Even More Religion.

Usually reliably level and liberal headed Kirsten Powers has written a basically over the top rhetorical defense of evangelicals, based on the attention The Stepford Wife has been getting for things like:

(a) saying she was submissive to her husband, and
(b) later defining the word to mean just about anything but what the word means, actually.

Go Here for the Article.


My comments (as posted on the Daily Beast FB page -- typos correct here, thought):

When ever someone needs to define a word they have used way past the dictionary meaning, they are on thin ice, as far as their own veracity goes. Beyond that, and I admit I am a fan of Kirsten Powers, but she's not really being persuasive here. Two, three, four hundred year old a history of that word being consistently taken to mean "not really submissive, actually," would have been good proof of the point. What was given was just contemporary spin from modern day evangelicals who to a great extent make up their own meanings, as they go along.

Painting this a bigotry is really intellectually foul. It's more than rhetorical overstatement. Now personally I say I respect every one's right to believe what they want. But I do not have to respect what they believe. Anyone who thinks otherwise, that they can make me respect beliefs I do no will be sorely disappointed, because I will resist that as fiercely as an attack on my person. Oh. And if I was not clear, I do have a right to judge people on the things they say they believe in. To argue against that is to argue against reality itself. Now would I write someone off merely because they are a believer? No. Now how many Americans would not vote for an atheist or an agnostic, merely on account of that? You want to identify bigotry, there's your obvious bigotry.