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

@SerendipityJane Yes, but it's not that it's the Romans' fault, as if the Romans were misogynistic while other civilisations weren't.

Religions are human inventions, so of course they will reflect the times in which they were created.

Oh quite.

However is it appropriate to call it "misogyny" ? It may look like it to us, because we have different views on how the worlds is compared to them. They certainly would not have seen themselves as misogynist as we do. They would have said men are men, women are women so of course they are different. And in a world where direct military skill is what buys you status, that can only end one way.

It may look like it to us, because we have different views on how the worlds is compared to them. They certainly would not have seen themselves as misogynist as we do.

Yes. Which is why I am more interested in improving things now, than in casting moral judgements on past events and past civilisations.

It's also why I find all the arguments about religious morality bs: because the religious cannot justify all the past horrors committed in the name of religion, unless they introduce an element of moral relativity which clashes with the very foundation of absolute, divine morality. It is funny to hear Christians tying themselves up in knots to justify slavery in the past, for example

Is religion a short term fix for longer term problems ?

Or a persistent fix applied to ephemeral situations ?

I think I find militant atheists as tiresome as militant believers. It's why I never warmed to Richard Dawkins.

@Imnobody4 Agreed. Dawkins has also been misogynistic in the past. Do you remember the "Dear Muslina" story, where she berated a woman who said she was approached or harassed (I don't remember the details) at an atheist conference?

By the way, has anything I have said made you think I am a "militant atheist" comparable to Dawkins?

My approach is, very banally, I don't care what you think, as long as you don't impose it on anyone else.

Dawkins' approach is more or less: you are wrong and I am smarter than you.

Most philosophers are atheists, but dislike Dawkins and the like precisely because they are arrogant and ignorant on many of the topics they talk about.

And I disagree with you.

The very first provision of the First Amendment of the US Constitution is the anti-establishment clause. It's true that some states and local governments have enacted laws that violate this clause, which is why there is a large body of jurisprudence on the subject.

The provisions of the First Amendment in order are:

1. No established religion
2. Free exercise of religion
3. Freedom of speech
4. Freedom of the press
5. Freedom of assembly
6. Freedom to petition the government

Some atheists seem to give more weight to the woo they decry than the religious ...

You need a SCOTUS to enforce that though.

You need a SCOTUS to enforce that though.

Well yes, of course, which is why I made the point about a large body of jurisprudence.

You can have all the jurisprudence in the world. But it won't count for a hill o'beans if courts decide not to bother with it.

Seems some have forgotten that SCOTUS corrected Roe v. Wade.

@CForCake Yes you do sound like a militant atheist. I dont belong to any church but I can recognise what is good and bad about different religions. You are refusing to acknowledge any good in any religion - and that makes you as dogmatic as any evangelical Christian.

By the way, has anything I have said made you think I am a "militant atheist" comparable to Dawkins?

Would you be offended to be invited to a wedding in a church ?

What do you all think of what religious fundamentalists in your own country are saying about women? It's not as if we don't have religious fundamentalists here.

I haven't forgotten, and I vehemently disagree with the decision in Dobbs.

The difficulty with abortion rights contrasted with the right to be free from religion is that Roe was decided based on a reading of the Constitution that held that certain provisions of the Bill of Rights created a "penumbra" of rights, including a right of privacy that afforded abortion rights, even though there is no privacy right specifically mentioned. The current court has a majority of strict constuctionists of the constitution who rely primarily on the literal text of the constitution for interpretation.

The anti-establishment clause is literal text and therefore less likely to be eroded by strict sonctructionists.

Or even more mainstream religious folk who object to a female Archbishop of Canterbury?

@anyolddinosaur Yes you do sound like a militant atheist. I dont belong to any church but I can recognise what is good and bad about different religions. You are refusing to acknowledge any good in any religion - and that makes you as dogmatic as any evangelical Christian.

???????
Could I please kindly ask you to explain what on Earth led you to this conclusion??

I criticised Dawkins, said I find him too aggressive and arrogant, I said that my approach is I don't care what other people believe as long as they don't impose their beliefs, and your understanding is that I "refuse to acknowledge any good in religion"???????

Where, where would I have said that?

Have I made any generalisation on believers?

Have I said or implied that nothing good can ever come out of religion?

Where would I have said any of that??

@SerendipityJane Would you be offended to be invited to a wedding in a church ?

?????????

What makes you say that??

There is a difference between a civilised disagreement, and making up the most outlandish bullshit, putting in people's mouth the exact opposite of what they had said.

So now saying that religions are human inventions, that they were historically rooted in misogyny because those were the times, pointing out factual, undeniable examples of how holy books have been used to justify slavery segregation etc, pointing out the inconsistencies in holy books makes me... a militant atheist who refuses to acknowledge any good in religion and who'd be offended if invited to a religious wedding???

What makes you say that?

Well the presence of the "?" suggests it was a desire to know. Not sure how else to do it in English.

By the same logic, I presume you would have no objection if someone asked you: "have you killed and tortured those who disagree with you?". You know, the question mark suggests a desire to know, not sure how else to do it in English...

@RitaIncognita if what you say is so clear as you say it is, why is it that only in 1961 (Torcaso v. Watkins ) did the Supreme Court rule that a ban on atheists holding office was unconstitutional? Shouldn't that have been self evident since the beginning?

And till the late 1950s judges were still relying on biblical interpretations that God meant for the races to be separate in their rulings which punished inter-racial couples?

Remember that the late Charlie Kirk, the community college drop out who made a career out of trolling clueless college students but got his ass handed out to him at Oxford and Cambridge, repeatedly said he doesn't believe in the separation of Church and State, and his view is becoming more mainstream. He is becoming a bit of a martyr since he was shot and killed by that lunatic.

Again, think of the fact that admitting to being non religious would be political suicide for any politician in the US. That's quite the biggie. I think we too often forget how backward the US are on this, and how much more advanced many European countries are on this

By the same logic, I presume you would have no objection if someone asked you: "have you killed and tortured those who disagree with you?".

Well I don't object to you using it as a hypothetical, so I guess by the same token I wouldn't object were someone to ask me.

I might get a tad spiky if they didn't believe my answer. But that is another matter.

Again, think of the fact that admitting to being non religious would be political suicide for any politician in the US.

The trick is just not to say it thought. Doesn't matter what you actually do.

@SerendipityJane Yes, and many in fact claim they are Unitarian, because that's one of the "loosest" churches. But you see my point, don't you? The USA are a country which hasn't normalised irreligion and where there is still a huge stigma against the non-religious. It's hardly surprising, then, this stigma will filter through in how laws are interpreted and applied.

The USA rather unwisely believed it's own hype. I think the story of Britain should have warned them. However when you define your entire existence by "not being Britain" it's rather hard to then learn lessons from them.

The vast majority of pre revolution settlers moved to the US because their brand of whackadoodlery was either persecuted against (so European protestants) or nowhere near as batshit as they would have liked (like the pilgrim fathers).

Either way the notion that the US was formed by a bunch of folks who were genuinely concerned about the religious freedom of others is a complete crock. The US was founded by a bunch of rich white folks who really really really hated paying any tax and who were lucky enough to find enough people to take up arms believing they were fighting for "freedom". Whatever that is.

And now, 250 years later it seems the check has been bought to the table.

Is one way of looking at it.

Also this is changing, but slowly I admit. There have been members of Congress and state elected officials who are non-religious. None identify as atheists as far as I know, but there are "Humanists" and those who identify with "no religious affiliation."