BoardRoom/Soapbox Archive
	Article

The Christian willingness to override consent 4
By Lauren Sabina Kneisly

Time: Wed, 07-Apr-1999 23:22:39 GMT     
IP: 207.239.111.80

:When Fred threatened to counter a prayer with
:spells you complained that he took your line.  I
:take that to be a threat.

Ah, so you admit that TO YOUR MIND, this
'spiritual warfare' is threatening? Doesn't that
mean I should be concerned about YOUR 'prey-hers'?

More to the point: I usually respond to 'I'll prey
for you' with 'then you won't mind if I choose to
cast spells for you?' Please note that that's a
question. Which you can then reply 'Please don't'
to.

Not that it's even relevant as I've already
told you I don't practice my religion in your
direction at all ('I practice consensual
spiritual practices'). Fact is, even if someone
says 'yes' to the above, I decline.

Unless someone specifically asks me for help, it's
not mine to work with. It's not even ask consent,
it's be approached first.

The above is more an effort to, for one moment,
have you put yourself in our position. Yes, I
know, humour and compassion are both completely
lost on you, but let me explain it to the slow:

It's not a threat you idiot! Particularly as I
already stated, TWICE, that I haven't done a
god-damn thing, and won't.

So, if you take our 'rhetoric' as threat, how the
hell are we supposed to take your 'prey-hers'?

:The idea that children should have sex is absurd.

Personal opinion, not universal truth.

:As for me "forcing" my view upon my children,
:that is nonsense.

I don't know you, or your kids, all I said was
that in your writing, you were stating absolutes
on their behalf.

:I take the responsibility for my children's
:actions VERY seriously.

NICK, all I'm saying is that if your kids choose
to have sex, I don't believe it's a reflection on
you, and quite frankly, if they are individuals
with free will, they will do whatever they choose,
even if they don't tell you. By setting down
'house rules' if you will, all you do is increase
the likelihood of closeted behaviors that you
wouldn't know about, sure they may still have sex,
but do they feel they could tell you? All you've
done is break down communication. What you want
for yourself and your own body is your business,
to try to enforce your standards on another, say
your child (or children?) is impossible. Unless
you police them 24-7 they will do what they
want. Personally, I would rather my child be able
to talk to me about such, and feel safe, so they
don't have to hide anything. You are simply asking
them to hide any behaviors that they know are not
to your liking. I just feel there are more humane
ways to parent, respecting the individual
conscience and freewill of kids as individuals,
not forcing them to hide their behaviors from
their family, that's all. I'd rather MY kids be
able to talk to me about such.

:I care very much about who they are and about how
:they are raised.

Never doubted it. But your parenting appears
counterproductive to communication, trust, and the
humanity of the child. Not that you're the only
one doing it, I just find most ideas on parenting
a violation of the child.

:No, you didn't threaten my child directly.  I
:simply wanted to make sure you understand that
:your views are your own and if you wanted to act
:upon those views there would be legal
consequences.

I've always understood my views are my own. Duh!
As for legal consequences: 1. what you're doing is
encouraging your child into closeted
behaviours. Kids still have sex. Threats and fear
don't stop them. And 2. You're asking the state to
enforce your parenting model, that I have a
problem with. You're asking the state to step in
even in cases of fully consensual sex. That may be
your morality, but it's not mine, and I live here
too.

So, are you now saying you've used a rhetorical
vehicle, as I did above, to make a point? Why
Nick, you may have a bit of imagination after
all. :-) I don't feel threatened by this, it's
interesting to me that you felt threatened by my
lack of spells above. Perhaps you're the only one
allowed to use linguistic rhetoric without it
being a threat? Get over yourself.
 
:Since you say you are not then I guess my
:statement had its desired effect.

No, I just don't feel threatened by
rhetoric. Certainly not over actions I have not
taken.

:Love is the extreme act of showing compassion and
:caring toward someone or something.

Actually, if compassion is about putting yourself
in another's shoes and understanding another's
positions (even if not agreeing with them),
putting aside your own desires and respecting
another's wishes over your own desires, you
fail. You fail utterly. If you genuinely 'cared'
about me or felt 'compassion' toward me, you would
respect my wishes concerning my spirituality.
Essentially even by 'prey-hing for my protection'
to one whose religion is based upon consent you
are forming a spiritual attack.  Not that such
things are real, or work, mind you.

Rather you place your 'mandate to prey' over my
need and desires, thus you are being selfish,
uncompassionate, and acting upon me as a two
dimensional 'other' not as a human being with
thoughts and feelings and desires. By your own
definition, you are not showing 'love' toawrd
me. You are violating my consent. That makes you
cruel, unfeeling, and selfish.

:Sabina, I love you.

Rhetoric again.

:I respect your right to express and hold your
:views.  I don't attack you for having views
:different then mine.  I don't agree with your
:views and I am using this forum to express that.

Bullshit. As a typical quote "The idea that
children should have sex is absurd". That is not
'respecting my views.' Mind you, I'm not asking
you to agree with me, merely hold yourself to your
own words of "not attacking me for having views
different than yours."  You have accused me of
'black magic' where clearly, there is no magick at
all. You call me a bigot, etc. ad nauseum.

On the bright side, you've finally figured out
you're writing to a public forum with views
different from mine. Guess you stopped fasting, or
spacing out, or otherwise not realizing where you
are.  Reality is a good thing: try to spend more
time there.

:If this makes you or anyone else uncomfortable
:then so be it.

Yes, I've noticed how irrelevant other's feelings
(and consent) are to you. My wishes be damned, you
want this and you're going to have it. If it makes
me uncomfortable, fuck me. Your will is more
important. Nick-o-centrism.

:As long as there is a public forum for free
:exchange of ideas I hope to be there.

Well, of course; you've made this your private
little mission field haven't you? And fixating on
me, is far better than actually living life isn't
it? I find it facinating you to want the fixation
and prey-her focus so bad, as I said, conflict
junkie.  Trying to escape something bad in reality
are we?

Is life really so boring that you have nothing
better to do with your time then prey on someone
who quite frankly wants none of it?  Even after
you say you're not coming back, here you are
vowing to stay forever. And you wonder why I call
it stalking behaviour?  Perhaps
compulsive/obsessive is the better term: 'I'm not
saying anything else, and by the way, I'm staying
forever!' Which is it, Nick? You going to walk
away and keep your word, or do you need it too
bad? You're obviously unable to allow someone else
to have the last word.

Christianity with its endorsing and teaching of
such behaviors as prey-her fixations seems the
perfect vehicle under which for you to hide your
own compulsive behaviors. Now it's not just you
violating my consent, but you have the entire
establishment of your own little group of 'many
others' to endorse your bad behavior. It
certainly makes you feel less alone in your
stalking, hell, it's even endorsed! Peer pressure
to violate; gosh with a rep like that, how can I
not want to convert? After all, then I'd get to do
whatever violations of conscience I wanted, and
say it's being done in the name of 'religious
freedom.' Yes, you're right, Nick, how can I turn
down an offer to be selfish, cruel, thickheaded,
and mean, all in the name of christianity. Sign me
up today! (That's sarcasm, in case you're also
sarcasm impaired!)

:I reject your name-calling (stalker) and find
:that assertion an insult to me.  I haven't stalked
:you.  I don't have time and wouldn't if I did.

After what you just promised 'to be here' and to
prey on me, I don't find it name calling at all. I
find it an accurate description of your own
promises. If I wanted to name call, I certainly
have better, but I try to keep this a discussion
of ideas.

Has anyone else ever noticed it's always 'name
calling' when you call it like you see it? Quite
frankly, Nick, I find your ideas on who should
parent, the notion that the 'inquisition was about
christians' etc, insulting. Fortunately, unlike
you, I don't look to others for respect, and
certainly not for approval.

The inquisition was not about christians, nor was
it even about Witches, except by way of that was
the excuse used for genocide.  It was about
gypsies, the elderly, the man-less, the dykes and
fags and bis and transfolk, the property owning
and the homeless all of whom were early on the
list of christians who treated them as somehow
less than the christians. I'm watching you willing
to walk right over my desires and I see
similarities. I'm watching what's being done to
those early on the lists and quite frankly, I
don't see queers taking out hour long TV segments
on how diseased and evil heterosexuals are.

Feel insulted and threatened if you like. You're
listening to the voices in your head Nick, not
anything real.

:I find many of the views you have expressed
:repugnent and indefensible (even though you try).

Good thing you're "respect(ing) your (my) right to
express and hold your views." And "don't
(not)attack(ing) you (me) for having views
different then mine (yours)."

And certainly a good thing you're not a hypocrite.

:I suppose you feel aproximately the same about
:me.

Projection.  Actually, no; I find your views
dangerous to people like me, particularly when you
call upon the power of the state and courts to
uphold your view, and I find your views highly
defensable, AFTER you've accepted a set of
presuppositions. I've never accepted the
presuppositions, and quite frankly am rather
certain I'm not going to. I don't find you
repugnant, rather I pity you for locking parts of
your kids lives away from yourself.

: The only difference is that I see your views as
:superior to mine.

Nick, quite obviously you don't. This is an
outright lie. My views cannot at once be
'repugnant' and 'superior'. You are obviously a
rather conflicted individual.

:I say consider my views on an equal plane and
:then decide.

Actually, I have, and I reject your
presupositions. They don't work for me. Again I
say, no thanks, and when such are foisted upon us
using the strongarm of the state, I maintain to
such I will NEVER surrender. To endless individual
conversion attempts such as this, as I have said
before, how many times must I say 'no'? To such I
will never submit. Having made my decision now you
accuse me 'closedmindedness', what you actually
face is decisiveness and resolve.

That said, I have no further wisdom to share,
Nick. Unlike you, I can say no, and I know when to
stop. We disagree, and while I have learned much,
how to watch a PK overcome consent in the name of
christianity, in under a week, as I said before,
I'm not here to make you feel better.

Conflict junkies like you thrive on this, and it
feeds your fixation. You say you're done, when in
fact, you appear to need this on some level.

You will of course maintain your presence here, as
promised, and I will of course, ignore it. You
will of course 'prey' on me, and I will forever
know that you don't have the decency to stop when
a girl says no. That makes you dangerous. I try
not to play with live venomous snakes if I can
help it.

May you answer for your crimes against my dignity
in your own way, not a threat, simply 'karma', or
the universe in action.

Peace, 
or at least the absence of anguish.

-Sabina

Home · About Us · Features · Archive · Links · Contact
 
© 1997-2006 by the authors.