Christian ‘historian’: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’

[cleanhippie]

A so-called “historian” who Glenn Beck hired to teach at his online university insisted this week that women had originally been denied the right to vote “to keep the family together,” and for the good of “the entire culture and society.”

On the Thursday broadcast of Wallbuilders Live, David Barton explained that biblical principles — and not sexism — were behind not allowing women to vote prior to 1920.

“So family government precedes civil government and you watch that as colonists came to America, they voted by families,” he said. “And you have to remember back then, husband and wife, I mean the two were considered one. That is the biblical precept… That is a family, that is voting. And so the head of the family is traditionally considered to be the husband and even biblically still continues to be so.”

Barton argued that in the time since the women’s suffrage movement succeeded in the United States, “we’ve moved into more of a family anarchy kind of thing.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/01/christian-historian-allowing-women-to-vote-hurts-the-entire-culture-and-society/

"Deeply held beliefs" here, folks. Gotta respect that.

If more derp is your thing, read the rest of the article.

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Well, fuck that guy.

[el_bryanto]

2. It's pretty terrible

I'm sure someone will be along in a moment to explain to me that as a believer I'm required to respect his beliefs, but while individual things he says I might agree with, the over all argument and the conclusions he draws are awful. It's like a mash up between a song I kind of like and an accordion being run through a cement mixer.

Bryant

[AtheistCrusader]

3. I wouldn't say that.

It would be nice to see more fellow-travelers stepping up to point out his 'work' is horseshit though.


From Wiki (Granted, maybe there's just stuff that needs to be added.)

"Reception of Barton's work[edit]

Barton has been praised by U.S. conservatives Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann[4] and Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas.[48]

He has received criticism from the following:
J. Brent Walker of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty,[49]
Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State,[50]
Gordon College History professor Stephen Phillips,[51]
Senator Arlen Specter,[7]
The Anti-Defamation League,[52]
Senior Research Director for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation Chris Rodda,[53]
Messiah College history professor John Fea[54][55]
Baylor University historian Barry Hankins,[56] and Grove City College professors Warren Throckmorton
Michael Coulter[57]

Jay W. Richards, senior fellow at the Christian conservative Discovery Institute, stated in 2012 that Barton's books and videos are full of "embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes, and highly misleading claims."[58] The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Barton's work as "anti-gay" "historical revisionism", noting that Barton has no formal training in history.[59]
"

[el_bryanto]

6. He also was promoted heavily by Glenn Beck and taught at his university.

Which is odd because the Utah and Wyoming Territories were some of the first parts of the United States where Women could vote, both having large Mormon populations.

Bryant

[Goblinmonger]

4. The problem with respecting beliefs is this.

I think this guy is fucked up and fuck him for what he thinks. And when I say that on here, everyone is with me. But as soon as I say that believing in transubstantiation is just fucking ridiculous, I'm a bigot who hates Catholics. Either religious beliefs are up for discussion or they aren't. The same people in this forum (and I really have no problem with you in this regard--you're awesome for having the discussions) that rail at non-believers for being bigots and not respecting beliefs are some of the first to say this guy and his beliefs are stinking turds. It is that level of hypocrisy that most of us here are trying to point out.

[el_bryanto]

5. When it comes to the Pope/the RCC it's hard for me to comment

As I am not a member of the Catholic Church.

My problem with the attacks on the Pope when he initially spoke out on poverty were more that it seemed like for some people the homophobia, the treatment of woman, and the abuse scandals are the only features of the RCC or the Pope worth noting. So that if you speak approvingly of something that Pope Francis says (and he's said a lot of things I approve of, and other things I don't agree with him on (his biggest failing seems to be his silence on the Ugandan situation in my opinion)), it's necessary to immediately point out the RCC's issues.

I don't know what you call that - at the time I felt like it was a form of bigotry to only accept a person or an organizations faults as real while dismissing all of their virtues, but that's probably not that right term. As we've moved forward, the negatives on Pope Francis's balance sheet (in my opinion) have moved up significantly (again, Uganda), while his positives have stayed consistent or dropped a bit.

Bryant

[Goblinmonger]

7. As to the RCC specifically

the problem is that Francis has really said and done nothing differently than the last guy. OK, the "civil unions" is a little different but all that really means is "Hey, governments can decide to do this" and really reflects no intention of change on the part of the church. Francis has a much better PR team. But his stance on the poor is not at all different than Ratzy. But everyone fawned over it.

But the bigger issue is that if we are free to call the people in this OP idiots (which I believe they are), then it is duplicitous to say that those of us that think elements of religions that people here practice are somehow off bounds.

[el_bryanto]

9. I don't know about the word duplicitous

It depends on what elements of religion people criticize and what conclusions they seem to be drawing from those conclusions. If someone is saying "Well this is a negative aspect of this religion and it would better if they changed it." that's one thing. It's something else if they are saying or seem to be saying, "Well this is a bad religion and the people who belong to it are at best supporting a bad religion and at worst bad people themselves."

There's also a distinction between Barton and his wall builders organization and something like the Catholic Church or Christianity or any faith really. It's unlikely that that any employee of Wall Builders or Barton posts here; so it's easy to distance yourself from them. It's something else when you are talking about something, like the Catholic Church, of which there might be many Democrats and members of DU who belong to it.

Bryant

[Goblinmonger]

11. So that sounds like special pleading.

We can talk about the other shitty religions, but when it is something that someone here believes, it's hands off.

And I, frankly, don't understand why someone would give their time and money to a religion that does the horrific stuff they did. If I were still a believer when I left the RCC (long story I can tell if you wish), I would have gone to an Episcopal church. Feels very similar without all the horrifying things. Instead, we went UU. Rather give my money to that organization.

If there are members her that belong to the RCC, then they need to be ready to deal with the bigoted parts of the RCC (and there are A LOT of them) being called out. But when it is, we are called bigots for calling out the bigotry of the organization. That's kind of ridiculous, right?

[el_bryanto]

12. I'm not a member of the RCC

And this is probably an area where we will disagree.

Bryant

[Goblinmonger]

13. I understand that.

I have also, many times, pointed out when people are making fun of Mormon beliefs. The same people that get their knickers in a knot when their own religion is called out.

I don't expect that you are going to agree with my evaluation of religion. I would just like people to realize that the non-believers here make statements about religion for the same reason that believers here make statements about the religions they don't like. Like this OP. Are people here on DU as bad as this guy? No. But their own religions likely have crap in them that needs calling out. Why am I and others called bigots when we point out that Pope Francis has views that we would call bigoted if he weren't the head of a religion of some here at DU?

[el_bryanto]

14. Part of this is that I can't hold you responsible for things other people say

Some people want to point out the problems and bigotry of the Catholic Church in hopes of correcting those problems or of stressing that Catholic Members of DU don't fall into those traps.

Some people want to point out the problems and bigotry of the Catholic Church in order to condemn it and the members of it.

Some people want to point out the problems and bigotry of the Catholic Church in order to make a larger point about religious belief in general.

It's a continuum.

Bryant

[trotsky]

8. Well, consider this:

When the current pope (and previous ones) have spoken out about poverty, etc., that's pretty much all they do. They talk about it. And it's kind of hard to take the RCC seriously on that anyway since their ridiculous notions about birth control ACTUALLY MAKE THE PROBLEM WORSE. But regardless, no one at the RCC seems to think that politicians voting against anti-poverty programs need to be denied communion.

However, they DO feel like dishing out that punishment to politicians who vote for reproductive choice. So you can kind of get a feel for what many in the hierarchy REALLY prioritize. Death of embryos due to abortion: grave sin. Death of children due to starvation thanks to lack of resources: bad thing.

Now on top of that, you have the RCC meddling in the affairs of secular governments, using church funds, to change laws or buy hospitals, which then affects the lives of MANY people, not just Catholics:

* They promote homophobia, by OFFICIALLY teaching that homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered."
* They promote subservience of women by denying them equal status in their church (and denying them birth control).
* They have (and in a surprising number of cases, CONTINUE to have) protected pedophiles in their organization, damaging children for life.

So hopefully you can understand why the occasional sermon about the horrors of poverty and the abuses of capitalism doesn't really do much for those of us concerned about those other items.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. It happened because we look for substance.

Francis isn't saying anything new about poverty. He's cribbing/recycling from statements by the two former popes, and more.
http://catholicadultfaith.com/documents/Papal_Encyclicals_on_Social_Justice_and_the_Poor.pdf

My issues with RCC influence ranges across a wide variety of issues. They are the primary challengers of the ACA ('Obamacare'). Family planning, not just abortion, but even contraception access. Same sex marriage, and other non-discrimination laws. You name it.

In 2008 we had a major knock-down drag-out fight in Washington State over physician assisted suicide. The opposition campaign was almost entirely catholic. Top donors to the opposition, orgs and individuals, almost wall to wall catholic orgs, and most of the individual donors were catholics. Their main spokesman, catholic. Etc.

It was about as close as you'll get, in an election, to Catholics vs. Everyone Else. There were a couple other groups that distanced themselves from religious reasons to oppose the initiative, but they were entirely inconsequential to the campaign. (And many of the members of the 'physicians' group were also catholic even if not acting overtly in a 'i'm a catholic' capacity.)


That campaign was a motherfucker. A war. Absolutely brutal. The only way it could have been any worse, is if both sides just said 'to hell with it' and started trading physical punches. We had Martin Sheen himself lying his ass off every 15 minutes in prime-time ads, counter-ads, it was a mess.

And it's not even over. They've found another way, since they lost the election. There is, at this time, one remaining non-Catholic hospital remaining in the greater Seattle area. They've acquired them all. They simply don't offer services they don't approve of.


The RCC's focus on the poor, and social inequality from an economic standpoint, is commendable. But that's it. There are precious few progressive/democratic issues upon which we can rely on catholic non-interference, let alone support.

It's frustrating. It builds animosity.