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

I am not going to argue with people whose approach is "my interpretation of the Bible is the correct one and all the others are wrong" and who dismiss how the Bible was used for centuries to justify torture, slavery, racial segregation and all other kinds of horrors.

Look up Loving vs Virginia. It was less than 100 years ago that American judges were using the Bible to claim that God had meant for the races to remain separate.

So past interpretations of the Bible were wrong, but yours is not?

And slavery is so obviously anti Christian that it took Christianity more than 1800 years to abolish slavery?

Just because someone is on Xitter, it doesn’t mean they’re mainstream. Or popular.

Has anyone told them though ?

Good Lord, neither Trump nor any other president could stop women voting with an executive order, that is not how that works. And Trump is not a dictator, he is an elected president.

It wouldn't be impossible for the laws around voting to change, but that would not be a simple thing, it would be a massive undertaking legally. But we could say that about any law ever made.

In this case there is no public or institutional interest in that. This isn't mainstream thought, even among American conservatives - even the very conservative conservatives. Trump doesn't show any kind of interest in anything like that either.

I don't think I'm the one in cloud cuckoo land here.

Good Lord, neither Trump nor any other president could stop women voting with an executive order, that is not how that works.

Depends on SCOTUS, really. They have some interesting views on the constitution.

Let's see how SCOTUS handle the case about the 14th amendment that Trurmp "clarified" with an EO.

Remember his (and MAGAs) shtick is that unelected judges don't get to overturn THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE (sounds familiar .?).

Well, just don't ask us and don't come on a forum if you don't want us to reply ! But you are absolutely welcome to think Christianity is evil. I am against banning "Christianity-phobia" legally. Criticize all you will. Free speech and all that.

@EmmyFr it's not that I don't want you to reply, it's that it's useless to waste time with those who refuse the self evident banality that holy books have been used to conclude anything and its opposite. Also, don't talk as if your view were the standard one here!

@TempestTost I don't think anyone is saying that women are likely to lose their right to vote tomorrow. I think most people are saying it's important to remain vigilant and not to underestimate how fringe views risk becoming mainstream. Remember that that horrible book about the divine duty of the wives to let the husbands fuck them whenever they want has sold more than 2 million copies (mostly in the US). More than 2 million!

I have no interest in reading this book you mention, and I expect there's plenty in it that I, and for that matter most Christians, would disagree with. But based on your apparent lack of understanding of biblical content, context and interpretation, I'm not going to assume that your summary is any more accurate.

As it happens, I do think there are dangerous ideas out there, but I come across them in all sorts of places, including in some feminist circles and in left wing circles as well as misogynistic right wing and fundamentalist ones. So I entirely agree that husbands have no right to sex on demand with their wives, for example. It's not compatible with loving one's neighbour (which would include one's wife) as oneself, for a start. It's a good example of why fundamentalism, religious or secular, is a bad thing, because it oversimplifies ethics to a soundbite. Much the same issue as "transwomen are women".

Oh, I think my view is fairly mainstream among tenants of the 2025 Catholic Church in Western Europe. Granted, I'm more progressive than the majority (I was one of maybe 20% to walk out when a priest dutifully read a letter condemning gay marriage) but no one would dare to utter anything like "conjugal duty" or condemn women who use contraception.

And yes, holy books have been used to justify slavery, marital rape, staying in your God given place and the like. I don't think anyone's disputing that. I can't think of any ideology which hasn't been used to justify bad things, actually. Some more than others, and at some times more than at other times too.

I think my view is fairly mainstream among tenants of the 2025 Catholic Church in Western Europe

I don't think anyone has ever said that the number of fruitcakes among Western European Catholics is comparable to the number of fruitcakes among American Christians

condemn women who use contraception

Then you are not very Catholic at all, because the Catholic Church has been adamant in its condemnation of contraception

And yes, holy books have been used to justify slavery, marital rape, staying in your God given place and the like. I don't think anyone's disputing that.

Thank you for confirming the obvious

I can't think of any ideology which hasn't been used to justify bad things, actually.

Now you are shifting the goalpost. of course other ideologies have been used to justify other atrocities. That is not the point. The point was: people believing in your God and reading your holy book have in the past used it to justify all kinds of horrors. How do we know that your interpretation of the Bible now isn't wrong, too? Catholics quote scripture to justify their condemnation of homosexuality. How do we know that 100 years from now your descendants won't look at that with the same disgust with which we now look at the biblical justifications for slavery and segregation?

@RapidOnsetGenderCritic based on your apparent lack of understanding of biblical content, context and interpretation, I'm not going to assume that your summary is any more accurate.

Your poor text comprehension skills are appalling. My interpretation is irrelevant. I was simply pointing out that the same holy book has been used over time to justify anything and its opposite. You cannot deny that.

Your line of reasoning seems to be: I don't like what this person is saying, so I'm going to assume that everything else they write is wrong. Very narrow-minded, bordering on fruitcake fundamentalist

Your comprehension skills appear to be as bad as you say mine are. I doubt if there's much point in continuing, as we seem to be totally incapable of understanding each other.

Well I live in the UK some 4,500 miles away from the US and I have heard what they have to say so it’s doing what they want and now there’s a post on here about them.

They sound a bit like Amnesty International, who also called for removal,of political representation from women they disagreed with:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/11/30/amnesty-joins-the-mccarthyite-mob/

organised religion - probably all of them - has always been a means of keeping the population in its place. You can have differences of interpretation - for example people thinking that peter was the foundation of the church and should be followed - but ultimately if you really are a Christian you go back to what Christ said and did. He mixed with outcasts, he criticised the scribes and the pharisees, he told people to love their neighbour as themselves. None of that is compatible with slavery so the people who practised slavery - or who want to deny women a vote - arent Christians, whatever they claim.

I'm explaining to you why other people dont see these particular people as Christian.

@anyolddinosaur I'm explaining to you why other people dont see these particular people as Christian.

I get that. What you fail to appreciate is that, to atheist ears, this all sounds like two people reading the same book, and arguing with one saying it's green, the other arguing saying it's red. The book is the same, you are interpreting it differently, and you are getting angry that only your interpretation is correct.

Not angry at all - just pointing out that if you go back to what Jesus said, rather than what someone decided to include in a book that didnt develop it's current form until about the 3rd century AD you dont get something that supported slavery. That was something the organised church developed to justify oppression. Jesus was a reformer - atheist or not you should be capable of recognising the man for what he actually did.

I have just received a spam email that I was "chosen by God to receive a grant donation of $1.5 millions". Was that you? :)

In the USA, freedom of religion means freedom of the churches from the State.

In France, freedom of religion and secularism (laicité) means freedom of the citizens FROM religion.

Big difference.

Freedom of religion in the United States also means freedom from religion. There have been many court cases that support this freedom, including the one in which the Supreme Court held that requiring prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.

I live in the US and so I'm way closer. I've never heard of these people before now.

Lately there seems to be a new US bashing thread every day.

Well trumpeter is a weirdo less than a million miles away and I worry about what he says, does, thinks, who he listens to and what he's likely to do given half a chance.

Never have I been so delighted to be neither American or religious.

Yes, misogyny is deeply rooted in Christianity. Yes, misogyny is deeply rooted in the US. Yes, misogyny is also deeply rooted in Islam, Judaism, gender ideology, and most other religions. Most of the people here affirm and argue this all the time.

Is that the point you're trying to make? bc its the exact same point most of the people make here every day. And openly and freely making that point has gotten us chased away from Reddit, Twitter, BlueSky, etc.

So what exactly are you trying to accomplish with your post then?

Not angry either. By definition a book can be interpreted many ways. Mine isn't necessarily the "right" one but it makes me happy and it's definitely very mainstream in the Church I belong to (which I would leave this minute if it started advocating for stoning homosexuals).

The only "right" interpretation is the author's (and even that's debatable: who's to stop me from supporting the North after reading Gone with the wind, even though it clearly wasn't Mitchell's goal?). In the Gospel's case, Jesus, who was indeed as @anyolddinosaur has pointed out a reformer and fighter for rights (including poor people and women's rights!).

@RitaIncognita Freedom of religion in the United States also means freedom from religion. There have been many court cases that support this freedom, including the one in which the Supreme Court held that requiring prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.

I disagree. The historical context is different, and it shows. It is no coincidence that the constitutions of some US states still ban atheists from holding office. The bans are unenforceable after a Supreme Court ruling, but they're still there.

In fact, if we move from theory to practice, it is no coincidence that a non-religious politician stands virtually zero chance of being elected in the US

Yes, misogyny is deeply rooted in Christianity

Because Christianity became the state religion of the deeply misogynistic Romans. Who presumably ended up approving of it's basis on the deeply misogynistic Judaism.