The false link between Amy Coney Barrett and The Handmaid's Tale, explained: vox.com

[DonaldsRump]

Last edited Sat Sep 26, 2020, 09:15 AM - Edit history (1)

They’re not actually connected. But the story spread anyway.

By Constance Grady@constancegrady Sep 25, 2020, 8:47pm EDT

https://www.vox.com/culture/21453103/amy-coney-barrett-handmaids-tale-supreme-court

[Rule of Claw]

1. You certainly seem quite

impressed by her.

Why exactly?

[DonaldsRump]

2. You certainly seem to not understand my posts. Why exactly?

[hlthe2b]

3. Distinction without a Difference. The point remains.

Vox hires some good reporters. This is not one of them.

[DonaldsRump]

4. This is not a right-wing talking point

How does the point remain if it is not true? Is calling something true when it is false a "distinction without a difference"?

It's for our folks on the Senate Judiciary Committee to focus on the facts. If this is true (and there is another article in The Atlantic that indicates it is), we are wasting our time and will look petty when there are so many other substantial issues with her.

The real problem with this candidate is her view on how easily she will jettison legal precedent.

[hlthe2b]

5. Both groups hold similar premises. Most of us realize this is a distinction without a difference

despite your pushing this in defense of Judge Barrett and her nomination (and her cult-like religious group). I might add that the author has NEVER directly confirmed which group to which she was referring--not remembering specifically. The author of this piece has drawn a very vague conclusion, not able or willing to even discuss any differences--or perhaps she couldn't find any between the two groups. That says quite a lot--i.e., the entire point of the article appears to be to defend the group behind Amy Coney Barrett and thus the nominee herself.

I assume you aren't female so perhaps this doesn't matter to you. For most of us it damn well DOES!!

[DonaldsRump]

6. What exactly am I pushing?

An article in Vox that says Barrett's group is not the inspiration for a novel and a tv show? They may be the same/similar, but the issue has to do solely for what is an inspiration for something.

If you want to say they are similar, have at it. But at least according to this article and others like it, it is NOT correct to say it's an inspiration for the book or show.

Don't read more into it than that.

[hlthe2b]

7. Yeah, sure.

[uponit7771]

8. Sooo, Coney's not a wich ... That's good to know

[uriel1972]

9. the article linked...

didn't really delve into what The People of Praise believe and practice and as to why it seems so easy to link them to The Handmaid's Tale. If the author couldn't distinguish between them immediately then perhaps the degree of difference isn't great.

That makes me nervous enough. However you do have a point in that we should look at her pattern of judgement and kick her application for employment out the window.

[DonaldsRump]

12. That's exactly right

I am not happy about this nomination at all. But looking at pure politics, the Reputincans have the votes. I am hoping something unexpected comes up that derails it. Remember that Senators Kaine and Manchin voted for her in 2017.

However, we can score some big points even if her nomination goes through. She is frightening, and as a lawyer myself, I find her views on abandoning precedent deeply troubling. There is enough in her record on this, women's rights, and marriage equality, to get a lot out in the public domain.

We shouldn't be distracted about things that aren't provable, as the right-wingers will use that to gain sympathy for Barrett, much like they did with Kavanaugh. And in my view, while it is shocking what Kavanaugh likely did, I think Trump was able to spin that to get sympathy for Kavanaugh and votes in November 2018. Two Senate seats in particular that were impacted were TN and MO. Remember we LOST Senate seats last time. We cannot do so this time.

By all means, our folks on the Senate Judiciary Committee should go after Barrett tooth and nail, and it should be AN issue, and an important one, in the election. However, this nomination cannot be the central part of the election in the remaining days. That's EXACTLY what Trump wants.

[Sunsky]

37. I see nobody on here except this post

making a big deal out of this handmaid's tale story. Nobody seems distracted by this one non-issue. However, the Democrats should make the repeal of the ACA a central part of the debate in this election and thus Amy's confirmation because of her stance on many issues including the ACA.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-supreme-court-nominee-vocal-opponent-of-obamacare-2020-9

When Republicans threatened healthcare in 2018, the people rebuked them and they will again in 2020.
Also, some Republicans who supported Kavanaugh are in trouble this election (Ex. Susan Collins).

[DonaldsRump]

39. I do agree with that...that's fundamentally the point of my OP

Go at her with this kind of stuff that has teeth and that can be proven (e.g., her views on ACA repeal). Get her to state on the record her view about women's rights, Roe v. Wade, marriage equality.

She will of course refuse to discuss that, but she has written and spoke a lot, like most law professors, so there's plenty on the record already.

[NickB79]

10. In evolutionary biology, we call it convergent evolution

Two species totally unrelated to one another evolve the same form under similar pressure. Dolphins and ichthyosaurs. Wolves and Tasmanian tigers. Penguins and great auks.

Just because they're not related doesn't mean they don't look and act VERY similar.

[tavernier]

11. The article cites opinions of the left and right on religion,

but says nothing of the people who claim to be Christians but exist only to leach off of trusting citizens, the Fallwells and Swaggerts and Bakkers and Robertsons, etc. etc. There appear to be more of these thieves and charlatans posing as followers of Christ than actual Christians, these days.

[Tones2345]

13. OP is clearly not defending Barrett

If we continue to push a false narrative instead of focusing on verifiable facts about this terribly oppressive group and Barrett’s horrible record, we’re no better than the liars we’re trying to oust. Our biggest strength is dealing in facts with verifiable evidence, and we have so much available (even in her own words on video) that we don’t need to take this road.

[hlthe2b]

14. Then YOU should post the difference in practice and philosophy of the two groups and Barrett--

something the article DID Not even TRY to do. That is why this is a distinction without a difference and only serves to defend Barrett. Not to mention the article DID NOT prove which group actually forms the basis for this book. The author does not recall which group upon which she based the book.


Please do. I wait with great anticipation for your comprehensive review of all three. I'm quite sure we ALL do.

[DonaldsRump]

16. Again, the sole issue here is the inspiration for a book and a TV show

There is nothing else being said.

That the two groups may have similar views is a totally separate issue.

Just to mention, several right wing publications, including The National Review, are now focusing on the issue of whether Barrett's group was the inspiration for the novel/tv show. They are clearly trying to get sympathy for Barrett. This is a COMPLETELY avoidable trap, by focusing on what is in the record. I'm not going to contribute to anything that will get Barrett one iota of sympathy from anyone.

If it is provable that Barrett's group is the inspiration, then by all means run with it. Right now, indications are that it isn't.

[hlthe2b]

17. I think we all know what this is about. You claim you know inspiration for a book for which author

is not even certain. So, let's see YOUR proof. Or the same challenge: show us where the two groups and Barrett differ on the horrific attitudes toward women, their bodies and their rights to be equal, autonomous human beings.

I'm waiting.

[hlthe2b]

20. And again. You claim the article is correct and agree with its conclusion, though provided NO proof

You defend the article. So, where is the proof, when the author does not even recall which group inspired her construct?

[DonaldsRump]

23. I am not defending anything

If you want to give the right wing ammunition on getting more votes, please go right ahead. That's exactly what Trump wants folks to do. Just remember what's at stake here.

You can do your own internet search on how the RW is stirring this up. It should not become a sympathy point for Barrett.

The article speaks for itself. You are the one reading all sorts of interpretations into it.

[hlthe2b]

24. You continually defend an article that concludes that which is not proven.

So obviously, there is a question of why? Here from the author's own mouth:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214137677


And, yes, every post of yours is a defense of the article. You have made your position clear to me and many others on this thread.

[DonaldsRump]

25. And why are you not reading the posts?

This is bordering on the absurd.

We are all in this together, but to focus on this issue to the exclusion of all the other issues that you raise that can be documented in so many other ways than making a huge deal about what is the inspiration for a tv show and book is to undermine the cause.

Sorry to be like this, but you have so grossly misunderstood the point of my posting the article. This is not even close to the most relevant issue about Barrett, but the RW is already creating a firestorm about it. There is no need to fall into this trap.

[hlthe2b]

26. They are repetetive, but I certainly have. You made your position absolutely clear

and I won't forget.

[DonaldsRump]

29. and I won't forget the absurdity of this discussion

This is what Newsweek said about their story:

Correction: This article's headline originally stated that People of Praise inspired 'The Handmaid's Tale'. The book's author, Margaret Atwood, has never specifically mentioned the group as being the inspiration for her work. A New Yorker profile of the author from 2017 mentions a newspaper clipping as part of her research for the book of a different charismatic Catholic group, People of Hope. Newsweek regrets the error.

https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-people-praise-group-inspired-handmaids-tale-1533293

So, go ahead and quibble with Newsweek, The Atlantic, and Vox and cost us votes.

[hlthe2b]

31. You discount the author's own words on this matter. Yeah, that's not absurd!

Why is it so important for you to defend these horrific groups? I hate to think about what is truly behind this obsessive posting on the VOX article. My obsession is defending the human rights of WOMEN and I absolutely admit to that. What is yours?

[DonaldsRump]

34. I am not defending anything (second time)

We just shouldn't fall for a trap that is already being used against us. There are so many things to go after Barrett. My limited point, all along, has been not to go after things that are not provable or demonstrable, when there is so much else on the record.

You did see Newsweek's "regrets the error" language, right? Do you want to go after Barrett on something like this or would you rather use her own judicial opinions, testimony, law review articles etc to do the speaking for her. You are falling for a totally unnecessary trap that the Republican spin machine can use to curry sympathy for a totally unsympathetic candidate to get votes. And right now, we need every single vote in every single election as we all know.

You are not the only champion of civil rights on DU, and just because we disagree does not mean you have to malign me. However, that's your call.

Anyway, have a good weekend.

[hlthe2b]

35. I find calling out those who believe this a distinction without a difference

to be exceedingly wrong and insensitive to women of DU--whose very human rights are on the line. I might also add that so too will be LGBTQ, since those horrific cult groups--BOTH OF THEM are no less homophobic than they are women-hating.

I wish you a good weekend as well, but I sincerely hope you will ponder on this.

[DonaldsRump]

38. There is nothing remotely offensive in what I have said

I told you repeatedly I am against this nomination for all the reasons you state and I have stated, which are identical. I absolutely have no issues in saying these groups are similar and loathsome, and our judiciary should not have people from them. But that is a different point than the one I was making.

We all know Republicans have one great gift: they are masters at spinning a new truth out of lies. They somehow made Kavanaugh sympathetic, at least to other right wingers, sufficient to energize some of their base in 2018. I am pretty sure that cost us Phil Bredesen as a D from TN, and possibly the MO seat. Losing those two seats has cost us dearly and allowed Trump to go run amok, virtually unchecked. Everything is in play now, and we need to wipe the Republicans off the electoral map for years to come. This is our last best shot.

There is so much to go after Barrett on that will help us towards that end. She has written and spoken a lot, so many of her views are on the record. Those will score points for our base.

The Republican excel at smearing and destroying with lies. For example, solely based on lies:

*Somehow, they made a war hero like John Kerry look dishonorable.
*Somehow they tried to get BHO disqualified to be President on totally racist grounds.
*Somehow, they made HRC look like a criminal.
*Somehow, they are trying to make Joe Biden dumb and corrupt.
*Somehow, they are trying to make Kamala Harris into a "ho" and her maligning her character in so many false ways.

Now, they will say (indeed, they are saying right now) we are unfairly tarnishing "a great jurist and scholar like Amy Barrett" in light of the Newsweek retraction. Why give them the ammunition on this very small point where there is doubt, when there are so many larger points to score where there is no doubt? The greater point is what her cult believes and that probably is comparable to People of Hope etc. That is the point you are making, and I don't disagree with it (I honestly don't know much about either group, but that's what the Senate hearings are for).

Please also ponder very carefully what I am saying/have said. If you have a moment, see what the right wing is doing with this very issue this very second. It is very clearly designed to get sympathy for Barrett.

Peace. We're of the same mind, but probably have different ways of getting at the same issue.

[uriel1972]

18. Precisely...

it doesn't prove anything that justifies the language of the headline "False". The link may be tenuous, but it exists and until further notice from the author, must be considered "In play" for the title of inspiration.

I'm sorry if my previous post didn't convey that strongly enough.

[Dr. Strange]

40. What does that mean exactly?

The link may be tenuous, but it exists and until further notice from the author, must be considered "In play" for the title of inspiration.

According to the author:

Barrett is said to be a member of the People of Praise group, which is similar to a patriarchal church organization that was one of the inspirations for The Handmaid’s Tale.

Atwood emphasized that it was not, in fact, the People of Praise who inspired her book.

“It wasn’t them. It was a different one but the same idea,” she said.
https://news.ucsc.edu/2020/09/atwood-feature-story-2030.html

Like, what more notice are you looking for?

[DonaldsRump]

42. I just posted that same link and quote below

and now saw yours. Thanks for this.

I don't know how a discussion solely about what inspired a book could go so far off tangent. Judge Barrett has a lot of 'splaining to do about her bizarre views, but let's use her own word in opinions, speeches, law review articles and live testimony to make that point, not a novel or tv show.

[uriel1972]

55. the author of article

made a definitive claim about a "False Link", but failed inside the article to back that up. Instead we were left with the impression that Atwood herself did not know.

The impression was that it could have been, but there was some doubt. That was the link.

If there is further evidence that tjey were not the inspiration, then so be it. It was not presented wothin the article.

[DonaldsRump]

60. Good lord. Give it up. You were wrong, and just admit it.

There is absolutely no reason to keep fighting a ridiculous argument, especially where you were shown to be wrong with a little bit of research that you could have done.

[Dr. Strange]

61. Ah, okay.

I knew Atwood had been pretty definitive about it, so it surprises me to see people ignoring it. (And Vox admittedly sometimes leaves a bit to be desired.)

[Bettie]

15. It may not have been the literal inspiration but it is a group that

promotes a white male supremacist theocracy with women as second class citizens.

So, what's your point? Is that your dream government? Because it sure isn't mine or that of most of the women I know.

[DonaldsRump]

19. What are you talking about???

There is NOTHING in any of this, or any of my posts, that indicates what you say. You really need to read more carefully.

[DonaldsRump]

44. Just to mention

I'm a person of color, and I found your ridiculous and totally baseless claim that I "dream" of a government of white male supremacist theocrats deeply offensive. As I said elsewhere, you (and me) are not the only champion of civil rights.

You should read things more carefully that were posted here. After you posted your unprovoked attack, you should now read the quotes from the author herself that have been added by me and another poster.

My limited point all along has been that the OP questioned the factual basis as to whether Barrett's cult is the inspiration for the novel/tv show. I said nothing more than that. You and a few other posters flew off the handle on issues I never raised or don't even disagree with. My point in all the posts is the need to be accurate and stick to the facts during Barrett's confirmation hearing.

Equating the two cults is a separate issue and the one you wish to make. And indeed the novel's author makes the same point. But, the thing is I never disputed that or even raised it.

If you want folks like Kamala Harris to spend her time on the Senate Judiciary Committee nailing Barrett to the wall as to whether her cult is like the cult in the novel....well...I just don't know what to say. There is so much more to go after her on than this, that is factually incorrect.

[Klaralven]

21. It's Charismatic Catholicism: the adoption of Pentacostal and Evangelical pathologies by Catholics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal

[uriel1972]

22. Thos is getting to be a "Gungeon" argument...

like the definition of "Assault Rifle" or whether a particular weapon uses a 33 round Gripley Magazine or not. To say it isn't the literal inspiration, to my mind misses a key point.

Atwood's novel is a polemic, an exaggeration and an extrapolation. It is about male supremacists and the women who aid them as well as those that resist.

If the"People of Praise" are male supremacists, then they may well have served as inspiration. If Atwood can't tell the diffetence, then why should we be expected to?

[octoberlib]

27. The head of the women's groups were called

handmaidens in Barrett’s cult. Whether it inspired Atwood or not is irrelevant.

[hlthe2b]

28. +1

[DonaldsRump]

32. It is relevant if that is the point you are discussing

My posting the vox article was solely limited to the inspiration issue....which the rightwingers are now running with to gain sympathy for Barrett.

That they are similar is a totally different issue.

[GeorgeGist]

30. She's insane.

[uriel1972]

33. I think we can agree on that at least... nt

[DonaldsRump]

41. Just to hopefully bring this to a close

This is what "The Handmaid's Tale" author Margaret Atwood just said about her inspiration for her novel:

The book is making headlines all over again, now that Amy Coney Barrett is favored to be President Trump’s nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Barrett is said to be a member of the People of Praise group, which is similar to a patriarchal church organization that was one of the inspirations for The Handmaid’s Tale.

Atwood emphasized that it was not, in fact, the People of Praise who inspired her book.

“It wasn’t them. It was a different one but the same idea,” she said.

(emphasis added)

https://news.ucsc.edu/2020/09/atwood-feature-story-2030.html


I don't mean to flog a dead horse. But my point all along is precisely this: the inspiration for this novel and tv show is a nothing issue, and we need to be careful about the facts. What she believes and says, as demonstrated by her own spoken and written words is the big issue. Not some book.

Already, Fox, National Review, Washington Examiner and other RW media are calling this "fake news" by the liberal media. Why give them this irrelevant issue, when there is so much more in Barrett's record that is totally provable because it is her own words.

We cannot let Barrett be made into some kind of martyr. That would be the deepest disrespect to our beloved RBG.

[radius777]

63. "It was a different one but the same idea." - Atwood

The Vox piece that purports to 'debunk the libs' is the typical both-siderist crap that intentionally misses the big picture.

Atwood's work is a novel, not a documentary - thus there is no need to be precise, as the fictional world/cult at the center of her novel is an amalgam of Charismatic Catholic groups (of the type Barrett was part of, which also used the 'handmaid' term). Such misogynistic religious sects were (and are) a backlash to feminism and civil rights. IOW, it's about the hateful ideology inherent to such groups - and how that could've shaped the views of a prospective Supreme Court justice such as Barrett, whose decisions could have far ranging effects on the lives of Americans of all types.

Nobody cares what the hardcore conservatives think - they aren't voting for us anyway. We care about our base as well as gettable moderates, swing voters and independents.

The archetypal swing voter is the moderate suburbanite who is pro-choice. Polls show about 2/3 of voters overall are pro-choice, including about 1/5 of Trump's 2016 voters in many states. Morning Joe (a Republican) was talking about this the other day, that he went through some of the data in swing states and there is a possibility those pro-choice voters could worry about Roe being overturned. What seemed unlikely years ago with a fairly divided court could become all too real with a hard-right 6-3 court.

The issue of choice is inextricably tied to women's rights and to the liberalism that RBG (and hopefully everyone posting on a site like this) believes in. It is a core belief that must be fought for. It is also a class issue as the anti-choice position merely equates to 'coat hangers' and backalley abortions for poor women, while rich women will still have access to safe procedures.

This does not mean we focus solely on this issue, or to the exclusion of other 'bread and butter' issues like the economy, jobs, healthcare, prescription drugs etc. We can focus on both social and economic justice while tying it all together as fighting for an America that is better for the wide spectrum of middle and working class women and men of all colors and creeds. Everything Biden and Dems have been saying recently points to this strategy.

[MrsCoffee]

64. +1

[MrsCoffee]

43. Who cares if they call themselves People of Hope, People of Praise or People who Hate Women?

The fucking foundation of their beliefs are the same.

Hat tip to post #2. A distinction without a difference indeed.

It doesn’t have to be literal or exact. They are connected.

That article would make a good puppy pad.

[DonaldsRump]

45. Different strokes for different folks...

Read the posts. Or don't.

You are missing the point that has been hashed out completely.

[MrsCoffee]

46. Except you might be missing the bigger point.

Different strokes my ass. These people are fucking dangerous and would welcome Gilead with open arms.

[DonaldsRump]

47. I am not disagreeing with that.

My sole point was not to say something that is not factually true. Barrett's own words make the case against her. "The Handmaid's Tale" doesn't and the author herself acknowledged that Barrett's cult wasn't the inspiration for her novel.

That is the ONLY point made. And it is actually now a point that Fox, National Review, Washington Examiner etc are running to gain sympathy that we awful libs are trashing the pure, honest, and virtuous Amy by unfairly targeting her religion by comparing it to the tv show. That is not me making this up, and the last thing in the world we need is for folks to feel sorry for Barrett and get enraged to vote for Trump and their R senators.

That is the bigger point.

[MrsCoffee]

48. Fox, National Review, Washington Examiner are gonna say whatever the fuck they want.

Who cares?

THE BIGGER POINT IS THAT IT IS A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE.

No one is making anything up about this disgusting woman. It doesn't matter what the name of the group was that the novel was inspired by. IT MATTERS THAT THESE GROUPS ARE THE FUCKING SAME. Their foundations are the same. Their goals are the same.

[DonaldsRump]

49. It was "sympathy" for Brett Kavanaugh

that likely caused us to lose the TN and MO senate seats in 2018. We paid dearly for that. We don't want that to happen again.

We stick to the facts (at least for our politicians), and Barrett's own words will bury her in the minds of voters of goodwill. We just don't say the novel was inspired by Barrett's cult. Rather, we say they are similar. That's all I'm saying.

I am not disputing a word you are saying in the last paragraph of your post. But to your point about "Who cares"?: I sure as hell do, in that we should not be giving a single issue that will excite a depressed (emotionally and numerically) Trump base. That will have effects in down ballot races, too.

Trump and McConnell are trying to lay a trap for our folks. Remember that Tim Kaine and Joe Manchin voted for this person just 3 years ago, so that doesn't help.

Let's bury Barrett with her own damning words, not words from a novel.

[MrsCoffee]

50. Handmaids are a part of her little cult. I will keep referring to it.

Because it gets the point across.

[DonaldsRump]

52. Absolutely: that's exactly what they were called in her cult until the TV show come on the air

That's totally fair game.

I just think the Senate should stay away from "The Handmaid's Tale" inspiration issue. However, even making points about her religious beliefs will be used against us saying we horrible libs are attacking her religion. That can be done outside of the Senate.

There is another thread with a similar discussion about how the Rs twisted Senator Dianne Feinstein's question to Barrett in 2017 to make her "a conservative hero", and I posted this there on the religion issue:

The problem is that if the Ds make this about religion, it plays right into their hands. Senator Feinstein did this in Barrett's 2017 appellate court nomination process and the Rs twisted it to say she was attacking Barrett's religion.

This is from an NY Times video that appeared on September 5, 2020 entitled "The 'Dogma' Question that Made Amy Coney Barrett a Conservative Hero": https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000007357319/amy-barrett-supreme-court.html

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14139176

I appreciate the Rs will twist everything. That's why sticking to Barrett's own many, many written and spoken words is the way I would tackle the confirmation hearing.

[radius777]

65. You seem to be (a) grasping at the 'false link' narrative

to support (b) your opinion that we should not focus on it in the hearings.

They are two separate issues and you can support (b) without having to grasp at (a) which is an obtuse bothsiderist piece that debunks nothing.

Atwood's novel was based upon Charismatic Catholic cults and sects of the type Barrett was (is?) a part of - and is thus relevant as a means to attempt to understand and critique Barrett and her worldview. The exact cult is not relevant to the critique - the ideology is - which all of those groups share.

[OnDoutside]

51. It feels like a difference between the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front !!!

[uriel1972]

53. at least they aren't the Popular Front of Judea...

Those splitters.

[OnDoutside]

54. Don't get me started on them ....

[DonaldsRump]

56. There's actually nothing funny about this

Last edited Sat Sep 26, 2020, 07:20 PM - Edit history (1)

It is deadly serious and many, many things are stake.

The issue I am raising deals SOLELY with whether it is credible to say Barrett's cult was the inspiration for "The Handmaid's Tale". The author of the novel herself says no, and we know the right wing media is already trying to stir this up. If the author of the book says it wasn't her inspiration, I do not understand why any of us would be so concerned in propagating this.

That it is similar, fine. But the inspiration for the novel was not Barrett's cult. Why would anyone want to say differently when the novel's author herself says this? That is completely the limited point of my OP.

However, Senator Feinstein was deeply attacked for talking about Barrett's "dogma" in 2017 and Barrett became, in the words of The New York Times, a "conservative hero". That being said, simply let Barrett's own voluminous words speak against her. I appreciate we will be nailed for everything we do with this person, but the fact of the matter is that we lack the votes and the means to investigate her. If we know that, why would we not extract every price we can for the election and get our vengeance after we take over in 2021?

There is NOTHING remotely humorous about this.

[uriel1972]

57. don't be obtuse

you have read my other posts and can see I take this affair seriously. I know the stakes.

However, most people need a safety valve for such pressure and some of us find that in wry humour. I'm sorry if you found us taking a slight break from an increasingly surreal argument offensive.

We mere mortals ate fallible.

[DonaldsRump]

59. Please don't be so condescending about being "obtuse"

Last edited Sat Sep 26, 2020, 07:12 PM - Edit history (1)

There is nothing funny about this. Look at your posts. You were actually flagged by another poster about your post indicating I was wrong about keeping up this issue, demonstrating that actually you were wrong.

Please respect yourself and admit you were wrong. Insulting folks ain't going to work.

Here's your post where another poster demonstrated that you were incorrect: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14137639

And here's that other poster's response to this:

Dr. Strange (24,711 posts)

40. What does that mean exactly?

According to the author:

Barrett is said to be a member of the People of Praise group, which is similar to a patriarchal church organization that was one of the inspirations for The Handmaid’s Tale.

Atwood emphasized that it was not, in fact, the People of Praise who inspired her book.

“It wasn’t them. It was a different one but the same idea,” she said.
https://news.ucsc.edu/2020/09/atwood-feature-story-2030.html

Like, what more notice are you looking for?

[OnDoutside]

62. As a Catholic, I think it IS hilarious. There are lots of rwnj cults

within the Catholic Church and, they've become even more prominent since so many moderate Catholics have stopped practicing. It is entirely a Right Wing tactic to hone in on one word, and make libs focus the debate on that.

It doesn't matter what People Of that Barrett is part of, they are all nutjobs, and it doesn't matter if one was the inspiration for Handmaid's tale or not, the other probably could have been, and the effect of what Barrett is going to do, will be the same.

[smirkymonkey]

66. *snort*

[pnwmom]

58. It is NOT a "small Catholic group." It is a small group that contains a mixture

of some individual rightwing Catholics and some individual rightwing Evangelicals.

But there is nothing Catholic about a group that requires secret, signed loyalty oaths. What distinguishes People of Praise -- those oaths, and its structure outside of the Church -- is what makes it not Catholic.

In other words, there may be some Catholic groups of charismatics -- but not the People of Praise. It's separate and apart from the Church because of its special oaths and separate leadership structure.