Sexism = "Is it God’s highest desire, that is, his biblically expressed will…to have a woman rule...

[Texas Lawyer]

From a Santorum staffer attacking Bachmann in Iowa:

"Is it God’s 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]

1. This is how they think

And it's the going world view. We are not ashamed to challenge that. Eff their sexist thinking!

[Texas Lawyer]

2. If someone on the Obama staff wrote this, he would be fired (and if not, Obama would be rightfully

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]

3. No, God's Highest Desire Is For Santorum to STFU

[saras]

4. Too many kinds of wrong to even count.

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?"

[RC]

6. +10

Religion is the root of inequality.

[gratuitous]

24. No it isn't

But that's all I'm allowed to say about that, per our faultless DU juries.

[Texas Lawyer]

25. Some Seventh-day Adventists (Revelation 12:17), some Mormons (Jeremiah 31:31-34), and some Jews

(Deuteronomy 7:6), etc., might disagree.

[gratuitous]

26. I'm not allowed, per our faultless DU juries to say much else

Except to say that "some" does not equate to "all" as implied in the above post.

[Texas Lawyer]

9. Isn't that pretty much what Joseph Smith said?

[Quantess]

5. They were just trying to intimidate her.

I would call that a lame, cheap shot.
That's the best they got...for Michelle Bachmann? Weak!

[Texas Lawyer]

10. I think Santorum was trying to incite biblically-based sexist prejudice against Bachmann

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]

11. It's also likely that Santorum's staffer deeply believes it.

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]

19. Without applying a broad brush to all people of faith,

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]

23. That's like saying those who hold the Bible as the literal Word of God should never shave

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]

30. I think one must begin with Genesis to understand the role of women

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]

32. I agree that Genesis paints a subservient role for women, and I agree that the Pauline letters

(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]

7. I thinks that part is in Matriarchichus... one of the Apocryphal books.

Last edited Sun Jan 15, 2012, 08:27 PM - Edit history (1)

[countryjake]

20. So which book is it...Dominatrixicus or Matriarchichus?

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]

31. Oh yeah...

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]

8. Sorry, that is what the 'Scriptures' teach, staffer asks a valid question, as she spouts

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]

16. There is no such thing as "Biblical"

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]

22. Good point. Catholics and Protestants can't even agree which rules make up the Ten Commandments.

[Zalatix]

12. If Santorum wins, then I have this to say:

[img][/img]

[Texas Lawyer]

18. I don't want to belong to any species that would nominate Santorum

[LadyHawkAZ]

13. Yep it is, most of the Bible is as well

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]

14. True enough, but it still bugs me that Santorum's campaign gets a free pass from the media.

[LadyHawkAZ]

15. Yeah.

It's sexist and disgusting and needs to be condemned good and loud.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. Yes, I would say, that IS sexism.

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]

21. K & R n/t

[obamanut2012]

27. Christians should read the Gospels

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]

29. I like Jefferson's Bible (it omits the Pauline letters which contain some of the worst sexism in the

New Testament).

[ClassWarrior]

28. What about Ruth?

Jus' sayin...

NGU.

[Texas Lawyer]

33. What about Lilith (who was sorta like Ruth even before Ruth)?

[redqueen]

37. Wasn't Lilith invented much later?

[Texas Lawyer]

38. I think Lilith is featured in very early versions of the Talmud.

[hifiguy]

34. Wow.

Just wow.

[Honeycombe8]

35. That's actually a valid question for Bachmann, since she's an evangelical, also.

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]

36. I hate to call that question "valid" no matter who is asked that question. Bachmann might have a

harder time answering the question, but -- at least in my book -- that does not meat it is ever an appropriate question.

[Honeycombe8]

39. It's valid because it's Bachman's belief system. It's valid to ask any

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.