Dear evangelical, bible-thumping whackos:
Take your church teachings about "wifely submission and male headship", fold them into a point and shove them neatly up your ass. I realize you’ll probably have to maneuver around your head, but give it a try – God would want you to.
Now go fuck off.
Yours in endless disgust,
P.S. These people really are insane (emphasis all mine).
There are more blatant examples of excusing abusive male authority among stricter proponents of complementarianism and submission theology. In June 2007, professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Bruce Ware told a Texas church that women often bring abuse on themselves by refusing to submit. And Debi Pearl, half of a husband-and-wife fundamentalist child-training ministry as well as author of the bestselling submission manual, Created to Be His Help Meet, writes that submission is so essential to God’s plan that it must be followed even to the point of allowing abuse. "When God puts you in subjection to a man whom he knows is going to cause you to suffer," she writes, "it is with the understanding that you are obeying God by enduring the wrongful suffering."
I need a martini (made with Vodka) as big as my head – it’s noon somewhere.
"Created to Be His Help Meet?"
Satire is dead.
These people are dangerous. Simply dangerous.
These men and their helpmeets are holdovers from the days 'western' civilization legalized throughout Europe and the Americas the attitude they're espousing. If treating women as infantile property without even the protection offered to animals by the SPCA was good enough for their great grandfathers, it's good enough for them. And I'm sure they pass those sentiments back and forth on their Blackberries.
Sadly, there are no chains so strong as those the slaves internalize. Makes for a lot less work by the masters. But hey, we're in Afghanistan fighting for the freedom of women. As long as it's women 'over there' and they don't get *too much freedom*.
...[female] submission is so essential to God’s plan...
Literally true. Is there a church on earth that would run smoothly if it had no women tithing, making coffee in the basement, and teaching the kiddies?
Where we differ is how we feel about the plan.
Is it just me or did Debi actually intend to write a book titled "Created to Be His Help Meat"?
It's nice to have a system that answers all your questions, ... when you're a complete fucking moron too stupid to think of anything yourself.
God wants women to submit! This is true. Why else did He invent lube.
I miss the days when Christian churches just counseled parents to beat their kids to death.
Yes, that was satire, for fuck's sake.
Children are born evil, so you have to beat the hell out of them.
I seriously don't understand how so-called Christians can focus on one line from Paul so intently, and ignore the central message of Jesus - to love and honour one another.
And furthermore, Paul's rule/suggestion may have made some sense back in those days. Take it in context. I mean, do we take the rules to let no witch live and apply it today? No. So seriously, wtf?
I really have a hard time with these people.
More than that -- my seriously scholarly minister, who loves real theology, preferably in Latin or German, and is happiest in the 14th century, told us in no uncertain terms that Paul didn't write those "women mustn't speak or teach" bits in Corinthians, that they were stuck in afterwards.
Noni, yeah, I completely agree with him. A number of scholars have concluded that. However, trying to get the nutbar fundies to believe that the Bible isn't exactly perfect in every little way is nigh on impossible, so I don't even attempt to quibble with things like... oh, facts. :)
And the difference between these clowns who call themselves "good God fearing people" and the Taliban is what exactly?
I was raised Catholic, and now where in my teachings was I taught that a man is superior to a woman, in any way shape or form. These simplteons are twisting the Book to further their own power, nothing more... Not unlike what the Catholic church did once apon a time (aome argue still do).
There is absolutly nothing "devine" about slavery.
Free will. Love. Friendship. Service to fellow man (volunteers out there?)... These are devine.
Slavery is evil. Pure and simple.
(I have not been a practising Catholic for some time... I just can not reconcile the evil that was done in God's name, and the lack of acknowledgement and apology for it).
Wanted to buy, a dictionary.
I hear Gordo Canuck is offering to find "middle ground" between these folks and the "extremists" in the centre.
"Created to Be His Help Meet?"
i think that was supposed to be "meat"....
"I was raised Catholic, and now where in my teachings was I taught that a man is superior to a woman"
Meanwhile, hunter requests examples of the Peter Principle. She doesn't think she herself is, or she would have published my comment laughing about it, or it would seem the followup:
Like I said, the quintessential hunter post. Complete with censorship! Oh but maybe you are simply ignorant. Let me help you: "quintessential" isn't a swear word. That's what makes it so funny. A post about the Peter Principle (sometimes even spelling it right), from one who clearly has reached their own level.
KEvron: Yeah, Paul says a bunch of that crap, but it's not really taught to kids in Catholic schools (at least not in Canada).
Paul misogyny isn't central to the teaching of most Catholics or other Christians. Just like the oddball rules in Leviticus aren't.
Alpha Male said...
"And the difference between these clowns who call themselves "good God fearing people" and the Taliban is what exactly?" 6:40pm
Several years ago I coined the word Talibangelists to make this exact point. I inherently distrust any zealot/extremist/fundamentalist, especially a religious zealot/extremist/fundamentalist because not only do they have totally rigid definitions of right/wrong as defined by whatever their focus is but their inability to accept any flaw within that focus makes them extremely dangerous to any society that recognizes the worth of the individual and the value of diversity. Especially since they see it as their God demanded/required mission to impose those definitions and requirements on everyone else regardless of how anyone may feel about it using the most coercive tools they feel needed, espcially those of government. The way women are treated by many as second class (if that well) by some sects of so called mainstream evangelism really is disturbing, and the stuff that LuLu cited in this post is on a par with advocating rape as a healthy sexual expression for men and that women should be grateful God placed them in the position to receive it.
People do not want to accept it but misogyny is still the most prevalent prejudice in our society today, and the most widely practiced I would argue too. Despite it needing to go underground in many respects in the mainstream especially in terms of language and blatant sexual harassment I still see far too many signs that for all the lip service many give equality of the sexes the reality is for too many even in the mainstream there is still something lesser about the rights and roles of women in our society, especially in the area of sexual freedom and control over their bodies.
To this day women are paid significantly less than their male counterparts in the workforce (if not as less as it once was) despite all the "progress" on this issue, we see many men that complain about the feminazis and feminization of our culture/society, and we see too often even in this day and age a tendency to say a woman that was raped may have encouraged it somehow that it is not always totally the fault/responsibility of the rapist because they still cannot grasp that rape is all about control using sex as the tool. I wish it were otherwise, but reality is what it is.
Just because something is not as obvious, not as extensive as it once was does not mean it has been corrected/fixed. One of the absolute worst offenders for keeping women down in NA is alas religion, specifically two of the Abrahamic ones (Islam and Christianity), as shown in what LuLu cited. Worse, while what LuLu cited was more extreme than some are willing to go in public the underlying sentiment that women are subservient to men (Man is the head of woMan for example is alas a core belief for many Christians of many sects from hard core fundamentalist to mainstream in my experience) runs rampant through the various sects and flavours of NA Christianity. To think otherwise is to blind/fool oneself IMHO, and it is a real shame and something that needs to be monitored and responded to as much as is possible.
Thanks for providing a quote I could use as a launching point for this, in case you were wondering I was not specifically responding to you, simply using that quote. Since you likely do not know me and my style I always quote when I use someone's work but if I am addressing them specifically I always do so as I did at the top of this paragraph. I didn't want you to think I was speaking to you specifically or indirectly accusing you of something, I have had that misunderstanding with others in the past.
Scotian: That was absolutely beautifully put. May I copy it to my blog, with a link here?
Full disclosure: I write a Christian feminist blog.
So long as my work is attributed to me I never object to such. I tend to take the pov that once I write a comment somewhere it is in full public view, and so long as it isn't stolen or misrepresented anyone is free to do with them as they wish. I thank you for the courtesy of asking though. I do wonder though, why should your writing a Christian feminist blog be a problem for me needing you to disclose it? I am not anti-Faith or anti-religion, I am anti-extremist and anti-zealotry. My parents are both good RCs and my views came as much from both of them as they do fro other sources and my own observations in life.
I do find it ironic though that according to my folks I lead a better Christian life in how I practice my day to day life than so many self described Christians since I left the faith a quarter century or so ago (not just RC but Christianity itself). I did so because I could not accept the premise that there is only one path the enlightenment and God(s)/Goddess/higher power(s) and all others are wrong/flawed somehow.
So yes, go right ahead. One thing I am very firmly dedicated to is the notion that we are all human beings first and foremost and that while the genders have fundamental differences they are inherently equal nonetheless in terms of human rights. After all, if human rights are not applied/practiced equally then they have no real meaning do they? The idea that difference must mean/equate to inferiority/superiority automatically is a concept I have never been able to understand.
Scotian, very well said my friend.
Aye Luna, admittedly, in the teachings I received, I had a very cool Father who was very open and tended to give us the more liberal views of the Bible.
I guess, in that regard I was very fortunate, as even in the 80's and 90's the Catholic teachers I had were teaching tolerance regardless of faith, ethnic background or even sexuality. Perhaps it was isolated, but there it is...
Because of them, I did not shake my faith completely, just choose to be far more accepting of other other religions and ideals, and find myself in a place were I beleive that we might all be right (Wikkans, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Budhists, even atheists, etc etc...).
(I was also raised with a belief in scientific methodology from the very same school system, ie evolution makes sense... Carbon dating makes sense... Creating a planet in 6 days, and billions of organisms on it does not make sense).
"When God puts you in subjection to a man whom he knows is going to cause you to suffer," she writes, "it is with the understanding that you are obeying God by enduring the wrongful suffering."
Debi Pearl channels le Marquis de Sade by way of Paul.
At least le Marquis knew he was warped and didn't justify his preferences by claiming divine authority.
Scotian: I do wonder though, why should your writing a Christian feminist blog be a problem for me needing you to disclose it?
While you aren't anti-religion, a LOT of people are, and would have been pissed off had I not mentioned it. I didn't know which group you fell into. Some people... *ahem* CC, seem to think all us Christians believe in "sky-fairies". ;) (I tease because I love)
"I did so [left the church] because I could not accept the premise that there is only one path the enlightenment and God(s)/Goddess/higher power(s) and all others are wrong/flawed somehow."
Oh, I hear ya! That was a big part of the reason I left the RC church. There were a number of reasons, but that one was a definitely a contributing factor. I think all paths are one path. They just look different where everyone is standing. :)
"it's not really taught to kids"
that aspect of his gospel didn't come up until my confirmation class, final year of ccd.
Completely glossed over for me... If it was taught at all, it was a literal reading, then move on. I know others were brought up in a more dogmatic atmosphere. I on the other hand, was truely blessed to grow up in a far more accepting church and school (the fact I have not been excommunicated is proof of that lol).
I consider myself more of a Christian agnostic now... I am pretty sure God exists, I have doubts though that any one relgious/belief systems has the market cornered.
Pretty much. I when asked describe myself as a pantheist when it comes to matters of faith, but I have no religion. Needless to say that really messes up fundies, the idea of faith without religion for some reason seems to short circuit their brains (although I suppose one could argue the religion does that for them, in part by removing their need to think critically and accept that context/perspective is at least as important to understanding/comprehension as the basic definition of a word/concept).
I can well understand why some people are as anti-religion/faith as they have become, religion and faith have not exactly been covering themselves in glory much over human history, and all too often is used as a convenient excuse to commit the worst kinds of barbarism upon fellow human beings. Religious wars tend to be the worst for atrocities in no small part because one believes that whatever one does in the name/service of God is by definition moral and right even/especially when in any other context the same person would recoil in horror and disgust at such. Of course those that simply believe it is appropriate to use coercion through tools of government to enforce their religious beliefs upon others for the same reason are also serious problems, and there are more of those around in our society than those that go to the most violent extremes in the name of their "Faith/God/Religion".
Take abortion as one example, personally I am quite opposed to it, but I am ardently pro-choice politically because it is not a decision I feel I can make for another person, to do so is wrong in my books both from a secular rights perspective AND in terms of making moral decisions for another human being. The woman after all is the one dealing with all the risks, the responsibility of carrying to term, and potential health ramifications for the rest of her life. She must be the one to decide what happens with her body, to not do so allows the State to have a superseding claim on a human being's body and I find that concept quite repugnant. If we do not have final authority over our own bodies then what rights do we have at all? As to the moral definition, what right do I have to determine another's right to make such decisions for themselves and live with whatever consequences that comes from it in this life and the next? We were given free will for a reason by God according to Christianity, to interfere with that strikes me as acting as if that gift from God is one to be spurned or worse, rejected because someone feels they know God's mind better than God did when God created/enable free will in the first place. It never ceases to amaze me how many so called Christians fail to understand that if God gave man free will than to interfere with its exercise in his name is to act against the will of God.
Me, I am fine with people believing what they wish so long as they only try to convert by their own example, and not by any form of coercion. Faith for all its negatives in our history has also helped bring out the best in humans too, and that can not be overlooked IMHO.
One of the things that most offends me about Talibangelists for example is how frequently in the name of the God of Love (Jesus) they resort to citing things from the Old Testament to justify their claims that their faith demands it be opposed/vilified/rejected as unChristian, this despite the fact Jesus came to bring the New Testament to reform/update from the ways of the Old Testament. Yet these so called Christians completely fail to see this, one of the best examples is how they use Leviticus to justify homophobia. For me, I figure if the God of Jesus actually exists it will be whether I followed the spirit of the teachings rather than the letter which will matter (and if God/Jesus is so vain that it is required to worship only Him in his specific name to be recognized as a good/moral person then I have to say that is a God I can not respect) in determining the fate of my soul.
Anyway, I think we have taken this post of LuLu's far enough off topic that we should wind it up. If I should write other comments here, elsewhere, or at my own blog of Saundrie that you want to link to/copy for your own use feel free. As I said so long as I am credited for the work and the work is not misrepresented I am fine with it no matter who is doing so. After all, if I didn't want my thoughts to be known publicly why would I write them in such a public medium as online? After all once you write something online it exists forever after all, something too many people thinking they are anonymous for the moment tend to forget, and things can be traced back to sources without all that much effort, a fact I think more than a few hatemongers will come to realize only when it comes back to haunt them down the road.
Me, nothing I write online is something I would not be afraid to take credit under my birth name, I just prefer not to expose my family (wife, sibling, parents) to potential repercussions from some of those I anger with my opinions, given that more than a few of them belong to the same socon movement that produces violent acts in the name of God (especially the pro-birthers, I call them that because while they care about life pre-birth their compassion for the needs of the child drop sharply once born if there is any need for social infrastructure spending to care for the child). Or those that think I am a terrorist sympathizer because I don't automatically agree with their views/actions supporting torture, preemptive war, Israel, etc. Too many zealots/fanatics/nutcases in the world as it is, why make it any easier for them than I have to?
I gather individual churches, even if they carry the same lable, can vary pretty wildly. Friend of mine joined a Baptist church here in Ottawa, and managed to hang onto pretty liberal views. Very progressive, liberated, and so forth.
Then she moved to Sydney, NS, and was horrified at what passes for Baptist down that way. Which is a lot closer to the Southern type, from what I've seen. So I guess just saying "Catholic" or "Anglican" or whatever still carries a lot of variation.
"I gather individual churches, even if they carry the same lable, can vary pretty wildly."
and ccd is taught by layfolk. one year, a dried up soinster, the next, a football coach.
Isn't it about time for Twatsy to show up and lecture us on how Biblical exegesis is really done?
Post a Comment