Horrifying Republican response to Bishop's sermon

[JessaWoo]

These are tweets from Matt Walsh on X about Bishop Marian Budde and her sermon earlier today in Washington, attacking her womanhood and ability in a sexist and ageist tirade. It seems the clarion call has gone out to the rest of the Trump X minions, as they are all tweeting the same sentiments - including Kellie-Jay Keen and Donald Trump Jnr. Rep. Mike Collins całłed for her deportation, although she is American. Do you still support Trump after this?

“A liberal woman over the age of 50 with a lesbian haircut is guaranteed to support the most evil ideas and policies that mankind has ever conceived.”

“Just take one look at this witch and you know everything you need to know about her, even before she starts talking.”

“Of course this grotesque display is coming from a female “priest.” You will only ever hear heresy and inanity from someone whose whole existence is blasphemous.”

And another tweet from Bo Loudon: “🚨BREAKING: A bishop at the National Cathedrol just urged President Trump to protect transgender children and not deport illegal aliens because "they're not criminals."

Pure class from President Trump as he sat through this despicable politicization of the prayer service.”

Speech text:
““In the Name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now,” Budde stated. “There are gay, lesbian, and transgender children in Democratic, Republican and independent families. Some who fear for their lives.

”The people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings, who labor in poultry farms and meat-packing plants, who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and work the night shifts in hospitals. They may not be citizens, or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals.”

Budde asked Trump “to have mercy” on people “in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away and that you help those who are fleeing warzones and persecution in their own lands to find compassion and welcome here.

“Our God teaches us that we are to be merciful to the stranger, for we were all once strangers in this land,” she continued. “May God grant us the strength and courage to honor the dignity of every human being, to speak the truth to one another in love, and walk humbly with each other and our God.”

Earlier in her message, Budde stressed the importance of unity, of respectfully disagreeing with one another, but also expressed concern over what she called “the culture of contempt” and feared “the loss of equality” for some who lose in political debates.

What a horrible, divisive message this is! 🙄 Personally, I think Budde's message is courageous and beautiful, and clearly deeply Christian at its core.

@TempestTost I definitely don’t make claims for any multilateral institutions being perfect. On balance, I believe they do help global security. I doubt Trump’s administration will create a settlement per se. More likely Zelenskyy will have no options when the military hardware stops. Russia can manufacture its own, Ukraine can’t. Yes of course all European countries would love the cessation of active hostility but Finland and Sweden are likely to remain highly nervous.

Spot on, great post.

I think once you start to think critically, it's difficult to stop. I keep wondering when people say - as if it's a bad thing - 'Trump will stop the war between Ukraine and Russia' - how is that in and of itself a bad thing?

There's a whole grift / culture around climate change. Hundreds of people flying around the world to climate conferences all the time. It kind of tells on itself as virtue signalling hypocrisy and not doing anything practical to address the problem. Then they decide poor people can't have a short flight once every 5 years for the only holiday they can afford (which is much cheaper than in the UK). There's a lot of punching down on poor people in the environmental movement, which is ironic as poorer people are already way more environmentally friendly than the jet setting class as tend to get public transport and are much less consumerist out of necessity and not choice.

@TempestTost makes good points. We won't want to pay the full amount for Ukraine if US stops funding. Not sure if it's possible anyway. So we'll want cessation of that funding ends

Also agree on some international organisations which are unelected and have their own skews

I thought this post was about the responses to the bishops speech. I've only skimmed but don't see many comments on the tone of the responses.

I think wether we agree with a person or not they have a right not to be abused for speaking. I find it very very concerning that it's comments like witch and looking like a lesbian that are thrown at a woman. Blasphemous.

Witch was used to burn women who didn't bow to the male dominated society. Often older women who had experience and knowledge trying to share it with younger women. Lesbians are hated because they do not satisfy men, they are overly targeted by the man's rights movement. Is it blasphemy for a woman to speak within a religion or should we only allow men to guide those who seek moral guidance this way?

For me I'm not reading this thinking there's no such thing as a transgender child (there isn't) I'm not interested in debating if illegal immigrants pay tax (I've not the knowledge to comment). I'm reading this and similar to OP I'm concerned about the tone and choices of insults and words used against a woman speaking publicly. Someone else commented that Americans are shuffling towards handmaids tale and I think that's what I took from this op too. Witch is a dangerous word for women historically and we must not forget why

Anyhow, in a recent exercise with some 18 year olds, they uniformly thought an online forum comment about using bear spray on someone breaking work rules was threatening and even obscene. Not a single person interpreted it as possibly joking. Made me wonder if constantly living your life through texts and online has reduced nuance and shades in communication exchanges. In turn, this has fed into more entrenched positions about gender. But certainly good intentions about trigger warnings and removing any potential offense seem to be leading to infantilising young adults.

@DrBlackbird 👍

I’ve wondered the same thing about online exchanges generally.

I wonder if people are going to get tired of posting and texting as a result.

1. I covered that. tl;dr: men insulting women who say things they don't like is a day ending in Y, for all women.
2. The regulars on this board know from experience that the thread starter believes that women should #bekind and let men who wish they were women into female-only spaces. There is hence a shaming subtext to that OP of "see, look what your side has said about this woman who was doing her job" abd an attempt to make us feel guilty about that. There are so many inaccurate assumptions underpinning that, like the idea that FWR regulars have "a side" that we are all on, that Trump has "a side" other than Trump, that FWR regulars who are feminist are on any side other than that of women as a class united by our inherent and universal inability to father children and our actual or presumed ability to become pregnant, and that women are responsible for what men say and do. My responses, and I suspect other posters' responses as well, reflect that understanding.

@selffellatingouroborosofhate oh ok I didn't recognise the OP.

I agree with what you say about sides wholeheartedly. #bekind and women being responsible for men is absolutely not my position. That doesn't mean I agree with all trump stands for. I certainly don't align with people who use witch and lesbian as insults, my comment was to add my voice to calling that sort of language out regardless of whose "side" those voices come from.

Oh believe me, I don't support everything Trump says and does. I'm watching with horror as he milks an aircrash for political gains.

@selffellatingouroborosofhate

The regulars on this board know from experience that the thread starter believes that women should #bekind and let men who wish they were women into female-only spaces. There is hence a shaming subtext to that OP of "see, look what your side has said about this woman who was doing her job" abd an attempt to make us feel guilty about that. There are so many inaccurate assumptions underpinning that, like the idea that FWR regulars have "a side" that we are all on, that Trump has "a side" other than Trump, that FWR regulars who are feminist are on any side other than that of women as a class united by our inherent and universal inability to father children and our actual or presumed ability to become pregnant, and that women are responsible for what men say and do. My responses, and I suspect other posters' responses as well, reflect that understanding.

How can you know what other posters think? In any case, you have a few key things incorrect here. I don't think men who wish they were women into female-only spaces. I also don't believe women are responsible for what men say or do. I'm not sure how you made these assumptions, let alone how you can have the confidence to pass them onto another poster. Very odd.

I've just reread your OP, and you seem to make some very odd assumptions about the people you're talking to. For example, you said "Do you still support Trump after this?"

Hardly any FWR regulars support Trump. Possibly none. Who did you think you were talking to?

@OldCrone

I've just reread your OP, and you seem to make some very odd assumptions about the people you're talking to. For example, you said "Do you still support Trump after this?"

Hardly any FWR regulars support Trump. Possibly none. Who did you think you were talking to?

At least I asked the question. However, a great many do support at least some of Trump's policies (if not Trump himself, to make the distinction). That is clear enough from reading any recent thread on the subject.

It's that tired old assumption again. The deliberate choice of language to Imply that women on FWR support Trump. A tactic regularly used by certain posters.

And here we are, a week on, and several unanswered questions later, and we still don’t know who “you” is, and what “support Trump” actually means. C’est la vie. Again.

At least I asked the question. However, a great many do support at least some of Trump's policies (if not Trump himself, to make the distinction). That is clear enough from reading any recent thread on the subject.

If its about other policies, why start the thread on this board and not a general board, or even politics?

This board is about sex and gender, so its not unreasonable to assume the OP was about that, not unspecified policies.

There's a massive difference between agreeing with anyone (Trump in this case) on a few points of science and biological fact that results in safeguarding women and children and supporting and/or agreeing with everything they say or do, surely you can understand that.
If Trump said water is wet would you accuse everyone who agreed that water is indeed wet of supporting Trump? If not why not as it's what you are doing to us

At least I asked the question. However, a great many do support at least some of Trump's ,policies (if not Trump himself, to make the distinction). That is clear enough from reading any recent thread on the subject.

Do you not support the halt on surgical procedures to alter a child’s body to that of the opposite sex?

I do, but for the life of me, I don’t equate that with support for Trump.

It isn't about other policies. It's about Trump and his acolytes to the Bishop's speech - specifically, the misogyny, ageism and anti-intellectualism contained in their messaging. I thought that might be an issue for posters on the board. For some, yes. For most, surprisingly , no.

Good lord.

Yes, one would hope that if there is indeed a God that he would be a Good one.

@JessaWoo

In response to this question in pp

Do you not support the halt on surgical procedures to alter a child’s body to that of the opposite sex?

Do you want the procedures to stop?

I don't believe they are a good thing, so yes.

Are we trying to establish my purity?

I don't believe they are a good thing, so yes.

A direct answer that's good. Now an EO is in place doing that.

You appear to agree with Trump on this point.

a - you appear to support Trump on the EO so there we are then.
b - if previously targetted posters are too specific about a single person, they are at risk of a suspension or ban. Hence the resistance to describe what they think of him as a person.

People can hold two things at the same time. 3 even, with some caffiene inside them.

So they can despise a man/political party for example for behaviour/s, and also think that they cannot believe that a person/party on the opposite side is responsible for the man/party getting into power due to their inability to accurately reflect reality [and that they were literally mutilating children], and also be squealing with delight at the meltdowns when actual reality is put back into law. That does not mean they have fallen in love with the original man/party in question. Or that they support him/it.

Does that help you to understand the situation?

@AlisonDonut

So they can despise a man/political party for example for behaviour/s, and also think that they cannot believe that a person/party on the opposite side is responsible for the man/party getting into power due to their inability to accurately reflect reality [and that they were literally mutilating children], and also be squealing with delight at the meltdowns when actual reality is put back into law.

Can you reword this sentence please? Or break it up?