The Religion of Feminism requires more faith than Christianity

Readability

The Religion of Feminism requires more faith than Christianity

Only today I have found a pas­sage in a Chris­t­ian writer where he rec­om­mends his own ver­sion of Chris­tian­ity on the ground that ‘only such a faith can out­last the death of old cul­tures and the birth of new civil­i­sa­tions’. You see the lit­tle rift? ‘Believe this, not because it’s true, but for some other rea­son.’ That’s the game,

C.S. Lewis The Screw­tape Let­ters #23

Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spir­its to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

1John 4:1

Back in Jan­u­ary 2009 in my 2nd full month of blog­ging the topic of why you should believe in Chris­tian­ity in gen­eral and Catholi­cism in par­tic­u­lar:

Many peo­ple give many dif­fer­ent rea­sons why they are Chris­t­ian in gen­eral and or Catholic in par­tic­u­lar. I main­tain there is only one valid rea­son, and that rea­son should trump any and all others:

Because it’s true.

This should and must be the pri­mary rea­son for being a Chris­t­ian. No other trumps it. Chris­tian­ity and the Church is either true or false, there is no mid­dle ground here.

That the Church is based on truth is com­pletely con­sis­tent with Christ’s own words yet Christ also empha­sised over and over the need for faith Faith and rea­son go hand & hand. With­out faith the church becomes a cold place of just rules and with­out rea­son one can fall for every­thing (there is a rea­son why the church declares some pri­vate rev­e­la­tion “wor­thy of belief” and oth­ers Con­stat de non supernaturalitate).

To put it sim­ply as when it comes down to doc­trine, belief or even mir­a­cles, truth is paramount.

Would that our fem­i­nist friends (via Ed Driscoll) had the same stan­dard to wit:

I can’t state this more emphat­i­cally: If Jackie’s story is par­tially or wholly untrue, it doesn’t val­i­date the rea­sons for dis­be­liev­ing her.

— Melissa McE­wan (@Shakestweetz) Decem­ber 5, 2014

That comes from fem­i­nist Melissa McE­van who Robert Stacy McCain has described as…

a phe­nom­e­non I intend to address at some future time of my choosing.

She con­tin­ued:

“Dis­crep­an­cies” is all it takes to con­vince most of the world Jackie is a liar. Wel­come to the rape culture.

Now while this kind of rea­son­ing was, as Glenn Reynolds noted, all the rage in Scotts­boro in 1931 at least, in fair­ness to Ms. McE­van, she had a trau­matic per­sonal expe­ri­ence that might under­stand­ably cloud her rea­son­ing in that direction.

This how­ever is not the case here:

One group of female stu­dents said “the rapist” must be expelled. But he hasn’t been found guilty of com­mit­ting rape, I said. “We know he com­mit­ted the rape,” one said, with the kind of steely-​eyed con­vic­tion that recalled (admit­tedly in a much less lethal con­text) how KKK mem­bers once “knew” that their black vic­tims were guilty of rap­ing local white women.

A male stu­dent told me my insis­tence that indi­vid­u­als sus­pected of a crime must be fairly tried and found con­vinc­ingly guilty before we ruin their lives — and being expelled from a pres­ti­gious uni­ver­sity for rape would undoubt­edly be life-​ruining — was evi­dence that I had fallen for the “lib­eral par­a­digm” of jus­tice, which tends to ben­e­fit white, well-​off men. Appar­ently there is another “par­a­digm,” a bet­ter one, in which women who accuse men of rape are instantly believed and the men in ques­tion swiftly and severely punished.

The speeches made by stu­dents from the mattress-​strewn steps lead­ing up to the beau­ti­ful Low Library were chill­ing. Many focused on the need to believe women who make accu­sa­tions. “I believe!” they hollered, to cheers from the crowd. This casual asser­tion of belief in all accu­sa­tions of sex­ual assault mir­rors the gullible fanati­cism of the 17th-​century Salem trials,

Or here:

Ulti­mately, though, from where I sit in Char­lottesville, to let fact check­ing define the nar­ra­tive would be a huge mistake.

Or here

“[The wrongly accused] have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would nec­es­sar­ily have spared them. I think it ide­ally ini­ti­ates a process of self-​exploration. ‘How do I see women?’ ‘If I didn’t vio­late her, could I have?’ ‘Do I have the poten­tial to do to her what they say I did?’ Those are good questions.”

The Irony here is deli­cious. The chris­tians of the Catholic Church or as Amanda Mar­cotte calls us God­bags who the left rou­tinely (and falsely) label as “anti-​science” choose to use a stan­dard of rea­son, test­ing for truth when deal­ing with phe­nom­ena that might be con­sid­ered advan­ta­geous to our argu­ments while Jour­nal­ists and stu­dents attend­ing Uni­ver­si­ties seem to be bas­ing their beliefs on faith and feel­ings alone.

I won­der how many of these peo­ple who are so ready to believe that one in five women in col­lege are being raped with­out ques­tion doubt the mir­a­cle of the sun at Fatima an event seen by thou­sands of wit­nesses? I sub­mit and sug­gest if that for­mer fig­ure was true the num­ber of lawyers fil­ing class action suits against every col­lege in the coun­try would be nigh on incalculable.

The real­ity is fem­i­nism like Chris­tian­ity is a reli­gion. The other real­ity is Fem­i­nism, unlike Chris­tian­ity doesn’t have the phys­i­cal, intel­lec­tual or his­tor­i­cal evi­dence to back up its beliefs beyond a tiny but loud niche of human­ity that has allies in media and entertainment.

After 2000 years of being under attack Chris­tian­ity if fol­lowed by over 15 of the world’s pop­u­la­tion. I wouldn’t bet the farm on mod­ern fem­i­nism being as successful.

[olimome­ter id=3]

If you think this blog’s cov­er­age and what we do here is worth your sup­port please con­sider hit­ting DaTip­Jar below

If course if you can do both, I’m fine with that too.

Con­sider Sub­scrib­ing to sup­port our lineup of John Ruberry (Marathon Pun­dit) on Sun­day Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreve­port) on Mon­day Tim Imholt on Tues­day, AP Dil­lon (Lady Liberty1885) Thurs­days, Pas­tor George Kelly Fri­days, Steve Eggle­ston on Sat­ur­days with Baldilocks (Tue & Sat) and Fausta (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that ‘only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the birth of new civilisations’. You see the little rift? ‘Believe this, not because it’s true, but for some other reason.’ That’s the game,

C.S. Lewis The  Screwtape Letters #23

Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

1John 4:1

Back in January 2009 in my 2nd full month of blogging the topic of why you should believe in Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular:

Many people give many different reasons why they are Christian in general and or Catholic in particular. I maintain there is only one valid reason, and that reason should trump any and all others:

Because it’s true.

This should and must be the primary reason for being a Christian. No other trumps it. Christianity and the Church is either true or false, there is no middle ground here.

That the Church is based on truth is completely consistent with Christ’s own words yet Christ also emphasised over and over the need for faith  Faith and reason go hand & hand.  Without faith the church becomes a cold place of just rules and without reason one can fall for everything (there is a reason why the church declares some private revelation “worthy of belief”  and others Constat de non supernaturalitate).

To put it simply as when it comes down to doctrine, belief or even miracles, truth is paramount.

Would that our feminist friends (via Ed Driscoll)  had the same standard to wit:

I can’t state this more emphatically: If Jackie’s story is partially or wholly untrue, it doesn’t validate the reasons for disbelieving her.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) December 5, 2014

That comes  from feminist Melissa McEvan who Robert Stacy McCain has described as…

a phenomenon I intend to address at some future time of my choosing.

She continued:

“Discrepancies” is all it takes to convince most of the world Jackie is a liar. Welcome to the rape culture.

Now while this kind of reasoning was, as Glenn Reynolds noted, all the rage in Scottsboro in 1931 at least,  in fairness to Ms. McEvan,  she had a traumatic personal experience that might understandably cloud her reasoning in that direction.

This however is not the case here:

One group of female students said “the rapist” must be expelled. But he hasn’t been found guilty of committing rape, I said. “We know he committed the rape,” one said, with the kind of steely-eyed conviction that recalled (admittedly in a much less lethal context) how KKK members once “knew” that their black victims were guilty of raping local white women.

A male student told me my insistence that individuals suspected of a crime must be fairly tried and found convincingly guilty before we ruin their lives — and being expelled from a prestigious university for rape would undoubtedly be life-ruining — was evidence that I had fallen for the “liberal paradigm” of justice, which tends to benefit white, well-off men. Apparently there is another “paradigm,” a better one, in which women who accuse men of rape are instantly believed and the men in question swiftly and severely punished.

The speeches made by students from the mattress-strewn steps leading up to the beautiful Low Library were chilling. Many focused on the need to believe women who make accusations. “I believe!” they hollered, to cheers from the crowd. This casual assertion of belief in all accusations of sexual assault mirrors the gullible fanaticism of the 17th-century Salem trials,

Or here:

Ultimately, though, from where I sit in Charlottesville, to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake.

Or here

“[The wrongly accused] have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. ‘How do I see women?’ ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’ ‘Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?’ Those are good questions.”

The Irony here is delicious.  The christians of the Catholic Church or as Amanda Marcotte calls us Godbags who the left routinely (and falsely) label as “anti-science”  choose to use a standard of reason, testing for truth when dealing with phenomena that might be considered advantageous to our arguments while Journalists and students attending Universities seem to be basing their beliefs on faith and feelings alone.

I wonder how many of these people who are so ready to believe that one in five women in college are being raped  without question doubt the miracle of the sun at Fatima an event seen by thousands of witnesses?  I submit and suggest if that former figure was true the number of lawyers filing class action suits against every college in the country would be nigh on incalculable.

The reality is feminism like Christianity is a religion.  The other reality is Feminism, unlike Christianity doesn’t have the physical, intellectual or historical evidence to back up its beliefs beyond a tiny but loud niche of humanity that has allies in media and entertainment.

After 2000 years of being under attack Christianity if followed by over 1/5 of the world’s population.  I wouldn’t bet the farm on modern feminism being as successful.

Olimometer 2.52

If you think this blog’s coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below

If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.