20 disgustingly misogynist quotes from religious leaders

[trotsky]

I've heard four-year-old articles are so hot right now.

https://www.salon.com/2014/10/15/20_disgustingly_misogynist_quotes_from_religious_leaders_partner/

A selection:

Woman was merely man's helpmate, a function which pertains to her alone. She is not the image of God but as far as man is concerned, he is by himself the image of God. —Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius (354-430)

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence. —Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, 13th century

The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes. —Martin Luther, Reformer (1483-1546)

A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband, even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. —Official statement of Southern Baptist Convention, summer 1998 (15.7 million members)

What's interesting of course is that the men behind these words have the certainty of divine revelation to back them up - that's something no atheist can ever claim. Religion anchors its misogyny in the special protection of religious beliefs - which makes it so much harder to get rid of.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

1. K & R

[Ohiogal]

2. Wow, Martin Luther was quite the misogynist!

Disgusting comments, all.

[trotsky]

4. Pretty nasty anti-Semite as well. n/t

[SCantiGOP]

5. He was Hitler before Hitler

He did not think that a Christian killing a Jew met the 10 Commandment standard for murder.

[LakeArenal]

7. Which is so weird....

As Moses and Jesus were Jews.

“Christianity” was not something Jesus had anything to do with. It was invented much later.

[Igel]

13. And like always, depends on what the definition of "Christianity" is.

Although there's a time-based proof that Jesus couldn't be Xian since Xianity ultimately depends on the sacrifice of Jesus and elevation of his status, something that Jesus while alive wouldn't have need of or access to. But mut. mut., it depends on the definition.

("Mut. mut." is one of my favorite abbreviations, like "cet. par." The first is "changing the things that need to be changed for the sake of the comparison or argument," mutando mutandis, and the other is "everything else being equal," ceteris paribus. You occasionally see "cet. par.", but "mut. mut." both manages to be utterly pronouncible as an abbreviation and utterly obfuscatory for most people.)

[dhol82]

26. Thank you. Learned some new Latin abbreviations today

[Pope George Ringo II]

6. Not a nice man.

But he did more than any other single human being to break the power of the RCC and weaken the chains of religion holding back Europe. Not that he did it on purpose, but we are demonstrably better off for his career, whatever his faults.

[Permanut]

3. Thanks for posting, Trotsky..

Maybe with continued exposure, the grip this cult has on the right will loosen in time.

[newcriminal]

8. I've heard three and a half year old articles are hotter.

https://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_atheisms_troubling_misogyny_the_pompous_sexism_of_richard_dawkins_and_sam_harris_partner/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/markoppenheimer/will-misogyny-bring-down-the-atheist-movement?utm_term=.brwQomo8NX#.sn05XqXKY3

Seven month old articles have legs.

https://www.salon.com/2017/07/29/from-the-enlightenment-to-the-dark-ages-how-new-atheism-slid-into-the-alt-right/

As do two year old articles.

https://qz.com/613270/brazen-sexism-is-pushing-women-out-of-americas-atheism-movement/

How interesting.

[guillaumeb]

10. And equally revealing of the leaders of the movement.

But Trotsky went back 1700 years, making him the clear winner.

[newcriminal]

11. Frankly, what's going on today is the pressing problem.

[guillaumeb]

12. Yes, it is. We agree.

So what was said 1700 years must be read in the context of that time. Dawkins and all the other revealed misogynists are only the ones that we know about. Misogyny is as deeply rooted as its corollary, which is patriarchy. They are tools of oppression.

And we should condemn it no matter who the misogynist.

[trotsky]

16. Totally agree.

There are atheists who have harassed and mistreated women. No one is saying ANYTHING about protecting them, or minimizing their offenses. You can attack that straw man all you want - it only makes you look uninformed and foolish.

But there is also ongoing misogyny from religious leaders and religions - misogyny that is BASED IN and SUPPORTED BY the religion.

The world's largest Christian church won't let women make their own choices about their reproductive health. They won't allow women to hold leadership positions. That's a problem, don't you agree?

[newcriminal]

24. If you're referring to the RCC, which is usually the case, your premises need work.

The source of misogyny is less likely to be the source of misogyny than the economic system of a state. Cui bono? Follow the money.

The RCC cannot deprive women of reproductive choice. Only the state can. It can however give its view of it. When that view includes urging political action asking the state to deny choice and human rights, those views should be opposed. And are. A religion that needs a state to enforce its view of morality is a religion that must be ignored or opposed. To paraphrase Kirk, "what does God need with a constitutional amendment?"

What you continuously ignore is that the issue is choice not doctrine. The former must be maintained; the latter ignored, opposed, or supported, dependent on one's own views. It's the difference between bigotry and citizenship.

In order to answer your question, state your plan to address the problem. I'll tell you if agree with it or not.

[trotsky]

25. Actually, the RCC *can* and *does* deprive women of reproductive choice.

The church wields significant, real, political power in many countries around the world. Are you denying this?

Of course individual Catholics can always exercise their own right to choose, and most in secular countries choose to ignore their church's horrible teaching, because they have the freedom to do so. Not every Catholic in the world has that luxury.

Besides, none of that changes the fact that it IS a horrible teaching, and horrible practice. Do you agree with that or not?

[newcriminal]

29. "significant, real, political power" is just that - a political issue.

Thank you for your support.

[trotsky]

31. And you didn't answer my question.

But in a way, you did. Thank you too.

[newcriminal]

32. No, I didn't. Deliberately.

All you know is what you expected to know. I know that even without asking an insincere, baiting question.

[trotsky]

41. It's only "baiting" if you are dedicated to defending a church's antiquated and harmful teachings.

Are you saying that's why it's a problem for you?

We have studies that prove giving women power over their reproductive choices results in lower poverty, lower mortality, and improved quality of life. It's also common sense.

Teaching that birth control is bad works AGAINST all of those things. The RCC is harming women, plain and simple.

[newcriminal]

42. No it's not.

It's baiting when the questioner could care less about an issue and instead is attempting to characterizer another dishonestly.

Thusly,

Are you saying that's why it's a problem for you?

You, trotsky, are the one asserting it's a problem.

It's a particularly weasley way of attacking a poster while avoiding a hide.

Here's a tip: respond to what I write, not to what you want me to say.

[trotsky]

53. It's OK, I understand why you need to defend your church.

And attack anyone who dares question its teachings.

[uriel1972]

39. Totally agree...

And to treat the symptoms in the best way we should look to the causes.
Even if they are rooted in institutions deeply rooted in the past and not to gloss it over by saying the past is irrelevent.
The past is deeply relevant for it has shaped the present.

Oh yes and whatabout not pointing at the mote in your siblings eye when you have a beam in your own.

[trotsky]

15. Now THERE'S the whataboutism.

Tell me, could you point to the holy texts of atheism that support misogyny, like those historical church figures could?

Thanks so much! I'll wait right here.

[newcriminal]

27. The proper term is tu quoque, which is what your OP is.

It's idiocy and a denial of reality to assert "holy texts" are the cause of misogyny.

Misogyny is discrimination that supports the dominant political and economic systems. Maybe you simply think the Bronze Age was actually an egalitarian society.

In the meantime, read Dawkins' twitter feed for misogynist texts.

[trotsky]

30. Ooh, Latin!

Are you a lawyer?

[newcriminal]

33. What do you do for a living?

[trotsky]

38. I work in the carpet business. n/t

[Cuthbert Allgood]

49. Oooh

Someone needs a TOS reminder.

[trotsky]

57. Nice catch. n/t

[Cuthbert Allgood]

63. Scroll down a bit.

Thought I'd point them all out.

Side note: looks like the "u" key got fixed on the keyboard.

[trotsky]

66. QED!

[trotsky]

56. But I do.

How on earth do you have any basis to tell ME I'm incorrect about what I do for a living?

Are you sure you're not a lawyer?

[MineralMan]

62. I'm afraid you will not receive a reply.

[trotsky]

64. Oopsie!

[MineralMan]

65. Well, sometimes it's hard to maintain

one's focus and demeanor in these discussions. It can be hard work. I know that from personal experience.

[Fix The Stupid]

46. Lol...don't worry - we're all thinking it...

I can tell by the writing style...this is hilarious.

Kept one inactive for over 10 years - yes, that is obsession.

Craziness.

[trotsky]

51. No shit.

Wow.

[MineralMan]

58. Cool! How interesting.

I learn something every day from you.

[trotsky]

59. Yeah.

I like to take rugs out.

[MineralMan]

61. I have an old hand-knotted tribal rug that needs a good washing, myself.

Later in the spring, I'll take it out and clean it properly.

[opiate69]

70. ...

[Paleologue]

34. I hope you're not saying

that there aren't people who read sacred texts and behave they way they dictate, including in their treatment of women. Because if you were saying that, it would be ridiculous and demonstrably false.

[newcriminal]

35. Your reading of the reply is wht's ridiculous and demonstrably false.

Don't reshape words to suit your posture again.

What is also ridiculous and false is to claim that a reading of a text is stronger than the economic and political structure of a society.

[Paleologue]

36. If you can show one example

of where I have "reshaped words" to suit my posture, I'll be surprised.

And how many examples of people being more influenced by holy text than the economic and political structure of American society would you like? I can make you look as silly as you wish.

[Paleologue]

47. The statement you quoted is 100% true

And I attributed it to nobody. Hence the "if". But you were and are free to go firmly on the record and confirm that you never said anything remotely like that.

C'mon..I was expecting better. Your response is no argument at all.

[newcriminal]

48. That statement, yours, is demonstrably false.

Meanwhile, would you mind moving several feet away?

[Paleologue]

50. Feel free to demonstrate its falsity

From what I've seen of you, I won't hold my breath, though. You seem to be just like gil. Dodge, evade, distract, and never back up what you say with facts or evidence.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

52. Oooh

Someone needs a TOS refresher.

[trotsky]

40. Oh I will also correct your egregious falsehood and note...

that at no time did I claim religion, or holy texts are the "cause" of misogyny.

That is your straw man. Let's try honest discussion, eh?

[newcriminal]

45. "Honest discussion" has yet to be seen from you.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

54. Wow

Someone needs a TOS refresher.

[trotsky]

60. LMAO

Don't ever change, you old scalawag.

[MineralMan]

68. Slim chance, I suspect.

Once knotted, the pattern is fixed.

[opiate69]

69. Lmao @ Amanda "rape-loving scum" Marcotte.

Is she still around? I figured she'd been relegated to Alex Jones status by now.. just another idiot chimp flinging shit at the higher primates around her.

[guillaumeb]

9. 4 year old quotes versus 1700 year old figures.

Whataboutism taken to the extreme.
I could have cited some of Dawkins more egregious misogynistic quotes, but I did not. And he did not make these quotes 1700 years ago.

Sad comeback.

[trotsky]

14. Oh dear gilly.

I could almost certainly find quotes from religious leaders from within the last 24 hours that are misogynistic, if that were the point of my post. But it wasn't, so your pathetic claim of "whataboutism" is dismissed.

Instead, I'll point out to you ONCE AGAIN that we are in the Religion forum, where issues concerning religion and religious beliefs are discussed. My post looked at the religious roots of misogyny. Now you can deny they exist - it certainly wouldn't be the first time you've stuck your head in the sand when it comes to taking a critical look at religious foundational texts and teachings, but that doesn't change the reality.

Better luck next time.

[guillaumeb]

18. Weak whataboutism on your part.

I understand.

[trotsky]

19. Saying it doesn't make it true.

Prove your case if that's your claim.

Go right ahead. Unless you realize it's bogus and refuse, of course. I'm betting that's the route you go.

[guillaumeb]

20. I made my point about the sheer ridiculousness of comparing a modern misogynist

to someone from 1700 years ago.

But I will give you debate points for acknowledging Dawkins' misogyny. You were the only one I read that did so.

[trotsky]

21. I agree that's ridiculous, which is why I didn't make a comparison.

Once again, what I was discussing was the role of religion in misogyny. Pointing out the teachings and words of key figures in religion, for instance.

Because we're in the RELIGION forum. We're not in the Richard Dawkins forum.

I'm willing to work with you gilly but you need to at least TRY to be honest and sincere.

[MineralMan]

17. What was quoted in the OP is from foundational leaders

of now-established church hierarchies. Foundational statements that continue to influence those institutions.

The patriarchy that is the Christian church has deep, deep roots.

Atheism doesn't even have any dominant organization. What individuals say have no impact on atheism, which is nothing more than non-belief in deities. Are there misogynistic atheists? Of course there are. Do they influence other atheists? Nope. Not much at all.

Does religious institutional misogyny exist? Absolutely. Does it affect followers of religions? Absolutely it does. Does the Roman Catholic Church have women in its priesthood? Of course not. It is a patriarchal male-dominated organization.

[trotsky]

22. Bah, it was 1700 years ago for the oldest quote. Gil says it doesn't matter.

Never mind that the foundational documents of his religion are all even older than that. THOSE matter, just not the stuff gil says doesn't. Because reasons.

[MineralMan]

23. But, see, atheists...

What more need be said, after all? They have no gods to tell them what is right and wrong. Running rampant, they are...

[newcriminal]

28. That, or the gleeful transfer of bullshit running rampant.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

55. And another

Someone needs a TOS refresher.

[MineralMan]

67. This is getting tiresome, I think.

It sounds all too familiar, somehow.