The Girl With the Ephesians Tattoo

Posted on | April 25, 2012 | 34 Comments

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.”
— Ephesians 6:12-13 (KJV)

When Ali Akbar and I were in Tampa for the CNN Tea Party debate in September, there was a bit of embarrassing “hubba-hubba” in the comments when I mentioned that we would be having lunch with Dana Loesch. She’s a nice-looking lady, but also a married mom. And then I scored a brief video interview with Dana:

The comments on that post? Polite and appropriate. Once she brandished that Bible-verse tattoo, even our usually rowdy commenters were like: “Oh, she’s a Christian.” And they piped down.

Kind of an interesting effect to observe.

So anyway, the other day, a blogger pointed out that Charles Johnson had described Catholic nuns as “uppity” — a word which, according to CJ, was raaaaacist when used by Rush Limbaugh. This caused Jazzy McBikeshorts to get all sniffy about context:

Sure enough, dozens of wingnuts are busily retweeting it today, after it was picked up by Breitbart.com blogger Dan Riehl and then retweeted by CNN contributor Dana Loesch . . .
I know wingnuts aren’t big on the whole context thing, especially when they’re getting their smear on . . .
I’ve never been able to tell if people like Dan Riehl and Dana Loesch are really this dense, or if they’re cynically manipulating those who are.

Meanwhile, on Twitter, CJ decided to get in Dana’s face about it: Big mistake, resulting in an epic beatdown captured by Diary of Daedalus, worth reading for amusement. Comic denouement? LGFers have now announced they’ll boycott CNN because of that mean ol’ Dana Loesch — who is, of course, wearing “the whole armour of God.”

They can’t touch her. And it drives ’em nuts.

Category: Charles Johnson, Dana Loesch

Comments

34 Responses to “The Girl With the Ephesians Tattoo”

Thomas L. Knapp
April 25th, 2012 @ 11:10 pm

All males, of course, hope that Dana’s “whole armor” does not include a chastity belt.

But none of us would want to be the one who tried to check, and pulled back a stump.
Adobe_Walls
April 25th, 2012 @ 11:15 pm

She mocks well, that perk of LGF: field trip to Sally’s Beauty supply for scrunchies should become a classic.
Wombat_socho
April 25th, 2012 @ 11:21 pm

I think that would depend on whether or not her husband got to you first. Met him at CPAC; I wouldn’t cross the man.
BRC_807
April 25th, 2012 @ 11:23 pm

#brasnapper gots de homps for Dana because she’s Uppity right back in his Muggity.
Thomas L. Knapp
April 25th, 2012 @ 11:28 pm

I haven’t met him, but I’ve met her. I don’t think she needs him to run interference. She seems quite capable of taking care of herself.
A Word From Charles Johnson and What It Means
April 25th, 2012 @ 11:42 pm

[…] About Dana Loesch vs Charles Johnson: […]
robertstacymccain
April 25th, 2012 @ 11:44 pm

To repeat: She’s a married mom. And also, like Wombat said, we know her husband.

In general, it’s probably best to reserve the blatantly lecherous sexist comments for the celebrity bimbos featured at WeSmirch — which is why celebrity bimbos exist, eh? But beware of Courtney Stodden — she’s only 17.
Thomas L. Knapp
April 25th, 2012 @ 11:53 pm

If you think that was “blatantly lecherous,” you don’t get out enough.

Read carefully and for comprehension, and you’ll find that the meaning is “she doesn’t need a chastity belt, because she’d tear a new one on anybody that got handsy.”

Damn, it’s like I’m teaching the kids what come to school on the short bus or something.
Lisa Graas
April 26th, 2012 @ 12:01 am

I call blatantly lecherous on that. It’s the thought that counts.
tranquil.night
April 26th, 2012 @ 12:09 am

The formula works everytime and it drives them totally batty. The Bible contained the wisdom of the enlightenment millenia before man started making similar conclusions through intellectual means. It still has insights I believe are wholly unique. Those were some of my conclusions at my darkest times at least. No wonder Dana is so smart strong and beautiful!
Lisa Graas
April 26th, 2012 @ 1:45 am

We Catholics would differ that it was an “enlightenment.” Just sayin’…
Anamika
April 26th, 2012 @ 2:24 am

Thomas you be “nice” not to talk sex in front of Lisa Graas, she still going
to Church meetings to recover from lecherous thoughts decades ago, since then she been quite dry and has learned to say “no thank you” to the devilish feminist males hitting on her.
Thomas L. Knapp
April 26th, 2012 @ 2:32 am

OK, well, I do have to admit to being lecherous in general, and to attempting (with little success) to stake out some SEO territory on the phrase “Dana Loesch Naked.”

But in this particular case, there was no lecherous mens rea. It was more a matter of reflex.
tranquil.night
April 26th, 2012 @ 5:09 am

You and they should! I’m know you understand the insights about Natural Law attained in that Era came off the leg work of many brilliant Catholic scholars. It wasn’t John Locke and Adam Smith’s fault that Modernism shortly thereafter brought an existential threat to religion and traditional values through nightmares first like Rosseau the French Revolution and then in the form of Marx, Nietzsche, et al. But I’m not sure if this is what you were intending to reference..
Bob Belvedere
April 26th, 2012 @ 7:31 am

It was a good comeback, a bit of shtick.
Lisa Graas
April 26th, 2012 @ 8:04 am

The fact that it “came off the leg work of many brilliant Catholic scholars” is why it wasn’t an “enlightenment” at all. They didn’t suddenly become brilliant on their own, without the working of the Holy Spirit through His Church.
Lisa Graas
April 26th, 2012 @ 8:06 am

Jesus said the Holy Spirit would come to lead us into all truth. He didn’t say the Holy Spirit would wait for sixteen centuries before coming…..and the Holy Spirit did not wait for sixteen centuries to come.
Anamika
April 26th, 2012 @ 9:33 am

If i may speculate, early Xians were most likely the most authentic, in terms of closeness to Jesus’ teachings and willing to risk for their truth. And THEY were called a cult by the corrupt system of the time. When they gained more converts and power, wheeler-dealers moved in and altered the dogma and created positions of power for themselves and invented mythologies of being anointed by Jesus and so on. Thus, a real cult was created where none had previously existed, and it was organised. And so on.

A slogan i like is, “Subvert the dominant paradigm.”
Anamika
April 26th, 2012 @ 9:38 am

Lest you say don’t throw stones, yes, Christianity has plenty of adherents living with Christ’s love — or as Matthew put it, other-referencing — in their hearts. But more Christians living without Christ’s love than with it, actually. Plenty using the religion to justify and defend selfishness and extreme selfishness.

This is basically why i prefer the non-mainstream. Shit happens in all systems, in all religions, organised or not. And yes, some cults are worse than others, ie more closed-belief-system and more exploitative-harmful. But the non-mainstream cults at least don’t have their hands on the levers of political power. It is the mainstream cults that influence events and shape people’s minds on a large scale. Like the mafia, they are organized, and they get results. Politicians pander to them and it’s all one big sucking-up-fest.
Anamika
April 26th, 2012 @ 9:41 am

Also there are groups today aiming for what is often called “New Testament Christianity” (without churchiness or narrowmindedness). There are such groups, and of course where there are no groups, there are individuals.

This kind of approach seems to me to offer the best prospects for a contemporary journey with Jesus. Jim Jones was a leader of one such group but can’t win ’em all. Jesus as (albeit dead) teacher. One throws all the dogma and baggage and tries to find the “real Jesus.” Or so i imagine. Still, some seem to have done well with their neighbourhood church.
Lisa Graas
April 26th, 2012 @ 9:50 am

One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism….also mentioned in Ephesians.
Pathfinder's wife
April 26th, 2012 @ 10:01 am

You are incorrect on one form: the traditional denominations with their closed belief systems (as you call them) are less vulnerable to brainwashing and the attendant cult of personality than the non-mainstream.

Politicians don’t pander to them so much as try to gain their support or find a way to go around or undermine them.

There is a difference; I wish people would start seeing it.
If the strict study (religious study if you will) of doctrine and adherence to that order is taken out of a religious system all you are left with is spiritual mysticism…and taken to its denouement that will wind up getting you a group of people who are willing to follow any charismatic and drink his/her koolaide.
Pathfinder's wife
April 26th, 2012 @ 10:04 am

I stand on my previous comment.
Anamika
April 26th, 2012 @ 11:14 am

Re. Pathfinder’s wife:

Organizations are useful for getting some things done but they have almost no place in a spiritual quest.

(See detailed reply as a separate comment in the next page.)
Anamika
April 26th, 2012 @ 11:35 am

Re. Pathfinder’s wife

If the strict study (religious study if you will) of doctrine and
adherence to that order is taken out of a religious system all you are
left with is spiritual mysticism…and taken to its denouement that will
wind up getting you a group of people who are willing to follow any
charismatic and drink his/her koolaide.

Shifting the all-important aspect of hierarchy out of
religion into society in general and then attempting to retrofit it back into religion
would be disingenuous.

The aspects of Organized Religion (OR) that one could innocently list are well
defined structure, hierarchies, goals and rules.

There are simple differences between OR and tribal religion which anyone
understands and hierarchy is the most important. It’s all very well that there
are some branches of Xianity that don’t have a hierarchy, that’s to their
credit. Perhaps they have seen the problems with hierarchy.

In any case, hierarchy here means that there is more to the
organizational structure than just the local priest. There is an organization
of many people, with a power structure, and the neighborhood guy is at the
bottom. There is an HQ somewhere else dictating policy and issuing orders. The
local guy is not autonomous. S/he has to do what middle management elsewhere
says and moreover gets dogma spoonfed from a fixed, unchanging, increasingly
anachronistic Holy Book which has been created by a previous iteration of the
organization. (In fact, this organizationally created Holy Book remains as a
problem even to those groups who have tried to do away with hierarchy in their
own structures, precisely because it has been created and perpetuated by an
organization.)

The shaman has no one above him/her in corporate HQ somewhere
else. End of story as far as difference is concerned.

Yes, many similarities can be found between tribal religion and
OR. Actually, finding these similarities is usually the business of
those who campaign against any and all spirituality, the f*ndie
rationalistas who profess to be skeptical but are not skeptical about their own
beliefs. You may be in funny company with this quest.

Whatever. The shaman is the real “oldest
profession,” the first specialized occupation that not everyone does, like
hunting and tent-mending, and in part “supported” by the rest of the
band. They perform “services” on behalf of the others but again there
are important differences between those services and the kind offered by the
hierarchical priestly caste. Think vision quest. There is little like this in
hierarchical religions. A vision quest means each individual is encouraged to
go and find their own experience, not have it pre-shaped and pre-digested to
fit into a certain formula. The priest mediates between a supplicant and a
supposed God whom the priest represents. The shaman does not mediate and does not
represent Mother Earth or any other entity.

It is true that sexist trips did not originate with
organization. The tribes had ’em too, in spades, and it may be one of the great
benefits of civilization that we are finally evolving away from this. (And OR
might even get credit for being part of that civilizing process, even as they
perpetuated and horriblized the sexist trips.) But civilization has its
problems too.

So you might wonder: So
if tribes have organized religion, and “modern” societies have
organized religion, each according to their own technologies, how do you have a
non-organized religion? Is there such a thing?

But, “If tribes have organized religion” hasn’t been established.

Indeed there is such a thing as non-organized religion. And
it consists of a movement or group whose members are encouraged to find their
own relationship with Source/Mother Earth/God/etc, and the “leader” (guru/shaman/pastor)
helps them with methods and insights and whatnot to get over predictable
hurdles which the leader understands.

I could use the term “religious power abuse” if you like
that phrase, there’s nothing wrong with it. But i think “power-abuse”
as a term does not do much to point to where the power abuse might come from. It
comes from hierarchies, an integral part of what i am calling organized
religions. So i’ll stick with that.

Or could it be that it’s the advancing technologies, which
humans are applying to everything they do, and which result in us forming
larger groups, that I don’t appreciate?

The answer would be No. Larger groups are themselves the
problem, or at least problematic. The group will always have a structure which
will try both to perpetuate itself and dominate others. The goal of religion “should”
be to see beyond these petty human trips but the organization can only be
antithetical to seeing beyond. It will always place itself between the
individual and reality.

As I remarked, organizations are useful for getting some
things done but they have almost no place in a spiritual
quest.
Wombat_socho
April 26th, 2012 @ 12:33 pm

More a sign that your writing needs work, because you’re failing to clearly communicate what you’re thinking to a couple of reasonably intelligent people.
I could buy that it’s a mistake, because you’re usually pretty good.
Thomas L. Knapp
April 26th, 2012 @ 12:53 pm

Could be. Maybe I’m getting rusty.

In anyway, y’all, I wasn’t intending to be lecherous there. Almost exactly the opposite, in fact.

Pointing out that Ms. Loesch is attractive is bringing coals to Newcastle. The point I was trying to make was that in addition to being cute and cuddly, some kitties have claws.
Pathfinder's wife
April 26th, 2012 @ 12:57 pm

…and once again, I should probably thank you for providing probably the best example of what I was so clumsily trying to say…thanks, couldn’t have done it without you

Actually two great examples for the price of one: Jim Jones AND a clue as to why people such as yourself are not at all uncomfortable with the impetus that creates such an occurance (“can’t win them all”….dead perfect…really).
“We’re Back to ‘LGF Fan Hour’ Sponsored by Scrunchies and Zima.” « Andrew J. Patrick
April 26th, 2012 @ 2:27 pm

[…] Other McCain. Share this:TwitterLinkedInFacebookStumbleUponDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this […]
Anamika
April 26th, 2012 @ 3:23 pm

Re. Pathfinder’s wife:

Actually two great examples for the price of one: Jim Jones AND a clue
as to why people such as yourself are not at all uncomfortable with the
impetus that creates such an occurance (“can’t win them all”….dead
perfect…really).

It may well matter in cases such as Jim Jones, where the delusion is strong enough to preclude critique, strong enough to enlist the supportand co-dependency of others, and in the end strong enough to lead to some tragedy.

Such tragedies will result usually only when there is also an underlying basis of life-negative structures, such as those found in Xianity. Xian cults will often end in this way, though rarely so spectacularly.

In less destructive cases, what harm is done by someone joining a co-dependent cult where the leader is delusional? Ha ha! Could be still a lot, who knows, apart from eternal damnation, so it is still worthwhile to consider that dishonest is “better” than delusional. With dishonest you get ripped off and exploited but learn something in the end. With delusional you may never learn, getting trapped in a self-reinforcing loop.
Anamika
April 26th, 2012 @ 3:31 pm

Re. Pathfinder’s wife

The above edited comment was in reply to you. You can still read my original coomment on this page if you simply TURN OFF the ‘load Javascript automatically’ option in your web browser.
Datechguy's Blog » Blog Archive » DaTechGuy’s Field Guide to Bloggers Dana Loesch » Datechguy's Blog
April 26th, 2012 @ 4:28 pm

[…] I didn’t shoot her biblical quote tatto in my interview but Stacy McCain did in his. Share this:PrintRedditDiggStumbleUponEmailFacebook opinions powered by SendLove.to […]
Anamika
April 26th, 2012 @ 4:52 pm

PW, if you are unable to ‘Disable Javascript’ in your browser, you can read my entire comment here.

(Thanks for the tip, Wombat. But I’m not going to start a blog just yet.)
tranquil.night
April 26th, 2012 @ 5:18 pm

I enjoyed this thread much. Thank you. Lisa I couldn’t agree more with your point which is what what I too was seeking to express through secular reasoning. Faith is true enlightenment – I believe Pope Benedict is correct.