This is neat to see how the author is noting the various intersections that is occurring within and because of their body.

I did not realize that there was a distinction between these two things. I was under the impression that they were used synonymously with each other.

I think this is hugely important to note and understand because we as society love to hear about how people with disabilities overcome them or successfully assimilate into able-bodied society. It seems that no one ever really wants to look past the success and see what are the systemic issues that prevented full inclusion of people with disabilities from being fully included in the first place. So I wonder what our headlines would look like if we included the different social parameters that prevented people with disabilities from succeeding. I wonder if more people would be moved to write and call their legislators if they just had more information.

This passage was interesting to me because it suggests that God is using pain as a way to correct the immoral aspects of society. What really struck me, though, is the way that this type of logic and thinking are the underpinnings to a lot of other harmful things such as rape culture in which the Church has unfortunately contributed greatly. It seems like this quote and the theology supporting it would also make sense with the platitude "everything happens for a reason" that people's pain that they are experiencing now is for a reason, whether it is because they have sinned and are being punished or because God is going to bless them greatly in heaven/the afterlife.

I think that it is really cool that churches have programs like this that are specifically geared toward people with disabilities. What is frustrating to me about this is that I wish instead of having a special designated Sunday to focus on people with disabilities, how are churches making their services more inclusive to people who have disabilities? How can churches really be the body of Christ when a good portion are only included one Sunday a month? It was also frustrating that it seemed like the volunteers who were working with Sal and the other folks with disabilities were using them as a way to make themselves look good and to make themselves feel good. This part and the story that followed felt like exploitation of the vulnerable.

For me, this premise was hard for me to digest because I would argue that because of Mary and Jesus' suffering, people who are sick and suffering can relate to these biblical characters better than other people in the Catholic faith. I also would disagree with this point because both in Matthew and Mark (who comprise 2/3 synoptic gospels, meaning that Matthew, Mark, and Luke can be read about 90% accurately if you put all three of them together, with Mark being the first and original text that most biblical scholars agree came first in about 70 CE) when Jesus is being crucified and is dying, he lets out two cries, the first in anguish to God of asking why he has been forsaken and the second happened before he took his last breath (according to what is written in the texts and the surface level research). It is incredibly harmful to assume that Jesus and Mary never complained when Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, and really felt pain and suffering. And even though it is not written explicitly in the gospels, there has to be some inference that what Jesus and Mary felt and experienced during his crucifixion and death were very painful and raw emotions. I would be interested to see how if instead of using these two characters as a way to guilt people about their suffering, if it was used as a tool to help those who are suffering know that they are not alone in their suffering and sickness.

This quote talks a lot about what women choose to do to their bodies and how the present them to society, but I wonder what LaVey's and Douglas' position would be in instances of rape or sexual assault where women are not choosing these events for themselves but they are being done to her? Or is this a product of their context where sexual assault and rape were considered taboo and the mindset was around victim blaming that women wanted these things to happen to them?

It would be really interesting to see what Sigmund Freud's interpretation of LaVey's understanding of this because much of his theory focused around the unconscious and the conflict between the id, ego, and superego.

I am not sure if this was intentional or not, but I think it is important to note the ways in which the term "witch" has been used historically. The Salem Witch Trials back in the 1600s were a way in which men could control women who were deviating from the social norm. If a woman was living by herself without a man, they would be more likely to be considered a 'witch' than those who were living with their husbands or other men. So to me, not only is "The Satanic Witch" a title about female Satanists, but I also wonder if it is a play on the term witch in which women are empowered to be strong and dominant forces rather than submissive to men.

I thought this passage was particularly interesting as it utilizes reverse gender norms and gender roles and turns it on its head as a way in which to empower instead of suppress women. Again, manipulation is never good, however, I think LaVey in a way is highlighting an ideal world that women who are witches should strive toward in order to be fully complete within this religious structure.