Godless Americans

[beagle]

Readallaboutit

[Sibling Chatty]

It's a shame that the one photo they chose to include is a guy in Idaho wearing a WWI Snoopy Flying Ace hat...

It's a welcome entry into the political debate, in my opinion. There's not inherent reason, other than spite, for the calls for NO religious persons to be involved in government.

If we start excluding people from public service (elected positions) based on ANYTHING, it needs to start with lawyers. (Lawyers only in justice/legal areas, all other--legislators and executive branch need to be untainted by a 'legal background'.) The people calling for a ban on Christians in government don't seem to get it. (If you can exclude one belief group, you can exclude ANY. Why can't people learn that? What you can do to them, they can, in return, do to you.)

Mostly, people are vindictive morons. Bush and his kind have more than proved that. And they've set the lack of decency tone for the upcoming problem.

[beagle]

It's a shame that the one photo they chose to include is a guy in Idaho wearing a WWI Snoopy Flying Ace hat...

The clergy don't have exclusivity in the area of silly hats.
It could always be an anti-alien abduction hat he's wearing. There are limits to the number of fundamental beliefs one person can challenge.

If we start excluding people from public service (elected positions) based on ANYTHING, it needs to start with lawyers. (Lawyers only in justice/legal areas, all other--legislators and executive branch need to be untainted by a 'legal background'.)

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. As someone once wrote.

[Swatopluk]

But then the teachers will take over (but not the type we actually would want to)

If one would kick all jurists and teachers out of German parliament, a common flat would suffice as meeting location.

[The Black Spot]

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. As someone once wrote.

But then we'll have no-one in the government but John Prescot!

[beagle]

You really think the others are doing anything useful?

[DaveL]

I'm surpised The Brights didn't get more of a mention in that article. I guess they are still busy coming up with semantic wonder words like 'Enthusiastic Bright' and 'Super'  .

[beagle]

Could be. Actually that was the less weird article about the U.S. of recent days in the British press. The other was about a group called "Surrendered Wives" who appear to believe that women should do whatever their husbands say.  Didn't post a link to that one as I figured it was possibly a journalist who'd wathed the Stepford Wives once too often in wish-fulfillment mode.

[Swatopluk]

Chadors of the Past?

[beagle]

Very good. Actually I don't think they've really surrendered; I reckon it's an ambush. Lure the "new men" into reverting to type, then BAM with the rolling pin.

[Griffin NoName]

I reckon it's an ambush. Lure the "new men" into reverting to type, then BAM with the rolling pin.

Like they'd need to be lured?

I thought Surrender was a New Age State.

[Aggie]

Very good. Actually I don't think they've really surrendered; I reckon it's an ambush. Lure the "new men" into reverting to type, then BAM with the rolling pin.

[The Meromorph]

Could be. Actually that was the less weird article about the U.S. of recent days in the British press. The other was about a group called "Surrendered Wives" who appear to believe that women should do whatever their husbands say.  Didn't post a link to that one as I figured it was possibly a journalist who'd watched the Stepford Wives once too often in wish-fulfillment mode.

No it's not a trick, I don't know this particular group, but I could post links to hundreds of posts by such women. There appear to be at least thousands of these women, possibly hundreds of thousands, here in Fundieland.

Here's just one - read Bluegrass Girl's post -
http://www.teens-4-christ.org/board/index.php?s=34a3d66af98861e9edaab9a33b5b3708&showtopic=5898&st=0&p=94323&#entry94323

[Griffin NoName]

Here's just one - read Bluegrass Girl's post -
http://www.teens-4-christ.org/board/index.php?s=34a3d66af98861e9edaab9a33b5b3708&showtopic=5898&st=0&p=94323&#entry94323

Forgive me for ever having thought the internet should be unregulated 

[Sibling Chatty]

Surrendered Wives, ON THE SURFACE doesn't sound too far-fetched...especially if you gender-equalize the statements.

The underlying principle of The Surrendered Wife is simple: The control women wield at work and with children must be left at the front door of any marriage to revitalize intimacy.

    * Give up unnecessary control and responsibility
    * Express their needs while also respecting their husband's choices
    * Resist the temptation to criticize, belittle or dismiss their husbands
    * Trust their husbands in every aspect of marriage - from sexual to financial...and more.

So, The four bullets sound like the start of a MUTUALLY successful relationship, and leaving the CONTROL concept at the door of the relationship is good for BOTH partners.

*Don't assume your partner is an incompetent dolt.

*Don't be selfish and self centered.

*Don't be a grouch, a bitch or a total prick.

*Figure out that it's a partnership, and you have to trust your partner or it isn't going to work.
=================

I'm sure the 'execution' of the program gets a LOT more Stepford, but if those principles are mutually applied---WTF, it MIGHT work out that two people trying together could actually have a decent relationship.

"shows women how they can both express their needs and have them met while also respecting their husband's choices"

I don't know. It would be in the mode of execution, but I think it MIGHT be better for a relationship to work together rather than her be in Ultra-Mommy mode just because she married a man that doesn't have the same drive/direction she has. I know too many women that treat their husbands as an extra child, or else as the Lord and Master. What she seems to be saying is GIVE UP the  treating him like an extra (stupid) child, and allow him to function as an adult.

Fine, I would imagine, until you get hold of some passive/agressive  bastard...but enough about my late husband.

Another quote:

Yearning for a better marriage, a group of women has developed a unique approach to building a better connection with their husbands. Wives Making Big Changes In Their Marriages Known as being a "Surrendered Wife", the approach requires a wife to surrender control over her husband and his decisions. "Surrendered Wife" author Laura Doyle said that she knew that she needed to make a change in her marriage as she and her husband were backing out of the driveway for a date and she began telling him how to drive. "When I was telling my husband what to do all of the time I thought I was being helpful," Doyle said. "I thought that I was just telling him how to get somewhere faster." Instead, Doyle said, she was expressing to her husband that she didn't have faith and trust in her husband's ability to do things correctly. Doyle's marriage-changing measures struck a chord with Angela Kruse after she saw a story about the surrendered wife theory. "It was like somebody slapped me in the face," Kruse said. "It said to me, 'What you are doing is so wrong.'" Kruse reluctantly went to the bookstore to purchase a copy of the "Surrendered Wife" book. "I was identifying with those wack jobs and then I realized that I am one of those wack jobs," Kruse said. Despite identifying with the dissatisfaction of a unfulfilled marriage, Kruse was apprehensive about making such sweeping changes to her life. "I, the strong independent woman that I had worked so hard to become, was buying this book," Kruse said. "But there was nothing in that book that I had not done or said." Doyle said that many women have to learn how to relate to their husbands. "Most of us have pretty great husbands if we just, you know, give them a chance to be themselves without trying to tell them how to do that," Doyle said. Kruse said that she wanted an intimate marriage, but she had to let go of her fears. "I had the fears of not having my needs met," Kruse said. Both of the women said that they need to be clear about expressing their desires, but in a non-demanding manner. They also said that they have to know how to ask for what you want. "A big part of surrendered wife training is that you have to learn to say how you feel and what you want," Doyle said. The basic tenets of being a surrendered wife are that a wife: #Relinquishes inappropriate control of her husband.
# Respects her husband's thinking.
# Receives his gifts graciously and expresses gratitude to him.
# Expresses what she wants without trying to control him.
# Relies on him to handle household finances.
# Focuses on her own self-care and fulfillment.
# As a result of the changes, a surrendered wife is: Vulnerable where she used to be a nag.
# Trusting where she used to be controlling.
# Respectful where she used to be demeaning.
# Grateful where she used to be dissatisfied.
# Has faith where she once had doubt.
Doyle said that the surrender in surrendered wife is not about submitting, but instead about surrendering control over your spouse.

Anyone here ever had a controlling spouse?? Anyone?? Bueller??

I'd think that the better money-manager would control finances, or that it'd be a mutual control...and honestly, men, how many of you WANT to be nagged, pushed, prodded, harped at and doubted??

I dunno, back in 2001, when the program was first reported here and in AUS (Google it) there wasn't that big a deal made.

Hey, it's the Torygraph, and they didn't want to get into the really religious Wingnutty groups stuff, just mock a little Americanism for the fun of it...