What does God make of feminism?

[NTOT]

What does God make of feminism? God doesn’t make anything of it. Women do who wish to glorify themselves as an idol.

I prefer freedom over others telling me what to do…

As do I and most other women, which is why feminism was and still is necessary.

This is the blunt edge of feminism. The rejection of authority and disdain for obedience to anyone but thyself.

What is patriarchy other than men telling women what they consider acceptable, and women being forced and/or coerced into compliance?

This does not define patriarchy.

Socialism is certainly against the freedom to exploit others for monetary gain.

Socialism is forced equality. Forced equality doesn’t work.

But in essence, it supports other freedoms which are far more fundamental, such as freedom from the constraints of poverty.

The “constraint” of poverty is not slavery. I would much rather be poor and “free” than “equal” and a slave.

At no point have I said, by the way, that socialism as it has been applied by governments has been a success - clearly it has not, but that doesn’t make the philosophy itself inherently bad or wrong.

The socialist philosophy itself is inherently wrong and evil. It is in direction opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

It’s just not compatible with the widespread exercise of self-interest upon which capitalism thrives. Neither, for that matter, is Christianity…

You are absolutely correct in that Chrisitanity is not compatible with “self-interest” as feminism is.

Your implication seems to have been that women, as distinct from ‘the rest of society’ have caused widespread damage by being allowed to take charge of their own lives. Presumably, you mean the victims have been men and children, and that life was better for them before the bluestockings gained a voice.

Indeed, the victims have been men and children. The victims have also been women. However it is not because of women being allowed to “take charge of their lives”. It is because of the concept of self worship, vanity, sexual “liberation”, and disdain for authority that has caused this damage.

Somehow, I doubt that was the case. Firstly, I would question any benefit to ‘society as a whole’ that was gained by subjugating half of the adult population.

Half the adult population was never subjugated.

Secondly, I doubt that men and children were better off back in the bad old days when domestic violence, adultery (on the part of the husband, anyway) and child labour were officially or tacitly sanctioned.

All of these evils are incompatible with Catholic teaching as is feminism. Because evils existed, does not mean another worse evil should supplant them. Catholicism before feminism as well after its rise has condemned violence, adultery (takes two to tangle remember), and “wife beating”. It would be more accurate to compare evils that existed back in the “bad old days” to the what evils exist now. There are much more and worse evils around today considering the general degradation of morality in society today. A good deal of this is due to the loss of dignity in women as promoted by feminism.

These were the days when, amongst other things, a man was legally allowed to beat his wife, if he saw fit, as long as he didn’t use a stick any thicker than his thumb, and could quite easily get her committed to an insane asylum in order to conveniently get rid of her - especially if she complained about his latest mistress.

This was a sin back then and it is still a sin now. The law doesn’t change that fact. Now we have rampant abortion which wasn’t legal then and is now. It was a sin then and still is now. Feminism is the cause of it being not only legal but widespread to sickening degree.

Do you honestly think the social evils we have now are worse than those that existed before the spread of feminism?

Yes, 1.5 million babies legally killed per year in the U.S. I think so.

 

[NTOT]

Some more evils which exist now besides the slaughter of the unborn:

• Pornography (men regarded the virture of women back then)
• Contraception
• Adultery (you claim there was more adultery back then, quite the opposite, adultery doesn’t even carry the same stigma now)
• Unwed mothers
• Promiscuity
• and on and on

 

[Sair]

What does God make of feminism? God doesn’t make anything of it. Women do who wish to glorify themselves as an idol.

If that’s the only alternative to being denied a voice and the right of self-determination, so be it.

But let’s not get bogged down with ridiculous extremes. There is a lot of mileage between self-glorification and the mere acknowledgement of humanity - something that the feminist-squashers on this forum seem to have consistently failed to recognise.

This is the blunt edge of feminism. The rejection of authority and disdain for obedience to anyone but thyself.

Once again with the extremes. Disdain for obedience is only a feature of feminism because the obedience demanded of women was far more crushing than what was expected from men.

This does not define patriarchy.

How would you define it, then? At least in practice, it’s a social structure where men make the rules and women are expected to comply without question - it assumes that men are inherently wiser than women, across the board, and that is demonstrably not the case. Stupidity, vanity, and vice are not gender-specific qualities.

Socialism is forced equality. Forced equality doesn’t work.

Forced economic equality denies the supposed right of people to accumulate wealth. Allowing the ungoverned accumulation of wealth denies many people the right to eat. When it comes down to a heirarchy of needs, survival and basic human dignity definitely trump luxury.

Indeed, the victims have been men and children. The victims have also been women. However it is not because of women being allowed to “take charge of their lives”.

Then it’s not because of feminism, because allowing women the right of self-determination **is **the stated aim of feminism.

It is because of the concept of self worship, vanity, sexual “liberation”, and disdain for authority that has caused this damage.

I’ll pay that, but these things are not specific to feminism - they are human vices that have existed across the ages.

Half the adult population was never subjugated.

Please, please, **PLEASE **read a history book - preferably one that actually mentions women, rather than ignoring their existence.

There are much more and worse evils around today considering the general degradation of morality in society today. A good deal of this is due to the loss of dignity in women as promoted by feminism.

Frankly, I feel that my dignity as a human being is acknowledged to a far greater degree than it would be if I were denied the right to gain more than a rudimentary education, to own property, to leave a violent, abusive husband, to vote for politicians who represent my interests, and to choose a career suited to my abilities and temperament. Such was the lot of women less than a century ago, and the reason it has changed is because of feminism and the courageous women who questioned the status quo rather than being satisfied with their lack of opportunities. If women’s dignity is abused, it is by people - both men and women - who misunderstand the true ideals of feminism.

 

[Sair]

The membership of CAF skews heavily to the right. Its one of the reasons why the discussion of political races has been banned - effectively CAF was acting as an advocate for the right wing party and this threatened the tax status of CAF.

I see your point, indeed. If I may so facetiously put it, it seems as if the views of a fascist atheist would meet with more approval by some on this forum than those of a socialist Christian…

However, one thing that I would like to point out is that an ideology and its application in practice are manifestly different things. This discussion began by conjecturing what God would think of feminism. What God would make of the abuse of the ideology by some feminists might be easier to ascertain, but as I have said before, I could not imagine God disapproving of a philosophy that promotes justice and equality of opportunity.

Yet we still have the seemingly endless stream of invective against feminism, because like any ideology, it’s open to abuse. It’s just that most people don’t separate theory from practice. If you’re going to blame feminism for social evils such as pornography, widespread abortion and abuse of female sexuality, then you might as well blame socialism for the evils perpetrated under Eastern Europe’s communist regime - rather than the megalomaniacs who perverted the philosophy to increase their own personal power. Oh, and while you’re at it, you might as well blame Christianity for the indiscriminate slaughter by the Crusaders, the burning of innocent women (and men) condemned as witches, and the sexual abuse of children by the clergy.

My point is, you can’t dismiss an ideology as invalid or inherently wicked just because it has been misused or misinterpreted. We human beings are flawed creatures, and while many of us strive to attain noble ideals, there are plenty of others who will happily pervert any ideology to justify evil ends.

 

[Calliso]

If that’s the only alternative to being denied a voice and the right of self-determination, so be it.

But let’s not get bogged down with ridiculous extremes. There is a lot of mileage between self-glorification and the mere acknowledgement of humanity - something that the feminist-squashers on this forum seem to have consistently failed to recognise.

Once again with the extremes. Disdain for obedience is only a feature of feminism because the obedience demanded of women was far more crushing than what was expected from men.

How would you define it, then? At least in practice, it’s a social structure where men make the rules and women are expected to comply without question - it assumes that men are inherently wiser than women, across the board, and that is demonstrably not the case. Stupidity, vanity, and vice are not gender-specific qualities.

Forced economic equality denies the supposed right of people to accumulate wealth. Allowing the ungoverned accumulation of wealth denies many people the right to eat. When it comes down to a heirarchy of needs, survival and basic human dignity definitely trump luxury.

Then it’s not because of feminism, because allowing women the right of self-determination **is **the stated aim of feminism.

I’ll pay that, but these things are not specific to feminism - they are human vices that have existed across the ages.

Please, please, **PLEASE **read a history book - preferably one that actually mentions women, rather than ignoring their existence.

Frankly, I feel that my dignity as a human being is acknowledged to a far greater degree than it would be if I were denied the right to gain more than a rudimentary education, to own property, to leave a violent, abusive husband, to vote for politicians who represent my interests, and to choose a career suited to my abilities and temperament. Such was the lot of women less than a century ago, and the reason it has changed is because of feminism and the courageous women who questioned the status quo rather than being satisfied with their lack of opportunities. If women’s dignity is abused, it is by people - both men and women - who misunderstand the true ideals of feminism.

Well said!

 

[neat62]

Sair;3986645

I see your point, indeed. If I may so facetiously put it, it seems as if the views of a fascist atheist would meet with more approval by some on this forum than those of a socialist Christian…

I think you are wrong. Atheism is more related to Socialism.

I could not imagine God disapproving of a philosophy that promotes justice and equality of opportunity.

Would God approve of gay marriage?

Yet we still have the seemingly endless stream of invective against feminism, because like any ideology, it’s open to abuse. It’s just that most people don’t separate theory from practice. If you’re going to blame feminism for social evils such as pornography, widespread abortion and abuse of female sexuality, then you might as well blame socialism for the evils perpetrated under Eastern Europe’s communist regime - rather than the megalomaniacs who perverted the philosophy to increase their own personal power.

You could also call the above: Unintended consequences. By your rational, those consequences are acceptable as long people get what they want, Which will ultimately lead to less freedom for everybody else. Socialism leads to the removal of other freedoms in order to sustain it.
“The goal of socialism is communism.”
Vladimir Lenin

Oh, and while you’re at it, you might as well blame Christianity for the indiscriminate slaughter by the Crusaders, the burning of innocent women (and men) condemned as witches, and the sexual abuse of children by the clergy.

Or human ignorance.

My point is, you can’t dismiss an ideology as invalid or inherently wicked just because it has been misused or misinterpreted. We human beings are flawed creatures, and while many of us strive to attain noble ideals, there are plenty of others who will happily pervert any ideology to justify evil ends.

My views on feminism are based soley on it’s outcome. Sure, on paper may things look great. Communism looks great on paper, but we all know what has to be done in order to sustain (at least for a time) it. Looking at things today, we see feminism going hand in hand with abortion, gay marriage, sperm banks, high divorce rates, lower marriage rates/rise in cohabitation, stronger government, less freedom, etc. All of them go against Catholic teaching.

You seem to pick out the the good aspects of feminism while dismissing the negative aspects. To me, there are more negatives and less positives, which = a failed ideology. We still have domestic violence and women still staying in that situation. We still have rape. We still have abortions.

And regarding men, the idea of feminism was to “elevate” women to men’s status. While that has occured, much of it was due to lowering men’s status down to, what was perceived as bad, women’s status. Laws have protected women and nailed men. Divorce laws favor women right off the bat. The claim that feminism will remove or share the financial burden of men, what it has done, is require both husband and wife to go out and work with grandma or daycare to raise their kids, if they even have any. Assuming they got married to begin with.

 

[neat62]

Sair;3986619

But let’s not get bogged down with ridiculous extremes. There is a lot of mileage between self-glorification and the mere acknowledgement of humanity - something that the feminist-squashers on this forum seem to have consistently failed to recognise.

So we do not recognize women has human if they cannot vote or have a career, etc? That perhaps promiscuus sex should be glorified as a staple of humanity?

Once again with the extremes. Disdain for obedience is only a feature of feminism because the obedience demanded of women was far more crushing than what was expected from men.

Has not feminism had it’s share of extremes as well?

Forced economic equality denies the supposed right of people to accumulate wealth. Allowing the ungoverned accumulation of wealth denies many people the right to eat. When it comes down to a heirarchy of needs, survival and basic human dignity definitely trump luxury.

I suppose that is why gas is $8.00 a gallon in France and why people had to wait hours in a line in Russia for toilet paper. Or the 10% unemployment rate in Germany.

Then it’s not because of feminism, because allowing women the right of self-determination **is **the stated aim of feminism.

Susan B Anthony fought for more liberal divorce laws. What is the aim of divorce but the right to self determination.

I’ll pay that, but these things are not specific to feminism -

They are in the US.

Please, please, **PLEASE **read a history book - preferably one that actually mentions women, rather than ignoring their existence.

Again with the extremes, lol. Ther were plenty of men who lived less than beautiful lives. And many families who live less than beautiful lives as well.

Frankly, I feel that my dignity as a human being is acknowledged to a far greater degree than it would be if I were denied the right to gain more than a rudimentary education, to own property, to leave a violent, abusive husband, to vote for politicians who represent my interests, and to choose a career suited to my abilities and temperament. **Such was the lot of women less than a century ago, and the reason it has changed is because of feminism **and the courageous women who questioned the status quo rather than being satisfied with their lack of opportunities. If women’s dignity is abused, it is by people - both men and women - who misunderstand the true ideals of feminism.

Very true. The original feminist were all formally educated women. Then, the second wavers came. They too were all formally educated. Betty Friedman(who was a Marxist), Gloria Steinem(avid supporter of abortion), and Germaine Greer(anarchist communist).

I mentioned the unintended consequences of feminism before. Only I wonder if they really were unintended. The point is, is that, the second wave would not have come but for the first wave. This describes the slippery slope pretty well. And we also know that Karl Marx advocated the abolition of the family remove capital.

Also from his Manifesto: :But you communists would introduce community of women, screams the whole bourgeoisie in chorus."

“He has not even the suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production”

All of the above has been and is being played out. First wave, second wave feminism, socialism, and well…?

It is a real pain in the butt to have to get up at 4:30 am everyday and work for a boss and life is not fair, but that is what is best for most people in a society. And what is best for most people in a society, is best, I believe.

 

[Kaninchen]

My views on feminism are based soley on it’s outcome.

I’m sure that we’re all quite clear about your views on feminism.

Now, borrowing a question from a title of one of Lenin’s most famous works (those of us who grew up in a world where there were real Communists still around were well advised, if we really wanted to argue with them, to read their favorite works rather than just grab seemingly useful quotes) what is your suggestion for “What is to be done?”

What sort of practical politics would bring about your vision? Not a wish list but a program - a convincing program, a convincing anti-feminist politics.

 

[Sair]

I suppose that is why gas is $8.00 a gallon in France and why people had to wait hours in a line in Russia for toilet paper. Or the 10% unemployment rate in Germany.

Or perhaps the Scandinavians, who are taxed at among the highest rates in the world, at around 60% of income, but record some of the highest rates of happiness of people anywhere in the world. That may well be because the taxes go towards meeting the needs of all the people in the country, by providing essentials like decent health care and, interestingly in light of the present discussion, the most generous paid materinity leave provisions anywhere in the world.

Susan B Anthony fought for more liberal divorce laws. What is the aim of divorce but the right to self determination.

Well, actually, the primary aim of divorce is to leave an unsatisfactory marriage. And as it turns out, marriage in its present form is on average far less satisfactory for women than for men. Surveys on happiness consistently show that married women have one of the lowest levels of happiness in the world, while married men have the highest levels. Bit of a quandary there, huh?

Again with the extremes, lol. Ther were plenty of men who lived less than beautiful lives. And many families who live less than beautiful lives as well.

Sadly, histories that leave women out completely were the norm up until the second half of last century, not the extreme. Most histories concentrated on the doings of great political figures, and the conducting of war - these were generally arenas in which women were barred from participation until very recently. And such was the nature of recorded history until historians started getting interested in the lives of ordinary people - both men and women - and these were indeed often shabby, brutal and short. Hence such things as the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution - attempts by the common people to better their lot. Sure, they quickly degenerated from idealism to exploitation and violence, but who can blame the ordinary people for wanting a better life?

Also from his Manifesto: :But you communists would introduce community of women, screams the whole bourgeoisie in chorus."

“He has not even the suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production”

All of the above has been and is being played out. First wave, second wave feminism, socialism, and well…?

‘Community of women’? In what way can this be conceived as a bad thing? And doing away with the status of women as mere instruments of production is hardly an evil end. Nor does it create an explicit link with feminism - Marx intended to do away with the status of all workers as mere instruments of production. This is a status to which capitalism happily reduces all people - producers and consumers, who have no other intrinsic value.

It is a real pain in the butt to have to get up at 4:30 am everyday and work for a boss and life is not fair, but that is what is best for most people in a society. And what is best for most people in a society, is best, I believe.

So, utilitarianism it is, then. Not sure how it is better for the whole of society to compel women into a narrow series of life choices that are considered ‘suitable for their sex’. Even now, it is still assumed that all women want to be wives and mothers, regardless of what other commitments they make or what lifestyles they choose. This creates an exhausting and draining life for the woman who works hard at her career and still is expected to be the caretaker of the household.

And why is it best for most people in society to be wage slaves?

 

[PrestonPittman]

All “ism’s”, including feminism, are of the flesh. Gods’ Word is of the Spirit. God’s word (scripture) is like a two-sided billboard that stands at the edge of a great chasm. On one side. the side pointing out across the great chasm are scriptures that speak to the lost (those people who are on the other side of the chasm from God). Scriptures that call out to them… pleading and warning His creations to come across and to be saved. On the other side of the billboard are scriptures that speak to His people (those whom have come across the chasm and are now saved)… Scriptures that strengthen and develop us in our new stance.

 

[edwest2]

The feminism I experienced first hand was angry, unBiblical, secular and Communist.

Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique, referred to the family as “a comfortable concentration camp.”

Gloria Steinem of the National Organization for Women, said, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

These angry women created fear, suspicion and division between men and women. They were not then, or now, about healing, about cooperation, about reconciliation and certainly, not forgiveness. Men are, and will continue to be, the eternal enemy. Women were told to embrace their victimhood. They would later turn into into the male chauvenist pigs that they were told to avoid in the 1970s.

The founders of modern feminism hate the family, the functional family. Women were brainwashed out of their natural role as wives and mothers - two dirty words to the family hating radicals. What is the solution? Stay away from men. Take lawyers on dates.

A look beneath the surface reveals bored suburban communists and anarchists that wanted their whims satisfied. That wanted women to bow down before their secular humanist philosophy. No God, no Church, No Man, no Sin, just Sex and the City.

Wake up my fellow Catholics. If these women, and those who agree with them, want nothing to do with men, then they should stay away from them. Perhaps form a Revolutionary Sisters Bank and Commune where they can enjoy each other’s company, have power, and wealth. And best of all, no men.

Strangely, later in life, Gloria Steinem married a man.

God bless,
Ed

 

[goodknight439]

What truly befuddles me is how the abortion/choice issue has gotten twisted up in feminism. I was talking to a good friend’s wife the other day and while she is “personally opposed” and a faithful Episcopal, I heard her recite sound byte “no one (especially a man) has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body”

Some how this very intelligent woman whom I deeply respect has been convinced that MEN are behind the anti-abortion movement. And that outlawing abortion would be men telling women what they can/can’t do with their bodies. The best example she could give for why abortions she be “legal but infrequent” was that a drug addicted prostitute who got pregnant or a woman who is going to abuse her children got pregnant. She lost me there. Abortion is legal now and some women abuse their children and prostitutes get pregnant and have children. So how would outlawing abortion affect that?

This following thought that was honest and from her heart was that God takes care of aborted babies innocent souls and the souls of their mothers if she “has a good reason”. But the woman that has abortions in lieu of birth control is wrong, and should not be allowed to have them.

Is it me or is she applying human relative morals to God?

It seems that the women I know ( my wife for one) that are pro life see abortion as the opposite of true feminism. The women I have met who work on Project Rachel share that the women who come to them never say “I chose to have an abortion”. But rather her boyfriend, husband, parents, girlfriends: “made her,” “convinced her,” “talked her into” etc having the abortion she now regrets. The same for the two women I know personally who deeply regret their abortions.

So when did the (history of) illegal abortion become something MEN imposed on women and the legalization of abortion freed women?

 

[goodknight439]

I find it extraordinary to see so much condemnation of socialism on this forum, when socialism, as a political philosophy, most closely resembles the charitable ideals of Christianity. If feminism has taken us closer to socialism, I can’t see how God would disapprove.

Because- generally socialism as a political system denies the people freedom of religion and other civil liberties rather than supporting the rights of the people as the philosophy often contends. Religion is socialist systems interferes with the worship of the “state” which reigns supreme. Socialist regimes that surface after conflict, war, class struggles, historically become oppressive totalitarian states, the opposite of Christianity. We have yet to see a successful socialist government on earth that is true to the ideals of which you speak being closely related to that of Christianity. Not to mention the socialist driven economies tend to burn themselves out since the workforce cannot evolve. This is also the main reason the Socialist movement cannot get a foothold in the US and other Democracies.

 

[Dale_M]

The feminism I experienced first hand was angry, unBiblical, secular and Communist.

Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique, referred to the family as “a comfortable concentration camp.”

Gloria Steinem of the National Organization for Women, said, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

Ed, this kind of rhetoric may have been necessary back in the 1960’s to shake people out of their slumber. But that was 40 years ago… times change. The US is a very different place than it was in the 1960s.

The founders of modern feminism hate the family, the functional family.

Second wave feminism is not modern feminism. Again, times change. Don’t live in the past.

Strangely, later in life, Gloria Steinem married a man.

That shouldn’t surprise you. You might ask yourself why it does.

 

[goodknight439]

Have there been studies done of age, locale, socio-economic distribution as to which group of men continue to be in denial?

Likely no. It would be a poor use of research time and money to find so few men.- or - perhaps that is the answer you were hoping someone would post?

Several people have spoken of the change in time from 40 years ago. Proof of that change is that a woman was recently considered a serious candidate for the highest office in the country and the issues about her candidacy revolved around platform, voting records etc, not gender.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, this kind of rhetoric may have been necessary back in the 1960’s to shake people out of their slumber. But that was 40 years ago… times change. The US is a very different place than it was in the 1960s.

Second wave feminism is not modern feminism. Again, times change. Don’t live in the past.

That shouldn’t surprise you. You might ask yourself why it does.

Things haven’t changed, they’ve gotten worse. Check the divorce rate among the secular population and compare it to the rate among Christians. It’s identical or worse. I know too many people around my age who are shacking up and/or their kids are shacking up. Fornication? What’s the big deal? Porn? What’s the big deal? Profanity? What’s the big deal? Sex and the City, Fornication Hospital (Grey’s Anatomy), Two and a Half Men (Perverts). Have you seen a guy meets girl movie lately? Hop into the sack and boom, we’re a couple.

I think all Catholics need to wake up and realize that the murderous and adulterous generation Christ talked about 2000 years ago is back. Time magazine did a cover story about the number of people killed in the United States in a one week period. And I won’t get into ‘a woman’s right to choose.’

The fruit of the National Organization for Women has been divorce, divisiveness and poverty for single mothers and their babies.

When the calendar changed from the 20th to the 21st Century, no wisdom, knowledge or enlightenment poured into anyone’s head.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Likely no. It would be a poor use of research time and money to find so few men.- or - perhaps that is the answer you were hoping someone would post?

Several people have spoken of the change in time from 40 years ago. Proof of that change is that a woman was recently considered a serious candidate for the highest office in the country and the issues about her candidacy revolved around platform, voting records etc, not gender.

“not gender”? Then why was it important to mention “a woman”? It’s all about gender. It’s a power struggle. That’s why the title of the latest book with that woman on the cover is “A Woman in Charge.” And if anyone wants to see that in action, just see the latest Elizabeth movie with Cate Blanchett.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Kaninchen]

When the calendar changed from the 20th to the 21st Century, no wisdom, knowledge or enlightenment poured into anyone’s head.

I’ll ask you what I asked somebody earlier on: “What is to be done?”

Moaning about all the evils that you perceive to have come out of feminism is easy to dismiss as some disappointed reactionary whining on and on and easily shrugged off and ignored. So, what kind of practical and persuasive political program would you envisage?

 

[edwest2]

What I perceive? The Church has weighed in on this as well.

On a Catholic forum, the practical answer is turning back to God and the teaching of the Church. The family and men and women have been poisoned in their thinking because of secularism.

The answer:

Dating without sex.

Courtship of someone you think you might marry, without sex.

Speaking to and getting to know the parents and siblings of the person you are thinking of marrying.

And then, if all goes well, and both are willing, and prepared, engagement.

Finally, discussion about children, financing, housing, work and schedules.

Then real, not to be entered into lightly, marriage. And then sex.

Not the current, shoot first and ask questions afterward nonsense.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Kaninchen]

What I perceive? The Church has weighed in on this as well.

I’m sorry, I failed to put in the caveat that I’d put in my question to the other poster - that it shouldn’t be a ‘wish list’!

What I meant was a ‘political program’ rather than a ‘wish list’. People are not listening to you, how would you get them to listen to you?