General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSexism = "Is it God’s highest desire, that is, his biblically expressed will…to have a woman rule...
From a Santorum staffer attacking Bachmann in Iowa:
"Is it Gods highest desire, that is, his biblically expressed will,
to have a woman rule the institutions of the family, the church, and the state?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/15/jamie-johnson-rick-santorum-sexist-email-bachmann_n_1207321.html
libodem
(19,288 posts)And it's the going world view. We are not ashamed to challenge that. Eff their sexist thinking!
Texas Lawyer
(350 posts)criticized in the media), but when it is someone on a Repub candidate's staff, the sexism is tolerated by the campaign and ignored by media.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)saras
(6,670 posts)The obvious answer - the one I'd give him in person...
"Yes, it is God's desire that women rule over men. God told me so personally. What of it? God told me the Bible was bullshit, just like God told people through Christ that the old Jewish law was bullshit. If that THING you're worshipping is telling you to impose suffering on others, it isn't God, it's the DEVIL. Isn't that OBVIOUS to you? Don't you even KNOW you're Satan worshippers? Can't you TELL by the EVIL you're always wanting to do to people? And if you're THAT stupid, why do you think that anyone should respect you as a LEADER just because you can puff yourself up like an angry chimp?"
Religion is the root of inequality.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)But that's all I'm allowed to say about that, per our faultless DU juries.
Texas Lawyer
(350 posts)(Deuteronomy 7:6), etc., might disagree.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Except to say that "some" does not equate to "all" as implied in the above post.
Texas Lawyer
(350 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)I would call that a lame, cheap shot.
That's the best they got...for Michelle Bachmann? Weak!
Texas Lawyer
(350 posts)I agree that the Bachmann campaign was a "target rich" environment so I cannot imagine why they had to resort to this sort of sexism. to try and take her out.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)If he's anything like his fanatical boss, Rick Santorum. He himself seems genuinely obsessed with backwards "christian" morals.
So maybe it wasn't a political manuever. Maybe he sincerely meant it and wanted to save her soul. LOL! Those wackadoodles.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)I find Palin's and Bachmann's candidacies a bit puzzling. Those who hold the Bible as the literal Word of God should understand that women are to take a submissive role in the world. That Rick Santorum capitalizes on this cognitive dissonance doesn't surprise me. I have no doubt that Michele's gender alone precluded many, if not most, evangelists from voting for her.
Texas Lawyer
(350 posts)their sideburns.
This rule is readily inferred from text that is incorporated in mainstream Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant versions of the Bible. In fact, there is a hell of a lot more Biblical support for the practice of banning wisher shaving than there is for banning abortions.
Yet most Christians do not feel bound by this rule; in the same sense, few Christians feel bound by a strict reading of 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 (perhaps the some explicitly sexist passage in the New Testament).
Obviously, as much as a juicebag as Santorum is, even he has women involved in his campaign, so it seems difficult to argue that he has advocated for a faith-based enforcement of 1 Corinthians 14:33-35.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)in the modern evangelical church. I could give you chapter and verse all over the internet to prove my point, if you would care to read it.
Having women involved in his campaign (in a subservient role, I must point out) is not the same as being the campaigner.
Texas Lawyer
(350 posts)(specifically Galatians,1 Corinthians, and Colossians) show hardly any growth in that regard (although I would argue that there are some less sexist passages in the Gospels which came after Genesis and before the Pauline letters).
undeterred
(34,658 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 15, 2012, 08:27 PM - Edit history (1)
countryjake
(8,554 posts)ROTF! Nice edit!
Actually, you're more close to the truth than not, which might be why the Apocrypha were hidden in the first place. (book of Mary)
undeterred
(34,658 posts)I know lots of the really interesting books were left out... that's why they had to keep women out of the church leadership.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)much Scripture and religion. The biblical teachings say many things in regard to the actions of women which most religious people like to pretend are not there. They are there. I personally assume that all who declare they are opposed to marriage equality due to St Paul's scratchings must also adhere to his teachings on women, their role, dress code and status. Sorry. Those who spout the biblical thing, it is fine to turn it on them. If they say they are 'biblical' they ought to really hold to it.
Goes for all who fling that poo.
derby378
(30,252 posts)Or, more to the point, there are at least two hundred different interpretations of what is "Biblical." That's why there are so many different Christian denominations and sects out there.
Me, I've realized that the Scriptures can't teach you a damn thing by themselves - they are the written records and opinions of those who came before us who claimed to be seeking the will of God. Doesn't mean that the authors themselves have suddenly been cursed with infallibiity any more than Joseph Ratzinger has been.
Texas Lawyer
(350 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)[img][/img]
Texas Lawyer
(350 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)and I'd feel sorrier for her if "Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands" Bachmann wasn't herself part of the problem.
Texas Lawyer
(350 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)It's sexist and disgusting and needs to be condemned good and loud.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)As opposed, say, to people arguing that consenting adults should have the freedom to take their clothes off in front of a camera, which is NOT sexism IMHO.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)obamanut2012
(26,137 posts)Probably The Acts, and the Ten Commandments, and that's about it. The Gospels show women were an integral part of early Christianity, until the Women Hater started writing his lecturing letters.
Texas Lawyer
(350 posts)New Testament).
ClassWarrior
(26,316 posts)Jus' sayin...
NGU.
Texas Lawyer
(350 posts)redqueen
(115,103 posts)Texas Lawyer
(350 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Just wow.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Since she believes in the submissive, etc., stuff, it's valid to ask her how she jives her religious views about man vs. woman with her running to be the head of the free world.
She was asked, also, if she were elected President, would her husband still rule her? I think she said, yes, the husband is the head of the family, and she submits to his will or something like that.
Someone who believes that way cannot be the executive of the country.
Texas Lawyer
(350 posts)harder time answering the question, but -- at least in my book -- that does not meat it is ever an appropriate question.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Presidential candidate anything about a belief system that would directly affect that candidate's ability to carry out the full duties of being President of the U.S.
Was it valid to ask Bush Jr. to what extent his religious beliefs would affect his ability to serve as President? (given his religious beliefs were evangelical, meaning pro-life, anti-government, pro-church, etc.) I think it was.