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

The USA are a country which hasn't normalised irreligion and where there is still a huge stigma against the non-religious.

I agree that irreligion has not been normalized in the US in the way that it has been for a long time in the UK. But there is not a "huge stigma" against the non-religious for the most part, even here in the Deep South, aka the Bible Belt, where I have lived most of my life.

Surveys, polls, and other forms of data show a continuing decline in religious affiliation and attendance at religious services in the US and more people identifying as non-affiliated.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/697676/drop-religiosity-among-largest-world.aspx

Because it was a bad judgement, as was known at the time. Abortion isn't protected in the American constitution as an element of privacy. It was a political judgement.

Just because a judgement has an outcome you like doesn't mean that it's a strong legal argument.

I am always a little surprised that people think it is a good idea to support political judgements when they have effects they like. It's a massively two-edged sword.

@RitaIncognita In Congress there is only 1 member who is a humanist, and 3 unaffiliated. the 21 who refused to answer may be atheists who are too terrified to come out.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/01/02/faith-on-the-hill-2025/

It seems to me that the religious are over-represented in US politics, and the irreligious under-represented.

What matters is what their actual beliefs are not whether they're religious.
I'm happy to vote for liberal Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc as long as they're committed to secular democracy.
You seem to think religion is the original sin.

@Imnobody4 You seem to think religion is the original sin.

Can you please explain why you say that?

Can you please explain how you can read me saying

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

and use that to interpret that I think religion is the original sin? What does that even mean, anyway?

It was a judgement of it's time. When the more federal nature of the US was in the ascendant and it seemed perfectly within the concept of federalisation that abortion should be a federal issue.

Then the see-saw moved and state's right supposedly ascended again. I say supposed because I somehow can't see the current administration respecting any blue states rights in anything. One of the clear bells ringing of fascism creeping.

We in the UK don't have the faintest idea of federal government and how it works. For better or for worse. Although the natural disinclination to EuroFederalism tells a tale.

(As Tony Benn pointed out, there are other systems that can allow different countries to join together. A commonwealth, for example).

You obviously do care what people think why else would you start this thread? It's predicated on critising Evangelical Christians without any nuance at all. You've even started another thread on that book you mention earlier.
Misogyny and the oppression of women is universal and ever present.
I think it's highly likely that everyone on this board is against religious fundamentalisms of all stripes and non religious beliefs around sex work is real work etc.
A PP asked what you wanted to achieve, you didn't answer. I think you're just trying to lure Christians in so you can quote your non contextual bits from the Bible. It's an irritating game.
The backlash against feminism is coming from mutiple angles and sources.
I don't think stupid tweets are in the same category as Imam's speaking in mosques and Sharia councils in the UK.

I'm Canadian, I am quite comfortable with the idea of federal vs state areas of responsibility. I do feel people in the UK struggle with this, which is surprising to me given that they have, for example, a Scottish parliament, as well as the experience of being part of Europe which is a similar kind of separation of powers. They are good examples to compare, not only in terms of how they function, but how people in those places feel about them. A Spaniard might have an identity as a European and believe in the European project, but at the same time it could be a very differernt story if he thought that national sovereignty was being compromised.

I think the US is in a period of flux around the roles of the different legs of government, as well as the federal vs state powers, and this was probably inevitable. (I suspect Canada will see this as well eventually though not in as extreme a way.) There has been too much, in the US, of courts, including the SC, taking on issues that really should be dealt with through legislation. While at the same time both the legislative and executive branches have been impotent to act where it seemed to be the desire of the public. Some of the stuff the Trump administration is trying seems far out, but to me it could be a place where a better balance is negotiated - if so it will take time though.

I have come to think another really major differernce between the US and Canada on the one hand, and the UK on the other, is the latter has maintained the supremacy of Parliament. Whereas in the former nations, the constitution is supreme, and even the courts in some ways. I think this has and has had huge implications for the law and society, and I think Canada was very foolish to take on the American model on this - it can't go anywhere good imo.

I do feel people in the UK struggle with this, which is surprising to me given that they have, for example, a Scottish parliament, as well as the experience of being part of Europe which is a similar kind of separation of powers

Yeah, about that ,,,,

@Imnobody4 You still haven't explained how you could interpret

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

into me thinking religion is the original sin.

I'll ask again: can you please explain?
Have I been offensive towards religious people?
Have I made any generalisation?
Is it too much to ask you how you reached that conclusion??

Your deafening silence might be mistaken for an implicit admission that you made it up but won't admit it...

You've even started another thread on that book you mention earlier.

Yes. And?

A PP asked what you wanted to achieve, you didn't answer.

Because it's a waste of time to answer silly questions from aggressive trolls.
I think the posts are on topic for the forum.
If you are not interested, ignore them.
If you think they are off topic, report them to the mods.
If the mods disagree with you, suck it up, love

I think you're just trying to lure Christians in so you can quote your non contextual bits from the Bible. It's an irritating game.

I did not quite my choice of verses to push my interpretation of the Bible. I simply highlighted that the Bible contains many contradictions, and that it has been used to justify anything and its opposite. This much is factual. You may not like it but you cannot deny it. It is factual that it was used to justify slavery and segregation.

@TempestTost FWIW I think the US Constitutional framework is a dysfunctional mess.

Modifying the US Constitution is too hard, which is one of the reasons why the Supreme Court has too much power.

It is an aberration that Supreme Justices are appointed for life, are politicised, and time their resignation so that a like-minded justice is more likely to be appointed. This makes a mockery of the principle of impartiality. It's the stuff of failed states.

In the UK Germany Italy France etc no one knows who the supreme judges are, and that's a good thing.

The system of midterm election is madness. Recipe for paralysis and disaster.

The government shutdown is another idiocy.

The US don't realise how much shit they get away with just for being the US, and what the reactions would be if the same shit happened elsewhere.
Federal workers not getting paid because political parties cannot reach an agreement? Flights cancelled because flight controllers are expected to show up for work while they are not getting paid? Imagine if that happened elsewhere...

Well yes.

But you'd think that might give some insight into the desire for the federal government to stay in its lane.

The disagreements in the UK about the interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 demonstrate just how difficult it is to interpret any text or group of texts, even when they have been written in legal language with the express purpose of providing legal clarity. Laws, and also constitutions, are open to attempts to interpret them according to various different biases.

The Bible (and this applies to other religious and philosophical texts too, and scientific papers, and novels and other fictional works) was not written in legal language, with every phrase pored over by people trying to draft unambiguous law. It is therefore ridiculous to expect it to contain nothing that is not open to attempts to interpret them according to various different biases. By all means criticise fundamentalist, or indeed other, interpretations which try to justify misogyny, or racism, or whatever else you find particularly offensive. But to dismiss a text on the basis that it fails to do what it never set out to do is in itself a fundamentalist type of approach.

The Bible was written by many different people with many different perspectives, though they did have in common a belief in one God (albeit with differing understandings and emphases). You should therefore expect a degree of contradiction between them. The Koran is a bit different, as I think it is claimed to have been written by one person by direct revelation from Allah, so internal contradictions should not exist.

It is not a standard understanding of Christianity (or of Judaism concerning the Jewish scriptures) that the Bible was dictated by God to the various authors. Each author is expressing their own understanding, and interpretation of the whole canon of scripture (in itself not universally agreed) depends on some balance of the different viewpoints expressed within it. Hence the theological arguments about, for example, predestination (the idea that God determines everything) and free will (which is implied by the concept of a choice between good and evil behaviours). Similar arguments about fate and free will occur in many other contexts, including in Greek and Latin literature. The Bible is not a substitute for deep thought about the various knotty problems collectively known as the human condition, but more a set of of philosophical (or "theological" as the presumption of God permeates it) discussions and stories which centre a faith response. You may not see value in that, but many people do. Fundamentalists make, in my opinion, a fundamental mistake about the nature of their Scriptures.

"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.«

Misogyny as far as I'm concerned is the original sin. You are attaching it specifically to US Christianity, I attach it to human evolution, it's been evident in the earliest roots of humanity. Currently the unholy alliance between fundamentalist Islam and the left is a far greater threat than these grifters.

"If you are not interested, ignore them.
If you think they are off topic, report them to the mods.
If the mods disagree with you, suck it up, love"

I'll leave you to continue letting me think what I want. By the way expressing a viewpoint isn't imposing it on anyone else. This is a discussion forum.

@Imnobody4 Misogyny as far as I'm concerned is the original sin. You are attaching it specifically to US Christianity, I attach it to human evolution

I don't understand what you mean by me "attaching it"
If you mean that I think misogyny is present only in Christianity, and nowhere else, you're wrong.
If you mean something else, I didn't understand what.

Currently the unholy alliance between fundamentalist Islam and the left is a far greater threat than these grifters

In the UK, probably.
In the US, where there are fewer Muslims, fewer atheists, and way more fundamentalist Christians, no, I think that fruitcake Christianity is a much greater risk there.

@RapidOnsetGenderCritic Laws, and also constitutions, are open to attempts to interpret them according to various different biases.

Sure, which is precisely why Christians should appreciate that their interpretation of the Bible is only one of many.

Look, I wasn't trying to argue for a specific interpretation of the Bible, but simply that the Bible has been used to justify anything and its opposite, so I see no reason to give any weight to how some Christians are interpreting the Bible today.

For example, when they say that same-sex marriages should be illegal because that's in the Bible, my reply is that the Bible was used in the past to justify slavery and segregation, we now view those past interpretations as repugnant, so who's to say that our great-grandchildren won't view the biblical prohibition on same-sex acts the same way we now view the biblical justifications for slavery?

The other point is that your Bible contains horrors that would make Hitler and Stalin seem like boyscouts. Genocides rapes slavery etc. That is the word of your god?

I was right the first time. You seem totally unable to understand or engage with what I have said. It is not my Bible. "That is the word of your god?" is absolutely based on a fundamentalist mindset about the Bible, and it implies that all Christians see the Bible as "the Word of Gaaad" in US extreme fundamentalist style. This is just not true.

@RapidOnsetGenderCritic I was right the first time. You seem totally unable to understand or engage with what I have said. It is not my Bible.

No, you were not. For the nth time, I do not care what your interpretation of the Bible is.
I do not care if you consider it the word of God, or how many instead do.

I merely notice that Christianity and the Bible have been used, over time, to justify anything and its opposite, including plenty of monstrosities like slavery and segregation. Or are you trying to deny these self-evident historical facts?

The corollary is that, every time a Christian makes an appeal to natural law, religion, God, the Bible, etc, to justify their interpretation of morality now, my question to them is: people using your same approach have got it so badly wrong in the past, why should we be thinking you are getting it right now?

Please, please, tell me what is wrong or fundamentalist about this. Please, do tell me.

Lets see - you start a thread about someone with a tiny number of followers and on that skimpy base try to build an edifice criticising the Christian religion.

You post comments like "The USA were settled by religious crazies whom 17th century Europeans found too crazy! OK, I'm over-simplifying, but you get the gist" but apparently that isnt criticisng their religion but their attempt to force it on others - when actually they fled from others who tried to force different views on them.

You talk about misogyny as if it developed from religion but it's probably been around since men stopped being apes. It certainly is not unique to people who profess a religious faith. Richard Dawkins has certainly made some very misogynist comments and most religions when founded did actually try to improve the lot of women even if it was only from treated appallingly to treated slightly less appallingly.

So yes, militant atheist.

@anyolddinosaur Lets see - you start a thread about someone with a tiny number of followers and on that skimpy base try to build an edifice criticising the Christian religion.

??? Skimpy base? The loonies saying that women shouldn't vote have only a handful of followers, true. The book Love and Respect has sold more than 2million copies and has been forced down women's throats for 20 years. Skimpy base? Methinks not

I have talked about all the abuse scandals among US Evangelicals. Skimpy base? You either don't know what you're talking about, or you are guilty of intentionally minimising religious misogyny.

You talk about misogyny as if it developed from religion but it's probably been around since men stopped being apes

Where on earth would I have said that? Either you are arguing in outright bad faith, or you have the text comprehension skills of a 5 year old. Either way, you should apologise. Calling out misogyny in religion does not mean religion invented misogyny. What is this whataboutery? Are we not allowed to call out misogyny in religion because... it exists elsewhere, too???

Richard Dawkins has certainly made some very misogynist comments

Yes. And? Have I idealised Dawkins in any way? Have I denied or minimised his misogyny? I remember the "Dear Muslima" case well, where she criticised a woman who had been harassed at an atheist conference.

What does Dawkins have to do with me? I am an atheist, so you bring up an atheist who was misogynistic. And so bloody what???

most religions when founded did actually try to improve the lot of women even if it was only from treated appallingly to treated slightly less appallingly

This is a most debatable statement on which we'll have to agree to disagree. Most feminists certainly disagree with you on this. What is the basis for this conclusion, what makes you say that?

So yes, militant atheist.

You are a militant anti-atheist who put stuff in my mouth I had never said.
I actively dislike the new atheists' arrogance and approach. They have said some good things but, on balance, I think they have done more damage than good to the atheist cause.

Out of curiosity, what is your definition of a non-militant atheist? I mean, I dislike the new atheists and you call me militant. Surely you are not implying that the only good atheists are those who keep their mouths shut, are you?