American Christian pastors saying women shouldn't vote

[CForCake]

After the Muslim fruitcake telling women to open their legs whenever their husbands want https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5421819-secular-society-new-report-religious-charities-promoting-misogyny

we now have two American Christian pastors saying women shouldn't vote.

This guy said women shouldn't vote, because they voted for a mayor of New York he doesn't like (the 19th amendment is the one which gave women the right to vote)

x.com/dalepartridge/status/1986083514580943272?s=42

This other guy said we should take away women's right to vote, because "their desires are wicked".

Remember, it's not Muslims in Afghanistan saying these things - it's Christians in the USA. https://x.com/rightresponsem/status/1986101502738305270

@Pharazon There were plenty of reasons to dislike Mamdani which had nothing to do with whether he believes in some deity, nor in which one specifically.

I'm in the US and I promise you no one would ever take these nut bags seriously.

Let me give you all a little US civics lesson. Womens right to vote is ratified in our constitution (19th amendment) which would be a monumental thing to undo.

Most of the laws protecting civil rights (laws protecting people from discrimination) is US law through an act of congress, but not necessarily written into our constitution.

Congress can vote to undo laws, and Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional, but once something is actually written into our constitution the only way to u do it is for 2/3 of both house and senate to vote and then 3/4 of us states to ratify it.

So, no sane person - even far-right would ever take this seriously.

@ThatZanyFatball Let me give you all a little US civics lesson.

Maybe you didn't mean it, but if you frame it this way you sound incredibly patronising and condescending

You will notice that no one claimed that American women are at risk of losing their right to vote any time soon.

But these nutjobs shouldn't be underestimated, and should still be called out for what they are.

Also, rights are always taken for granted until they aren't so granted anymore.

10 years ago how many people would have believed that a US President would have so blatantly violated the law, tried to have his political opponents prosecuted, deported innocent people despite rulings to keep them in the country, etc etc etc?

Lastly, these are fringe nutjobs, but evangelicals are not fringe. There is a degree of misogyny and patriarchy deep rooted in evangelical movements, and that affects millions of Americans.

So, no sane person - even far-right would ever take this seriously.

That's what everyone thought about Trump in the US and Farage and Brexit in the UK.

But if you have senior politicians promoting links to these out to lunch ideas it is frightening how quickly they become the norm.

ie saying out loud things that you thought nobody would say any more.

And given voting systems it doesn't have to be a majority, who think something but enough people prepared to vote.

Anti women far right fringe views like those of people of colour & Jews are being promoted in the mainstream tho as evidenced by the promotion of Nicholas Fuentes (a huge proponent) being on all major right wing podcasts like Tucker Carleson, Candace Owens, Patrick Bett David & Dave Smith as well as on Twitter by Elon Musk & Alex Jones with the NYT also taking part where he openly blames the 'degradation' of society on women's rights. Whilst I agree in the unlikelihood of voting rights changing, the Overton Window has been moved significantly in this direction of what is socially acceptable 'discussion' which can only mean anti women sentiment spreading to the masses.

Any alliance with the far right only strengthens their legitimacy & by extension their influence so its important not to give them an inch regardless of their purported interest in protecting women's rights.

These people are delusional. The whole effing point of Jesus is that he's the great leveller; male/ female, Jew/ gentile, rich/ poor.

The story of the woman who got remarried to 7 brothers after they kept dying childless - no one's married to her in heaven, because everyone is equal and their own person.

Paul does say some slightly archaic things about wives and husbands, but you just can't read the Bible in the context of 2000 years ago 🙄

That's a petty niche view in the US.

Women in the US are free to not vote for religious reasons (as are men.)

However they are perfectly entitled to vote and encouraged to do so by society in general. Whatever their pastors or anyone else tells them, it's clear that they ave the legal right to vote and anyone that tries to stop them is guilty of an offence.

@AtomHeartMotherOfGod Paul does say some slightly archaic things about wives and husbands, but you just can't read the Bible in the context of 2000 years ago

Well, you can. That's the problem with holy books: they have been used to justify anything and its opposite. It is no coincidence that the pro-slavery and the anti-slavery were both Christians, reading the same Bible

Sadiq Khan and the 9/11 terrorists read the same Quran. Yet one is a left-wing liberal, while the others were deranged murderers.

You do know the law in the US (as in other countries) can be changed.

Or is you get a dictator like Trump in charge then the Executive Order means there isn't a debate.

How many people who thought they had a legal right to aid / benefits have now found that one man has denied them that right.

People who have every right to be in the US have been deported.

Do you listen to the news? Or are you living in cloud cuckoo land?

Hard agree. Which is why as a Catholic I have a strict ordering of Scriptures : anything in the Gospel (basically, Jesus) supersedes anything in the current teaching of the Church which supersedes anything in the rest of the New Testament which itself supersedes anything in the Old Testament.

As to these looners, they should go have a look at their own desires and I would bet these are pretty wicked.

If only the Rapture had actually happened on the 23rd September and snatched all these dickheads up to Heaven.

I feel like I want to say not all evangalists. I know some incredible feminist women evangilist pastors.

I think the worry is it is an overton window thing. Views are gradually being pushed in this sexist, patriachal direction.

Also see trad wives, home schooling, big families, abortion laws, surragacy. It is the loss of women's autonmy over their bodies, their ability to independently earn and exert control in their lives.

@EmmyFr As to these looners, they should go have a look at their own desires and I would bet these are pretty wicked.

Do you remember the story of that male Hungarian MEP, in Orban's antigay party, caught with his pants down in an orgy with 20 men?

@ThatZanyFatball Are you familiar with the book Love and Respect: The Love She Most Desires; The Respect He Desperately Needs ?
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56405.Love_and_Respect
Sold more than 2 million copies. Very popular in American Christian circles.

A key message of the book is that the wife must obey the husband, satisfy his sexual appetites, and that denying him sex would be sinful.
When books with this kind of messages sell more than 2 million copies, you can no longer dismiss Christian misogyny as a small, fringe, unrepresentative movement.

What the heck is your point @CForCake ? I'm an atheist, and most, but not all, of the people post here are not religious either. Do you want me to condemn evangelicalism? Certainly, condemned. But this is the US and individuals are free to practice whatever religion they choose (including gender ideology). But they're not allowed to force it upon others (including gender ideology). Evangelicals aren't allowed to deny anyone, including their wives and children, their legally protected civil rights in the name of their religion, just like Muslims or gender ideologues. Do many persistently try anyway? Yes. Do many get away with it anyway? yes. Do many defend them in the name of cultural understanding and acceptance? Yes. Is it any more acceptable or any different across cases? no. So please, enlighten us all and just state your freaking point.

@ThatZanyFatball Why so aggressive??

You dismissed the pastors arguing women shouldn't vote as unrepresentative. That they may be, but I was trying to show that misogyny is deep rooted in US Christianity, and that those loonies are simply the extreme version of a misogyny which is not unrepresentative at all in the US.

Can we agree on this?

@CForCake I do remember this case. And the many priests in my own Church (for shame) . And the Republican homophobe caught out soliciting a male prostitute. I stand by my point that the most extreme, loudest virtue preachers are usually the most unhealthy and they often have something to hide.

It is actually also true in many political parties. Or with "feminist allies" who really like to "support" young women, if possible many of them.

I also agree with your last message.

Sure, but poor old dottie has a problem with him specifically because he is muslim, as she does with Sadiq Khan. Any thread on London she is right in there railing against him, despite admitting she having zero recent experience of living there or even visiting.

There may be more than one way to read the Bible but Christians are supposed to believe in Christ. How do you interpret "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these" to justify slavery? (deliberate use of American spelling)

Add to that "No one comes to the Father except through me" and see that it overrides anything in the Old Testament.

Those justifying slavery were never Christians.

How do you interpret all the verse on slavery, not just in the Old Testament but in the new one, too, where Christ tells slaves to submit to their masters? It's always the same old story: holy books contain everything and their opposite, and the religious pick and choose whatever works to justify their preconceptions.

If you mean Luke 17, the master is God and the slaves (servants) are us human beings, as is the case in many other paraboles. It does not mean that slavery is good.

Slaves, submit to your master

https://biblehub.com/1_peter/2-18.htm

Unless Peter was remarkably naive, he must have known that a slave's submission to the master and showing respect to him, included sexual obedience to him. Consent not asked for or expected. Oddly, the terms submission and respect are those used by some preachers of wives.
There is a portion of my brain which I usually keep under control and it is presently jumping up and down like Rumpelstiltskin, demanding that I use more appropriate words of the men who argue like this. I'm not going to. Please fill in with a fitting expletive. Expletive this for a game of soldiers. They are preaching the reduction of beings created in the image of God* to little more than animated chamber pots.
*Genesis 1, Genesis later on, which does not say Eve is in God's image, instead calls her a helpmeet, which does not mean a skivvy. The word in Hebrew is also used of God Himself, and means a fitting help.
He's still jumping. The expletive editors stuck misogyny in (not Paul, a pseudo-Paul) and then expletive cherry pick the bits which suit their expletive views of manhood.

Christ, or Peter? And Peter was advising people on how to live as a Christian in the culture in which they lived. Servants and slaves often had little or no choice about obeying orders, but had to make the best of a very difficult situation. Taking this as a command which a Christian must obey is a very fundamentalist interpretation; but I've often noticed that the most militant atheists seem unable to understand the Bible in any other way.

There is a difference between evangelical and fundamentalist, certainly in the UK. Many evangelicals are far from fundamentalist in their understanding of the Bible, and do not see it as a set of rules that must be obeyed, nor as a single text which must be understood as literally as possible. Most evangelicals accept that the writers of the various books and letters are writing from within their cultures, though their writings are sometimes counter-cultural, and that the Bible is not one single simplistic "instruction manual" but contains different philosophical perspectives, and each Christian has to work out what is ethical, or in theological terms what it means to love God and their neighbour.

Peter, not Christ. If the owner was Christian they wouldnt have slaves.
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free"

In whose head did anyone think quoting scriptures on a feminist online forum would be of any relevance!

This is about politics.

This is about how even if an idea is clearly bonkers if those who get into power want to push their beliefs onto others they will do so.

Look at Green Councils (and some Labour ones) in the UK pushing TWAW.