The courtroom smells of wood polish and old carpet. The judge sits high. The jury sits attentive. You sit alone. And behind the defense table, there’s a collar.
The priest who showed up for the man who beat his wife. The pastor writing a letter for the youth leader who molested a kid. The minister with his hand on the shoulder of the father who broke his children. They always come. They never sit behind you.
“Your Honor, he’s a faithful member. He serves the community. He leads Bible study. He’s a good father.” The letter never mentions what he did. It never mentions your name. It’s about his character, not his crime. It’s about the church’s character, not your suffering. A 2019 study found that character witnesses, especially clergy, significantly influence sentencing outcomes. The pastor speaks for God. You speak for yourself. God wins.
You watch the judge read the letter. You watch the judge’s face soften. You watch the man who hurt you get called a good man by the man who’s supposed to represent God. And you sit there, alone, with the memory of what he did and the silence of everyone who should have shown up for you.
Why they come isn’t a mystery. It’s a machine.
The church needs sin. Without it, there’s no salvation, no church. The perpetrator who “found God” is the best advertisement they have. The sinner who repents proves the system works. The prodigal son returns and they throw a party. But you, the victim who demands justice, who won’t forgive, who wants accountability? You threaten the system. You threaten the bottom line. Forgiveness is given freely to the abuser. It’s demanded from you. The asymmetry isn’t accidental. It’s the theology.
The clergy are authority figures. They recognize their own. The father who ruls his household. The pastor who ruls his congregation. The abuser is an authority figure whose authority was challenged by your complaint. They see themselves in him. They protect their own. The church needs the family unit. The father is the head. The wife submits. The children obey. The abuser is the head who was defied. You’re the subordinate who rebelled. The church can’t side with the rebellion without undermining the hierarchy it depends on. Divorce is sin. Accountability is disruption. You leaving is the problem. Him staying is the project.
The weapons they use are old. First Peter 3:1. “Wives, be submissive.” Ephesians 5. The theology of headship that makes abuse a theological right. Matthew 18. The process that requires you to confront your abuser, that requires “witnesses,” that protects the institution. And the Christian counseling industry backs it all up. The licensed professionals who tell you to submit more, pray harder, have more sex. The counselors who treat the marriage as the patient instead of you. You go to counseling and you’re told you’re not meeting his needs. He goes and he’s told he needs grace. The counselor doesn’t ask about the bruises. The counselor asks about your prayer life. The counselor doesn’t ask about the rape. The counselor asks about your willingness to forgive.
Then there’s the institutional protection. Pennsylvania, 2018. Over 1,000 children identified. Over 300 priests. The church knew. The church moved them. The church let them do it again. A bishop transfers a priest to a new parish with a new flock and no warning. The same priest rapes again. The bishop transfers him again. This is the mechanism. Protect the institution. Move the problem. Create a new victim. Over $4 billion spent on settlements and legal fees. Not because they were helping you. Because they were caught. And when they pay you, they gag you. The NDA…
The abuser gets to keep preaching. You can’t even warn the next victim. The church buys your silence with your own money. The legal agreement that protects the institution endangers the next child. The priest who raped you stays in the pulpit. You stay in the silence. The church counts it as a win.
This isn’t new. It’s just the latest version. The residential schools didn’t protect the children. They protected the priests who abused them. The child who complained was beaten for lying. The priest who raped was transferred for “health reasons.” The institution protected itself. The institution protected its own. You were collateral. The Inquisition didn’t protect the accused. It protected the accusers who were the church. The witch trials didn’t protect women. They protected the men who accused them. The church protected slave owners. The church protects wife-beaters. The pattern is centuries old. The mechanism is the same. The theology is the same. The protection of power is the same.
And after they protect him, they “restore” him. A process. A prayer. A promise. Then he’s back in the pulpit. Back in the home. Back in power. The restored abuser gets a second chance. You get a lecture on grace. The restoration is the reinstallation. The second chance is the second access. The pastor “restored” after abuse. The youth leader “restored” after molesting kids. The husband “restored” after beating his wife. Back in the pulpit. Back in the home. Back in power. And you’re told to celebrate his redemption while you’re still bleeding from what he did.
And if you’re poor, if you’re a woman of color, if you’re an immigrant, it’s worse. The Black woman told to “keep the family together.” The Latina woman told to “honor her husband.” The immigrant who doesn’t report because she fears deportation. The poor woman who doesn’t leave because she has no money. The woman of color who isn’t believed because she’s not the “right kind” of victim. The white church protects its own. It doesn’t protect you.
Grace without accountability is permission. Forgiveness without consequences is enablement. Restoration without repentance is reinstallation.
“The church ministers to both.” The bodies in the courtroom say otherwise. “We believe in redemption.” Redemption requires repentance. Repentance requires accountability. You don’t get to skip to grace. “Anyone can be forgiven.” Forgiveness isn’t the problem. The asymmetry is the problem. The demand that you forgive is the problem. “Not all churches.” No, but enough. And the ones that don’t do this still benefit from the system that does. All are complicit.
The clergy doesn’t show up for you. They show up for the institution. They show up for the abuser who looks like them and sins like them. The collar in the courtroom isn’t there for justice. It’s there for the institution. The church doesn’t make mistakes about who it protects. It knows exactly what it’s doing.
The clergy doesn’t show up for you.
They never did.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
“The clergy doesn’t show up for you.”
Be weird if they did, as I’m Jewish.
Ohhh! Are we doing useless contributions?!
Here’s mine that I just wrote while waiting for the kids’ bus 🥰
There once was a smug little guy
Who said the clergy piece didn’t apply
But the mohel had slipped low
And took his danglers with one blow
Which left him with no balls to reply
Interesting turn for a local columnist writing a sermon about moral decay: responding to “I’m Jewish” with a poem about genital mutilation.
For anyone unfamiliar, a mohel is the Jewish religious figure who performs ritual circumcisions. So what MS chose to do here was specifically invoke a Jewish religious practice and then weaponize that imagery into a fantasy about genital mutilation directed at a Jewish commenter. All as a response to a harmless joke.
That is not edgy political commentary. That is bigoted, violent, ethnic imagery.
And the amazing part is that my original comment was completely benign: “Be weird if they did, as I’m Jewish.” That’s it. A light self-deprecating Jewish joke in exactly the same spirit I’ve used in Vanguard comments for years. No insult. No attack. No threat.
MS immediately leapt to a fantasy involving a Jewish religious figure mutilating a Jewish commenter’s genitals. You can dress it up in rhyme if you want, but the underlying image is still a Jewish man with a blade violently mutilating another Jew while the audience laughs. If a parallel fantasy involved another minority religion or ethnicity, everyone would instantly recognize how grotesque it is.
The disturbing part is not merely that you wrote it. It’s that you apparently thought it reflected well on you or would end well for you. A columnist publicly fantasizing about a Jewish commenter being mutilated is the sort of thing that usually ends careers, not comment threads. Though in fairness, endlessly donating apparently unsellable political screeds to a local blog may not qualify as a ‘career’.
Anyway, thanks for clarifying that the clergy article was autobiographical. The clergy are not coming because even they know when a man has confused bitterness and bigotry with wit.
You da man Alan. 👏
AI-Ape,
You made a joke. You got a joke back. Now you’re performing antisemitism like it’s a community theater production of Fiddler on the Roof.
You brought up being Jewish. Not me. You made it the punchline. I just wrote a better one. Circumcision is your religion’s practice, not a hate crime to mention. The limerick said you have no balls. That’s not bigotry. That’s anatomy math.
You’ve been muddying up these comments for months. Snide. Smug. Tiny. Useless. The second someone hits back, you’re a martyr. You’re not persecuted. You’re just boring with better self-pity.
This isn’t a debate. This isn’t a conversation. This is me telling you to find a new hobby because this one’s played out. You have lost EVERY SINGLE time, but are incapable of such understanding.
The clergy aren’t coming for you either, Alan. Not because you’re Jewish. Because you’re pathetic.
I value Alan’s contributions to the community.
“I value Alan’s contributions to the community.”
I second that. I like that Alan speaks his mind and I mostly agree with his views.
I would say something in support of Alan’s comments, but I think he’s making a mistake by engaging with Matt Stone in the first place. There is no point, reason or value in doing so.
So can anyone submit a poem and get it posted here?
I’m sure others have poems too.
I just want to know the rules.
Your response begins with a schoolyard insult comparing me to an ape. Jews have had a lot of degrading animal imagery hurled at us over the years, but ‘ape’ is a new one. I’ll take the originality as a compliment.
“You made a joke. You got a joke back.”
No. I made a joke about being Jewish. You responded with a fantasy involving a mohel, a specifically Jewish religious figure, mutilating a Jewish man’s genitals. Those are not remotely equivalent.
“Now you’re performing antisemitism like it’s a community theater production of Fiddler on the Roof.”
The irony of invoking Fiddler on the Roof while defending a joke built around a Jewish religious figure mutilating a Jew is remarkable. Most people watch Fiddler and come away with empathy for Jews. You apparently watched it and thought, ‘Needs more genital mutilation.’
“You brought up being Jewish. Not me.”
Correct. Mentioning that I am Jewish does not grant anyone a license to respond with violent fantasies built around Jewish religious practices.
“You made it the punchline. I just wrote a better one.”
You did not write a joke about me being Jewish. You wrote a joke about a Jewish religious figure mutilating a Jewish man’s genitals. Mine, specifically.
“Circumcision is your religion’s practice, not a hate crime to mention.”
Interesting that you immediately introduced the phrase “hate crime.” I never used it. I said your comment was bigoted. The fact that your mind went somewhere else is your contribution to this conversation, not mine.
You seem remarkably confident that you know my religion. Why? I said I was Jewish. Jewish identity includes ethnicity, ancestry, culture, and religion. Many Jews are secular. The fact that you automatically equate “Jewish” with “practicing Judaism” suggests you should spend less time writing about Jews and more time learning about them.
“The limerick said you have no balls. That’s not bigotry. That’s anatomy math.”
The limerick did not simply say I had no balls. It constructed a scenario in which a Jewish religious figure accidentally or intentionally removed them. The entire premise of the limerick depended on the mohel. Remove the Jewish religious figure and there is no joke. Although if you weaved in removing a mole, that could be a decent joke.
“You’ve been muddying up these comments for months.”
I’ve been commenting, as I have for decades. You’ve been responding with increasingly personal attacks. I’ve had plenty of disagreements with people in the comments over those years, but I’ve never encountered a commenter who resorts to strings of grade-school playground insults, much less an ‘award-winning’ author.
“Snide. Smug. Tiny. Useless.”
Notice that none of these are arguments.
“The second someone hits back, you’re a martyr.”
I am not claiming martyrdom. I am pointing out that a columnist chose to respond to a harmless Jewish joke with violent religious imagery centered on a Jewish figure and is now angry that someone noticed.
“You’re not persecuted.”
I never claimed to be.
“You’re just boring with better self-pity.”
Another insult standing in for an argument.
“This isn’t a debate. This isn’t a conversation.”
That may be the most accurate thing you’ve written.
“This is me telling you to find a new hobby because this one’s played out.”
I am not the one donating daily columns and composing genital-mutilation limericks before the school bus arrives.
“You have lost EVERY SINGLE time, but are incapable of such understanding.”
People who are winning rarely feel compelled to announce it in all capital letters.
“The clergy aren’t coming for you either, Alan.”
I never expected them to. And it’s ‘Mr. Miller’ to you. Or Miss Jackson if you’re nasty.
“Not because you’re Jewish. Because you’re pathetic.”
And there it is. After all the talk, the grand finale is simply another pejorative insult.
As a Jew, I take some comfort in knowing my people survived thousands of years of persecution. We will probably survive your poetry as well.
Whether your poetry survives this encounter is an open question.
“You made it the punchline. I just wrote a better one.”
I don’t think so.
And then you call him an ape. A racist insult that, lately and rightfully, was called out as such by Council member Vaitla in response to a public comment.
Please stop digging and maybe start thinking about apologizing.
This matter goes to zero. Today’s number is: 5
Mr. Stone,
RG said to you, “Please stop digging and maybe start thinking about apologizing.”
You appear to have done the first part. Now you might consider the second.
An apology is not simply saying “I’m sorry.”
An apology requires acknowledging that something wrong was done, understanding why it was wrong, recognizing the harm that may have resulted, taking responsibility for it, and making a sincere effort to make amends rather than offering excuses, deflections, or justifications.
In this case, that would mean acknowledging that you wrote and published a limerick directed at a Jewish person that centered on a mohel committing genital mutilation upon him. It used a religious practice in Judaism as the vehicle for ridicule and humiliation.
You have already had a few weeks to think better of what you wrote. You now have five days remaining to publish an apology in the Davis Vanguard. There is, of course, no obligation that you do so. However, that does not mean there are no consequences to the choices one makes.
If you believe your words were inappropriate, then I invite you to say so clearly and in your own words. A genuine apology would be directed both to me and to the Jewish community. The comment was not merely offensive. It invoked a Jewish religious practice as a vehicle for ridicule and humiliation and contributes to the atmosphere of hostility and dehumanization that many Jews increasingly experience today.
Such an atmosphere develops when smears, insults, stereotypes, and demeaning portrayals directed at a vulnerable group become viewed as acceptable. Once a group can be casually ridiculed, it becomes easier to dehumanize its members. Once that dehumanization takes root, exclusion, hostility, and even violence by angry racist individuals becomes easier for such persons to rationalize.
Society rightly recognizes this danger when it affects many other vulnerable minority populations. I will not accept a double standard when it comes to Jews. I will not allow my people to be singled out for dehumanization that would be widely condemned if directed at other vulnerable groups. By any other name, such a double standard is the very nature of bigotry.
I am skeptical that such an apology will be forthcoming. Based on your articles and comments, you often appear:
• Quick to use personal insults against those with whom you disagree.
• Certain that your own conclusions are correct.
• Reluctant to acknowledge error.
• Reluctant to apologize when offense has been caused.
This is not an attempt to shut anyone down. This is to hold people accountable. Indeed, accountability is one of the reasons free speech is valuable in the first place.
I strongly support the First Amendment. One of the virtues of free speech is that it allows people to reveal themselves through their own words. People are free to express their opinions and share their thoughts, even offensive and ugly ones. Others are equally free to evaluate those opinions, criticize them, and draw conclusions, including that those opinions and thoughts themselves are offensive and ugly.
What the First Amendment protects is your right to speak without government punishment for your views. It does not provide immunity from criticism, moral judgment, reputational damage, social consequences, professional consequences, or public accountability. Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences. I advise you to take the previous few sentences to heart, Mr. Stone.
You had every right to write your limerick. I have every right to quote it, discuss it publicly, and explain why I believe it reflects poorly on you. Others have every right to read it and decide for themselves what it says about your judgment and your attitudes toward specific vulnerable minority populations.
Still, people can change. I leave open the possibility of being surprised.
Took you 20 days to come up with that AI crap? 🤣🤣 Do better
I have been using AI for years, ever since a student at UCD taught me the basics in detail when it was first becoming widespread three years ago. We have the Microsoft Suite with the A.I. Assistant at my workplace and everyone uses it. As for using AI specifically for writing, I read an article from a professional writer awhile back titled something like, ‘You’re a Fool if You Don’t Use A.I.’ He said of course we don’t want A.I. to write for us, but his advice was to write your piece so it is yours, then ask A.I. the following: ‘are there any logical or grammatical errors in my piece’. I have found this quite helpful. So if what I wrote above seems polished to you, it is. But I assure you those are my words, and my thoughts. So maybe stop focusing on A.I. use, and start focusing on the content.
This matter goes to zero. Today’s number is: 4
Mr. Stone,
RG said to you, “Please stop digging and maybe start thinking about apologizing.”
You appear to have done the first part. Now you might consider the second.
An apology is not simply saying “I’m sorry.”
An apology requires acknowledging that something wrong was done, understanding why it was wrong, recognizing the harm that may have resulted, taking responsibility for it, and making a sincere effort to make amends rather than offering excuses, deflections, or justifications.
In this case, that would mean acknowledging that you wrote and published a limerick directed at a Jewish person that centered on a mohel committing genital mutilation upon him. It used a religious practice in Judaism as the vehicle for ridicule and humiliation.
You have already had a few weeks to think better of what you wrote. You now have five days remaining to publish an apology in the Davis Vanguard. There is, of course, no obligation that you do so. However, that does not mean there are no consequences to the choices one makes.
If you believe your words were inappropriate, then I invite you to say so clearly and in your own words. A genuine apology would be directed both to me and to the Jewish community. The comment was not merely offensive. It invoked a Jewish religious practice as a vehicle for ridicule and humiliation and contributes to the atmosphere of hostility and dehumanization that many Jews increasingly experience today.
Such an atmosphere develops when smears, insults, stereotypes, and demeaning portrayals directed at a vulnerable group become viewed as acceptable. Once a group can be casually ridiculed, it becomes easier to dehumanize its members. Once that dehumanization takes root, exclusion, hostility, and even violence by angry racist individuals becomes easier for such persons to rationalize.
Society rightly recognizes this danger when it affects many other vulnerable minority populations. I will not accept a double standard when it comes to Jews. I will not allow my people to be singled out for dehumanization that would be widely condemned if directed at other vulnerable groups. By any other name, such a double standard is the very nature of bigotry.
I am skeptical that such an apology will be forthcoming. Based on your articles and comments, you often appear:
• Quick to use personal insults against those with whom you disagree.
• Certain that your own conclusions are correct.
• Reluctant to acknowledge error.
• Reluctant to apologize when offense has been caused.
This is not an attempt to shut anyone down. This is to hold people accountable. Indeed, accountability is one of the reasons free speech is valuable in the first place.
I strongly support the First Amendment. One of the virtues of free speech is that it allows people to reveal themselves through their own words. People are free to express their opinions and share their thoughts, even offensive and ugly ones. Others are equally free to evaluate those opinions, criticize them, and draw conclusions, including that those opinions and thoughts themselves are offensive and ugly.
What the First Amendment protects is your right to speak without government punishment for your views. It does not provide immunity from criticism, moral judgment, reputational damage, social consequences, professional consequences, or public accountability. Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences. I advise you to take the previous few sentences to heart, Mr. Stone.
You had every right to write your limerick. I have every right to quote it, discuss it publicly, and explain why I believe it reflects poorly on you. Others have every right to read it and decide for themselves what it says about your judgment and your attitudes toward specific vulnerable minority populations.
Still, people can change. I leave open the possibility of being surprised.
This matter goes to zero. Today’s number is: 2
Mr. Stone,
RG said to you, “Please stop digging and maybe start thinking about apologizing.”
. . . #snip# . . .
. . . You now have two days remaining to publish an apology in the Davis Vanguard . . . [today, or tomorrow, Tuesday C.O.B.]
. . . #snip# . . .
Still, people can change. I leave open the possibility of being surprised.
[Note: The comment above this one should say the number is 4, not 5. There also is a comment that said the number is 3 and should have said three days but said five days but it doesn’t matter as it was to be published yesterday but was not published.]