after you meet Ron Paul.
desmoinesdem Wed 5 Sep 8:39 PM
I went back and re-read it
And I think you are reading more into it than is there, which is probably what Jess was getting at with the ‘hurt dog’ comment.
She laid out the lies that are being told to women (and to men really, though of a slightly different flavor) and then the impact of those lies.
That if you put off life so that you can pursue what society values (a career, etc) that necessarily is going to be self-focused. It’s definitional to the idea. When you are pursuing a career (or whatever) for your own purpose and your own enjoyment it is self-focused. Further, particularly if it is a career, and if you are listening to society, you’ll be self-promoting as well – as that is seen as one of the surest paths to success.
If you pursue this path for 10 years (to use her number) and then decide you want to be married and be part of a relationship, adjusting to being part of a whole is going to be difficult. Hence the reason so many people suggest waiting after you’re married.
Then, after you’ve waited, you’re now in a stage of life where the simple biological fact is that it is going to be more difficult to get pregnant if/when you are ready. Further, if you do succeed at that point, you’re going to be facing being a mother still when you should be considering retirement.
In this I fail to see anywhere that she states these women love their spouses or children less. Even by implication. What she is saying is that women have been lied to, and those lies are costly when believed.
You may not value these things the same way, but for women who realize too late that they do in fact value them more than anything they did because they listened to the wrong people it is a very costly discovery.
I would encourage you to put up a diary here with your impressions after you meet Ron Paul.
I’ve already met Ron Paul actually. It didn’t change things much. I guess I like him a little more and I’m a little more committed having met him, but not much. Remember that while I like the guy personally what really excites me is his message. There are very few of us left who still hold to a consistent, cohesive political and economic view with respect for the constitution and the lessons of history. I think you for the invitation, but I already have a blog that I post my thoughts on for both of my readers. 🙂
shamgar Fri 7 Sep 8:52 AM
I think teaching children
not to develop friendships with the opposite sex (because anyone of the opposite sex is just a source of sexual temptation);
to marry their first serious boyfriend or girlfriend (remaining sexually pure until marriage);
to get married and start having children while “hormones are raging” between the ages of 15 and 25;
Is going to lead to unintended consequences for the vast majority of children raised this way, namely, divorce after having children at a young age.
And for women, divorced parenthood without the education or job skills to earn a living while they are raising their children.
The statistics show that people who get married in their late teens are much more likely than the “average” American couple to get divorced. The divorce rate can be as high as 80 to 90 percent for this group. I am convinced that this is why Bible belt states always dominate the top ten states in terms of the divorce rate.
Plenty of teenagers are convinced that they have found the love of their lives. Doesn’t usually work out that way.
So no thanks, I think I’ll be teaching my sons (and daughters, if I ever am fortunate enough have any) to learn to relate to both men and women and not to rush into marriage just to satisfy their teenage hormones.
For what it’s worth, I feel that I am a better parent for having waited until my 30s to start having children. My husband and I are more mature and more confident about our parenting choices.
So no, I don’t feel that society has “lied” to me or to my siblings who also married and had children after age 30.
desmoinesdem Fri 7 Sep 1:23 PM