When ordinary Muslims say things in the media (and it sounds outrageous)

Most people, especially most religious people, are not aware that they are not living in a vacuum. They aren’t aware that their words and actions are politically charged, or of the wider implications and interpretational consequences. They think they are just being religious. They think they are just being religious and living their lives even when they are involving this in politics. When a Christian says that something political is against their religion and therefore it is wrong for everyone, they are not really intending for it to sound like what it sounds like to me. Even if it is something really, really oppressive. They are not thinking about what it means. They are not saying what they are with the intention that I believe they have. Because they don’t have that intention except for themselves (even if it sounds like otherwise), which is exactly why they’re not thinking about it. Because they don’t have that intention in the first place.

And when we are talking about Muslims, there isn’t just this blind. There is a double.

When I was in the fifth grade–after 9/11 (that is sort of how I sort out my life in those early years, I’ve realized, everything happened either before or after 9/11)–my mosque hosted an event at which it invited non-Muslims. It was sort of like a small quiet party. And the speaker, in all his good intentions, said something along the lines of, “The U.S. Constitution is a lot like shari’ah law.”

Of course that didn’t quite translate with the guests. There he was, the poor man, standing on the stage with an affectionate look and behind me the guests were shifting uncomfortably in their seats and silently exchanging panicked glances. I was 11. I rolled my eyes and turned around and called, “He doesn’t mean what you’re thinking!”

He meant of course shariah law according to the Qur’an, in which non-Muslims are not ruled by the laws of Muslims. In which, essentially, there is a distinction between what is required by religion and those who do not follow it, and it is understood that one cannot make compulsory something that is a part of a religion that another person doesn’t follow. This philosophy is extracted most specifically from this verse:

There is no obligation in religion. (Quran 2:256)

The verse is quoted by Muslims very often. (Of course you will never hear it reported as often as the “violent” verses even though it is used exponentially more often.) In fact it is so critical in Islamic discourse that it is embedded in very sermon, every lecture. “As Muslims we do not drink.” “As Muslims we give charity.” “As Muslims we should help the victims of the drought.” Meaning of course, that non-Muslims are not obliged. Nothing is absolute. You will rarely hear simply, “We should help the victims of the drought.”

This does several things: on the good side, not only does it promote religious virtue by constantly reminding Muslims who they are but it emphasizes that non-Muslims are not bound to these principles.

On the flipside, unfortunately, it also contributes to rendering the other as exactly that–the Other. Of course they’re not obliged to help victims of the drought! Barbarians! What else do you expect from a bunch of heathen non-Muslims? Uncivilized, only bound to the primary sphere of morality, unenlightened!

The point is (before I derail more than I have already) when reporters quote a Muslim saying things like, “The U.S. Constitution is a lot like shari’ah law,” they have no idea that this Muslim means, “There is no obligation in religion.” It’s twice as bad as when a Christian goes on and on about things they mean politically but don’t really mean politically.

Well, you know. Except for the War on Women.

Abortion is a right. At any and all times. (or, American Principles 101)

This post is brought to you by some schmuck who took it upon himself during an abortion debate, in which he was distressed that I would legalize late-term abortions, to inform me that there is no such thing as inalienable rights, and that rights are “whatever humans decide they are” and therefore I cannot assert that a mother has rights to a fetus over the fetus itself and over the would-be father. Resisting the urge to tell him to get the hell out of the country, I instead redirected my horror to suggesting that he read the Declaration of Independence.

Let’s get some things straightened out first:

  1. Fetuses are not aborted. Pregnancies are aborted. [will be explained]
  2. Giving birth is a method of abortion. The pregnancy is aborted.
  3. When a woman who is 8 to 9 months pregnant arrives at a doctor’s office and says, “I don’t want to be pregnant anymore. Make me not pregnant anymore,” the doctor who agrees to abort the pregnancy, whether by triggering an early birth or by surgically removing the baby from the mother, is obligated to abort the pregnancy in such a way that does not interfere with the inalienable right to life of this (newly) independent life-form. The baby can be placed in an incubator and may survive. If it does not, the woman is even less responsible for its death than the doctor. She merely separated the fetus from her body, the same way a doctor can decide not to provide resources to sustain the child’s life if, for example, finances are inadequate.
  4. That is why it matters whether a life-form is independent: the method of abortion comes into question. When the life cannot survive outside the womb, the doctor may abort the pregnancy in any fashion. When the life can survive outside the womb, the doctor is obligated to abort the pregnancy by removing the life without harming it. As medical advancements are introduced, this window will become smaller and smaller. The question of whether the life can survive outside the mother does not interfere with a woman’s right to separate a fetus from herself.
  5. If you can’t identify the difference between a woman arrested for not feeding her child and a woman not providing for her child by aborting her pregnancy, you’re an idiot. In the former scenario the enforcement of the law does not result in forcing the woman to feed her child—it results in taking the child away and providing it with a guardian who consents to sustaining its life. Likewise in the latter, the child is separated from the woman and cared for by someone—or something—else, like an incubator.

Speaking of consent, its involvement is the definition of an inalienable right. There are two types of rights: inalienable rights and civil rights. Inalienable rights include but are not limited to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Sound familiar?) You are screwing over your own argument by denying the existence of inalienable rights, like the right of the fetus to live independently. Inalienable rights do not come from government. Civil rights are protected by government.

The right to life is inalienable, but the definition of an inalienable right is one that does not require the consent of another. If it requires consent, it’s not a right. You have the right to live–you do not have the right to survive at the expenses of someone else. Once you are enforcing a right by encroaching on another person, you are no longer practicing an inalienable right but infringing on the rights of that other individual. A civil right may require consent on the most fundamental level, but does not remove the right of the person from whom it requires consent to deny that consent without consequence. (You don’t want to count someone’s vote [civil right] on the basis of sex, race, class, or religion, then [consequently] find another job.)

When the fetus is living off the body of a woman, it is not protected by its inalienable right to life because it is DEPENDING on the woman and on her consent. *Removing* it from her is not *killing* it; it dies on its own because it cannot live. That is why pregnancies are aborted, not fetuses.

And no, having sex is not consenting to being pregnant for nine months. That is not a contract. (You asshat.)

The rights of the father begin at delivery, not conception.

Who’s to say that woman is any more responsible of a fetus dying once she separates it from herself than the person who neglected to invent an incubator that can sustain it? Or refuses to provide it?

Anti-choicers are, because as far as they are concerned, women ARE incubators. Anti-choicers are so sexist that they have INFUSED a woman’s ability sustain life to her person and reduced her to that ability. It is an essentialization of feminine capabilities. Men on the other hand are not reduced to their ability to sustain life—whether monetarily or through organ donations or by providing medical expertise—because anti-choicers are bigots who can only distinguish between a man and his “functions.”

The right to life does not mean someone else sustaining that life. The distinction is only made when the human in question is of the male variety. No one is ever like, “That guy refused his ability to give his organs and totally aborted that patient!” No one ever collapses a man’s abilities with his person.

Just because someone has the ability do so something does NOT mean you can FORCE her to do it and USE that ability for your own purposes. This is true regardless of sex.

Do American women understand the *fundamental level* at which their rights are being violated when the right to an abortion is attacked? If the bodily resources of men were redistributed for the sustenance of others it would be recognized at once as communism.

Anti-choicers are communists, traitors, and a threat to this nation at the most fundamental level–but none of it is viewed truthfully because they only enslave women to the government.

At any stage of a pregnancy it is okay to remove the fetus (or baby) from the womb. That means at nine months, that is *still* okay. The child is likely to survive outside, or it may die, but either outcome is irrelevant: at no stage of a pregnancy is the child *entitled* to the bodily provisions of the mother. You need a person’s consent to live off of them, and when you need consent that means it’s not an inalienable right.

Whether or not you believe it is moral or immoral for a woman to abort a pregnancy at nine months is irrelevant to the foundational principle that she has that right. But I guess no woman ever had her rights recognized without some schmuck crying about how it was right or wrong as if the entire sex with the ability to give birth were long overdue that lecture and it’s his good grace to present it to them. (“Don’t get me wrong he shouldn’t have raped you but it was totally immoral to lead him on like that…”)

The fact that I believe it’s immoral to abort a pregnancy after 120 days when the life of the mother is not in danger (and if the mother is not providing an incubator for the life to continue) is IRRELEVANT to her right to abort the pregnancy or *separate the child from herself* and to whether the government can interfere with that inalienable right.

The next time you are giving birth announce to the medical staff, “I am aborting the pregnancy now.” Because you are.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

^Look at that; I guess they have an excuse.

Also this.

Disadvantaged Men? Blame the Patriarchy.

If you all remember from years ago, the Atlantic published a terrible article titled “The End of Men” which was basically a total bitchfest run rampant with blame-shifting—about three quarters of it consisted of complaining that men can’t get laid anymore because women have restored too many rights, including our right to refuse. Remembering this, along with recent ripples in the feminist blogosphere in response to a similar article by a concerned anti-feminist and previous events involving myself that occurred elsewhere incorporating the myth that sexual harassment accusations are unfair to men, I typed up possibly the most furious and ramble-y piece, and am displaying it here.

When a woman is sexually harassed and undergoes severe character defamation, made more than possible by patriarchal slut-shaming (regardless of whether these sex partners are real or imaginary or whether it’s anyone else’s business) there is nothing she can say to the man harassing her that would be equally damaging… except perhaps to accuse him of sexual harassment, which ideally would destroy his character to the same extent. Feminism leveled the playing field, and that’s where these men have an issue.

So instead of recognizing that they are not entitled to a woman’s consent, that they are not entitled to her attention, and that according to the feminist ideology men may also enjoy the benefits of full autonomy when they decide to consent to the sexual or romantic advances of some women over others according to their own personal preferences, men insist that women—thanks to feminists—are unfair to men when women are receptive of the advances of men they find attractive and not receptive to the men they don’t; sometimes even, if the undesired advances persist despite a woman’s clear indication that they are unwanted, may accuse the men of sexual harassment. So unfair, men whine and complain, that it’s only sexual harassment when the man is unattractive—utterly neglecting to acknowledge that the deciding factor is the woman’s consent, not the man’s attractiveness, because unlike what men believe, the world doesn’t revolve around them and how attractive they are! And especially not feminism.

There are no double standards that privilege women. When you are an honored member of the sex that has been dominant since the beginning of time and sporadically you find yourself NOT on the top–because, let’s say, you’re conventionally unattractive–that is not oppression, it is BACKFIRING. Because you set the standard for conventional attractiveness for both men and women. When you say that attractive men are physically strong, or stoic, or violent and you happen to be none of those things, that is a fault of the patriarchal system you set up yourself, not feminism. You’ve screwed yourself over with your own damn system, and you still insist on playing by its rules. If I can find men attractive whom the patriarchy deems unattractive, and you can’t do the same with women and instead insist on dating conventionally attractive women—well, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Which is very interesting, because that’s what you accuse feminists of doing.

There are no double standards that privilege women. Men die at war because THAT’S how YOU made it. They commit suicide because they failed to achieve the rigorous standards of masculinity that YOU established. (And women attempt suicide just as frequently.) They get their kids taken away in divorce because YOU don’t value nurturing parenting skills in men and they end up completely unaware of the extent of their abuse. They pay alimony, because YOU promote the idea that men have to earn a higher salary, and you fix the system so they do. And they fair poorly in school because YOU hate femininity so much, that once women integrate themselves into “male territories” like the classroom it immediately becomes uncool. This happens in every area. Men used to dominant literature, music, and poetry, until they had competition and they were too disgusted to even try… and so they labeled those areas as “inferior.” And at the professional level? Men STILL dominate those areas. And the system STILL disadvantages women. Seriously, every author I read in high school in English class was MALE. Except the author of The Awakening, which is a TERRIBLE book. Don’t give me bullshit about how boys aren’t interested because the classroom has evolved to cater to the learning styles of girls. Boys and girls do not learn differently: all individuals learn differently regardless of sex. There are both lectures and labs in science courses, roughhousing may not be allowed in the classroom but it is allowed in the grass on the field, and as I said practically EVERY “great American” novel we read in English was written by a MAN. What the hell more do you want? You know what the problem is? You SUCK at raising boys. You set impossible standards for masculinity, and you’re just bitter that feminists have had the audacity to try and free themselves from their assigned roles while the system you created yourself is forcing you to stay in yours.

Feminism is meant to achieve equality by liberating women, and out of its good graces it encourages men to liberate themselves by expanding the definition of male roles along with female roles. Don’t come bitching to us when you don’t want to do the work. Your problem is with patriarchy.

Men complain that when women abuse them and they call a shelter, the woman who answers the phone assumes they are the abuser. Well that sucks–but that’s because YOUR patriarchy promotes male violence. You want women to stop assuming you’re rapists and murderers? Stop raping and murdering.

28 women in the US are raped every hour. Every hour. THIRTY-FIVE PERCENT of men report that if they could get away with it, there’s a likelihood they would commit rape. Eight percent admit to committing the legal definition of rape (when the word rape itself wasn’t used in the study, just described) and out of that eight percent, 84% insist it definitely isn’t rape.

Men don’t know what sexual harassment is. They don’t even know what rape is. 70% of victims don’t just say ‘no’ but STRUGGLE and fight back. And the men still continue. 20% of men say that they’ve become so sexually aroused before that they could not stop themselves from having sex even if the woman didn’t consent.

And out of all of those, between 62% and 84% of survivors are FRIENDS with their attackers. There’s a lot of hype about being raped by strangers, but you’re way more likely to be raped by a man you know. And that’s partly why only 5% are ever reported. It’s nearly always a man the woman cares about—or, if they share the same circle of friends, the friends will evitably side with him and sexually harass her until she is too fearful to take legal action and too convinced that it was her own fault because maybe she is just a slut like they said. And so maybe she deserved it; maybe she was asking for it. That’s what we live in. A rape culture.

Most women NEVER report sexual harassment. And when they do? It fucking serves you right. And when there’s a false allegation (0.2—0.8% of the time) there is outrage and it explodes into national news the way other crimes never will. Supposedly because an innocent man’s life has been ruined. Your life is not ruined because of feminism, it is ruined because YOUR system SIMULTANEOUSLY promotes life-destroying violence like rape through male culture and ruthlessly pursues severe justice for criminals who don’t treat women as preciously dainty. But only the right women. The right victims. Not women who sleep around, not prostitutes (shoplifting! not rape, amirite?), the women who comply with patriarchy. Delicate women in pretty white dresses who don’t drink or fight or anything else that’s only allowed for enjoyment by men and instead just HAPPEN to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Well here’s the reality: every fucking woman is always in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is nothing you can do to prevent rape. Except stop raping.

Chris Brown punched Rihanna in the face and the joke was on her. Can you IMAGINE if he had done that to Taylor Swift? Taylor Swift, perpetually virginal, white, singing about fairytales instead of cheating and bdsm. But men concerned with men’s rights hardly occupy themselves with confronting the patriarchal constructs that enable them to oppress each other, like racism or heterosexism; instead, they blame feminism.

When men are the victims of violence, they are also nearly always the perpetrators. Men rape other men, and whose fault is that? The rapist’s—and patriarchy’s. Not feminism. If a man rapes another man to impose his masculinity, that has its derivation in patriarchy because masculinity is a patriarchal construct. It is patriarchy that contributes to the circumstances which led to his rape so that he would be rendered “feminine” and thus “inferior.” Feminists can liberate women because we are women; we can encourage men to do the same, but we cannot force you to build your own shelters, to dismantle an impossible standard of masculinity that devastates and destroys, or to uphold the values of respecting life and autonomy. When you don’t, blame yourselves. Not feminism. Feminism takes nothing from you except what you never deserved in the first place.

Liberate your own damn selves. Whether or not you can get laid is the LEAST of my problems—and it should be the least of yours. You are reactionary. You’re so paranoid of losing power you never even deserved to have in the first place, you don’t even recognize how exclusively you are still the first sex. The fact that you can’t sexually harass women anymore is not undeserved oppression, it is a loss of UNEARNED privilege. Don’t worry though, you still have more left than you deserve or apparently can even comprehend.

Why I don’t give a damn that you have a linguistic issue with ‘FEMinist’





firemen policemen mailmen


You got a problem with ‘feminist’ because the word inherently excludes you? Check your privilege and get the hell over it.

You can treat women equally as much as you like but as long as you’re saying shit like this the truth is that you don’t CONSIDER us equal. If you can’t associate yourself with femaleness or femininity even in a word that is historically significant and integral to the liberation of women because that makes you uncomfortable, you are a sexist seeking to employ the patriarchal practice of denying women credit where credit is due and disassociating yourself with femininity.

Nice Guy.

I get letters from self-professed Nice Guys, complaining that women must WANT to be treated like shit, because THEY, the “Nice Guy” have failed repeatedly in relationships. –Heartless Bitches International

This has been written about in the feminist blogosphere time and time again and hardly requires a post from me. However, I’ve just experienced a conversation so excruciatingly tedious from a bemoaning young man that it warrants a diatribe. Early this morning at a cafe, he thought it appropriate to interrogate me for personal information, and, upon my polite declination of his advances, engaged in such miserable self-deprecation that I mustered all obtainable resistance from swiftly kicking him in the shins. As I continued to pointedly read my book, he complained that he should have known not to try, because “beautiful women” never go out with “nice guys” like him, and he then proceeded to list superficially “deep” attributes that he believed entitled him to my number, as if I’m supposed to give a fuck.

On verge of murder, I deliberated whether it was best to retain a steely boiling silence or ceremoniously throw my coffee up his nose. He was of course passively manipulative, hoping to shame me into submission by evoking sympathy. Masquerading manipulation as desirability to engender a potentially sexual relationship is a pattern consistent with both abhorrent Nice Guys and the assholes from whom they claim to differ. This is because they are the same asshole, the only distinction being Nice Guys incorporate themselves into the “nice guy” category to champion the delusion that “women don’t like nice guys”, conveniently avoiding any unpleasant realization that they themselves are assholes: petulant, passive aggressive, and manipulative. In their thinly veiled true arrogance they expect a woman to sleep with them for “being nice” the criteria of which includes but is not limited to opening doors, pulling out chairs, paying for dinner, other shit you never asked for, and not forgetting your birthday.

Furthermore, their entire show of self-pitying broodiness to buy sympathy is an abominable impersonation of earnest gesture, thereby a violation of integrity, disguising their malignant intentions. Abusive relationships very often involve emotional blackmail of a similar nature, the height of which is suicide threats. This is so poorly executed that upon the very first encounter I was well aware of these pathetic inequities: the entitlement is apparent in that “women don’t like nice guys” really means “beautiful women” (as though beautiful women owe them something and as though only beautiful women are really women) and such militant commiseration would never be extended to conventionally unattractive women, who would instead be told sneeringly to lose some weight and “what the fuck, you’re not entitled to a date.”

Of course, he only pursues beautiful women precisely because he would wish to only associate himself with beautiful women: your looks are his status.

Nice Guys predictably whine about how they’re told off by women “who aren’t even pretty enough to act bitchy”, as if they’re the fucking ego police and the world is concerned with their irrelevant measurements.

And then they judge the men with whom women are in relationships, as though they know or it’s any of their businesses.

Likewise the unthinkable conceit is embedded into the presumptions of the very framework of approach, which I won’t bother write about here, since I’ve done so already.

I never considered myself a beautiful woman, but on the event that I am, the presentation of generic contemplations that men believe to be original and insightful (“The universe is such a big place!”) is unimpressively parallel to “I own a boat.” I suppose that sitting there, with my hair in beach waves and a flowing skirt that gripped my waist and a blouse I had discovered later had inadvertently unbuttoned at the top, I might have looked beautiful. This would provide my bitchy advice with some credibility*; of course, Nice Guy still prefers I shut up and sit quietly on my pedestal where I won’t have the audacity to be human, and will ideally act as a silent muse while he does important manly things like contribute to civilization.

*I am mocking you.

Related: Shakesville on Nice Guys

Marital Rape

About a week ago an article written by a good friend of mine that condemned deadly and immoral and quite frankly disgusting invalidation of the seriousness of rape in certain situations sparked a discussion when linked by another good friend. The discussion was nothing short of alarming. Considering that the article itself denounced the intolerable actions of a justice who dismissed the case of the rape of a 7 year old girl on the grounds that there was “no serious injury” as a result, the case of a husband strangling his wife into submission so that he could rape her because he was aroused by her nightgown, and the proposal of clauses that would protect rights regardless of sexual preferences, it was greatly disturbing that after reading such a piece the ruling on marital rape was quickly defended as though the highly patriarchal definition of marriage in which the wife is basically a sex slave to her husband (and not in a consensual kinky way) in order to keep him from abusing her is not only threatened but valid and correct and something to be protected. Though those who were expressing such views claimed that they did not condone violence (though “she should be wise enough to know the consequences of her action!” sure as hell sounds like it) the fact that these points were made in the context of the discussion–such a horrific case of domestic abuse and marital rape–was more than pathetic and insecure.

I never imagined I would write this entry, because I thought for certain that everyone knew marital rape is real, that without question it is as serious as non-marital rape, and that it is wrong that this is unrecognized. I could only take relief that no one was defending the ruling on the case of the 7 year old girl. Hardly encouraging, but these were the depressing standards.

That such defensive, inane points of “What is a man supposed to do if he asks his wife and she says no?” (how about not rape her?) and “But he can’t just not have sex when he wants it!” (oh I’m sorry, I didn’t understand this before! well yes in that case he should obviously just choke her into submission then, by all means) were brought forward in the face of a woman being violently assaulted is only part of a larger pattern of inane defenses when it comes to not only rape but more minuscule and deeply ingrained patterns of thought, including but not limited to “No means no but women should lower the risk by not dressing seductively” and “What’s wrong with pointing out men and women are different?” during very serious discussions of rape cases and responsibility. I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it: respectively, it does not lower the risk and that is not her problem and, you’re inadequately dodging the argument to defend a privileged position because losing power that you stole and to which you never had any right makes you panic. You pathetic, insecure dumbass. This slew of idiotic “but sex is part of marriage!” and “he’s her husband not her enemy!” (then he ought to stop being her enemy) type drivel are the same frantic grab for power.

Much of this is a deeply rooted misogynistic mistrust of women: that women must be vengeful or scheming or straight-out inconsiderate (you know, because our sole purpose of existence is to sexually satisfy men and having our own rights is just plain inconsiderate) that if a woman turns down her husband for no reason that is clear to him she is neglecting him. Because he is a child. Or an animal, like her pet. Except that her pet gets to make all the decisions. She is always deceitful and ill-intended, and so even when she is harassed and raped it needs to be idiotically stated, “but men get erections!” and when she is not hired for a job because of sex discrimination some vapid “intellectual” egotist is going to frivolously point out, “well men and women are different!” Notably, the person who was asserting that she is inconsiderate to not have sex with a husband who is good to her was assuming good faith on the part of the husband but not on the part of the wife. (“Why are you taking this specific case?? I am talking in general and not in exceptions…the general rule is that the man is good to her!!”)

Such is the effect of patriarchy. The general rule is that the man is good to her, but that she is inconsiderate. It must then follow that any woman who expects that her own husband not rape her is unthreading the fabrics of marriage.

A woman does not need reason to turn down her husband. If he doesn’t like that she has this right, the civil and human and Islamic thing to do is get a divorce. Such a man is not fit for marriage, Islamically or otherwise. Any man–ANY MAN, who is OKAY with having sex with a woman who DOES NOT WANT IT is a sick and terrible person. How can a man see that his wife does not want to have sex, and see that he is pressuring her, and continue to be aroused enough to have sex with her?! Disgusting. And one of the most disturbing aspects during the discussion was the refusal to view rape as it really is: sex without consent. Force is not always physical; a woman having sex with her husband to prevent him from (physically or otherwise) forcing her or going totally apeshit is, in fact, forcing her. But I suppose it is only she who has the duty to be considerate–it’s totally fine if he rapes her, because she exists to revolve around him, and his desires override hers. Incredibly but predictably, all of this required repeating because of the deplorable mentality of rape apologists who pretend to be adherents of Islam, marriage, and morality.

Oh My God. Shut Up About the Christians.

So you know what’s annoying? When I am in the middle of a debate with a Muslim man, and I am telling him his projections interpretations are sexist and unIslamic, and he begins going on about Christians and how we Muslim women are so much better off than our “Christian counterparts.” Then he starts taking verses from the Bible–out of context, of course–to “prove” his point.

*insert cussing here; I can’t do it because Ramadan*

Leave the Christians out of this. Not interested. I don’t have a problem with Christians I have a problem with you, Muslim men high on patriarchy who can’t accept the fact that their interpretations are incorrect and an affront to the religion and that they totally suck at arguing, use completely irrelevant pieces of information to cover it up, and have the audacity to even think they can tell me what to do.

I know a Richard Dawkins when I see one.

When you are so insecure in your faith that you have to put down the faiths of others, that is pretty damn pathetic.

And by the way, the taking verses out of context thing? You’re really thick if you STILL believe two can’t play that game.