False Accusation Of Rape: Man Spends Four Years In Jail; False Accuser Gets 60 Days To Be Served On Weekends
A man's life was ruined by this horrible woman, who took four years to recant her false accusation. Jonathan Turley blogs about Elizabeth Paige Coast:
Coast, 26, accused Johnathan C. Montgomery, a former neighbor of raping her in 2000 when she was 10 years old and he was 14. She later admitted that she made up the story and lied on the witness stand at his June 23, 2008, trial.Montgomery's life was ruined and he spent four years in jail. Coast however was sentenced by Hampton Circuit Court Judge Bonnie L. Jones to just two months in jail and ordered to make $90,000 in restitution for perjury. Jones suspended the rest of the five-year sentence and even allowed Coast to serve the remainder on weekends so not to disrupt her life.
Coast blamed her crimes on her reading adult material on the Internet by her mother. When her strict religious mother caught her, the mother (Coast claims) suggested that she was viewing the material because she had been sexually assaulted. She said that the jumped at the excuse to get out of trouble. She said she gave her mother the name of Montgomery when pressed to identify the assailant. Her lawyer insisted that, because she came forward, any jailing would send the wrong message to others who lie about crimes.
Sick. What would send a message is my prescription below.
I feel strongly that those who falsely accuse someone of rape should spend the amount of time incarcerated that the person they falsely accused would have.
Oh, and not surprisingly, religious fundamentalism, once again, is behind lives being ruined.
Unfortunately, the lawyer has a point. If Coast had faced serious jail time for admitting her lie, she probably would have kept her mouth shut and Montgomery would still be in prison.
Rex Little at August 20, 2013 10:26 PM
On the subject of false rape claims, you and your readers might find this post and comment thread (from last month) interesting. The fun starts with comment #118.
Rex Little at August 20, 2013 10:44 PM
Yes, Ma may have been a strict, religious fundamentalist, but you can't go around blaming her for it. This girl is still responsible. She lied, like people in all sorts of families do, to get out of trouble. Like you said, Amy, she should serve that original sentence. The responsibility is all hers; you can't pin some of it on Jerry Falwell.
mpetrie98 at August 20, 2013 11:16 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/08/21/false_accusatio_1.html#comment-3868356">comment from mpetrie98The irrational bullshit behind religion leads to all manner of bad things.
Amy Alkon at August 20, 2013 11:33 PM
Or we could punish the hell out of perjurers to the point that people stop fucking lying under oath.
I'm guessing the guy took a plea deal.
I dont see how an 2008 trial for a crime that happened in 2000 with no evidence beyond the word of a girl would have been taken to trial
If every one stopped taking plea deals prosecutors wouldnt have the time to pursue cases like this
lujlp at August 20, 2013 11:36 PM
Why did they convict someone without DNA ? Plus there are definite physical and emotional signs in 10 year old girls.
I think the problem is over zealous prosecutors & judges. I've read several cases were they do not allow DNA testing to the defendent to prove innocence. Or they suppress evedince.
I dunno I think the girl coming forward is very brave (but NOT heroic) think about it. She was 10, she lied, she owes money now & jail time. She could have kept quiet from shame. Most people don't admit when they do something like that.
Again most people will not admit when they do something like that.
"Mistakes were made but not by me" -great book btw Amy.
Ppen at August 21, 2013 12:09 AM
Oh and psychologically don't severe punishments just make people not admit shit even more?
I want to do what works.
Ppen at August 21, 2013 12:13 AM
Oh never mind on calling the woman brave. She was 17! when she made the accusation. I thought she was10.
Ppen at August 21, 2013 12:18 AM
This is why we need sharia like stuff in other parts of the world to maintain the law of averages. And this is why rape itself should not be considered a crime in the first place. I know two wrongs do not make a right, but given the fact that the sistas are all out to make sure that their wrongs are never punished and given the fact that obama and bush and everyone else is all ears for anything that the sistas say, the only way to be fair is to stop classifying rape as a crime in the first place.
And though you and dr Helen do a good job of exposing the nastiness to men under american sharia, it has done very little to actually make things better for them. Till then, sharia gets my full support - its just self preservation for innocent men
Redrajesh at August 21, 2013 1:54 AM
@rex little: The whole thread stuns me. Based on an ad for a body wash, dozens of people spin the idea of being clean and attractive to women into misogyny and crime.
It illustrates a peeve I have with Pharyngula and PZ Myers' fans. Association with or even being a wonderfully skilled and enthusiastic biologist does not convey expertise in other fields, especially when the rigor applied in one's own profession is not applied to the issue at hand!
Hey. Pick up a copy of Cosmo. You'll see some perspective.
Radwaste at August 21, 2013 2:54 AM
One wonders, in this age of DNA testing, how we manage to convict someone falsely of rape.
Of course, you could argue that since this accusation was 11 years later, that they couldn't possibly have any evidence of that nature.
Which is actually all the more reason he should have been acquitted.
How do they do this? His word against her word, the accuser has no evidence whatsoever, can't have any evidence whatsoever, yet somehow he's guilty.
What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
(Hey, Amy, I need a link thread today, if you could, please?)
Patrick at August 21, 2013 2:59 AM
A couple things:
First, try omitting the words "strict religious" from the quote above. Without those two words, it looks like Mom suggesting her daughter was sexually assaulted is based more on amateur psychology than on religious fundamentalism (which, by the way, is mentioned nowhere else is Turley's blog post). The idea just doesn't strike me as particularly religious.
Second, "Coast blamed her crimes on her reading adult material on the Internet by her mother." I'm guessing that means Mom caught her reading porn on the computer, but the way it's written, it sounds like Mom wrote wrote the stuff herself.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at August 21, 2013 4:33 AM
Oh please-plenty of nonreligious parents would freak out if their kid was reading porn too, especially leftist feminists who view it as degrading to women. And I do believe it's the nonreligious ivory tower pop-spych lefties that espouse the "early interest in sex means abuse" meme. Your hate of religion has you in blinders again. This girl is STILL trying to blame others for her actions.
And yes, people old enough to be tried as an adult who lie under oath should pay and pay heavily. This would cover not only false accusations of rape, but all other sorts of problematic perjury.
momof4 at August 21, 2013 5:46 AM
"Coast, 26, accused Johnathan C. Montgomery, a former neighbor of raping her in 2000 when she was 10 years old and he was 14. She later admitted that she made up the story and lied on the witness stand at his June 23, 2008, trial."
The timeline in this article does not add up. If Coast (the girl) is 26 now, she would have been 13 in 2000, not 10.
doobiedoo at August 21, 2013 6:06 AM
"I think the problem is over zealous prosecutors & judges. "
Yep. Prosecutors all over know that it is actually fairly easy to obtain a rape conviction without any evidence, if the victim can put forth a suitable stage performance on the witness stand. They hire experts who coach and rehearse the witness to emotionally manipulate the jury. Rebutting the testimony is impossible; the defense will be perceived (and accused by the prosecution) as further adding to the cruelty ("I'm being raped again!") merely for cross-examining.
When the Innocence Project started up, they expected to find provably false convictions mainly in murder cases. However, to their own surprise, the vast majority of the false convictions they have uncovered has been in rape cases. This has caused them to lose both a big chunk of their funding, and their coolness factor with the transgressive media. The Project is still ongoing, but you never see them mentioned in the media any more.
"I dunno I think the girl coming forward is very brave (but NOT heroic)."
I disagree. It was not very brave. I'm sure that she was lawyered up and the whole thing was negotiatied with law enforcement well ahead of time. She knew that when she finallly made her admission, she would not be facing significant punishment. And look at the positive media coverage it is gettin her. If she entertains thoughts of entering politics, she will be able to use this as her springboard. Media will continue to carry the water for her even though the narrative is completely false. For her, it was a move with many rewards and little risk. Meanwhile, no one is going to go bother interviewing her victim, who will still be perceived as a rapist by his community. (And does the conviction reversal get him off the sex offenders list? Not necessarily.)
And yes, when it comes to suppressing male sexuality, the positions of postmodern feminism and far-right fundemantalism are indistinguishable.
Cousin Dave at August 21, 2013 6:38 AM
*getting
Damn, my fingers have a Southern accent this morning...
Cousin Dave at August 21, 2013 6:39 AM
doobiedoo your doing your math wrong. She is 26 now, she was 17 in 2008 at the trial, she was 10 in 2000 when she claims it happened
lujlp at August 21, 2013 7:24 AM
This raises more questions:
http://articles.dailypress.com/2012-12-21/news/dp-nws-montgomery-writ-1222-20121221_1_johnathon-montgomery-elizabeth-paige-coast-sexual-assault-story
The man was convicted by a judge, not on a plea, meaning his attorneys waived a jury trial. Why? What about the prosecutors who pushed this case with no physical evidence? If the crime happened while both were juveniles, why wasn't this in juvenile court? Was the man penalized for maintaining his innocence?
The woman was under her parent's influence, but was wracked by guilt. Her confession came after she separated herself from her family.
Fran at August 21, 2013 7:57 AM
Lujlp, you're doing the math wrong. If she's 26 now, she was 20 or 21 at the trial in 2008.
At least one of the age details in Turley's report is incorrect; we just don't know which.
Rex Little at August 21, 2013 8:18 AM
I think she should be the guy's indentured servant for four years.
Pricklypear at August 21, 2013 8:27 AM
Let's see. It's 2013.
She's 26 now. In 2000, she would have been 13. In 2008, she would have been 21.
Instead, she was 10 in 2000 when the alleged incident occurred. She was 17 at his June 23, 2008 trial. So far, so good. But that means that on June 23, 2013, she was 22.
2013 - 2008 = 5 years
26yo - 17yo = 9 years
We're missing four years.
That's what I thought when I first read it.
Mom as a porn author could explain a whole host of psychological difficulties.
Probably a bit of both - but it definitely seems to be more the work of amateur psychology than religious fundamentalism.
I wonder if Mom has a bit of Munchausen or something similar - there's some more amateur psychology for you.
Conan the Grammarian at August 21, 2013 8:32 AM
It was early I was tired
lujlp at August 21, 2013 9:00 AM
This isn't about fundamentalist religion so much as the courts being so utterly stacked against men and in favor of women. Even lying women who ruin men's lives merely for their own convenience.
MikeInRealLife at August 21, 2013 9:37 AM
lujlp: "Or we could punish the hell out of perjurers to the point that people stop fucking lying under oath."
This. A thousand times this.
Perjury isn't prosecuted often enough (and part of the reason is that it is hard to prove that someone willing lied). But, dammit, too many times their lies screw someone over and when their lies are proven false the courts act as if "oh, well, them's the breaks; we'll get it right next time."
Charles at August 21, 2013 10:15 AM
What mpetrie98, momof4 and MikeInRealLife said. Well done, people! :-)
qdpsteve at August 21, 2013 10:33 AM
Oh, and not surprisingly, religious fundamentalism, once again, is behind lives being ruined.
I believe that two of the precepts of Christianity is thou shalt not lie and thou shalt not bear false witness.
I'll leave it to you to figure out how to put the square peg in the round hole. As it were.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 21, 2013 10:48 AM
If someone who did something wrong has religious beliefs, it doesn't mean she did it because of her religious beliefs.
A Muslim who plunders Jews might be complying with the edicts of his religion. A Christian who bears false witness against her neighbor is definitely defying the edicts of hers.
According to Linda Fairstein of the New York County District Attorney’s Sex Crimes Unit, “there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen.” Source: Fairstein,’s book, Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape.
Ken R at August 21, 2013 1:37 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/08/21/false_accusatio_1.html#comment-3869142">comment from Ken RLet's get real: Fundanutterism and the irrational fear promoted by religious beliefs contributes to people doing all sorts of evil. It's a factor.
Amy Alkon at August 21, 2013 2:03 PM
It's just not right to pin this on her mother's religious beliefs. Even mant secular parents would freak out over sex and a 10 year old. It's not like she was at risk of an honor killing.
Too bad she didn't hold her mother's religions belief not to bear false witness.
Trust at August 21, 2013 2:36 PM
If you had a ten-year-old daughter, and you caught her looking at porn on the computer, how would you have handled it? And, can you tell me how Christian fundamentalism would lead the mother in this case to suggest to the daughter that she was looking at the porn because she had been sexually assaulted.
Of course, if there is a record of Christian fundamentalist parents yakking about sexual assaults on their children, because their children were looking at porn, then you may have a point.
I did think "fundanutterism" was funny, by the way, even though I disagree with you on this case.
mpetrie98 at August 21, 2013 3:42 PM
People are getting this story wrong
She wasnt reading porn at ten, she was reading porn at 17
She was caught by her overbearing mother who either freaked out that her daughter was reading porn (or according to the bad sentence structure the mother freaked out because the daughter was reading porn the mother had written)
When caught masturbating the mother said she must have been abused and the daughter jumped at the chance to get out of trouble
Do you really think they would have waited eight years to charge the boy if the girl had come forward at ten?
Though given the way the numbers dont add up and some very poorly structured sentences I'm thinking this 'reporter' might have fucked up all sorts of details
lujlp at August 21, 2013 5:19 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/08/21/false_accusatio_1.html#comment-3869251">comment from mpetrie98If you had a ten-year-old daughter, and you caught her looking at porn on the computer, how would you have handled it?
Well, I hope you would have taken yourself out to the woodshed and given yourself a good lickin' because you're a crappy parent for having a 10-year-old surfing the net without supervision.
Amy Alkon at August 21, 2013 5:27 PM
According to Linda Fairstein of the New York County District Attorney’s Sex Crimes Unit, “there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen.”
How does she know? Is there physical evidence in that many cases to prove they didn't happen? Because without such evidence, all we have is someone's word, and we don't know who's lying. Even if a woman reports a rape and later retracts her story, that doesn't prove her original report was a lie; she could have been daunted by the prospect of testifying at trial, or actually threatened by friends of the accused.
Rex Little at August 21, 2013 6:02 PM
No, you don't use this as an excuse to promote your anti Christian agenda. Religious fundamentalism clearly states
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Exodus 20:16)
The only person you blame is the person who did it.
Ima Trollman at August 21, 2013 6:12 PM
The lying accuser should lose her freedom for 4 years and a day. The details of that are unimportant.
What really needs to happen is that the prosecutor in the case should be fired and disbarred for abuse of discretion. The other members of the law enforcement and judicial system that abetted this railroading of an innocent man with no physical evidence should be similarly sanctioned.
I'm so sick and tired of all the politicians, lawyers and cops, not to mention all the thousands of petty bureaucrats everywhere from the courthouse to the airport, who feel free to flagrantly abuse the discretion we have granted them to allow them to properly perform their jobs. And then they have the audacity to wonder (out loud even) why no one trusts them as far as they could be thrown.
Prosecutorial abuse will stop when there's a credible threat of disbarment and loss of livelihood. It will continue unabated as long as the bar, judges, cops and all their politician friends continue to close ranks behind the abusers.
cpabroker at August 21, 2013 6:22 PM
The fact is they simply SHOULD NOT prosecute without DNA and some form of corroboration.
Is there a person in the U.S. that does not know that hospitals do kits for this, that crisis centers and call centers exist for this?
Robert at August 22, 2013 6:34 PM
Rex Little: "How does she know? Is there physical evidence in that many cases to prove they didn't happen? Because without such evidence, all we have is someone's word, and we don't know who's lying."
Of course there is no physical evidence of crimes that didn't happen.
Is there physical evidence to prove that Montgomery didn't rape Coast in 2000 when he was 14 and she was 10? All we have is their words that he didn't rape her. If he says he didn't rape her, and she says he didn't rape her it's not his word against hers. Either they're both telling the truth or they're both lying. Do you think he should have stayed in prison until he could present physical evidence to prove he's innocent? Of course there will never be any such evidence. And of course he never should have been prosecuted in the first place when there was no evidence that there was even a crime.
As far as Linda Fairstein's comment about the thousands of false reports of rape in Manhattan: since she was the head of the sex crimes unit of the Manhattan District Attorney's office from 1976 until 2002, I'm assuming she has some experience at investigating such accusations. And since she's a zealous crusader (of somewhat questionable ethics) in the crusade against evil men who abuse and oppress innocent women, I doubt that she's inclined to let any man accused of rape get off easy.
Ken R at August 22, 2013 10:06 PM
Of course there is no physical evidence of crimes that didn't happen.
No, but there can be physical evidence that a reported rape didn't happen: video of a sex act which shows that it was consensual, photos which put one or both parties elsewhere at the reported time, etc.
Maybe Fairstein's unit investigated all those 4000 reports and found that sort of exculpatory evidence in half of them. If so, that answers my how-did-she-know question. But if all they found in a given case was insufficient evidence to prove that a reported rape did happen, that's not proof that it didn't. Absent such proof, her count of false reports is just an opinion. An informed opinion, and an honest one since it undercuts her own agenda, but still not a verified fact.
Rex Little at August 24, 2013 12:08 AM
Just one question Mr Rex Little - Just because there is a claim of rape, what is the proof that it did happen? You seem to subscribe to the guilty until proven innocent school of thought. So tomorrow, I can just make a claim that you were corrupt and accepting money to do your job or deviate from it and you would have to prove that you were not corrupt or you would just go to jail. Is that what you want? If that is what you want, then why should that principle of guilty until proven innocent apply only to men and only to the crimes of rape and dv? Why not apply it to all crimes and all women as well?
Absent evidence of video etc etc, you are saying it is just an opinion. But absent any proof of an actual rape(other than just the accusers word), even claims of rape, especially by feminists are just opinons. What do you have to say for that Mr Rex Little?
Redrajesh at August 25, 2013 2:19 AM
"Oh, and not surprisingly, religious fundamentalism, once again, is behind lives being ruined."
Bullshit. There is no evidence that religion played a part in this at all besides the lies of a liar. You know the one who lied about being raped.
TRO at August 25, 2013 5:09 AM
While on a certain level I agree with you, on the other hand, if that were the case, no one would ever recant.
JeremyR at August 25, 2013 5:29 AM
One trick pony here: it's all those religious bastards. Never mind religions look at false witness as a very serious sin: Judaic law used to put you to death for it. Never mind the women involved destroyed a man's life by her lies. Nope, Miss Amy has to ride her little pony.
Mao, Stalin, Hilter don't make the her cut.
Kathryn at August 25, 2013 5:42 AM
The problem is the system and the jury which convicted the guy. Convicting someone on the basis of one witness testimony is criminal.
Mick Langan at August 25, 2013 5:48 AM
For those of you confused by the timeline of events, just Google the name of the victim and look at the articles from the Richmond Times Dispatch which are pretty complete.
The basics: at age 17, the "victim" was caught looking at internet porn by her mother. Her mother pestered her enought about "why" she did this and eventually, the "victim" made up a story. She said she had been abused at age 10 by the next door neighbor, then 14. He had in the interim moved to Florida and no longer live next door. She thought this would get mom off her back but, mom pursued the allegation with the police. Eventually, the alleged "perp" was brought back to VA and convicted. When tried, he was in his 20's. He maintained his innocence, she lied about his guilt. The judge based, on her testimony alone, convicted him.
This isn't really about just a false allegation of rape but about child sexual abuse laws. In Virginia, the only thing need to jail and convict an adult male is the word of the alleged victim. As in this case, no physical evidence or other witness is required. Of course, "expert social workers" are available to validate the testimony of the victim.
As in this case, fabrication of stories by young women for any of a number of reasons can occur. It is not as uncommon as it might seem. A psychologist of my acquaintance told me that young women, in group therapy, frequently admit to false accusations they have made about male adults: fathers, step-fathers, foster fathers.... I know of three similar cases personally where the perp maintained his innocence after the accusation where there was no other "evidence". One was thrown out of court. One was convicted. One other, the "perp" maintaining his innocence, shot himself.
I appreciate that the victim came forward. It took courage and conviction to do so. I'm not sure how much we should punish a teenager that gets caught in a lie and can't find a way out. I am sure, though, that the laws are unjust and that innocent men are being charged, tried and convicted. If anyone should be jailed for this miscarriage of justice, it's the judge that convicted a man based on no evidence.
Rich at August 25, 2013 6:02 AM
Yes the girl lied. remember back in the day, childhood sexual abuse was the diagnosis du jour.
While religious fundamentalism has lots of problems let's chalk this one up to pop psychology
Dave at August 25, 2013 6:32 AM
> Oh, and not surprisingly, religious fundamentalism, once again, is behind lives being ruined.
You're reaching, Amy.
To start with, a "strict religious mother" doesn't have to be a fundamentalist. Maybe she's Catholic. Maybe she's a Calvinist. There are other ways to base your beliefs on Biblical authority than to live under the umbrella of "religious fundamentalism" -- an awfully convenient epithet, given that the beliefs of Southern Baptists could not be further apart from those of radical Muslims... but it does allow secular types to imply moral equivalences that just don't exist.
To continue, one of the Ten Commandments is, "Thou shalt not bear false witness." No sect of Christianity, whether fundamentalist or whatever, believes making false accusations is in accordance with the Lord's will. Nothing in Christianity's teachings and philosophy encourages anyone to make false accusations. The girl put that man in jail not by following the teachings of the Bible, but by ignoring them. How is that Christianity's fault?
What might have caused her to do that? I dunno... how about a feminoid culture that assumes every man is a rapist at heart? How about a criminal justice system that presumes guilt on such issues? How about a presumption that everything a child says is true, and a cottage industry of "social services" Nazis who are more than willing to send people to jail based on a slim shoestring of confused testimony?
None of which, by the way, exists because of "religious fundamentalism".
Nothing wrong with grinding an axe, Amy, but you really ought to think a little more about what you say and not give your prejudices free rein over your writing. Your attack on Christian beliefs is wrongheaded and quite ungracious.
Reformed Trombonist at August 25, 2013 6:50 AM
Blaming religion is lame. I guess you're fine with ten year olds viewing porn online.
mark at August 25, 2013 6:53 AM
Religious fundamentalism the problem? Look at how wonderfully the elimination of religion is doing. Religion previously was central in African Americans. Now that has been taken away, and we have black youths bludgeoning 88 year old WWII vets.
How's the elimination of the Protestant work ethic working out. It's not working that's how. Youth have no qualms about living on the dole.
The irreligious society that social libs are creating really sucks.
Rob at August 25, 2013 7:05 AM
Advice columnists have to be without shame because of how frequently they are wrong.
Amy's fundamentalist devotion to humanism would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. You are what you hate.
Tom at August 25, 2013 7:05 AM
Actually, you know what would stop this sort of thing?
If you're caught fabricating rape accusations, you don't get jail - but you do get locked in a room for 72 hours and have the world's longest and roughest train pulled on you.
And if you fabricate a racial incident, you get lynched.
Guarantee you this ends all of that stupidity.
Trump at August 25, 2013 7:08 AM
Hey Amy,
You are denser than uranium.
Without the rules of society, brought by religions, you have chaos.....Oh wait, that's where we are.
The religious hocus pocus has lost it's cachet, but the ethics and morals are as necessary as ever.
The accused rapist is owed one by the perpetrator of the lie.
Or, maybe she should be "disappeared".
I'm sure he met a few capable guys in the joint who work for cheap.
ebola131 at August 25, 2013 7:08 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/08/21/false_accusatio_1.html#comment-3873624">comment from ebola131We have evolved, hard-wired morality. This is why people in societies without religion do not rape and murder each other. They cooperate and are altruistic and kind.
Amy Alkon at August 25, 2013 7:09 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/08/21/false_accusatio_1.html#comment-3873627">comment from Amy AlkonClearly, some fundanutter site has linked to this post and is sending over the know-nothings.
I love how the rudest people are those who know the least.
Briefly, here's a link on evolved morality.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/evolution-morality
Those of you who read any anthropology understand that there's morality in societies that lack the evidence-free belief in Jesus, etc.
Amy Alkon at August 25, 2013 7:11 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/08/21/false_accusatio_1.html#comment-3873630">comment from RobWe have black youths bludgeoning 88 year old WWII vets.
The problem is people who have children without intact families.
Amy Alkon at August 25, 2013 7:12 AM
The answer isn't to punish those who come forward like this, but to punish those who are found out before they come forward so harshly that others are afraid to commit or conceal perjury.
j1 at August 25, 2013 7:32 AM
"Oh, and not surprisingly, religious fundamentalism, once again, is behind lives being ruined."
Congratulations. Your ridicules conclusion shows as much ignorance and dishonesty as the false rape accusation.
TTTCOTTH at August 25, 2013 8:30 AM
Absent evidence of video etc etc, you are saying it is just an opinion. But absent any proof of an actual rape(other than just the accusers word), even claims of rape, especially by feminists are just opinons. What do you have to say for that Mr Rex Little?
I say that's exactly right. My whole point is that anything anyone says about the frequency of false rape claims vs. true ones is based on opinion, because in most cases there's no hard evidence available to show who's telling the truth and who isn't.
Rex Little at August 25, 2013 9:51 AM
It isn't the religious who tend to assume someone must have been assaulted as a child which excuses their behavior. That theme has come from the modern secularist influences in society. Men are evil, it's the fault of men, or mom and dad, or religion but it can't be the fault of the person making a false accusation from a "repressed" memory. Just as the wrongly accused was convicted on a false premise not based on fact, the conclusion of the author jumps to a preconceived belief. A non-religions person bases their position on belief just as a religion person does. It is an individual choice. The same theme of individual choice also parallels individual responsibility. I agree that the person bearing false witness should pay with a sentence equal to that which the innocent suffered.
Joel at August 25, 2013 10:14 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/08/21/false_accusatio_1.html#comment-3873790">comment from JoelNo one is saying religious belief excuses people's behavior but irrational belief in god and all the trimmings tends to promote a fear-based irrationality.
There is zero evidence there is a god and it is shocking that adults, living in the year 2013, live as if there is.
And as for "secularism" leading to immorality. I'm an atheist. How is it that I've managed to avoid stealing, murder, etc. without believing that there's some Big Thumb that will squash me.
I particularly love the lovely belief in Christianity that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus will go to hell. So, if you're a lovely atheist, who feeds the poor and does pretty much all the stuff Jesus advised, you'll burn...because god is that fucking immature? The big guy needs you to say, "You are, like, sooo cool!" or he'll have to smite you?
My 9-year-old neighbor isn't that petty and small.
Amy Alkon at August 25, 2013 10:25 AM
The secular courts convict an innocent man, as they have THOUSANDS of times, without a shred of evidence and you blame religion. How about feminazi principles which rob men of any masculinity at all on secular college campuses, imposing feminist bent speech codes, and rules that assume the guilt of men. You're only redeeming trait, based on my limited exposure of this one blog entry, is your willingness to properly punish the liar that perpetrated this horror.
David Jacobson at August 25, 2013 10:50 AM
"The irrational bullshit behind religion leads to all manner of bad things."
Yeah, that getting rid of slavery thing was really bad. What were those abolitionists thinking?
And do NOT get me started on the awfulness of hospitals & charities inspired by Jews & Christians! Salvation Army, Red Cross, Cedars-Sinai, Loma Linda,
Why we just can't compare the at-least-well-intentioned behaviors Stalin and Mao to the horrors of Judeo-Christian ethics & principles.
Darleen at August 25, 2013 11:00 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/08/21/false_accusatio_1.html#comment-3873841">comment from DarleenYeah, that getting rid of slavery thing was really bad.
Um, Christians all over the South held slaves and slaves are held in the Bible.
I'm guessing you are religious.
Religion's promotion of irrationality and illogical as a part of your thinking probably contributes to your inability to support your arguments well.
Rationality is a marvelous thing -- part of "The Enlightenment."
Do join us!
Amy Alkon at August 25, 2013 11:12 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/08/21/false_accusatio_1.html#comment-3873848">comment from DarleenStalin and Mao, my little irrationality-promoter -- see above.
At least you left that Christian, Hitler, out of your remark.
Amy Alkon at August 25, 2013 11:16 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/08/21/false_accusatio_1.html#comment-3873854">comment from Amy AlkonA perfect quote on this from "Ed" on an older entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/14/how_god_snuck_i.html
Again, atheism is merely the lack of belief without evidence. Atheists are vastly different. I am a libertarian and fiscal conservative. Other atheists are further right. Others are lefties, anarchists, greenies, and knitting aficionados.
We atheists are not connected by any belief system.
Do I need to explain this more clearly for the irrationals popping by?
Amy Alkon at August 25, 2013 11:22 AM
Atheists are vastly different. I am a libertarian and fiscal conservative. Other atheists are further right. Others are lefties, anarchists, greenies, and knitting aficionados.
We atheists are not connected by any belief system.
I might add, atheists seem to be much more invested in their political beliefs (whatever they happen to be) than in their atheism. Try going to Pharyngula and mentioning you're an atheist libertarian (be sure to wear a helmet and hip boots). But they'll speak approvingly of leftist Christians, and of course Islam gets a free pass.
Rex Little at August 25, 2013 11:44 AM
Amy -
Hitler was a Christian? Oh, is that why he killed so many evangelicals and put others in concentration camps?
You bias is showing. Get the facts. You might start here: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm or read "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell.
KSM at August 25, 2013 11:51 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/08/21/false_accusatio_1.html#comment-3873903">comment from David Jacobson. How about feminazi principles which rob men of any masculinity at all on secular college campuses, imposing feminist bent speech codes, and rules that assume the guilt of men. You're only redeeming trait, based on my limited exposure of this one blog entry, is your willingness to properly punish the liar that perpetrated this horror.
Um, David, good on making assumptions about me.
I'm one of the few women out there -- along with Cathy Young, Dr. Helen Smith, Christina Hoff Sommers, and a few others -- who defend men's rights.
Also, feminazi is an asinine, hyperbolic term to use. You might consider expunging it. It immediately makes your argument seem mouth-foaming and hysterical even if it isn't.
This isn't a blog post about college campuses and the awful abuses of men's rights that go on there but I post on that and many other issues as well.
I can see that those posting here are all about defending their irrational belief that there's a big man in the sky -- a belief for which there is no evidence. Cognitive biases lead people to cling to what they believe even more firmly when they are challenged on it. I try to check my thinking for this, but those whose most dear beliefs are founded in irrationality can't do that.
The vehement anger here from the religious is really about defending their irrationality.
Religion is behind some wonderful giving; my friend Tom is one of a few successful wealthy LA men who puts a lot of his money behind a Christian mission for the homeless downtown. It's some of what he believes -- the good stuff Jesus talked about -- that leads him to do that. I don't deny that religion is good; but I also do charitable work -- there's a homeless guy I've looked after for years (now with a roof over his head in Canada -- yay! -- but I still help him in various ways every few weeks or so. I don't need religion to lead me to do that. I help him because he's human and I have empathy for him and I respect how hard he's worked to get his life together. Also, it gives my life meaning to not just be all about me.
I also do other charitable/volunteer work -- because the way I can be immortal, the only way there's evidence for, is by making the world a better place while I'm here and positively affecting people who will go on to make positive change.
Amy Alkon at August 25, 2013 12:17 PM
"Um, Christians all over the South held slaves and slaves are held in the Bible.
I'm guessing you are religious."
Um, no. I snarked, didn't argue, because you are either ignorant of the history and contributions of Judeo-Christian monotheism or you deliberately are smearing it for your own agenda.
The Bible, both Testaments, is both history and allegory. It no more "supports" slavery then does the movie Schindler's List "supports" Nazism.
BTW do you know (or care) that chattel slavery is a violation of the commandment "Thou shalt not steal"? The Hebrew word for steal is "ganab" and Mosaic Law makes chattel slavery impossible.
Nice disingenuous duck by refusing to acknowledge of the fully-religious abolitionist movement.
BTW is this Mom (her religious status is irrelevant) believed her daughter was watching pr0n as a result of sexual abuse ... just where do you think she got such an idea? Hmmmm, couldn't be social workers, right?
Darleen at August 25, 2013 12:29 PM
> Clearly, some fundanutter site has linked to this post and is sending over the know-nothings.
Amy, I can't speak for every "fundanutter", but the "fundanutter site" that led me to your outrageously ungracious post was Instapundit. You can always tell Glenn to quit linking your posts. I just made the mistake of clicking on it.
Who are the "know-nothings"? I'm guessing that is not an exclusive list. But why can't we start with those who rely on question-begging epithets, like "know-nothings" and "fundanutters", to formulate an argument?
> I love how the rudest people are those who know the least.
...says the person who blames Christians for a false accusation and calls everyone who calls her on it a "fundanutter". To that person's evident ungraciousness, we can also fold in a basic lack of self-awareness.
> We have evolved, hard-wired morality. This is why people in societies without religion do not rape and murder each other. They cooperate and are altruistic and kind.
You're kidding, right?
Which societies are you talking about? Certainly not the Soviet Union, which outlawed church and slaughtered in excess of twenty million of its own citizens. Fascist and particularly communist regimes in the 20th century murdered more of their own citizens than were killed in all the wars in history, all in the name of un-god.
Certainly not the agnostic Mongols of the 13th and 14th centuries, who would kill every living man in a city that opposed them and carry off their women into sexual slavery.
It is perfectly plausible to posit that we evolved a sense of moralty. Problem is, evolution can also plausibly explain violence and inhumanity toward others. That's why we can't use nature to instruct us about which choices are good and which ones are bad. "Evolved morality" might be able to explain the "is" of human behavior, but it can't by itself explain the "ought".
> There is zero evidence there is a god and it is shocking that adults, living in the year 2013, live as if there is.
Depends on what you mean by evidence. There is plenty of intellectual evidence. Aquinas' writings, for example. Physical evidence, which is what I assume you're talking about, is fine within its sphere. It can tell us what drugs you should be taking or how to make a cell phone. But that sort of evidence has its limitation -- it cannot even prove the existence of the human mind. Maybe we're just chemicals with an illusion of being rational beings -- some philosophers have thought so. On this score, the people who lived in the 13th century probably understood reality better than those of us in year 2013.
> And as for "secularism" leading to immorality. I'm an atheist. How is it that I've managed to avoid stealing, murder, etc. without believing that there's some Big Thumb that will squash me.
You had the good fortune to be born in a society that was once Christian and much of it still is. There was certainly a respect for Christianity until just a few short years ago. You live in a pickle barrel that has been sitting around for thousands of years, but you insist you're just a cucumber. Society is always going to be a formative influence, even on those issues where you stand opposed to what it is saying or has said in the past.
If you had been born in pre-Columbian Mexico, however, you would probably be cheering with the crowd as people's hearts were being ripped out of them alive. Nothing personal. So would I.
But none of this has anything to do with my original complaint. I'm not trying to convert you to Christianity -- that's the Holy Spirit's job, and if He wants you, he'll get you.
I just wish you wouldn't use the tragic choice made by a young woman as a vehicle to trash Christians and Christianity, particularly when following their teachings would have prevented the tragedy.
Reformed Trombonist at August 25, 2013 12:39 PM
And in regards to "irrationality", so what if some people hold "irrational" beliefs. Secularists & anti-theists do to. Let me quote Dennis Prager:
"If all religious beliefs were dictated by reason alone, there would be no meaning to the word faith. A healthy religious life is composed of both faith and reason. And so is a healthy moral life -- no non-Jewish rescuer of Jews in the Holocaust did so solely because of reason.
As for the secular world, irrational beliefs permeate the left. For example, a generation of Americans has been educated to believe that men and women are, beyond physical differences, the same. Boys don't inherently prefer trucks and toy guns and girls don't naturally gravitate to dolls and tea sets, we have long been told. Give boys dolls and tea sets and give girls trucks and they will love to play with those things. Is that rational?
Or how about the tens of millions of people who believed Marxist claptrap about the inevitability of socialism? It was "scientific fact," the world's left believed, that every society goes through three stages: feudalism, capitalism, socialism.
And given the inability of any welfare state to sustain itself economically, is it rational to advocate the continuing expansion of government, as supposedly rational New York Times columnists do?
Is the belief that 50,000 Americans die each year from secondhand smoke rational? Is the certitude that we know what the climate will be in a half century rational? Or declaring sixth-graders guilty of sexual harassment for engaging in innocent, normal-boy behavior?
It seems to me that our secular age is a more irrational one than when America was more religious."
The "pushback" you are experiencing here is because you decided to gratuitously insert some anti-religious bigotry in an otherwise good post about a false-rape case.
Was such a line really "rational"?
Darleen at August 25, 2013 12:42 PM
A lot of commenters seem to be misunderstanding (or deliberately distorting?) what Amy said about religious fundamentalism and its connection to this case, so let me spell it out.
Elizabeth was caught reading porn by her mother. Because of the mother's religious beliefs, this was a big deal and was going to get Elizabeth in big trouble.
That's it. The involvement of religion in this case ends there. All the comments about false witness being a violation of fundamentalist beliefs are irrelevant; the mother didn't lie, and Elizabeth (who did lie) presumably doesn't have those beliefs (or she wouldn't have been reading porn in the first place).
Rex Little at August 25, 2013 1:03 PM
Strange how this bit of injustice got turned into an indictment against religion, specifically Christianity. Christians are specifically prohibited from bearing false witness against others. You're also taught to treat others as you would want them to treat you. If the accuser didn't follow these tenets then the fault is with her, not the religion.
Daniel at August 25, 2013 1:21 PM
Rex, Amy directly blamed "religious fundamentalism" for this tragedy...
Amy: "Oh, and not surprisingly, religious fundamentalism, once again, is behind lives being ruined."
Rex, so how exactly is it a distortion to say Amy is blaming religion for what happened, since clearly she is blaming religion for what happened?
Tawana Brawley falsely accused six white men of raping her. Al Sharpton tried to turn it into a civil rights issue. Turns out she made it up, perhaps for the same reason as Ms. Coast, trying to avoid punishment.
Would I be justified in saying, "Oh, and not surprisingly, the civil rights movement, once again, is behind lives being ruined."
Reformed Trombonist at August 25, 2013 1:29 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/08/21/false_accusatio_1.html#comment-3873987">comment from Reformed TrombonistRex, Amy directly blamed "religious fundamentalism" for this tragedy... Amy: "Oh, and not surprisingly, religious fundamentalism, once again, is behind lives being ruined."
It is not the only cause but those who live their lives according to the irrational belief -- one there is no evidence for -- that there is a big man in the sky caring that they didn't confess that they got too much change must defend their irrationality with these angry little string of comments.
Again, this is not the only cause but the irrational fears promoted by religion can promote hiding, secrecy and lying. You can't defend against irrationality with rationality so lying and the rest are natural outcomes to hide when your behavior might not fit the irrational believer's primitive beliefs.
People who believe without evidence are engaging in a form of cognitive dissonance and must smooth out the dissonance by fiercely defending their obviously irrational belief. This is the reason for the vehemence behind these comments from the religious.
The real problem: There's no evidence there's a god and gullible adults believe in god anyway. It's childish and causes, for example, hatred of homosexuals and denial of their right, as straight people have the right, to marry the one consenting adult of their choice.
Again, the vehemence here is due to people who know, deep down, that their belief system is not based on evidence but are incapable of putting their beliefs to rational questioning. It feels so much better to attack me.
Amy Alkon at August 25, 2013 1:40 PM
Amy,you say: “We atheists are not connected by any belief system,” and “You cannot kill in the name of atheism. You can kill in the name of nationalism, communism, totalitarianism . . .”
Atheism—the lack of belief in the existence of God—leads inevitably to belief in alternative life philosophies, as such is the nature of man. You astutely observe, “atheists seem to be much more invested in their political beliefs.” Yes, indeed they are, and one of these alternate life philosophies is communism—the greatest genocidal killing system ever envisioned. Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao were all exceptionally strong atheists. In fact, Marx’ early writings are mostly anti-religion. His views about private property and the development of his exceeding destructive socialism/communism philosophy sprouted later as a means to re-order society without belief in God or religion. Here’s a quote by Karl Marx: “Communism begins from the outset with atheism.” Clear enough I would say.
Thus, your attempt to disconnect atheism from a belief system is categorically wrong as it pertains to communism. Unless, of course, you think you know more about the beliefs and practical application of communism than Marx, Mao and Stalin.
FrancisChalk at August 25, 2013 1:57 PM
> Amy: "People who believe without evidence are engaging in a form of cognitive dissonance and must smooth out the dissonance by fiercely defending their obviously irrational belief."
You are in fact doing what you're complaining about in others. What you are doing is speculating. You are speculating that the "cognitive dissonance" behind religious belief was the motivator of what was a case of false witness.
Maybe the mother would have still disapproved of her daughter reading porn even if mom had been not been a believer. Or do non-believers all believe kids should have free access to porn? I'm going to stick my neck out here and state that I can think of any number of reasons why an atheist parent might restrict her nine-year-old from viewing porn. Parents, even atheist ones, tend to get angry at their kids when they are disobedient. An angry parent was the only motivation the girl needed to lie.
Or maybe you think porn is good for kids. If so, you should be getting advice, not giving it.
> The real problem: There's no evidence there's a god and gullible adults believe in god anyway. It's childish...
Read Thomas Aquinas, then come back and explain to everyone how irrational he was. And please, show your work.
Reformed Trombonist at August 25, 2013 2:02 PM
I'm no fan of fundamentalists, but blaming them for this twit's perjury makes about as much sense as blaming the English language for it. So far as I know, fundamentalists aren't big on bearing false witness, lying, etc. They have serious faults for which they should be blamed; no need to make up some fake ones.
tom swift at August 25, 2013 2:04 PM
> It feels so much better to attack me.
Let's see... you have blamed religion for a case of false witness... you have called your critics "fundanutters"... you have said anyone who believes in God is gullible, irrational, childish, hates homosexuals...
...but you think the problem here is that religious folks are attacking *you*.
There's that glorious lack of self-awareness I spoke about earlier in the thread.
Sorry you feel that way. But I'm playing defense, not offense.
Reformed Trombonist at August 25, 2013 2:08 PM
Maybe the mother would have still disapproved of her daughter reading porn even if mom had been not been a believer. Or do non-believers all believe kids should have free access to porn?
False dichotomy. A non-believer might disapprove of her 17-year-old daughter reading porn, but she wouldn't treat it as a grounded-for-life offense, and the daughter wouldn't be tempted to throw someone else under the bus to deflect her mother's wrath.
Rex Little at August 25, 2013 2:19 PM
I came here via a link from Instapundit. I guess in Amy's lexicon he's a fundanutter.
JD at August 25, 2013 2:26 PM
> False dichotomy. A non-believer might disapprove of her 17-year-old daughter reading porn, but she wouldn't treat it as a grounded-for-life offense
You're speculating. The article said nothing about anyone being grounded-for-life. You're assuming that the only reason a child might be afraid of a parent's anger is if the parent is religious.
If "Mommy Dearest" is to be believed, all her child needed to do was use a wire coat-hanger to make Joan angry enough to punish her severely. Surely Joan's animosity toward using coat-hangers wasn't religiously motivated, too?
Reformed Trombonist at August 25, 2013 3:00 PM
Non-religious parents can be fearsome, too, you know. I'll use an example from my mom's own childhood. Her father once tied her to her bed and beat her with a razor strop (he was a barber and just happened to have one handy). She couldn't sit down for several days.
Her crime? There was no Internet porn in the 1930s. No, it was far worse than porn -- she had been converted to Catholicism and my grandfather hated Catholics. I have no idea why that was -- maybe he thought Catholics were gullible, irrational, and childish...?
I don't think it's fair to blame his attitude on atheism, though he may have been one for all I know. Personally, I blame him. Just wanted to emphasize that a child can be afraid of her parents for any number of reasons. It was the fear that motivated her. Maybe her mom deserved that fear, and maybe she would have deserved it whether she was religious or not.
Reformed Trombonist at August 25, 2013 3:14 PM
You're assuming that the only reason a child might be afraid of a parent's anger is if the parent is religious.
No, I'm assuming that it was the reason in this case, based on "When her strict religious mother caught her" in the article.
The article said nothing about anyone being grounded-for-life.
Don't be so literal. By "grounded-for-life offense" I meant a serious transgression, meriting severe punishment.
Rex Little at August 25, 2013 4:03 PM
Oh, and I do think it's unlikely that a non-religious mother would be furious at her teen daughter for reading porn. A feminist mother might deem porn disgusting and evil, and go off on her son for reading it, but she'd consider her daughter a victim.
Rex Little at August 25, 2013 4:10 PM
Women are pigs
Woman at August 25, 2013 4:28 PM
Right. It's all the fault of religion:
" 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;
19 Then shall ye ado unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you."
That's Deuteronomy 19. In the Bible.
Pretty savage of those primitives, thinking it was somehow just for a perjurer to get the sentence the accused was threatened with. Good thing we moderns have the sense to restrain ourselves, and be content with a few weekends in a not-uncomfortable prison that don't disrupt our precious twenty-something lives.
Vader at August 25, 2013 4:46 PM
> No, I'm assuming that it was the reason in this case, based on "When her strict religious mother caught her" in the article.
And I'm saying you have no way of knowing how this *particular* mother would have behaved had she never discovered religion. You are speculating.
> Don't be so literal. By "grounded-for-life offense" I meant a serious transgression, meriting severe punishment.
And you're implying that the only parents who would give a severe punishment for viewing porn are those who object to it from their religious perspective. In a world where people kill their kids for any number of reasons, or no reason, it doesn't make sense.
And besides, we're not really talking about what the mother would have really done, but just what the nine-year-old girl speculated would have been the case. We don't know if she falsely accused the man because she thought her life was in danger, or because she was afraid of being grounded for a week. Insufficient data.
But don't worry... believing something without evidence is only something that religious people do. So you're safe.
> Oh, and I do think it's unlikely that a non-religious mother would be furious at her teen daughter for reading porn. A feminist mother might deem porn disgusting and evil, and go off on her son for reading it, but she'd consider her daughter a victim.
And maybe you're right in this particular case. But you're speculating. A feminist mom might have been every bit as unbalanced about porn exploiting women as the most unbalanced religious fanatic. You shouldn't be so willing to ascribe the worst in unbalanced behavior to a Christian while doubting that a non-Christian could be subject to all sorts of bad reasoning or damaged psychology.
People are shits. Sorry to break the news. As P.J. O'Rourke said, trouble doesn't come from wops, spics, kikes.... etc., and we'll add here atheists or Christians. Trouble comes from the heart.
Reformed Trombonist at August 25, 2013 4:57 PM
you have no way of knowing how this *particular* mother would have behaved had she never discovered religion. You are speculating.
Yes, but it's one of the safer speculations I've ever made. Have you ever heard of a non-religious parent going ballistic over their teenager reading porn? Disapproval, yes, but not the kind of over-the-top response that must have happened in this case.
And besides, we're not really talking about what the mother would have really done, but just what the nine-year-old girl speculated would have been the case. We don't know if she falsely accused the man because she thought her life was in danger, or because she was afraid of being grounded for a week.
First, the girl was 17, not 9. And in any case, her speculation was fueled by her mother's strict religious beliefs. (Yes, that's what we're assuming; I've already explained why I assume that.)
A feminist mom might have been every bit as unbalanced about porn exploiting women as the most unbalanced religious fanatic.
No "might" about it; I'd say you're more likely to find an unbalanced loon by picking a feminist at random than an evangelical Christian. But as I explained above, that particular unbalance wouldn't cause a mother to punish her daughter for reading porn.
You shouldn't be so willing to ascribe the worst in unbalanced behavior to a Christian while doubting that a non-Christian could be subject to all sorts of bad reasoning or damaged psychology.
I don't doubt that, nor did I ever say I did. (Nor did Amy.) Pointing out a problem to which one belief system is a contributing cause doesn't imply that any other belief system is perfect.
Of course all kinds of people are capable of nutty parenting, as the examples of Joan Crawford and your grandfather show. But those examples are irrelevant to this case.
Rex Little at August 25, 2013 6:01 PM
The leaps in logic required to blame this on Christian Fundamentalism are positively acrobatic, particularly since "bearing false witness" is a particular bugbear for them.
Secularists aren't going to win the culture wars if you continue to rely so heavily on sophistry. You're all just parroting this girls flimsy excuse. Maybe you know very little about basic Christian doctrine, but the majority of Americans do. You can't continue to lean on your crutches of demagoguery and sophism, without coming off as even bigger flakes than those you decry.
Jason Arsenault at August 25, 2013 6:19 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/08/21/false_accusatio_1.html#comment-3874352">comment from Rex LittleRex is correct. He's also about the only other person in these comments not foaming at the mouth.
Amy Alkon at August 25, 2013 8:17 PM
Thanks, Amy. However, in defense of the foamers, I must say that your original line about religious fundamentalism was inflammatory and not really fair. Fundamentalism might have triggered the events, but the blame for ruining Montgomery's life is on a legal system that would bring a case to trial, much less convict, based on one person's unsubstantiated word about something that (allegedly) happened 8 years earlier.
Note, too, that if Elizabeth had also held fundamentalist beliefs, none of this would have happened. So was the problem too much fundamentalism, or too little?
Rex Little at August 25, 2013 9:04 PM
I'm disappointed in Ms. Alkon. I've read some of her other comments elsewhere and thought they were interesting. Judging from this thread, she's an anti-religious bigot. That means she's not worth my time. I'll not be back.
mac at August 26, 2013 2:55 AM
"We have evolved, hard-wired morality. This is why people in societies without religion do not rape and murder each other. They cooperate and are altruistic and kind."
OK, help me out here... which societies in the history of mankind have the highest rate of killing each other? Last I checked, it was explicitly anti-religious ones (USSR, Nazi Germany, communist China). And it's not close.
Can you at least give me one example of this fantasy-like altruistic society you claim? It sounds an awful lot like the utterly imaginary ones the radical feminists make up.
Deoxy at August 26, 2013 7:10 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/08/21/false_accusatio_1.html#comment-3874711">comment from DeoxyOh, nitwittery!
Probably Muslim societies have the highest rate of killing themselves and each other.
Again, Hitler was a Christian and many in Germany were Christians.
Read the anthropology.
Amy Alkon at August 26, 2013 7:14 AM
it was explicitly anti-religious ones (USSR, Nazi Germany, communist China)
Which of these is not like the others? Answer: Nazi Germany. While there is doubt as to whether Hitler was a Christian in his private beliefs, his regime didn't persecute religion. (Jews were persecuted as a race; it didn't matter if they practiced or believed in Judaism.)
Rex Little at August 26, 2013 8:00 AM
"While there is doubt as to whether Hitler was a Christian in his private beliefs,"
Actually, no. There is no reasonable doubt that Hitler was not Christian in his private beliefs.
"his regime didn't persecute religion."
You need to read up more on the National Reich Church and the treatment of Bonhoeffer and Niemoller. If the Nazis did not much persecute the churches during the war, it was because they felt the time was not ripe, not because they had any respect for the churches.
There is also the matter of the persecution of the Jehovah's Witnesses, which cannot plausibly be attributed to race.
Vader at August 26, 2013 8:30 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/08/21/false_accusatio_1.html#comment-3874843">comment from Rex LittleAgain, atheism is a lack of belief without evidence, not a belief system.
Christianity in Europe was not exactly a boon for the Jews.
Amy Alkon at August 26, 2013 9:44 AM
Here... blame this one on Christians...
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/08/28/daughter-trying-to-free-dad-she-once-accused-of-raping-her/
Reformed Trombonist at August 29, 2013 8:34 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/08/21/false_accusatio_1.html#comment-3879851">comment from Reformed TrombonistDon't be an ass.
Feel free to explain why you believe, sans evidence, in god. If I tell you there's a giant purple gorilla hovering above your house watching all you do and caring whether you are naughty or nice, will you believe that, too?
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2013 8:45 AM
Regarding the "Hitler was a Christian" meme...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
What part of "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "Love thing enemies" was Hitler working to fulfill?
When it suited Hitler's agenda, he claimed to be Christian. For the historians who have studied Hitler, and for those who knew him intimately, it is clear that he admired the Church for its organizational acumen, but that he wished to subordinate the Church to the State and use it as an echo chamber for his form of state-worship.
Wiki: "Many historians say that Hitler had a general covert plan to destroy Christianity within the Reich, which was to be accomplished through control and subversion of the churches and to be completed after the war...."
In other words, Hitler picked his battles.
"According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Hitler intended to replace Christianity with a 'racist form of warrior paganism'. William Shirer wrote, 'under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi regime intended to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists.'"
Hitler even complained to some of his compadres that Japan had a *real* religion, as they were taught to subordinate everything to the State.
Apparently, this is a rich topic, and probably undeserving of a simple, "Hitler was a Christian" conclusion.
Either way, I join with you or anyone who hates Nazis in condemning any Christian who played footsie with Der Fuehrer and supported him. It's shameful that any Christian was so easily played.
Reformed Trombonist at August 29, 2013 8:50 AM
> Don't be an ass.
Why? Do I owe you a royalty?
Reformed Trombonist at August 29, 2013 9:44 AM
Leave a comment