It is nevertheless a highly personal decision that effects women at a deeply emotional level that should not be trivialized by a public display. Unfortuantely not everyone is smart enough in society to recognize when a line has been crossed which clearly it has with Shvart's project.
by
Nicholas Stojakovich (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 6 comments)
on Sunday, April 27, 2008 at 1:28:41 PM
Read her words carefully. Notice she rejects the true narrative in favor of ideology. This is exactly what religious fundamentalists do - and they despise the advocates of narrative theology (the theology practiced by Jesus).
Now ideological fundamentalism is in fact very common. Hers draws attention because it is out of the mainstream. But the political mainstream represented by Senators McCain, Obama and Clinton is also ideologically fundamentalist. Their ideology is violence. If you really look at the history of violence, you see that it does enormous damage and fosters continuing violence. But most politicians just assume that mass slaughter is something noble and support it, refusing to learn from the narrative of history. So all three wannabee Presidents advocate a larger military, promoting the false ideology that what America needs is to remain the world's largest purveyor of violence.
Shvarts is not in a position to cause real damage to the world. McCain, Obama and Clinton are. We should be concerned about their world-threatening ideology. While we should oppose Shvarts' advocacy of violence as a byproduct of her ideology, we should not focus on her but on those who seek the power to carry out violence on a much larger scale.
by
Bill Samuel (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 228 comments)
on Sunday, April 27, 2008 at 3:00:45 PM
